Microsoft backs off on Metro - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9245960/Steven_J._Vaughan_Nichols_Told_you_so_Microsoft_backs_off_on_Metro <comment><USER3> As a PC game developer I was angry when I installed Windows 8 for the first time. It's just so bad it makes me angry.

My immediate reaction was "Why are you killing Windows, Microsoft?". From that moment I installed the beta I could see the destruction of PC gaming and everything that came along with it following in it's wake as clear as day.

A lot of people misinterpreted Gabe Newell's dislike of Windows 8. People seemed to think that he disliked it simply because of the windows app store. Just because it might compete with Steam. The problem is much more fundamental than being competed with. He disliked it because it's a terrible release of Windows that destroys the very platform Steam is on.

It's no wonder Gabe decided to go all in on Linux. It may be a slim hope getting that to stick, but at least it's a chance. If the platform you rely on is going to self destruct out from under you, you need to jump to whatever has a chance of keeping you afloat.

<comment><USER4> I know some people on the Windows team. My immediate reaction when I tried the beta was, "Oh shit, I have to let them know what someone has done to their work before it's too late! The public is about to see this!". Obviously, after half a second of thought, I realized they already know and use what I was seeing for the first time. But it was so shockingly bad that I instinctively thought it was some kind of mistake that they must not have seen yet.

When I did talk to them next, it was more along the lines of expressing condolences. I thought since it was objectively bad, it goes without saying that they also think it is bad, and some internal politics led to what was released, ruining their hard work. To my surprise, they defended it and claimed to really like it. I found this so baffling that I've since been struggling with several theories; "either they are crazy or I am crazy, I'm not sure which anymore", some kind of Stockholm Syndrome, or something contaminating the water around Redmond.

I ruled out the possibility that it's me who is crazy after a few rounds of a game where I hand my laptop to a coworker, who uses windows exclusively (and one even develops drivers for it), and told them to try and close Internet Explorer and shut down the computer. Invariably the result was trying for 5 or 10 minutes before walking away in frustration, sometimes with colorful language.

<comment><USER5> I don't buy this argument at all. Just because there are new ways of doing things doesn't make it bad. This kind of attitude kills innovation.

I just got Windows 8 last week. I found the vast majority of functionality I needed without any help, in just a few minutes of playing around with it. My brother (who had Windows 8 for a few months) showed me just a couple more things, but none of them were necessary, only more convenient ways of doing the same things I'd already figured out how to do.

<comment><USER4> I don't understand the relevance of the sentence: _" Just because there are new ways of doing things doesn't make it bad."_ Not one single person who dislikes the Windows 8 interface has ever cited that as the reason.

And there's no way you figured out how to close a metro app without looking it up.

<comment><USER6> When I started using the Beta I couldn't get windows snap to work. Spent an hour trying to get it to work and just couldn't get two metro apps on the screen at once.

Was it my dual monitor setup? Was it a bug?

No, I didn't have enough screen resolution and the os wouldn't mention this fact and it took a ton of googling to find out that was the case.

Yeah, the OS was being obtuse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Jay Machalani's concept for fixing the Metro+desktop are the way to go IMHO. [http://jaymachalani.com/blog/2013/12/12/fixing- windows-8](http://jaymachalani.com/blog/2013/12/12/fixing-windows-8)

Basically the concept is to include both the Metro + desktop UIs and let the user explicitly choose. When you're in tablet mode, all desktop apps run full- screen (or using the Metro-style split screen) and when you're in desktop mode, Metro apps run windowed like Desktop apps.

<comment><USER7> Also, ModernMix gets you part way there on the latter. One interesting side effect I noticed while using it is that Metro / Modern apps tend to use larger fonts and layouts (which doesn't really work that well when you shrink the apps down to a smaller window). Possible solutions include auto-scaling and letting the app present a different interface when Windowed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you think MS is going to back down on touch, you're dead wrong. Moving forward, what the author refers to as "Metro" (actually known as the "Modern Interface") will be the default interface users interact with on WP and XBox. And yes, it might be true that they'll allow users to boot into the desktop, it's not confirmed that will be the default option for users.

The whole point of the Modern design language is to provide a unified experience for all of the Windows ecosystem. Honestly, it's really good - except on their most used product, Windows. I think when they allow Modern apps to run inside the desktop, allow desktop apps to work with the charms bar, and build their own laptop you'll see customers flock in droves to the Windows ecosystem.

<comment><USER9> Please don't call something "unified" when it shares none of the same code, doesn't work the same, and was created by teams who don't talk to each other. Superficially similar looking != unified.

<comment><USER10> The worst example of this was Visual Studio 2012. The UI was redone to superficially fit the Metro style. It became flat and monochrome and so visually undifferentiated that it was hard to navigate. And there were of course the obnoxious ALL CAPS menu labels.

<comment><USER11> Why is Visual Studio worse than (say) Word or Outlook, which (of course) did the same thing?

<comment><USER12> Because it's infinitely more complicated. One context menu can end up bigger than your screen [1] and that doesn't count the number of different debug windows hanging off the debug menu [2], there's a bunch of menus for testing, editing etc most of which are not right in front of me.

I'm pretty handy with VS but given its sheer size I don't need any extra impediments. RANDOM ALL CAPS MAKES THIS SENTENCE DISTRACTING. I HAVE TO LOOK AT MENUS A LOT.

Contrast with the Outlook ribbon's "Home" tab which puts 95% of what I need to do right there always visible by default. I don't have to hunt around at the top of my SCREEN WHICH IS IN DISTRACTING ALL CAPS nearly as much.

The first thing I do after installing VS2012/VS2013 is to edit the registry to return the correct casing to the top level menus.

The icon scheme for SSDT in VS2012 was the worst. No colour, just symbols. Want to add a primary key? Look for the key icon. Sounds good in practice but there's lots of monochromatic key symbols overlaid onto other monochromatic symbols (primary key on table, symmetric key, foreign key). At least with the colour I can more easily distinguish the primary key is gold and the blue square it's in front of is a table.

FWIW I don't think I was significantly less productive in VS2012 than 2010 but it's a moot point now since VS2013 put colour back in.

[1] Best I could do: [http://i.msdn.microsoft.com/dynimg/IC653694.png](http://i.msdn.microsoft.com/dynimg/IC653694.png)

[2] [http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs- filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communit...](http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs- filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components- weblogfiles/00-00-00-91-03-metablogapi/8787.ParallelDebuggingWindows_5F00_thumb.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The worst problem with Microsoft's touch interface on a non-touch machine: ordinary mouse movements get interpreted as gestures sometimes. You can lift your finger off the display, but you can't lift your mouse pointer, so you end up issuing commands that bring up various screens when all you were trying to do was move your mouse around. I was pretty surprised that got through Microsoft's QA.

I decided they had left behind anyone who wanted to get actual work done, and bought a System76.

</comment><comment><USER14> What does booting to the desktop have to do with anything? Out of all my Win8 annoyances, having to click the desktop tile is probably at the end of the list. Without a start menu, doing full-screen context shifts to launch programs is just annoying. The dumb metro-style things for, say, WiFi connector (a whole huge side of the screen, instead of a tiny popup, with less functionality than before) -- all that stuff is what's annoying.

Booting direct to desktop seems as pointless as adding a start button that launches the full-screen thing. No one was asking for that. So either MS is incredibly obtuse, or they think they're going to fool people by pretending to have changed something.

<comment><USER6> What they did to the Network slide in thing was so annoying. I hate the trend of wasting tons of screen space for features.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Metro is a fantastic design language. What they screwed up is the combined Metro+classic desktop in Win8. A Surface 2's UI is great (the problem is the lack of apps), same for WP.

<comment><USER16> It might be great for touch, but I don't have a touch screen.

On my new Win8 machine the first program I installed was Classic Shell [1]. Now I have a (functioning) start button and it boots straight to the desktop so I never have to see the touch interface.

[1] [http://www.classicshell.net/](http://www.classicshell.net/)

<comment><USER17> Another good alternative is Start8: [http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/](http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The problem with Windows 8 is the fact that it has two different desktops experiences. I quickly realized I felt much more comfortable using my keyboard and mouse on the desktop mode. I tried to ignore metro mode and use only the desktop but the whole metro thing is so ingrained with it's sensible corners and start menu. After some time of tweaking I could disable most of the things and ended up with something resembling a crippled Windows 7 at best.

They really had something going on with Windows 7 and they blew it. Maybe metro is ok for light usage like checking emails, browsing, multimedia, which is certainly what a lot of people do, but for a developer like me it just feels handicapped.

This is what Microsoft should do, offer different versions of Windows, one with metro the other with the desktop. I really don't think they are that stupid to just mess with the momentum Windows 7 had.

If they don't then they are finished in the desktop front, at least for people who make things with their OS and not just consume media.

</comment><comment> ryan-allen I think Microsoft jumped the gun by a few years, the Surface 2 Pro is the computing concept I think they believed was the future.

I run Windows 8 exclusively and I use a Start Menu replacement called Start Is Back, and it's great. It was only $3. I never use Metro on my 27" screen.

HOWEVER, I'm really keen to get something like the Lenovo Helix [1], as I think that's where things are going to go (like an iPad that has an i5 and runs both iOS and OS X). Sensible friends of mine who have the original Surface say metro is great as a tablet UI, the only annoyance being that the Store is lacking in many apps.

Either way, I think Metro is OK, they just screwed up the roll out. As we see more devices like the Surface 2 Pro, the Dell Venue 11 and the Lenovo Thinkpad Helix, it'll start to make more sense.

[1] [http://shopap.lenovo.com/au/en/tablets/thinkpad/thinkpad- hel...](http://shopap.lenovo.com/au/en/tablets/thinkpad/thinkpad-helix/)

<comment><USER19> That reminds me a lot of the Compaq tablet computers, such as the TC1100[1].

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Compaq_TC1100](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Compaq_TC1100)

</comment></comment><comment> UK-AL People won't be happy unless its the start menu from windows xp forever.

<comment><USER20> For me, the Win7 start menu was the best. Primarily because of the built-in search, which, while not perfect, makes Win8 search seem broken by comparison. Also I'm probably not a typical user in that don't hunt for the app I want to launch: it's either pinned to the taskbar, something I can quickly search for, or in my PATH to launch from the Run prompt.

<comment><USER21> How is Win8's search any worse? Press Win, type the program you want, press Enter to run it. It looks different, yeah, but functionally it's the same.

<comment><USER20> In Win8 (prior to 8.1) there wasn't a unified search. I run a lot of programs that aren't "installed", but are just executables in an indexed directory (like small utilities, or putty, etc). These do not show up by "just typing". And in 8.1, "everything" isn't really "everything". It doesn't search within my e-mails, or other programs that used to integrate with the Windows search indexer. It's basically garbage compared to Vista and 7.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is the right thing to do. I'm glad they've realized it. Windows 7 is miles more usable than even 8.1.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think it's obvious that mobile & desktop OSes need to essentially merge to a substantial degree.

But the idea that you should use one and only one control scheme / UI in every use case is just dumb. There's not going to be one universal way for humans to interact with a computer, period. Sometimes touch will be used, sometimes keyboards & mice, sometimes voice, sometimes other methods of control. It's vastly more valuable to figure out how to seamlessly transition between different modes of use/control and to maximize the utility of each mode than to try to engineer some grand compromise design that can be used in all modes but takes advantage of none of them very well.

Moreover, Microsoft needs to learn a very hard lesson here. If you want to change things you need to transition. UI reboots are like system rewrites, they carry a lot of the same risks, if you commit to the new system before it's mature without giving people the option of using the old system you'll often times end up with rejection instead of acceptance. Microsoft has developed a bad habit lately of ramming new ways of doing things down users throats without any time to get used to the changes. The only people who can get away with bullshit like that are Apple, and Microsoft is very definitely not Apple.

</comment><comment><USER24> Isn't Windows 8.1 already out? It seems like this article is a little bit behind the times.

<comment><USER25> If you dereference the source links you'll find that "the forthcoming Windows 8.1 update" in the article refers to Windows 8.1 Update 1 (which updates 8.1), not to 8.1 being an update of 8.0: [http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/30/5362156/windows-8-1-update...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/30/5362156/windows-8-1-update-1-boot- to-desktop-by-default)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've hardly ever read a non-opiniated review or discussion about windows 8. All these discussions go direct to our fanboy hearts. It's like the programming languages or favorite IDE discussions ... :-)

Anyway, there's a huge potential for having one device that can be used with different UI concept based on the peripherals: A tablet docked into a docking station should be operated by mouse and keyboard (desktop mode), otherwise it should be operated by touch (metro mode). Windows 8 should recognize what default to use.

While Metro as default for a PC doesn't make sense, it's not really a big problem. The issue is mainly amplified by our emotions. It took me much longer to get used to OS X, but as I liked the device to much, it didn't bother me at all. I kind of enjoyed exploring how to use it.

</comment><comment><USER27> There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the design language of "modern", and no one ever has needed several resizable draggable windows for their desktop. That UI paradigm should be easy to replace by a nice tiling manager.

What I do need however is a UI that lets me run my legacy apps side by side with new ones, in any configuration and number. I don't mind the look of metro and I never liked the start menu. If my start menu is a start screen, fine.

The biggest problems are a) the divide between old and new. The mistake was making a completely separate UI rather than making a single UI that could adapt to both touch and mouse interaction. b) the API debacle: what IS microsofts strategy for the future of heavy desktop apps? What happened to wpf/xaml? Developers don't like constant surprises.

</comment><comment><USER28> > Dumping Metro is a great step toward making Windows 8 more attractive, but > the Windows 8 desktop mode still doesn't have a real Start menu.

Because they aren't actually dumping metro? The problem with metro wasn't that it was the default UI, but that it replaced the start menu. I really hate all these disingenuous tech reporters who lauded the "return of the start button", when they knew true well that the problem wasn't that the button disappeared, but that the menu was gone. Now we have another shill reporter claiming victory because of a default change, when metro is still just a click away.

The problem with metro is that it exists at all (on non touch screen devices).

</comment><comment><USER29> I hope Stardock Software (makers of Start8) enjoyed the wild ride while it lasted.

<comment><USER30> I'd rather have them concentrate on Galactiv Civilizations 3 anyways.

<comment><USER31> I was a pretty huge fan of Sins of a Solar Empire for a long while too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I have no idea how easy this would be, I imagine rock hard, but couldn't they do a responsive interface, like Canonical is trying to do with Ubuntu?

Apps come packaged with both a mobile and desktop UI, and depending on which input devices are available it shows the relevant one. For example, a Surface by itself would show the metro UI, but connect a type cover or a keyboard and mouse and it'd flip to the desktop interface. Same apps, same data.

Obviously it would take a lot of work to ensure consistency and maintain spacial awareness between modes, but they do still employ some bright people, right?

<comment><USER33> Conceptually that was more or less what they were trying to do with Windows 8 - provide affordances optimized for each input method. For example, with touch you use swipe/flick gestures to pan back and forth, with mouse a scrollbar appears and you use that. With mouse some commands have small controls that appear when you hover over an item, with touch those controls are on a bar at the bottom of the screen. And so on.

What made it different from what Ubuntu is doing (as I understand it) is a couple of additional problems they were trying to solve:

First, you're probably thinking about "hybrid" devices in terms of having a tablet that you use with touch exclusively for X hours, and then attaching a mouse and keyboard, having it become a "PC" and using it with those inputs exclusively for X hours. In this usage model it's OK to have pretty stark changes between modes because you don't mode switch very often.

However, they really wanted to enable a usage model where "touch plus mouse plus keyboard" became more like "mouse plus keyboard" in that you can constantly switch between inputs without really thinking about it, or even use them simultaneously. For this model to work whatever optimizations are done for different inputs need to be less intrusive and more localized - <USER2> more about hiding/showing certain controls than completely changing the layout.

Second, there was a feeling that even for large displays and mouse/keyboard the desktop windowing model felt too heavy and required too much manual window management, at least for some (more casual) use cases. So they were hoping the model developed for tablets could double as a solution to the "Windows feels like too much work" problem on the desktop, especially for home PCs used for entertainment and communication.

To me the recent rumors sound like they're continuing the same general philosophy (of having a common UI with optimizations for each input method), but maybe deprioritizing the above two goals somewhat, which would leave them freer to make more drastic per-input-method optimizations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I can't really complain about it much, it's awesome on my Surface of course, and not so great on my laptop. But really all I do is go back to desktop and it's really out of the way.

I too am missing the start menu, I think it's one of those things that just worked so well they shouldn't have changed it. The extra few seconds added to go in and find something on the metro desktop and pin it to my desktop or taskbar is a waste.

I see what they tried to do, but it's didn't really work out.

<comment><USER35> I'm confused. Why does it take you longer to find something on the Metro desktop? At least in my usage, it functions exactly like the old start menu did: I either start typing to find a program (most of the time) or I hit all programs and look around for it. What slows you down?

The main things I dislike about 8/8.1 are hot corners and the Metro apps being default on desktops. (Seriously Microsoft, I'm glad you finally implemented a native PDF reader but come on.) I don't understand complaints about the start screen.

That being said, Windows 8 did one really great thing for the desktop: multi- monitor support finally works the way it should have all along. The upgrade is worth it just for that, for someone like me with three montors.

<comment><USER12> > I'm confused. Why does it take you longer to find something on the Metro > desktop? At least in my usage, it functions exactly like the old start menu > did: I either start typing to find a program (most of the time) or I hit all > programs and look around for it. What slows you down?

Yeah I never got why people complained about this. We're running Windows 8 and now 8.1 at work on our development machines (not for "now I can develop Metro apps!"). It's good because we get the latest RDS protocol improvements so remote access works just that little bit better and Windows 8 comes with other technical improvements.

My workflow for launching applications never changed: if it's not pinned to my taskbar then it's WinKey + Type "Fi" (say for Firefox) + Enter.

All that said, I did install ClassicShell a fortnight ago just to try it out (after using the Start Screen since Windows 8 RC) and not having to leave my desktop for the Metro interface just works that leeeeeeeeetle bit better in unquantifiable ways. Now it's on my home + work PCs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Does anyone know what this means for the windows 8 app store? Is it still going to be restricted to metro only apps? I know you can link to desktop apps but you can't sell them through the app store yet. Will they lift this restriction?

</comment><comment><USER37> Flat is inevitable. Flat is practical. But, yeah, you can not make money on it yet, because you know people love what they used to look at. They don't like change.

Kazimir Malevich 100 years ago tried to tell the world about it but the world is slow.

<comment><USER38> Flat is nothing more than a cost cutting measure to "benefit" developers. They don't have to pay for or do design any more so they can be more productive in churning out more of the trivial things Steven Sinofsy and Jony Ive think really sell licenses and machines.

I feel really sorry for all the graphics design people whose work I loved and who now have to use pastel crayons with large blunt tips which of course anyone can do so puts the designers pretty much out of work. I hope this too shall pass and eye pleasing detail shall return. I just hope all the designers weren't pushed into becoming higher paid programmers never to return to esthetics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow. What's with all the Metro hate? (Besides the term Metro, which definitely deserves it.)

Yes, it's different. But is it really news when an average user has a negative bias against change and unfamiliarity?

<comment><USER5> Oh wait, I think I know why.

About 5 years ago, when Mac OS X 10.4 was the latest, I started considering switching from Windows (Vista at the time) to Mac. But all my friends and colleagues were telling me about how awful Macs were.

They were remembering the Macs from the 90s, and that image stuck with them long after those Macs died. They had no idea what innovation and improvements Apple had done with Mac OS X and the iMac. They were just blindly biased and either okay with it or unaware of it.

I wonder if that's the same thing happening today with Windows 8. I bet people here are so biased against it because previous versions of Windows or previous Microsoft products or practices left a bad taste.

To be fair, I don't know any modern news about Microsoft. So maybe they still are shady business people. But I don't expect to be able to find any unbiased sources who can confirm or deny this credibly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Hopefully when win9 comes out we can all look back and laugh at this. It somehow magically fixes the dual UI issue. At least if it doesn't we don't have do worry about Win10 at all.

</comment><comment><USER39> I think it proves a very important entrepreneurial point - i.e. if you have distribution your product will do well however bad it is ...

</comment><comment><USER40> By going back they are just going to hurt themselves even more! HAHAHAHA! This is the end of Windows. Buh Bye.

</comment><comment><USER41> I haven't heard much positive things about Windows since version 7. Is it dying?</comment>


Ask PG/HN: What is the spiral thingy on the frontpage? - <AUTHOR>

I just noticed this on the frontpage today: http://imgur.com/apSQv It appears on Chrome 19 as well as Firefox 13 on Windows 7. What is this? Easter egg of some kind? <comment><USER2> That was a post that included some kind of character that doesn't render properly for some reason. I saw it there towards post #5, then later it was up past post #200, and with the misbehaving character removed. Looks like someone edited it who had admin magic or something.

<comment><USER3> It's a Thai character that stacks on top of consonants. It really doesn't have any meaning if stacked more than once. Chrome on Linux will show only one such character. Firefox on Linux will put them all on the same line with a sketch of a missing vowel.

GNU/Linux, Chrome 19: <http://imgur.com/AUHvY> GNU/Linux, Firefox 10: <http://imgur.com/2Wstj>

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> And just like that it's disappeared.</comment>


Fork is now paid with free evaluation - <AUTHOR> https://git-fork.com/home
My daily driver for git is no longer free and has a seemingly eternal evaluation period with a paid license for 50 USD.
Anyone else here a Fork user? <comment><USER2> Yes, but I will still pay for it. It is better than any of the Electron alternatives and the license can be also transferred to Windows PCs.

The best part of it is that its a one-time purchase, rather than a subscription compared to GitFox, Tower and GitKraken. So I'd say it is worth it for the price and quality.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree as well to be honest. After spending an hour looking at alternatives it is well worth the small price.</comment></comment>


Garry Newman about Game Developers Conference 2016 - <AUTHOR> http://garry.tv/2016/03/21/gdc-2016/ <comment><AUTHOR> TL;DR: * Talks is a waste of time * Marketing VR-people sucks * Crazy people * Notch make bad drinks * Don't waste your time on GDC</comment>


Ask HN: How do you influence a group where there's a lot of big talkers? - <AUTHOR>

You want to organize your group to do something.  There's 15 people in this group - each with equal voting power.  Three of them are loud big talkers who sound utterly confident in their ideas except the ideas they have are very bad.  The rest of the group seem to be ready to choose them to lead.
Your a quiet talker who likes verifying an idea to see if there's a chance it will work.  Nobody is paying attention to you and the three loud talkers are always interrupting you.
Most of the other members of the group are just those who'll follow whoever is in charge but they get to choose who is in charge.
What do you do? <comment><USER2> Noone gets to the top of the tree by sitting in the corner & waiting for things to happen.

If you want to be the #1 then as soon as they mention a bad idea, immediately suggest reasons why & if you can't think of a bad reason, select the weakest point of the idea and heavily focus on it.

Once you have done this, they will probably try and act smart and say "what's your big idea then?" then you have your time to convince everyone & as soon as any of the 'loud talkers' interrupt, don't let them by speaking louder and keep going they'll shut up and as soon as they do, rework parts of what you said whilst they were speaking gibberish back into your speech by saying "as I mentioned earlier but was interrupted by person X, Y and Z alongside..." and carry on speaking.

Seriously, you can either sit in a corner or you can come out fighting so to speak, assert your authority and take the top spot.

</comment><comment><USER3> With the amount of information you provided, I will not assume to know the exact answer, however, I do have a few questions that can perhaps point you toward the right direction:

1) Have you brought this specific issue up in a meeting where everyone is present? Not alluding to it, but specifically bringing it up (for instance): "I feel that there's a serious issue that may impede our team's success, here's where I think the issue is..."

2) You described the loud/big talkers (LBTs) as very confident in their idea and others might buy it--are you the only one who feel that way? Have you talk to the other team members individually?

3) Have you talked to the LBTs individually?

4) Why do you think the LBTs are always interrupting you? Are you being precise when you talk? Do you bring data that backs up what you say? Do you talk very slowly?

5) Do you ever get good results with a 15-people brainstorming session?

6) Do you feel like you have to be with this group? Is moving on an option?

There are 2 books I really like: Mindset: The New Psychology of Success by Carol S. Dweck and Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In by Roger Fisher, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton

Perhaps you might find the reading to be helpful to you as well.

Good luck and be happy,

-V.

</comment><comment><USER4> 15 people sounds like too many. I had enough trouble leading a group of 6-ish people that I eventually gave up on them/the project. Now I'm working on that same project (and a few others) with only one other person. It's much easier to deal with and our visions seem much more feasible. We're not immediately shooting for the biggest and bestest thing out there.

Like VuongN said, I would bring it up next time you meet. People will see you as much more of a leader if you take the initiative to call out these three big talkers and can systematically go through their ideas and explain to the group why they're bad.

If that doesn't work, it might sound harsh, but I would either find a new group entirely, or take a look at the 15 people in your group and at least cut it in half. Drop the people who contribute the least. It sounds like if you guys are still brainstorming ideas, it'll be easiest to do all this now, instead of waiting and potentially having to deal with NDA's and whatnot. Especially if the people who get cut are bitter.

</comment><comment><USER5> find a new team. haters gon hate</comment>


OpenElement - Web design software with guts built-in - alok-g http://www.openelement.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> That is one fugly UI. even the logo is fugly.

<comment> alok-g Here's a better screenshot. I do not find this bad at all.

[http://img.creativemark.co.uk/uploads/images/298/15298/img3F...](http://img.creativemark.co.uk/uploads/images/298/15298/img3File.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> Really? Let's compare.

[http://www.google.com/webdesigner](http://www.google.com/webdesigner)

[http://pinegrow.com](http://pinegrow.com)

[http://panic.com/coda](http://panic.com/coda)

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

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

[http://www.digitalfamily.com/wp/wp- content/uploads/2012/08/D...](http://www.digitalfamily.com/wp/wp- content/uploads/2012/08/Dreamweaver-Screen-Jasperphoto.jpg)

and fuck it, here's [http://brackets.io](http://brackets.io) just for the sake of showing a nice UI, in spite of the fact that it's not the same kind of WYSIWYG editor.

      ...

Even Microsoft Expression Web looks better. This software looks like it's part of the Lotus Symphony suite--not a good thing.

<comment> alok-g Well, thanks! :-) I'll check these out.

Which ones would you recommend to a web design newbie? I am a programmer, have designed desktop GUIs before, know basic HTML and have used Expression Web. Now would like to make a fluid or responsive website with static pages, blog and interactive '3D' visualizations.

I would eventually also like to learn database connectivity from web applications (I know how to use MySQL from desktop applications), user authentication, etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The awkward journey towards less back end - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@deepstreamIO/the-awkward-journey-towards-less-backend-a260a16095de#.jlwlwkp2r <comment><USER2> I have always been of the mind that the actual things of value your app does, the parts that actually make money, it does server side. That hasn't changed with single page apps and phone apps. Our back end has slimmed but the things of actual value, the things others don't offer all happen server side. For instance in our case most of the "magic" takes place by processing hundreds of gigabytes of combined users data, data we couldn't send to the front end for reasons of both volume and privacy.

<comment><USER3> Yup, but we've build this trading app [https://vimeo.com/143728632](https://vimeo.com/143728632) using just deepstream - it does get you quite far

<comment><USER4> The website and twitter account appear offline. Is there more information about the technology somewhere?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's not towards "less back end", and it's not "awkward". Since the dawn of time, everyone has been trying to do more stuff with less energy. Backend, frontend, transportation, everything. That's why there are frameworks, and that's why, these days, we're fortunate enough to be able to glue a heap of libraries together and pretty much only need to write the functionality that's novel.

I think that the author is doing everyone a disservice by framing it like that. I don't even know where to begin to detail where he's wrong: Backend devs are the first people who want to write less backend (they're the ones writing all the libraries!), deepstream isn't a novel idea (it looks like it makes the 90% easy and the 10% horrible), pushing all the code to the client isn't a good idea (just imagine how long it would take to update every client when you discover a critical bug, rather than the three minutes you can update the server), etc etc.

It's a nice service that will allow people to prototype much faster and more easily, and I guess the controversial stance and title of the article worked very well for getting the clicks.

</comment><comment><USER6> This feels like clickbait around an advertisement. They are offering your basic CRUD DB operations via an API, and throwing in DB triggers as a bonus. This doesn't strike me as a hard problem to solve, if I'm honest; especially in a world where GAE, Lambda, Flask, and Rails exist.

<comment><USER7> It's an iteration on those frameworks. Not ground breaking, but it's a new option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Concepts like this seem fine a lot of the time for simple apps, but eventually you're going to want to _do_ something with the data. Query its history, integrate with other systems, etc.

I read an aphorism of sorts a long time ago that basically stated that your software is _relatively_ unimportant, it's the data that's you should worry about. Think about that before trusting that random system X can handle your data for you.

<comment><USER9> Since Deepstream just plugs into whatever database you want to use, you still have the possibility to query history, integrate with other systems, and so on - without using Deepstream at all, but at the same time you can do that using Deepstream as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Imagine a world where your given 5 million dollars and a business model; the only real guard rail being 'don't walk us off a cliff...'. It's not fun and games anymore is it?

A huge percentage of the code I write has nothing to do with the front-end. Am I going to hang my project's fate on a platform created solely with quick and cheap front-end development in mind? Probably not.

I do remember the bad old days when all you really had was a thick native client, a database, and scheduled tasks. So there is precedence, i'm just not sure it's good one?

:)

I like Node, I like Meteor, not ready yet, but close. I like the idea of sharing logic, data, and state that way. Not happy about the sideways protocol. Leaves Node available for the crap I don't want to run on the client.

Pretty sure the magical disappearing back-end (OP) idea is a dead end tho.

</comment><comment><USER11> The funny thing about this is that the _actual_ back end - i.e. the thing that provides all those high-semantic-level services to the front end - is becoming more complex than ever. What this author calls the back end (and which I would call the back-end interface) of an application previously only needed to serve that application's particular needs and usage patterns. As the front/back line moves so that the same logic becomes part of the back end, it now has to satisfy any possible need or usage pattern - including many that will never actually materialize. As data structures move from the front end to the back end, more code must be added to provide security for them.

This is all great for reusability etc. but it _does_ add complexity (including failure complexity) and overhead. As always, such decisions require deep understanding of the tradeoffs involved, and sober judgment of whether the effort is worth it. Only time will tell whether such understanding and judgment will be the norm or the exception. As a grumpy old programmer, I think you can guess where I'd place my bets. ;)

<comment><USER12> Case in point: ArangoDB lets you run "backend code" directly on the database[0]. This allows the "backend interface" to become a dumb client without adding external services to the stack.

[0]: [https://www.arangodb.com/why- arangodb/foxx/](https://www.arangodb.com/why-arangodb/foxx/)

(Disclosure: I work on ArangoDB Foxx)

<comment><USER13> You mean 'stored procedures'?

<comment><USER12> If you want to define "stored procedures" as "application code running in the database", yes. But traditional stored procedures are to ArangoDB Foxx what "copying files with timestamps on a network drive" is to version control.

<comment><USER14> It's so funny that someone even downvoted you for calling him out on his bs.

Databases like Postgres can run languages like JavaScript or Python for their stored procedures. ArangoDB does nothing new in that regard.

<comment><USER12> Let's try a more detailed comparison:

Stored procedures are typically used for access control, data validation and code re-use. Foxx can of course be used for the same purposes.

However while no sane person would want to expose a Postgres database to an external client, Foxx can be used to create REST APIs.

There are proposals to add an HTTP API to Postgres so I would assume that there is a lot of demand for such use-cases.

So stored procedures are just the basis and extensions like the ones Postgres plans to build on top of them are comparable to the native Foxx framework ArangoDB has already been offering for years.

It's also possible to use user-defined functions in ArangoDB's query language, which are a more obvious equivalent of traditional stored procedures in SQL. Unlike these functions Foxx allows developers to build entire data-centric microservices. Additionally Foxx provides access to a wide range of JavaScript libraries via support for Node.js-style modules.

<comment><USER14> If what you need is a REST API there are solutions for it that use Postgres, namely [http://postgrest.com/](http://postgrest.com/)

<comment><USER12> If you just want a REST API for your database, sure, PostgREST does that for Postgres. But Foxx lets you specify your own endpoints, not just expose the DB via REST (which ArangoDB already can do out of the box). IOW: if you just want to talk to your DB over REST and manipulate documents directly, ArangoDB's native REST API is the equivalent of PostgREST.

If you want arbitrary HTTP endpoints with logic you define yourself, bundled as isolated modules with an express-like router API, Foxx is currently the only way to do that within a database. It allows you to colocate your data- centric application logic with the data it operates on (or even remove the need for exposing sensitive data altogether by handling application-level auth/auth within the database).

The only equivalent I can think of personally are CouchApps in CouchDB but they are necessarily far more limited in scope (because CouchDB isn't built to support complex or ad hoc queries).

<comment><USER15> "But Foxx lets you specify your own endpoints ... Foxx is currently the only way to do that within a database" ... so you mean like /rpc/storred_precedure_name in PostgREST :)?

(don't get me wrong, anyone capable of writing a db from scratch is a genius, good job and good luck)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think this is interesting, but perhaps not described the best way in this piece.

I'd say it's more along the lines of a Parse like service where:

\- you own your data

\- you choose your datastore

\- you get an easy to develop against service for client interactions without sacrificing back-end flexibility (aka you can still run SQL queries for reporting)

</comment><comment><USER17> "In the olden days, being a backend developer meant that you wrote a long list of functions that mapped to HTTP requests. A post to /item/14 was turned into createItem( id ) — and we liked it that way."

That's not true at all. A good place to stop reading.

<comment><USER18> That part had me read further multiple times. It was hard to understand the point behind the post. Its an obvious advertisement for a product but it could have at least provided a better explanation of why a simple data store may prove to be more effective for applications that are CRUD front ends. Instead, the post tries to sell the benefits of a data store that can be expanded with backend services. Which is funny given the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I didn't really get what it wants to do different than CouchDB. If you call your data access a database or an app or whatever doesn't change that it is what it is.

</comment><comment><USER20> So, what back-end deepstream uses?

</comment><comment><USER21> ROFL totes awks. Upvote.

</comment><comment><USER22> meteor is a non-sense (but well I'd say rails too, and php shits too)</comment>


Famed cancer biologist allegedly sexually harassed women for decades - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/famed-cancer-biologist-allegedly-sexually-harassed-women-decades <comment><USER2> For someone staring at death and one face of the absolute evil, this is not acceptable.</comment>


Show HN: A new annotation tool for information extraction with Mechanical Turk - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/varal7/ieturk <comment><USER2> This looks really really nice, do you have any plan to add relational annotation support as well? Asking since a student is about to embark on a project that would require it. In hindsight, I regret that we did not get around to implementing Mechanical Turk support back when we made brat. [1]

[1]: [http://brat.nlplab.org/](http://brat.nlplab.org/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! I had no plans to add this feature in the immediate future (I also need to work on the project I built this for). I might consider doing it if people want it, in which case I will help brat for inspiration.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will use* brat for inspiration

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can also you Dataturks do a similar thing, hooking up with Mturks/your own team..also allows overlapping selection and NER+Classification etc. Adding extra data and much more.

Here is an online demo:

[https://dataturks.com/projects/Dataturks/Demo%20Document%20A...](https://dataturks.com/projects/Dataturks/Demo%20Document%20Annotations)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a nice product! I appreciate that you made a free version: very valuable for students

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Could someone explain to me what this is used for ?

I know what Mechanical Turk is. I know what "annotation" is (and I'm proud of it) but beyond that I don't understand what this is useful for.

Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice. One confusing thing about the demo is: isn't SMTP the clear answer for a protocol mentioned in the description? And does it accommodate multiple answers for the same category?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good catch. Yes, it should be SMTP. Yes, you can extract multiple spans from the text.</comment></comment>


HW accelerated WebGL fallback using Java - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/jebgl/

<comment><USER2> On the WebGL mailing list someone mentioned that it's not HW accelerated except on Mac OSX which makes hard to see this as a fallback for WebGL. There is also talk of using flash(molehill) as a fallback but that entails some conversion of things like shaders and sharing the data between the javascript vm and flash plugin etc.

EDIT: also for IE, it's probably best to just get Chrome Frames.

<comment><USER3> How well does WebGL work in Chrome Frame? I'm gonna be releasing an MVP of a product centered around WebGL and I've been thinking that GCF might be a good way to get it working on IE, but haven't yet tested. Would love to hear some experiences.

<comment><USER4> It'll work as well in GCF as it will on Chrome in WinXP, which is to say, really well! There should not be a difference between the two.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm amazed that people are taking offense to my mentioning of the "F-word". Have people already forgotten what Java applets entail? At least with Flash, getting people to install/update it on demand is not entirely unlikely.

<comment><USER6> I don't think they're offended by use of the word "flash." The OP is about a substitute for WebGL, which exposes low level OpenGL commands to Javascript for hardware accelerated graphics. Flash's API is neither low level nor hardware accelerated, making it a poor fit for a WebGL fallback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I imagine that a Flash fallback would be more practical in most situations.

<comment><USER7> Does flash have OpenGL support these days?

I investigated options for making a 3D web game two years ago, and back then Flash was still limited to 2D polygons and no depth buffer. There were some '3D engines' but those did all vertex transforms manually instead of using the GPU...

<comment><USER5> Adobe are adding their own "Stage3D" API (aka Molehill) to Flash. I realise that there are some situations where you want an "OpenGL-alike" like WebGL (especially if you're porting something already written in OpenGL). However, for most uses of 3D on the web, an abstraction layer with backends for WebGL and Flash would be sufficient, and would likely have wider browser support (it's also easier to get people to drive-by install or update Flash than Java).</comment></comment></comment>


Signs of life from GNU Hurd - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/Articles/452296/

<comment><USER2> Grits teeth...

It's _still_ pointless. There's no chance of displacing Linux or the BSDs in practical terms, and there's no particularly interesting ideas in it. We already know you can build a Unix on top of a microkernel and it will sorta work.

Enough, already. Kill this late-1980s design and build something interesting already. Surely at least one of the things that have happened between 1990-2011 in hardware, software and networking warrants a rethink of OS assumptions rather than this stale rehashing?

<comment><USER3> _there's no particularly interesting ideas in it_

I sorta agree.

I particularly would like to see operating systems implemented using JIT compilation and software isolation. Managed code running safely on the ring0 of the processor.

Microsoft Singularity started this but I'd like to see the open source people trying something like that! I really think we need processor/architecture independency if we really want to achieve freedom.

<comment><USER4> Sadly, neither JNode (Java) nor House (Haskell) look very active. I keep thinking I should start something though I'm sure there are hundreds of embryonic kernels out there already.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Arch Linux^H^H^H^H^H has had a Hurd variant for some time.

<http://www.archhurd.org/>

I installed it on VirtualBox. Smelled like Unix.

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting! If they can really get it ticking this time, it would be really interesting to see how a microkernel plays out in 'popular' use.

It's sort of funny how the major kernels are primarily monolithic (please correct me if I'm wrong wrt recent versions of Windows), but academic research says microkernels are better. Worse is better? First-mover advantage?

<comment><USER7> Does OS X (and iOS, I suppose) being built on Mach not count?

<comment><USER8> The BSD-style kernel "subsystem" of XNU, Darwin's kernel, is statically linked with Mach and executes in privileged mode. So, while it "has" Mach and some parts of the kernel interact with other parts via Mach port interfaces, XNU isn't really a microkernel as classically defined anymore since it provides all the facilities you'd expect of a non-micro kernel.

<comment><USER9> It's been a while since I have kept up with the kernel space but I remember when I last was interested in it, that there was a trend toward hybridization. That Linux was adopting some micro like architectures as well as windows. OSX probably could be considered a hybrid from the start.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Would've been awesome in 1980 on a timesharing system. Now I've got as much control of all my personal devices as I want and I don't _want_ any more control of devices at work than what I need to do my job (with control comes responsibility).

<comment><USER10> You still run stuff at home? :-)

I think we would see different comments if the HURD were performing reasonably and AWS ran it.

Having said that, the speed at which the project moves does not help its cause.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Something relevant: Symbian has had a microkernel architecture for most of it's life: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian>

For a brief shining moment, it was open source. It's legacy is very interesting, worth a read to see just how far the little OS that could has come along since it first ran on PDAs. In fact, it's atypical architecture gives Symbian some advantages over contemporary OSes in terms of absurdly low power and CPU requirements. It is also quite secure, offering granular security settings for almost anything - the only Symbian malware that ever made the news were those that the user installed him/herself. Sadly this also gives it a very complex programming model (for example, it uses an obscure variant of C; also many basic services like audio need to be accessed through a server running on device) and a difficult threading model. Qt provides a beautiful API that wraps over the native layer these days, but it seems it's simply not fashionable among the majority of developers.

</comment><comment><USER12> GNU Emacs and GNU Screen do not compile. What?

<comment><USER13> Emacs worked for me. But that was long time ago, in "by hand"-cross-compiled system, not any Debian.

(BTW, cross-compiling the entire system is _tons_ of fun — for cross-gcc you want libc, but to compile libc you need cross-gcc)

<comment><USER12> That sounds about as fun as rock climbing with your teeth.

Also, our usernames are alarmingly similar in this font.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> These articles always compare Hurd to Linux. I'd love to see a comparison with Minix3 or Genode/L4 instead.

<comment><USER15> It's probably because RMS always compares (indirectly) Hurd and Linux.

<comment><USER9> RMS has never really liked the fact that Linux was not under direct GNU control. I am sure the rift is greater after the rejection of GPL 3 by the Linux camp. RMS has a vision for how things should be and tries to align the GNU offerings to that vision. Some agree with it, some kind of agree with it, and some think he is a fruitcake. Understanding his vision puts the push for Hurd into perspective. He cannot achieve it with Linux because Linux is steered by stewards that don't exactly line up with his world view.

<comment><USER16> I rather like the fact that there is one branch of kernel dev that favors practicality, expediency, and commercial viability in their worldview and another that favors a strident free software philosophy. The world is a better place for having people working on both paths.

<comment><USER9> I agree, I think there is a place in the world for each philosophical world view. I personally don't like absolutism with the exception of possibly the ones found in pure science.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hurd is still using Mach? I don't see the point if it's just going to cheat around the IPC problem like OS X did.

And in the past decade, there have been more promising microkernels, like L4. Unless I missed something and there's still a good reason for Hurd to still be using Mach.

<comment><USER18> There were attempts to use L4 and several other micro kernels like Coyotos and Viengoos, but as far as I know all of them stalled and the Mach variant has been the only one to be continued to present day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This time for sure :)</comment>


Rape case at a near mistrial due to jury's unauthorized research - <AUTHOR> https://www.toledoblade.com/local/courts/2020/02/13/rape-case-at-a-near-mistrial-due-to-jurys-unauthorized-research/stories/20200213101 <comment><AUTHOR> "We were having a discussion about 'access' yesterday and some people couldn't agree what the word's definition truly was. So, we looked it up on a smartphone, Webster's."...</comment>


The Chromebook Effect - <AUTHOR> http://www.blockread.com/2011/11/chromebook-effect.html

<comment><USER2> Perhaps they'll use advertisements to sell subsidized chromebooks, in the manner that Amazon has done with the kindles.</comment>


Dishwasher vs Hand washing    - <AUTHOR> http://www.rekeeb.com/2009/11/09/dishwasher-handwashing/

<comment><USER3> I'm reminded of this zen-like story ...

        In the United States, I have a close friend named
        Jim Forest. When I first met him eight years ago,
        he was working with the Catholic Peace Fellowship.
        Last winter, Jim came to visit. I usually wash the
        dishes after we've finished the evening meal, before
        sitting down and drinking tea with everyone else.
        One night, Jim asked if he might do the dishes.
        I said, "Go ahead, but if you wash the dishes you
        must know the way to wash them." Jim replied,
        "Come on, you think I don't know how to wash the
        dishes?" I answered, "There are two ways to wash
        the dishes. The first is to wash the dishes in
        order to have clean dishes and the second is to
        wash the dishes to wash the dishes." Jim was
        delighted and said, "I choose the second way - <USER2>
        wash the dishes to wash the dishes." From then on,
        Jim knew how to wash the dishes. I transferred the
        "responsibility" to him for an entire week.

        If while washing dishes, we think only of the cup
        of tea that awaits us, thus hurrying to get the
        dishes out of the way as if they were a nuisance,
        then we are not "washing the dishes to wash the
        dishes." What's more, we are not alive during the
        time we are washing the dishes. In fact, we are
        completely incapable of realizing the miracle of
        life while standing at the sink. If we can't wash
        the dishes, the chances are we won't be able to
        drink our tea either. While drinking the cup of
        tea, we will only be thinking of other things,
        barely aware of the cup in our hands. Thus we are
        sucked away into the future and we are incapable of
        actually living one minute of life.

        -- Thich Nhat Hanh

When I'm doing something I try to be in the moment, doing it because it's the right thing to be doing then, and not hankering after the next thing to do. I'm finding that much of what I do is done faster, cleaner, more elegantly, and with greater satisfaction.</comment>


Why the MBA 11 is now my sole computer - <AUTHOR> http://antirez.com/post/apple-mba11-my-sole-computer.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+antirez+%28antirez+weblog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER2> I have the 2011 11" MBA (i5, 4GB, 128GB) and also the base 2011 15" MBP (i7, 4GB, 500GB). I can't justify keeping both, but I am _really_ torn on which one I want to keep.

On the one hand, I love the portability and speed (due to the SSD) of the Air, and it feels almost like a desktop when it's plugged into the 20" monitor on my desk and connected to a USB keyboard and Magic Trackpad.

On the other hand, I really like the MBP's beefier CPU, discrete GPU, and much larger HDD; the Air's 128GB HDD really feels limiting to me (since photography is one of my hobbies). The HDD does make it feel a bit slower than the Air in some ways, though.

I'm looking to get rid of my desktop Windows PC since I don't use it very much anymore, so that leaves me with two options as I see them: either sell the MBP, keep the Air, and get a Mini for the extra space/network storage, or sell the MBA, consolidate everything into the MBP, and maybe upgrade it with a SSD and kit from OWC to replace the SuperDrive with the spare HDD.

I'm really not sure what the best way to go is, since I like both systems a lot for different purposes.

<comment><USER3> Why not buy a Thunderbolt external hard drive for your photography stuff? Do you need this data to be portable as well or could you live with it just at home?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I bought both last year in late 2010 when they came out. I really wanted to keep the 11 but the 13 was just a much better all rounder. I always wished I had kept the 11. But once you sit down at a desk, portability stops being an issue and you appreciate the extra screen size.

1 year later and I sold my 13 to buy the new 11. For some reason I again ordered both the 11 and 13 and now I still can't decide which one to keep. I really really want to keep the 11 but the smaller battery, very slightly slower processor, worse speakers and smaller screen keep putting me off. The price is almost identical (top 11 vs base 13). The extra portability just makes me want to forget about all these drawbacks.

I plugin to an external monitor at home anyway, but what about places where you need the screen size. Anyone done or seen anyone do a hackathon with the 11?

If they just dropped both models and brought out a 12.1" my life would be complete.

</comment><comment><USER5> Agonized a bit and decided to run with a loaded 11".

Bought the new thunderbolt display to pair it up, so when I'm at home its amazing, but I can bring it everywhere with me and I don't feel like its too small to work.

</comment><comment><USER6> Really doubted between a 11 and a 13. Went for the 13 and loving it. But as you state, it's a little bit too big for the legs. Maybe one day...

</comment><comment> cgrand-net Can anyone confirm whether a i7 MBA 11 has worst battery life than a 2010 MBA?

<comment><USER7> It's hard to tell as at the same time of purchasing I upgraded to Lion, but I went from being able to code in a coffee shop for around 4 hours with the 2010 MBA to around 2.5 hours with the new i7 MBA 11.</comment></comment>


Why New Technology Is a Hard Sell - <AUTHOR> http://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/tech/ <comment><USER2> There's another huge factor: new technologies challlenge existing power and wealth structures.

The best research on this phenomenon I've found has been Bernhard J. Stern's "Resistances to the Adoption of Technological Innovations" (1937), which explores multiple instances, in communications, transport, materials, energy, housing, and more.

Even disrupting workflows likely fits into this, in at least part.

Original:

[https://archive.org/details/technologicaltre1937unitrich/pag...](https://archive.org/details/technologicaltre1937unitrich/page/39)

Retyped Markdown:

[https://pastebin.com/raw/Bapu75is](https://pastebin.com/raw/Bapu75is)

</comment><comment><USER3> That list leaves off an important factor: new technology is very rarely an unvarnished win. More commonly, it brings with it one or more new costs. The proponents of the new technology rarely mention (if they are even aware of) the tradeoffs it brings, and the normal person certainly won't know what they are either.

But what most people are well aware of is that there is a cost that comes along with the benefit. That means people are taking a risk by adopting it, and even worse, it's an unknown risk both in terms of kind and degree.

Caution about new tech is rational.

<comment><USER2> And those costs may or may not be apparent.</comment></comment>


North Carolina Bill Penalizes Unreasonable Data Security Practices - <AUTHOR> https://www.pbwt.com/data-security-law-blog/more-state-data-security-regulation-north-carolina-bill-penalizes-unreasonable-data-security-practices-and-requires-rapid-notification/ <comment><USER2> > It will also expand the definition of breaches to include ransomware > attacks.

Not sure I follow that. Ransomware is anything from a PITA to a catastrophe for the business affected, but it normally does not include a breach of sensitive data.</comment>


Quit quirks when working with others - <AUTHOR> http://sivers.org/quirks

<comment><USER4> This article is really about two things - expectations and communication - <USER2> Derek makes an interesting tangential point about personal quirks without actually addressing either of those issues.

Users _expect_ things to be a certain way. In most business situations, that's advantageous - when expectations become standard across your user base it allows you to build upon those expectations. (Rapidly thought-up example: most users now expect underlined text on a website to be a hyperlink, which allows authors to link to external sources without specifying 'click here' all the time.)

But what if you want to be cutting edge, or do something that isn't expected? Then you need to _communicate_ how you have changed expectations. When Derek checked into that hotel, they should have explained how the lights and taps worked (probably had written instructions for both in the room as well, although that's not much use in the dark).

Apple have been very successful inventing their own quirks. Some of that success is leveraging our expectations - it's why we call their devices 'intuitive'. Some of it is communication - see how many Apple ads (even still photographs) demonstrate the touch pad being used, to communicate to dedicated mouse-users that their expectations may go astray. And Apple aren't perfect - I had to Google how to turn off my wife's iPod because it wasn't in the instructions and didn't meet my expectations of an off switch.

A business coach I worked with once summed up business as: Business = People | People = Expectations | Expectations = Communication, so

Business equals Communication.

It's a useful framework when building any product for consumption by others.

<comment><USER5> > I had to Google how to turn off my wife's iPod because it wasn't in the > instructions and didn't meet my expectations of an off switch.

A beautiful example! I don't know what her model is, but the iPod Shuffle 2G has the (to me) astonishing feature that the 'Off' part of the 'On/Off' slider doesn't actually mean 'Off', despite being so labelled; it means 'Reset' (forget what you've played, and where you were in the current song). The correct way to accomplish 'Off' is 'Pause' followed by 'now wait a while' --which I consider an extremely clumsy move on Apple's part (not the behaviour, which is fine once you discover it, but how un-, and even counter-, intuitive it is).

<comment><USER6> > The correct way to accomplish 'Off' is 'Pause' followed by 'now wait a > while' --which I consider an extremely clumsy move on Apple's part (not the > behaviour, which is fine once you discover it, but how un-, and even > counter-, intuitive it is).

But that wouldn't be "off", that would be "hibernate". Which is what you want most of the time.

Off would be a complete power off, and it makes sense that the device's state is not saved to NAND (because most people won't ever need that). The configuration wasn't changed was it?

It's the same with e.g. an iPhone, a quick tap of the power button shuts down the screen, a long tap completely shuts off the device. Most people never _ever_ need to completely shut it off.

<comment><USER5> > But that wouldn't be "off", that would be "hibernate". Which is what you > want most of the time.

I agree, and, indeed, I think the behaviour, once discovered, is perfectly sensible; I'm just talking about the initial discovery experience.

The manual (at [http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/ipod_shuffle_features_guide...](http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/ipod_shuffle_features_guide.pdf)) does not use the terminology you mention; instead, it refers at the top of the chart on p. 4 to 'Turn[ing] iPod off', then at the bottom of the same chart to 'Reset[ting] iPod' ( _both_ by pushing the slider to 'Off'!); and it does not mention 'Hibernation' (or equivalent terminology), or the fact that it should replace complete power down, at all.

<comment><USER6> > I agree, and, indeed, I think the behaviour, once discovered, is perfectly > sensible; I'm just talking about the initial discovery experience.

The initial discovery experience, for most people, is that you don't do anything and you iPod "magically" does the right thing in return.

<comment><USER5> > The initial discovery experience, for most people, is that you don't do > anything and you iPod "magically" does the right thing in return.

I think that, at this point, we're getting into anecdotal evidence; I don't have any idea what most people's iPod experience is, but certainly it's not natural to me to conclude my experience with an electronic device simply by walking away from it—I want to turn it off. (The fact that computers are an exception perhaps explains why a younger generation might be more inclined to the 'just walk away' approach. EDIT: OK, and cell phones. But I still think that I have more devices in my life that I turn off than devices that I don't. :-) )

My main evidence that this is not the only obvious approach is that it is _different_ to the behaviour of the iPod Shuffle 1G, which one did (or at least could) put into hibernation by sliding the main switch to 'Off'. It was this change between generations that particularly confused me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the problem with areas like architecture and industrial design is, there is no clear performance metric for what is considered "good design" - <USER3> at the least, what designers consider good isn't completely aligned with what users consider good.

The switch designer in this case was overly focused on aesthetics and his own cleverness, rather than on making a "good" switch. The fact that you'd need directions on how to use it makes it a horrible switch. It fails its most primitive task, which is to be identified as a switch. Secondly, you can't tell how it works just by looking at it. And to ignore the iconography of something utilitarian like a switch, is a bit self-indulgent. Here, design gets in the way.

This is a problem with design education, which turns people into cake decorators rather than problem solvers. The entire science of how-things-work is ignored and worse still, not even considered as a source of inspiration. Instead, you get perversions similar to that of the post-modern literary crit world. Designers talking amongst designers, giving each other awards, and curating some new form of design-incomprehensible to outsiders.

And this leads to the false dichotomy between form and function. Almost like art vs. engineering. You get students who study design, who have no interest in how things work. And you get engineering students who don't understand that products are experienced in layers - you have first impressions and expectations, recognition of what it does/how to use it, perceiving of quality (would an iPod feel cheaper if it was lighter?), durability, etc. and that process must be managed/controled via design.

I sometimes think studying bridges is a better way to learn about design than studying architecture. You can't ever ignore the fact it has very real constraints. And yet, there are tons and tons of beautiful bridges. Every component must be functional AND aesthetic. A designer is the engineer and the engineer is the designer. You get a very "fat-free" structure. Different bridges have different experiences. And they never get in the way of you driving across them either.

James Dyson gave an awesome talk about this at MIT, called "The Art of Engineering". I definitely recommend watching it if you see engineering and art as one: <http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/362/>

</comment><comment><USER8> The folks coming down on Derek might do well to read Donald Norman's book, The Design of Everyday Things, which speaks directly to this issue. It's important to remember that the purpose of design is not simply to dazzle the beholder, or make people think, but to make useful things usable. It's easy for designers to forget this, especially the avant-garde sort who fall in love with their own creative spirit, tend to win the accolades for their "radical" ideas. In fact, Norman's book introduced me to one of my favorite design epithets:

"It probably won an award."

</comment><comment><USER9> Couldn't agree more. I've recently had a similar experience with the windows of the flat I live in. They are big double-glazed windows, very nice, that are made of a single pane of glass with a horizontal axis so you can rotate it to open the window.

There is, of course, a latch, to make sure the window doesn't open past a dangerous point (we're on the 7th floor of a 20-floor building). The clever designer who designed these windows managed to hide the latch in such a way that it doesn't look like an ugly safety latch. Result? When cleaning the windows some time ago, one of the windows rotated all the way around and then latched itself. We couldn't figure out what was going on (the latch pin is entirely concealed) and so while trying to close it again, broke the pin, which required us to call in some window fixing people whose only option was to actually saw through the pin to close the window, because the pin was so inaccessible.

We also got them to install some simple latches. Those are clearly visible, and involve a little bar of metal with notches that you can hook onto the window to latch it. Clear, obvious, and I can guarantee you that no one will ever break one of _those_ latches while trying to close the window.

Kudos to the designer who managed to screw up the usability of a _window_ , though.

<comment><USER10> <Sarcasm> That's nothing compared to Microsoft who have been on a crusade to screw up the usability of all the windows in the world!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> People are VERY conservative when it comes to interfaces. Remember those old Westerns, where the guy in the Hotel washes up in a basin? Two pitchers: hot and cold.

Along comes running hot and cold running water! Two faucets replace two pitchers. Still washing in the basin - fill it with some hot, some cold.

Now somebody clever invents the single faucet- one handle to mix hot and cold! Cool! Quickly get just the temp you want. Fill the basin, wash and shave.

But wait - kids are just washing under the flowing water. Those darn kids! But it DOES save water.

Everybody is doing that now - so filling the basin becomes an anachronism. In fact the basin is just to catch the water - its a drain. A dirty drain. Who would wash their face with drain water? Ug.

So we go from pitchers and basin, to running water with adjustable temp going down a drain. Total elapsed time: 100 years, 3 or 4 generations.

Nothing in that process was rocket science. Could have happened the 1st day. Its PEOPLE that are the inertia, darn those people and their expectations.

</comment><comment><USER12> Not sure I agree with the premise of this article.

You can always make the case that, on the contrary, you may want to go to a hotel to experience something that you haven't experienced before.

If the design is somehow more functional or otherwise makes the room look very beautiful, I'd be more than happy to stay at a place like this.

If necessary, they can always put little notes explaining how some of the main tasks get done.

I agree that the fact that people stay in a hotel for only at most a couple of days puts more constraints on how accustomed people can get to another interface. My own programming "quirks" have developed for a reason. So why does the author then use this example to justify his point about teamwork when the metaphor breaks? Or is he implying that you will only work with a team for such short time that no one will reap any benefits from getting used to ideas that make things faster in the long run?

<comment><USER13> > If the design is somehow more functional, ...

The problem is that the design barely functioned at all. The light switch was hard to discover, and used gestures even harder to discover. How different would it be if the "smooth panel" was a backlit LCD touchscreen with a softly- glowing "O -> |" on it? Especially if it were placed where it was visible the instant the door was opened? Alternatively, if it reacted to any motion instead of specific gestures.

I guess the lesson I take from it is that _visual_ design is only a single component of the overall design or interaction design, and focusing only on the visuals without thinking about anything else is not likely to generate a usable solution.

<comment><USER14> How do you know visuals were the only criteria? A flat panel is a hell of a lot easier to clean than a regular light switch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is probably my least favorite post by Derek, whereas the others I've generally really enjoyed. It started very "get off my lawn-ish".

Standards are inherently good when working with others, but style is unavoidable. Ultimately everyone has to adapt and I believe this is one facet where company culture gets defined.

<comment><USER5> > Ultimately everyone has to adapt and I believe this is one facet where > company culture gets defined.

This seems to me to be precisely what he's saying --that, previously, he has tried rigidly to maintain his style, but now will keep an eye to adapting when appropriate. Perhaps I missed your (or his) point?

EDIT: Actually, it's reasonably likely that I _am_ missing your point, because I always do bring my quirks to the job, and so couldn't help taking this as a personal admonition, which probably blinds me to a bigger picture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> At some point the light switch and the faucet controls will have to go. But we can't get to that stage if people have trouble with a side swipe or other twist and tweak.

I agree that it's brain dead to have a major site like Dell always changing their website interface, just to keep things "fresh" or make it seem like some layer in management actually did something every 3 months. The concept of a mouse and menu choices however goes back to the Xerox photocopier developments, and have yet to be shed. For example a better input scheme could be using keyboard input for navigation but only if the prevailing rule is to be smart about it. Consistency is important but secondary!

</comment><comment><USER17> In newer hotels in Germany, the rooms DO have light switches, but the lights only work while the room key card is inserted in a slot by the door. There certainly is some logic to that, but it badly confused me first time I was confronted with this arrangement.</comment>


Anatomy of a Rumor: The Story Behind Chief Justice John Roberts's 'Retirement' - <AUTHOR> http://abovethelaw.com/2010/03/the_backstory_of_the_john_roberts_retirement_rumor.php

<comment><AUTHOR> This is interesting because it shows how fast a rumor can take hold on the internet nowadays. A law professor jokes about something in class, and in less than an hour it's on several major news sites.

Now if only I could make my product's PR so compelling = )

<comment><USER2> Indeed. I think this also goes to show the low standard of quality of many news sources. The fact that something so preposterous could spread at all without any verification is expected from the masses, but when news sources start mentioning them and fail to issue a formal retraction, instead sidestepping the issue, it should cause them to lose a lot of credibility. Unfortunately, in this day and age, many people would rather go to Twitter than to some reputable source for such news and that says a lot in itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Anyone, especially anyone in the legal field, would have to be gullible to believe that Roberts will retire any time in the next 20 years. Longevity on the court is one reason he was put there.</comment>


Ask PG: Timestamps on posts and comments? - <AUTHOR>

I often bookmark the HN thread itself for an article (as I am sure many others do) because of the information content in the comments.
When I go back to a post that was made sometime ago, sometimes I feel it may be helpful to know the specific date it was posted, rather than just "n days ago".
I am sure this has been considered before and discussed, but what is the reason for one format over another? <comment><USER2> I have the opposite on most other sites and actually really like this format, which suggests a preference in the user settings.

The reason why I like the current format is because I always find myself doing mental arithmetic to figure out how old a post is when I see a timestamp. It also makes scanning for 'new' stuff much quicker, they have 'minute(s)' or 'hour(s)' in their headers.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it far easier to parse the current implementation as a reader. I have a bit more trouble parsing it when I'm writing a script that scrapes Hacker News. Speaking of which, if anyone wants some Clojure code that converts a Hacker New's timestamp into a date, let me know.</comment>


Who did you get to do the website layout? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking to get some logo work and web site layout who do you guys recommend? <comment><USER2> I just posted a blog post about this-- in response to a fellow YC Winter 08 founder asking about design resources on the cheap...

[http://www.tonywright.com/2007/bootstrap-design-for-geek- pow...](http://www.tonywright.com/2007/bootstrap-design-for-geek-powered- startups/)

That's for tight budgets only-- if you've got a budget, find a usability/UI god and pay what they are worth. :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> My nephew is pretty good with computers...

</comment><comment><USER4> If you don't have a tight budget, I would suggest: airbagindustries.com, happycog.com, blueflavor.com or 31three.com - they are all well known designers / design studios and do great work.

If you're looking for "cheap" work, you could visit FreelanceSwitch.com and post on their job board or get involved in their forum and try to find someone that way. Also SitePoint.com allows you to hold contests to pick the best work, though most good graphic designers stay away from the contests because it is considered unprofessional to submit work on spec.

<comment><USER5> Are you basing your recommendation on first-hand experience, second-hand experience, or just general reputation?

<comment><USER4> I am a designer myself, and so I know who they are because they are very active in the design community, I have interacted with some of them, others I have simply heard good things about.

They are all "leaders" in design, many have written books that are widely available in bookstores, etc.

You can look at their portfolios and get a sense of the broad range of products / services they have completed designs for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here are some examples of the work we've had done via the contests system at sitepoint.com:

[http://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/3313/entries/200711.j...](http://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/3313/entries/200711.jpg) [http://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/4358/entries/272610.j...](http://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/4358/entries/272610.jpg) [http://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/2241/entries/130440.j...](http://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/2241/entries/130440.jpg) [http://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/2275/entries/132753.p...](http://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/2275/entries/132753.png)

Each of these designs cost between US$350-$700.

You can judge the quality for yourself... in our opinion they're excellent for the price.

However, the contest process is time consuming and it does take a bit of practice to understand how it all works and manage your contest in a way that delivers the best possible result.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've used this guy for logo/icon stuff: <http://www.iconiza.com/> Don't be put off by the fact that he lives in Ecuador; check out his portfolio. He's inexpensive and responsive.

</comment><comment><USER8> We work very closely with startups. I would suggest that you find someone who can work with you and who can understand the business-side of what you're doing. A lot of designers can create great looking sites, but that aren't functional in terms of what you ultimately want out of them. There's also the potential to trade with design companies/people if you are a coder as often they need these skills for their own websites.

</comment><comment><USER5> A recommendation for/against a particular designer is worthless without some kind of description of your first-hand experience with the designer. You wouldn't do business with them again? Why not? You loved working with them and the result made you tons of money? Please say so, and provide a link to the result.

</comment><comment><USER9> If you can afford her, Mani Sheriar is very good. She worked on the site described here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=91206>

</comment><comment><USER10> i would not suggest a company called logogenesis. they are cheap, but you get what you pay for.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is any startup's best kept secret -- Good (and affordable) designers are worth their weight in gold.

</comment><comment><USER12> I can recommend <http://nimbupani.com>

</comment><comment><USER13> <http://philweavers.net>

</comment><comment><USER14> hey... if you need a girl that rocks and has done some great startup work - try becky at www.spotworksdesign.com

a super nice chick - fun to work with - and hella responsive. and SF too.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the help -- any more ideas keep 'em comin

</comment><comment><USER15> logo work, i suggest logosauce.com</comment>


Show HN: Experience Colorblindness on the Web - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/oftheheadland/Colorblindly <comment><USER2> Cool - I'm quite severely colour blind, I'll give it a go when I get home and see if it passes my own "looks identical to me so it's probably a good simulation" test!

Some reading on colour blindness for anyone unaffected who might be interested -> [https://mcconnellsoftware.github.io/colourblind-in- software-...](https://mcconnellsoftware.github.io/colourblind-in-software- driven-world/)

<comment><USER3> Inspired by one of the links there: dear anybody listening, if you're going to show a bunch of comparison photos/screen grabs, or before/after screen shots, and the like - e.g., [http://www.colourblindawareness.org/](http://www.colourblindawareness.org/) \- don't put a scroll effect in. Don't put a fade down then fade up effect in. It makes it too hard to see the difference. Just flick instantly between one and the next.

(Possibly related: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/02/15/why-does- adobe...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/02/15/why-does-adobe- photoshop-differentiate-between-undo-and-step-backwards/))

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi all,

At my company we try to keep our website colorblind-friendly. I decided to spend my free time building an extension to help me do that and realized I could share this experience with the world.

What is surprising is how different everything looks for colorblind people - it's not just black and white like you might expect.

It works by placing a CSS filter over the page that distorts colors similarly to actual colorblindness-distortion.

This is my first Chrome Extension - I would love to hear your feedback!

Cheers, Andrew

<comment><USER4> This is neat but there is something quite wrong with the protanomaly/protanopia simulation. Look how it effects blue:

normal: [https://i.imgur.com/icgmrI6.png](https://i.imgur.com/icgmrI6.png)

protanopia simulation: [https://i.imgur.com/3FKU4eT.png](https://i.imgur.com/3FKU4eT.png)

It adds a ton of red instead of removing it. Blues should be largly unaffected by protanomaly (though purples will turn to blue)

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you're right, I'll look into this. Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice to see someone actually caring these days. It seems like accessibility just got forgotten about. I'm not colour blind, but I'm glad that you bothered. I hope it gets plenty of use by those developing sites.

Someone's bound to ask, so any plans for a Firefox version?

Mind I've reached an age where I'd rather like it to be compulsory for all devs to use a "congrats, you're old enough to need reading glasses" simulator on web and phone apps. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Firefox version is next on my To Do List, hopefully in the next month! Thanks for your thoughts!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anything that helps improve accessibility is good! I'm looking forward to the Firefox extension.

I did a quick search for such extensions for Firefox, and there were at least a few. I'm sure Chrome would also have some already.

1\. If you have time, some research on existing extensions and how yours is different or better would be nice to have.

2\. Your readme says that it applies a CSS filter. So could this be easily adapted for use with an extension like Stylus [1] (though that may not be as convenient)?

[1]: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/styl- us/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/styl-us/)

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. Part of the inspiration for Colorblindly came from my disappointment with the existing alternatives. I wanted to make something that took advantage of the most recent tools for web development, and more importantly, worked on any page! But kudos to the other devs working on accessibility software, not enough love in this area.

2\. Stylus sounds like something to look into, it should be pretty easy to adapt for use with it. Thanks for the tip!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Years ago I was in contact with a person with total color blindness ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatopsia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatopsia)) and together we developed a filter to simulate this. It never went online, but if I find that project on my backups, would you be interested in the parameters of the filter? I could just post it as an issue.

The idea at that time was to help web developers avoid color combinations that are really hard to read for people with achromatopsia. But we soon found out that the worst color combinations were basically a total eye sore for people with normal color vision, so the benefit was limited.

</comment><comment><USER8> Looks good! One should also mention Funkify [0], which supports other accessibility simulations (Chrome only).

[0] [https://www.funkify.org/](https://www.funkify.org/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm very color blind and I don't think this extension correctly handles red- green color blindness. If you take a look at [http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour- blindness/](http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/) and see their examples of Deuteranopia, they are exactly what I see. When the app shows the Deuteranopia view, I think the extension modifies colors that aren't red and green.

<comment><USER10> Forgive my ignorance, but how do you know that what these tools show is good or bad at representing what you see?

<comment><USER11> Presumably because the image looks to him exactly like the full-colour image.

<comment><USER2> Exactly: "normal" and "simulated" should be indistinguishable - and often, for me having reg/green deficiency, that's the case. I'll often look to confirm that images truly are different before using them as examples.

Colour deficiencies vary, though, so even a simulation that works perfectly for some is not going to be a universal simulation.

These simulations are amazing in terms of illustrating to colour-capable people what we colour-deficient actually see: it's not black and white, to us the world is still bright, vivid, colourful. It's _our normal_ and that mostly isn't a problem. But a bright red rose that's colourful and vivid to me, looks to my wife grey and faded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> You can do that with stock Android without any additional tools:

The enable developer options, go there, scroll down until you find the "simulate color space" option.

<comment><USER4> I'm still on Android 6.1 so maybe Google has fixed it since then but the Protanomaly simulation is extremely wrong

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is great! Thank you for writing it.</comment>


Patent went to emergency room based on a blood test that Theranos had to retract - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/theranos-voids-edison-blood-test-results-2016-5 <comment><USER2> This is exactly why you leave biotech to PhD founders and not to undergrad dropouts. I remember my professor used to take pride in failing premed students because she thinks it will save lives!</comment>