Is Apple Losing Its Shine After Steve Jobs? - <AUTHOR> http://business.time.com/2012/08/03/is-apple-losing-its-shine-after-steve-jobs

<comment><USER2> So tedious.

Apple is extremely well positioned in front of almost every mass trend happening in consumer electronics. They are sitting on a tenth of a trillion dollars in cash. They have content deals with more companies in more places than almost anyone else on Earth. They are ending investment in unfruitful markets. They have a rapidly converging consumer platform that has essentially no identifiable competitive weaknesses. Investor confidence is thunderingly high. They're headquartered in an extremely pro-business nation and feted as the last great American wonder business with all that implies politically. They have a global retail arm that defies everything known about retail. Their manufacturing pipeline shames former industry leaders. Their litigation is top-notch. Their customer goodwill is limitless and serves to smooth over many failures in execution and experience.

They are, even if all goes dark tomorrow, one of the greatest successes in our industry that we will see in our lives. So as someone put above: if Apple can survive iPod Socks and the G4 Cube, they can probably survive whatever some stringer for Time is reading in the tea leaves.

Does anyone have any actual concerns about actual Apple as it pertains to the actual real world? I'll start:

\- Their push for a tax holiday is going to go over extremely poorly in an election year

\- Their extremely slow iPhone hardware update cycle leaves them vulnerable to fast-evolving competitors and a single bad product will poison the well for years

\- The colossal amount of value stored nowadays in a single Apple ID means the damage from a security breach or intrusion is astronomical

\- Apple has nothing interesting or heartening to say about their law enforcement policies vis a vis the data they collect

\- Stitched leatherette Contacts

<comment><USER3> Stitched leatherette Contacts?

<comment><USER2> An evolving trend in OS X and iOS is to rework various applications into little faux leatherette items - Contacts and Calendars have both received this treatment.

Reaction is almost universally negative, even among tech uninvolved customers. It appears unprofessional and unbusinesslike to them and tarnishes the image of Apple software as being elegant and industry-best. Apple's made small retreats lately but the idiom is still riding high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can Apple do anything other than lose its shine? Is it possible for it to get shinier? I mean, it already has the world's highest market cap and is revered in a way the subsequent next highest market cap companies aren't (Exxon, MS, Wal-mart).

It's like a basketball player who makes 100 free throws in a row, misses a couple, and people wonder what the hell happened to him/her.

<comment><USER5> Or more like a basketball player who swishes 100 free throws in a row, makes the next one but catches a little rim...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Apple has done some things that I don't think are wise since the death of Steve Jobs - the "new iPad" branding, the new Apple ads, the potential new form factors developer have to design for.

However, they also made some decisions that I thought were stupid when Steve Jobs _was_ there, such as releasing the iPad (which I thought would fail for sure). I'm just waiting to see how everything shakes out before I pass judgment. I've been dead wrong about Apple before, and I don't really see any reason I'll be correct with my opinions now.

<comment><USER7> What is wrong with their branding. Sure the genius ads didn't go off that well, but I didn't find the message to be that bad. And as for the "new iPad", I'd love to hear your thoughts.

<comment><USER6> I, and many of my coworkers, found the ad series - especially the "Basically" ad painful to watch because it was so embarrassing to watch. Apple generally tries to make their products seem "cool", but this ad did just the opposite. Add that to the fact that no one that I'm aware of makes something that is "basically a Mac" and you get a really odd ad.

The new iPad branding would be fine - if they weren't planning to make any new models of the iPad. It would forever remain the "new iPad". However, assuming they _do_ release a new iPad, anyone who still uses the new iPad terminology will have to refer to the new iPad as the old new iPad, or, do what pretty much everyone else has done, and refer to it as the iPad 3. I noticed something similar to this the other day when I was comparing the 1998 VW Beetle (which was released under the name the Volkswagen New Beetle) with the 2012 VW Beetle (released under the name Volkswagen Beetle). In order to get which car I was talking about across I had to refer to the 1998 beetle as the old new beetle and the 2012 beetle as the new new beetle, which was awkward and felt counter-intuitive to everyone involved.

However, like I said, we'll see how this all shakes out. I've certainly been wrong about Apple's future success before, and I'm sure I'll be wrong about it again.

<comment><USER8> What do you call any old MacBook or iMac?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "After all, during his too-brief, once-in-a-century career, he radically disrupted at least seven industries: personal computing, desktop software, music, mobile phones, publishing, tablet computers, and Hollywood animation"

Completely OT, but I thought it was interesting to note that the time difference between the first mobile phone and the first commercially successful smartphone (1973-2007) and the time difference between the invention of the telegraph and telephone (1832-1876) were approximately the same. Apparently awesomeness takes 40 years to bloom.

<comment><USER10> I love my iPhone, but calling it the first commercially successful smartphone is willfully ignorant of the Blackberry.

<comment><USER11> The time gap stands (1973-2002/2003).

<comment><USER10> Quite true!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines>

<comment><USER13> [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/hardware/Will-A...](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/hardware/Will- Apple-keep-its-shine/articleshow/10261509.cms)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Apple is propping up the NASDAQ and S&P500. Apple's iPhone revenue alone generates more than all of Microsoft's various business units combined. I'd say that's a pretty good way of losing its shine.

<comment><USER15> Remember when people used that exact same phrase refering to Nokia? I do...

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I haven't bought any non-Apple computers or phones in ages, but I just succumbed to the lure of the Nexus 7.

It's fantastic, and a great all-around device. It surfs the web, does Gmail, and hooks up to bluetooth, with a great battery life.

As far as I'm concerned, that's near enough iPad functionality for half the cost.

<comment><USER17> I absolutely despise Gmail and am so happy to have left for iCloud email. My personal life shouldn't be shouldered by advertisements for the highest bidder. It's the same reason I hardly touch Facebook anymore - I don't give a damn about what you're trying to sell, I'm trying to communicate with the people I care about.

(edit: it's also the reason why I prefer the Facebook mobile app over the web interface when I do need to use it, because it's not tainted by entities I don't care about)

The tablet looks okay but there's no appealing reason for me to want it when it won't do anything that I want of it - I can't Cmd-S in Pages and then lie in front of the TV while making edits on a document. I can't have all of my music with me at all times and I can't pull up my Photo Stream after a day out with friends. For me to even consider an Android device, there would need to be some way for it to integrate into an iCloud lifestyle and I really don't see that ever happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> They haven't had a product that people lust after in a long time. In fact, with other tablets now viable competitors, I'd say their laptops are their most lust-inducing product out there.

I just don't know how they can regain that level of desirability without disrupting another vertical. Or if they make some truly radical hardware innovations, such that it is visible and will make it obvious that you are using an Apple product and not a Samsung. The touchscreen iPhone with gestures and a full browser was a device like that, but that gap has long since been closed by other manufacturers. Siri was, I think, an attempt to do that again, but it wasn't quite ready--something that almost makes me think that Jobs knew he had to pull something out of his hat immediately, even at the cost of shelving his famous perfectionism.

<comment><USER10> The iPad was released less than three years ago. What's your definition of 'a long time'?

<comment><USER3> Why do you assume that the problem is the definition of "long time" and not the definition of "lust after." It seems that you think everyone is lusting after the iPad? I know I am not lusting after the iPad, but I'm not a mac lover. The iPad has certainly not matched the lust inducing levels of the iphone or ipod or osx.

<comment><USER10> The iPad held 73% of the tablet market last year, most of which came from market entrants who entered solely for the iPad. I don't know what by metric you're judging 'lust' (hopefully it's not just your desire), but its hard to imagine a more impressive performance.

<comment><USER3> Stats without footnotes are as useful as my anecdotal evidence. Moreover how big is that market?

<comment><USER19> They've sold 84 million iPads, 44 million of which were sold in the past 8-10 months.

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/259829/apple_earnings_disappo...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/259829/apple_earnings_disappoint_but_ipad_sales_continue_to_surge.html)

<comment><USER3> What does that have to do with 73%?

<comment><USER19> Two posts above:

> _Moreover how big is that market?_

They sold 44 million in three quarters, and they have (at least) 73% market share. So, a total of 80 million in 2012. Probably 50% more in 2013.

<comment><USER3> Where are you getting the 73% from? The uncited statistic upthread? And where are you getting the growth projections from?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Two words: iPod Socks.

<comment><USER21> Actually this and that giant iPod Speaker was probably two of the most subtle yet genius decisions Apple ever made.

They demonstrated to accessory manufacturers that there was a lucrative market for them to get participate in. Not to mention putting "facts on the ground" about expected sales, profit margins etc for them to build their product strategy around.

<comment><USER20> I'm pretty sure there were already accessories on the market at that point. I don't think the iPod Hi-Fi was the first high-end iPod-oriented speaker system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Ask this question in two years time once the projects Jobs was apart of have run there course.

But personaly I see no shine lost, sure they lost a great man but there again he had more than enough time to leave his legacy inplace and that is exactly what he did. If jobs was still about I'd expect the share price to be exactly the same and with that the public have already answeared this question that need not be asked.

</comment><comment><USER23> I decided not to read the article when I saw that Time was accusing the 22nd largest company in the world [1] of being in decline. Time lost its shine with the decline of print media.

[http://www.forbes.com/global2000/#p_3_s_a0_All%20industries_...](http://www.forbes.com/global2000/#p_3_s_a0_All%20industries_All%20countries_All%20states_)

<comment><USER24> Along with every single other print publication, not just Time. Misguided statement there, buddy.

<comment><USER25> How does that make his statement misguided?

Even if I accept your premise that every single other print publication has declined as well, that doesn't make his statement any less true. The statement was only about Time.

And I certainly don't accept your premise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Apple adding HDMI and reverting the Apple TV UI, to me, are already signs of that. What's next? Blu-ray?

<comment><USER27> The Apple TV has had HDMI for years.

If you're talking about the new HDMI interface on the retina screen - I think it's a good move - DisplayPort will take years to appear on TVs and this was a serious feature that didn't compete with Apple's other products (unlike Blu- Ray - the entire Apple ecosystem relies on the fact that people are moving away from spinning media)... HDMI is not unlike the addition of the SD card slot in the MBP a couple years ago... a welcome addition.

<comment><USER26> I agree with you, but Jobs always said he wouldn't add HDMI to Apple's laptops because of license fees and rigidity of the standard, IIRC. Jobs never said anything against SD or EC.

Though I agree it is useful, I doubt HDMI would make it under Jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Maybe.

We should also consider that maybe the smart phone trend thing is starting to slow down. Since most of the possibles innovations are already done it's harder to think of new features except maybe more power.

<comment><USER11> Not nearly. There is so much to be explored, even with current technologies like NFC, Bluetooth LE, OLED, pico-projectors, sensors, mesh networking, that current phones will look ancient in 5 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> People have been saying that Apple was going down, in my experience, since 1981 with the introduction of the IBM PC.

Seriously, in the 1980s it was IBM, Commodore, Tandy, et al. In the 1990s it was Windows. In the past decade every two-bit media player was called an iPod killer. Every phone ripping off the iPhone is called an iPhone killer. Every tablet is called an iPad killer.

And of course the myth has been spread that anything Apple does well is just the result of Steve Jobs.

Just as everyone who buys Apple products does so because they come under Steve Jobs "reality distortion field".

And how everything Apple has been doing in the past 5 years was poor because Steve Jobs health was bad.

How about that the iPod sucked becuase it didn't have an FM tuner?

Or the iPhone is never going to fly without a physical keyboard.

Or the iPad sounds like a woman's product and nobody will buy it, and of course nobody will carry it around.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Apple is failing, always has been, and always will be.

Every time the stock goes down $30 (equivalent to a $60 stock going down $3) the stock is crashing.

When Apple misses wall street expectations by a few cents (but beats their projections) its a sign that the stock is in decline - before Steve Jobs died it was just proof that Apple sucked. When he was sick, it was because he lost control. Now that he's dead, Apple will never be able to accomplish anything good.

It has been 30 years of this crap.

<comment><USER30> Steve Jobs suggests that Apple didn't innovate while he wasn't there ([http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/19/steve-jobs-apple- almost-...](http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/19/steve-jobs-apple-almost-went- bankrupt-because-it-failed-to-innovate/)).

The question is then does Apple, without Jobs, have the visionaries and the management team supporting those visionaries to pioneer very specific markets to continue earning billions in the future. I'd guess that over the next few years a Google Glass-style device is ready for the market and some sort of car-friendly voice-controlled heads-up-display computing device is capable of commanding billions, but outside of that it's going to be about apps and information... and although Apple has a huge presence today and lots of cash they've got a very hard positition to hold as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. are fighting for the same consumers who are paying a premium for Apple products.

My dad got a 1st gen iPad and really liked it. He just got a Nexus 7 and ditched his iPad. He doesn't think it's amazing or anything, but he can fit it in his pocket, buy books from Amazon directly, it was only $200 and it's lighter and easier to read on. At some point Apple's differentiation shifts from being innovative devices to being "sexy" design and a great interface... sure that sells, but it doesn't sell at nearly the same level as truly innovative devices like the iPod, iPhone, or iPad can. Apple's doing well today, but maintaining this level of success if going to be extremely difficult.

<comment><USER21> > Google Glass-style device is ready for the market and some sort of car- > friendly voice-controlled heads-up-display

I am sorry but anyone who thinks devices like these are going to be some wild success are ignorant of the realities of our society.

People do not want to be recorded by random third parties and existing privacy laws in many countries respect that. As such the current use case of the device is likely to be illegal from day one. Throw in the problems of recording of children, recording inside workplaces and public institutions, complications for law enforcement, distraction whilst driving etc. The end result being the only place you could safely wear them is inside your own home.

Do I think it will be common in the future. Sure. But society and the law moves a lot slower than people realise.

<comment><USER31> _People do not want to be recorded by random third parties_

...unless they get tremendous (perceived) value from it. Facebook, anyone?

<comment><USER3> People do not recognize the privacy invasion of using facebook. Try and follow a stranger around with a video camera, I doubt it goes over well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Whatever. Apple makes 35 billion instead of the expected 37 billion in a non- holiday quarter - sooo disappointing! They must really be losing their way.

All things of course come to an end, but does 35 billion worth of revenue in a quarter signal Cupertino's imminent demise? I mean come on, how many consumer companies can say they've sold 35 billion dollars worth of anything?

IMHO, Apple's downfall will come from growing and expanding too much, not too little.</comment>


Cryptocurrency exchange CEO gone missing - <AUTHOR> https://idax.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360037327571-Urgent-announcement-about-current-situation-of-IDAX-Global <comment><USER2> Missing _with_ the keys to the cold wallets, to be specific [https://www.ccn.com/crypto-exchange-idax-missing-ceo-exit- sc...](https://www.ccn.com/crypto-exchange-idax-missing-ceo-exit-scam/)</comment>


When it's this cold, Chicago sets its train tracks on fire - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/30/us/chicago-train-tracks-fire-trnd/index.html <comment><USER2> Pffft, the Metra catches fire even when it's not -20 below, we've become quite used to it.</comment>


Everyone's for sale: Digital media properties are all in trouble - <AUTHOR> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/a-generation-of-digital-media-darlings-prepares-for-a-frigid-winter <comment><AUTHOR> I left this comment before on a different thread.

As a publisher of the medical technologies news website (since 2004), I can tell you that what we have now is monopolized internet. Few entities, like Google and FB, took over the internet and crafted the landscape to their advantage. They monopolized ads revenue, search traffic, and more importantly, they are actively spying on the general public, taking away any possible advantages from publishers. So website for doctors cannot make money by advertising to doctors. Doctors will see Google ads on Candy Crush. The result is a dearth of advertising money for publishers and regulations aimed at destroying any attempt to take over these behemoths.

When was the last time you saw GFPR notice on Facebook or Google? Do you think publishers enjoy having "Please Donate" pop-ups? When was the last time you heard of investment rounds in online publishers?

In the olden days we had websites and blog networks being born, Gawker, Weblogs Inc, TechCrunch network, political networks, etc etc. And what do we have now? Central stations with fake news shenanigans and retarded memes. While publishers, including your local newspaper and your favorite websites, are struggling.</comment>


Robo-reporter writes front-page news - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/e2cbe014-8131-11e9-b592-5fe435b57a3b <comment><USER2> [http://archive.is/h7Daq](http://archive.is/h7Daq)

<comment><USER3> The unspoken hero, thank you for your duty

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is interesting in light of all the worry about generative language models spreading misinformation (e.g. GPT-2 and company). With mainstream news trying to automate reporting on real facts, tools to detect auto-generated reporting won't be sufficient to combat automatic fake news. We'd have to have a way of telling the good bots from the bad, which is a whole can of worms.

<comment><USER5> The word that comes to mind is "messy".

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hate Robo stories. They come up on google all the time and they're just a waste of time. They seem to generate decent seo I guess

</comment><comment><USER7> The headline is kind of misleading. It makes it sound like a machine would be churning out these news, out of thin air, and that's not really the case. The article itself isn't helping much with all the hype.

The article isn't really about bots writing news. It's also far from OpenAI's GPT-2. It's about regular reporters writing massively localized stories with some fine tools. It's pretty cool stuff actually.

What radar is doing is definitely shaping the media landscape, but it is not news created by bots. It's news generated from templates, which are written by humans:

> One of six human journalists working at Radar will write a story "template" > with wording for each of the various possible scenarios — for example, a > boom, modest rise or sharp fall in violent crime. Then, at the click of a > mouse, versions of the story are created for each of the UK's 391 local > authority areas, pulling in the statistics specific to that region.

They are basically doing what Reuters does, except Radar only provides a handful of stories a week instead of hundreds of stories. But the trick is that while stories by Reuters are static, the articles provided by Radar are localized for each region, based on the data used. (All the localizations are written into the template, from which the program picks the best fitting pieces based on the data per region.)

> The UK's most prolific reporter churns out thousands of stories a month for > hundreds of publications across the country — a superhuman effort, were it > not for the fact the journalist is not fully human.

The numbers in the previous quote mean that Radar generates hundreds of different, localized versions from these dozen or so weekly article templates.

The cool thing here isn't that a model would create these articles, but that it's possible to create good quality local reporting, from data and a well written master template, by non-local reporters.

Basically, as news publishers are sunsetting their local papers, Radar has shown that it is still possible to serve local news to smaller regions.

And all this can be done by more or less regular reporters. There's some programming involved, but nothing complicated - AFAIK, the programming for the templates is similar to writing scripts in Excel.

> Gary Rogers, Radar's editor-in-chief, estimates that half of its stories > that appear in print are added to by local reporters. However, that drops to > just 20 per cent for stories republished by online news sites.

Like mentioned in the quote, half of the time, for stories that are going to be published in physical papers, local journalists add their own reporting to the stories. Again, these stories don't magically enter the front page. They are selected to be placed there by the editors, and in many cases, local journalists add their knowledge to the articles. But still, the language in them is good enough to be used on prime estate.

In web and mobile, it appears, the rim is lower, and it goes more often faster to the site, without modifications. But then again, the rules in internet are different.

Plenty of the problems that people have had with previous template-based robot journalist writings, has been with repetitive textual structures. With Radar's model that is not as big a problem, as the master template is only used once per story. If a reader reads the story from one magazine, it's less likely that she will also read the same story in another paper. Compare this to sport robots where you see the same structure repeating in every story.

I've understood that Radar isn't the first in this place, but they have shown a business model for template based news that manages to avoid the biggest problems with repetitive structures.

In summary, Radar is doing something cool by automating local news, although the article isn't the most clearest on what the cool thing is.

There's plenty of ambiguity in stories about Radar, so my guess is this is partly due to their press release lingo / hype.

<comment><USER7> There are certain open questions with Radar style localized template based news.

Mainly it's about automatization, changing the way things are done. New skillsets are needed, while old ones are out of the door.

There's the existential problem this kind of centralized local news creation has on smaller desks, mentioned in the article, but then again the trend appears to be that owners are running the small, unprofitable ones down anyways, regardless of Radar.

There's also the question whether this style of localization, but not personalization, of news, is the best way to serve readers. Could these same local news be served in some other way?

IMO, the way Radar works, mainly happens the way it does, as there exists a need from small papers, for quality journalism that they don't have their own resources to conduct. Of course, nothing is stopping Radar of doing something different in the future.

Then there's also the hypotetical (?) threat on press diversity. Basically a multitude of superficially distinct voices are repeating the same liturgy. This zerg of articles on a specific topic, might appear to a news consumer, as many credible sources supporting a specific view or point.

There's similarity with Reuters et al in this problem, and clearly Reuters hasn't destroyed news. But with Reuters, the text is most of the time identical in all the places where it is published. In the case of localized templates, it might not be clear to the reader that all the different versions are instances of the same master template, with same bias from a single writer, if the template is well enough written.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Gives a new sense to "fake news"

Now we need a robo-reader who reverses the article back into the source data.</comment>


Bringing WebVR to Microsoft Edge - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/09/09/webvr-in-development-edge/ <comment><USER2> Very impressed with how Edge is keeping up with the new API's. Only downside is its bundled with OS version. I think that should be Edge's #1 priority. Make a edge a browser that auto updates faster than the OS and could be used cross platform.

Only reason I prefer chrome is that I know the experience is same no matter the OS + my extensions and bookmarks are one sign in away.

With android having 80% mobile share and chrome taking a massive browser market share, Google is the new Microsoft. Edge has a real opportunity to kick ass.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> So that's now WebVR coming to all three major browsers, that's great :)</comment>


Tweetdeck set for $30m takeover - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7e731046-3780-11e0-b91a-00144feabdc0.html

<comment><USER2> close to? Didn't this happen already?

<http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/11/ubermedia-tweetdeck/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Considering the traction this seems really low.</comment>


An open letter from tech workers to Doordash - <AUTHOR> https://firstname.lastname@example.com/an-open-letter-from-tech-workers-to-doordash-dc387fdef0fe <comment> grayed-down Doordash is "valued" at $7,000,000,000? What planet am I on? How many people use doordash and how much food would they have to order to justify that type of valuation?

I guess that shuck-and-jive with the tip payouts is done out of necessity. Pretty crappy though?

</comment><comment><USER2> This would be illegal in California I think. Tips can't be used for wages and the employer is not allowed to touch them.

</comment><comment><USER3> DoorDash (YC s2013 [0])

[0] [https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/](https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/)

</comment><comment><USER4> If you're gonna tip, tip in cash. Don't give these fuck head tech companies power - they clearly have no ability to use it responsibly.</comment>


Gooqus - <AUTHOR> http://gooqus.com The Social Search Engine <comment><USER2> Pretty ingenious idea, however, I don't know how it's going to catch on. The vast majority of searches are one-off phrases

</comment><comment><USER3> eww, way too many ads on the page, including right between the results and the discussion! also simply refuses to return results for "test", but I seem to get real results for "pope" (I was trying something newsworthy). I'm not sure/it's not clear what 'custom' search is going on.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm sorry but without Google Suggest I won't use it even though I like the idea.

</comment><comment><USER5> Too clumbersome. And the point of all this is not clear. Why?

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm getting 'no results' on the first few tries, however the results appear after using the backbutton. Is it google.com results only? Geotargeting would be nice.

</comment><comment><USER7> I love Google and adore Disqus!</comment>


Video: Linus Torvalds on git - <AUTHOR> http://ontwik.com/git-github/linus-torvalds-on-git/

<comment><USER2> Albeit an old video, a fun talk about the merits of git, I was never really bothered with git before this. Haven't looked back.

<comment><USER3> Same. If it wasn't for this, I'd probably never have used git, or any version control for that matter (given that I hated svn and all the others).

<comment><USER4> The funny thing about SVN is that I used to use it a lot for documents and text rather than code. Since there were no local commits, it also backed up my important documents with every commit, and also allowed me to work on documents everywhere. Since I had no need for branching, it worked fairly well. Now we have Dropbox for that.

<comment><USER3> For documents I use Google Docs. It has the added benefits of easy publishing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Circa 2007. Still a classic though.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is the video that convinced me to switch to git. I had git evangelists talk it up for the longest time before this, but they never laid out the benefits as well as he does here.

</comment><comment><USER7> There seems to be an abundance of naught-era news here. On the other hand I get to keep making "200X called" jokes about Hacker News. I win either way, so I'm not complaining.

<comment><USER8> <http://xkcd.com/875/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great video. There is a transcript for those who prefer to read: [https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/LinusTalk200705Transcr...](https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/LinusTalk200705Transcript)

I'd watch the video anyway, since Linus is awesome on stage.

</comment><comment><USER10> Was there some newsworthy reason this rather old video was resubmitted?

<comment><USER11> People haven't seen it, many aren't using a DVCS of some sort.

That's like refusing to keep making foie gras after you've distributed a single package of it. Not everybody gets to be as hipster-early to everything as you were in this case, sadly.

<comment><USER10> OK fair enough but it's Hacker NEWS not Hacker-good-videos-people-should- watch-but-haven't-yet.

I mean, the video is on the front page of google results if you search for "git". It's plenty well known, don't make some straw man argument that I'm "hipster-early" because I've seen it in the nearly four years this has been out.</comment></comment></comment>


ICurrent: A news aggregator that works - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-10381520-250.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

<comment><USER2> Direct: <http://www.icurrent.com/home>

1\. The web-design is enough to put me off, 2. these type of aggregators are not new.</comment>


World3: Modeling Limits to Growth. A Detailed World Forecaster - <AUTHOR> https://insightmaker.com/insight/1954/The-World3-Model-A-Detailed-World-Forecaster <comment><AUTHOR> The World3 model is a detailed simulation of human population growth from 1900 into the future. It includes many environmental and demographic factors.

In 1972, three scientists from MIT created a computer model that analyzed global resource consumption and production. Their results shocked the world.</comment>


The world's deepest ocean trenches are packed with pollution - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21716891-nasty-chemicals-abound-what-was-thought-untouched-environment-worlds <comment> rm_-rf_slash I hope that the global conversation on ecological protection can evolve from climate change to tangible effects, like pollution and ocean acidification, just as climate change evolved from the use of the term global warming.

Ocean acidification in particular ought to be an issue even climate skeptics can acknowledge is a problem. Unlike climate change, which can be difficult to communicate due to its abstract nature (we had heat last summer and snow last winter so what's changing?), you can plainly test acidification with two cups of water - tap and sparkling - and a pair of litmus slips to show the difference. Then expand on how all the carbon in the atmosphere does that to the oceans, and then demonstrate what that does to life in the oceans, from the algae and plankton to the fish people eat.

Overall I think that focusing on precise tangible issues that people can observe for themselves is a better way to communicate the need for ecological protection than to be completely correct in a large and abstract assessment that people might have trouble following.

Only problem is it's hard to sex up the term "ocean acidification." For something like that we'd need an attention-grabbing shorthand, like "melty fishy death water."

<comment><USER2> *edit: anecdote ahead

My experience working as a clean air and water advocate in my early 20s was that people who don't buy into climate change also tend to rationalize away things like potable water, wildlife, and preservation of natural resources. The venn diagram of people who don't "believe in" climate change and would support CO2 cuts to stop ocean acidification is tiny.

However, I'd love to be proven wrong.

<comment><USER3> I always agreed that pollution should be a higher priority than climate change. The onus is on me to drive a hybrid to reduce my co2 output, but nothing is being done to curb polluting our waterways.

<comment><USER4> Packaging is a great evil. Most of our waste is packaging. My family recycles a lot, buys glass/aluminum when possible, and still we generate 2-3 bags of garbage each week, mostly food packaging.

<comment><USER5> The supermarkets discovered they can get you to buy more tomatoes when there are six of them in shiny cellophane, so that's what they do. It's maddening. Not only that, it's nearly impossible not to use plastic packaging if you're not handily located near a co-op (or Unverpackt, if you're in Germany). In many cases I've been looked at suspiciously when I said I didn't need a bag for my two items at the checkout, as though there were something wrong with me. Saying "it just winds up in the back of my car" usually convinced them (never mind that I cycled there...)

<comment><USER4> Cashiers are sometimes bothered when I have a bunch of veggies not in individual bags, but that bag literally lasts 10 minutes until I get home and put the produce in the fridge. It's a massive waste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Given that polychlorinated biphenyls are so much more abundant in the deep sea trenches than even "In grossly polluted areas, like the Liao River in China" the scientist in me suspects that something other than pollution might be at play.

Perhaps deep sea organisms synthesize polychlorinated biphenyls as an adaptive response? (weirder things are known...) Or perhaps the chemical degradation of polychlorinated biphenyls is inhibited by the environment?

<comment><USER7> I had that thought as well, however when you look at the differences of the two systems I don't think it holds up well. Consider that every other tested source mentioned has a natural diluting mechanism, whether it is a river receiving runoff rainwater or a tidal area. The trench on the other hand represents a global minimum. Nothing really comes "up" from the trench in quantity so it is in some ways a perfect 'sink'. As such it may be in the process of simply getting more and more concentrated. There chemical inertness would make them extremely long lived under the conditions of the trench.

<comment><USER8> It's a sink only for things more dense than the water at that depth. Even the great pacific garbage patch floats.

<comment><USER9> I assume it's present in low concentrations in heavy trash or perhaps the flesh of creatures that sink to the bottom after death, slowly building up over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _Precisely why the Mariana trench has such elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls remains unclear. Dr Jamieson suspects it has to do with the trench's proximity to the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, a whirlpool hundreds of kilometres across that has amassed enormous quantities of plastics over the years, and which has the potential to send the pollutants that bind to those plastics deep into the ocean as the plastics degrade and descend._

I think that this guess is likely to be right. It would take a very long time for fluid convection and diffusion to transport these pollutants to such depths. But particles of plastic that are higher-density than water will collect a lot of these strongly hydrophobic pollutants on their surfaces and sink deeply much faster than convection/diffusion operate.

There is a "missing plastic" question in environmental science. We see a lot of plastic trash near the surface in oceans, but the visible amount is much less than the amount humans seem to be adding to the ocean each year.

[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/06/ninety-nine- percent-o...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/06/ninety-nine-percent- oceans-plastic-missing)

Where is the "missing" plastic? It seems likely that some of it is sinking to the ocean floor, either because the plastic itself is denser than water or because it builds up denser-than-water growths on its surface. Finding polychlorinated biphenyls and brominated ethers concentrated at such depths is, IMO, pretty convincing evidence for plastics and the pollutants concentrated on their surfaces sinking into the benthic zone.

(Another part of the missing plastic may be gone due to colonization and _digestion_ of plastics by natural hydrocarbon-eaters; see "Life in the "Plastisphere": Microbial Communities on Plastic Marine Debris" for a really fascinating paper about this phenomenon.

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tracy_Mincer/publicatio...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tracy_Mincer/publication/237094808_Life_in_the_Plastisphere_Microbial_Communities_on_Plastic_Marine_Debris/links/0c96053397631e606c000000/Life- in-the-Plastisphere-Microbial-Communities-on-Plastic-Marine-Debris.pdf) )

It's rather alarming to find such concentrated pollution so far away from its human sources. But at the risk of sounding callous, it's kind of good news for humans and our critical ecosystem services: these very deep ocean regions are relatively isolated from most seafood eaten by humans, and from the photic zone whose photosynthesis is an important part of the carbon cycle. If persistent pollution has to partition somewhere, partitioning into the deepest parts of the ocean is about the best case scenario for surface life.

<comment><USER11> hopefully people in power don't get to the idea that since it might not be harmful to us where it is at that we should purposefully put stuff there

<comment><USER12> That thought has already crossed their mind. I have an old textbook on energy that shows people pushing 50 gallon drums of nuclear waste into the ocean.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A bit off-topic, but...

"If Mount Everest were flipped upside down into it, there would still be more than 2km of clear water between the mountain's base and the top of the ocean"

This statement always bugs me, the elevation at Everest's base is already ~14,000ft. Its prominence is not its full elevation. When you try to have someone imagine "flipping it upside down", a person wouldn't typically consider including the surrounding terrain, but simply ignore the fact that it's already at great elevation.

<comment><USER14> I get what you're saying, but the definition of the term 'prominence' doesn't help you, because by definition, Mount Everest's 'prominence' equals its actual height above MSL. This special case is necessary to give the recursive definition of 'prominence' a base case.

However, it's true that Mount Everest's "relief above local terrain" is not equal to its actual altitude above MSL, but this is just informal empirical footballing and no rigorous technical definitions exist.

<comment><USER15> If only the Earth were a perfectly featureless sphere how simple things would be.

<comment><USER16> > If only the Earth were a perfectly featureless sphere how simple things > would be.

<rant>

Blah, boring. I remember a girl describing how nice everything would be if everything was _symmetrical_ and deterministic, from language, to language, to numbers, to nature, to math... In the end she went on describing _heaven_ as such a place... Man, for the first time in my life I thought that if heaven is like this, I'd like never go there :-)

When Homer described Helen, he wrote "The most beautiful woman in the world", he left the details to the reader. Now imagine if he had added the slightest hint of determinism...

</rant>

<comment><USER17> I might just be arguing semantics here, but it's possible that the world we live in is determinist, just in a way too complex for us to even grasp.

<comment><USER16> That doesn't take away my argument though: It would be too boring if there was nothing _patternless_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sounds like even more problems for a prospective future undersea colony beyond the crushing weight of pressure.

<comment><USER13> it's only "crushing" relative to you.

aliens may consider being at very bottom of 50mi of O2/N2 atmosphere @ 14.7 psi to be crushing relative to the vacuum of space.

<comment><USER19> yes...i think the parent is referring to humans, not aliens.

<comment><USER13> the point is, what's living at these pressures is not human, so you cannot ascribe to them a human-relative definition of "crushing". it's obviously normal and not "crushing" to them.

<comment><USER19> yes, but I imagine by "future undersea colony" Apocryphon is referring to a colony of humans...

<comment><USER13> ah, i missed that bit. time for more coffee it seems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Most of the plastic in the ocean comes from street litter in coastal cities. If you smoke, that includes cigarette butts (the filters are not natural cellulose anymore), as well as the plastic wrapped around the package that so many let fall to the sidewalk.

<comment><USER20> I think this is my only zero vote, ever. I'm amazed that a useful and practical (for our environment) suggestion was downvoted here; whereas I'd expect that if Brietbart had a forum (which maybe they do, I rarely if ever visit the site.) Did someone not google and assume natural cellulose was obviously still used in filters? It isn't, it's synthetic, a polymer that doesn't degrade.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The Economist summary says the amphipods that were found to contain PCBs were collected by baiting traps with mackerel.

I don't have access to the original research report, but I wonder if they analyzed the mackerel for those pollutants?

<comment><USER22> From the paper: "The traps were baited with ~100 g of mackerel that was enclosed in a mesh bag to allow the development of an odour plume, but prevent the amphipods consuming any of the bait that might otherwise affect POP levels in downstream assays."

So even if the mackerel did contain the pollutants, they weren't transferred to the amphipods.

<comment><USER21> Thanks for this. I thought it was unlikely they hadn't controlled for pollution in the bait, but simple things sometimes slip through.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If this doesn't end bad for humans it sure will when it's the plot of a sci-fi horror movie.

</comment><comment><USER24> Some day it would be awesome to build swarms of autonomous deep-sea robots. Ahhh... imagine if they ate tiny plastic like plankton for whales haha.

I know just bs, not a novel idea, until you do it just spewing smoke.

So much to learn still, I'm currently oriented to web dev not hardware programming but I have a hardware friend though, math friend, pieces will fit someday perhaps.

The ocean is such a mystery/entrancing.

Just imagine if you had a bunch of robots just out there doing there thing and you could "ssh" into them by satellite haha would be nuts.</comment>


Ask HN: Celestial Mechanics Book Recommendations  - <AUTHOR>

Recently I've become very interested in celestial mechanics, specifically the Sun/Moon/Earth relationship. For instance, the Moon orbits in the elliptical plane, so it's always between the Sun and the Earth.
Here is an example of something I'd like to figure out: three weeks ago it was a new moon, so when it was noon somewhere in North America, if you could look up and see the Moon and Sun, I assume the Moon would appear a little lower in the sky since it's closer to Earth. However, a week ago, it was a full moon, so at midnight the Moon would be at it highest point in the sky, and I think North America would have been swung a lot closer towards the elliptical plane, because of the Earth's tilt, so the full Moon would appear higher in the sky than the Sun does at noon. Finally, at what point in the Moon's cycle this month, would it's highest elevation in the sky be at the same elevation as the Sun at noon?
I'm looking for a good book that will explain all these things with an Earth-centered approach, and teach me the correct terms, like the ones satellite technicians need to know.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I would suggest you start with WikiPedia.

Main page: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon>

Relationship with Earth: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth-Moon.PNG>

Details of the orbit: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon>

Relevant terms and parameters: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit1.svg>

Then decide what you want to know next.

And while I applaud your interest and enthusiasm, why didn't you simply use Google to get started?

<http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+moon>

<http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+moon+orbit>

<comment><AUTHOR> [Edit] Thanks for the links.

"why didn't you simply use Google to get started"

Because I wanted a book I could sit down with and read. Wikipedia is nice and I have and will check out these resources, but a book, which someone took the time to write, often has more character and is more interesting than the web.

<comment><USER2> OK, fair enough. I can't help with any suggestions for books though, sorry. You might try similar searches on Amazon.

For reference, you'll probably get a better response if you demonstrate that you've already exhausted or rejected the usual sources of information. That way people won't track over the same territory needlessly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> To develop terminology and understanding of the physical/mathematical problems you could look into the books of Jean Meeus. "Astronomical Algorithms" contains, ...well, exactly that: small recipes to solve problems in positional astronomy or calculate ephemerides. Check Willman Bell publishers for the english version of his books.

I liked "Celestial Mechanics" by Laurence Taff, but it's calculus-heavy which is nice if you're interested in the mathematical background and want to see some practical calculation examples.

Somewhere in the middle between these books is "Astronomical Methods and Calculations" by Acker and Jaschek. The exercises and solutions in this book come very close to the example you give.

Apologies for not putting links to the books but just google for author/title. Or check your local library.</comment>


All You Need to Know About Testing - <AUTHOR> https://itnext.io/load-testing-stress-testing-and-performance-testing-all-you-need-to-know-56c333849941 <comment><USER2> Great article. I was actually looking for resources where I can find how to do the testing of my product.</comment>


Are your pants lying to you?  An investigation - <AUTHOR> http://www.esquire.com/blogs/mens-fashion/pants-size-chart-090710 <comment><USER3> I've wondered about this. I've worn a 34"-34" pant for the last 20 years, and I know my waist has expanded over that time. It just didn't add up.

On fixing the meaning of the sizing, I'm reminded of someone I knew who took a sewing class in highschool. They started with patterns from the 1950s, and despite the teacher warning the students how different the sizings would be, virtually nobody managed to make clothing that they could squeeze into.

Personally I think the best solution is to make it a matter of law that the sizing be accurate. Everyone would hear that the sizing changed dramatically, there would be a brief transition, and we'd soon get used to accurate sizes. Drawing it out gradually would force people to keep on relearning their size, and overall would be more disruptive.

<comment><USER4> I really hope something this trivial doesn't merit the time of Congress. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

<comment><USER5> Trivial? It might seem so, but it does actually fall well within the area the founders gave congress (surely this is both weights and measurements and interstate commerce).

"Fixing" the standard size would be fraud, as they don't sell the actual product that they claim to sell.

<comment><USER6> Would you mandate your system or sizing? What if they just changed their form of measurement? Or they said recommended size? Is this a problem you are constantly facing? I don't have any difficulty buying pants - why do we need a law?

<comment><USER5> All I would mandate would be that pants labeled 10 inches would be ten inches.

You want to sell Venti pants - go ahead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This could present a significant barrier to reliable online shopping for clothes. It'll be interesting to see in the coming years, as more of these retailers offer online ordering (GAP is finally offering their catalog to us Canadians, for example), whether fitting will be normalized somehow, or whether each retailer will instead stick to a specific size translation table as I've seen some places.

Either that or someone will have to build a website or tool that aggregates the investigative work for us. I know I'd pay a small premium to eliminate the guesswork.

(EDIT: I wish there was a way to OpenID-ify personal body measurements for this purpose so every clothing site I visited could automatically select the best-fitting clothes for me. GAP small/medium t-shirts are wildly different from Threadless' small/medium American Apparel Ts)

<comment><USER8> Wow. I had a long, detailed conversation last night with my roommate/potential co-founder about doing EXACTLY this. The way sizing is handled in the clothing industry is ridiculous for women especially, but for men as well according to this article.

The basic technology product is software that, given information about your body shape, can produce a listing of clothing that _will_ fit you. As far as we can tell this does not yet exist. When the customer can trust that the clothes will fit, then they can shop based on style, fashion, price, or any other number of more interesting criteria rather than worrying about getting the right size or cut.

If you pair this technology with a customer-centered online retail environment then I think you can create a lot of value. Zappos has shown that you can make buying articles of clothing online work, with their famous customer support and return policies.

The concept of requiring a customer to consult a sizing translation table _per label_ or even _per garment_ just to find clothes that fit well flabbergasts me. But we haven't found any better solutions on offer.

This all fits in with Request For Startup 2: New Paths Through Product Space. <http://ycombinator.com/rfs2.html> Nobody is selling clothing based on what fits the individual shopper. We want to make an online storefront that only offers clothing that will fit _you_.

There are a lot of negative knock-on effects from the current way clothes shopping is done. People agonize over sizing and equate their waistband with their self-worth. That's ridiculous. Every person will look best and be most comfortable in clothing that matches their actual shape, regardless of what number is on the label. Especially if that number is a lie!

Clothes shopping changed drastically starting in about the mid 1800s through the 1920s with the advent of mass-produced garments. Before that each item was made individually. After that, confusing labels, garments designed to fit the "average" person to minimize the need for alterations, changing demographics, and vanity sizing turned the whole system into an incredible morass. It wasn't always this way, and it shouldn't have to be.

The article suggests that government regulation of sizing labels is the solution to the problem of ill-fitting clothing. What the author does not mention is that this was tried in the past! That system fell apart and you can read about its failure from the NIST: <http://museum.nist.gov/exhibits/apparel/index.htm>

I posit that smarter technology which can match the clothing to the person is a superior solution.

There's a lot of pain involved in clothes shopping today. We want to fix that.

If any hackers here, especially women, have some thoughts to share on this topic I dearly want to hear them, whether in a post here or in a private email. My address is in my profile.

We are seriously considering applying to YCombinator with this proposal.

<comment><USER9> (sorry to duplicate my comment here, but it's relevant)

It's not just a matter of vanity, it's a matter of extremely loose tolerances in manufacturing.

I've found that even within a single store, looking at the same model of Levi's jeans, I need to try each individual pair. I always wear the same thing: Levi's 505 34W 30L. But I find that individual specimens with this exact tag can be as much as an inch different in every dimension: waist diameter, inseam length, and even leg diameter at the hem.

This being the case, it's not possible to say that a given item is the right fit, without actually trying it.

<comment><USER10> But if you have a clothing portal that knows your every dimension, part of the service you can sell is that you measure every single item, ensuring a good fit (regardless of the size tag). Whether you match them up to the customer on shipping or to the database on receiving is up to you.

I have no idea if that would be scalable, but it would certainly help with customer retention and goodwill.

<comment><USER11> You could always pitch it to a wealthier crowd to limit the amount of customers...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is why it keeps getting harder for me to find a pair of pants that fits me. I have a 28-1/2" waist (and I'm a guy), and most stores' _listed_ sizes only go down to 30.

The good news is, since few people wear their pants at their waists anymore (even "conservative" non-saggy styles usually put the waistband halfway between true waist and hip), the size of a waistband _really should be_ a couple inches larger than your actual waist measurement. Just not six inches. (At least, not on most men. Women on average have much more differential between their waist and hip measurement, but the popular fit is also all different, so I'm going to sidestep that for now.)

<comment><USER13> I have the same problem - unusually skinny, baggy clothes make it look worse. Levis fortunately fit me, and European brands like H&M are fairly reliable.

Protip #1: try clothes in store, buy online via Gilt or one of those discount shopping websites. When they have something you want, the discounts are often amazing, though you have to make quick decisions because small sizes often sell out fast. Most of these sites are very good on reporting the sizes correctly or helping you convert US-EU.

Protip #2: you can't wear jeans and a nice-fitting black top your whole life unless you're Steve Jobs. And designer menswear can get very pricey...but a good tailor can make an something with an average fit look absolutely perfect. Buy sizes that fit comfortably where you're largest (eg my neck wants a 38 shirt even though my shoulders and chest aren't) and then pay a few $ extra to have the garment altered. This might add $30 or $40 to the price of a shirt, but suddenly you'll have access to a world of things that don't exist in your size, and it will actually be worth looking at what's on sale.

the discounts will easily pay for the alterations, and after a while you have a bunch of stuff in your closet that fits well, whether casual or business. Dressing actually becomes enjoyable instead of a chore.

<comment><USER14> _try clothes in store, buy online_

I'm sure you must mean buy online from an internet cafe with free WiFi without buying anything from the cafe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's a headrush to think that vanity sizing may be leading men to underestimate their waist size, potentially to the detriment of their health - taken to a logical conclusion, vanity sizing may be killing people.

We live in a very strange world.

<comment><USER16> I'm not sure I see the connection between vanity sizing and health. I don't think men think to themselves "34 inches is healthy" -- they pretty much only care how they measure in comparison to other men. You can call it 34 or 40, it doesn't impact the question of "am I fatter than my competition?"

Put another way, I don't think men would be likely to go on diets if you immediately renumbered pants sizes, as long as they were still in the same place relative to other men.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> As somebody who has recently shed a large amount of weight - and has thus been forced to undergo a wallet-shattering number of wardrobe-replacements - <USER2> does not surprise me a bit. A drop of eight inches in waist over about 9 months means that, at any one point, you just never really know what size you actually are, which leads to the useful habit of trying everything on before you buy it - and boy, did I notice a difference in the sizing between various brands and outlets!

A couple of months ago, for instance, I bought two pairs of trousers on one day - one pair from a department store where I could use the changing rooms provided to ascertain that I needed a 34", and one from a more "discount warehouse" type place that was having a rather cracking sale. Having tried the first pair on in the department store, I was chuffed - "Great, I'm in a 34!" - and so automatically bought the same size in a pair of jeans from the second place (with no changing rooms), because the price was right. They were _at least_ two inches too big. I'd just bought two pairs of bottoms, in identical sizes, that had clearly been designed with two totally different ideas of how tape-measures actually work.

I learned my lesson and swore never to pay for anything I haven't tried.

I also bought a tape measure of my own - and learned how to bloody well use it!

<comment><USER9> _I bought two pairs of trousers on one day - one pair from a department store ..., and one from a more "discount warehouse" type place_

I've found that even within a single store, looking at the same model of Levi's jeans, I need to try each individual pair. I always wear the same thing: Levi's 505 34W 30L. But I find that individual specimens with this exact tag can be as much as an inch different in every dimension: waist diameter, inseam length, and even leg diameter at the hem.

So this isn't _just_ vanity. It's also a question of horribly loose tolerances in manufacturing.

<comment><USER18> My mother, who has worked as a seamstress, says that when they cut the fabric for the patterns, the pattern cut can vary as much as 2 inches depending on whether the fabric was on the top or bottom of the stack being cut. (Though I'm sure the error margin might be lower these days than they were before.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Some of this is also due to poor QC at the manufacturers. I went out pants shopping just this past weekend and tried three of the same pants of exactly the same size and all three fit drastically differently, from absurdly small- couldn't-get-it-over-my-thighs to so ginormous they looked like clown pants and had a hugely saggy crotch.

And it wasn't a cheapo store either. But I had to mindful that there was a reason I was able to find decent work slacks for $20.

Pant sizes should really just be "guidelines" unless you are getting something custom tailored.

</comment><comment><USER20> Quick side note since I am at work: In 2007 the Spanish Government ruled by law the clothing sizes for women aged 12+, as an attempt to stop anorexia and other eating disorders. They detected a trend among some high profile clothing companies to artificially 'shrink' the sizes of dresses and jeans, imposing an artificially skinny 'average body shape'

The Ministry sampled several thousand of women ( [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article12...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1265873.ece) ) as an effort to find some average body shape and standardize clothing sizes.

I don't know is that affected the spread of eating disorders in the country somehow. I don't live in Spain any longer and this is nothing I usually talk about with my friends from the other side of the Atlantic. I know that Americans are usually opposed to government intervention, but I consider that a central 'authority' has some value in setting standards in measuring units. (A mile is a mile, in California, Colorado, Liberia or Burma)

<comment><USER12> > _(A mile is a mile, in California, Colorado, Liberia or Burma)_

I see what you did there.

(nicely done)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Conversely, when we visited the US in January I bought three pairs of jeans whose inside leg measurements were understated by an average of 4 inches. My 30"-leg trews turned out to be no less than 34" long from the inner seam.

I can't for the life of me figure out why a US customer would want to pretend they're _shorter_ than they really are.

(Mostly I'm annoyed because getting them fixed at home adds 50% to the price, negating the entire reason for purchasing them in the first place. And yes, two of the three were bought at Old Navy.)

<comment><USER16> Given the general quality at Old Navy, I wonder if the vast over-sizing of the waist and your observed under-sizing of the inseam are really just artifacts of sloppy work. I've personally gotten pants from the them that were much skinnier than the same size at other stores. I'm not sure how big a sample size Esquire used, but maybe Old Navy just suck at QA.

<comment><USER22> It's artifacts of sloppy work. I regularly hit the inseam problem, I have to push for a 28" inseam, when in tailored pants I'm a 32". However I noticed waist size can frequently vary by as much as 4" as well, but sometimes I get a pair that fit perfect again. I did notice that costco's Kirkland pants are regularly 2" narrower in the waist than Old Navy (for anyone who cares).

I think the problem is that pants are being labelled as a 36x36 when they're actually more a 40" waste, causing the inseam to be made closer to a 40" too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I was/am in the preliminary stages of researching and testing a product for dealing clothing fit issues. In the course of this, I learned far more about clothing sizing than any sane person should know. I can tell you that vanity sizing is something of a myth - it's really size inflation.

What's happening is this:

Consumers have an expectation of being able to buy the same size forever, and buy clothes accordingly. Size 34 waist 10 years ago? Just grab size 34 from the rack. Of course, people gain weight and should go for a larger size. But they don't - they still see themselves as a size 34 and keep buying it. And complaining or moving on to the competitor when it doesn't fit. The problem is even worse for women's clothing for reasons too lengthy to go into here.

The only reliable solution is a system similar to the European standard, EN 13402. With this system, the fit tolerance (range of body dimensions it is designed for) for the item is listed on its hang tag. This gets away from issues like styles that are designed to have very large amounts of ease, or elastic fabrics.

For those that are thinking of building a product in this space, another thing to keep in mind is that most customers just don't care that much about good fit. Sad, but true.

</comment><comment><USER24> Pro pants wearer tip: hold a buttoned pair of pants by the waist and wrap the waist around your neck. If the two ends meet (and you can still breathe), the pants will fit your waist. PS: doing this will get you some weird looks.

<comment><USER25> That just blew my mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Apparently the men's measurement in US standard clothing size corresponds to chest size in inches, so the waist measurement was intended to be smaller than the listed size.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_standard_clothing_size#Men>

</comment><comment><USER27> My wife is a fashion designer and she's told me that although every woman wants to be a size six the average American woman is now a size 14. For all the stick fashion houses get about skinny models you'd be hard pressed to find clothes that even fit them at your local mall. Thanks to my high metabolism (I'm the most unfit fit looking person ever) I have a 32" waist yet if I buy 32" pants I'm absolutely swimming in them. Shirts are even worse it's impossible to get a 16" collar to someone my height (6'2"). I've thought many time of starting-up a clothing company for 'skinny & tall' guys. As others have mentioned the best bests are the European brands like H&M or Zara. The only real American choices are Calvin Klein or teen focused brands like Hollister.

<comment><USER28> I'm already too tall for ordinary height clothes, too thin and often too short for ordinary big&tall shops. If you start 'skinny and tall' shops please don't make me too fat for those by catering for only 32" waists!

I've thought many a time of starting a clothing company for 'me'. 6 billion people in the world, there must be a market of me-shaped people somewhere?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> That was enlightening. I guess it's something I should've known, but never thought of.

I think what the author dismisses as an impossible solution, however, is exactly the right solution: a government mandate.

<comment><USER30> Heck, we have truth in labeling for monitor and TV sizes, so why not pants?

<comment><USER31> The elasticity of the waistband could present problems in some cases, but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't still be do-able.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> So abandon actual inches and just do small/medium/large.

But then just like Pizza went from SML -> L/XL/XXL without physically changing then clothes will do the opposite.

S/M/L will become "Normal/Small/Thin" -> "Thin/looking good/petite" -> "Petite/elfin/starving" .....

<comment><USER33> Actually, I _do_ see a correlation between pizza size and pant-waist size.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34>
              RED LEADER
              Keep up your visual scanning.
              With all this jamming, they'll
              be on top of you before your
              scope can pick them up. [0]

As purchasers the sellers don't want you to know what size you are. It's in their interests not to tell you. Forget what the labels are telling you. Wear the same belt. If you're a belt-watcher like myself you'll see any changes in weight like rings on a tree over time.

[0] Star Wars IV script _"leader telling squad to ignore the scopes & use your eyes instead"_ ~ <http://corky.net/scripts/StarWars.html>

</comment><comment><USER35> They should have used a makeup system like size A-F. Then they can re- calibrate the actual size every couple years without people noticing. Indirect pointers have given programmers grief; think the general public is any wiser? Ha!

</comment><comment><USER36> I've just measured all my pairs of 34" jeans and they are consistently 36". I only buy Paul Smith these days because I've come to know that they will fit me well without having to shop around.

Last time I was measured for a suit I came out at almost exactly 34", but then the fitting for suit trousers is much more snug than those for jeans. I wear a belt with my jeans whereas I'd expect trousers to hold themselves up.

So on that basis, I'm not too surprised that jeans made to fit a 34" waist are an inch or two larger, but more than that seems a little crazy.

</comment><comment><USER37> That graph is seriously misleading! At first glance I was tempted to conclude that Old Navy was selling pants _twice_ as big as advertised (instead of merely 14%).

I'll forgive the gaudiness, but it's important to note the human tendency to compare ratios of sizes and so to always include 0 in bar graphs.

<comment><USER38> Furthermore they're trying to use the "measuring tape" metaphor, but it doesn't apply (the tape is not actually measuring the belt pictured, making the graph hard to understand). The belt pictures are not useful in this case (since it's not a ratio graph) and they're just distracting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> _Heh, heh._ "FatMax"

</comment><comment><USER40> Ahhh, inches.

How quaint!

Now there's a hacker's challenge. Finally get the US (and whoever) to get with the 21st century. Yes I know this comment is sort of off-topic, well ... kinda - the article is about measurement. But honestly this thought wanders through my mind like a lonely guy at a single's bar whenever I spy "old-style" units. I'm going to be provocative here, but I think all the excuses all bull (they're more natural, yada yada yada) - basically the US (and whoever) think they are Numero Uno and the rest of the world be damned.</comment>


Pygmy: Open-source URL shortener in Python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/amitt001/pygmy <comment><USER2> Have you given much thought to how this link shortener might be abused? Your [https://pygy.co/](https://pygy.co/) example site doesn't provide an abuse contact, for example. That doesn't help when someone sets it up deliberately to host spammy links, but providing a default abuse contact page might be a good general step to raise awareness that link shorteners are often abused, and that anyone using the project responsibly should be prepared to handle abuse complaints.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good suggestion. I am gonna add it. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just wondering, what's the actual use-case for an URL shortener in 2018?

I would understand maybe like 10 years ago when SMS was still king and you were limited in characters, but now?

URL shorteners now look shady (and can be used to conceal malicious links), could track you, and even if they have no nefarious intentions it's still an extra DNS lookup, HTTPS negotiation and redirect.

TLDR: good project as a proof of concept, but seems completely irrelevant nowadays.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's true that URL shorteners use has changed how it was used a few years back but it's still very relevant.

One very good use case of link shorteners is marketing & sales campaigns. A lot of marketing companies like to share short and branded custom links on social media and later check the click and other stats to see the conversion rate.

I have also seen companies using URL shorteners for internal link sharing.

I have two real cases where my project is used are:

\- One of the schools in Spain uses the project website(pygy.co) for creating secret links and sharing with students in school competitions. They share the password with the winners(I received an email from them). \- One of the company is China has forked the project and are using it.

Anyhow, I created this as a personal project for learning purpose but I can see it's use cases.

<comment><USER3> > A lot of marketing companies like to share short and branded custom links on > social media and later check the click and other stats to see the conversion > rate.

True, but as an user it does not serve me (quite the contrary actually, as it invades my privacy), so my point (and habit) of never clicking into shortened links still stands. I'm actually surprised brands would prefer shady-looking links over linking to their own domain directly.

Not to mention, you can do analytics server-side on the page you're linking to without having to have an intermediary system & extra redirect.

> Anyhow, I created this as a personal project for learning purpose but I can > see it's use cases.

Quite impressive actually, seems very feature-complete and well built. Keep up the good work!

<comment><USER4> Just to add on, sometimes it's useful to be able to link to large query strings without large numbers of characters in situations where there's no way to copy and paste (for example any form of print media).

Many internet giants have set up their own link shorteners for this very purpose: see [https://goo.gl/](https://goo.gl/) and [https://t.co/](https://t.co/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Your project name is _Pygmy_ But your url is pygy.co

That's kind of weird, if the url was , pygmy.co , it would be better.

<comment><AUTHOR> It was not available and don't have that kind of money, for a demo project, to buy it :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Has anyone contacted you yet with the explanation of the word "pygmy" and the tremendous harm that you're causing?

Wikipedia:

>In anthropology, pygmy peoples are ethnic groups whose average height is unusually short.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Tremendous harm" How?

<comment><USER7> I imagine the commenter is concerned about the colonial/bigoted connotations that word carries when applied to people groups.

Pygmys are a subset of a species whose physical attributes are smaller than the main species. Applying that to people is obviously... Problematic at best.

I don't see how reusing the word, given its original use in biology, is directly causing harm. If anything I think it's a clever and decent reclaimation of the word.</comment></comment></comment>