Is the universe fundamentally deterministic? - <AUTHOR> http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63811/is-the-universe-fundamentally-deterministic <comment><USER2> > " _Is the universe fundamentally deterministic?_ "

The best answer we have to date is "Nobody knows," to which I would add, "nor do we know how to find out."

I see no shame in that answer. I'm surprised nobody suggested that answer so far, unless I missed it. That doesn't mean we'll never find out or make any progress, but we don't know now. Personally, I see value in such a direct answer.

If the question is "Are the laws of physics as we know them deterministic?" that's a question about human knowledge and the most effective equations and interpretations of them we have. We can answer that question definitively, but that doesn't answer the original question about the universe itself.

If the question is about the universe itself, all we can offer is the laws of physics we know, which brings us back to the first point.

We have incomplete knowledge of the universe. No experiment has been done yet to conclusively answer the question, so all we have is opinion. Anyone suggesting otherwise either knows of an experiment I don't (I'd be overjoyed to find out), or stating mere opinion. Opinion is nice, but it answers the question "Do you _think_ the universe is deterministic," which is not the question asked.

Edit: I see someone put this answer on the original site.

<comment><USER3> Until someone can explain otherwise, I defer to Dr. Feynman, who essentially tells us that probability is intrinsic to the universe itself, and our experience of reality. I love the line that says (from the quote, below), _" Someone has said it this way: 'nature herself doesn't know which way the electron is going to go.'"_

When discussing the double-slit experiment, he said:

 _" It is not a lack of unknown gears - a lack of internal complications - that makes nature have probability in it; it seems to be in some sense intrinsic.

Someone has said it this way: 'nature herself doesn't know which way the electron is going to go.' A philosopher once said (a pompous one): 'it is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same result.' Well, they don't: if you set up electrons in any way - I mean, you set up the circumstance here, in the same conditions every time, and you cannot predict behind which hole you'll see the electron.

They don't - and yet the science goes on in spite of him."_

\--

Watch the full lecture here:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJfjRoxCbk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJfjRoxCbk)

I posted a transcribed portion previously:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3756989](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3756989)

<comment><USER4> I'm probably taking Feynman out of context here, but I think philosopher is almost right, and Feynman is being a tad pompous. I think it's necessary to some extent to _assume_ that the same conditions always produce the same result in order to do science. Otherwise, why do experiments? If the universe deviated slightly from determinism, it probably wouldn't make science impossible to do, and since I don't think science can actually test determinism, it's outside the scope of science and must be assumed. It seems a bit pompous to say that we've set up electrons the same way and observed that they go in two different directions for no reason. You can't eliminate reasons that you don't know about.

<comment><USER5> _It seems a bit pompous to say that we 've set up electrons the same way and observed that they go in two different directions for no reason. You can't eliminate reasons that you don't know about._

Have you heard about the EPR paradox [1]? Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen believed there may have been "hidden variables" in the language of quantum mechanics which were not yet accounted for. These hidden variables, if discovered, would render quantum mechanics more deterministic.

This idea was essentially shattered by Bell's theorem [2]. The universe probably _is not_ deterministic (at least in the sense we think about determinism). That's a hard pill to swallow, and it goes against all human intuition. But the majority of physicists do seem to accept this fact, however uncomfortable it might initially feel.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem)

<comment><USER4> "Probably is not deterministic" is not quite the same as " _provably_ is not deterministic." Physicists have opinions on a lot of things, but I don't think they can fundamentally answer this.

<comment><USER5> In your original post, you state that we might as well assume determinism. Why? Given the widely accepted nondeterminism of quantum behavior, why wouldn't we assume nondeterminism instead?

I realize what you're grasping at is that deterministic behavior might somehow underly this seemingly nondeterministic behavior. Bell's theorem, however, has made it difficult to reject that the this fundamental aspect of the universe is hard to explain without assuming nondeterminism (or superdeterminism).

I agree you can't prove it. You just haven't really explained why you're leaning toward the deterministic side.

<comment><USER4> I didn't make myself clear. I meant assume in the mathematical sense, as in, to take as an axiom. If you do a science experiment, you are assuming that you will get back a repeatable result, and you won't be measuring something perfectly random. Otherwise, people might assume you're crazy. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In the answers I do not see any mention of the Second Time Around Problem, which conclusively answers the question with "there is no way to know".

The idea is: suppose there is a universe that has elements that are fundamentally random. It is nondeterministic. Well, let that universe run for its lifetime, and record everything that happens. Then make a deterministic universe that just plays back the recording (this is the "second time around").

From the viewpoint of someone living inside the universe, there is no way to tell whether it is the first time around or the second time around.

...

But the other thing to point out is that this question presumes an old idea about the passage of time, which is that things happen in a sequence A, B, C, D, ... and that if you are at C then D "has not happened yet". But if you look at relativity, this appears to be a naïve viewpoint. In relativity, the time at a faraway point in space that you would consider "simultaneous" with your own clock depends on the relative speed between you and that point. As you speed up and slow down, you can make a faraway point "go forward or backward in time" with regard to which moment there you would consider "now". The crazy thing is that for angular movements the relative speed is amplified by distance, so when you are moving around at everyday speeds the "now" on planets across the galaxy is going back and forth by thousands or millions of years. (This is hard to observe because you are viewing tiny amounts of light from very very far away that have been traveling for a very long time, and the light that you are about to see was very close to you when you did the angular movement so it will not be much affected, etc, but hey, the math says what it says, you either believe what physics tells you or you don't.)

So when you make a distant "now" go forward, then backward, then forward again, do you expect the two forwards to be the same, or not?

<comment><USER7> 2 things:

1) If we define "universe" as "everything that exists" then you cannot record everything that happens. Because the record would be part of the universe and would have to recorded and the record of the record would have to be recorded...

2) The "first" and "second" universes would not be universes on their own. The "second" is a continuation of what you call the "first". So the system you describe would be random. Because the "deterministic" things that happen later on are based on the random things that happened earlier.

<comment><USER6> Just pause for a moment on "everything that exists" because that is not necessarily a useful distinction.

If you think of a universe as "everything I could see/touch/etc given infinite time", someone outside the universe who was in control of it might record it with no problem because they are not subject to the constraints of the universe. e.g. imagine the universe as being like a computer simulation that you programmed. You can probably pause it in a debugger any time you want, look at whatever state variables you want, etc.

So in this case the definition cannot be "everything that exists" because you have to define "exists" in the case where different sets of things may have different levels of "reality".

<comment><USER7> Lets say we are in a "game of life" simulation on a computer. It has been proven turing complete. So you would say its deterministic because "game of life" has deterministic rules. But if the computer that runs the simulation is in a random universe, then it might happen that bits of the computer switch in a random fashion. Making our universe inside the "game of life" simulation random too. And we _could_ touch the randomly flipping bits.

So there is no point in saying something is "outside" our universe and something is "inside".

<comment><USER6> There is no point to saying something is "outside" and something is "inside" _in the extreme cases of the example you just gave_ , which may or may not be the case. What if the outer universe is not a random universe? What if its laws of nature are so unlike ours that we do not know what to say about it? (Maybe it does not have space or time, but it has other things instead.)

But I think this is a little bit beside the point, because as I mentioned in my first post, all of this is predicated on us adopting the naïve view of time in our own universe, which is maybe not the best idea, given that we have plenty of evidence otherwise.

(And anyway, if you believe that "everything that exists" can be infinite, then there is no sense in saying our universe is being produced by some kind of simulation controlled in one particular other place, because of course it is, but actually this is probably happening in an infinite number of different ways from different places such that there is not really point any more in claiming that this is happening at all; the situation becomes such that you could just draw a relation between situation X and situation Y and could state that one could be causal of the other from a certain point of view.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would say that the determinism or non-determinism doesn't really matter.

It seems to me that determinism is a feature of the observer too. For example, roll of dice is non-deterministic for a human being, even in perfectly deterministic universe. It's just too complicated to simulate, so it appears random, and we can pretty much declare it to be non-deterministic.

And pseudo-random generators, purely idealized systems, can generate non- determinism from determinism. You can also have systems that do the opposite - that are itself based on non-determinism, but are in the effect deterministic. Classical computers use non-deterministic movement of electrons (or better say, they don't rely on their determinism), but can still produce repeatable (deterministic) results.

So you can move away from determinism or non-determinism on lower level (like the level of elementary particles) by various methods of aggregation. Considering there is still about 20 orders of magnitude between the "size" of elementary particles and Planck length, I would dare say that reality may still switch between determinism and non-determinism several times beyond the what we know.

Also, people may find this lecture by Dan Dennett interesting (which inspired the above argument): [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxup7sxIUmg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxup7sxIUmg)

<comment><USER9> >I would say that the determinism or non-determinism doesn't really matter.

It's kind of (very) important for information theory and computability theory. If the universe is deterministic, a sufficiently small physical system can be _exactly_ simulated by a sufficiently powerful Turing machine.

<comment><USER8> I am not sure I understand how is that important or helpful.

In simulations of physical systems, there already is a barrier of what we can do (chaotic behavior) regardless whether or not the underlying physics is deterministic or not. In other words, even if the question ("is universe deterministic") remains unanswered, we can already simulate all we need to the way it's possible to do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A good related discussion on determinism and free will:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00z5y9z](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00z5y9z)

(BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time) - no idea if this is blocked outside the UK?

<comment><USER11> Definitely not blocked here in Australia. In Our Time's archive is one of the Great Wonders of The Internet, as far as I'm concerned.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our- time/archive](http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our-time/archive)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The idea that the universe is anything more than physical laws playing out has just as little evidence as religion and the existence of omniscient godly beings. It is pretty much based entirely on wishful thinking by people who want to believe free will exists. They have no hard evidence and are basically making up an invisible pink fire breathing dragon just as much as the theists.

<comment><USER13> Except that really serious people have given arguments and proofs for the existence of God. Try attacking Godel's ontological argument without contradicting yourself. (This would require a year or more of study of formal logic culminating in quantified modal logic. Sadly, formal logic is something most scientists don't learn.)

[http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists- use-c...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer- to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html)

[http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/248548/godels- ontolo...](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/248548/godels-ontological- proof-how-does-it-work)

<comment><USER14> No, it just requires understanding something about the nature of mathematics and its relationship with reality. You can't prove the existence of god any more than you can prove the existence of gravity. To make the connection between the math and reality requires _interpretation_ , as Einstein repeatedly pointed out.

Gödel's amusing exercise is just a formalization of St. Anselm's, and most of the centuries of criticism of the latter can be applied to the former. In particular, his little proof has three definitions and _six_ special-purpose axioms, and, in addition to all this, depends on a property of goodness or perfection that is only defined implicitly. Naturally, the existence of something that he interprets as "god" falls out as a theorem. Big deal.

The nature of mathematics are that the theorems are contained within the axioms. If the axioms are self-evident, and the conclusions are surprising, we have some interesting math. But at least two of Gödel's axioms are not self- evident. Therefore, this "proof" strikes me as a setup, and is not very interesting.

<comment><USER13> The same can be said for anything in life. I really hope you wake up everyday praying that the laws of physics hold today because there is no proof that will hold today.

If you claim that goodness is artificial/relative/subjective, then you are hilariously self-refuting yourself. :)

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#5.9](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#5.9)

<comment><USER14> Well, you fooled me. I thought you were serious and might know what you were talking about.

<comment><USER13> >I thought you were serious and might know what you were talking about.

Thanks for the kind mature words.

You are no different from the Christian fundamentalists who accuse that the scientists (including logicians like me) don't know what they are talking about. Sigh.

I was being respectful, but you showed your deficiency by attacking my intellect. Thanks for that.

I can only point in the right direction. I cannot rectify a highly deficient education (ah, the US).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I would propose that common sense rather than a deep understanding of quantum mechanics is sufficient to answer this question.

If we can agree that if a two systems are in the exact same state then they will continue to be in the same state in future, then we can say deduce that the universe is deterministic.

If a player hits a snooker ball exactly the same way two times, and all other balls are in the same position, the temperature is the same, humidity is the same, rotation of the earth is the same, rotation of electrons and unknown state of quarks are the same -- everything is the same -- then the result will be the same. To have a different outcome from the same inputs in a closed system is not possible.

The same goes for human thought. If your brain is in the same state twice, all neuro chemicals are in the same state and all external forces are the same, and you are posed with a problem twice, you will make the same decision twice. There is no other possible outcome, for if there were another outcome it would be due to a differing influence. Thus your decisions are effectually predetermined.

This the universe in its current state can only move forward in one way -- effectually predetermined.

If anyone can come up with a case that two closed systems that are in the same state can diverge, I'd love to hear it.

<comment><USER16> On the first day of my upper level quantum mechanics class, I discuss exactly the sort of systems that you've asked about here. Unfortunately, it turns out that "common sense" is not in fact an accurate guide to the behavior of our universe (especially on an atomic scale). This is deeply frustrating, but in the end, the universe doesn't care.

Specifically, I introduce the idea of a Stern-Gerlach experiment to measure the spin of an electron along specific directions. If you prepare an electron in (say) a "+z" state (which is absolutely unique and unambiguous) and then measure its spin along the perpendicular x-axis, the results are 50/50 (and completely unpredictable).

At this point, your intuition is crying out, "We must have just overlooked some distinguishing detail in that initial +z state!" But it turns out that there are experimentally testable predictions of that sort of "hidden information" theory that differ from the predictions of quantum theory (look up "Bell inequalities"), and experiments always come back saying that the quantum description is correct.

<comment><USER15> "We must have just overlooked some distinguishing detail in that initial +z state!" \- yes, or there is an external influence we have missed.

The fact that the x-axis spin results are 50/50 strongly suggests something very specific and deterministic is going on. It would seem that we just aren't able to (pre)determine it without influencing it.

<comment><USER16> I completely agree that it _suggests_ that we have overlooked something in the underlying state. However, if you take a course in quantum mechanics that includes a detailed mathematical discussion of the Bell inequalities (for instance), you will see that any possible deterministic system along the lines that you're thinking of here will give predictions that are measurably different from the predictions of quantum mechanics. These experiments have been done, and the results are incompatible with any deterministic model (regardless of how difficult we assume it is to measure those "hidden variables" without influencing them).

I agree that this flies in the face of everything that seems sensible in the world. I _loathed_ quantum mechanics for years for reasons along these lines. Nevertheless, the universe is under no obligation to obey my intuition for what is sensible, nor my sense of elegance and beauty. Much to my disappointment, experiments make it absolutely clear that we do not live in a universe where "common sense" arguments are at all trustworthy on the scale of individual particles.

(Also, personally, I would say that the 50/50 result on the x-axis is purely a consequence of symmetry: nothing in the initial state or the measurement apparatus is set up to prefer +x over -x or vice versa, so it would be more or less impossible for it to split any way _other_ than 50/50.)

<comment><USER15> We shall see :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Well, the very short answer that I've arrived is that:

If you believe in the Copenhagen interpretation (and similar interpretations) then the universe isn't deterministic - there are many events that can happen but only one does happen in the end (when the set of probabilities assume specific values - the wavefunction collapse).

If you subscribe to the Many-worlds Interpretation then the universe is deterministic in a way - all events that could happen will happen in some branches (or in a portion of the branches equal to the probability of the event happening, as much as this makes sense) and it was all going to be that way since 'the beginning of time'. However, from another point of view (ours) - it isn't determined which branch you will experience yourself observing and this can make things seem non-deterministic (but in reality you or equivalents of you will experience yourself observing all branches in which you exist so I don't think that this would be the correct way to think about it).

</comment><comment><USER18> Ayyo. I work for a quantum information group. Wavefunction collapse is a way of dealing with measurement, or having information spill from a closed system into a system with a huge number of degrees of freedom. If I was able to solve the schroedinger equation on the system that consisted of the "quantum machine" and the observer all in a perfectly sealed insulated box, there'd be nothing nondeterministic about this. I'll go further. Wavefunction collapse is just a system with a few quantum degrees of freedom getting itself all entangled with a system with a HUGE number of degrees of freedom. Hence the "randomness."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I have been reading Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. In the section, formal system and reality, the author talks about universe as a very big formal system with all sets of rules governing it. Though, author doesn't answer the determinism question itself but I am aligned to towards it being deterministic because I think there rules at every level, quantum or physical. Everything must occur because of a factor or the other.

<comment><USER19> The interesting point here is that even though the universe may be entirely deterministic --and quantum theory says that it is, if you consider the universe as a single gigantic "wave function" \-- that may still be irrelevant for our lives because we cannot actually observe this gigantic wave function. In fact, we're a part of this function, in an unusual sense for which there is no everyday life equivalent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you're interested in this, you should read up on Bell's theorem. [1] [2]

The explanation of it I like best is this one (I don't remember where I originally read it):

It involves a two player game, the players completely separated from each other. Each is independently shown X or Y. Each player must then give either answer A and B. They win the game if:

\- when both are shown X, they choose different answers

\- otherwise, they choose the same answer

They can choose a strategy to follow before, but after they're physically separated, each player's decision can only depend on what they're shown (X or Y). Given this restriction, even allowing the players to have (pseudo-)non- deterministic strategies, they'll win with a chance of 75%.

However, if the players' strategy involves each having half of an entangled pair of photons, they can make measurements of its spin at one of two predetermined angles (P1X = 0, P2X = 67.5, P1Y = 45, P2Y = 22.5), based on if they see X or Y. Their answer is based on whether they get a spin-up or spin- down measurement. With this strategy, they win about 85% (cos^2(tau/16)) of the time.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem)

[2] [http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/06/q-how-it-is-that- be...](http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/06/q-how-it-is-that-bells- theorem-proves-that-there-are-no-hidden-variables-in-quantum-mechanics-how-do- we-know-that-god-really-does-play-dice-with-the-universe/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Since this is Hacker News, it's worth mentioning that John Conway, of Game of Life fame, has proposed a Strong Free Will Theorem:

[http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3286.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3286.pdf)

Basically, a foremost expert on deterministic cellular automata is of the opinion that Universe is likely a cellular automaton, but not a deterministic one.

Which I find intriguing.

</comment><comment><USER22> If its deterministic, but cannot be simplified and modelled by anything smaller than itself (imagine a simulator that modelled every atom - it would have to have more atoms than it was modelling) ... then does it matter? That is, it may be deterministic but fundamentally unpredictable in practice. See Dennets 'freedom evolves' for a long discussion of this.

</comment><comment><USER23> The answer to this question is easy. Of course the universe is fundamentally deterministic. Simply look at the current state of any given system (the in this case the universe) at any given point in time. If we were to look at all of the elements of "now" could indeterminate randomness (fully or partial) account for the current state of all things in the present moment? Of course not! If we say that universe if non-deterministic, but is instead probabilistic all we are saying is that "we do not understand the system well enough to know the causal relations of all elements within the system, but we can tell you how the system as a whole will work most of the time." Probability is not different from determinism, it is simply a way of measuring outcomes for systems for which we do not or cannot have enough information about in order to understand the causal relations of all of the elements within the system.

</comment><comment><USER24> This reminds me of SMAC, on discovering (iirc) Quantum Computing:

"Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded"

</comment><comment><USER25> Well in sequential state machines (computers), true randomness has to come from the outside. I have the feeling that it's the same for the universe as a whole: there is no mechanism which can make true randomness- it has to be a source of information from outside of the system. I suppose it makes no real difference if that's the case, or if you just call randomness an intrinsic property of some parts of the system.

BTW, related questions: is the universe finite? Is the universe discrete or continuous (or better, do you need infinite information to represent it)?

</comment><comment><USER26> I find it a bit unsettling that those question often center on finding out whether the universe is "in principle" deterministic. Can the universe be deterministic in principle but at the same time be indeterministic in that it is not possible to practically compute some things (because of computational complexity or other practical limitations)? Is practical and "theoretical determinism" different? Is "theoretical determinism" even a thing? Am I just being stupid, or has anybody serious already explored it?

<comment><USER27> I think that using the term "in principle" is the only way to pretend this question is difficult to answer. We observe what appears to be inherent unpredictability at the quantum level. The butterfly effect claims that imperceptible differences in starting conditions can cause significant effects (over time.) If this is an accurate model of how our universe works, we would expect that not only is nothing deterministic, but it would be extremely difficult to predict the state of reality over even short time periods. This is exactly what we observe on the macroscopic level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I would love if it turns out, that the De Broglie–Bohm theory [1] is correct making the universe deterministic.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory)

</comment><comment><USER29> I think most people think it isn't because you can't measure something without influencing it and thus changing the state.

Not being able to record the state doesn't mean it isn't deterministic.

</comment><comment><USER16> Like so many things, the answer to this question depends on what exactly you mean by it. There are certainly philosophical games you can play to show that either answer is "possible": brains in a jar, malicious trickster deities, recordings on repeat, and the like. But if you're asking about what the best available scientific evidence supports, there is absolutely compelling evidence that this question must be answered in the framework of quantum mechanics. (There are experimental tests that can distinguish between quantum and classical predictions, and their results are unambiguous.)

Within that framework, the most natural interpretation of this question might be, "Would it be possible in principle for a conscious being with perfect knowledge of the current state of the universe to predict the outcome that they would observe for any possible experiment?" Quantum mechanics answers this with an definitive "No." Even very simple systems can be prepared in a "superposition" of two possible states, in a sense that represents not just our ignorance of some underlying truth but a true mixture with measurable consequences.

On the other hand, you might intend the question to mean "Given complete knowledge of the current state of the universe, would it in principle be possible to predict the future state of the universe?" If we leave aside issues of "observers" and "collapse of the wave function" for the moment, quantum mechanics clearly says that the answer is "Yes". (The mathematical property involved is "unitarity of time evolution".) If you begin with an electron in a superposition of "spin up" and "spin down" states and make a measurement, then a few moments later your experimental apparatus will be in a specific corresponding superposition of "detected spin up" and "detected spin down" states.

But where you go from there depends on your preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics. The traditional Copenhagen interpretation says that once an observer looks at the measurement, the superposition state (the wave function) "collapses" to one answer or the other probabilistically, so determinism is lost. A "many-worlds" style interpretation would instead imply that the superposition of both outcomes persists in the state of the universe, but any particular instance of a given observer will see an outcome consistent with one measurement or the other (and the phenomenon of "decoherence" prevents those instances from interfering with each other in any meaningful way in the future).

[Edit to add a disclaimer: There are weird open questions related to quantum gravity and black holes that call the unitarity of quantum mechanics into some doubt: a study of effects like Hawking radiation that arise when studying quantum fields in curved space-time might suggest that information about the state of the universe is lost over time. My impression as someone working in this field is that most people expect deep down that unitarity will be preserved in an ultimate theory, but there's no way to be sure until we have one. Also, LQG folks may be less confident of how their model would ultimately answer that question than string theory folks like me tend to be.]

<comment><USER30> > Within that framework, the most natural interpretation of this question > might be, "Would it be possible in principle for a conscious being with > perfect knowledge of the current state of the universe to predict the > outcome that they would observe for any possible experiment?" Quantum > mechanics answers this with an definitive "No." Even very simple systems can > be prepared in a "superposition" of two possible states, in a sense that > represents not just our ignorance of some underlying truth but a true > mixture with measurable consequences.

I think maybe you'd want to reference Heisenberg uncertainty here, not superposition? Superposition is weird, but deterministic except for the wave function collapse, but you correctly deal with that later. Its the Heisenberg uncertainty that prevents you from precisely measuring a particle's current state, thereby preventing you from obtaining fully predictive information except in philosophical hypotheticals.

<comment><USER16> The (Heisenberg) uncertainty is a specific, computable quantity associated with the expectation value of an operator for a given quantum state. If that state is an eigenstate of the operator to be measured, the uncertainty is exactly zero. The only way for a state to have a non-zero uncertainty in its expectation value is if it is a superposition of more than one eigenstate with different eigenvalues.

So I stand by my "superposition" phrasing. :) Taking a measurement of a system that is in a superposition of distinct eigenstates of the observable being measured will give a probabilistic distribution of measurement outcomes (with probabilities derived from the amplitudes of the corresponding terms in the superposition).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Einstein would turn in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded. Chairman Sheng-ji Yang

</comment><comment><USER32> friend's book — [http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Joseph-Keim- Campbell/dp/0745...](http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Joseph-Keim- Campbell/dp/0745646670/)

</comment><comment><USER33> i think: if the even smaller components starts to cycle, its deterministic.</comment>


Ask HN: Developers – how do you stay up to date? - <AUTHOR> Hey there!
So some background. I've started to code around 15 years ago. I've started from C and C++, learned Java. Coded many things for fun (IRC Bot, A never finished OS Kernel, a never finished graphics engine, basic 2D Game with SFML, Qt Sprite editor, Java based ICQ Clone and etc).
At some point I've switched to PHP with HTML, CSS and JS which got me my first job around 10 years ago. Since then, I consider myself a web developer - a title that on one hand feeds me and pay my bills (and I'm very grateful for that) and on the other hand - is not really that fun and or rewarding (more on that later). Around 6 years ago I've developed interest in Node.js via side project which eventually helped me to land a Node.js job and get away for the slowly dying PHP. In my spare time I continued to explore Node.js, moved to TypeScript, developed skills in FE frameworks such as React.
And recently I woke up and found myself in my early thirties, no longer the young kid with "unlimited" free time to try and explore different areas and fields (game dev, os dev, desktop applications) and having troubles to run behind all the new tech and cool stuff that keeps popping up.
And here I stand, asking my self: How do I move next? Since the field that PHP and JavaScript occupies are relatively easy to get it, eventually it will be overfilled with younger developers and in order to stay in that market, I'll need to provide extra on top of my Node.JS knowledge. And I eager to do more harder and rewarding stuff other than writing API Gateways that fetch and write data to DB.
So hence my question: What's next? How do you stay up to date? Do you continue to explore your current field of employment and staying in a small set of languages? Do you try different fields? Do you have side projects and are they related to your jobs field? Are you trying to develop in one way (i.e. Backend Engineer) or trying to be the "Jack of all trades" (i.e. Backend, Frontend, Desktop, GameDev)? <comment><USER2> I'm in my early 40's and started programming 20 years ago. Did C++ and Java with touches of Perl (recently Python) and SQL databases. Also have 10+ years in quant finance.

I gave up trying to "keep up with the Kardashians". I know software development (and finance) but I'm aware of the fate of older guys if they need a new job: in the increasingly disfunctional environment that's recruiting, not only we're required to jump through more and more (automated) hoops, if you're old you have to know everything. One wrong answer and you're out the door.

So apart from doing my job and working on a finance / trading side project, I'm limiting myself on recapping / reading common crap that's asked in interviews. I sort of mentally settled for the fact that either I make it through my side project or one day I'll be phased out. When you're phased out it's always your fault, problem is no matter how much you struggle the way things are progressing, failure, bankruptcy and homelessness are inevitable.

I'm thinking that rather than struggling desperately and still failing, it's better to fail through just not caring.

</comment><comment><USER2> There's an untranslatable phrase to describe the concept, in my language: "decât să lucri de-a pula, mai bine stai de-a pula".

Hope the moderators won't delete it, since it contains some profanity.</comment>


Show HN: An OS X music library I've been working on for the past year. - <AUTHOR> http://www.enqueueapp.com/

<comment><USER2> Fist impressions can never be reproduced, so I'm typing this as I go along:

1) Welcome dialog is... out of place. The design is not consistent with Apple UI guidelines, I can't tell the three options are buttons.

2) The cancel button on the welcome dialog looks like an odd man out. It's just floating there in the center, and I think the caption (cancel) is also something you can improve.

3) I think the now-playing thing in the sidebar needs to be pushed down by ~60 pixels, basically starting under the main bar across the rest of the screen. It's not very symmetric the way it is now. You should also have a divider between the close buttons and the now playing section - see Chrome.app for a good example of doing it smoothly.

4) Playlists: now change when I hover over the entries, I was expecting them to go blue. Clicking on them has no effect, I must double-click. non- intuitive.

5) I love the statistics and charts in History, but I wonder if the name is accurate? I'm seeing a breakdown of my music collection, but the only "true" history tab is "Recently Played" which is also given the least prominence.

6) When starting the app, the whitespace stretching from under the now playing section to the bottom of the screen in the sidebar is jarring. It doesn't look nice empty, I'm assuming something will show up there at some point in my playing around with it.

7) Playlists uses an entirely different UI from Library. I like Library's detail view drilldown. I think something like that should be used for the playlists too. See point #4.

That's all for now. May update later with more feedback.

Good work. It looks very promising. I love that it's fast and not-bloated.

EDIT:

No way to turn off Growl messages? Oops.

EDIT:

Add Playlist -> then press esc. The playlist gets added anyway with the default name.

Playlist list needs right-click functionality, even if it's the same menu that shows up when clicking the cog. Don't disappoint your users expectations as to how an interface will act.

EDIT:

Playlist tab's "Add Playlist" pretends to be a tab but it's actually a button. Very confusing. Don't do that - buttons are buttons, tabs are tabs. Even if they're right-aligned.

EDIT:

I think you have a bug when you turn on repeat and shuffle in the middle of a song. When the song ends, it will be repeated immediately, then everything works out.

<comment><USER3> >No way to turn off Growl messages? Oops.

You should be able to turn them off from the Growl preference pane. I was always under the impression that this was the recommended way to do things, the idea being to have a central place to control them. Now that full Growl costs money and people start using Mist (which as far as I know has no central pref pane to turn off notifications) I guess devs will have to start adding individual Growl options to every app.

<comment><USER4> Can you provide a link to Mist? I can't seem to find it.

<comment><USER5> [http://growl.info/documentation/developer/implementing- growl...](http://growl.info/documentation/developer/implementing- growl.php#mist)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It imported my little "other" iTunes Library of about 1,500 songs, albeit with some stalls. However, for my main 20,000 song library it just crashes out.

I hate to say it considering the other feedback, but I'm not a fan of the UI. The giant words instead of icons, off colour and sort of grafted on now playing box, and no ability to hide the "browser" all put me off pretty strongly. Integrated preferences was a bad choice, too IMO. That's a good lazy solution for an app like Chrome to support all platforms, but for a proper OS X app I see no reason to avoid a standard prefs window. Prefs shouldn't be given equal prominence to actual application functions. In fact, because you are using words instead of icons and "Preferences" is such a long word, you are actually giving it greater prominence.

I'm lost as to the purpose of the sidebar. I get that it jumps to the currently playing album, but why can I scroll around to other unrelated albums? It's like there are two completely independent browsing frames in this window. Plus I can delete things in the other frame with the "x" button, but they just go away temporarily until I start playing a song again... I just don't get it.

Honestly, besides startup time, iTunes does everything this does better and it does it with a more refined UI. I know the standard response is "great job! can't wait to see the progress!" but I feel like I need to be honest. There are a million iTunes replacements and companions out there. They all suffer from requiring more effort to manage two music playing apps and offer dubious benefit. They all have small dedicated user bases but they never take the platform by storm like they seem to be hoping to. I'll keep it around as I would like to see if it can handle a 20,000 song library with future updates, but I don't see myself using it over iTunes. Sorry.

EDIT - Before you reply about the draw of features like extended filetype support, last.fm and queuing, consider that almost every iTunes replacement/companion (and there literally are dozens of them) has these features already. That's also a reason to take comments like "Can't stand iTunes bloat, definitely interested!" with a grain of salt. If these people were actually receptive to change, they most likely would have switched to an alternative long ago.

<comment><AUTHOR> The sidebar is a "now playing" playlist and I think the most interesting part of the app. When you double click a song it copies the current library into the sidebar. It lets you edit the order things get played, or what gets shuffled. You can drag and drop songs in and out of it.

You can hide the browser by right clicking the header and selecting 'hidden'.

<comment><USER6> > The sidebar is a "now playing" playlist and I think the most interesting > part of the app.

Why is mine filled with things that aren't playing and I haven't played? If that is its intended purpose, then it needs to convey that a little better by not filling it with other unrelated content for no reason. As someone who rarely uses sub-lists and typically just flips around the main library, copying the entire existing library to the sidebar isn't a great idea. I get it for playlists and other subsections, not so much for the entire unfiltered library.

> You can hide the browser by right clicking the header and selecting > 'hidden'.

Good call, although this is a UI issue in and of itself. No function like that should be hidden behind a right click, something many Mac OS X users don't even know how to do.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm having trouble putting it in words. Maybe thats a bad sign. Its kind of like the iTunes DJ but not really. I can tell you that nothing in there is unrelated. Imagine the main library is a completely separate entity from the 'player'. The music player plays from the sidebar. You fill the sidebar with songs from the library.

And yeah I probably should add a menu item for hiding the browser.

<comment><USER6> I got that in a second reading, and I edited my comment accordingly, here is the relevant bit:

> As someone who rarely uses sub-lists and typically just flips around the > main library, copying the entire existing library to the sidebar isn't a > great idea. I get it for playlists and other subsections, not so much for > the entire unfiltered library.

I guess it's not so simple if the app is built around that concept. I always use my main library and rarely have an urge to structure a queue, so maybe it's just not the app for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Overcyn,

This is phenomenal. Were you a Windows Media Plyaer v8-v11 user? The playlist on the side reminds me of my favorite feature from the WMP8 days, where I could queue up music even while another album played. It was wonderful, and when I went Mac full-time nearly a decade ago, I lost the easy queueing in iTunes (where I had to create a playlist every single time).

Bravo, this is a great app and I would love to support it. I'd be willing to pay $39, but that may just be me. I'm going to switch to it full-time and see what happens.

And I don't need the same piece of software to handle my iPhone and my music library. Don't bother supporting iPhone sync, it's just not part of the value of a good music player. I can open iTunes when I sync (and now with iOS 5, I don't think I'll ever need to manually sync again).

If you want a gratis NewsBlur premium account, let me know: firstname.lastname@example.com. It's the only way I know to actually pay you for such great software.

<comment><USER8> You can add new songs to play to iTunes DJ, if you queue up songs there you can add and remove songs as you please.

The other thing, so far Enqueue does not support syncing back to iTunes, so I won't have my star ratings and all that stuff...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love the design! I especially like that the Now Playing functionality is so prominent. While I like iTunes as a media database and sync tool, it's bloat- tastic as a music player, and I've wanted something faster and cleaner for years now.

I have a question, though: Does this perpetually read or write from the iTunes library XML, or is the import a one-time affair? I use the hell out of ratings and smart playlists, and I want Enqueue to run side-by-side with iTunes rather than replacing it. (i.e., iTunes to manage music, Enqueue to play it back.)

Regardless, this is fantastic work, and I look forward to the finished version. This app is something I would definitely be happy to pay for.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its a one way import.

<comment><USER9> Have you looked into the possibility of two-way sync, or is that a non- starter? For now, iTunes is still necessary for syncing iDevices, and keeping two libraries updated sounds like no fun.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its possible. Songbird does it. I think it would be really difficult to get right though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You don't need iPhone / iPod sync functionality. All you need is for Enqueue to sync back to the iTunes library. So when you change a rating or playlist in Enqueue, it should automatically update the iTunes library and the change should be reflected in iTunes.

Then I can just use iTunes to sync my iPhone / iPod.

<comment><USER10> Seriously, this is the only functionality missing that's keeping me from completely switching from iTunes to Enqueue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's great to see a new entry into the OS X music player ecosystem.

As a fan of "classical" music, may I make a couple of feature requests — which would actually make me switch from iTunes?

1\. Multiple artist tag support. I want to tag tracks by orchestra, conductor, soloist(s), and to search by each independently. This would be a killer feature.

2\. Grouping tracks by composition. The movements of a symphony are not "songs", they belong together by default, but it should be possible to select one separately from the others. This can be forced into iTunes by careful naming conventions, but first-class support for the distinction between "composition" and "parts of a composition" would be welcome.

</comment><comment><USER12> Without AirPlay support, this is pretty much a non-starter for me. But I rarely play music from my computer, so I'm probably not your target audience.

Also, I think this is really missing from your FAQ:

Q: Why should I use Enqueue instead of iTunes?

<comment><USER13> You should check out Airfoil. Fantastic third-party app, will let you send any audio to AirPlay.

<comment><USER14> Yes, Airfoil works with this app fantastically. I use it for Spotify and VLC also.

<http://www.rogueamoeba.com/airfoil/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is absolutely incredible. THANK YOU for FLAC support. You have no idea how long I've been needing this.

</comment><comment><USER16> This application is very interesting. I like what you've done with the UI. The top-left album view / controls panel is neat.

As a recent Spotify convert, I may not find as much use out of it as I would have a few months ago, but thank you for sharing a free beta. I will certainly be watching this project in the future.

Also, I think the icon looks great, for what it's worth.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think the top question in your FAQ should be "Why should I use this over iTunes?" Then clearly state what you do better (such as file support, interface, etc).

<comment><USER18> also, no need to update constantly and repeatedly agree to their terms and conditions

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hmm, it crashed 7% into importing my iTunes library. Can I help debug at all (forward you my .xml file, etc)? Email me at my HN username <at> gmail.com.

<comment><USER20> Same here. Something with the filename perhaps? Can I email you a crash dump?

I tried it twice and it always fails on the same file ("Love Is a Many Splendored Thing (feat. Al Alberts)")

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, please do.

<comment><USER19> Best contact?

<comment><AUTHOR> firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Do you have any plans for better iTunes library 'sync' support (i.e. delta updates from a changed iTunes library after initial import, and maybe even writing your changes back to iTunes)? I understand the long-term technical challenges involved, especially since Apple can (and will) change the file format just to mess with you. But for me, at least (although I suspect this would be true for many), this would be a critical feature to really switch. Mostly because iTunes is always going to be the bottleneck for syncing to my iPhone, which I use extensively for music.

That said, I think this is a really awesome effort. iTunes has definitely become way too bloated, so it's great to see a serious alternative being attempted.

</comment><comment><USER22> Wow, this is wonderful! There are so few iTunes alternatives for Mac. Are you planning on open sourcing this? I would love to help develop it.

</comment><comment><USER23> Very cool! A few things for you to consider:

1\. Consider putting preferences in their own window. This is the standard Mac behavior, and it's a little confusing to have your app do something different. You could also use the standard preferences toolbar look.

2\. The artwork for your playback controls looks off. Specifically, I think the anti-aliasing of the circles looks uneven.

3\. For the gear menu at the bottom left corner of the window, consider adding a little arrow like in Mail.app. That helps me know that this is a dropdown menu.

4\. I had no idea what the X would do in the bottom left corner of the window the first time I pressed it.

5\. Tooltips would help. You don't seem to have tooltips anywhere.

6\. I was very surprised that spacebar didn't control play/pause and was even more surprised that there is no keyboard shortcut for play/pause. EDIT: It appears that spacebar does control playback. Maybe I had a focus issue before. But it would still be nice to see it in the menu. :)

7\. Having "Library", "Playlists", etc. at the top of the window is interesting, but ultimately I think you'd do better with a standard look/feel. Consider using the standard selected toolbar item look. (See the preferences of almost any Mac app to see what I mean.)

8\. This is very minor, but you have an extra menu item divider at the bottom of the View menu.

9\. The album artwork of the currently playing song (top left corner) looks very slightly off-center. I think there's one more pixel on the right side than the left.

Overall, it's very impressive! Good work. :)

<comment><USER24>
        6. I was very surprised that spacebar didn't control play/pause and was even more surprised that there is no keyboard shortcut for play/pause.

Seems to work for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Looks interesting. I use foobar on Windows and have been wanting something lightweight and simple on the Mac. Importing my >100 GB collection right now, no chokes yet.

Will this be on the Mac App Store? Price?

</comment><comment><USER26> Typo on Features page - "A music player should fast and lightweight." is missing a "be".

Looks great on first impression, will keep playing with it.

Also, sent you an email :)

</comment><comment><USER27> HEY COULD SOMEONE PLEASE WRITE A MUSIC PLAYER THAT DOESN'T TAKE UP MY ENTIRE GODDAMN SCREEN?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ecoute is decent. <http://www.pixiapps.com/ecoute/>

<comment><USER27> Thanks, checking it out. I've been using Vox up until this point but it doesn't support playlists :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is a very good player for Mac.

I've so far tried Cog, iTunes, Winamp for Mac, Fidelia and a couple of other ones (Songbird).

All fail on either two things: 1) FLAC support 2) Ability to handle a very large collection effortlessly, and easily (scan & import, search & play)

On Linux and Windows I've been spoilt for choice with players, but iTunes dominance on Mac has meant that few players have matured enough to offer a compelling alternative.

With Enqueue it's as if you've been doing this maturing in private and now have arrived with all of the basic requirements taken care of and done well. You've nailed all of the core expectations without being distracted by bells and whistles (just take a look at Fidelia's UI and then remember it fails to import more than a couple of thousand tracks per import cycle - they missed what's important, getting your music in there in the first place).

So well done, seriously well done. If I hadn't just put myself on a literal ramen-budget diet I would right now be trying to badger you for your paypal to send you some money.

More than anything, you've just made my experience of being on a Mac considerably better.

<comment><USER14> I imported 19 000 songs and started playing a song while still importing and playback only paused once for maybe a second and then everything was smooth. Impressive really.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> At first blush, this seems absolutely delightful. I'd second most of ComputerGuru's critiques and add that:

1\. I find it odd that Preferences is a tab versus its own dialog. I shouldn't need to access it that often, so I don't think it merits the same visual prominence as my library or playlists.

2\. If you stick with the all-in-one window approach, it seems like you should fold the "About" and "Check for Updates" dialogs into the main window, possibly as siblings to the Preferences items.

3\. I wish the currently playing song was visually highlighted in the main library view.

4\. I can't seem to enqueue an entire playlist from the top level Playlists screen.

5\. There's no intuitive way to go "back" after drilling into a Playlist's detailed view.

6\. There's no easy way to look at the contents of several playlists one after another.

I feel like 5 and 6 could be solved by redesigning the top level playlists view to include both the lists of playlists and their contents, a la the Library view. I get the impression that ComputerGuru wants something similar in his note #7.

Bravo! This is great!

</comment><comment><USER30> I like the fact that the tabs have no icons, but rather large and readable labels. I do tire of everything being an icon these days and appreciate the effort you took to make them aesthetically pleasing.

I'd like it that when I add a song no more than the song is added to my now playing list. When I double-clicked a song it filled the whole thing with my library. Sometimes I want to play just specific songs and not their albums either. At least it's easy to collapse and remove all other albums.

I didn't find the welcome dialog out of place, though there needed to be a little more indication that they're buttons. (I'm fine but my mom would be totally confused over what to do.)

I'm not a big user of AirPlay or Podcasts, though I would probably use the latter feature more.

Keep up the good work. I already like Enqueue better than iTunes. You've definitely caught my attention! If you keep to a similar UI and don't bloat the application I'd probably even pay for it (which is really saying something because I'm a bit of a cheapskate).

</comment><comment><USER31> Awesome work! Very promising.

A question: When you import from a location do you consider playlists and audio files?

It seems if you have a folder /music/album/ and inside are the audio files for the album and a playlist for this album that your app would create an entry in library for all items on playlist and the files thus duplicating. iTunes used to do this but I believe now consolidates.

A few things from my first impression.

1\. Importing music did not seem to show a progress dialog of any sort. For a user with a large library this may not be desirable.

2\. The equalizer is a nice feature. Adding some more presets to the equalizer may be nice. Most come with a slew . (nit picking)

3\. Playlist/History/Preferences areas should be the full width like the library window is. Those 3 areas feel out of place in consideration with the rest of the app.

4\. Nice work, you just found a new user! Let me know you would like a guinea pig. Happy to help if I can! (Development or feedback.)

</comment><comment><USER32> 1\. Love the icon.

2\. Will "import" copy all my music into a new directory? That should be explicitly mentioned (whether it does or not).

3\. Love the fade in and fade out on pause. Is that time configurable? Also, a feature I've wanted forever is the ability to crossfade into a new song. Abrupt stops and starts are so bad at parties, etc.

4\. Need tooltips on the "×" and gear icons in the bottom left. Also I wasn't expecting for the "×" to remove things from my playlist. And those need to look more like buttons.

5\. The play/pause/next/prev buttons need work.

6\. "Add to playlist" should have a "New..." option in it.

7\. Love the concept of "History." Lots of cool directions to go here.

8\. The info pane is cool but what's with the striped background?

9\. I tried to drag songs from the Queue to a playlist. Gone, oops! And there's no undo!

10\. How do I play a playlist? Double clicking doesn't seem to work.

11\. "1 songs" in this playlist?

Overall, this is great. Keep making improvements!

</comment><comment><USER33> Really like the simplicity of the app. I look forward to seeing how it copes with my massive external library which caused iTunes to choke (>1 minute to add a song to the library after a certain point).

Smart playlists are a must have feature, so glad to hear they are coming.

One thing that would be nice is if when you dragged a song from the library out of the window, the dragged items became references to the files (in the same way dragging an item out of Finder does). This would allow you to select a playlist, drag all the files out of it and drop them onto your iPod's library in the source list on iTunes, uploading those songs straight to it without having to worry about integrating that functionality into Enqueue itself. I'm not sure if it's possible to do so in Mac OS as iTunes itself doesn't do that, but I've definitely seen it done in Windows and it's extremely useful (e.g. finding a song in iTunes, dragging it out and dropping it on to an audio editor to open it).

</comment><comment><USER34> Good work, like it a lot! I've really missed having an easy-to-use queue in iTunes, it's great to see it put front and center.

A bit of (hopefully) constructive criticism:

I don't think you should add a whole album to the queue when I double-click on a single song; I expect just that song to go in the queue. I like that double- clicking an album cover adds the whole album to the queue though.

Support for podcasts is really important! I guess this is something you just haven't got to yet?

The things that would be a barrier to me leaving iTunes for this are podcasts, AirPlay & the iTunes store. If you had support for the first two and a bi- directional sync with the iTunes library, that'd be enough to convert me because I really like the experience of using this program & I think you've got a lot of things very right.

</comment><comment><USER35> I really like this. As a primary user of Linux, however, mpd has been my default audio player of choice for some time now. Ario has been my client, and could stand to be improved. Any chance you might open-source this in the future so that the GUI might be shanghaied into an mpd client?

</comment><comment><USER36> Nice. I was using VLC because there's no decent free player (until now) with FLAC etc. support. Global hotkeys worked after I set them in preferences (very nice, since I don't know how to set app hotkeys that work globally using Services keyboard shortcuts).

It seems quite usable as-is.

Request: use replaygain metadata (also, less important, create it)

Request: detect duplicate files (ideally, by actual audio stream, or file content exclusive of metadata, but with file content duplicates is fine too).

Request: sync ratings/playlists (handling different directory/filenames/metadata by hash of content?)

(less important): play order: random-avoid-repeating-last-N (not pure shuffle), repeat-one

</comment><comment><USER37> Its very nifty. Much appreciate someone taking on the behemoth that is iTunes.

I cant help but think of Audion when I see a paid music player on OSX. <http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/>

</comment><comment><USER38> DANG, I just been looking for a lean music player (non-itunes) for ages. release date goal?

<comment><AUTHOR> January

<comment><USER38> awesome. looking for a foobar2000 equiv for mac, but cannot find one. looking to opesource it? would love to help.

<comment><AUTHOR> no, not looking to

<comment><USER39> Thanks very much for sharing the compiled version. That's too bad that you are not interested in open sourcing it, but of course it's your software and your decision. Keep up the great work, I'm excited so see how it turns out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Nice. I think you should be VERY up front about why this beats iTunes though as this is essentially supposed to be a replacement for a 1st party app that literally everyone uses. Can I sync my iPhone? I REALLY like that there's FLAC support.

<comment><USER3> iPhone sync is always going to be difficult: you are forever chasing a moving target, although the libimobiledevice and libgpod guys have done a great job. The encryption used to sign the music database on devices released after iOS4(+original iPad) hasn't been cracked yet (they changed it from the previous versions), although you can edit a file to tell the device to use the old db encryption if you have jailbroken your phone (I've not tested this with iPhone4S; things may have changed again). Building a product around the feature is probably unwise — Apple is a capricious master.

(Disclaimer: I develop a competing os x music player which can add music to (some) iOS devices)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Looks very cool. I can't wait to try it out. My biggest gripe against iTunes has always been speed.

Small tidbit of advice: Developer Terin Stock seems to have overcome the media key dilemma with his GSDesktopHelper app which allows Grooveshark to hijack the media keys when it is running (If it is not running, the add-on does nothing).

You may find something useful with it. Code: <https://github.com/grooveshark/GSDesktopHelperMac> More info: <http://threestrangedays.net/gsdesktophelper/>

</comment><comment><USER42> This is very good work.

I've been doing some iOS music work lately and have a pretty good idea of some of the complexity you've dealt with to get to this stage.

Drop me a line if you're interested in chatting (email is in my profile).

</comment><comment><USER43> A lot of my covers don't show up. I think it's the ones I downloaded through iTunes automatically.

You could consider adding a feature I think iTunes has been missing for years, a "cue up" button that will set a song to play after the current one is over.

When there's nothing playing, I feel like the blank album cover is pointless.

EDIT*

When the albums for an artist show up in the sidebar, clicking on once should expand it, not just highlight it. I'd rather not click on the arrow if it's already taking up all that screen space, because highlighting it doesn't really do anything.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right click a song (or selection of songs) in the sidebar. Click 'Add to queue'

edit: I couldn't find a way to import the album covers downloaded through iTunes.

<comment><USER43> Oh my god, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The app is very nice looking, and already packs quite a good amount of features. Special mention to the import from iTunes (although not playlists?), global hotkeys, visualisation of most played stuff, Growl integration... The monitored folders look really cool too.

That said, iTunes+GimmeSomeTune already gives me those features and a killer one: iPod sync. In my case, Enqueue doesn't have quite different features enough to make me switch completely from iTunes (yet?).

It's already very good work though, and the development seems to be going strong. Keep up the good work!

</comment><comment><USER45> This is a good program. I'm glad to see the return of the genre->artist->album browser that was trashed from iTunes some years ago. For several years now I have not been using iTunes as I find it too frustrating to find my music. I now realize that a big part of that was the loss of the 3 column search. Looking at a dozen out of a thousand 512x512 icons most of which are empty at a time to try to find things and hovering above them and jiggling the mouse to see secret sub views a la iMovie 6 just never did it for me. (Current iTunes is horrible UX IMO.)

<comment><USER34> > I'm glad to see the return of the genre->artist->album browser that was > trashed from iTunes some years ago.

Huh? It never went away. Cmd+B brings it up, or go to View -> Column Browser -> Show Column Browser in the menu.

<comment><USER45> Oh wow. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> You should get in contact with the Spotify guys. Seriously.

I am more than impressed by this UI. It reminds me of Rdio's UI, which I find to be better than iTunes. Spotify needs a good designer like you.

</comment><comment><USER47> Loving it so far! I'm sold.

Please also consider adding Internet Radio.

</comment><comment><USER48> There is a problem with sorting - iTunes has option to mark an album as 'compilation', so that it'll combine it anyway even if it has a lot of artists. Can't find anything like this in Enqueue.

</comment><comment><USER10> Wow, excellent experience importing my library from iTunes. One click and 30 seconds, and it was done. Loved it.

Has all the features that I need, without the extra bloat of iTunes. Perfect.

All it needs is a more beautiful, polished UI. Currently even iTunes looks better, but if you improve the aesthetics, you've beaten iTunes in every way. (Hint: Maybe take a leaf from the book of Sparrow, the Mac Gmail client.) Also, a mini-mode that simply shows the Now Playing list with a search bar to add new tracks.

</comment><comment><USER49> Just a question: how can I switch to a side panel, like the first screenshot on the site? I find it mildy annoying having the screen split in two.

Other than that, I love this app. I'm using it to (re)build my music library, something I had pending to do for a long time. Hope you keep working on it, there still a lot to do (dupes, auto-tagging using external databases, syncing back with iTunes, cover download, folder managing…) but I love it and will use it daily. Thanks a lot for your work!

<comment><USER49> Oh I just found it. Right click on the top header bar of the three columns, 'on left'. Nice. :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I was immediately won over by "FLAC", "Scrobbling" and "Speedy"! I've been struggling with iTunes and Songbird for a while now on OS X, and a replacement would be very welcome.

I've been enjoying using Enqueue for a day or so now. My only gripe so far is that I expected to see Play/Pause controls in the option-click/right-click menu of the dock icon. My keyboard's media keys just launch iTunes and I'd like an easy way to pause the music when on a different desktop to the Enqueue UI.

</comment><comment><USER51> The browser is restricted to 3 panels?

And I agree [with the other comments] about the words (menu items along the top), use icons or use the os menu bar.

Preferences should only be where Preferences is in every other mac app. It's the first place I'd look to change the preferences. Why even take the space atop the app?

No font sizes? And resizing the browser panels?

Importing a large library is a problem. Took me a few tries.

Overall I like it, though.

</comment><comment><USER52> He managed to do what apps like Songbird haven't been able to accomplish in years, finally I see a quick non bloated but feature rich music player on OSX.

The only missing thing if you ask, a quick way to set the song I am currently listening on auto-repeat, usually you just click the repeat button once more and it shows a "1" on it, it's better to avoid to have the user create a one song playlist for that.

Great work,

Mike

</comment><comment><USER53> I like this. It's very fast.

One suggestion, when I hit enter when I select a song, I expect the song to start playing, instead of renaming the track number.

</comment><comment><USER54> Do you have a business model? There might be a serious market for this. Maybe keep the app free, even open source, and charge for an iOS Remote style app?

</comment><comment><USER55> FLAC support is #1! Been looking for a great iTunes clone that supports FLACs. Hopefully this will be it! I'll report back with my impressions.

</comment><comment><USER56> I have 10.5 on this machine so I haven't been able to give this a try. Does the app import your date added to iTunes information? For me this is a crucial feature, because I like to listen to my music by date added, and I don't want to lose this information. One feature I really, really want is the ability to sort by album date added. iTunes imports tracks in a weird order.

</comment><comment><USER57> Hey @overcyn this is pretty cool, seems like you are the new Justin Frankel for MacOSX and Enqueue is the Winamp-Pre-AOL :)

I would suggest you these: 1\. Equalizer (16 bands min would be awesome). 2\. Make it hackable as soon as possible, Audio Plugins is a good start. (please not ruby, Objective-C is fine).

Nice work!

</comment><comment><USER58> LOVE the interface! Simple library overview with a drag-and-drop playlist on the left side. Man, in times like this I wish I had a Mac!

Are there similar apps for Windows? Apart from foobar2k, which I kinda like but only use for simple playback (eg. search for specific album, then play it) than managing my library.

</comment><comment><USER59> The most important feature (for me) that any music library is missing is podcast support. Just a thought.

</comment><comment><USER60> Excellent music player. I noticed one little bug: during import of library from iTunes, the percentage on the top-right is incorrect. For me, it set it at 209%.

Otherwise, the app is fairly solid. The design could use a bit of tweaking, but that's pretty much it.

</comment><comment><USER61> Nice, now that you don't really need iTunes to sync iOS devices I've been shopping for an alternative player. My only request would be a "fob" mode that minimizes the player to a small controller view.

Good work, looking forward to the official release!

</comment><comment><USER62> I think your "extensive file support" + the nice UI is going to be the winning combo.

</comment><comment><USER63> Typo: "A music player should fast and lightweight."

I think you're missing a "be" there, on the <http://www.enqueueapp.com/features.html> page

</comment><comment><USER64> I love the clean, simple interface and the small memory footprint. I suspect there is large enough number of tech savvy users unsatisfied with iTunes to create a really nice market for this.

</comment><comment><USER65> Is there a way to stop the screen shots from changing on the website? I found that annoying as I was studying some details listed by ComputerGuru, and the image changed to another one.

</comment><comment><USER66> I'm really enjoying the simple and clean interface! A GREAT start.

</comment><comment><USER67> I use this app everyday. It's not perfect, and I still use iTunes when I _add_ new music, but other than that, iTunes is dead to me.

I love it, and it's improving regularly.

</comment><comment><USER68> I probably won't use this to replace iTunes, but I will probably switch to it from Cog as my FLAC player. I know SHN is no longer developed, but does Enqueue support it?

</comment><comment><USER69> I'd love to get rid of iTunes, but AirPlay is a complete necessity for me.

iTunes + AirPortExpress == poor-man's-sonos.

Also, podcasts would be good.

<comment><USER70> \+ Airfoil. e.g. play Internet Radio (radioparadise.com) on your Mac to Airfoil on your iPod Touch in a speaker dock. Very nice when you're decorating a room at the weekend. But iOS should include an Airplay server.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Looks like I can finally move out from clementine. Can you please add a "dynamic playlist" like clementine ? This would really make it worth the switch.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been working on it. Smart playlist will probably be the next big feature that comes out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> You have no idea how long I've been waiting for something like this to come along! Really great feature set and looks great, you've done a terrific job.

</comment><comment><USER73> Finally something that resembles foobar2000! Awesome.

</comment><comment><USER74> this is so awesome! my god i've wanted this for so long.

i just want to make sure you know that you at least have SOME users (me) who really LIKE how you have handled preferences. I much prefer your implementation to other OS X apps.

If you can improve on a formula, no need to stick with that formula. It's a philosophy that worked for Steve Jobs...

Good f'ing work man!

<comment><AUTHOR> > SOME users (me) who really LIKE how you have handled preferences.

me too, me too. it just makes sense that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Love it. I'm going to give a go for a week and see if it fits.

The playlist bar is its killer feature -- iTunes DJ is crap in comparison.

</comment><comment><USER76> Love this! Need iTunes sync back & AirPlay to become permanently fixed on my dock. But using it now anyway, great work!

</comment><comment><USER77> This is very impressive. I really like the app icon. But it's refusing to import my iTunes library (10.6.8).

</comment><comment><USER78> Looks very slick. Please move "Cached Album Art" to Library/Caches though, for better backup behavior.

<comment><AUTHOR> woah, never knew about that folder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Any plans for native Airplay support?

</comment><comment><USER80> I love and would use it all the time...except it crashes when I try and import my itunes library :(

</comment><comment><USER81> Most of my album art is not displaying. Any info I can send you to help debug?

</comment><comment><USER82> It looks great but a question: Why should I use this over iTunes?

</comment><comment><USER83> Thanks for the FLAC support, with 24/192 and 24/96 working!

</comment><comment><USER84> Can it delete my dupes? That's a huge feature for me.

</comment><comment><USER85> Good stuff.

iTunes: Now with 100% less beachball.

</comment><comment><USER86> I'd buy this if I could use it as an MPD client.

<comment><USER87> There's always Theremin (<http://theremin.sigterm.eu/>) although it hasn't been updated in a few years.

<comment><USER86> Yeah, that's what I'm using now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> This looks so promising! Kudos to you for working on it for a year and following through! Ill try it and if it really is speedier than iTunes it looks like a good candidate to be my default player. iTunes, I love but it can use a speed boost. Thanks man.</comment>


A Republican bill could be our best chance to save net neutrality - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/1/26/14383040/thune-net-neutrality-bill <comment><USER2> Compromise: all traffic must be treated equally over land lines but allow wireless carriers to make deals.

Two reasons I'm okay with this compromise. Landline broadband providers have no technical limitations on how much data their infrastructure can carry, but no matter how much money you through at wireless data transmission, there are limits to how much data can be squeezed into certain bands of the spectrum and some bands aren't conducive to cellular data.

The second reason is that most people don't have a choice when it comes to home internet service - meaning no competition. There are plenty of choices with wireless carriers as long as the government doesn't allow consolidation.

<comment><USER3> > Landline broadband providers have no technical limitations on how much data > their infrastructure can carry

I don't think that's true? There are limits they're just farther from being hit.

> there are limits to how much data can be squeezed into certain bands of the > spectrum and some bands aren't conducive to cellular data.

This still doesn't explain why some kind of traffic should get preferential treatment. If there is not enough bandwidth, add caps and/or prices increases so supply matches demand.

> The second reason is that most people don't have a choice when it comes to > home internet service - meaning no competition. There are plenty of choices > with wireless carriers as long as the government doesn't allow > consolidation.

Yup this is probably the most important point. Although competition in wireless is nonexistent outside of major cities too.</comment></comment>


Slack Dialogs prove why investing in exceptional user experience is important - <AUTHOR> https://www.polly.ai/blog/slack-dialogs-user-experience <comment><USER2> looks like an excellent use for the new functionality. Did you guys have the inside track on the launch? bc, that was a quick turnaround ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow -- awesome</comment>


Ask HN: What makes PHP so difficult? - <AUTHOR>

Having been awake now for roughly 30 hours coding my php project what makes it such a tough and confusing language? Does MVC complicate matters? Am I reading the wrong books/website and It is actually quite simple? In my humble opinion it's quite possible the worst server side language going. <comment><USER2> Enough people get on well with it to make it the most popular language for web development, so the implication is that it's you not finding it easy rather than the language being especially hard. It doesn't fit with your mindset. Presumably, as you say it's "possibly the worst server side language going", you've tried a lot of them. Use what works for you.

Three other points though;

Firstly.. being awake for 30 hours is going to make you sleep deprived and confused, which will make it harder to code things. You'll probably find you're more productive coding for 10 hours, sleeping for 10 hours, and then coding for a further 10 hours than trying to code for 30 hours straight.

Secondly, the language you're using is a small part of app development. Tiny in fact. In my experience the "40/20/40" rule is right ... designing and building an app is 40% planning, 20% coding, and 40% testing. That's with about 15 years web development experience.

And lastly, if you think PHP is the worst server side language, you've obviously never written a large scale site in Perl. ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> PHP offers a lot of choice.

You can use it rather nicely, but it also allows you to write some really awful code. Admittedly, it does not do much to help you write good (=understandable, maintainable) code.

This post is rather interesting in terms of using the good parts of PHP:

[http://fabien.potencier.org/article/64/php-is-much-better- th...](http://fabien.potencier.org/article/64/php-is-much-better-than-you- think)

I have been using the author's PHP framework for 2 years now and have experienced huge improvements in the quality of the code I write simply by being exposed to his example. He basically uses a lot of objects but very little inheritance. He also is religious about the DRY principle.

<comment><USER4> Silex or Symfony?

<comment><USER3> Both, but mainly Symfony.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Go to sleep, it's not good to be awake for 30 hours. You are sleep deprived and this makes it tough and confusing. MVC does not complicate matters. MVC is just a standard way to structure your code. You probably are reading somewhat right books and websites, but every source is biased towards something. In my humble opinion you have not tried any other language for http server scripting.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have tried Ruby and I am starting to become confident in this. Also had a play with JS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You've been awake for 30 hours. You are far from peak efficiency. Sleep.

</comment><comment><USER7> PHP is old. OO was added later, same for Funcional syntax and IMHO they feel a bit awkward compared to other languages that were created with these contructs from the beginning.

The only real difference I find is that you need more discipline than you would with django/ror because you can mess it up more easily. PHP feels like C for web programming.

If you feel your MVC framework complicates things it probably is for the former reason (more awkward syntax compared to dj/ror).

</comment><comment><USER8> depends on what you mean with difficult. PHP was the first "real" language I learnt and back then I was like 13 years old. Maybe I wasn't working on amazing project but I had a decent knowledge. Now, after about 10 years and having tried many many other languages when I look at some PHP code I find it more confusing than other but still not the worst(which is Perl for readability IMHO). One thing that I think really add to much clutter to the PHP code is the $. It might be needed but if now find it kind of "hurts" my eyes. Another this is that is not object orientated(mostly, or at least the more used versions) and I think => adds as much noise as $. Personally I find much easier to read string.length than strlen($string). But in the end I think all of this things come end up being just personal preference.

<comment><USER9> What makes you say PHP is not object oriented? It has had proper object support since 5.0 (2004).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What framework are you using? I found CodeIgniter to be pretty helpful. PHP as a language is kind of frustrating because there's so little consistency in it. I usually just keep a second window up to the PHP manual and search a lot. Just go to sleep and come back to it with fresh eyes.</comment>


An Abandoned Outdoor Movie Theater in Middle of the Sinai Desert - <AUTHOR> https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2014/03/end-of-the-world-cinema/ <comment><USER2> Not really in the middle of the desert. It's right near to Share El'Sheik, 10min from it, the major tourist destination there. Looks like a place where the locals bring the foreign girls to kiss. Which could be a reason for the sabotage.</comment>


Code Browser - <AUTHOR> http://tibleiz.net/code-browser/

<comment><AUTHOR> Nobody ever talks about this editor, while the 500-line Javascript ones invite extensive discussion.

This is a code folding editor which I'm trying to use to take notes. It supports the mythical elastic tabstops, yet to be widely adopted.

Its implemented in a language that the author created, called Copper: [http://tibleiz.net/copper/download.html](http://tibleiz.net/copper/download.html) Copper is also implemented in Copper. Everything feels very high quality. This person should blog about it.</comment>


Apply for a Google Cr-48 - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/chromeos/pilot-program.html

<comment><USER2> I absolutely love the fact that a laptop fully based around the web is being denied a caps lock key. Good riddance. I think 99% of its usage (constants aside) is for trolling/yelling.

<comment><USER3> I like to use it as my Control key, though. I'd be concerned that they would replace it with something else and I'd have to learn to twist my pinky unnaturally again.

<comment><USER4> This is exactly what I was about to say. It looks like they've used the caps lock position for the Fn key on the cr-48, so it looks like this may not be possible on this unit.

Then again, I guess it's not _that_ big a deal since the ctrl key doesn't really get used on the web.

<comment><USER5> It looks like a 'search' key actually. Look closely at the fourth screenshot. Not sure if I'm right, though.

<comment><USER6> Photos of this laptop leaked several days ago, with greater detail on the keyboard. It is indeed a search key. The shift key also has a light on it, suggesting that it can be double-tapped to activate caps lock.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> They shouldn't put a "country" field on their form if its only open to the USA. Highly disappointing.

<comment><USER8> Seriously, I got all excited too, however [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/update-on-chrome- web-...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/update-on-chrome-web-store- and-chrome.html)

"We're starting with the U.S. and will expand to other countries once we get the necessary certifications. To participate in the pilot program, visit the Chrome notebook website."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Any Googlers here (Matt_Cutts?) in a position to comment on how long we'll be waiting to hear about this? Because being accepted as a tester would absolutely make my December.

<comment><USER10> I'm not Matt, but I work on Chrome OS, so that probably counts for something.

However: I don't know the answer to this question. Sorry. We do want to get pilots their devices as soon as possible though.

<comment><USER11> I get this tingle in my mind when I think about Chrome OS and it's netbook. Happened when I first saw the Nexus too.

A chance to present the world with a unified device that access the internet, doesn't cost much, and is very portable.

<comment><USER10> Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why put a country drop down when it's only available in the US? From Canada here... bah humbug.

<comment><USER6> Because they're allowing other countries soon (pending some required certification), so I can forgive them having the country selection prematurely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Anyone know the reasoning behind the Cr-48 name? Maybe because that isotope of chromium is one of the longer lived non-stable isotopes of chromium?

<comment><USER14> For a second I thought it was a play on create (Cr348 = Cr-48), but your explanation sounds better.

<comment><USER15> For a second I thought it was a play on the name of a protocol droid...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Very disappointed it's US only (but used to it lately, being Australian).

I'm a heavy Google services user for work & personal (as i'm sure most people here are), and I start commuting 2hrs each way to work in a month, so something like this would've been perfect for the commute. I'd happily spend that time testing the laptop and taking part in feedback. Ah well.

<comment><USER17> I'm a developer and am always looking for the next big platform to develop for. This sounds absolutely perfect. I definitely agree though that if there is no text editor local to the machine I wonder how well it could be used for development, but overall I think it would be interesting to test the device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Cute quiz to measure how addicted you are to the internet?

<http://www.google.com/chromeos/pilot-program-quiz.html>

<comment><USER19> I'm a little irritated by the end of this quiz telling me I'm "addicted to my desktop" and "why not switch to online alternatives?"

Hey Google, why don't you make it so I can indent lines with tab in Gmail, or give me some confidence that my e-mails will be properly formatted (i.e. as required on some mailing lists)? Why don't you make it so I can watch Netflix in one Chrome window without stuttering when I do some other browsing simultaneously in a separate window, or make it so I can use global hot keys to control music playback from random music players in a browser window? Why don't you make Google Docs work offline? (Announcement of "early 2011" posted today, at least.) Why don't you make it so I have confidence that I'll be able to get online and get at my data wherever I am, whenever I need it, without paying a fortune?

 _That's_ why I'm not switching to more online alternatives: the desktop applications I still use provide a better user experience and are more reliable. Google, your question reads like _I'm_ the one with the problem.

<comment><USER11>
        Hey Google, why don't you make it so I can indent lines with tab in Gmail

Isn't that your OS/Browsers fault?

        Why don't you make Google Docs work offline? (Announcement of "early 2011" posted today, at least.)

I thought they did this with LocalStorage/Google Gears?

<comment><USER19> > Isn't that your OS/Browsers fault?

I'm using Google Chrome, but that aside, they asked why I don't switch to more online applications. This is one reason.

> I thought they did this with LocalStorage/Google Gears?

They were doing it with Gears, but they ceased support for Gears--and thus offline Google Docs--as of like May this year, I believe.

<comment><USER11> > Gears Yeah, this is because Gears was basically HTML5/localstorage

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can see how I can use this for document/email type work. My version control system has a web interface so I can review code.

But developers are going to want text editors/a terminal/vcs. I do everything else on my machine.

I've been thinking of some sort of server in the cloud for this kind of functionality from tablets....

<comment><USER21> In no way am I suggesting that it's an equivalent editor, but you may want to take a look at Mozilla Skywriter (formerly Bespin).

<https://mozillalabs.com/skywriter/>

If I get the chance to be a Chrome OS tester, I'll be giving this a thorough try.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Did anyone else not receive a confirmation page of any sort? I submitted the application and was routed directly back.

<comment><USER23> They botched error handling I think. That happened to me once - turns out my text field was too long. Cut yours down to 140 characters and re-submit it, does that give you the confirmation page?

<comment><USER22> Thanks for the suggestion! It worked the second time and did provide a confirmation page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is different from the bare-bones quiz linked from Chrome's "New Tab" page. In any case, I filled this new one out too since it lets me actually tell them I'm a developer.

Yes, I'm desperate ;)

</comment><comment><USER25> As per usual, all the world's American. This Brit says boo and hiss.

<comment><USER26> There's probably going to be an international trial soon. However, I can assume the OS will be released in free beta for you to test on your own hardware.

Since Google's requesting fairly intensive feedback, I can assume it's easier for their team to track usage in a domestic market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I guess this is better than hearing about Wikileaks 24/7.

</comment><comment><USER28> "So if you live in the United States" ... yet the address country box had Egypt.

désolé

</comment><comment><USER29> getting increasingly annoying that most things like these require that participants are US residents. Don't you guys care what us Europeans have to say? I'd would have liked to apply too.

</comment><comment><USER30> They have a country field but no way to change the state. Fail.

</comment><comment><USER31> Too bad they don't ship to Canada :(</comment>


Ask HN: What are the best sites in 2020 to post articles about programming? - <AUTHOR> What are the best sites in 2020 to post articles about programming, math, etc. I want to grow a community but I don't know where to start.
I already know about dev.to and lobste.rs
I really appreciate any help you can give. <comment><USER2> It depends on the types of programming, math, etc. For example, if you can explain a math concept through an application to a video game, then maybe Gamedev.net and Gamasutra would be good places. If it's an implementation or solution to a particular programming problem, then post it pn a blog and cite it in a StackOverflow answer if there's a relevant question out there (though you may want to find the question first in this case before writing the post).</comment>