If iPads were meant for kids - <AUTHOR> https://davedelong.com/blog/2018/04/06/if-ipads-were-meant-for-kids/ <comment><USER3> I started off sympathetic, but as I got down to the end of the article I found myself horrified. It's a recipe for indulging the worst tendencies towards helicopter parenting. Is detailed invasive intrusion and surveillance into the personal lives of our children really what we want? Do children really deserve no privacy at all?

How about bringing up children to have a responsible attitude and building trust? I have exactly the same concerns the author has. I have two children ages 13 and 14, and they have each had an iPad since they were 6 and 7 thanks to the generosity of my brother. Our youngest in particular spends more time on youtube and chat apps than we would like, but I can easily imagine the damage I would do to our relationship by constantly spying on every single thing she does on it. Especially as she grows into her teenage years. It strikes me as lazy and avoiding building trust and responsible attitudes, the actual things parents should be doing to address such issues.

<comment><USER4> The article writer is has younger children, though. For older children the ability to set a daily time limit makes sense based on what research I've seen, and (if you, parent, would like) it could skip the helicoptering and invasiveness: kid gets x hours per day to do what they'd like, and then they need to find other things to do. My oldest is only four, so I haven't begun to think about raising teens yet, and he doesn't get unsupervised time with an iPad, but I'd love just to have a way to track how much time he actually spends using screens like that.

<comment><USER3> You can already control what apps children can download using family linked accounts and really the only problematic app left is the browser, but personally I found my kids were just not really interested in the web. For the most part you need to type URLs and search for stuff and it's all far more confusing than using apps, so they tended not to use it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This web page is called "Hacker News". I became a hacker because when I was a kid I did all those things with a computer that I was not meant to do. I edited the AUTOEXEC.BAT (that's probably a crude analogy to the settings these days). I tried to understand options about memory management to some of the commands that probably weren't meant for anyone except for the developers (with limited success I must say). A lot of things happened during my childhood that were not good for me. Using a computer in unintended ways wasn't one of them.

If you want no more hackers in 20 years you should give your kids devices so locked down they can't do anything.

<comment><USER6> You could edit AUTOEXEC.BAT and write your own version.

Kids can't do anything like that, at all, on an iPad. They are so far removed from anything even approaching productive tools for modifying/creating new apps on the iPhone, its just not feasible.

Your argument would be fair and valid if in fact there were tools onboard to write apps for iOS .. just like there was a copy of EDIT.EXE and/or DEBUG.COM for you to play with on your old PC. But to make things equivalent, you'd have to have encrypted your old DOS disk and locked it down so it only ran one app, and there'd be no chance in hell you'd ever get anywhere even remotely close to GWBASIC.EXE ..

So, no not really equivalent. Yes, kids should be encouraged to hack their computers. No, iOS does not allow this in any way, whatsoever. The tools of production have been removed from us.. a technological class system is being enforced by imperial masters. No compiler for you!

<comment><USER7> > Yes, kids should be encouraged to hack their computers. No, iOS does not > allow this in any way, whatsoever. The tools of production have been removed > from us.. a technological class system is being enforced by imperial > masters. No compiler for you!

I reached the same conclusion some time ago that smartphones are basically consumer devices designed to, well, consume content, not create anything. I still remember dreaming about a portable computer that I could carry with me when I was a kid but this is not it. Of course you can install termux on Android and there are some toy interpreters but the entire platform is just designed for end users, not creators.

<comment><USER8> > not create anything.

Maybe not in a programming sense, but for image and video creation iOS (and I assume android) has some amazing editing tools.

<comment><USER9> Let's not forget music too. There's amazing music production apps on iOS / Android. On the programming front, I think Swift Playgrounds is fantastic for younger audiences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I credit much of my current aptitude with (and interest in) computers to getting to use one throughout my childhood with no restrictions. I understand it can be nerve-wracking for parents ceding that much control to children, but I think children are both smarter and more self-disciplined than we give them credit for and I think digital free range can build independence in the long run. Maybe my opinion will change when I have kids of my own someday. Who knows.

<comment><USER11> If you did that with an iPad today, your kid would basically _only_ watch the most horrendous youtube videos or play brainless games. That stuff just didn't exist when we were kids, using our just-for-nerds computing devices. The games weren't as addictive or plentiful, video apps tuning to their "likes" didn't exist. It's not even remotely similar.

<comment><USER10> I don't know. I grew up in the XP era and I played a lot of brainless games (3D pinball was where it was at) and read a _lot_ of mindless Wikipedia articles as a kid. But then I got curious about how it all worked behind the scenes.

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but my hope is some of that inquisitive spirit hasn't been totally quashed. It's too depressing think that kids are not still discovering the internet as a virtually boundless repository of human information and a fascinating set of technical problems.

<comment><USER11> The difference is that back then, the brainless games were the equivalent of a box of chocolates. Sure, you might eat a couple but you would probably get bored before you finish the box. Now, it's like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. You never want to leave.

So as a child, choosing the productive option yourself is basically impossible.

<comment><USER12> I could never get bored with Civilization 2, or Lords of the Realm, or Close Combat 2, or Age of Empires. And I put a _lot_ of hours in, between 10 and 18. I'm not sure that Candy Crush is anymore fun than those games were.

<comment><USER10> Oh my god. And Starcraft, and Axis and Allies, (original) DOTA. I was even a WOW player back in the day before I got fed up buying expansions. Man, the hours of productive time I wasted...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is more like if iPads were meant for parents. Maybe a little bit overbearing.

<comment><USER14> Certainly overbearing. Also one failing at parenting and demanding that Apple should do it for him.

<comment><USER11> He wants these features precisely because he is trying to be a _good_ parent!

Or do you expect him to monitor his children's iPad usage literally every minute they are using it?

<comment><USER3> I don't expect to monitor my children's iPad usage at all, other than literally seeing what they do from time to time and talking to them about it. I have no time at all for this sort of intrusive monitoring of everything children do every second. I think it's deeply unhealthy and pushes parent child relationships into confrontational situations, where what we really need to be doing is building up trust and responsible attitudes. If a parent can't do that, then no amount of surveillance and intrusion is going to fix the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is part of the reason I got my son an entry level windows tablet instead of an ipad. You have excellent control over what they can access, when and how long, and weekly summary reports on how they spent their time across apps.

The trouble turns out to be that it is windows with all of the problems of windows. Unlike iOS updates regularly break things or hang for obscure reasons. The creator's update even discarded the entire start screen layout. Partly the update problems are caused by the 32 gb storage constraint, but I don't see why the windows folder needs to take up 16 GB and then complain it needs another 8. Also, because backgrounded apps don't get tombstoned the machine runs out of ram and starts swapping / freezing (emmc is even slower than spinning rust), unless my son is careful about closing every game when he's done with it.

All of which is a long winded way of saying that iOS is not that bad for a kid's device. It gets the basics right: don't break unexpectedly for technical reasons.

</comment><comment><USER16> These "I wish my technology would let me avoid having to discipline my child" articles always bother me. Son sneaking into your room to grab iPad without permission? Easy solution to that. No iPad for a week. He will learn eventually not to do it. No settings needed.

The thing is, you don't want an environment where a child cannot make a mistake. Sometimes you want to let mistakes be made and use those moments to teach your child what behavior is correct. Many of the restrictions requested in this article are in that vein. Although some, like age level restrictions, make more sense, since it is quite difficult for a child to ascertain whether a video will be appropriate for them without viewing it.

</comment><comment><USER17> We've struggled with this. We're taking the bet that our kids will learn how to handle this if they have the ability to make wrong choices, and we convince them to make better choices later If they only know when to stop when they hit a fence, what are they actually learning about real life?

Not sure how it'll work out. I'll report back after High School.

</comment><comment><USER18> I get where this is coming from - but to be honest the main thing I want to lock down on my ipad is just not let them fire up youtube. You can't restrict certain apps from being opened.

Restricted mode works mostly how I want. I have a bunch of suitable games I'm happy for the kids to play with without me hovering around. But every time I let them use an ipad I have to remove youtube if it's on there, as they are only allowed to use that when I'm watching with them.

<comment><USER9> > You can't restrict certain apps from being opened.

Settings |> General |> Restrictions |> Apps

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Seems like a bad idea for kids of any age to be taught they don't need passcodes or that they are an annoyance.

<comment><USER20> I wonder how long face recognition technology would function with children? I was under the impression that each accepted scan updates the mask so shouldn't it be able to keep up with changes to a child's face as they age? let alone serve multiple children so each has their own setup?

education wise tablets need to recognize different users so as to allow device sharing and keep this budget friendly to schools

<comment><USER19> Speaking specifically about Face ID, Apples marketing has suggested that changes over time would influence the model but I do not believe it is there yet—-I have seen enough issues in my own usage and the only meaningful difference there is my glasses.

And you're very much right about the multiuser requirement. Apple should have been moving in that direction years ago but unfortunately we only have a bunch of "family sharing" hacks at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The fact that your kid is addicted to Angry Bird or spends too much time on Snapchat if there's no restrictions in place, it's just a deeper problem of how you've gone about educating your child. Restricting its use to those applications wont change anything. It's like using duct tape to fix a broken tire, only worse, because at the same time you're also destroying your relationship in ways you can't realize (by taking away his freedom and privacy).

Yeah, he/she must be able to not lose time on its own. Some actionable advice to start with: if you or your wife are using TV/Social Media - AT ALL - <USER2> can begin there (by giving the example).

</comment><comment><USER22> Apple simply hasn't figured out this huge market yet. I bet "iPad as nanny" is perhaps the top 3 use cases for the device. Amazon however has already discovered this market and produced customized Android based tablets just for kids: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01J94SCAM/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01J94SCAM/)

On side note, it's terrible idea to give iPad ownership to kids below 13 years old. Current tablet HID model primarily makes them as consumption device and most kids are better off with things that allows them to produce instead of just consume.

</comment><comment><USER23> Marketing says pretty much anything is for anyone.

Can't really blame marketing for a kid having something you think they shouldn't.

And, kids don't _need_ iPads. Kids need attentive parents and guidance, then they can use anything.

</comment><comment><USER24> So there are many hacker type comments below. And I somewhat agree with them. My kids use an Ubuntu box where while they are not sudoers they can do what a user can.

The tablets (android) are different. For one the age can be much younger. My 2 yr old can play with the tablet, but I don't think giving her access to settings is going to help make her into a hacker. Ability to read makes a big difference between iPad and computer.

I will also note that giving your kids access to scratch and python is far more likely to build the next generation of hackers than having access to iOS settings.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is the outcome of lack of competition.

Also, Apple is not enthused about anything that might limit the ways in which a device is used. The whole point is that everything they do is focused on finding more and infinite ways to make a device used. Constraining use is deeply against the DNA of everything they are actually aiming at. There seems to be a real, deeply ingrained unwillingness to implement things that might reduce unfettered usage.

Truly this is politics. In politics, you say what people want to hear but do whatever you want. That's what Apple does - positions the iPad as kid and family friendly but just does what it wants.

<comment><USER26> I genuinely can't tell if this is satire or not.

The entire point of the Apple eco-system is that they impose limits.

I'm not saying this is bad! It has strong benefits for many people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > If iPads were meant for kids, then I, as a parent, would be able to set a > parent passcode on a device in order to unlock it, even when the kids have > forgotten their passcodes for the 17th time, so I don't have to spend > another hour or two getting the device in to DFU mode, re-installing the OS, > and then re-downloading all of the apps they had that have now lost all of > their local-stored data.

Then a third party who steals or finds the device would be able to get all the kids user data (but perhaps not the adult's credit card data and passwords). That would potentially be an issue but I guess would be ok as an option.

</comment><comment><USER28> I realise this is an Apple-centric (refer "posted in apple" in the footer) blog post, but there's 21 'ipad' and 0 'tablet' references, so it seems very much like an anti-Apple dig ... which is fairy nuff, but I suspect the same claims can be made about almost any _generic_ consumer device these days.

I note that none of these concerns applied to my initial computing devices.

</comment><comment><USER29> He's right, and there is a simple solution: don't give your kids an iPad.

</comment><comment><USER30> This should be titled "If iPads were made for parents who want tight control over their kids' digital lives"

</comment><comment><USER31> Replace "iPad" with "8-bit microcomputer" and what is suggested would have ruined my childhood.

</comment><comment><USER32> If all of these things were implemented I might allow one of these things in the house. As it stands I'm almost to the point where the only tech I would be willing to let in the house is a raspberry pi.

</comment><comment><USER33> I am happy the article author is not my parent.

</comment><comment><USER34> Google Family Link gives you almost all of this.

<comment><USER35> You have to create a Google account for the child too.

Additionally:

[https://families.google.com/familylink/privacy/notice/](https://families.google.com/familylink/privacy/notice/)

"As explained in the Privacy Notice for Google Accounts Managed with Family Link below, Google will not serve personalized ads to your child, but your child will still see ads while using Google's services."

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The ipad is meant for everyone... for everyone to get hooked on using it.</comment>


PHP 7.4 Is Released - <AUTHOR> https://www.php.net/releases/7_4_0.php <comment><USER2> Can someone explain the reason for this?

Numeric literals can contain underscores between digits.

<?php 6.674_083e-11; // float 299_792_458; // decimal 0xCAFE_F00D; // hexadecimal 0b0101_1111; // binary ?>

<comment><USER3> This is a feature supported by many languages for improving readability of large numbers in code. See [https://wiki.php.net/rfc/numeric_literal_separator](https://wiki.php.net/rfc/numeric_literal_separator).</comment></comment>


Amazon and Google are undermining mobile pricing, and that may hurt everyone - <AUTHOR> http://engt.co/Ry0gmF

<comment><USER2> Phone prices have been totally skewed for a long time, and most new high-end phones have cost $600 only because that's what they were expected to cost. The release of the first iPad made that obvious, because it was the same mobile components as the iPhone, a bigger battery, a larger screen, and more aluminum and other materials for the case, but still cost $100 less. And the iPad was still profitable! The only reason companies continue to get away with $600 phones is that carrier subsidies distort the market. The notion that there's some mythical "correct" price that manufacturers used to charge that's now being undercut by Google is ridiculous. This is a market correction.

<comment><USER3> In certain situations there is an engineering cost to miniaturization of components.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think Apple is doped up on huge hardware revenues, and the moves by Google and Amazon will rightfully bring them back to planet earth. Because what really matters in this "post PC" era Apple themselves announced is not hardware.

Hardware without function is called a "brick", a worthless paperweight. Of course thats referring to hardware where the software embedded was lost or corrupted, but its as good as any analogy for the iOS situation: premium integration for the highest bidder (Facebook), functionality determined by politicial fights (Maps).

<comment><USER5> This make no sense to me. "Hardware without software is a brick." So? Software without hardware is... what? At least you you can use a brick as a crude tool.

<comment><USER6> Software without hardware is just an idea. Like a brick, it alone is useless as it cannot be applied to anything, or used. Hardware and software need each other in order to function.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I get a bit of an ugly feeling about the way competition is working at the moment. On the surface it's all roses - glitzy features coming faster than we can count them, hardware obsoleted with far better options every 6 months, prices falling like crazy ...

But you look under the surface. Apple and Microsoft championing user's "privacy" - why? Because they want to attack the revenue base of Google. Don't compete with your competitor. Poison their environment until it is too toxic for them to survive and they leave.

Google releasing ultra cheap phones - why? Apple hugely dependent on enormous margins. Don't compete with them directly. Poison their environment by changing how people think about hardware. Make it a zero margin game and Apple goes away as simply a side effect.

I feel differently about these things on different days. On good days it seems like we're in a golden age of competition. On bad days it seems like we're witnessing a silent armageddon where all sides have abandoned our interests and have voted for mutual-annihilation. "If I can't win, I'm going to make sure you lose too" they are saying. I hope my good days are the ones that turn out to be correct.

<comment><USER8> _Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting._

I think you make good points re: their strategies--but those strategies have some risks for those pursuing them, and the consumer tends to benefit either way.

If google can hurt apple's margins, the consumer wins. Meanwhile, if they can't, they just end up giving away a bunch of phones. And to my knowledge, no company has been able to maintain the kinds of gross margins Apple has without becoming a monopoly. The apple brand is a kind of monopoly, and patents add monopolistic properties to innovation. But no brand lasts forever, and the big players all have patents they can use against each other, somewhat damping their appeal with MAD

Meanwhile, on the privacy front, I suspect we'll see more push back on this in coming years. Better privacy laws are probably good for the consumer, but could be catastrophic to many companies that currently place huge theoretical value on their big data. If strong restrictions come into place on how you can and can't use that data, suddenly it's not quite as valuable as first thought.

So I'm generally optimistic that this is still the kind of competition that helps consumers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Aggressive pricing happens to any market which gets commoditized. It leads to more competition among the existing players to innovate and differentiate themselves.

Today, a tablet is a commodity product. Making a faster and higher resolution tablet is no longer revolutionary but just evolutionary. If the OP wants the existing players to survive why can't they create more breakthrough products than encourage inflated profit margins?

<comment><USER10> Exactly. I don't see the problem - some manufacturers are giving consumers what they want at prices they want, and are not doing so illegally. If those new "incumbents" then later decide to "profit" after having thinned out the ranks, there is nothing stopping others stepping in and undercutting those incumbents.

This is exactly how markets are supposed to work - there is good information about pricing, there is good information about product, and there is free entry and exit for both manufacturers and consumers in the market.

Not even mentioned in the article is MediaTek whose really cheap integrated chipsets are allowing another wave of really cheap devices that make the ones in the article seem expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's hard to see a consumer downside to subsidized hardware. Don't want to use Amazon/Google's software? It's your phone, you bought it. Run what you like.

The Nexus 4 is an excellent play; it's a capable and carrier-independent phone. May it encourage wireless carriers to focus on network coverage, network quality, and price.

It'll be a great day when Verizon starts pricing like Ting.

</comment><comment><USER12> The only ones hurt by low pricing will be the manufacturers. Companies with no software expertise and no way to differentiate themselves (basically all the Android OEMs at the moment) will become the Dells and the HPs of the mobile space.

<comment><USER13> > Companies with no software expertise and no way to differentiate themselves > (basically all the Android OEMs at the moment)

Most Android OEMs are still learning what it means to be a software and service provider, but I do not agree that they have no way to differentiate themselves.

An Android OEM can completely define the software and hardware experience on his devices. If he wants to stay compatible, he needs to pass the Android Compability Testsuite of course. But even then the final OS can look and feel very different from other Android-based systems.

<comment><USER14> The problem isn't that OEMs are unable to modify the OS, it's that they do it _badly_.

I've owned four Android devices, and used a lot more. Three were Google branded, and were _awesome_. My current phone is an HTC Sensation 4G, which is awful. I don't know that I can blame Sense and HTC for all that sucks about this phone, but I miss my Nexus One pretty much daily. I'm eagerly awaiting the Nexus 4, because it'll only cost a little more than I can sell my Sensation 4G for, and will return me to living in a pure Google Android experience.

I want less OEM customization because the OEMs break the OS and make it less pleasant. Even if I couldn't sell my current phone to recoup some of the cost, I'd probably still buy a Nexus 4. The friction of using an unreliable and quirky phone has a cost that I consider too expensive. So, I regret buying a device that doesn't have a pure Android OS build, and I'm very unlikely to make that same mistake again.

<comment><USER15> You can install Google's Android stock version on your phone and have your preferred OS experience. Something like this [http://www.androidauthority.com/htc-sensation-install- stock-...](http://www.androidauthority.com/htc-sensation-install-stock- android-4-0-3-ice-cream-sandwich-48436/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Well, it is not coincidence that Google decided to lower prices of Nexus devices now.

They want to neutralize Windows 8 mobile devices. With that price levels it will be hard for Microsoft to charge anything for its OS.

And the article thesis is completely stupid. What kind of innovation we got from paying 8 billions yearly for ring tones? Now they are free and what happened?

</comment><comment><USER17> The Android tablet market was pretty anemic before Amazon effectively created it by aggressively pushing the Fire, and then Google the Nexus tablets.

How would that market have been better for anyone in the long run if it were effectively non-existent?

</comment><comment><USER18> This it will be good to some, now it's mainly good for Google and Amazon who are trying to win money in this new market, either directly and indirectly, and consumers who can choose increasingly better products at lower prices.

People were saying that tablets would be the future and would be the new PCs for every user, well with this new future comes also the late stagnation that has come to the home computer industry, the new thing ceases to be sexy after all when it's no longer new. Or do people really thought that Apple like growth would be sustainable forever? If the PC became cheap enough to be a low margin product by now then what is so different in tablets for this not happen?

As I said right here some people are expecting that: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3627195>

</comment><comment><USER19> I wonder when Apple's going to start subsidizing their hardware with content sales? Seems like they have the choice between doing that and losing marketshare, ulimately ending up a cult/niche offering.

<comment><USER20> Considering Amazon's recent $274 million quarterly loss, don't you think it's a little bit too early to say that their model is the best? Apple earned $8 billion in the same amount of time.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/technology/amazon- reports-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/technology/amazon-reports-its- first-quarterly-loss-in-four-years.html)

[http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/10/25Apple-Reports- Four...](http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/10/25Apple-Reports-Fourth- Quarter-Results.html)

<comment><USER21> I'm pretty sure they made a loss because of acquisitions they had made and not because of their competitive pricing.

<comment><USER22> But you're still looking at an 8 billion dollar difference. Hard to argue against Apple's strategy

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The Nexus 7 is creating a real market for genuine Android tablets; in the medium term this will greatly benefit all non-Apple OEM, because they will have a big market to compete on.

</comment><comment><USER24> Does anyone remember where exactly that article that made a great counter point to this, saying prices will keep going down, and in the future manufacturers will have to provide content instead of only hardware? It was giving the example of the $50 Chinese tablets etc. I tried googling it but failed. It made a much better argument than this one.

This engadget article is just looking at the first ply of the game.

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4533215>

I think you are looking for this one

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> If companies such as Apple cannot produce products at prices that people want, then they _should_ go out of business. That helps everyone by providing them with the products they demand - it doesn't hurt them.

Aggressive competition is a great thing. It incentivizes innovation to reduce cost and incentivizes competitors to differentiate themselves, which gives more options to consumers at lower prices.

The assertion that intense competition prevents companies from providing new products is unsubstantiated by anything in the article.

<comment> wes-exp _Aggressive competition is a great thing. It incentivizes innovation to reduce cost and incentivizes competitors to differentiate themselves, which gives more options to consumers at lower prices._

Competition is not always beneficial. Consider copyrights and patents. These are deliberate monopolies, i.e. huge restrictions on competition, in order to foster desirable economic outcomes.

As an example, if we eliminated pharmaceutical patents, this would enable greater "competition" in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, but guess what? Private companies would cease to invest in drug research. Meaning that, you, as the consumer, lose out on potentially new treatments being invented and brought to market.

<comment><USER26> Please refrain from using the pharmaceutical industry as an ideal model for innovation, competition and new treatments fostered by patent protection.

There is a significant problem with the emergence of multiple-drug resistant infections. Even with patent protection, pharma companies are not pursuing development of new antibiotics. Why? Because the economics are unfavorable. Better to have a monopoly drug like Lipitor that people have to take for the rest of their lives than an antibiotic that you only take for two weeks [1].

Patent-protection does not necessarily provide solutions that markets want. It only provides solutions that are profitable with patent protection. There is clear market failure regarding antibiotics. Where are the desirable economic outcomes and new treatments?

Appealing to the pharma industry as an example of where patents work at their best is not helpful for a discussion on patents unless you identify its obvious shortcomings.

[1] [http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/25/3618608.ht...](http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/25/3618608.htm)

<comment><USER27> If you seriously believe the reason we don't have new class of antibiotics is because of the pharmas are not interested enough in making one, you don't know what you are talking about.

You know why we cannot find new antibiotics class? Because it is hard, really really hard! Your statement about economics being the main drive of finding new cures, including antibiotics, is a great insult to tens of thousands of researchers working hard day to day with the sole purpose of find that damn compound. Yeah, these researchers are human with lots of feelings and sometimes with friends and families needing new treatment too, and they are not just working for the salary or bonus.

Patent system is not perfect, but getting rid of patent system will not speed up or better incentivize any effort of finding new drugs and cure. Think more public funding in basic research in universities, and new/better way of regulation/approval instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Google and amazon have started a race to the bottom and no one will win that way. It has to be profitable for all concerned otherwise there is no point.

<comment><USER29> Consumers win. If competitors can't differentiate on anything other than price, why do they deserve to exist?

<comment><USER28> I didn't when I got a cheap device that was faulty and fell apart more than once. I have since decided it is a false economy. 159 quid plastic tablet vs 259 quid aluminium one is what it comes down to for me. The extra 100 quid gives me as the consumer a much more pleasurable device that's much more durable and lasts longer. It pays for itself because I can actually use it before it breaks. That's just my experience so far.

<comment><USER30> Last time that I decided to shell out more money investing in the "aluminium factory" I bought an mp3 player and found out rather quickly that they break as any other cheap player.

I also found out that the sustainable model of the "aluminium factory" is to make me pay almost the same price of a new player to replace a shattered display.

In the end I was lucky enough to find on ebay some companies madly working against the sustainability of the free market that sold me a replacement display for 20£.

I ever since bought only cheap, plastic players. They still even let you change batteries...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: 2D Isometric Editor - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Grille98/2D-isometricEditor <comment><USER2> That looks nice but without any instructions on how to install it or generate that sample—or even what format of data it wants for the elevation data—I'm not really sure what kind of useful comment I can make on the project itself.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have revised the readme, now everything important should be in it.

<comment><USER3> How did you do water in the demo gif? It's not listed as one of the available textures...

<comment><USER4> Textures are the index of this array: [https://github.com/Grille98/2D-isometricEditor/blob/f7fe5398...](https://github.com/Grille98/2D-isometricEditor/blob/f7fe5398fb9663a6e2566ab1000309a865319510/src/2D-isoedit/FormEditor_Logik.cs#L25)

[grass, dirt, sand, stone, dark grass, water, grass, wall 1, wall 2, wall 3, wall 4, window 1]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder whether the Dwarf Fortress user community would find that useful. Certainly the code could be repurposed..

<comment><USER6> At a first glance, it looks like it only handles heightmaps, while dwarf fortress is more voxel-esque. Interiors might not (currently) be handled by this program.

<comment><USER7> DFvakso has the outside world / big picture. A height map would handle this just fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That's really nice. And reminds me about this thing[0] I made when Firefox 3D view was available.

[0] [https://github.com/rlopezcc/hexadom](https://github.com/rlopezcc/hexadom) Edit: Formatting.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow, this is closely related to what I was thinking of doing.

Tracks in the racing simulator Assetto Corsa are simple 3D model files that have had a few hand modified additions using the editor distributed by the developers.

I wanted to take Elevation data and turn it into a big file of polygons, and then lay a road on top of that using freely available shapefiles that describe roadways, giving the user a smoother surface to drive on. I could either texture polygons using some land use data from the same shapefiles, or using satellite imagery.

</comment><comment><USER10> Nice! Here's an interesting idea:

You could use a grayscale height map and apply textures based on relative or absolute height. Tallest point on the map? Must be a mountain. Cluster of points lower than the mean or median? Could be a lake or river.

Essentially, it would emulate real world feature distributions.

<comment><AUTHOR> In a very early version even something like that was built in, I could actually bring in as an option again

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The foreshortening seems off. The taller mountain is much taller when at the back, but roughly the same height as the other when at the front.

Just a small concern; looks pretty cool!

<comment><USER12> It's an isometric projection, not perspective

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Neat. Would be useful as a Unity plugin which might not be to hard to achieve as it's already written in C#.

</comment><comment><USER14> cocos2d-x mobile game engine (www.cocos2d-x.org) might benefit from developers being able to export to it.

</comment><comment><USER15> Looks really cool, how can I run it?

</comment><comment><USER16> What frameworks are you using? Having some trouble fitting VueSJ and ThreeJS together. COuld be curious to know your approach

<comment><AUTHOR> this project is pure C# it only uses .net 4.0

or what do you mean? Vue JS and Three JS are javascript frameworks.

<comment><USER17> Webdev kneejerk reaction I guess, haha.

Everything is web nowadays! Kudos for making a standalone application.

<comment><USER16> Drunk Haskell guy actually. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Any way to run on OSX?

<comment><AUTHOR> maybe with mono, I have not tried that yet.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is subscription billing hard? - <AUTHOR>

Our company has created a new pricing model which is built around subscriptions. We have been thinking about the best way to bill our customers and report what has happened to accounting.
While doing research I came across Zuora (http://www.zuora.com) which is a SaaS based subscription billing system. It turns out that their product "solves" the whole pipeline (sales -> use -> billing -> accounting) but it is very very expensive.
So my question is, why? I am not at all trying to pick on Zuora. My guess is they have a fantastic product, but I am having trouble justifying the price. Isn't this just a simple rules engine that produces reports?
My guess is that I am falling into the classic blunder that "It's Trivial" (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/07/code-its-trivial.html). I was hoping someone in the community could enlightenment me on the pitfalls, before I go off and build it myself! <comment><USER2> Think about a company like Comcast -- millions of customers, thousands of phone agents, thousands of contractors in Comcast vans hooking up home service, multiple regional websites, legacy customers from previous product iterations and acquired local cable companies. Add on to that multiple public and private billing plans, service credits, local deals/specials, grandfathered customers on old plans, a combination of fixed and usage-based billing, optional add-ons, and parent/children accounts for business and landlords. Imagine just how complex that "rules engine" has to be to get billing right.

The company that can manage that for Comcast is going to be delivering hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in value. If they didn't pay someone for it, they'd have to employ and manage a large development team just to do billing. Lots of salaries. That's what justifies the price.

If you're a startup with 3 payment plans and sometimes you have to give someone a credit because you had some downtime, your situation isn't even 1% as complex, and you can get by with a $50/month service or a couple hundred lines of your own code.

</comment><comment><USER3> Depends on how complex your product and pricing model is. Zuora is slightly enterprisey customers and priced accordingly and they charge setup fee, customization fee etc.,

If you are looking for simpler products focused on small & medium businesses there are plenty of options available as well.

Of course if you are in North America you have Stripe as your first bet and for bit more sophisticated billing plus more options to do promotions, automated notifications, HTML emails, customer support portal, more complex metered billing, grandfathering of price plans (happens!), multi-gateway support etc., you should consider using a billing solution.

Disclosure: I am one a co-founder of <http://www.ChargeBee.com>, another Subscription Billing solution focused on small businesses.

Shameless plug: If you are looking for options to use payment gateway for credit card + bank transfers for recurring to save $$s per transaction you should try our solution (launching the ACH part very soon).

</comment><comment><USER4>
        While doing research I came across Zuora [...]

What other solutions did you evaluate? Which of your requirements did the other solutions not meet?

After I research solutions to a problem, I end up with a list of requirements and a list of solutions with notes regarding each solution (e.g., pros and cons). If you were to post a complete list of your requirements and notes regarding each solution you evaluated, it would be easier to provide relevant feedback.

(If you didn't take any notes, you might want to consider the benefits of note taking in the context of a personal or company wiki.)

</comment><comment><USER5> How much is expensive?

<comment><USER6> Ranging from little at the low end.

We have customers ranging from startups in a garage to enteprises and everything inbetween. Plenty of customers who started small and scale up. Talk to you friendly Zuora rep. He'll give you a good price. :)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for answering, but I'm asking the OP how much is expensive to him. I don't sell services like yours, but like to know the options out there in case a client needs it. Though with US clients I just set them up with Stripe and be done with it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, as the Zuroa rep mentions, it's an enterprise level product so they have a very wide range of plans. To be fair to them, it's likely best to just give them a call.

To give you a sense of scale, however. For a small company, with decent revenue, it costs a substantial chunk of a dev's salary.

<comment><USER5> Thanks, that's all I wanted to know. Seems you are better off making something custom.

Note: I have no issues with Zuroa. Never heard of them and have no experiences with their products. I was just curious about what the OP meant by expensive.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Calaos: Open Source Home Automation - <AUTHOR> https://calaos.fr/en/

<comment><USER2> F-Yeah GPL Home automation! I make an IoT board called Flutter Wireless and this looks like it could be a great software platform to pair with the hardware. Our hardware is creative commons share alike attribution and our software will be GPL (releasing soon). Hardware has a 64MHz arm CPU and runs Arduino code. Plus it includes an 868/915MHz radio with 1km of range, battery charger, and crypto chip. :)

I'm just starting to get my hardware out the door, but I'll have to keep an eye on this... :)

<comment><USER3> keep us posted of your progress at reddit /r/homeautomation. good luck with production run. thank you for OSH !

<comment><USER2> Oh cool will do, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think the world will need an open source home automation. That's why, I've started to build something like this, Since I am a student and also a part time developer, I could only managed to build a prototype server app that runs on any JVM supported hardware and a simple android app to send commands&files(mp3) to the server. I hope you'll make a complete and open solution for home automation, good luck

</comment><comment><USER5> I was talking about home automation ("domotique" here in France) with a coworker a few weeks ago and he told me about his friends' project, now it's on HN. Glad to see it get a little more exposure, it looks like a cool project. Home automation has been regularly hyped for close to a decade and presented as the Next Big Thing(tm) but we still don't have complete solutions. Perhaps because there are so many legacy devices to interface to.

<comment><USER6> I think it's because the value/cost ratio is still really bad.

Knowing the state of a garage door and being able to twiddle it from your phone? A nice feature. Worth $100? Probably not.

Night and away modes for lighting are also nice features, but for most people they aren't worth the hundreds of dollars it will take to set up (never mind the time it will take to make it work reasonably well).

There are of course lots of examples where the value provided beats the cost, and automation is being used for many of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wiki is pretty empty. Is this built on open standards? Can it control hardware that uses MQTT and CoAP? How does it compare with OpenHAB?

</comment><comment><USER8> GPLv3 might be a slight hinderance for companies to adopt it for their hardware products.

<comment><USER9> Maybe, just maybe, they don't care about "companies" adopting it. The history is "When the company was closed during 2013, the entire code base was open sourced and released as GPL. A small community started around the project to continue the development."

So I guess their point might be that you don't depend on a company to run your own home automation. Because when the company goes down (or get bought, or "pivot"), you are not stuck.

Assume that if you can't run it yourself, a) you are not the audience b) there are competing products where you are not in charge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great. Please translate more wiki pages to English, that would definitely help to increase the audience.</comment>


Show HN: Purple Theme for JupyterLab - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/shahinrostami/theme-purple-please <comment><USER2> It looks great, it really does, but the problem with theming things like Jupiter notebooks / labs or RStudio, is that the theming doesn't extend to the graphs (which would be unreasonable to expect and would also be in the way if they did) and so the big white plots become quite jarring against the calm dark theme.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, glad you like it. You're right about the theme not applying to the plots, I did try applying similar colours/transparency to my interactive plots (Plotly) but it was not worth the trouble in the end! Instead, I have a "preamble" cell that I always include in every notebook that sets these colours for me.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What VoIP solution do you use for remote pair-programming? - <AUTHOR>

Next my team is splitting between continent. To prepare for this move, we started using tmux (I highly recommend Brian P. Hogan tmux book (http://pragprog.com/book/bhtmux/tmux). While tmux is awesome and it's a shame we haven't used until now, Skype and Google Talk's connection isn't stable enough for an 8 hour pairing session, we need a more stable solution.
I've heard about Mumble (https://github.com/mumble-voip/mumble) but haven't yet tried it.
What VoIP solutions do you use for pairing? <comment><USER2> If you want a command line client, try the sip example client that is part of the SIP SIMPLE client SDK at <http://sipsimpleclient.com>. If you want a GUI you can try Blink (<http://icanblink.com>). Both work great with Sylk server (<http://sylkserver.com/>) on the server side.

</comment><comment><USER3> We gave up on trying to run software on the dev machines for VOIP and went with GrandStream GXV-3175's (with asterisk in the middle on a datacenter server).

It was expensive (like $300 each) but it works better than any software solution we could find, even Facetime.

<comment><AUTHOR> What free softwares did you try before going for GrandStream?</comment></comment>


The multiple comparisons problem - <AUTHOR> https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2015/ab_testing_segments_and_goals.html <comment><USER2> One of the big problems with AB testing is that the people running tests within a company often don't have a strong understanding of the statistics behind the tests. And unfortunately, they often have little interest in performing statistically valid tests.

They might be from the marketing department, they might be web-designers, they might even be growth hackers (eek), but most likely they are not statisticians.

Their motivations may not align with running tests correctly. E.g. they may want to strengthen the argument for their design over someone else's competing design, or they may be looking for number to serve up to their boss at their monthly review meeting. But performing a statistically-valid test is low on their list of priorities.

I love articles like this that go into the minutiae of how to perform AB tests correctly. But I think they only speak to a small portion of the people who are doing AB tests.

<comment><USER3> I agree that this is a problem but I wouldn't say it is a big problem in comparison to the problem that most companies have - they don't run any tests at all.

I actively need to prevent myself from going too deep into the maths and caveats of A/B testing with clients. Running tests with bad maths trumps running no tests at all in my experience

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is an interesting problem. There are so many ways to perform A/B testing incorrectly that I expect most A/B tests performed in the wild yield questionable results.

I think there is a lot of pseudo-scientific talk around A/B testing that leads people to either put too much credence in their results, or, paradoxically, avoid advanced techniques due to fear their results will be inaccurate.

I'm coming to the conclusion that one should treat A/B testing from more of an economic point-of-view. You have so many views this month -- how are you going to spend them on tests? I think one should look at A/B tests as a source of information, not of truth, and thus avoid chasing after statistical rigor that won't, in fact, be realised in most cases.

<comment><USER5> _I 'm coming to the conclusion that one should treat A/B testing from more of an economic point-of-view. You have so many views this month -- how are you going to spend them on tests?_

I'm curious, did our conversations a few years ago help shape this opinion? My guess is that we've both moved somewhat towards a middle position.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I think so.

It might be of interest to you that there is now some published work on bandit algorithms for when all you have is ranking, not absolute ordering. This is close to what we were talking about: [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.3393.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.3393.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another neat approach to dealing with multiple comparisons is Bayesian hierarchical models. Instead of correcting significance thresholds after the fact, all comparisons are represented as parameters in the model from the start. You would still need to 'preregister' segments as you suggest. See Gelman's paper, [http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/mu...](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/multiple2.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER7> The Kelly criterion doesn't get enough of a shout-out in discussions of A/B testing and multi-armed bandits. It's particularly apt when you're discussing conversion rates from customer acquisition campaigns - turning ads into customers into ads into customers.

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

</comment><comment><USER8> In many cases, I think this is fine.

Take the case given in the article: 2 designs that appear equal, but segmenting reveals (incorrectly) that one performs better on Android and the other on iPhone. Statistically, it doesn't matter which one you pick, because you don't have a strong result. Anecdotally, you might go down the wrong path and waste some time doing something like showing design A to Android and B to iPhone. But the only thing lost is time -- probably a small amount of time compared to creating the different designs.

Best case, you realize there's something technically wrong with your changes in a certain segment because things are widely different. Worst case, you make some changes that don't matter. Overall, the risk / reward of segmenting seems worthwhile.

<comment><USER9> This is very true - my post is mainly coming from a classical frequentist hypothesis testing perspective. From a Bayesian/portfolio optimization perspective, all that segmentation isn't hurting you much.

But from a business perspective, it's a huge distraction. Your marketers shouldn't be wasting time segmenting - there is no reason to believe it's making any money. And due to multiple comparisons, it's virtually guaranteed that your A/B tests will steer the marketers in the direction of more segmentation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here is a simpler back of the envelope solution to the problem of segmentation.

Automatically ignore all statistics on segments that are below a certain sample size. Say, 4k successful conversions. If there are no real differences, you'll still draw lots of wrong conclusions. But your odds of wrongly drawing significantly harmful decisions will be very low, and some of the conclusions you draw will be very good.

Your procedures may make statisticians curse and swear. But it provides a simple rule of thumb that is easy for non-statisticians to understand. And mitigates the really bad mistakes.

<comment><USER9> My strong disagreement with you here is a good illustration of the practical differences between Bayesians and Frequentists. As a Bayesian, I'm horrified by the idea of doing anything other than building a segment model and letting the fatness of the posterior handle the low sample sizes.

But yeah, that is a pretty good way for a marketer to avoid being _too_ stupid. And I can't say I haven't done this a bunch of times, particularly when doing quick exploratory calculations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> So 10 years ago when I was in academia, this was a prime way to sink a paper's conclusion in 5 minutes. Obviously the tech world has to relearn lessons from other fields the hard way.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is really helpful with understanding where data analysis goes wrong but he totally mis-characterizes proper segmentation strategies.

</comment><comment><USER12> [http://xkcd.com/882/](http://xkcd.com/882/)</comment>


May Progress Update – Librem 5 - <AUTHOR> https://puri.sm/posts/may-progress-update-librem-5-hardware/ <comment><USER2> Really hoping for this phone to be a good experience to use. The status update makes it look like calling and sms are still rough around the edges.

Still, I think Linux on a phone can bring something new (if you discount the Nokia N900 I suppose). I wonder how well running Docker images and reverse proxy on a phone would work.

<comment><USER3> I expect it will feel a lot like early android phones, at least in terms of performance. Getting everything buttery smooth is a huge undertaking. Still, if they ship, I will buy.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am looking forward to day of having real Linux phone. I use Termux now, but it is still not quite there e.g. espeak package doesn't work for me. On the other hand, did you know that Syncthing works on Termux?</comment></comment></comment>


Eric Schmidt struggled to answer a Google interview question - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/846339/alphabet-chairman-eric-schmidt-struggled-to-answer-a-google-interview-question/ <comment><USER2> The problem is that startups were eager to follow Google's lead and introduce such dumb questions into their process, but seems to not be that eager to drop them.

In my limited XP, 1 out of 3 interviews includes these idiotic brain teasers.

My guilty pleasure when it happens to me: toy with the interviewer until he/she gets the hint that I won't play the game. Interviewer: "How many tennis balls can you fit in a 1-meter cube box?" Me for the next 15 minutes "What's the color of the box? What's the material the box is made of? Can I deflate or crush the balls? What's the brand of the balls? Do I have to put a lid on the box? Am I on Earth or on the moon? etc etc"

<comment><AUTHOR> To be fair, Google didn't start this. I encountered the same sort of questions at Microsoft in 1987.

<comment><USER3> I've heard of these types of questions referred to as Microsoft-type questions.</comment></comment></comment>


JavaScript debugging for beginners - <AUTHOR> http://juliepagano.com/blog/2014/05/18/javascript-debugging-for-beginners/

<comment><USER2> Nice article. Not just for beginners either. Ive been debugging javascript since IE6 and didnt know about

"If you click the braces at the bottom of the developer tools, they will "pretty print" the code. It makes it a little bit more readable, but it's still difficult to decipher.

(granted, javascript consoles were a bit different back then: [http://notetodogself.blogspot.com/2008/08/debug- javascript-i...](http://notetodogself.blogspot.com/2008/08/debug-javascript- in-ie.html))

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice post. Another one I find useful is to define your own log function, e.g.,

function log(x) {console.log(x);};

You'd use log instead of console.log for debugging your code. Then, to turn off logging, you set

function log(x) {};

or have a boolean switch in log function to do a similar thing. You could even use this approach to define debug levels to enable/disable.

</comment><comment><USER4> Instead of Ctrl+Shift+I, I usually use F12 because it works in all 3 browsers Chrome, Firefox, and IE. In IE, Ctrl+Shift+I brings up Favorites/Feeds/History.

However, on Mac OSX, Ctrl+Shift+I makes more sense because the default for F12 is to adjust sound volume up. You have to press Fn+F12 which is more awkward than Ctrl+Shift+I. (Or Cmd+Alt+I in Safari).</comment>


RIP DMOZ: The Open Directory Project Is Closing - <AUTHOR> http://searchengineland.com/rip-dmoz-open-directory-project-closing-270291 <comment><USER2> Good riddance! It was crap anyway. I must have submitted sites of mine half a dozen times or more. None of them ever showed up in DMOZ's directory—even though they made you do most of the work for them, by filling out submission forms.

Contrast that with Google, who often have content of my sites returned in search results, within days of it being published—without me having had to lift a finger.

The idea of "human curation" is fine in principle but, as sites like DMOZ, Wikipedia, StackOverflow, etc show, it very often ends up being monopolised by a few self-important nobodies seeing it as a way to wield some authority in life.

<comment><USER3> the latest iteration of this idea seems to be the "awesome" lists on github [[https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome](https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome)], which are a bit more decentralised and crowd-sourced while still being human- curated.

<comment><USER4> Exactly - the first time I looked at [https://github.com/bayandin/awesome- awesomeness](https://github.com/bayandin/awesome-awesomeness) my immediate thought was that we're recreating Yahoo, or maybe publishing a webpage with all of your bookmarks is making a comeback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's funny, right now there are two comments:

>> What's sad here is that we're now in an era where AI and other computers are now categorizing and approving websites.

and

>> Good riddance! It was crap anyway.

I kind of agree with both of them. It does make me sad to see DMOZ go, but at the same time, maybe, just maybe it's ok to admit algorithms do a better job of this stuff. As a librarian, I _want_ to think we humans are better at categorizing and cataloging everything.

<comment><USER6> Apparently search engines, like Google, think that computers do a better job than humans. I still like the human element, even though it may not be as efficient.

<comment><USER7> Search engines are a specific type of tool where algorithms just make more sense. Between the amount of data that needs to be processed, and the relatively low impact of being incorrect. There are a lot of places Google wants to apply algorithms (like customer service, censorship products, and driving cars) where I do not believe it's warranted to replace humans with software.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's sad here is that we're now in an era where AI and other computers are now categorizing and approving websites. It's no longer a volunteer-editor driven web world. Now, only a search engine algorithm decides whether or not a site is trusted. It used to be that a human approved a site, and a search engine trusted that human's opinion. No longer.

<comment><USER8> Personally I think it's a good thing. No opinions involved and everyone is treated equally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Honestly, I'm surprised it took so long to get to this point. The directory has been declining in usefulness for the last decade or so to be honest.

And that's all because they can't seem to attract enough editors to keep it relevant. I mean, look at the games listing there, then drill down to consoles. Notice anything off?

Yeah, all the subcategories are from circa 2006. That area of the site is so poorly maintained that they don't even list categories for the 3DS, Vita, Wii U, Xbox One, PlayStation 4 or Nintendo Switch.

And that's the case with a lot of categories now. The TV section doesn't seem to have an easy to find category for Game of Thrones or the Walking Dead. The US presidents one doesn't have a category for Donald Trump (though it still has one for him as a candidate elsewhere). Basically, most of the site's categories are just woefully outdated, with the sites found in them not being much better.

The DMOZ has just been too infrequently updated and poorly maintained to really be useful for people nowadays.

So yeah, not surprising they had to call it quits. A site which doesn't have relevant information for most people just isn't worth keeping around.

</comment><comment><USER10> I gave up on DMOZ when I repeatedly tried to volunteer to manage categories (that I happened to be a reasonably recognizable expert on), because they weren't being actively maintained, and it took months to get replies, if ever a reply arrived, at all.

That was many years ago, when it still had some relevancy to search engines. But, even then, it was a zombie. There were some outposts of activity, but it just wasn't a priority after all those acquisitions, and nobody felt enough ownership to maintain it. I don't know anything about the insider decisions or how it was managed or whatever, I just know that when I was enthusiastic about helping, I was ignored. I'd pretty much forgotten all about it and assumed it died years ago.

I like the idea, and I wish there were a good public data set like it. But, I guess since no one figured out how to make money with it, no one cared to make it work.

</comment><comment><USER11> For those who still see value in a curated directory, please help me combine efforts of people willing to contribute to a DMOZ revival by filling out this form: [https://goo.gl/forms/0cFa3bXLGoo12M6l2](https://goo.gl/forms/0cFa3bXLGoo12M6l2)

</comment><comment><USER12> Such a pity. I have always used DMOZ as a source for seeding any search engine I am playing around with as you get a good breadth of sites to start crawling.

Half tempted to create an open clone to keep it going. Any suggestions for a name would be appreciated.

EDIT - Ordered freemoz.org and will attempt to get somthing going ASAP

<comment><USER13> The blekko slashtag dataset is a lot better, just sayin: [https://github.com/blekko/slashtag-data](https://github.com/blekko/slashtag- data)

(the founders of dmoz were the founders of blekko)

<comment><USER12> Looks like a good data source to seed with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> On March 13, 2017 DMOZ should just approve all submissions. Especially those that have been waiting 7+ years to get their site approved.

<comment><USER14> No, that's a terrible idea. The vast majority of unapproved suggestions are likely to be crap (or just outright spam).

(And that's assuming that the site will stay up, in any form, after the published "closure" date. For all we know, it may simply go away.)

<comment><USER6> I was trying to be snarky with that comment. Ha</comment></comment></comment>


N.Y. Times Scales Back Free Articles to Get More Subscribers - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-01/n-y-times-scales-back-free-articles-to-get-readers-to-subscribe <comment><USER2> We desperately need the continued work of serious investigative journalism outfits. Even the existence of organizations able (willing?) to report fact- checked stories held to a high editorial standard seems tenuous. These businesses are not a public service but in my estimation all Americans benefit from an independent fourth estate.

If you read NYT articles with any regularity I strongly urge you to subscribe. For me the cost of a digital subscription is trivial relative to the value I get from it.

<comment><USER3> Subscriptions is not the solution. It's an old model that doesn't work anymore.

What we need is micropayments.

<comment><USER4> Micropayments have failed constantly since the .com bubble days.

The whole thing with micropayments is that the content creator is hoping that the cost to purchase the article is going to be low enough to where the user isn't going to notice the money.

But they will notice. You're forcing a person to read a headline (and maybe a half paragraph intro) and then deciding if it's actually worth buying the article. That's a decision that the average person is not going to put up with.

The best solution is to support publications that produce consistent and high quality content. The best model for this (that we know of) is recurring payment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So I've been debating subscribing to the NYT, but the sheer number of options has delayed me from doing it. My wife and I both love crosswords and would love to get access to the crosswords, and I'd like to get a subscription to support journalism. Last time I looked it wasn't really clear to me which subscription(s) I should get so I delayed the choice.

Now I find myself actively avoiding most NYT links because I want to "save them" for the stories I'm really interested in which means in general I almost never click on a NYT link anymore. So now I'm wondering if I should even bother subscribing. This seems like it will make me even less likely to subscribe, especially since I don't want to reward this business tactic.

<comment><USER6> In my opinion, journalistic integrity is more important than ever and I'll gladly pay for quality instead of being swamped with clickbait.

I don't want my journalist to be beholden to advertisers instead of trying to provide the most truthful, unbiased facts to their readers.

<comment><USER7> Unfortunately they will be beholden to their owners and the bias of their editors, but I agree that is better than clickbait at any rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'll subscribe to the NYT again when they stop requiring you to phone them to unsubscribe.

I was a previous subscriber, and when I wanted to unsubscribe, I discovered there was no way to do it online. This is, of course, an intentional move to make it hard to unsubscribe.

My advice to the NYT: learn from Netflix.

<comment><USER9> Don't subscribe from their website, but from their app. You can cancel on your phone without having to call them.

<comment><USER10> Why install any app from an untrustworthy entity in the first place?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This move seems to betray a lack of nuance in understanding of readers by the NYT. To be clear, I find the idea of paying for journalism and news media, in combination with or instead of ad support, to be compelling and important. However, I think it is also important to recognize the pragmatic value of the decision to offer free content, when this is the norm on the internet.

The NYT has lost a great deal of trust from it's readers in recent years, including those of various political and social leanings. Many opposed to the growth of populist, right-wing movements in the US (and to a degree abroad) see the NYT as emblematic of a news media more interested in humanistically profiling far-right extremists, including self-avowed white nationalists, than in highlighting their evils. They also find the NYT to be a major nexus of sensationalist coverage of the Trump presidential campaign and administration, distracting from balanced and substantial coverage of the race in favor of an obsession with email scandals and essentially unimportant (but amusing or provocative) actions by Trump and his entourage. On the other side of the American political divide, many have found the 'failing' NYT to be unrepresentative of their experiences as Americans, and have begun to dismiss it's coverage as partisan and often distorted. The paper's attempts to introduce balanced coverage, especially in the editorial pages, has been met with vitriol from both liberals and conservatives. Outside of partisan politics, coverage of issues like the Las Vegas massacre have been criticized by many as sensationalizing the attack and encouraging copycats, including by academics. When the most venerated news institution in the United States cannot heed what is increasingly accepted in academia and abroad as responsible reporting procedures for mass attacks, it is concerning.

Journalism need not be free to consumers, and I personally believe it would be better off as a directly subscribed medium with little to no ad support. But this does not seem an appropriate or strategic time for a newspaper that desperately needs to rebuild its trust with readers (especially with young millennials) to ask for more subscription dollars. I have heard of many people who have cancelled or allowed to lapse subscriptions to the NYT (subscriptions I was surprised to learn they had) over the issues I've mentioned. Subscription volume may be up, but I suspect deeper trends in subscriber and nonsubscriber perceptions are at work and this change will damage the NYT in the long run. Of course, this is a fragile time for news media, especially print, and it is not surprising to see a paper opting for short-term earnings.

<comment><USER12> > The NYT has lost a great deal of trust from it's readers in recent years

We need some evidence of the level of trust and its change over time. I've read such things about the NY Times since I first learned of its existence. It seems to be the nature of journalism, telling people uncomfortable, undesirable things about red-hot issues.

<comment><USER13> Now this isn't specific to the NYT, but the NYT has absolutely been guilty of sensationalism: [https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our- feeds-e86511...](https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our- feeds-e86511488de)

That's different than uncomfortable challenging, comfort zones and so forth. Here we see misleading headlines to drive traffic.

Next, I lean left and yet found the NYT obsessively copycatting Democratic institutional thinking: supporting corrupt NY Mayors, relentlessly defending lost Presidential candidates despite nefarious behaviors, and in years past as Chomsky demonstrates, beating the drums of war in foreign policy. I found them obsessing over race and gender divides, even if it meant eclipsing greater threats. Transgender policy and statues, in. Redistribution of wealth to the rich... too complicated to obsess over.

They've run negative coverage on people I admire, like Chomsky and Sanders, because those buck the trends within a fractured Left.

Next, I live in NY and find their local coverage heavily biased with stories of the idle rich. I'd love to send examples of this, but I'm pretty sure I have one article left to read this month.

I pay for a 15 dollar a month, Kindle subscription to the Financial Times because of the thoughtful, in-depth analysis, sometimes with multiple viewpoints in different articles on one topic, and a FAR less American-centric information resource. When it comes to politics, being culturally myopic is a sin that the NYT is in my unhumble opinion guilty of.

<comment><USER12> I know about Chomsky's criticisms and those accusations. I'm not commenting on their accuracy; I'm saying they are old news. The question is, do we have data showing that the level of trust has changed recently, or even what that level is?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So, if you're a long time reader of the NY Times, clue me in to what sets it apart as a valuable source of information. Respectfully, I don't currently understand what others see in it as an information source.

Look at the front page right now:

 _Flynn pleads guilty_ (news, public record - the exception!)

 _Republicans say they 'll pass the tax plan in the Senate_ (probably a press release or word from a PR office)

 _Rex Tillerson might be replaced by someone even worse than himself_ (probably a press release or word from a PR office, posturing)

 _A meta-regurgitation of sex harassment news_ (posturing)

 _Why North Korea 's missile is very scary_ (almost certainly a statement from a public relations office in the SK government, in collaboration with the US government, since it includes a statement about a phone call between the respective heads of state)

 _A string of variety fluff blog posts_ (entertainment).

I care about quality journalism, but these articles are mostly posturing/outrage-jockeying or fluff, and what news there is consists in barfing up press releases or statements from public relations offices, spiced up with a little expert vetting from whomever they could get on the phone. It reads like a textbook dystopian "Manufacturing Consent" newspaper.

So, I don't know. I pay for a subscription to a few news outlets (a few of whom are can be just as bad as the NYTimes, such as NPR), but I certainly don't see a reason to pay a premium for name brand news that isn't any more substantive than skimming AP reports off a news feed.

<comment><USER15> An example:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitra...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration- everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html) (part of an in-depth series).

<comment><USER14> Thanks, I'll give it a read! I think I'd had a bit of coffee when I wrote that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> For me, if I open an article on the Internet and it has as little as a popup asking me to subscribe to an e-mail, I close it and move on.

<comment><USER17> CNN has taken it to the extreme with a full page takeover when you try to leave

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As always, Amazon is a big elephant in the room: [https://www.amazon.com/The- Washington-Post-Digital-Access/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/The-Washington- Post-Digital-Access/dp/B072MHQFJ1)

WaPo is $4 a month for the 50% of US households who have Amazon Prime. That's about a quarter of the price of what NYT is asking for, with a quality and political bent that's fairly similar. NYT can't compete until its on a much closer pricing footing.

<comment><USER19> The NYT site and app are VASTLY superior to the Post's. I subscribe to both and find that I turn to the NYT more often because the reading experience is so much better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm happy to pay for good journalism, but I'm not paying separate subscriptions to every decent newspaper.

If they had some sort of alliance with the Post and the Tribune, or something like that it would be very cool. As it is, I recently signed up for the Washington Post which means I now have to cancel the New York Times. :(

People have money to spend, but you need to offer them some better options than the current model of paying separately for every news outlet.

</comment><comment><USER21> > Scoops on the Trump administration's scandals and sexual-harassment > allegations in Hollywood have already contributed to a surge in Times > subscriptions

Earlier today HN had the article about Japanese elderly, which was a sad and wonderful read and I highly recommend it. I wish NYT had more of this long- form, thoughtful "teach me something about life elsewhere" reporting, instead of a "what crazy thing did Trump do today" tabloid-ism.

<comment><USER22> If you haven't already, check out the New Yorker. It's a weekly magazine, so obviously not quite the same, but what you're describing is their bread and butter.

<comment> mark-r New Yorker articles seem overly long for no good reason.

<comment><USER23> The articles have to be long enough to include at least one word with a diaeresis.

<comment> mark-r I didn't realize how serious you were - I was reading an article there today and came across the word "reëxamine".

<comment><USER23> > _If you're reading something and you encounter a diaeresis, chances are > you're reading The New Yorker._

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/mary-norris- di...](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/mary-norris-diaeresis)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> One thing not to miss when you get a subscription to the NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, or other large newspaper/magazine is the access to the archive of articles.

If you like long-form, feature-style articles instead of current events news, there is enough stuff in the NYT archives that you'd never be able to read it all.

</comment><comment><USER24> Note that a lot of public libraries and universities provide free one day access to the NYTimes, and by using such passes you are supporting the company as there are fees paid when users take advantage of these things.

</comment><comment><USER25> At this point, I'm glad to get away from the abusive ad-supported model and support sources of information I trust directly.

Information wants to be free, but it's not free to gather and vet.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'd like to do my part and support good journalism and pay for my NYT articles on a per article basis, say 5c-15c per article. They won't let me.

Strictly speaking as a consumer, Am I the only person who doesn't like subscriptions? Do the subset of masses who are willing to pay for journalism really prefer subscriptions over one time use payments? I guess i'm just weird.

<comment><USER15> > Strictly speaking as a consumer, Am I the only person who doesn't like > subscriptions? Do the subset of masses who are willing to pay for journalism > really prefer subscriptions over one time use payments? I guess i'm just > weird.

I don't think Americans in general like metering. There's a lot of resistance to data caps and cell phone plans are heading towards being "unlimited." The thing that sucks about one time use payments is that you're either thinking "do I really want to pay for this little action?" all the time or you don't and get surprised by your bill.

Though I wouldn't mind paying $10/month for a subscription that included unlimited access to one major news site and up to $5/month credit for metered access to others. Unfortunately, the realities of competition will prevent that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't like this. I get the NYT and The Washington Post delivered. My wife reads the NYT on-line quite a bit, I read it only occasionally on-line. With 10 articles per month, I'm fine not logging in. Now, I have to find out our subscriber information.

</comment><comment><USER28> The NY Times paywall has got to be one of the easiest paywalls to bypass. You can either browse its site in private/incognito mode (or using Firefox Focus on mobile), delete a cookie, or disable Javascript on their site (though this isn't ideal when viewing some of their interactive pieces). I wonder if this is a deliberate compromise to ensure that nobody is ever really locked out of their content.

<comment> mark-r Subject to change at any time of course. I used to enjoy the occasional article from WSJ, now I just get annoyed when I see one of their headlines because I know I can't read the article.

</comment></comment><comment> oh-kumudo Good to see ad support media going away. The programmatic publishing model is a failure on many fronts. As the online payment options sought in recent years, back to subscription is a sensible choice and I will happily follow.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm a subscriber, started at $14 a month, and now I pay about $7 a month after calling to see if they'd let me latch on to a promo rate.

I don't understand this hostility toward paywalls or paying for a subscription. Just a generation ago, most households paid for newspaper subscriptions, and even some magazines. I am happy to pay for the journalism from what I consider to be a high quality news source. It makes me a better- informed individual.

Many of the users of HN are attempting to monetize a service or product using a subscription model. Yet you don't want to support a newspaper doing the same thing? Do you feel that the journalism should be free, or free to you? If so, why do you feel that entitlement?

News sources such as WSJ, NYT, Economist provide education and value to individuals and society, and people who earn enough to get a Starbucks on the way to work and go to the gym on the way home (also a subscription model) should not have this level of disdain for the idea of paying for content from a reputable newspaper.

<comment><USER30>
      Just a generation ago, most households paid for newspaper
      subscriptions, and even some magazines.

I'm forming this hypothesis on the fly, but I wonder if people had a deep- seeded notion that they were paying for the _delivery_ (the paper, ink, on their doorstep) vs. the _content_. "I pay for you to bring the news to me" where today, "I come to your forum to hear what's going on."

I'm also wondering if there needs to be more journalism as a public good—or a nonprofit. Not tabloids or 24-hour-newscycle hysteria, but true investigative reporting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> All these subscriptions are starting to add up so I don't want more. I wonder if they lowered their prices whether they could make up for it by more subscribers. I guess they have run the numbers...

<comment><USER32> What we're really missing is an analog to the old "stick a quarter in the machine, get a newspaper" model

Plenty of people would gladly pay a bit of money to get access to a day's news when they want to, without a subscription. But it has to be easy, not "type in all my credit card info to get one paper".

<comment><USER33> Blendle is somewhat similar to what you're talking about, though it's pay per article as opposed to per day.

[https://blendle.com/](https://blendle.com/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I know most of you know this, but...

Deleting cookies will get you another 5 (used to be 10) "free" articles.

Also Guardian US, which is free just with nags and a terrible ADD design is a mediocre alternative.

</comment><comment><USER35> An on-line only subscription is far less than the donation I give to my local NPR affiliate each year. Well worth it.

</comment><comment><USER36> Is this how we keep the poor uninformed?

<comment><USER37> No, that is done by buying up most local tv stations and airing propaganda.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I won't pay. I look often, mostly following headlines from 'Real Clear Politics' (which has both left and right-leaning links).

NYT leans too far left for my tastes, I won't pay to support that. I'll read free articles (to try to gain perspective from the other side) but no way will I pay.

</comment><comment><USER39> So long, and thanks for all the fish.

</comment><comment><USER40> do any of these publishers have paywalls for specific premium articles rather than x articles per week? presumably they could a/b and tweak more that way

<comment><USER41> I would love this feature. NYT does real investigative journalism and should be paid for that, but it annoys me to no end when I'm browsing my news feed and click a fluff article as a time waster and it's a WaPo or NYT article and I see my counter for the month go up.

<comment><USER15> > NYT does real investigative journalism and should be paid for that

The problem is that's the stuff I wish the most people had easy access to, or order to build momentum to fix the problems. For instance, I post a link to their series on binding arbitration every time that comes up somewhere. That's a good example of something that doesn't sound bad until someone explains it to you.

<comment><USER41> I'm fine with those being a limited number of articles per month. If its something important that needs to be shared with people who don't follow the news regularly, then it shouldn't matter if you can only view 5-10 articles a month. If you're regularly following the news and are consuming all of their most important pieces that will matter historically, then you should be paying for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> If there is anything more toxic than social media, it's traditional media. If you value your mental health, uninstall facebook, end your subscription to NYTimes/WaPo/news media, turn off foxnews and go do something else.

</comment><comment><USER43> Why doesn't New York Times et al just go for the full donation model? Make the articles free, put a bug Jimmy Wales-style banner at the top, probably rake in more money. Are they still pretending like they're a prestigious institution or something?</comment>


The Next Advanced Packages - <AUTHOR> https://semiengineering.com/the-next-advanced-packages/ <comment><AUTHOR> New approaches aim for better performance, more flexibility — and for some, lower cost.</comment>


Chatterous works better than Twitter on mobile - <AUTHOR> http://jolieodell.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/chatterous-twitter-mobile/

<comment><USER2> "And Chatterous will get me laid."

Yes, because if there's one thing skinny, young blondes need help with, it's that.

<comment><USER3> Maybe you can help me out here, but how is she a geek?

<comment><USER2> She says she is, because in any other community she's just a normal looking chick. Claiming geek gives you +3 on the 10 scale. See iJustine for reference.

<comment><USER4> Um, I'm a geek because I live on the Internet and make a living FROM the Internet. It started with DOS and King's Quest when I was a little kid... Does using a Linux machine in '99 give me any geek points? Oh, please, can I be a geek now? *rolls eyes

<comment><USER2> Wow, King's Quest? Cred granted.

<comment><USER4> Dog wrestler? Cred accepted.

<comment><USER2> How did you know what I was doing? The dog won.

<comment><USER4> Oh shit! I Googled you! OMG! Now what? Apparently, you make a habit of being an taint cheese on the Internet.

<comment><USER2> I better do some serious vanity Google repair if I come up as a dog wrestler. I used to come up mainly as an author, but if my royalty check is any indication that probably isn't the case any more.

I wouldn't call it a habit. It's just a sample bias. Good phrase though.

<comment><USER4> Thanks. It's an original. And your dog wrestling is in your About page on your blog.

Let me know if you need SEO help for your personal brand. Hah. Haha!

Ok, I'm kidding. Sorry. Have a bitchin' day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Heh. It's not exactly hard to beat Twitter on technical merit. Arguably Pownce is better there (certainly in features) and Jaiku seemed to have more stable tech.

Twitter keeps winning because it has a lot of people and has got a lot of nice desktop clients. Inertia and off-browser integration mean a lot to a service like twitter.

<comment><USER6> Kind of a moot point now, but I always wonder if Pownce would have gained much more traction had it launched with a full API instead of/in addition to a mediocre AIR client.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh, and we were chatting with iJustine last night and this morning.

Skinny, young blondes FTW!!!

</comment><comment><USER4> Hellooo! It's Jolie.

Actually, the chat groups in Chatterous are AWESOME for meeting new ppl. Smart, successful people. People who can talk intelligently about Ruby on Rails. Or monetizing social media. Or measuring virals.

Srsly. It's hot.

<comment><USER7> You are very adorable. Just making an observation.

<comment><USER3> Dude, just stay away from girls that are into social media. Let's just say they give a different perspective on _viral_ networks...

<comment><USER7> Can't resist the blonde geeky types.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One issue I see is what if you want to find _new_ friends. What if you want to find interesting people in chatrooms.

Seems fine if you have a group of friends and want to chat together.

<comment><AUTHOR> we're working on that ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is it just me, or is <http://www.chatterous.com/> broken in FF3?

<comment><USER10> Works perfectly for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I just joined chatterous and can't find the getting laid feature anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER12> Nice one guys - heres to chatterous becoming the breakout app of 2008!

</comment><comment><USER13> like twitter, chatterous could use some accelerating growth. You need accelerating growth for social platforms

<comment><USER8> Or you can just cheat by leveraging off existing networks ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> helloTxt.com is useful.

</comment><comment><USER15> How about a dating service that is.. well.. twitterlike. Just launched, so there's not much there yet. <http://www.TalkAboutADate.com>. Can't promise it'll get you laid. Anyone know of an api that'll help you do that? :)</comment>


Ask HN: Where should my dad start to learn to code? - <AUTHOR> My dad's in his fifties and will have to change his career from what he's been doing for the past 20+ years. I recommended he should try coding as I believe he's bright enough to pick it up and the demand for people who can code doesn't seem to be decreasing. He's now enrolled to a python class and slowly moving forward.
Obviously I don't want to force this on him. Just want him to get enough of a taste at first to see if he likes it. If he does, how should he continue?
Should I just push him to try codecademy or similar sites? What would be the shortest path to learn for him to land a job? <comment><USER3> I'm 67 and love programming - all self taught. Without knowing your father let me suggest this with a caveat; there is no right way to learn something as we are each different. What works for one fails for another. Here are my suggestions. First, Python. A "class" or online course doesn't really allow for setting a personal learning pace. I found "Python Programming: An Introduction to Computer Science" by Zeile to be perfect for me. Second find something - a goal - to motivate the process; a website for a local charity, a payment site for a small municipal water company or for the local town office or volunteer fire company etc. Build it out with Django. And along the way build out a personal website with Pelican. Turn a Chromebook into a linux machine with GalliumOS and use only text editors - IDE's just add unneeded complexity. If you have a compelling reason to learn something - you will. When he builds something - put it on Github. It becomes his resume - <USER2> with his dialog of "the road to learning" he might post on his Pelican blog! Results trump certificates and degrees.

<comment><AUTHOR> Your comment is quite assuring comforting. I guess I'll just try to push him on to lear new things until he's found something he likes :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It all depends on what you want him to learn :)

Codecademy seems fine, I've also found [https://codecombat.com/play](https://codecombat.com/play) :) maybe it's more fun :)

If you want your dad to be full-stack dev :) Maybe push him towards learning backend development ( like python as you mentioned ) and use some MADPs ( Mobile Apps Development Platforms ), like [https://www.kinetise.com](https://www.kinetise.com). Which basically allows you drag and drop mobile application and connect it to your backend. It will give him more fun to create mobile apps as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well I kinda want him to figure that out himself. I've been thinking of giving him a quick hands on overview of some tools, algorithms and design patterns. Maybe even give him some sort of hobby project to work with.</comment></comment>