Migration from Postgres to Datomic - <AUTHOR> http://grishaev.me/en/pg-to-datomic <comment><USER2> This comes up every time Datomic is mentioned, but it's tremendously sad to see such a revolutionary technology lack any sizable adoption because of its licensing model.

Datomic packages up a CQRS + event-sourced architecture in a really nice way. You can stash graph/tree/relational/tabular/(insert shape here) data and query it out with the powerful Datalog language. You get time travel (versioning) for free. Etc, etc.

It's a crime that this hasn't taken off as one of the leading data stores; hopefully Cognitec has some sort of roadmap to an open source release.

<comment><USER3> Stuart Halloway said "Datomic is not and will not be open source" in the latest defn podcast, so don't hold your breath. Hopefully they change their mind. They seem to be focused on a cloud (managed?) solution offering at the moment.

<comment><USER4> Thats disappointing, because Datomic is not and will not be adopted. No one wants to revolutionize data back to postgres when cognitect goes out of business. Stable solutions are found in cloud hosting from too big to fail companies and self-management. However, maybe they have found a niche through people taking on risk for major technical debt.

<comment><USER5> Exactly.

I would only make a closed-source solution a centerpiece of my business if:

* The thing is known to work for a number of other people, and uniquely solves my urgent problem, while no open solution can't do anything comparable. This is probably the Datomic niche.

* The thing was around for ages, and is a cash cow of a major and reliable software maker, and is also significantly better than open software in some important area. This is how MS or IBM sell their databases; Datomic doesn't have nearly enough mindshare to compete here.

* I'm hastily building an MVP that I plan to scrap anyway when the growth hits / the startup is acquired. Datomic is likely too expensive for that.

By necessity, the first case holds for a small number of businesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can achieve similar goals to Datomic using Postgres:

        create table snapshot (
            id uuid primary key default uuid_generate_v4(),
            ts timestamp without time zone default now(),
            entity_id uuid references entity(id),
            value jsonb
        );

        create table entity (
            id uuid primary key default uuid_generate_v4(),
            snapshot_id uuid references snapshot(id)
        );

Rather than mutating the value of an _entity_ , you simply append a new record to the _snapshot_ table and update the _entity_ 's reference to it. This gives you a full audit trail of the entity.

<comment><USER7> It is also an extremely trivial modification to PostgreSQL to just add that functionality: essentially you just need to disable the vacuum, reify the current transaction identifier, and allow queries to bypass MVCC (which is already storing exactly the kind of information people love to play up about Datomic: it is an append-only system that only is able to delete things due to garbage collection and the vacuum).

I did a proof-of-concept of this years ago in this linked comment (which is the bottom of a long thread which involved Rich Hickey; I remember it being an interesting thread).

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4448767](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4448767)

At the time I did not provide a patch (which is weird for me) to show how "this is totally just leveraging stuff already there", but I just went and found that folder, so here is the patch:

[http://test.saurik.com/hackernews/snapshot_txid.diff](http://test.saurik.com/hackernews/snapshot_txid.diff)

<comment><USER8> Although this is definitely a part of the solution, I still see the coupling Rich mentions in his comment in the thread you linked to as an issue.

To expand: when you have to query a remote database for data, you likely only want to perform one query for performance reasons (and certainly not an unbounded amount of queries - maybe two or three is acceptable but not N+1). This means that information must be passed down the call stack for what information is needed in that single or few queries, creating coupling between unrelated layers of your application.

To make this more concrete: imagine you write a function to find users named Jim. At first this function is for reporting, so you just return a list of user IDs. Later, you decide to build a dashboard. You want to render all users named Jim here, but you need each of their names for display purposes.

Given a remote database, you now need to modify the query function to be able to return the specific attributes you need for this use case. You can imagine if you extend the call stack this passing gets more complicated, requires merging of the queried items, etc.

With datomic, since your data is in memory, your original query can stay the same, since N+1 queries are irrelevant when your data is available in RAM.

I think this point is important.

<comment><USER9> What's stopping you from storing Postgres database (or particular tables) in memory if it fits? I believe that should be possible.

Also, I may not be getting what Datomic is, but why modify original function, you can just join results with users table.

<comment><USER8> Also to answer your second question, first off there's no user table in the example so it's a bit confusing. But say we're just comparing a traditional table-per-record-type approach and why this approach still retains the coupling problem.

In that scenario you could join the user table. You'd be overfetching in many scenarios but that's not a huge concern for most people, this is what active record does. However, say you want to get more than just the columns on the user table, then you run into the same issue. Suddenly the query caller needs to inform the query method to include results about some unrelated table. Because datomic is an in memory graph structure, the caller can handle grabbing that extra information without modifying the method or its call signature, obviating the need for this coupling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In my experience, we often ran into strange issues with Datomic- like restoring new databases with same name but different logical id, excision.. is hard, ingesting a large amount of read-only data without impacting txs, inability to have non-JVM clients- as well as the cost, opaqueness and inability to hire. We're actually going the opposite direction and wrote a replication stream to Postgres using the tx log API.

<comment><USER11> It's definitely not without issues. However, I've found it very simple to work with once you are aware of all the operational gotchas. Needless to say, it's especially powerful in a 100% Clojure stack.

The features I like most are

1) the transaction log - I've done something like that many times using Postgres and EventStore, but nothing beats the simplicity of just defining a few queries in code and having immediate updates on new transactions delivered to every peer.

2) idempotency - reasserting the same facts is a noop. Doing the same with a temporal table as suggested somewhere in this thread is not as trivial.

3) consistent db snapshots - once you get a hold of the database value, all the reads will only see the data as of time the value was retrieved. This makes application code much easier to reason about as the database can be treated as yet another immutable argument.

4) assembling a transaction value out of multiple pieces - same as the above, pure functions can all contribute to the final transaction value without having to mutate anything.

5) "free" caching on the peer - once you query something, it stays in the peer's memory. Subject to memory constraints, of course.

You can definitely build something as nice as Datomic on top of Postgres, but it will take weeks to get all the details right.

<comment><USER10> This doesn't really address anything I mentioned.

The database is fine; and it was nice to work with when it was just 2 engineers. For us, it didn't scale with # of engineers, business needs like BI, ETLs of large amount of healthcare data into Datomic; then needing to delete said data. We spent a lot of time reinventing the wheel around schema management and building a declarative query interface as well.

> few queries > take weeks

Godspeed.

<comment><USER11> Hey, thanks for the comment.

To clarify - I wasn't trying to address the issues you've stumbled into, but rather list all the points I like about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a good tutorial, but there are a few misconceptions / mistakes:

        > Avoid nils
        >
        > Datomic does not support nil values for attributes. When you do not have a value for an attribute, you should either skip it or pass an empty value: a zero, an empty string, etc. That's why the most of expressions have (or "") at the end of threading macro.

Datomic doesn't support `nil` on purpose: since it's a fact database, the correct approach is to not assert the attribute (iow, just omit it). Since the schema is a property of the database (not the entity), this makes your database forward-compatible to any new fact that you may need to store without having to be explicit about the past.

You can also use `(missing? ?entity :attribute)` on queries, which should do a faster lookup on the EAVT index vs. checking for sentinel values.

        > JSON data
        >
        > In Datomic, there is no JSON type for attributes. I'm not sure I made a proper decision, but I just put those JSON data into a text attribute. Sure, where is no a way to access separate fields in a datalog query or apply roles to them. But at least I can restore the data then selecting a single entity:

You can flatten a JSON object into a namespaced map. At this point you get what is essentially an entity w/ well named attributes that you can transact and query against. Since the schema is flexible and doesn't require migrations, in theory you can support even arbitrary objects that you don't know the schema in advance by inspecting the deserialized object.

\---

Datomic is a beast different enough to require some learning on what is optimal/idiomatic in terms of data modelling, because the paradigm shifts from appending/mutating tuples over multiple tables to asserting/retracting facts on what is essentially "one big table" (entity, attribute, value, transaction).

</comment><comment><USER13> Very nice article, but in practice it almost is never usefull to switch a production system from postgres to dynamodb. Or rewrite it from python to clojure. But since its a pet project, its a nice way to learn new technology.

<comment><USER14> Interestingly, once you are on datomic you have a little more freedom of choice on underlying storage. Since Datomic uses postgres/ddb/cassandra as just a KV store it becomes trivial to switch underlying storage using the backup and restore feature. Nice if you decide to shop around or like a particular feature of a storage offering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> For anyone interested in exploring the datomic model, there is a great ClojureScript in-memory implementation called datascript ([https://github.com/tonsky/datascript](https://github.com/tonsky/datascript)) by Nikita Prokopov.

</comment><comment><USER16> Does Event Sourcing make Datomic a moot point? Sure it can be your event log, but it seems like overkill.

<comment><USER17> I imagine datomic query language is significant more powerful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> How does datomic compare to something like [https://github.com/ApplauseOSS/djangoevents](https://github.com/ApplauseOSS/djangoevents) django-eventsourced?

<comment><USER19> Only on a pseudo transactional level. (I say pseudo because I can't be 100% of how data is represented from the README.md of the djangoevents project it might infact be 1:1 to Datomic's EAVT(B) like index.

They do share some commonalities such as:

\- history/transaction subscriptions and queries

\- Providing a Django ORM/Model like data access system via Datomic's 'Entity API' (although this is Django)

But Datomic isn't just 'event sourcing' (although it's a way to think about solving a problem).

It provides Prolog style queries, functions on the database, a GraphQL like API, Caching (Memcache) and robust Peer library (which also makes it hard for NON JVM languages to use Datomic as it uses a closed protocol... (although very likely uses Artimes/Hornet MQ's internal protocol))

I am talking from a Clojure/Datomic background (so my Django experience is old & limited) But I'm sure you could cobble together something to satisfy all these things for your stack, Datomic just does a beautiful job for Clojure (And I find Cognitect's strangle hold on the technology not great but I think they've loosened the licencing enough to make it acceptable for small businesses & startups which strikes a good balance).</comment></comment>


Stop hitting ESC in Vim - <AUTHOR> Ctrl-C is much much easier on the fingers. There are only a few case where this does not work so well like in the visual block mode, generally I think its really nicer than ESC. <comment><USER2> FWIW, Ctrl-[ is ESC's equivalent.

Ctrl-C escapes insert mode, and does not check for abbreviations. It has a different behavior.

        <Esc> or CTRL-[ End insert or Replace mode, go back to Normal mode.  Finish
                        abbreviation.
                        Note: If your <Esc> key is hard to hit on your keyboard, train
                        yourself to use CTRL-[.
                        If Esc doesn't work and you are using a Mac, try CTRL-Esc.
                        Or disable Listening under Accessibility preferences.
                                                        i_CTRL-C
        CTRL-C          Quit insert mode, go back to Normal mode.  Do not check for
                        abbreviations.  Does not trigger the InsertLeave autocommand
                        event.

[https://vimhelp.appspot.com/insert.txt.html](https://vimhelp.appspot.com/insert.txt.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Or Alt + any motion key...</comment>


Free Curl and Wget tools for sysadmins - <AUTHOR> http://www.hoast.xyz <comment><USER2> This is really handy actually, I've used this a couple of times myself</comment>


Show HN: Build and deploy an Event Sourced backend in minutes - <AUTHOR> https://www.serverless-cqrs.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Author here: Happy to answer any questions :)</comment>


4 things you need to stop doing if you manage content in Confluence - <AUTHOR> http://www.midori-global.com/blog/2018/02/21/4-major-flaws-in-managing-your-intranet-content-in-confluence <comment><USER2> I hate Confluence. It's a worst piece of software imaginable. Their wysiwyg editor is not just total crap, it feels like its intended purpose is to make you mad by irritating you inexplicably. Its UX is a complete mess. It makes me really sad to have to use such crap in 2018 - age of distributed computing and cryptocurrencies, dawn of AI and self driving cars.</comment>


Ask HN: Moratorium on pandemic posts? - <AUTHOR> I can't be the only one who's hiding all the stories about the pandemic, right?
I think at this point we all understand that it's a terrible situation, we should all wash our hands, and working from home has its pros and cons.
There's about five new "here's something i threw together in JS that grabs some covid data from some gov't data feed" links every day, and there are multiple threads daily on the topic of "how can we, as hackers, help?" (or a variation thereof).
And that's not to speak of the tedious click-baity junk of non-primary news sites just parroting whatever news just came out of $govagency$
Yay/Nay? <comment><USER2> Better to allow the posts, and those who wish to discuss them, then not allow them at all to save a few folks from clicking 'Hide'. Usually it is obvious from the post title if it's COVID related or not. Having to read the title isn't causing great injury to you.

</comment><comment><USER3> Are we sure that the economic damage of the shutdown of the world economy out weighs the heath risks of the virus. Are we in group think here? A major recession/depression means a lot of people go hungry, lose access to medical care etc. Does anyone know of studies or research that looks at the health impacts of a shutdown vs. the health risk of the virus ? Just asking questions.

Is the real question here being hidden ? I am asking a legitimate question that never gets an answer.. that tells me something.

<comment> TYPE-ERROR It's not being hidden, but it's not being discussed in the open because it seems to put people's lives second to wealth.

This is a novel situation. I'm not sure anybody can make a good prediction about the public health and the economic consequence of this pandemic. Society's answer to this crisis could well result in minor recession followed by a boom of economic progress, fruit of innovations made in response to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> No.

For two reasons:

1\. The frequency and number of posts is data in itself about the overall sentiments of this pandemic not only in the general public but also within our smaller subset of technologists. (I want to know whether it is hot or not anymore.)

2\. The voting system on HN is sufficient to move the quality submissions relating to COVID-19 to the top. I have faith in its ability to sift the good ones from bad ones. (Yet! Looks at Dan!)

</comment><comment><USER5> I occasionally leave my opinion that "this particular piece is crap" in essence and I'm actively looking for non-COVID stories to read and comment on. I think helping bad COVID stories sink faster and helping support some diversity of subject matter is a good thing.

But I think a moratorium is too much. Better to try to actively support some variety and actively try to help people sort the wheat from the chafe.

/2 cents

</comment><comment><USER6> Is a "useful level of indirection" not perhaps possible?

news.ycombinator.com/covid19/normal-URL-behaviour

</comment><comment><USER7> I like 'em

</comment><comment><USER8> Nay. This is possibly the most economically damaging, socially isolating, fear-inducing, death-causing event in generations, and will be for generations to come. It will be the most discussed topic around the world for all of 2020, and will continue to shape our lives, policies, regulations, laws, and social norms for decades. Ignore it if you want, but asking everyone else to join in your self-induced blindness is unnecessary.

<comment><USER9> Please don't attack fellow users like that. During economically damaging, socially isolating, fear-inducing, death-causing events, we need to take more care for each other, not less. Note this site guideline:

" _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize. Assume good faith._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER8> What about my post was attacking? Also, may I quote you, at you?

> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone > says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Why wouldn't you assume good faith that when I said "asking everyone else to join in your self-induced blindness is unnecessary" I meant exactly what I said, without any rancor, malice, ill-will, etc? You may read my original reply with an angry tone of voice, a pleasant one, a curious one, a vindictive one, etc. But I have to believe, based on your comment, that you did not assume good faith with me but rather read my comment with something less than a pleasant tone of voice. Am I wrong?

<comment><USER9> "Ignore it if you want, but asking everyone else to join in your self-induced blindness" contains at least three personal slights, of escalating intensity.

For sure it's ok to quote the plausibility guideline at me. We all need to work at it, and it's not easy. I do find it implausible to read your sentence (the one I just quoted) as free of any rancor etc. If you tell me you wrote it in that spirit, I believe you, but intent doesn't communicate itself on the internet. Most of the time, when people post such things, they are flaming somebody—so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20burden%20disambiguate&sort=byDate&type=comment)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How To Steal Like An Artist - <AUTHOR> http://www.austinkleon.com/2011/03/30/how-to-steal-like-an-artist-and-9-other-things-nobody-told-me/ <comment><USER2> Outstanding advice that is mostly applicable to the business world as well.</comment>


How to Write Articles and Essays Quickly and Expertly (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://www.downes.ca/post/38526 <comment><USER2> I think about presenting arguments a lot. Arguments are best represented in DAG form; mostly a tree structure, although some premises might support multiple conclusions so it's inherently graph-based (graphical data structure). Because some conclusions are often lemmas supporting further conclusions, arguments can go several levels deep.

I like envisioning them with the conclusion on the top and the premises on the bottom, although people often visualize them flipped in another direction.

But the trick comes in presenting the argument to someone else, verbally, in a presentation, or through writing. What is the best way to do it?

Because your goal isn't just to impart information; it's also to be convincing and to hope that your counterparts get invested in the conclusion.

I find that if the conclusion is counterintuitive, then starting with the conclusion can create resistance. People love to interrupt and argue against something they disagree with even if they haven't thought it through.

On the other hand, starting with a bunch of premises devoid of context can just feel unrooted.

I guess I generally try to analyze the argument to find the highest (closest to conclusion) points that are not controversial, start with those, and then try to talk about the surprising conclusion that they imply. It can be a real workout, though, trying to anticipate responses, being open to feedback while still working towards your conclusion.

I wonder if this sort of thing is related to any algorithmic concepts, like most efficient ways to walk a DAG.

<comment><USER3> I conceptualise arguments in the same way. I think the requirement of serialising arguments and evidence is bogus for the age we live in and would much rather just give the whole graph to an audience to play with, and then elaborate and discuss as needed. Or heaven forbid the reader could have write access!

<comment><AUTHOR> In the end you have to examine the arguments in some order. By deciding the order you are reducing work for the reader in finding a pleasant traversal of the graph.

<comment><USER2> Maybe you're increasing the work by deciding an order. I've testing this approach several times of actually laying out complex arguments graphviz-style and watching people's eyes as they review it. Everyone seems to traverse the graph differently, depending on which parts challenge them.

<comment><USER3> Do you have a paper about this? Sounds fascinating

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The best guide I've ever read to writing nonfiction is William Zinsser's "On Writing Well". If you do any writing for work or pleasure, his advice is indispensable:

[https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide- Nonfiction...](https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide- Nonfiction/dp/0060891548)

<comment><USER5> Completely agree. I learned more in 2 weeks of reading Zinsser than I did in 3 yrs of English at high school.

<comment><USER6> _On Writing Well_ and _Elements of Style_ were required reading in almost every English class I took. Sounds like you had some bad teachers.

<comment><USER5> It's not a part of our curriculum in the UK. I, and many others like me, had never heard of him before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article provides four categories of essays: argument, explanation, definition, description.

Personally, I've found it useful to think of almost _everything_ I write as a variation on "argument". Perhaps I'm _also_ describing, defining or explaining something, but there's always a core substrate of _persuading_. A integral part of defining something well, for example, is to simultaneously argue for why the defined idea is interesting and useful; without that, it's all too easy to descend into abstract nonsense.

My approach isn't universally applicable—it leads to a particular writing style—but it certainly helped _me_ in organizing my writing and organizing my _thoughts_. Whenever I write I'm always making a point even if I wouldn't classically think of it as a "persuasive" essay.

<comment><USER8> I see a fundamental conflict for writing between persuasion and logical argumentation.

Persuasive writing means I want to reader to get into an agreement habit. Start with something uncontroversial and work towards your core point. Avoid detours. Avoid negative triggers. In contrast, for a logical argument you should include objections and address them.

Persuasion works on a more psychological level and logic is not that relevant. As long as you don't trigger too many bullshit detectors in your audience, you are fine without logic.

<comment><USER9> According to Aristotle, persuasion has three parts - logos, pathos and ethos. Your logical argumentation is logos, a powerful tool but not the only way to persuade. Pathos is the appeal to feeling (avoid triggers), and ethos is the establishment of trust, authority, credentials, character. Different persuasive tactics work with different audiences. On HN, logos can work. In US elections, pathos tends to work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This essay is a counterexample to its own argument.

It's poorly written, verbose, poorly organised, self-serving, and offers little in the way of solid advice.

An expert essay should have a point and purpose, and execute it with competence. This means a few things, but among others, it means having a grasp of your subject, an understanding of others' understanding _or lack_ of it, a firm grasp of the _boundaries_ of your subject, if those are salient, and the capacity to communicate clearly and with interest. Recognising that all writing is a favour to the _reader_ and not the _author_ is also key.

I'm contrasting this essay and its glib advice to Neal Stephenson's "Why I am a Poor Correspondent", in which Stephenson excuses his infrequent presence in email, online discussions and social media, and on interviews and conference panels: he requires long blocks of time, and days of them on end, to be able to produce his primary product, long and complex novels.

I've occasionally spilled out long essays in a single continuous pour with little further major revision necessary (though _numerous_ fixes, corrections, and tweaks are virtually always needed). The experience is an exception, and almost always happens _only_ on material I've been thinking over for a long time -- weeks, months, years.

I'm sitting on at least a half-dozen essays and reviews right now that I've been kicking around for most of the year, so nine months, simply because I've not had the time and space to organise my thoughts and secure uninterrupted keyboard time in front of a system at which I can call up and incorporate references, and do the topics in mind proper justice. It's frustrating, but as with David Byrne, when I've nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Or at least that's my goal.

There's a difference between firehosing words onto a page or into an edit- buffer, and actually _writing_ a coherent, cogent, intelligent piece.

This piece fails at that, and fails (other than by contradiction) to show how.

<comment><USER11> Agreed. In fact, I can't understand why this repost from 2006 is popular enough to linger on the first page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> this essay's style seems endemic in tech writing: logorrheic and trafficking in technical details/protocols in place of the underlying principles (cogency, brevity, a single unifying argument that can be simply stated).

i appreciate any tips to aid my writing, but i think very few match the tried and true approach of reading masters of the craft and revising one's writing, again and again, for brevity. i suspect that the blog format discourages the latter.

<comment><USER13> I somewhat agree with you here. In fact, as soon as the article starting drifting into lists, I stopped reading and scanned the rest.

<comment><USER14> I also agree. But it occurred to me that the authors intent was probably to create a sort of _reference guide_ that could be referred to over and over in order to apply the techniques discussed.

In that context, the use of lists makes a lot more sense. What's interesting is that the article also seems to be written in conversational style while at the same time intending to be a re-usable reference. At least, that's my take on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Cf. Paul Graham's "The Age of the Essay" (2004) [http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html)

Graham's essay is and describes a fifth category of essay. Graham calls this approach "meandering"; it might also be called "exploratory".

<comment><USER4> "An army of words escorting a corporal of thought."

<comment><USER16> Beware the "One who approaches Greatness on his belly so that he may not be commanded to turn and be kicked."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why am I not surprised at the poor quality of this writer's prose? An uncontroversial observation that's made worse by its intent -- to teach others how to write. Even the title --

"How to Write Articles and Essays Quickly and Expertly"

\-- contains a contradiction: by definition, an expert doesn't require tutorial instruction (expertise is not a transferable consumer product). The essay goes quickly downhill from there.

One more example:

"But part of it is a simple strategy for writing your essays and articles quickly and expertly, a strategy that allows you to plan your entire essay as you write it, and thus to allow you to make your first draft your final draft."

The observation this sentence makes is self-falsifying. The sentence is too long and meandering and cries out for the compassionate intervention of an editor.

<comment><USER18> The article is a mind dump from his blog Half an Hour. The tagline should explain it all: _A place to write, half an hour, every day, just for me._

URL: [http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/](http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What is Stephen Downes primary job? He describes himself as a senior researcher and makes bold claims of pioneering and important work in the field of e-learning.

Maybe I'm missing his peer reviewed research, I don't see any. I read one unreviewed paper on "Learning Objects" and it had so much fluff it bordered on crankery.

Best I can tell he writes blog posts and articles for web sites.

<comment><USER19> Your assessment of Downes may be correct. But I can tell you, that even in actual academic journals, "education research" is a level of self-sustaining garbage like nothing else you have ever encountered. I say this as someone that completed a MEd among some others that went on to be absolute magicians in the classroom. But 90% of the reading assigned for that degree could have passed for parody.

<comment><USER11> Wow, I had no idea thanks for explaining that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I really like stuff like this. You know, where it's laid out in a straightforward, no-noise formula for doing something. Does anyone have any more of these types of things? Social interactions, design patterns, anything. I love them.

</comment><comment><USER21> If you focus on the basics, writing descriptive text is really easy.

Structure is important. First, be direct and make whatever assertion of statement that you are going to make. Next provide arguments, facts or other narrative that support the assertion. Finally close the narrative.

Avoid trying to be too clever. An essay isn't a conversation, and introducing conversational tone is confusing to the reader. Don't be funny. Edit mercilessly.

Finally, before you start writing, have a plan about what you are going to say, either in your head or in an outline. Don't let the mechanics of writing get in your way -- if you know what you are going to say, it will be easier to say it.

</comment><comment><USER22> You cannot fake expert. You cannot rush expert.

</comment><comment><USER23> Was anyone else bothered by the numerous type-os? I counted at least 10.

<comment><USER24> Did you mean typo? [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/typo](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/typo)

<comment><USER23> Yeah, just goes to show that your first draft should not be your final.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This article is bad advice. Any fool can string a few words together. Truly writing means re-writing.

Your first draft is always going to be ugly, raw data. Writing as a craft means taking that given set of words and processing it until it's concise and clear. Cut and replace until your argument is airtight.

And another thing: all writing is argument.

There are so many great essays about writing that are infinitely better than this - I'm surprised this gained so much traction on HN.

Here's one of my favorites by George Orwell: [http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...](http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/)

</comment><comment><USER26> For some basic tips, I have found the site "foxtype.com" to be very good. It analyses your text for politeness and conciseness it asks you to rephrase text.

\-- (now, this is the foxtype suggested text)

For some basic tips, the site "foxtype.com" to be good. It analyses text for politeness and conciseness and it suggests alternatives to phrases.

<comment><USER14> Unfortunately, they don't seem to have an API. Can anyone recommend something like this that has a REST API?

<comment><USER27> You might want to take a closer look at the suggested rewrite (especially the initial not-quite-a-sentence) first...

<comment><USER26> It was my bad not the website.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Citing authoritative sources is easily the easiest way to be seen as an expert. Next is having them cite you as an expert source, which is not as hard as it might seem.

<comment><USER10> A slight difference of opinion.

Citing authoritative sources doesn't convey expertise, _but is a courtesy to the reader_. If you're going to say or claim something, _back it up_. I'm also picky about _how_ sources are cited, and for anything more than a brief reference, I prefer the author and work be mentioned at least on the first instance, _in the text_. I'm reading Vaclav Smil currently, who follows the model of (Smith 2015), which I find ... kind of useless:

* It's more invasive than a simple footnote or endnote.

* It's less descriptive than "George Smith, _A Work of Some Note_ ". Which tells me, without having to turn to the back of the book, _what I want to look up_.

* Footnotes, as opposed to endnotes, allow me to quickly find, _on the page_ what it is that's being referenced. This is quite out of fashion. So am I.

(On the other hand, endnotes allow quickly skimming all notes of a book in one place. I don't believe this compensates for their numerous other disadvantages.)

Expertise isn't based on citing _an expert_ , but in _noting the dimensions of a topic or concept_ , and in particular, the credibly disagreeing points of view.

William Ophuls is an author I respect in this. He's absolutely got a point of view (he writes on applying ecological limits to political concepts). But he also notes his principle critics and exemplars of opposing points of view, and frequently considers their views, data, and arguments. This increases my consideration of him greatly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> What a great post! Very clear and practically helpful. Thanks for posting.

</comment><comment><USER30> Pragmatics ... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

</comment><comment><USER31> tl;dr</comment>


Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support - <AUTHOR> http://forums.getpebble.com/discussion/22081/apple-now-rejecting-apps-with-pebble-smartwatch-support <comment><USER2> It's a bit tricky. I agree with most comments here that Apple is in the right to control what appear in the description and metadata. Not just from a competitive standpoint but in a way to make the it better for the user experience.

That being said, in the Pebble case, I think it makes the user experience worst for the user. I.e. if I have a pebble watch and am looking for an iphone app that play well with it, I'd want to see the name in the description/meta- data.

I think it's different than saying "Also on Android" because this is a totally different device. I.e. saying it's on another smartphone doesn't add value to the description, but saying it supports some hardware device does.

It seems like Apple is doing that as a way to kill competition and promote their own watch, which is fair from a business standpoint. But as a user, I don't like that approach of forcing everything into the Apple ecosystem. I got tired of that 2 years ago and switched to android, haven't looked back since.

<comment><USER3> "It seems like Apple is doing that as a way to kill competition and promote their own watch, which is fair from a business standpoint."

It's nowhere near fair. It's extremely anticompetitive. This is the kind of behavior that gets a company in trouble with the FTC.

<comment><USER4> _This is the kind of behavior that gets a company in trouble with the FTC._

Indeed but Apple is aware that the FTC isn't likely to punish them enough that the behavior will be a net negative.

If only the Federal Government would be as serious about "Sending a message" on antitrust as they are about low-mid level drug dealers, this kind of thing would be a lot more rare.

<comment><USER5> But Apple doesn't have anywhere near a monopoly on smart phones, so being anti-competitive is completely legal

<comment><USER6> Monopoly is a smokescreen word. Antitrust is not about monopoly, it is about abuse of market position.

If your company has 10% of the market, and the rest has 1% each, you can still be slapped for antitrust if you start using that position as leverage in a different market.

ianal, btw...

<comment><USER7> What are examples of companies being penalized for antitrust while not being a monopoly (or part of an oligopoly)?

<comment><USER8> Well, there's Microsoft, which has been penalized on various occasions in the States and the EU despite not actually being a monopoly (there were plenty of other operating system vendors out there, Apple among them).

And then you have Google, which has been taking quite a bit of flak from Europe lately.

<comment><USER7> I'm sorry, could you be more specific? Please link to specific cases that meet the criteria (antitrust cases where the company is found guilty of anti- competitive practices that do NOT involve the company abusing their (mon|olig)opoly power in a certain market). Both those companies are involved in many cases, antitrust or otherwise, and I'm unable to find one that fits the bill. I think you (and digi_owl) are incorrect.

<comment><USER8> Neither of them were or are actually monopolies (Google isn't the only search engine in the world, and Microsoft wasn't the only PC operating system vendor in the world even during the 90's), so literally any of the cases you've found would be applicable.

An antitrust case can still be levied for _conspiring_ to become a monopoly (as Microsoft did with its strongarming of OEMs combined and its bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows). Apple has even run afoul of that at various times (like when it got dinged for its monopolistic behavior regarding e-books; it certainly didn't have an actual monopoly, but that still fell under antitrust regulations).

<comment><USER7> > Neither of them were or are actually monopolies

"Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment)

A company does not have to be the sole supplier in a market to be considered a monopoly in the eyes of the law.

> Apple has even run afoul of that at various times (like when it got dinged > for its monopolistic behavior regarding e-books; it certainly didn't have an > actual monopoly, but that still fell under antitrust regulations).

But that case didn't just involve Apple. It also involved the oligopoly of book publishers, who worked with Apple to engage in price fixing against Amazon.

<comment><USER8> That still leaves us with Google, which (as far as I know) is not considered a "monopoly" by any measure of the term.

With that said...

> Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems > market constituted a monopoly

If you read further in the paragraph you quoted, you'll find that Microsoft was specifically engaging in _monopolization_ (i.e. the process of _becoming_ a monopoly), which was the specific reason why it got dinged. It also states the _and_ in there - that they had taken measures to disrupt attempts to counter their monopolization.

This analysis is consistent with the Sherman Antitrust Act (the law under which Microsoft was cited), specifically Section 2: Every person who shall monopolize, __or attempt to monopolize __, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ] ". It's also consisted with the Sherman Antitrust Act's intent, as specified by its authors (George Hoar: "... [a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist..(but was if) it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition.").

This isn't even mentioning the failure of the court to recognize that there were viable altneratives to Windows that, in their words, "a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs". GNU/Linux (which was designed for "Intel-compatible PC"s to begin with), three of the four mainstream BSDs (NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD), OS/2, and a variety of other operating systems existed at the time of that ruling. The only way the ruling's rationale would hold true is if they interpreted "Intel-compatible" to mean "Windows-compatible", in which case the ruling is directly applicable to Apple's behavior now (since Apple - like Microsoft then - is attempting to monopolize the application ecosystem of iOS; if Microsoft can get dinged for monopolizing a specific market segment, then so can/should Apple). In this case, Apple is "attempt[ing] to monopolize" smart watches within the the iOS application market (just like how Microsoft "attempt[ed] to monopolize" browsers within the Windows application market). The difference is that Apple's attempts are much more obvious.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

<comment><USER7> Sorry buddy, you've gone off the deep end here. Microsoft was found in a court of law to have a monopoly in the OS market, and used their market power illegally. Full stop. This is not a controversial fact. You are at best mincing words, and at worst misrepresenting history, to suggest something different.

> That still leaves us with Google, which (as far as I know) is not considered > a "monopoly" by any measure of the term.

I don't know how you've come to this conclusion. It is very reasonable to argue that Google has a monopoly on internet search. Whether they are engaging in antitrust is more unclear, but they wield an amount of power in the search market that no other company even gets close to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A good reminder of what it would be like if we lived in a world where there is no Android and iOS is a monopoly.

Apple's anti competitive behavior puts Microsoft of the 90s to shame.

<comment><USER10> Nowhere near...

<comment><USER11> > Nowhere near...

You're right, Apple is significantly worse.

Microsoft went out of it's way to make sure that competitors applications didn't work (DOS isn't done until Lotus 123 won't run). This sparked a development arms race wasting hundreds of hours of development time working around intentional compatibility bugs.

On the other hand, Apple sometimes just doesn't let your software run at all. No matter what. Because fuck you, that's why. Your company plays by Apple's rules and tithes to Apple or it dies on iOS. Oh, and Apple reserves the right to kill your compay's sales on iOS for any time, any reason, including stealing all your ideas and competing with you.

<comment><USER10> It's about market share and global impact.

It might sound like double standard to you, but denying your awesome new airbnb for dogs app is not quite the same as denying Java.

<comment><USER12> > It's about market share and global impact

There's not some kind of, "the impact has to be as large as when company X did it" rule.

Apple now has enough market share, especially in mobile, that the global impact is troubling.

<comment><USER9> > Apple now has enough market share, especially in mobile

Not really. Depending on the country, the iPhone has between 10 and 20% market share and they are shrinking month after month. Android is on its way to becoming a monopoly, for sure.

<comment><USER13> This story isn't about the "mobile smartphone" market - it is about Apple abusing their control of those phones to restrict the "iOS Apps" market.

These are separate markets. Customers that want to buy software for their Apple-branded general purpose computers cannot buy Android apps, so there is no overlap between the markets. Software developers may choose to participate in both, but that means the have to create two separate products.

What matters is is if the customer can switch their business, and not the size of the respective markets which is what those iPhone market share numbers indicate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think I want to see more information before I grab my pitchfork. From the replies,

> are you sure you're a developer? because this has been part of iOS > submission guidelines for 4 years. (developer.apple.com/app- > store/review/guidelines/#metadata)

I mean I really wouldn't put it past Apple to start enforcing this more aggressively because of the iWatch, but a forum post by some dev is hardly proof that Apple is intentionally rejecting Pebble-supporting apps. After all, let's look at another comment:

> By that logic, Apple should also reject Pebble's app.

Which they haven't done yet.

<comment><USER15> "By that logic" doesn't belong anywhere near a discussion of Apple review guidelines or behavior.

The _only_ thing they are consistent about when reviewing iOS apps is being completely inconsistent. You cannot point to the acceptance of one app as evidence that some rule isn't being applied to another app.

Apple constantly rejects apps for claimed rule violations while allowing other apps through with identical violations. Apple frequently rejects app updates because of features which were in previous, accepted versions while claiming that the rule in question is not new. Apple frequently rejects apps for rules that aren't written down anywhere, which they insist are ironclad, and which disappear the moment you bring public attention to the situation.

It's like, Dr. Frankenstein is up in his castle doing some weird shit. Should we grab our pitchforks and torches, or should we see exactly what he's doing first? What if Dr. Frankenstein has been unleashing weird undead horrors upon the town at an average rate of once a week for the past seven years? At some point it becomes reasonable to just assume that he's up to the same stuff as usual.

<comment><USER16> This comment is far more true than people realize. And the worst part is, it's not an exaggeration in the slightest.

> You cannot point to the acceptance of one app as evidence that some rule > isn't being applied to another app.

This is something they won't even discuss if you question how other apps can have some feature they may not like. You could have the same exact feature, and you'll get rejected.

<comment><USER17> Because someone else breaking the rules is no excuse for you breaking the rules. It's like when you were a kid, and you tried to say, "But Johnny's doing it!".

<comment><USER15> Yeah, but when you don't think you're actually breaking the rules, "you never did anything about that guy" is good support.

This is _not_ a case of somebody breaking the rules and trying to say that the rules do not apply. This is a case of the rules suddenly being reinterpreted to mean something completely different from what they used to mean.

Imagine if you stepped on a worm and then got arrested for murder. Would it not be a reasonable thing to say, "uh, there's another guy stepping on worms right over there and you're not arresting him, so what gives?"

<comment><USER17> "Yeah, but when you don't think you're actually breaking the rules, "you never did anything about that guy" is good support."

No, it isn't. The other guy is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is, YOU broke the rules.

<comment><USER16> Every app literally breaks the rules. I do not know of one that doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The Runkeeper app explicitly mentions Pebble Support, and was released on the 20th of April.

[https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/runkeeper-gps-running- walk/i...](https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/runkeeper-gps-running- walk/id300235330?mt=8)

I'm going to wait a little before passing judgement on this. Could just be a bad review/er.

I do feel sorry for these devs though, running to 'the press' is something Apple passive-aggressively warns you not to do. Their future app-approval life could be quite unpleasant after this.

<comment><USER19> Then the "bad" reviewer would have been the one the approved the RunKeeper app since the guideslines specifically state that "Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected"[1].

Edit: I do not endorse the app store guidelines.

[1] [https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#met...](https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#metadata)

<comment><USER20> Except Pebble isn't another mobile platform. It is an accessory.

<comment><USER21> Pebble has apps: [http://www.wareable.com/apps/the-best-apps-for-pebble-and- pe...](http://www.wareable.com/apps/the-best-apps-for-pebble-and-pebble-steel)

And Pebble works even when you don't have your phone with you, so it's more of a mobile platform than Apple Watch.

<comment><USER20> define "works even when you don't have your phone with you"? I have one, and most of the useful features definitely require my phone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This doesn't surprise me. Our app relies on the Yubikey devices for 2-factor auth and since the iPad 4 Apple have deliberately blocked non-Apple devices working with the Camera Connection Kit, meaning that our customers cannot use our product with anything after the iPad 3.

This obviously meant we had to drop support for Apple products and even for a small product like ours this has lost Apple hundreds of device sales from customers of ours purchasing other devices because of this.

While Apple won't give a crap about those few sales, at some stage, their provincialism will come back to bite them.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've worked for Apple twice in my life, but it's policies like this that keep me from ever being an Apple developer. I will never support the Apple software market, for as long as they continue being so transparently shitty to developers.

Just look at how far Apple has come since the original Apple I, directly aimed at the DIY market. These days, Apple locks down everything, tightly controlling what developers (and users) can and cannot do.

"Golden handcuffs" does not even begin to describe the level of restriction Apple exerts on the tech market.

</comment><comment><USER24> This forum appears to have an invalid certificate:

Domain: forums.getpebble.com

CN = *.vanillaforums.com

If you use HTTPS Everywhere, you'll want to uncheck this specific site, remove the HTTPS part of the URL and reload.

PS - I love HTTPS Everywhere but it always surprises me just how many sites have broken HTTPS implementations.

<comment><USER25> This is the whole reason the site itself doesn't direct you to https or advertise it is available. In order to support https, you don't just install a cert, you know. You have to make sure your whole chain supports it. Including things like third party CDN providers, which can be more expensive to enable https than you pay for the CDN. So, if you use an extension that randomly directs you to connect using a method the site operator never told you to use, expect problems.

<comment><USER24> > This is the whole reason the site itself doesn't direct you to https or > advertise it is available.

They are advertising it. They have a web-server running on 443 open to the public, they aren't required to, but they choose to. They're also erroneously returning status code 200 (instead of 404 or 301).

> So, if you use an extension that randomly directs you to connect using a > method the site operator never told you to use, expect problems.

Nothing "random" about it.

The site advertises that it has HTTP running on 80 and HTTPS on 443. So I have an extension which opts for 443 when status code 200 is returned as a first priority and then 80 as a backup. Google and Bing's search results do exactly the same thing.

If they don't want people to use HTTPS/443 then simply shut it down, problem solved. If you have to have 443 running for another site then return status code 404 (or 301).

<comment> X-Cubed There is no reason that HTTP and HTTPS ports have to serve the same website. In this case, the HTTPS port is serving pebble.vanillaforums.com (or whatever) while the HTTP port is serving forums.getpebble.com.

The HTTPS port could just as easily be serving up an admin page for the forums, rather than the forums themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> From the forum comments, this is new behavior. It seems connected to Apple entering Pebble's space with their new Apple Watch. The existing Terms of Service about competing platforms is now being interpreted to consider Pebble a competing platform. The developer appealed and Apple told them that they specifically can't mention Pebble anywhere in their app description or metadata. Other developers have confirmed that Apple is now forcing them to remove existing screenshots in the App Store that demonstrate a given app's functionality tied to the Pebble.

So, yes, it is Apple being anti-competitive now that they have entered the same space as Pebble. Apple are attempting to kill off Pebble support within the iOS ecosystem. It appears Apple will only allow mentions of Apple Watch within the App Store and in screenshots, no other smart watches going forward.

<comment><USER26> Can you provide links to other cases where Apple has been restrictive about this?

<comment><USER25> You'll find multiple other developers of iOS apps with Pebble support complaining of the same issue with Apple in the comments of the page that's linked to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A client's app was rejected because we mentioned Android in the description.. I replaced it with "the crossplatform app for -- ($market)" and it was accepted.

Apple's review process is completely opaque to me. One time an app was rejected because the user signed in with a unique code instead of an email/password.. literally had to _change the name of the textfield_ to "username" from "code" and added a password field that did nothing and it passed. Kafkaesque.

</comment><comment><USER28> My guess is that in Europe they could get an anti trust lawsuit. Comparing it with internet explorer on windows anti trust lawsuit from EU, Microsoft was forced to acknowledge and provide choice of competitor platforms that where compatible with the system (Firefox, Chrome, Opera,...).

Under the same logic, pebble is just an laternative platform compatible with the system (IOS + SeaNav).

But either way that is a behavior that is characteristic of Apple and doesn't surprise me at all.

<comment><USER29> Antitrust requires a monopoly position, which Apple doesn't have (but Microsoft did have). Apple are being dicks and should be smacked down for it in the market, but I doubt antitrust would stick.

<comment><USER30> It's a duopoly, but in terms of revenue/prestige it's a de-facto monopoly. The simple fact is that that Apple can bully because NO developer can afford to walk away from the Apple App store; and the App Store is simply too big for the market to self-regulate.

The anti-trust cases against Microsoft ultimately allowed Firefox, Opera, Chrome to flourish and eventually lead to the demise of IE's monopoly position.

<comment><USER31> Did it? Microsoft didn't get pwned in court over the fact that the OS came with a web browser, they got pwned in court because they were enforcing deals on OEMs that didn't allow them to include another browser.

I'd argue that Firefox, Chrome, and Opera did not flourish because of a court ruling, they did so because they were better in every sense than IE. Microsoft has never stopped anyone from downloading whatever browser they choose.

<comment><USER30> The EU stuck it to MS over the browser bundling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I am no lawyer, but this sounds like an antitrust lawsuit waiting to happen. Apple, IMO, should not be allowed to monopolize their platform in this way.

<comment><USER33> Should Walmart, who has 100% market share of people walking in a Walmart right now, have control over what is on their shelves?

Should Disney have control over what stores are on Disney Main St.?

iPhones are not the only choice, so if you don't like how they work, you can choose not to buy them (because they have significant competition).

The reason there are laws that limit monopoly behavior is because you wouldn't have that choice and it is considered a free-market failure that we want regulated.

<comment><USER34> I don't think this holds up. WalMart choosing not to stock a product doesn't mean that the product _won 't be made at all_. WalMart doesn't decide to stop stocking Hanes underwear because Hanes ships boxers to KMart and Target too.

Now maybe in some cases WalMart does demand exclusive right to sell something. But imagine they did it for EVERY. FUCKING. PRODUCT. I think people would get pretty pissed off. And rightfully so.

<comment><USER35> How does Apple demand the exclusive right to sell anything? There are plenty of Android apps that integrate with Pebble, and plenty of apps that are available across iOS, Android, even Windows, Blackberry, FireFox OS, Cyanogen, etc.

Apple can set rules for apps in _their app store_ , just like Walmart can control the stock on _their shelves._ Walmart doesn't carry what you want? Go to Target. Apple doesn't allow an app you want? Go to Android.

<comment><USER36> I always hear that the choice you present is what allows anti-competitive behavior.

But does that hold true even when the costs of switching is enormously high?

With Target/WalMart you don't have to re-buy a $650 phone to switch. You don't need to (maybe) switch carriers depending on needs or offers with all the hassle and fees that might entail.

You might have to re-learn an entirely new OS. How much time does that cost someone in lost productivity or just time in life?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Not at all surprising: got the exact same rationale for mentioning ChromeCast in the metadata of an app submission. Very confusing given the number of other apps that mention ChromeCast in the metadata, but such is life.

</comment><comment><USER38> The title is misleading at best. Apple does not care what support you have. They just don't want you to advertise that in their app store.

<comment><USER39> Yep. Same if you mention in your app that it's also available on Android.

Fascist? Yes. Surprising? No. New? Certainly not.

<comment><USER15> There's a pretty big difference between "we also have a version of this app available for Android" and "this iOS app, right here, the one you're looking at and downloading, supports Pebble."

Apple saying you can't advertise other versions of your product is slightly dickish but totally understandable. Apple saying you can't advertise _features of your iOS app_ because they happen to involve competing products is completely unreasonable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Why do people even feign objection at this point? You have built your house on someone else's land. Don't be surprised when they force you to tear down the guest house you just built.

<comment><USER41> It's funny that HN is normally so free-market that people here are happy to accept this sort of market feudalism: the company running the market for iOS apps gets to make their own rules, no matter how arbitrary.

<comment> k-mcgrady It is a free market when you look at the bigger picture. You don't have to develop apps for iOS, you can develop them for other platforms and no one will stop you. iOS is part of the app market and as it's a free market Apple can control their portion however they like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> IIRC, this has to do with specifying "Pebble" and competitors in the App Store description. Same issue has occurred with apps that specify Samsung, Google, etc. in their descriptions and screenshots.

You just have to remove them.

<comment><USER43> Sounds like a very arbitrary rule, also worthy of an anti-trust investigation. What's next? Censoring "Google" words from the iPhone keyboard and iMessage?

<comment><USER44> An antitrust case because apple are using their minority position in the market to tell developers not to advertise other platforms on theirs?

Sure, sounds appropriate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> FWIW, we have an app that supports Pebble (mentioned in the app, on our website, but not in the iTunes description text) and we had an update approved today.

Though our last few two or three releases have also contained Apple Watch support (which _is_ mentioned in the description text).

</comment><comment><USER46> Walled Gardens - stifling innovation since 2007. Nothing to see here, move on ...

</comment><comment><USER47> There used to be a client-side check for forbidden words or phrases in iTunes Connect while developers are entering that metadata (it may still be there I haven't checked lately), and they weren't all "swear words" or things you would expect to be automatically forbidden.

For example, I recall the system preventing me from even saving the description during an update for Mi-Fi Monitor until I removed "AT&T" from the text, and that was back during AT&T's exclusivity period for the iPhone so I connected the dots and just removed it (which luckily didn't matter all that much).

If there really is going to be a policy that apps may not mention Pebble or other similar devices in their descriptions, perhaps it'll show up in that automatic check soon (then again, imagine a blanket ban on the word "pebble", it's not _just_ a smartwatch :)

It would appear in _this_ case that the SeaNav app is _also_ involved in the MFI program (presumably to communicate with the Pebble directly and in ways that normal apps couldn't? I've never dealt with MFI as a developer). It strikes me as rather odd that if both the Pebble itself and this app are part of the MFI program, that Apple would wait until a normal app update was submitted by the SeaNav developer before notifying the developer of this change.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is not a change in Apple's policies, it's a fluke. The reviewer is interpreting the rule incorrectly.

The rule is intended to avoid descriptions which refer to future plans for alternative platform support, or _different ports_ of the app available on other platforms. The rule does not intend to withhold information on platform support for this app instance, or ban said platform support.

For example:

\- "Also find our app on the Pebble Watch Store" (violation)

\- "This app syncs with Pebble Smartwatch" (not violation)

Other examples:

\- "This feature is only available on our Windows Phone version of Office" (violation)

\- "We're moving to the Google Play store for Android" (violation)

\- "This app allows you to share files on all popular mobile platforms" (not violation)

\- "Tap together your iPhone to another iPhone, Android phone or WM phone to share contact info" (not violation)

My guess is Apple will be reversing decision on that rejection soon.

<comment><USER8> According to other posts in the linked discussion, other apps are being rejected under the same rationale and for the same reasons, and attempts to appeal those rejections aren't going through (Apple's reviewers are continuing to reject new versions of these apps until they remove any/all mention of "Pebble" in their metadata).

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I find it frustrating that this is both the thread with the most upvotes since "The sad state of sysadmin in the age of containers", and the most active thread, and yet it's not even on the front page. (#43 for me)

HN seems to be a bit overzealous in penalizing the numbers of comments. If that's the reason for it being so far down. But regardless of the reason I've largely switched to /active as my default page. Far more interesting content, at least to me.

</comment><comment><USER50> If you want people to use your platform instead of a competing platform, please make your initial ecosystem cost less than $1000 for me to buy into.

The Apple watch, complete with it's requirement to have an iPhone initially, makes the same kind of derp Apple made with the original iPod only supporting Macs, as a firewire-only product...

I suppose at this point, they just don't even care anymore, what with the fact that anything they make will sell millions of units regardless of anything, but I would have paid $150 for that watch, that's _if_ it would work without an iPhone.

What if I just want a watch? Couldn't that potentially be a much larger market?

Apple, I swear, as an iOS developer you put food on me and my partners' table, but you make it really, really, difficult to actually support you.

<comment><USER50> The cheapest Apple watch for me in Canada right now (correct me if I'm wrong) is a harrowing $449...

Combine that with the minimum $469 I have to spend on an iPhone 5C, which is the cheapest model, and without AppleCare or taxes, I'm already close to $1k.

For $1k, I can get a Surface Pro 3 ($499), a Nokia Lumia 520 unlocked ($179) a pebble smartwatch ($119), still have $200 to spare, and be able to use my watch without my goddamn smartphone.

Give us a break.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Misleading headline; Apple is only rejecting apps that explicitly mention Pebble in their app description and metadata. Nothing to do with the actual functionality. App developers can get their app linked to from any website that lists apps with Pebble compatibility.

<comment><USER50> This needs more upvotes. Although, not being able to mention Pebble support in your description seems to really artificially limit your ability to let your customers know it's supported.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Not surprised at all. They rejected our app because one of the screenshots we had on iTunesConnect had the word 'Android'. We were just showing a job search page and one of the job description had Android in it.

</comment><comment><USER53> That's just great. Capitalism without a free market.

</comment><comment><USER54> Think different. Or else.

<comment><USER8> More like:

Think different _.

_ As long as it's not different from us

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> This is just Apple being Apple, keep calm. They want this market finely roped and controlled, nothing else.

</comment><comment><USER17> Title is misleading. They're not rejecting apps that code in support for Pebble. They're rejecting apps that say they support it in the App Store copy. This is nothing new; you've never been able to mention other platforms in your App Store copy.

<comment><USER56> Title isn't misleading. So you can support the Pebble Smartwatch, you just can't tell anyone about it?

<comment><USER17> Title is completely misleading, as it makes it sound like they're searching inside the binary's symbols for Pebble's SDK. They're not doing that.

You simply cannot use Apple's platform to advertise alternate products. Just like you can't mention Android or Chromecast in your App Store copy. Put it in the app or on your website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> sounds like an antitrust violation or can they only be levied against google and microsft on HN?

</comment><comment> michel-slm Apple's anti-competitive instinct seems to be in overdrive these days. This is additional justification for my instinctive wariness to be sucked into their beautiful, expensive, and sterile walled garden.

</comment><comment><USER58> Gooood case for a brave lawyer to make himself a name. He can try prohibit sales of all Apple products in the EU on the basis of the current anti- monopoly EC legislation using this as a case.

<comment><USER17> If that was a possibility, they would have tried it on the many other things they don't let you mention, like Android compatibility, Chromecast support, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Sorry for the dumb question; but does Apple have absolute control over Apps on its platform; or is it possible to distribute App to iPhone users without store?

<comment><USER60> Mostly. It is possible to distribute applications to jailbroken phones without Apple's help, but that's a minority of phones. When a new version of iOS comes out, a new method of jailbreaking usually needs to be found.

Stock phones can only install apps from the app store, or apps signed for that specific device by a developer. Developer signing is also controlled by Apple, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> It's really amusing that so many of you actually think that Apple is threatened by Pebble in the slightest that they would remove apps that supported it.

<comment><USER62> Pebble actually has more units moved than any other smart watch at the moment. Samsung is second, followed by various Android Wear companies, and then Apple is last. More than threatened, right now they are completely beaten.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I'm shocked ─ shocked! ─ that Apple would do this.

</comment><comment><USER64> It's just a metadata problem, the author of this sensationalist piece even quotes it as such, maybe they're unclear what "metadata" means.

> Please remove any instances of this information from your app and its > marketing materials, including the Application Description, What's New info, > Previews and screenshots.

> Since your iTunes Connect Application State is Rejected, a new binary will > be required. Make the desired metadata changes when you upload the new > binary.

<comment><USER65> > It's just a metadata problem, the author of this sensationalist piece even > quotes it as such, maybe they're unclear what "metadata" means.

I think the issue here is that Apple is reclassifying smart watches as mobile platforms and thusly don't want you including it in your description. If I support a smart watch why the hell can't I MENTION that I support it? That's just unreasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I'm getting an SSL certificate error - the site is presenting a cert for *.vanillaforums.com.

<comment><USER67> The link provided is not HTTPS. Perhaps you have an extension that tries to automatically upgrade your connection to HTTPS?

</comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Total BS title. They are rejecting apps that mention other products in the metadata. If you submit an app that says 'also available on Android' the same thing will happen and it has been enforced for years. The rejection was very clear.

<comment><USER68> It's worse discussing though because mentioning Pebble has _not_ been enforced for years, it only started to be enforced when Apple created a competitive product.

<comment><USER69> Which looks like evidence about the anti-competitive nature of Apple's actions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Hilarious. Serves them right for thinking too different.

</comment><comment><USER71> I like Apple, but like any big company, not everything they do is good. I hope the reaction to this gets them to realize it.

</comment><comment><USER72> Apple is evil.

</comment><comment><USER73> "From Apple 3.1 - Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected"

Doesn't seem that difficult to understand to me. Is this the one?:[https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-us-nautical- charts/id...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-us-nautical- charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8) It looks like they'd have had to add the "works with pebble" item for this go-around.

EDIT: The pebble mention has been in the description for a while: [https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.ap...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav- us-nautical-charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8)

It's just being rejected this time. And why is this surprising behavior from Apple?

</comment><comment><USER73> [https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.ap...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav- us-nautical-charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8)

Okay, so the appstore description _has_ previously mentioned the Pebble version. So I can understand the developer being upset that he's only now getting rejected for it, but he shouldn't exactly be surprised that Apple is finally doing this.

</comment><comment><USER74> Clear your way! Apple Watch is coming!

</comment><comment><USER75> Surely no one's actually surprised by this?

<comment><USER76> I still cannot fathom why outrage is consistently confused for shock or surprise. Prior expectations are 100% irrelevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Until this happens again I would suspect this is just a mistake by whoever reviewed the app for Apple.

<comment><USER78> This is the only sensible reply on this thread. From the response that Apple provided:

> We noticed that your app or its metadata contains irrelevant platform > information in the app. Providing future platform compatibility plans, or > other platform references, is not appropriate for the App Store.

> Specifically, your app and app description declare support for the Pebble > Smartwatch.

It is pretty clear that the reviewer believed that the App was _also_ available for the Pebble Smartwatch, not that the iPhone app supported the Pebble as a peripheral, usable only if you have the app on your phone[1]. On that basis the app was rejected. I understand that the appeal process may be difficult, etc., but let's not get carried away with the idea that this is some grand plan by Apple to kill off all watch-like peripherals.

[1] The peripheral relationship is quite clear, from the FAQ [2]

> The Pebble Smartwatch and your iPhone and iPad need to be paired over > Bluetooth to work together. This connection works over quite a range, 100ft > (30m) in our testing but can sometimes drop. If the SeaNav watch face should > disappear you will need to re-pair your Pebble with your iPhone/iPad.

[2] [https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1eOuyVQ4_VNJ4PKqybr62...](https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1eOuyVQ4_VNJ4PKqybr62C4aTFbmVNLVbotHXG16Uf1Q/pub)

<comment><USER77> The forum OP posted this:

UPDATE 24th April:- Good news. Apple rang me directly late last night UK time at Pocket Mariner , apologised for rejecting our app in error and immediately approved our SeaNav app for sale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> This is really really fine for apple to do as they are just creating an option for a highly curated app store. I mean, if they were attempting to criminalize loading 3rd party apps/using alternative app stores then it would be horrible, but doing that would just be crazy.

</comment><comment><USER80> > 3.1 Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform > will be rejected

[https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#met...](https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#metadata)

</comment><comment><USER81> There's a lot of cries of monopoly in here, yet the iPhone is routinely outsold by Android phones.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

<comment><USER82> I see very few cries of monopoly, and many cries of antitrust. These are not the same thing, at all. This particular instance could be approaching a tying arrangement. It is certainly against the consumer's best interest.

Also, under the Sherman act, _conspiracy_ to monopoly is just as illegal as actual monopoly.

<comment><USER81> I'm probably more progressive than most on HN, and would love to see big conglomerates broken up.

But on this issue, I think the accusations of illegal activity are absurd for multiple reasons.

1) Apple does not have anything near total domination in the mobile arena.

2) Apple clearly has a right to control the content in their App Store. Whether that's removing offensive material or just material they don't like.

3) This is not a new provision being brought out to squash Pebble.

If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS. That's much more of a legitimate antitrust complaint than Apple controlling what content _they host_ in the App Store.

<comment><USER82> > If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers > to modify the software or install custom software on iOS.

I agree, because this is practically the same issue. The app store isn't just _a_ way to get iOS software, it's the _only_ way to get iOS software. Which means that being rejected from the app store means you cannot provide your product to those consumers. Which means Apple rejecting products from the store is _the same thing as_ Apple stating that that company cannot provide that app to customers. You could see where this might become an issue when that reason for rejection has nothing to do with the actual application and everything to do with mentioning a competing product in the description.

If side-loading was permitted, then I think (2) would hold. However, in our current world without side-loading, (2) basically states that Apple has full control over what software products consumers may purchase for their device. IANAL, but to me, that fact could bring antitrust liability.

<comment><USER81> We only differ on whether Apple should be compelled to host content it doesn't want to. I would say no, but it should be compelled to allow iPhone owners to modify their devices and install third party software.

<comment><USER82> I actually haven't stated a position on _solutions_ , only that IMO the current state opens them up to liability. I think allowing for applications to be side-loaded would be a fine solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> "What can we do? Help!" Well, that response from Apple seems pretty clear in describing the solution. Its the iPhone marketplace, not a mall, Apple owns it. They make the rules in their own store, being anticompetitive is allowed in your own store.

</comment><comment><USER84> Makes sense. Apple doesn't want you using their app store in a way that could be promoting their competition.

For example, maybe I'm browsing the app store for new apps and I come across this app in question. Reading the description I see it says something about the Pebble watch...hmmm..I've never heard of this. Now I look it up, it looks cool, I like it, now I want to buy the Pebble instead of the Apple watch.

Their app store - their rules. Just remove mention it and it'll be approved.

<comment><USER85> > Apple doesn't want you using their app store in a way that could be > promoting their competition.

That just seems really messed up. Considering it may not seem so bad since Apple isn't really that diverse but imagine if Google did the same thing at the Play Store. No mention of any other search engines, ad networks, email providers, phones, internet providers, home automation, etc. Pretty sure people would find that unacceptable.

<comment><USER41> Imagine if Google did the same thing in _search_.

<comment><USER86> > In a lengthy investigation, staffers in the FTC's bureau of competition > found evidence that Google boosted its own services for shopping, travel and > local businesses by altering its ranking criteria and "scraping" content > from other sites. It also deliberately demoted rivals.

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-skewed-search- results...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-skewed-search- results-1426793553)

> But at a press conference at the FTC's headquarters, Chairman Jon Leibowitz > said that after an "exhaustive" investigation, the commission found there > was not enough evidence to conclude Google's search results violate fair- > competition laws.

[http://thehill.com/policy/technology/275429-google-dodges- fe...](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/275429-google-dodges-federal- antitrust-lawsuit)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> Not sure what really is the big deal here... Apple had I think such requirements for not mentioning any other products or even mentioning pricing in your product description aka "On sale today only for $0.99" will get the same rejection... It is ok to put a %

So this is nothing new and just one Apple employee/reviewers that follow the rules from the guidelines... If the folks that were submitting the app try to resubmit and remove references of Pebble, most likely their app will be approved without problems.

Since their issue is with the app description, it is simply a metadata rejection of the app, and the developer do not even need to submit a new binary: just edit the app description and problem solved...

It shouldn't even made it in the top HN stories IMHO

<comment><USER24> You seem to be suggesting that this isn't wrong just because a rule exists. That position is predicated on the assumption that the rules themselves cannot be wrong. It is essentially circular logic to try and avoid discussing the topic at all, and the fact you are arguing that "It shouldn't even made it in the top HN stories IMHO" is quite evident of that belief.

An explanation of the rule doesn't really justify Apple's actions in this case, or how this rule has been applied before and after Apple had a competitive product in this specific space. Overall I think Apple's actions are very anticompetitive (maybe not illegally so, but we can still judge/criticise them).

All in all Apple wants to make it harder to find a competitor's product on their store. So they're actually willing to hurt their customer's usability if it means also hurting a competitor's market share. Really shows what their priorities are.

PS - I'd criticise Google or Microsoft for exactly the same thing.

<comment><USER88> > I'd criticise Google or Microsoft for exactly the same thing.

Microsoft was _litigated_ for less. Imagine the uproar arising from "you can't install a browser on Windows if it mentions another OS."

I think it would be fair if they could require that you mention Apple's products alongside competing products ("Supports Pebble and iWatch"). That way I could browse the store for apps supporting my device, without Apple losing business to their own store. I think that's far too much to expect from this anti-competitive behemoth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Flagged since this is complete non-news. Apple Watch is now an Apple product so it's now against the rules to mention Pebble in your app store description, a rule which has been around for a LONG time.

EDIT: OK, OK. Unflagged since you apparently all really want to talk about this. :)

<comment><USER90> It's still a rule worth discussing. I hardly think this deserves to be flagged.

<comment><USER89> I can see the community disagrees with me, which is fine. It just gets very old to see so much uproar over an IMHO completely standard App Store rejection. The rule makes complete sense to me (they don't want you using their App Store to point to competitors), and nowhere is Apple saying apps are not allowed to support Pebble - Pebble itself has an app!

Now, if Apple decides to remove Pebble's own app from the store, that would be a reason for some justified uproar...

<comment><USER91> The purpose of the application description is to describe the features of the application. If your application has Dropbox support then I think you'd agree it's perfectly reasonable to mention Dropbox in your app description. The Pebble is an iOS accessory. It's equally reasonable to describe Pebble support as a feature. This goes beyond simply not mentioning competitors; Apple is preventing developers from describing features of their iOS app. It might be the same rule, but it's being used quite differently and worryingly.

Some apps only exist as companion apps for the Pebble, what are they going to put in their description?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Day One with the Oculus Rift DK2 - <AUTHOR> http://www.roadtovr.com/day-one-oculus-rift-dk2-good-ugly-games/

<comment><USER2> Does anyone have data on how big fonts have to be, to be legible on a DK2? Ie, if you embed a terminal in a virtual world, and give it about 30 degrees of horizontal space, how many characters will that fit?

<comment><USER3> It's a 90 degree FOV, Each eye gets half of 1920, then divided by 3 (30°/90°), you'll get 1920/(3*2) = at least 320 horizontal pixels to work with. There are more pixels in the center due to how the distortion works, so in practice a little more than 320.

(edit: actually, if I recall, the 90° FOV on DK2 is actually a diagonal FOV, so you are looking at a ~78° horizontal FOV)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sounds pretty encouraging. I hope Facebook's financial backing can turn this into a mass market product in a few years. Also interesting that the development kits cost only $350. I wonder if that could drop lower with a bigger production, or if the economy of scale benefits have already been reaped via 3rd party hardware producers.

<comment><USER5> Well, it's entirely possible - probable, even - that Oculus are selling the DK2 at a loss right now (which isn't unheard of at all for development hardware.

<comment><USER6> I doubt they're taking a loss, and I'd be surprised if they're not making a decent profit. What are the components? A 1080p cell phone screen, some cabling, custom plastic enclosure and straps, an IR webcam, and the PCB+components. That's not much, cost wise.

<comment><USER7> I think this very much oversimplifies the costs. From a hardware standpoint this is probably mostly correct, but the problem is the sheer amount of research and talent behind it is not remotely inexpensive. I recall Carmack saying, about a year after he joined Oculus, that he thought getting the latency down would be straightforward (sorry - I can't find a source), but it turned out to be a much harder problem than he expected. And, when Carmack is stuck, I cannot but believe there are intricacies that I could not hope to understand at play. The fact that they have been unable to ship a consumer version after all this time, I think, corroborates that this is a much more difficult problem than just throwing some hardware together and calling it a day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If nothing else, the new elite also supports the dk2, although we may not see the full experience until Monday.

</comment><comment><USER9> This article has made me $350 lighter.

</comment><comment><USER10> Does 'DK2' mean "ready to be released before Xmas" in their language?

<comment><USER11> I think they said if there is DK3 it will basically be production hardware released to a limited number of developers shortly before consumer release.

They have been careful not to say anything about release dates for the consumer device but my understanding is that 2014 is possible but unlikely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> there was also this game I forgot the name but the space ships were so detailed it was amazing when it was demoed on oculus rift.

this new version seems a huge step up from previous version, namely the resolution increase.

I so badly want this now as the low resolution is what has turned me off DK1.

On a side note, I wonder how difficult it will be to see a glove that you can wear and get tacticle feedback?

<comment><USER13> I think it might have been EVE Valkyrie. Although Star Citizen has got to look pretty amazing in the DK2 - Has anyone tried it? I only have the DK1 to play with, unfortunately.</comment></comment>


Libuv 1.0.0 released - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/libuv/GIqzv-Ve1og

<comment><USER2> This is awesome! I'll take a look at the migration guide later tonight and upgrade my projects. He said there are, "big breaking changes," but hopefully it doesn't require too much change. Either way, congrats and thank you for your hard work!!

<comment><AUTHOR> The biggest change is the error handling, but I assure you it's for the better :-) If you run into any trouble don't heasitate to reach out and we'll update the guide in case anything is missing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Congratulations to all involved with libuv for creating such a nice piece of software!

</comment><comment><USER4> btw, [http://libuv.org/](http://libuv.org/) is what it is on purpose or the team never got around to putting together a web page?

<comment><USER5> It's especially weird, considering that I see Sphinx-based docs: [https://github.com/joyent/libuv/tree/master/docs/src](https://github.com/joyent/libuv/tree/master/docs/src)

Seems like they could at least post them in whatever state they are in. Couldn't be any worse than a directory index with some release tarballs.

If I didn't know what libuv was, I'd take one look at libuv.org and immediately look elsewhere (as silly as that is). It'd be very much worth it to get a basic page up that tosses out some links to Github and/or tutorials and stuff!

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right. I hope we can improve that now that the release is out and the preassure is a bit less :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Congrats!</comment>


Judge rules Snowden can't profit from book, it wasn't cleared by NSA and CIA - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/judge-rules-edward-snowden-cant-profit-from-his-book-be-1840503206 <comment><USER2> What does this mean for the people who bought his book? I bought it on audiobook partially because I wanted to read it but equally because I want Snowden to get paid for what he gave up. To me he is a hero and should be rewarded. The last thing I want is for my money to go to the government.

If the repeal falls through and he doesn't get paid then I want to get my money back for it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm glad they're appealing, but I have a feeling his publishers (MacMillan and Holtzbrinck) will eventually cave.

What's more messed up is that they're going after the money he made from speaking at events:

      The judge ruled that the government is entitled to any proceeds from those public talks, though it's not clear how that ruling might be enforced.

<comment><USER4> It's amazing that it's even possible for a government (in the name of "security", or "national security") to prevent someone from profiting off of their experiences in their own personal life.

Land of the free, home of the brave!</comment></comment>


Don't Stay Hungry - <AUTHOR> http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2014/01/dont-stay-hungry.html

<comment><USER2> I think you have misunderstood the 'Stay Hungry' part. It doesn't mean 'Don't Eat'. It means don't get satisfied with success and keep striving for more. There, now I can go have my food with a clean conscience :-)</comment>


Show HN: HelpSite.io – Generate a beautiful FAQ and help site in minutes - <AUTHOR> https://helpsite.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN,

I started HelpSite.io because I was tired of choosing between always reinventing the wheel when it came to building out a support center website manually, or having to use a bulky tool like Zendesk that focuses on a million different features, when all I care about is the hosted knowledge base software.

A few nice things:

* Really fast search, powered by Algolia

* An intelligent contact form that auto-suggests articles

* A generous free plan which even supports custom domains (via CNAME).

[https://helpsite.io](https://helpsite.io)

I'd love to hear feedback and would be happy to answer any questions!

<comment><USER2> I really like the idea. What I don't see is anything about the content creation pipeline. I've been looking for something like helpsite.io, but with a really well done collaborative, markdown editor to publish the content. I don't want to have to build a workflow of several different tools just to publish a knowledgebase article.

Can you share how you envision a distributed team managing the content on a helpsite.io account? Do you have a API I can use to ship content? Or are you planning to solve this as part of the core product someday?</comment></comment>


Google's self-driving Lexus cuts off self-driving Audi - <AUTHOR> https://fortune.com/2015/06/26/google-self-driving-lexus-audi/

<comment><USER2> > "The story was taken completely out of context when describing a type of > complex driving scenario that can occur in the real world. Our expert > provided an example of a lane change scenario that our car recently > experienced which, coincidentally, was with one of the Google cars also on > the road at that time. It wasn't a 'near miss' as described in the Reuters > story".

> Instead, she explained how this was a normal scenario, and the Delphi car > performed admirably.

> "Our car did exactly what it was supposed to," she wrote. "Our car saw the > Google car move into the same lane as our car was planning to move into, but > upon detecting that the lane was no longer open it decided to terminate the > move and wait until it was clear again."

Source: [http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/06/no-2-self-driving- cars-d...](http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/06/no-2-self-driving-cars-didnt- have-a-close-call-on-silicon-valley-streets/)

<comment><USER3> I read the original title and immediately thought that a more accurate title would have been, "Two self driving cars don't hit eachother".

<comment><USER2> They just updated the article it seems with a quote from a Google spokeswoman

> Courtney Hohne, a Google spokeswoman, e-mailed Ars: "The headline here is > that two self-driving cars did what they were supposed to do in an ordinary > everyday driving scenario."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Which raises the question why isn't there a standard protocol so that two near-autonomous car could broadcast and/or negotiate their next move ?

<comment><USER5> Because autonomous cars drive in a world that is 99.99% human drivers, so for automation to be considered viable they have to cope with that not the 00.01% of autonomous-autonomous scenarios.

There is also legitimate security concerns, bad data from bad actors, interference, weather issues, and so on. It is just better to depend on reliable data from sensors and design systems around them, than assuming perfect data from other cars (which might be flawed).

<comment><USER6> Ah yes, very good point, I imagine a trolling-car-communication hack would come very soon after a car-to-car link is created. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Should likely just link to the Reuters article instead:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/us-autos- selfdrivi...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/us-autos-selfdriving- nearmiss-idUSKBN0P601T20150626)

This article is just a snippet of Reuters with nothing added and some stuff removed.

<comment><USER7> If you follow the original link, it turns out Reuters fabricated the whole thing and still hasn't updated their article to retract it. Here's the update:

> A Delphi spokesperson emailed Fortune with the following statement: "During > a demo drive of our automated vehicle, our expert used the interaction with > the Google car as an example of the types of scenarios that the car can > encounter in real-world driving. It was an anecdote of an interaction, not a > 'near miss'. Reuters completely misrepresented the facts."

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _The near collision raises important questions about self-driving cars, including who's responsible when two are involved in an accident._

Simple. The same sort of accident investigation that we do now would take place, and the owner of the car that caused the accident would be liable.

</comment><comment><USER9> Since these Google cars drive around here in the Bay Area, I guess they applied the local driving culture (aggressive) to the self driving cars.</comment>