Facebook's Zuckerberg Preaches Privacy, but Evidence Is Elusive - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-01/facebook-s-zuckerberg-preaches-privacy-but-evidence-is-elusive <comment><USER2> Two points:

\- Focusing on adding e2e encryption for messaging services serves as a nice deflector for FB's privacy issues. Their advertising systems aren't going to change in terms of efficacy and revenue potential if private messages between users are inaccessible to Facebook. I'd be surprised if they're using this data anyway, but it's Facebook, so who knows. In any case, expect the messaging to focus on increasing privacy through message and video encryption, which completely ignores the underlying issue of profile-building and behavior modification that Facebook's non-messaging platforms allow, and which I didn't seem to hear any plans around addressing.

\- IMHO, pretty much all posturing around privacy by Facebook should not be taken seriously until they announce a change to their business model. Since they haven't, it doesn't take much effort to tease out the rest: their business model relies upon surveiling user behavior and selling behavior modification products, so you can expect no announcements around product changes that would undermine those efforts significantly in the name of privacy until their business model changes. Everything until then is just at best noise, at worst dishonest framing to take the heat off of them by those who are ignorant of the underlying dynamics, like regulators or the general public.

<comment><USER3> Just a note on your first point. End-to-end encryption only encrypts messages in transit.

This does not make messages inaccessible to Facebook, as they control both endpoints.

<comment><USER4> End to end means from client to client. Facebook wouldn't be able to see the messages.

<comment><USER5> Not really. End to end encryption means messages will leave the app encrypted and only the recipient app will be able to read them.The middle man remains.

A good analogy: it's like writing a letter and asking the mailman to put it into an envelope, so she leaves the room and comes back with your sealed envelope.

The mailman then looks at you and says "I won't read it, I promise.", Wink wink.

That's end-to-end encryption for the commons.

<comment><USER2> The main gap in trust is that facebook does not disclose their source code and have a way for users to confirm their device is running the published code. Fundamentally, if their implementation is properly implementing a published e2e protocol, they should not be able to read the messages, since the only thing traveling in the clear over the wire through their servers are public keys.

<comment><USER6> _> The main gap in trust is that facebook does not disclose their source code_

Nah, nobody gives a damn about the source code, or reproducible builds to ensure the binary they're executing was compiled with that source.

The main gap in trust is that Facebook has a long history of lying and cheating to maximize for themselves so there's no basis to trust that their new moves are good for users.

But conspiracy theories about e2e being read by Facebook are probably bogus, and certainly a distraction.

Even though the source is closed, I'd bet they're doing a credible job of securing messages so that even Facebook can't read them.

That's not the issue, it's a distraction from what's really important.

What's really important is that Facebook has lost control of the monster it created. This is a way to let the monster loose and avoid accountability.

Their platform amplifies harmful content like incitement to violence, terrorist recruiting and coordination, and political propaganda.

By encrypting everything so even Facebook can't read it, Facebook escapes accountability for the harm their platform inflicts on people.

Very similar to a chemical company dumping toxic waste in public water, Facebook is dumping their pollution on the public by using strong encryption to make it physically impossible for Facebook to control the monster they created.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > "It's going to take time," Zuckerberg said of Facebook's privacy-focused > future. "I'm sure we're going to keep on unearthing old issues for a while, > so it may feel like we're not making progress at first. But I think that > we've shown, time and again as a company, that we can do what it takes to > evolve and build the products that people want."

IOW, they'll talk about privacy for a while until everyone stops talking about how evil FB is. Then they'll slowly stop talking about it and work their way back down to where they are now. All the while not actually doing anything at all to change.

<comment><USER8> It's about FB/Zuckerberg redefining "privacy" as being between FB users and talking to that. They don't have to work their way back down from that. Privacy between users and FB (e.g. none, even negative) isn't mentioned at all.

<comment><USER9> _It 's about FB/Zuckerberg redefining "privacy" as being between FB users and talking to that_

Even moreso, it'll be about FB redefinining "privacy" as "whatever FB is doing with their users," then lobbying themselves into a regulatory capture for the nation (globe?) as a whole.

I forget where I heard it, but there's an old aphorism, "of course you're free, because this is what freedom looks like."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Have there ever been any effective privacy limitations that Facebook placed on itself that have done a thing?

We've seen internal memos raising questions effectively ignored. Facebook's own actions seem to indicate there is no limit to what they'll do to users. Their own actions seem to indicate there is no limit to what they'll do to companies that partner with, specifically lie about what level of access they're providing. Their own actions seem to indicate they don't seem to care even when they operate on another platform such as when they released a traffic monitoring VPN on Apple's app store, it was removed by Apple... so they just renamed it and put it out there again.

Facebook as an entity seems antithetical to privacy at its core. It couldn't have grown into what it is with limits... I can't imagine they are capable of being anything else.

<comment><USER11> Depending on the definition of "privacy". Over time they have limited access to their APIs , so that a new "Cambridge Analytica" has a harder time to extract larger amounts of data.

Of course that serves their business: in the beginning they had to be the hub everybody connects to, to get as much attention as possible. Now their business is to monopolize the data, so that ads are sold via their systems.

Framing that as privacy is a great strategy, from Facebook's perspective.

<comment><USER12> > Framing that as privacy is a great strategy, from Facebook's perspective.

Indeed, because it lets them pretend like they're defenders of privacy while being able to completely ignore the privacy threat that Facebook itself presents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > "A lot of the focus is on changing the way that consumer-to-consumer > interaction works," said Greg Sparrow, senior vice president and general > manager at CompliancePoint, a data privacy and security consultancy. "While > that is laudable and it's great that they're doing that, but fundamentally > it doesn't address the problem on the back-end side, which is businesses > gaining access to this information and how they're using it from a data > monetization perspective."

Bingo. Most people on Facebook are well aware of how "public" their posts are but aren't aware of how public their _personal_ information is to advertisers. Facebook's new "privacy" focus isn't intended to solve the platform's real privacy problem, it's intended to distract from it.

Edit: Spelling

<comment><USER14> > Most people on Facebook are well aware of how "public" their posts are but > aren't aware of how public this personal information is to advertisers.

How public is it, then? As a Facebook advertiser I've never seen this elusive personal information collected from the masses, available for indiscriminate pickings. Facebook only sells access to eyeballs coupled with anonymized targeting based on this personal information you refer to, not the information itself.

<comment><USER13> The average Facebook user is largely unaware of how Facebook tracks their activity far beyond what they say and do on facebook.com in order to harvest data about their personal lives: their financial situation, their relationship status, their medical history, etc. Just because you can't download a file of someone's personal information "for indiscriminate pickings" doesn't mean they aren't selling access to it.

For example, someone might be gay and haven't yet told friends and family. Facebook probably knows from their browsing history. How difficult would it be for someone to run an ad on Facebook, cleverly disguised as an "article" to encourage clicks, targeting gay people in a particular region. Five minutes, tops? Well every gay person who clicks on that link has just given away their IP address and location information and the purchaser of that advertisement has a pretty accurate list of gay people and where they might be located. Hopefully they're using that list for benign purposes but who's to say?

Do you think the average Facebook user is aware of how their information is leaked by simply clicking on a link in a Facebook advertisement?

<comment><USER14> You (or someone who believes the same) should actually try this experiment and see if the reality matches the expectation, to any level of (potentially) destructive accuracy.

<comment><USER15> Here's a paper that describes it, confirmed with real profiles, not just speculation: [https://hal.archives- ouvertes.fr/hal-01955327/document](https://hal.archives- ouvertes.fr/hal-01955327/document)

<comment><USER14> Thank you, I appreciate the reference. I'll take a deep look at this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Isn't this at least the 3rd time he says these things?

Unless there is a complete engineering stop and development of privacy policies and tools, and review of all existing tools and processes the necessary cultural change will not occur.

Facebook would have the money to do that and possibly have positive change throughout the industry if they would do something like this. Like Microsoft made the Secure Development Cycle a thing in the early 2000s.

But I'm already reading news how now all Facebook messaging platforms will be able to send messages to each other - sure thing that that violates everything WhatsApp stood for in past. Also, tons of privacy questions that come up with such merges of technology and the data it connects.

</comment><comment><USER17> Cookie Monster Preaches Restraint, but Evidence is Elusive

<comment><USER18> This is such a fantastic analogy I'm not sure if it's funnier or scarier

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Privacy?" Hah! More like "plausible deniability for fueling ethnic violence." If they can't read the messages, then they aren't responsible. Meanwhile, most of the useful ad targeting data is in the metadata, which they still collect. They're truly shameless.

This is also funny, in a grim sort of way:

> Late last year, Facebook admitted that Clear History is taking longer than > expected -- it turns out that browsing data, which the company uses to help > send more targeted advertising to users on its social platforms -- is more > deeply ingrained into Facebook's systems than anyone realized. Simply > finding and deleting the correct data without disrupting Facebook's > advertising and analytics businesses has been a big enough challenge that > the product hasn't gotten off the ground...

If Facebook were serious about this, they could easily implement a "nuke all of my data" option that would wipe all of your history. Not just the stuff gathered from beacons, but everything, so people could start over from scratch with their new understanding of how Facebook operates.

But they clearly aren't serious. I suspect that the only real "clear history" option will be exporting your data, deleting your profile, and making a new one, preferably using a new email address from a public computer.

</comment><comment><USER20> Facebook will not change until there is sufficient external pressure - be that an authority, competition, etc. - to force it to change. End of. We've seen the same story for the last couple of years; Facebook is bad with privacy, Facebook makes token attempt to improve privacy, Facebook gets busted for being bad with privacy, and repeat.

<comment><USER21> Facebook will never change... it will just become irrelevant one day.

<comment><USER20> I'm fine with that. Sooner the better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The unfortunate part is that Facebook is designed to replicate the addictive qualities of sugar and even more heavier drugs like cocaine.

As a result, it's not that you can't make your own social platform, it's that your platform lacks critical components for instant gratification.

Maybe I am wrong though. Open to discussion for my perspective.

<comment><USER23> I have been putting thought into a social platform that would truly be for users and not just a gamification of attention.

\- First it would have a cost, either in money to pay someone to develop/run the platform or in time/knowledge to tinker with some open-source solution. That shouldn't be a problem as the target market is the group of people who are making a conscious choice to dodge the ad platform. BUT it does severely reduce the network effect, possibly down to the point of becoming an ultra- specialized niche club.

\- Then, there's the point you bring up: you'll essentially be trying to sell steamed broccoli inside of a candy store.

<comment><USER13> I've also been thinking about something like this modeled something like a mutual fund. I actually don't think people have an issue with the ads as much as they have an issue with the lack of transparency & control over the information that's "leaked" by interacting with the ads. The approach I've been tinkering with is:

\- User data is held in a trust with independent trustees (like a mutual fund complex) who oversee and set limits on _how_ the platform company uses the data for advertising.

\- Users can "withdrawal" their data at any time.

\- Instead of micro-targeting individual users advertisements would be sold to groups (like a mutual fund) based on anonymized data from the users who choose to join that group.

\- Users could "invest" in a particular group by joining groups that reflect their interests and creating content/posts in those groups. Daily up votes would represent the creators "share" of the advertising proceeds to that group (like dividends) so good content is rewarded.

\- Development/maintenance would be paid by a flat % of advertising revenue taken off the top before the "profits" are distributed to "shareholders."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is analogous to Google declaring one fine day that its getting out the advertising business, but adding security features to do so. MZ describes steps to improve security and retooling history features to have less immortality and permanence, but people already share facebook posts and profiles as images, not only as stateful markup. People will continue to expose each other and there's essentially no way Facebook can guarantee privacy in that regard. Limiting partner access to user data will ultimately be a trade-off of what they can afford to lose and that's not a commitment to privacy either.

His proposed strategy doesn't really makes sense and seems like misdirection and lip-service. You can't change the way people use Facebook, but you can forgo any pretense of privacy, which may be the only thing that can honestly and realistically be done.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you have made a pact with FIST (FB/Insta/Snap/Twitter) or the other members of the gang, then it is akin to jumping in a pool of sharks after cutting yourself open ─ not even the friendliest of sharks is going to resist the urge to rip you apart and feed itself!

These breaches and preaches are now a daily occurrence, having found a new level of tedium, especially since overtly parasitical behaviour has long been admitted and identified within certain ecosystems.

</comment><comment><USER26> Like investments, the implicit question of whether one can trust Facebook (etc.) going forward is actually orthogonal to their current or previous behaviour. Whilst it might inform and be predictive to a great degree, there is no way to bind "future Facebook" to any real guarantees. In Debian licensing, we call this the "tentacles of evil" test..

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm reminded of the scorpion and frog fable for some reason.

</comment><comment><USER28> It's like an atheist who preaches about religion or a Ponzi scheme fraudster talking about fundamentals of economics.

</comment><comment><USER29> I think that the new User Interface that Facebook is rolling out will show whether or not Facebook has a real commitment to privacy.

<comment><USER30> > I think that the new User Interface that Facebook is rolling out will show > whether or not Facebook has a real commitment to privacy.

How would you determine if the new user interface provided (or not) any [new or perceived] level of privacy?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I am indifferent to FB. They started with a promise, then they realized the money potential and went ahead abusing it. They were caught and faced some flak. They realized that people have started caring about privacy. Hence this new pitch. I don't say the Mark Zuckerberg is evil, he himself is helpless. He can't change the FB DNA overnight, it would risk the very existence of the company. In summary, don't expect things to change anytime soon.

<comment><USER32> No, he is evil. He called people who gave FB data "... dumb f#@$s" back when he was 19. It was just that in the beginning they weren't pushing the monetization yet. Now that is all it is about and people are starting to understand how they are being exploited. The only thing that has changed is that you are aware. _HE_ is the FB DNA.

<comment><USER33> Not that I disagree with you, but when people bring this up I like to point out that I said a lot of stupid stuff as a teenager, and the vast majority would be lying if they claimed that they didn't, too.

<comment><USER32> That's a fair point and I'd be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt if he behavior had changed in the last 15 years. The recent app around VPN and teens shows that he doesn't care (and they renamed and republished that app multiple times).

<comment><USER34> > they renamed and republished that app multiple times

Do you have a source for that? I'm only aware of Onavo code being shared with another FB survey app which was running in parallel (ie, not the same app renamed and republished)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me 100 times, shame on me...

</comment><comment><USER36> I think "elusive" is a particularly kind word...

</comment><comment><USER37> Why are we still listening to anything that tech CEOs say?

There seem to be absolutely no consequences to their repeated misdirections and outright lies.

</comment><comment><USER38> LOL, evidence is in plain sight.

</comment><comment><USER39> People really need to stop listening to what Zuckerberg says and judge him on his actions.

That way, you'll see that the 'dumb fucks' comment his made in his youth was not merely an example of immature cockiness tempered over time by maturity, but rather a profound insight into who he is and what he wants.

</comment><comment><USER40> The Big Lie?

</comment><comment><USER41> I am producing baking soda. Unfortunately it is also containing arsenic. But it is very popular baking soda and I am making a lot of money. Some people complain so I make a pledge that one day I will change my production process to make my baking soda arsenic-free.

<comment><USER42> If I understand your analogy, you're saying that privacy violations are like food-safety violations: they should be prevented by legislative action and government force. I think the analogy is flawed. When you die from poisoning, it's an irremediable situation; you can't just say, "I'll never do business with them again!" and fix it. Also, you have to eat something; you can't opt out of the whole market. Finally, it directly affects your physical safety, so that intentional disregard of food safety is akin to violence.

Facebook's problems, and privacy violations in general, are different. It's not necessary to engage in mediated social interaction; you can opt out with no loss except convenience. There's no bodily harm, let alone death, so if you're burned once, you can simply never do business with them again.

That means the market _could_ fix this problem. That it hasn't says that there aren't enough people who agree that it is a problem, or that the cost is worth the benefit to them. In a case like that, not legislation but education is the solution.

<comment><USER43> Once they've gathered information about you and sold it, you can't take it back. For most people living in western democracies, living with no privacy won't kill you but where is the guarantee your government and the corporations it empowers will always be so benign?

<comment><USER42> I thought about mentioning that, but even under less liberal governments, the case where an invasion of privacy is fatal is pretty exceptional. I decided not to muddy my exposition with it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Frieze Groups (1996) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.glassner.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CG-CGA-PDF-96-05-Frieze-Groups-May96.pdf <comment><USER2> Please, please, please more group theory and pure mathematics on HN! The year we see visual and interactive descriptions about subjects in pure mathematics, as we today see about MDPs, will be the year we reach a true new adaptive valley, rather than just picking low-hanging fruit from this local maxima filled with eighteenth century maths.

<comment><USER3> If you liked that, then you'll love Visual Group Theory[1]. The first two chapters are online, and I believe free and legal to download [2].

[1] From the publisher's site: [https://www.maa.org/press/books/visual-group- theory](https://www.maa.org/press/books/visual-group-theory)

[2] [http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~dzb/teaching/421Fall2014/VGT- Ch...](http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~dzb/teaching/421Fall2014/VGT-Ch-1-2.pdf)

Previously on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11745486](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11745486)</comment></comment>


Worst Roommate Ever - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/jamison-bachman-worst-roommate-ever.html <comment><USER2> Reminds me of the ethics of the modern startup. "Whats the problem, its all legal"</comment>


Venture Capital Down 50%. It's Not Just the Recession, Folks. - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/17/venture-capital-down-50-it%e2%80%99s-not-just-the-recession-folks/ <comment><USER2> Note this much more detailed analysis, lurking down the page with a lower score due to its lack of a linkbait title:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=568060>

</comment><comment><USER3> From what I hear most viable start-ups (those with traction) are having an easy time finding VC. It's the 2nd and 3rd tier companies that can't find capital.

</comment><comment><USER4> _They're not sure how to do their jobs anymore when nothing can go public and acquisitions are few and far between._

Dividends.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think it's time for VCs to become (lacking a better word) nicer: throw multiple liquidation preferences on history's scrap heap, start paying startup's legal fees instead of making the startup pay theirs, and allow founders to have more control of their company. VCs and entrepreneurs should meet on equal footing. The VC should not be the boss in the corporate sense; he's a client, and the entrepreneur is a wealth manager.

If VCs make the process unpleasant for startups, they're going to be smashed by selection bias: marginal startups will deal with them, but the great ones will hold out until they have so much traction that they don't need VC, and can dictate the terms to investors rather than the other way around.

An example of this would be the infamous multiple liquidation preference. If a company is in such a defeated state that it would accept a deal with a multiple liquidation preference, your likelihood of losing the principal is extremely high, and you probably shouldn't make the deal at all.</comment>


Is Bootstrap the best developer framework? - <AUTHOR> http://devrates.com/project/list

<comment><USER2> Maybe not the best, but I think it solves one of the most painful problems. It's bring some good design to the ones that most needed (we programmers).

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't understand the relevance of the link.</comment>


We must cut out meat and dairy before dinner to save the planet - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/28/meat-of-the-matter-the-inconvenient-truth-about-what-we-eat <comment><USER2> The article was a bit light on hard values, does anyone have good sources? Googling, main pages which come up seem to indicate the impact is only ~15% of total GHG emissions [1][2]. This doesn't seem like much overall for sweeping lifestyle changes, are these values wrong or am I missing something here?

Granted [1] isn't a great source, but hard to find.

[1] [https://www.meatinstitute.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/47385/pid/...](https://www.meatinstitute.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/47385/pid/47385)

[2] [http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/](http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is unfortunately very black and white, which is unfortunate because the topic deserves discussion.

Eating _less_ meat (and less red meat in particular) is still beneficial. One doesn't need to go 100% off meat to have a very positive effect.

I eat a mostly vegan diet, which I think still counts, but in many people's books it doesn't matter because of the 2 servings of meat/eggs I have a week. That's ridiculous, and makes these discussions about ideology rather than positive measurable changes.

Veggie burgers are getting damn good these days too. If people would just give this a try (and leave out the politics), I think they'd find 3+ days a week without meat is no problem.

Also - this article points out some extreme flaws in the original Guardian story: [https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat- global-...](https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global- warming.htm) , quote "in the USA, fossil fuels are responsible for over 10 times more human-caused greenhouse gas emissions than animal agriculture."

Sounds like some extreme skepticism is warranted when interpreting these numbers (as usual).

<comment><USER4> Did you read the article? This article is arguing large reductions, not complete eliminations. How is that black and white?

A talk I attended by this same author, in maybe 2010, is what caused me to dramatically decrease my meat intake. His framing was compelling: eating meat is bad for several reasons, but also enjoyable and hard to avoid, so just eat a lot less.

Since that day my intake has easily been < 50% of what it was before, probably closer to 75% less. I just don't eat meat unless I have a good reason to: social gathering/celebration, really bad alternatives, or just a day where my willpower is low due to some other emotional load.

It really hasn't been hard, and is getting easier with things like Impossible Burger.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Eat as much meat as you want, just leave away what you are eating out of habit and not because you actually want. This will go a long way already. Since you are not cutting down the meat which you _actually want_ to eat, it does not feel like a sacrifice.

Works well for me.

</comment><comment><USER6> I want a law forcing companies to allow employees to work from home. Much, much more savings than skipping meat.

<comment><USER7> I am assuming you don't run a company

<comment><USER6> No, but I produce twice more when I'm at home rather than in the office.

<comment><USER7> and what works for you should be forced into law, of course!

I dream of a world of less laws. A world where if a boss sees that an employee performs better at home, he can let them. And where he can also choose not to.

<comment><USER6> > I dream of a world of less laws.

This is definitely not what's gonna happen if we want to tackle climate change. As for the remote working, I guess that more than a fair assessment from employers, there is some cultural resistance that could be changed with a bit of encouragement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You're going to have to make me.

<comment><USER9> You're being down voted but you're making an extremely important point. It's very, very difficult to convince people to reduce their quality of life because something bad is going to happen in the future to people who may or may not be them. You see this all over the place in other domains such as diet (people know they should eat less but don't), exercise (people don't do it), personal finance (people don't save), alcohol and drug use (people don't stop), medication compliance (people can't be bothered to take their meds), security (people can't be bothered to do best practice), etc; and those are problems that directly affect them with shorter time horizons. You're fighting human nature, and you're going to lose. Further, you have a collective action problem where no one is going to act because they don't want to be the person who has to reduce QOL while other people don't. I firmly believe that people will not get onboard with reduction of consumption en masse and that the only way to solve the problem of climate change is to innovate our way out of the problems while maintaining analogous QOL.

I applaud the general HN community for taking a stand against the problem and making sacrifices, but the reality is that most other people won't, and I think we should have that discussion.

<comment><USER8> Exactly.

 _IF_ this is the crisis we are being assured it is, the _only_ solution is technological. We've spent thousands of years improving the quality of the life of the average human and now a new set of aspiring tyrants on a great moral jihad believe we must reduce our quality of life.

It won't work. And the fight that might come to pass would be a catastrophe unto itself.

We either deal with this technologically or it doesn't get dealt with at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How long before The Guardian publishes an article about how "we must eat insects for dinner to save the planet"?

<comment><USER11> They've been floating this idea for years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Might as well go ahead and keep dangerously depleting ground-water reserves to grow almonds for almond milk... because "progress"...

[0][https://sustainability.ucsf.edu/1.713](https://sustainability.ucsf.edu/1.713)

</comment><comment><USER13> Instead of thousands of people saying 'over their dead bodies' or some such reply its best for governments to just tax it just like cigarettes.

<comment><USER8> _its best for governments to just_

No.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wouldn't be surprised if the planet is beyond saving and even if the majority of people started consuming a vegetarian diet. The real culprit is the nonexistent checks & balances for using excessive resources in industries. Laws should be doing more than fining people and where the current fines aren't being a deterrent.

The same should be said for cities refusing to build homes for affordable living and where public transportation should make sense contrary to owning personal transportation. The newer generation isn't going to just adapt to a lesser quality lifestyle in the current climate of seeing their parents afford homes in their early 20s and with higher education being without debt. The young generation has a mentality that it isn't about them at all and they're not going to adapt. The older generation is making off like bandits and similarly will do nothing.</comment>


Mailbox, from Dropbox (plus 1 GB of space to your Dropbox) - <AUTHOR> http://www.mailboxapp.com/app/

<comment><USER2> Great, so now we don't even make email clients anymore; now we make Gmail clients. The open Internet sure is alive and well in the age of Google.

<comment><USER3> A lot of people use Gmail. A lot of people use iOS. The Gmail iOS client is pile of shit. That's an opportunity if I ever saw one.

Mobile email is hard. Those old standard email protocols don't cut it. Now, if you're willing to hand over your IMAP or POP3 username and password to Microsoft or RIM, they'll be happy to run your private email through their servers to your phone.

Edit: What's with the down votes?

Is it because I said the Gmail iOS client is a piece of shit? Well, it really is unreliable and unusable garbage. If it wasn't then that's what we all would be using.

Is it because I said mobile email is hard? Well, it is. That's why everyone here is looking for a better mobile email client.

Is it because I said IMAP and POP3 don't cut it? There's never been a remotely decent mobile IMAP or POP3 client. If there was, that's what we'd all be using.

It's 2015. Email has been around for 30+ years and everyone uses it, yet it remains an unsolved problem for many people.

<comment><USER4> > Those old standard email protocols don't cut it.

IMAP IDLE works fine for me. Mail notification within milliseconds of arrival.

What do you feel is broken?

<comment><USER5> The folder analogy is completely broken; tags have shown to be much more useful.

Disclaimer: I'm a maintainer of Sup, which is born on the same idea that tags + good search is much better than folders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just don't want to take read/dealt-with emails out of my inbox. Which Mailbox can be configured to work with - only it shows 4,400 "unread" messages as a badge icon. The options available in-app are "always show 1," "show number of messages in inbox," and "never show any"

I want to see the number of unread messages in the inbox only. Not the total number. Not an arbitrary number. Not zero. Is that too much to ask? Outlook lets me do it, Mail.app lets me do it. It makes sense. So why not? Why force your beliefs and practices and methodologies on me? I have my reasons for keeping all my read mail in my inbox, and I'm not going to change that for a silly app.

<comment><USER7> It's not like they're gone. They just in your archive, two taps away. It's a much more organized way to deal with email, at least for me.

<comment><USER6> But they're also moved upstream at the IMAP provider, no? Anway, the problem is that it doesn't work unless you exclusively use their client/their method..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can't help but think they have given up on the Mac client. It's been at version 0.3.14 for an unbelievably long amount of time--so long that I've just gone back to Mac Mail.

<comment><USER9> Airmail 2 is pretty good. Kind of has some interesting bugs with the rules creator but it looks nice and functions well.

<comment><USER10> I've been using Airmail for about 3 months.

It's nice but has many frustrations in the UI - especially when dealing with large message threads.

<comment><USER11> I have been using Airmail for about an year. It like it, and live with its issues such as slow startup (because I have many mailboxes), and irresponsive when network changes or when machine wakes from standby; I have to always force quit it.

<comment><USER12> That's basically the same list of issues that Sparrow had.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Really, really wish they would add IMAP support for the rest of us that would prefer not to use Google for email. FastMail + Mailbox would be killer.

( I use Mailbox with my work email and love it )

</comment><comment><USER14> Pretty cool. I wish it supported regular IMAP accounts. We could use a modern general mail client. Gmail is quite well-served already.

<comment><USER15> Definitely.

Mailbox's only distinguishing feature is task-based email. By making it GMail only, there's not really much to set it apart from the official task-based Gmail client (Inbox). Inbox works really well, so I'm not sure what the purpose of Mailbox is at this point.

General IMAP support would be a _huge_ plus.

<comment><USER12> AFAIK, Inbox still only supports @gmail.com addresses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Where's IMAP support? FastMail + Mailbox would be killer.

</comment><comment><USER17> As much as I love Mailbox's flow for handling my email, I can't get over the performance issues and random crashes with the app. After a few weeks of usage the app slows down on launch and becomes a chore to use.

In contrast, Outlook (previously Acompli) is very stable. It may require more taps to do something like move an email to a specific label, but at least the app performs well and hasn't crashed on me once.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm confused. Is this the same Mailbox that I've been using on my iPhone for like two years? Why is this news?

<comment><USER19> I was asking myself the same question and the answer is yes: nothing new to see here...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sweet thanks! just d/l client on phone and open it and click link to dropbox and you get the extra GB.

</comment><comment><USER21> anyone know whats new here, if anything?

<comment><USER22> pretty sure absolutely nothing, it's really weird. millions and millions of people were on their waitlist when they launched, I'm pretty sure everyone knows about it.

<comment><USER23> old news indeed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Awesome thanks! I just got notified that nearly 50% of my current capacity is getting revoked because the giveaway from the college Space Race promotion was only for a limited time, so the extra gig is helpful! (And I'll try out Mailbox too, I guess...)

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't personally see what problem this is solving. As with Carousel, Dropbox hasn't wowed me with their releases lately. What is compelling about this over the thousands of other mail clients / gmail skins out there?

</comment><comment><USER26> I've been using Mailbox for quite a while, and I find the concepts and design of it to be quite good.

It's just a shame that it's tied to gmail and forces you to use Dropbox. Makes it useless for many of us at work.

</comment><comment><USER27> Why did Dropbox make an email client?

<comment><USER6> They didn't. They bought out a company that did, quite a while back actually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The correct title should be: Plus 1 GB of Dropbox space (and Mailbox)

</comment><comment><USER29> Email is the most difficult protocol to manage that is still alive these days on the internet, so no one can implement it besides three or two companies. It is difficult to understand why people like having these @gmail or @outlook names.

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't use gmail, so mbsync + mu4e for me.

</comment><comment><USER31> I tried Mailbox ... did not really work for me.</comment>


Can you learn to code in a college Computer Science program with a Chromebook? - <AUTHOR> https://www.aboutchromebooks.com/news/can-you-learn-to-code-in-a-college-computer-science-program-with-a-chromebook/ <comment><USER2> TLDR: Yes, if you dare to live dangerously and sacrifice convenience.</comment>


Staying productive during money crisis? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
I formerly sold 3d printers with my company; now as that market pretty much crashed, I'm now doing 3d design/engineering work for 3d printable designs to keep me alive (and actually which I enjoy doing!).
I've been doing project based work for a client the past two month now and have received good feedback from my employer. The first month paid okay, the subsequent projects that I was assigned to are a workload of 2-3 month combined and I'm only getting paid according to one month of work for those. I've let my employer know about my unstable money situation and that I require more money and more time for these projects or otherwise lots of shit will happen here.
I've started with one of these projects and worked 14 actual work days on that so far and it's nowhere near the point I can ask money for completion. I've got a negative feedback from my employer about raising the budget for the project, only that it's not time critical to finish it and take my time to fix my money situation otherwise...
I've got a bunch of problems
- My company is so out of money that it cannot buy new stock, nor pay myself (for now 2 month in a row)
- If I let my company crash, I'm partially responsible out of my own pocket (which will turn my current 4-digit debt into a 5-digit debt) and it will disable me access to a lot of tools it has (i.e. big machinery like a lathe)
- I don't have another employer and I do not know how to get another one
- My productivity shuts down completely when I have to worry about money
Last thing is my biggest problem to all. I've had it from January to April combined with some other issues I had. I've then started working on the projects of my current employer with the prospect of getting financially stable. I was quite immediately happy, I was productive. I've impressed people by what I've done.
Now that I worry about money again, I cannot (literally) get a thing done. <comment><USER2> I know what you mean, that's a chronic thing for me. I'm periodically freaking out about money to the point of shutting myself down - even more so now that I have 3 children to take care of. Even though if I have to look at it objectively my income has actually jumped up dramatically over the past 10 years. I figured it's not actually about the money, it's about what goes on in your head.

So I only have one piece of advice for you: Stop whining. Change the story you're telling yourself in your head every day all day long. Not as in "make up shit that's not true and pretend it is", no. More as in a gentle shift in focus... like, stop looking at a few problems that you think you have and shift your attention instead to the INFINITE JOY AND ABUNDANCE THAT SURROUNDS YOU ALL DAY EVERYDAY NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO.

That's the best you can do. And is the only thing that works. Despite what everyone else is telling you, struggle and hard work are soo over-rated. Life is supposed to be easy, and until you start believing that, you will always have these problems.

<comment><AUTHOR> true words, true words...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There really are only two things you can do:

1\. Get professional help or even find a support network to help you face your fears of a lack of money

2\. If you feel that insecure, then embrace the idea that's who you are and don't run a business or work as a freelancer

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. I am seeing a therapist bi-weekly and I talked about this to her.

2\. I have no alternative to that as I hate 9-5 jobs as I'm terrible unproductive doing them. I'm productive 3-4h max a day and that time shifts between mornings and late evenings every day.

<comment><USER3> I think if you're getting help that's a good start</comment></comment></comment>


How Apple became a car company - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3042538/apple-has-a-thing-for-cars <comment><USER2> That article makes sense and is along those lines what I would expect. The prediction is at the end and says to expect the car by 2025, which is 10 years from now.

That would makes sense. A complete car development within the industry is about 5 years with some companies shortened it to 4 years.

All those articles with "Apple has the experience" are non-sense. Because, if Apple had the experience, they would not need to hire that many automotive engineers. Apple has the money to buy in those experts and Apple has to money to build things for years without the need to make profit on it.

<comment><USER3> I think the bigger manufacturers are now pushing vehicle platforms from 7 to 10 years; with mid-cycle refreshes hitting every 3-5 years.

Full development includes a new platform / new engine. Mid-cycle refreshes are only updates to the exterior / interior, with some potential refinements to the platform and engines.

Theres finally been a shift to modular platforms too - VW's MQB/MLB is the first that comes to mind and it covers pretty much their most popular sellers in the entire group (Skoda through to Audi).

The smaller manufactures (Mazda, Suzuki etc) are definitely more aggressive, new models hitting every 5 years with a refresh every other or third year.

It's also a bit more complex because the development of engines / platforms / vehicles isn't always synchronised; so what does happen very often is that a brand new vehicle is release, then some time later it comes with additional engine / transmission options, followed by a facelift, followed by a platform update, and so on; so you never truly get an "all-new from the ground up" vehicle that often.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do you really 'love' or even just 'like' your car? I quite like mine, but only because there are no better alternatives. For my taste there are so many aspects that could be made easier to use or even just plain removed if you start with a fresh design.

Years ago I've read that Jobs himself drives a BMW. Driving a top model BMW series 3 on a job myself, I couldn't believe Jobs would not feel the urge to create something better than this. Then there were stories (maybe around 2008 or later) about a famous Audi designer now working for Apple. At this moment I was sure we'd get a car from Apple. Then Jobs died...

So I'm very happy now to read that Apple may be working on a car.

<comment><USER5> If you think working on modern cars is difficult enough, wait until you have to book an appointment at the Apple Grease Bar to replace your floor mats.

I'm sure Apple could bring some design panache to the auto industry, but with their history of Vader-gripping their ecosystem, they are the last company I'm inviting into my garage.

<comment><USER4> While I agree with you regarding the PC and smartphone industry, this can't be said about the auto industry today.

Does Mercedes license their engines for others? Can you install the BMW system software on any other car brand?

You can buy third party tires just as you can buy third party iPhone and MacBook cases. You can replace your brake discs with third party or original parts just as you can get your iPhone/MacBook battery replaced in a third party shop or the official Apple Store.

So in my opinion, even before the arrival of Apple, the automotive industry is already in such a lock-in mode. If history repeats itself you will however be able to buy an Apple car or a Google car ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The "fast-followers" in the electric car business trying to play catch-up with Tesla are mostly existing fuel car companies, and they have a lot of assets in their favor: huge teams of experienced car designers, manufacturing and distribution facilities, dealerships, etc.

It will be interesting to see whether Apple has sufficient resources (not just financial, but people/cultural) to get a home run or even base hit as a fast- follower.

One thing is certain, consumers should certainly benefit from all this competition.

<comment><USER2> Which fuel car company do you think is a "fast-follower".

Daimler is prototyping electric cars since the 1990. Some based on battery and others based on fuel cells, which is basically hydrogen. The original A-series was supposed to be all electric, but just before going public those plans where canceled.

BMW has an heritage on electric cars into the 1980.

Renault sold mid 1990 small sized electric cars.

Remember, the electric hype started with the Prius at about a time when Toyota was about the cancel the Prius. They did not, because it happened that oil became very expansive and so many US Hollywood stars and following many US citizens bought one. With that the idea of the electric car was "born".

<comment><USER7> All those 100% electric efforts were basically complete failures. Tesla showed them all that it is possible (and profitable) to manufacture electric cars. Without Tesla leading the way, do you really think any of those fuel car companies would have given electric cars another try?

<comment><USER2> Nope. All they worked, but none had a sustainable, payable battery solution. Just to remember you, the car companies develop their cars to work in Alaska as well as in Mohave under almost any circumstances. That is something Tesla does not really delivers. Because Tesla does not really sell to the Average Joe. Tesla sells to the Tech Bubble, to people who are interested in Tech. Originally, Tesla sells a car with a price tag of a BMW 5series, Mercedes E-class, Toyota/Lexus and alike but does not deliver the same interior experience neither the same comfort features in terms of driving experiences. The later one just added because of the cooperation with Daimler.

Btw: I don't see a huge 17" touch screen with an UI of a early 2000 website feeling as an interior experience. And in cockpit design the 17" does not fit at all. A smaller one may would have benefited the cockpit design much more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Cupertino has the cash, the momentum, the expertise, the retail network, and the global experience to position itself as a car company"

I'm seeing essentially the same arguments over and over again for why Apple should obviously get into the car business. They all try to make the case that it's complimentary to what Apple already does, or that Apple has natural expertise to build a luxury car brand, and so on.

Well here's why Apple shouldn't do it: the margins suck.

Apple may do something like $60 billion in profit the next four quarters. In a good year, BMW can generate $5 or $6 billion in profit; Toyota, the world's largest automaker, just managed $17.7b in profit on $249b in sales.

If Apple does everything right, in 15 years they might be able to match BMW's profit and scale.

Why should Apple want to enter a low margin, capital intensive business, when they own one of the greatest high margin businesses in history?

Put another way, through extreme effort and investment, if they're really fortunate, one day they might get a $5 or $6 billion profit business out of it. Approximately equal to boosting their iPhone business by 10%-12% today.

</comment><comment><USER9> While Apple revolutionized some industries in the past, I wonder if manufacturing cars makes any sense for them. Under Steve Jobs, Apple has completely changed computers, the music and entertainment industries, cell phones and mobile devices. They did all this to sell hardware.

I don't see how they can revolutionize the car business anymore than Google or any of the other large companies doing autonomous cars. They're going to have to bring something to the table other than a car. All of the large car companies have autonomous vehicle research programs. They can spin out a product, as they've done when Toyota's Prius became a commercial hit. On the lower end of the scale, there are cars coming from China, possibly India and other nations which are due to hit the US soon. Getting into the auto market against the high end Mercedes, Audis, BMWs, and Italian cars would be a tough market. They would also be competing against well established and loved brands. Not sure what part of the market they would fit in or even target.

<comment><USER10> These are all very good reasons for not bringing out a mobile phone. There were well liked and established brands: Nokia, Motorola, Erickson, Blackberry. There was a glut at the cheaper end.

I have no idea if Apple are working on a car or not. I doubt they would revolutionise the car business any more than they revolutionised the phone business.

But for Apple to make a big dent in a sector that is highly technical but with significant brand and aesthetic factors? That doesn't strike me as being very far fetched at all.

<comment><USER9> "Nokia, Motorola, Erickson, Blackberry. There was a glut at the cheaper end"

None of the dominant phones had what Apple's iphone had. Apple is clearly not catering to the low end/margin business either.

"But for Apple to make a big dent in a sector that is highly technical but with significant brand and aesthetic factors?"

Not sure what you're saying here. But in the past, Apple introduced some major changes to the marketplace around their products. They would have to do that if they want to be competitive in the automotive space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I know they won't do it, but I _wish_ Apple would build a personal transport device instead of a car.

Some combination of an electric bike/scooter/skateboard/Segway -like thing that had the thing that made people _need_ to have one.

The technology is pretty much there, and Apple could do a wonderful job of building this.

<comment><USER12> Yep I can imagine a pretty good techno bicycle that wouldn't need much new invention. iPhone slot for navigation, logging, fitness, cadence measures etc. maybe even recharge it off a dynamo.

A good opportunity for a well designed piece of carbon fibre \ aluminium loveliness that would sell well to their urban base with good margins at the $1500 range. If they really want to demonstrate their design chops then try for a radical fold-up design which have great practicality for combined use with public transport. Current incarnations are expensive, pretty heavy and a bit weird.

If thinking fancifully, then a pop stand and artificial resistance and for dual use as indoor exercise equipment would be pretty cool. Stick a macbook stand on the handle bars and maybe its a new type of "sitting but active" desk.

"Bicycles for the mind" after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Ive is a car snob of the highest order, applying the same kind of withering > put-downs it's easy to imagine his former boss would toss out. "There are > some shocking cars on the road," he says about the Toyota Echo, adding that, > "One person's car is another person's scenery." He refers to the same car as > "nothing … just insipid." Later he expresses his disgust at the fact that > another senior Apple executive drives a Toyota Camry.

Jony Ive was one of the few high level people at Apple I respected. Those comments just lost him most of that respect.

There's being a snob, and there's being a dick. Seriously, _" disgust"_? At someone driving a _Camry_? From someone who _" totaled" a DB9 a month after getting it?_ Maybe he should get a Camry...

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "At someone driving a Camry?"

His disgust is not with the driver/owner but with the design.

<comment><USER13> The one non-subjective aspect of design (other than cost, obviously) is functionality, and the Camry is one of the more functional cars on the road.

Every other aspect of design is subjective. One person's Porsche is another's Ferrari. One's BMW is another's Merc.

Also, the article (although possibly misquoting), states that Ive's disgust is with the exec driving the Camry, not the Camry itself.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "Also, the article (although possibly misquoting), states that Ive's disgust is with the exec driving the Camry, not the Camry itself."

Here is the text direct from the source article - the New Yorker profile - (that this article is referencing):

"Jeff Williams, Apple's senior vice-president of operations, drives an old Toyota Camry. Ive's verdict, according to Williams, is "Oh, God.""

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> OSX/ios may not be able to tuned into an real-time systems for iCar(if it existed);and considering the quality of Apple's software in recent years,I would say:there is still a long journey.

<comment><USER15> This has literally – _literally_ — no relevance. No car would ever run a Darwin stack, except perhaps on some kind of user interface, where the demands are totally different.

<comment><USER14> Tks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I genuinely hope this works out well.

I purchased an iPhone 3G because it was among the first phones to support fast internet connectivity and there was nothing like the App Store at the time. I'm not sure I could afford or would even want an iCar, but if it's successful, it paves the way for a revolution in the auto industry (bring on rooted ECUs with a marketplace of modules, and 3D printed replacement parts and after market upgrades!)

<comment><USER17> > I purchased an iPhone 3G because it was among the first phones to support > fast internet connectivity

You're joking? The _original_ iPhone was mocked for not having 3G because that was a pretty standard smartphone feature by 2007.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, I mean...it's sort of silly to "hate" on Apple over iPhone features these days since the major stuff is common across similar platforms but when the iPhone came out it was missing a huge chunk of the things that made a smartphone "smart".

They clearly made up for it in a smart manner by offering the things the competition wasn't offering (ergonomics, responsive interface, etc) rather than trying to match them feature for feature. But I confess that as a smartphone user I was a bit baffled at how they expected to sell a smartphone that didn't have 3G, GPS, third party apps, MMS, copy/paste, multitasking, or even a front camera for video calls or streaming on wifi.

Granted, in retrospect all I did was show how little I understood about consumer markets and demands because to people that hadn't been using whatever fancy-pants HTC TyTn was out at the time, it was a huge jump up from their feature phones and wasn't as off-putting to the new user.

But yeah...lack of 3G was one of the things I just couldn't deal with after having it for the previous couple of years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Ford O21C concept car for the 1999 Tokyo Motor Show. Resembling one of the > bulbous, multicolored first-gen iMacs,

It resembles an Orange Austin 1800 [1] to me.

[1] [http://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/photos- tatton0804/austin_1800...](http://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/photos- tatton0804/austin_1800_mk1_76.htm)

</comment><comment><USER20> If Elon Musk and Tesla can do it, Apple can. My guess is Tesla-style is the type of positioning they're looking at in the market.

</comment><comment><USER21> Mentioning that Jobs's father was auto mechanic is very cheesy argument.

</comment><comment><USER22> Steve Jobs was Apple's parents. Apple is realizing that their parents are gone. No rules, they are starting to realize they can do anything they want. Within the limits of their $0.2T cash on hand, of course.

</comment><comment><USER23> As an Apple investor I'm not sure what to think of this.

On the one hand Apple has so much cash on hand that they can do just about anything that they want.

On the other hand I can see developing a car being a huge time and money sink with very little payoff in the end. Apple has huge margins on their computers/idevices while the automakers have razor thin margins on their cars.

I think I would feel better about this if they spun off a separate company to do this.

<comment><USER24> As an Apple investor I'm not sure what to think of this.

On the one hand Apple has so much cash on hand that they can do just about anything that they want.

On the other hand I can see developing a phone being a huge time and money sink with very little payoff in the end. Apple has huge margins on their computers/idevices while the mobile phone manufacturers have razor thin margins on their products.

I think I would feel better about this if they spun off a separate company to do this.

<comment><USER8> At the rate Apple is going, within another two years they're going to have a balance sheet with $100 billion in debt.

They're already at $61 billion, stacked against $178b in cash.

I'll play devil's advocate: they absolutely do not have so much cash that they can do whatever they want.

Another scenario is: via shareholder pressure, they keep upping their commitments to investors. Meanwhile they boost debt to $100 billion, while cash rots to $150 billion. Then they start investing billions into a low margin car business that won't see large profits for two decades. It's actually the setup for a disaster if anything happens and the iPhone loses favor in the market.</comment></comment></comment>


Symbolic Assembly: Using Clojure to Meta-Program Bytecode (2017) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDad1pvwX34 <comment> white-flame It feels to me that "symbolic assembly" is simply creating an AST for the low- level target, instead of just stopping the use of ASTs in the intermediate forms. The larger projects out there might not necessarily go in that direction, but this is very common in smaller utilities that focus on handling byte/vm/machine code.

I could be missing something, but that seems like the TL;DR to me. Once you have easy AST nodes representing the lowest output level, it's simple to manipulate, especially in a Lisp-derived language (which is always a plus in metaprogramming).

</comment><comment><USER2> This kind of use of the CLR makes me more excited about having to learn C# for my internship this summer. (Not saying CLR is lame, but it's not as hot and radical as newer language communities IMO).</comment>


Speed Dating in the 19th Century - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/theprotojournalist/2014/12/15/370323910/speed-dating-in-the-19th-century

<comment><USER2> My mother was a "Tri-Delt" (Delta Delta Delta) sorority girl at the University of Idaho from 1958 to 1962 or so.

While they were permitted to have male visitors in the sorority house, the men could only visit them in the parlor. If the women wanted to sit on a man's lap, he had to place a folded newspaper on top of it.</comment>


Ask HN: Does authentication as a service work? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Can you expand on that?</comment>


Interactive NYC taxi heatmap - <AUTHOR> https://www.imjasonh.com/taxi/map

<comment><USER2> How come Tuesday looks way different than all other days?

<comment><USER3> At 2am it looks pretty different (which is an odd default right?), at other times it looks pretty much the same. I used 6pm for comparisons and the heat- map was much more similar.

<comment><USER4> > At 2am it looks pretty different (which is an odd default right?)

Not so odd—especially on a Saturday, I imagine it's right when a lot of people are tipsy or drunk and just want to get home safely, cost be damned.

<comment><USER5> Which also could be why Tuesday at 2am looks different. Many places are closed on Monday and people are probably less likely to go out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The sliders are buggy for me under FF33. The display stays stuck at 2AM / Saturday / heat.

</comment><comment><USER7> Where have you got this data .. also any points about the technologies used?

<comment><AUTHOR> The data is from [http://chriswhong.com/open- data/foil_nyc_taxi/](http://chriswhong.com/open-data/foil_nyc_taxi/) \-- I pulled 10k random pickups from each day/time for the heatmaps.

I used [http://leafletjs.com/](http://leafletjs.com/) and [https://github.com/Leaflet/Leaflet.heat](https://github.com/Leaflet/Leaflet.heat) for the visualization.</comment></comment>


IBM's First 100 Years: A Heavily Illustrated Timeline (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/06/ibms-first-100-years-a-heavily-illustrated-timeline/240502/?single_page=true

<comment><USER2> An important image is missing from the list:

[http://i.imgur.com/GCBnz3Z.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/GCBnz3Z.jpg)

"IBM Germany, known in those days as Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft, or Dehomag, did not simply sell the Reich machines and then walk away. IBM's subsidiary, with the knowledge of its New York headquarters, enthusiastically custom-designed the complex devices and specialized applications as an official corporate undertaking. Dehomag's top management was comprised of openly rabid Nazis who were arrested after the war for their Party affiliation. IBM NY always understood-from the outset in 1933-that it was courting and doing business with the upper echelon of the Nazi Party. The company leveraged its Nazi Party connections to continuously enhance its business relationship with Hitler's Reich, in Germany and throughout Nazi- dominated Europe."

[https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/IBM.h...](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/IBM.html)

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.high...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.highereducation)

"I.B.M., Black reports, knowingly provided the Third Reich with the technology to identify German Jews in the period 1933-1939. After World War II broke out in Europe, Hitler's plan to exterminate the Jews became a 'mission the company pursued with chilling success.' Drawing on documents from archives in the United States and across Europe, Black tells the astonishing story of a corporation and a corporate leader, Thomas J. Watson, eagerly conniving with the Nazis as they carried out their murderous program."

[https://www.nytimes.com/books/01/03/18/reviews/010318.18scho...](https://www.nytimes.com/books/01/03/18/reviews/010318.18schoent.html)

<comment><USER3> I was looking for a reference to this in the article since it was happy enough to mention IBMs more "positive" war involvement.

Article reads like something you'd find on its own corporate history page rather than anything independent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a pretty cool video about highlights in IBM's history that has less overlap than you'd expect with the parent article: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39jtNUGgmd4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39jtNUGgmd4)

</comment><comment><USER5> History drift: Between Jacquard Looms and Hollerith-like machines was the homeoscope:

[http://history- computer.com/ModernComputer/thinkers/Korsakov...](http://history- computer.com/ModernComputer/thinkers/Korsakov.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> So basically, considering that article is 4 years old, they really haven't done a lot in almost 30 years worth reporting on (and opinion on Watson, when its brought up here, tends to be mixed). Yay, they sold off a highly regarded laptop line that's turned into junk!</comment>


Ask HN: How do you manage your personal finances? - <AUTHOR> Managing business expenses, investments, taxes and insurances can be handled professionally with good support of sophisticated software. The interest in such software for private households is on the other hand very low as most people tend to dislike management tasks for their personal finance stuff.
However, some people (often geeks) manage their personal finances as professional as business finances.
Which tools, software, services, habits and techniques do you use to take care of your personal finances? <comment><USER2> Hi, You can try this online personal finance management site. [https://www.spendbook.net](https://www.spendbook.net)

I have been using this app to manage my personal finance for last one year. It was very useful to get full clarity on my finance.</comment>


Learn Go: Hand-crafted Go exercises and examples - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/inancgumus/learngo <comment><USER2> Observation: I see that you do 26 exercises before doing anything with pointers.

I often wonder if one of the reasons Go is more "simple" or approachable to some is because you can, to a large extent, ignore pointers and interfaces and "just write that weird little * or & in some places" and get away with it. Whereas, I believe in other languages, this is much less possible (e.g. in Java or Rust you need to learn about less "just logic" traits of the language earlier on (class inheritance, generics or Options, borrow checking, etc.)

I'm not saying the above is a good thing, but I often wonder if there aren't ways to make this more of an incremental learning curve in other languages in a similar way that you can largely ignore pointers in Go for a long time and be productive without understanding them. What would a similar incremental learning curve for generics be?

<comment><USER3> Your can't really do anything real without pointers in Go though because you won't be able to mutate states out of a function.

<comment><USER2> That's definitely true, but I've often seen beginners just say:

        type Foo struct { ... }
        func (f *Foo) Bar() { ... }

And go "Aha, that's an object and a method, I get it!" but when asked whether they should be using a pointer there or not, have no idea what that even entails.

In other words, it's possible to neglect the details of pointers easily and have things generally work

<comment><USER4> This is me right now. I get the basics of Go, but I don't understand when i'm suppose to have something be a pointer, and when i'm suppose to use * or & . Anyone who has a good explanation in a EL5 way, would help me a lot!!

<comment><USER5> Imagine we're working together and I have some text document I want you to work on and update. If I send you the text by email, I send a _copy_ of it (the original text is still on my computer). If you modify that copy and keep it for you, I won't ever know what you did. I just used a function

        func (c Coworker) SendForUpdates(d Document) {
            ...
        }

That wouldn't make sense. You worked hard and I don't even know what you did. So, what I would expect you to do is, once you made updates on the copy, to send me back that copy by email. That would be akin to

        func (c Coworker) SendForUpdates(d Document) Document {
            ...
            return d
        }

I sent you a copy, and you returned another updated copy. That is "pass-by- value", the default, no-pointer style.

Now, let's say I think those emails back and forth and boring. Rather than sending you a copy of the text each time, I could rather use Google Docs, and send you the _link_ to that document. Its URL, rather than a copy of its content. Now, you can just go to that URL and do the updates on the document. You don't have to send me back the document: you're working on it, not on a copy of it! Well, that URL is a reference to the document rather than the document itself, or, if you prefer, a _pointer_ to it. So, now, the function would be

        func (c Coworker) SendForUpdates(d *Document) {
            ...
        }

And we're done, no more back-and-forth dance now! That is "pass-by-reference".

You don't only use "pass-by-reference" just to be able to check updates on the document sent, by the way. If I want to send you some text just for your information and I don't expect any kind of update, I'll use pass-by-value (the very first function). But what if I want to send you a 3 GB video? I can't send that through e-mail! Sending a copy would be totally inefficient. Once again, I'll send you a pointer, an URL to download the video:

        func (c Coworker) InformText(d Document) // d is small: pass-by-value

        func (c Coworker) InformBigVideo(v *Video) // videos are huge: pass-by-reference

Why not use pointers everywhere by default, they seem easier, right? That's basically what java and python do. Well, they can be tricky too. I gave you the URL to the link and you could work on it. Once you're done, I don't want you to modify the document anymore. I want to send it to our boss. But, how could I know you didn't keep the URL somewhere in your bookmarks? How do I know, of all the coworkers I sent the URL to, one of them doesn't keep on updating that document even when I don't want to anymore? With copies, I'm safe, do whatever the hell you want with your copy, I don't care anymore. But a reference to the original document? That can be dangerous.

<comment><USER6> >That's basically what java and python do. Well, they can be tricky too.

But,you can easily make the classes/collections immutable to avoid the issues you mentioned. I think in java records and many collections are immutable by default. Immutability is fundamental to functional style programming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sure they're hand crafted but are they artisinal and free range and carbon neutral?

<comment><USER8> They were baked in a wood fire oven, with the classic Napoleon style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This looks pretty cool. When I was learning Go a long time ago, I used a site called Gophercises and found it really helped me understand the language better.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have not yet been able to find a simple "Hello World" example of starting a new project with Go modules instead of $GOPATH.

<comment><USER11> Hey there I found modules to be confusing coming from GOPATH too, but they're straight forward, super barebones example:

        #!/bin/bash

        cd $HOME

        # Create project directory
        mkdir hellogo

        cd hellogo

        # Init project modfile
        go mod init example.com/hellogo

        # Create the main source file
        # Uses bash's heredoc
        cat << EOF > ./main.go
        package main
        import "fmt"
        func main() {
            fmt.Print("Hello world")
        }
        EOF

        # Build it
        go build

        # Run it
        ./hellogo

<comment><USER12> You can also skip building, and run directly using `go run`!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've compiled a few interesting quizzes about Go's slices: [https://medium.com/@gotzmann/so-you-think-you-know- go-c5164b...](https://medium.com/@gotzmann/so-you-think-you-know- go-c5164b0d0511)

</comment><comment><USER14> Why snaps? Is apt-get not good for you already? What's wrong with it?

</comment><comment><USER15> If you're interested in interactive language learning exercises, then try codewars([https://www.codewars.com](https://www.codewars.com))

</comment><comment><USER16> I can never tell whether these titles are referring to the programming language or the board game.

<comment><USER17> Neither can I but it's not much of a problem because I'm interested in both!

<comment><USER18> Good one! BTW, it is 2am here :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This doesn't ask the most important question: why would I learn Go at all?

<comment><USER20> To answer the question: what would a language look like if you put it's designers in a time capsule for 20+ years and had them make a language that was uninformed by all the language advances and learnings they'd missed out on.

<comment><USER21> This doesn't answer the question at all. Also it's very disingenuous. The designers of Go were very much aware of the the last 20 years of language development. They decided on a subset that catered to software engineering between teams of people spanning a length of time.

It purposefully leaves out lots of features and cutting edge design philosophies because many Of those make things difficult when sharing code between multiple developers Spread over a long length of time.

Go's philosophy has always been close to KISS. Don't provide all these cutting edge tricks and tips because you can accomplish the same thing in a far clearer and maintainable way by doing it simpler.

<comment><USER20> This is the story I keep being told, but it doesn't seem to match with the reality of a language. Two example off the top of my head:

Loop variables are captured by "reference", not by value, so it's very easy to create bugs where you capture accidentally capture the wrong thing and don't have the value you'd expect.

Nulls, the billion dollar mistake. Most languages are quickly moving away from nulls (and pointers for that matter), or creating constructs that make them much safer (such as what typescript is doing). Instead go doubles down on both of these. In the last decade of programming in kernel level c, python, ruby, c++, java, typescript, scala I've never worked with code that crashes so much and is as buggy as go.

Both of these problems could have been addressed fairly easily without bloating the language. Google has people on the c++ committee; it very much feels like the creators of go had too much hubris to walk down the hall or across the campus and kindly ask a good language designer to shoot holes in their design.

Another example is "iota". How does that make code sharing easy at scale? Any time I see iota, I have to start manually counting lines, and remember the rules for if blank lines or comments bump the counter, and it completely circumvents the ability to quickly grep for a value seen in a log message. It is completely antithetical to teams of people and spans of time and whatnot. It seems more like a team of three people who randomly had ideas and ran with them without thinking the consequences through very well, or consulting the wisdom of others.

<comment><USER5> > Nulls, the billion dollar mistake.

That "billion dollar mistakes" is an excellent marketing expression (nobody wants to make billion-dollar mistakes! We should avoid that null they talk about! It looks so expensive!) but I don't know how actually true it is. Do we have any kind of scientific paper that proves languages without null lead to way less expensive software than languages with null?

I'm not talking about memory unsafe languages like C or C++, but situations where, in a memory-safe language, a null pointer exception in production happened to cost a shitload of money.

I'm pretty sure I never had a nil dereferencing in production with my go code. Invalid array access, off-by-one-errors, yeah, sure, way too many, but very few languages can prevent them at compile time. But nil dereferencing? I can't remember that.

<comment><USER6> Kotlin is one example where it's difficult to make that mistake. Kotlin does provide nullable type and everything can check at compile time and it so good. So if write code in pure kotlin (java interop has null issues) you can avoid null pointer errors. It's really good.

<comment><USER5> I totally agree it's great and tend to enjoy languages that don't provide the user with unchecked nulls. It's a cool tool, but I don't think it's worth a billion dollars. If I had to choose, I'd rather take non-mutability by default rather than compile-time enforced checking of null pointers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is great, but I think it should be written in Rust.

It will then run way faster and be completely bug free.

<comment><USER23> Their is nothing like a bug free code as a result of the programming language used . RUST programmers are like the new version of those Haskell programmers that spams every functional programming thread with a message that tldr: "write everything in Haskell or die "</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the greatest modern space-opera style sci-fi books? - <AUTHOR>

I'm interested in stuff written in the past twenty years where the setting is in space or other worlds.<p>My favorite is probably Excession, which also has an outstandingly good audio book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession <comment><USER2> I randomly picked up Peter F. Hamilton's Pandora's Star and Judas Unchained when they were first published in the mid 2000's, and was pleasantly entertained. I was a very upset teenager when I got to the end of Pandora's Star and Judas Unchained hadn't been published yet.

It is not "hard" sci-fi in the classic sense, but has larger-than-life characters, mysteries, politics, criminals, and a good sense of humor.

The tone between those two books is different, but enjoyable.

</comment><comment><USER3> As you are probably aware, there are more works of Banks to read, both in and outside the Culture universe, and my favorites are somewhere in there, I can't pin it down to one exactly.</comment>


On the Design of Display Processors (1968) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://cva.stanford.edu/classes/cs99s/papers/myer-sutherland-design-of-display-processors.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> I absolutely love the original analysis (which is why I shared it).

The hardware version: anything capable of general purpose work is too important to use- so you delegate to specialized hardware. That hardware then evolves the capability to do general work and therefore becomes itself too valuable to use.

The software version: Domain Specific Languages, Remote Procedure Call, and many others.

Current graphics ideas: shaders, CUDA, and so on.

<comment><USER2> It's interesting how something like the opposite ended up happening. Microprocessors became so cheap that they're used in almost everything. In theory, your keyboard and monitor can do general work, if you update their firmware to tell them what to do. Even my (electric) toothbrush contains a microprocessor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The conclusion is amusing in retrospect (obviously things have changed since then!):

"The view suggested by Daniel Bobrow that the display processor need not, indeed should not, contain mere general purpose computing power, largely determined the design of our display processor."

</comment><comment><USER4> Some days it seems the best parts of the computer revolution are over; other days it seems it's only just begun.</comment>


Ask HN: Is Principal Engineer the New Senior Engineer? - <AUTHOR> I recently saw a posting from a 5-10 year old, post Series B Bay Area company with $XX million raised seeking a Principal Engineer for $130k/year.
This is at odds with what the title connotates to me and I assume others who have been around for a while. To me, your Principal Eng is the guy or girl who built the whole damn thing for you when you were just working out of your kitchen. They have an encyclopedic knowledge of the platform. They do things like patch custom behavior into gdb to debug nightmare bugs. This is their last job, even if they are not old.
Is this the beginning of a trend where the title Principal Engineer loses all meaning like Senior already has? What title will we move to once Principal Eng no longer conveys meaning? <comment><USER2> Being on the older end of startup life and having been in industry for quite a bit over 20 years now I have seen lots of trends. I think what we are seeing now with the "principal engineer" title which use to be very reserved, and rarely used in a startup ever is exactly as you say. The fact essentially new grads are wanting to be called senior engineers is the problem. Personally, it drives me nuts, you are not a senior software engineer with 3 years of experience, but that is what I see being done consistently. I don't care if you worked at 1 or 10 startups in those three years, you are still pretty fresh and maybe at best mid-level but even then I'd err on the side of jr. To me, Jr is 1 to 3 or 4 years, mid is from there to 8-10 years and senior is typically 8-10+ years (although exceptions always exist). To me that time behind the keyboard is what means you have solved a lot of diverse problems, have seen many different business problems and have learned how to communicate and solve problems without writing a single line of code.

What I notice though is a lot of these people somehow feel not being a senior engineer is a slight against them, it isn't. Most of these engineers are not bad in my experience, and some are really quite excellent. But they still haven't seen enough of the patterns of business and development to have earned the senior title. Senior people are the ones who keep you from making stupid mistakes and identify known patterns and keep things on track and help you to avoid wasting time. The senior engineer generally is the one that is going to tell you to just use excel or buy a tool versus wasting time that doesn't reach the end goal quicker.

For me, it isn't that these people aren't talented, but they are actually doing themselves a disservice because when you tell me you are senior, I expect a hell of a lot more out of you then just being able to write some code or regurgitate some algorithm you learned in school.</comment>


Why Facebook's Authentication Model Is Inadequate - <AUTHOR> https://nadim.computer/2017/05/27/facebook-authentication.html <comment><USER2> No surprises here, everything about Facebook is inadequate. User security and integrity is so far down their list of priorities that it never sees the light of day. Quit, it's that simple; someone always has to lead the way. There are plenty of alternatives, but this one is mine:

[https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis](https://github.com/andreas- gone-wild/snackis)</comment>


We mistakenly marked about 50 applications as late - <AUTHOR> Due to a bug in our (my) software, a bunch of on-time applications got marked as late when people edited and re-submitted them after the deadline.  Fortunately we can tell which applications these were, and we're going to take a look at them all and respond in the next couple days.  Sorry about that. <comment><USER2> I'm totally going to pitch an application submission management system in the next round. I know of at least one potential customer.

<comment><USER3> Already exists: <http://angelsoft.net/>

<comment><USER4> Don't let a little competition get in the way!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hey, pg ... does that include our application by any chance?

I realize you don't have to answer this, but I am just curious:

It seems on the surface that our company is much closer to what you say YC is looking for, than many companies you had in W10, S10, etc. Let me just illustrate a couple points:

1\. You emphasize resilience: we got rejected by YC in the past and went ahead and raised funding, launched and already have 70k (and counting) users since 3 months ago. The vast majority of our reviews are 5 stars.

2\. You care about companies with huge potential. We're building a next- generation, distributed social network which gives users control over their data, and helps their social lives in the real world instead of online.

3\. You want to see founders who did extraordinary things: I went to college at 14, played in Carnegie hall when I was 7 years old. (<http://magarshak.com/piano>) My co founder can father a small child just by looking at a woman... (<http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7203877/fundraising>)

4\. You care about a capable team that has been together for a long time: <http://qbix.com/about> . We have made websites such as this: <http://blurts.com> which is now worth over $5 mil.

etc.

So I am curious why YC didn't even want to interview us, but then again, your rejection letter doesn't leave many clues :)

<comment><USER6> _"My co founder can father a small child just by looking at a woman"_

Hilarious.

With great power comes great responsibility...

<comment><USER7> The fathering comment is an in-joke with our batch: <http://adgrok.com/?p=666>

<comment><USER8> From the first footnote on that blog post, this has got to be the best non- computer hack I've read so far:

 _One of the Y Combinator questions asked you to name one non-computer system that you'd hacked in some interesting way. My answer concerned a man-in-the- middle attack I once did on Craigslist personals. I placed an ad as a woman seeking a man, and as a man seeking a woman, and then simply crossed the email streams by forwarding mail from one to the other, and vice versa. Most Craigslist personals didn't even have photos back then, so the switch went undetected, even after the couples had met. I handed off the relationship by telling one that the other's email address had changed, from my fake one to the real one, and likewise vice versa. For all I know, those couples are still together and having kids. They probably don't know to this day what happened or what brought them together._

<comment><USER9> I hate to be a killjoy but neither party ever asked why the e-mail address was changed resulting in the other one jumping in and saying "I never changed my email address, you changed yours!!"? And thus opening up an investigation as they show each other the emails from the past. Secondly, neither party ever asked "Was this the first time you posted an ad on craigslist?" and finally neither party ever said "I don't usually respond to ads on craigslist but..." (people say this out of insecurity not because they actually mean it, this is just to make themselves look good).

I know this because I use to do this all the time in college over skype , record long awkward conversations between distant aquaintences and roll on the floor laughing daiwa try to figure out who called whom and who they are. This was actually a lot of fun, it was an exercise in psychology, we would try to predict how crazy explosive weird conversations could get and see what happens based on people's personality profiles.

My point is that they would have to be really really stupid to not know that somebody else connected them...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is none of my business, but I'm a little confused. I don't see why pg/yc has to apologize. When was the last time a vc acted like he was obligated to hear your elevator pitch, let alone read your huge application---and not only do that, but do it FAIRLY, without giving undue advantage to some other guy with a plan and an MVP (...or not)?

</none of my business>

<comment><AUTHOR> We'd promised to reply by a certain time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ok, well I'm rather new here, but if 50 applications were accidentally marked as late, does that mean there were like 100+ applications overall? That's a _lot_ of new companies. Are all these already for real, or are the bulk of them in the "programmer with an idea" stage?

<comment><USER12> Last I heard, the YC crew doesn't announce numbers because they don't want to get into phallus-measuring competitions with other organizations; but based on numbers published in the past I'm guessing somewhere between 500 and 1000 applications.

<comment><USER13> It's probably more. Based on public numbers/guesses (Harj: [http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-companies-that- get-a...](http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-companies-that-get-a-Y- Combinator-interview-wind-up-getting-funded), [http://www.quora.com/How-many- people-teams-get-rejected-by-Y...](http://www.quora.com/How-many-people-teams- get-rejected-by-Y-Combinator-during-each-application-period/answer/Harjeet- Taggar), [http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Y-Combinator- applica...](http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Y-Combinator-applicants- get-called-in-for-interviews)) and some handwaving, last cycle was roughly 1000 applications, 10% got interviews, 4% (40 startups) got in. This cycle there's already ~145 slots taken, so I'd guesstimate 1500 applications (all else staying constant, etc) minimum. Maybe more like 2000.

<comment><USER3> Surprising to me that so little. Since there is no fee to enter, I imagine every high schooler who knows how to write a `hello, world' would apply.

<comment><USER14> Here's an idea, put a $100 fee on every application. If you're a serious applicant this would not be an issue.

<comment><USER14> I don't mind the downvote, but could someone who downvoted me explain his/her view?

<comment><USER15> i guess because money shouldn't really be a qualifier on a brilliant idea

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Hi pg - didn't get an interview, but thanks anyway for HN/YC and your essays. (: Consider me inspired!

</comment><comment><USER17> Thanks for the update, I did explain that to Kirsty in my mail. I know there are some folk over in the Convore chatroom in the same position, Convore's proved pretty useful today.

</comment><comment><USER18> Have the rest been notified? I did submit on time but haven't heard so far.

<comment><USER19> Yes, you should have been notified. Check your spam folder perhaps.

<comment><USER20> nothing so far

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Phew! I was sure there was a glitch in the system. Now it all makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER22> release early, release often?

<comment><AUTHOR> The whole problem is that this sw only gets used once every 6 months.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Being at the stage we're at things move/happen quick. I looked at our app recently and it looked _dated_ \- since the app we've had some game-changing developments (signed on 2 major customers - we're B2B etc.). It'd be cool if your s/w could accommodate for things like that, and secondly I'm surprised you guys don't do phone/skype screening/interviews. Might help reduce the risk on your investment. Just some thoughts. :-)

</comment><comment><USER23> It's funny but I noticed this when I submitted my application. I had been frantically trying to polish it up and was suprised by the fact that I was still able to resubmit even after the deadline (at this time the page didn't state that it would be counted as a late submission). The late submission page came up about two and a half hours after the time of the deadline and after I had done about 10 resubmissions. lol!

</comment><comment><USER24> PG - We still have not heard yes or no to our application for Responsely. We applied in January...but we also updated our application after the deadline to reflect our progress. So I am guessing this glitch effected our application.

Can you let me know the status?

Thank you,

Ted

</comment><comment><USER25> Were those on-time-marked-as-late applications sent the rejection e-mail by default?

<comment><AUTHOR> No. We haven't replied to them yet, because we mistakenly believed they were late and that we thus didn't have to reply on April 7.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Since we're already at a disadvantage of being the over-quota bunch, I say all 50 should be allowed to pitch in person if they pay for their own trips. ;)

<comment><USER27> I happen to be in California this week for a client. I'd be happy to run up to Palo Alto .... :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I forgive you. Most of us are human.

</comment><comment><USER29> Awesome! Was worried for a bit ;)

</comment><comment><USER30> PG ... Ive already got a stable of pretty solid investors and a house in Palo alto ... what do ya say I just give you the equity and you let me go through this cycle without giving me any cash? lol Im just looking for sound advice and a good sounding board

</comment><comment><USER31> is that ok to edit application now and resubmit? i'm in the list of 50's

<comment><USER32> how do you know you are in the list?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> So, assuming I got a rejection letter AND I updated after the deadline, I'm guessing my rejection still stands? ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, sorry. This bug got fixed at a certain point, so not all the late edits marked the application as late.

<comment><USER34> So if we edited late, and got a rejection letter, then we were reviewed and rejected. This is only for folks who did NOT get a rejection letter, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> Right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I guess this shows that marketing-people shouldn't write code.

</comment><comment><USER20> great news... these things happen

a couple of days sound good</comment>


Ruby's decline in popularity may be permanent - happy-go-lucky http://www.infoworld.com/article/3202651/application-development/rubys-decline-in-popularity-may-be-permanent.html <comment><AUTHOR> CSS as a programming language?</comment>