Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-is-preparing-antitrust-investigation-of-google-11559348795 <comment><USER2> The career officials at the FTC recommended antitrust action against Google back in 2012, but the political appointees shut them down.

>When the Federal Trade Commission neared a momentous decision on whether to charge Google with violating antitrust laws in January 2013, the White House was watching closely.

New emails uncovered by the Campaign for Accountability, a public interest watchdog organization, show that a White House advisor met with top Google lobbyist Johanna Shelton and top Google antitrust counsel Matthew Bye twice in the weeks before the FTC announcement.

And minutes prior to the final decision – in which FTC commissioners took the unusual step of overriding their staff's recommendation to sue, and voted to settle the case instead – the White House official even sought Google's talking points in the matter.

[https://theintercept.com/2016/08/18/white-house-official- coz...](https://theintercept.com/2016/08/18/white-house-official-cozied-up-to- google-before-antitrust-lawsuit-was-shelved/)

<comment><USER3> FWIW: It sounds nefarious, but the DOJ/FTC/etc quite often meet with all parties prior to taking antitrust action.

That's because (at least in the number of times i've been invited to meetings with these sorts of regulators) the relevant folks are not idiots, and in fact are trying to understand all sides of the issue before deciding what they should do.

This is actually what you want them to do, as there are rarely, if ever, truly disinterested parties in these sorts of things.

As an aside, i'm pretty sure Matthew was not the top antitrust counsel at Google at the time. I believe it was Nikhil Shanbhag. Job titles on linkedin seem to confirm my recollection.

<comment><USER2> The fact is that the revolving door between Google and our government was spinning pretty quickly during that period.

>The Campaign for Accountability (CFA) this week launched the first two of its Google Transparency Projects. One of the projects – a visualisation of the revolving door between Google, the White House and US government agencies – is so dense, the website suggests viewing it on a desktop display.

As well as Googlers leaving the ad giant to join the administration, there's also a heavy traffic in the other direction, with federal employees leaving to join Google. The project documents 61 staff taking key public positions after leaving Google, or firms working closely with Google, and 171 leaving public office to join [Google].

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/29/google_transparency...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/29/google_transparency_project/)

<comment><USER4> Notice that no Googlers have a good response to this or the Eric Schmidt / Hillary Clinton connection. Google's ties to the Obama administration were deep.

<comment><USER5> Which raises deep suspicions about the political motivations of this "investigation".

Anti-trust is about companies using their market power to exclude rivals, raise prices, and hurt consumers. It's not about consumers overwhelmingly choosing a product because they like it more.

Can anyone really say that Google's practices are more anti-competitive than, say, the dominant players in broadband or health insurance or wireless telecom or household appliances?

<comment><USER6> This is a bold take!

Google's close ties with the Obama administration makes the _Trump_ administration suspicious!

<comment><USER7> Close ties are suspicious, strong swings in prosecution policy are also suspicious.

<comment><USER8> But it sounds like the career officials wanted this 7 years ago, but were blocked by Obama's political appointees.

So, there is no swing in policy, at least among the career officials.

<comment><USER7> That's a very good explanation! But it's certainly worth looking carefully into it to reach/validate that explanation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In the last ~year Google has admitted to accidentally-but-knowingly stealing $75 million from Adwords customers, and settled a case they had fought four years for $11 million to avoid revealing what happens to a banned Adsense account's unpaid revenue. There is likely several hundred million dollars of fraud just in these two 'edge cases' they ignored handling for decades, so it's definitely time for someone to dig deep into this company.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader- lawsu...](https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsuit- refund-ad-click-fraud-2019-5)

[https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense- lawsuit/248135/](https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/)

<comment><USER10> lets not forget their latest and greatest of releasing chrome for free until it saturated the market and became a monopoly then maliciously making changes to reduce the effectiveness of adblockers like ublock origin

<comment><USER11> And they did all they could to kill Windows Phone (a viable alternative ecosystem at that time) by blocking access to Youtube[1] and providing sub-par experience for their other services.

Now I fear Firefox has a similar sisyphean task at hand, trying to keep their browser usable on google services. And for many of the users, that is same as usability of the browser as a whole.

[1][https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/microsoft_on_the_issues/...](https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/microsoft_on_the_issues/2013/08/15/the- limits-of-googles-openness/)

<comment><USER12> Microsoft managed to kill Windows Phone by itself and take Nokia, and a more mature more viable smartphone OS, down with it. Windows phone was a "viable alternative" by the end, but in the beginning it was uncompetitive without any hindrances.

Also recall that mobile carriers and OEMs were opposed to Android because it would further degrade their ability to create walled gardens. The carriers lost control of apps, not for lack of trying. Imagine what a world that would be.

The FANG succeed largely instead of a carrier-controlled mobile ecosystem.

You may think that replaces one kind of oppression with another, but if you weaken the internet platforms, you strengthen the carriers who are now off the net neutrality leash, and who see 5G as an opportunity to gain control of a lot of what we now enjoy as an open internet.

<comment><USER13> I've only met happy Windows Phone users

<comment><USER11> I am not sure how much we can read into it because they are the ones who are already bought in to that ecosystem.

Even I was a happy WP user and but I can't be sure how much of my satisfaction was out of choice-supportive bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Look, I get it — the issues with Google, Facebook, Amazon. But I can't help but think about how AT&T and other ISPs banded together to claim they shouldn't be regulated because they are Internet companies just like FANG during the Net Neutrality discussions. When I see just how bad ISPs are acting, in lack of competition, price gouging, content ownership, data monitoring, it really seems they were successful in shifting the focus to FANG and convincing everyone to forget about Net Neutrality.

This is not meant to whataboutism, but the truth is the public/news cycles can only handle so many "tech" related items at one time. People are not "locked in" to any of the FANG companies nearly as much as they are their physical ISPs where they really do not have an option.

<comment><USER15> I think more importantly, ISPs made a (in my opinion, bullshit) free market argument that resonated with conservatives. At the same time, FANG made themselves an enemy of conservatives. Conservatives are now in power.

<comment><USER16> You could make the free market argument here too, but it won't appeal to them. Conservatives have a sort of pact with business interests that are otherwise neutral on social issues. They can look after each other because neither care much about the other's priorities. FANG are not reliably neutral in that same way, they are more like Hollywood in terms of "values". Of course their money is just as good as anyone else's and conservatives will take a lot of it where there is a tactical advantage but there can't be a long-term alliance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was the biggest Google fan ever. I recommended all their products to everyone I know.

Gone are those days. I now trust Microsoft (heh! M!cr0$0ft, anyone?) more than Google which is strange given I grew up rebelling against MS's technical desktop hegemony.

I wonder when Google decided "doing evil" was okay. I wonder how the SWE's and other senior people in this thread feel about working for a company that many now consider scum. All their excuses and retorts can honestly take a hike: It is my honest opinion that if you still work for Google you're selling us all out.

After years of serving malware through ads and doing nothing to stop it, they're now trying to stop us blocking ads?! That's just the last of many strikes that set me down this road.

<comment><USER18> _I wonder how the SWE's and other senior people in this thread feel about working for a company that many now consider scum. All their excuses and retorts can honestly take a hike: It is my honest opinion that if you still work for Google you're selling us all out._

Googler here, I understand why you may think Google is evil now and I'm not going to say they are a perfect company. But I think you should consider that it is a large company working on many different products. Not everyone is working on Ads or various "evil" things. Many of us work on things that people like and improve our lives.

If parts of the company is doing bad things, it doesn't make all of us sell outs in my opinion. Just like how every American that pays taxes isn't a sell out for all the bad things the US might do.

<comment><USER17> As far as I understand, the penalty for not paying taxes is incarceration or heavy fines.

The penalty for not working for Google is effectively having to find work somewhere else. Not exactly oranges to oranges.

I appreciate that you may be working on things that improve people's lives. How is that work funded? What would happen to those projects when they are deemed not profitable enough or endanger the evil stuff?

I didn't write that post lightly, but with a heavy heart and a bitter taste in my mouth from a former #1 fan.

<comment><USER18> I agree its not a perfect analogy but you could argue that you can go live somewhere else too.

And yes, a lot of the work is funded by the "evil stuff" but Google is trying to expand their enterprise offerings and their hardware business is growing as well. I expect those to be profitable one day if not already.

<comment><USER19> Moving countries is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible. The US is one of the easiest countries to immigrate to and we only have 14.4% of our population having changes countries (coming in at least) [0]. This LinkedIn article citing BLS stats says the average person will have 12-15 jobs in their lifetime [1].

So I don't think it's very comparable to say "you can just change countries." The vast majority of people are stuck with their country, and the vast majority of people change jobs.

It must feel bad to work at Google. Making odd comparisons might be a symptom of explaining how positive things that are cool are still funded by ads that are at least annoying, but seem to be turning out to be anticompetitive and fraudulent even.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States) [1] [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-many-jobs-average- person-...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-many-jobs-average-person-have- his-her-lifetime-scott-marker)

<comment><USER20> > The US is one of the easiest countries to immigrate to and we only have > 14.4% of our population having changes countries

Just to follow this tangent briefly - I'd be surprised if that first statement is true by most definitions (I'd almost say the opposite), and the implication that 14.4% of the population is therefore a high level certainly isn't.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population) has some detailed numbers. In short, although the US has the most immigrants in the world in total, many major nations have double or much higher percentages of foreign-born residents compared to the US. E.g. Singapore (43%), Switzerland (29%), Australia (33%), and that's ignoring the tiny countries with 50+%, or the middle eastern states with large migrant worker/refugee populations, like UAE at 84%, Qatar at 74%, Jordan at 40%, etc etc.

I don't really disagree with your main point - changing countries isn't _that_ hard as a US software developer, but changing jobs is certainly easier - but I keep seeing the US portrayed like this, and it's not really true.

<comment><USER21> Australia does NOT have real highest percentage of foreign born and is a very hard country to immigrate to.

Their foreign born are mostly from neighbors NZ and UK.

<comment><USER20> It's not the highest by a long shot, and their process certainly isn't easy (and I agree biased to friendly English-speaking nations), but 33% of the population is still a _lot_ more than the US.

Or do you mean that that number isn't correct somehow? It's based on a UN report, but I have no idea where their data comes from.

<comment><USER21> Out of 33% majority of them are from UK and NZ. I think around 90% of them.

Both of them can stay as long as they want in Australia but they are always counted as "foreign born/citizens"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Dear Justice Department: Take a look at google AMP and how they use it to strong-arm publishers by linking it to search placement. You'll find some stuff.

<comment><USER23> People don't seem to understand how this stuff works in the US, Google has full editorial control over their search results protected by the first amendment and that right was affirmed in court time and time again:

[https://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms- googles-f...](https://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles- first-amendment-control-search-results-209034)

If you don't like their free no lock in service go elsewhere, and that's why there is no sherman act case here, which is why if the DOJ actually does anything here it would be a waste of time and resources.

<comment><USER24> I'm not a lawyer but the first amendment argument is a separate concern than antitrust violations. You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law.

<comment><USER23> Depends on what's being investigated here, if the government would actually want to compel Google to alter their search results then it's a first amendment case.

<comment><USER25> > Take a look at google AMP

The argument here is its unfair to bias ranking towards a preferred format. In this case, something about excluding competitors, except AMP is completely open-source[1] so...?

The counterargument is yes you can, because it's your pamphlet/newspaper/website and you're the editor, not the government.

[1] [https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml](https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml)

<comment><USER26> Yeah, if AMP is antitrust then so is Facebook's Open Graph. Despite the hate for both on HN, neither format is targeting competitors or hurting consumers in this case.

<comment><USER27> I think the antitrust argument against AMP is a bit more subtle. The argument seems to be that Google is abusing it's market dominance to push sites into using AMP. This in turn prevents them from using third party trackers, while the pages will be served via Google caches when accessed from Google search. Hence Google gets to track the visitor, while third party tracking from other providers is prevented. I.e. Google is abusing it's power to thwart competition in the analytics and ad-tech business.

Of course as a consumer, I don't really care whether it's some random company or Google who gets to violate my privacy, and I especially couldn't care less about lack of innovation in the privacy violation business, so I think the antitrust angle here is pretty slim.

<comment><USER28> Third party trackers are not prevented.

<comment><USER27> You can use Google Analytics through the <amp-analytics> element [1], but since AMP prevents third-party scripts that were not approved by Google, I'm not sure how you would include other trackers in an AMP site.

[1] [https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...](https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/amp- analytics/)

<comment><USER28> You can easily use other analytics vendors [https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and- tutorials/optimize-...](https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and- tutorials/optimize-measure/configure-analytics/?referrer=ampproject.org)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If true, this will be a landmark case and should scare FB and Amazon as well. Personally, I think this is a good thing and it's past time for the government to at least set some boundaries, but there's no telling how it will play out with the current administration and amount of lobbying dollars flying around.

<comment><USER30> Why would this have any relevance to FB and Amazon? I realize a lot of people on HN don't like what these companies are doing with their data, but this lawsuit is not about privacy at all so I don't see how it relates to those 2 companies.

<comment><USER31> Ant-competitive practices? Facebook buying up any and all rivals like WhatsApp and Instagram? They are a juggernaut and shouldn't be able to own all social media.

<comment><USER32> What's wrong with buying competitions?

<comment><USER33> Well, in a word, it's anticompetitive

<comment><USER32> Buying a competition is not anticompetitive. So why congratulate any acquisition on HN?

<comment><USER33> Buying competition = removing competition

Removing competition is literally the most anticompetitive thing you can do. Like definitionally.

That's why all major (edit: US) acquisitions take months to years to get approval from the SEC.

<comment><USER34> Buying a competitor is no more anticompetitive than causing a competitor to shut down because they weren't competitive enough.

What is supposed to happen to competitors that are actually less efficient and/or produce less appealing products? Do people really expect "competition" to mean a perpetual exact tie between two or more competitors?

<comment><USER35> > Buying a competitor is no more anticompetitive than causing a competitor to > shut down because they weren't competitive enough.

Well first off, predatory pricing is a thing, where competition shuts down because a market participant is deliberately losing money to gain market share in hopes of raising prices after everyone else gives up. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing#United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing#United_States)

But a competitor doesn't have to shut down to be bought out. In fact, why would a company ever buy a competitor who's only alternative is shutting down? Seems far simpler to buy the useful assets from the bankruptcy. Here's one possibility I've seen: an inefficient incumbent buys a startup that has been winning procurement bids away from them lately. They have deep pockets from all the contracts not yet up for renewal, and can afford to buy the company now while they only have a few source of cash flow. End result is that prices remain high, and the borg lives on a little bit less cash flow until the contracts they just bought are up for renegotiation.

> What is supposed to happen to competitors that are actually less efficient > and/or produce less appealing products?

They sell less, and make changes. Maybe they drop prices, invest in efficiency or pursue some differentiation strategy. It doesn't need to be a 50/50 but winner-take-all markets should not be surprised when regulators come knocking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> While I think an antitrust suit against Google would be a waste of time, they really need to stop recommending Chrome every time you do a Google search with a different browser. Just stop, that will not play well to a jury.

<comment><USER37> When will Apple stop sending me desktop notifications about switching to Safari?

<comment><USER38> I use Macs and iProducts all the time, and I've never seen one of these. What do they look like? What do they say?

<comment><USER39> [https://twitter.com/pfooti/status/527301101523963904?s=19](https://twitter.com/pfooti/status/527301101523963904?s=19)

From 2014 though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I will go ahead and bring up a related issue. Most people seem to not see it as being related but in my mind it is very closely related. So maybe consider not burying my comment completely.

Part of the reason we have these technology monopolies is that they provide ubiquitous platforms and that is very powerful for consumers and businesses (as long as your goals don't conflict with their goals).

The issue is that these platforms are being provided by private interests, but have so much scope that they act like public platforms.

My suggestion is to try to create public platforms that business or consumers could tap into/build off of. This would allow for us to audit the mechanisms and also provide a base layer that competition could be built on.

In my mind the obvious technical direction is decentralization technologies. That's the only way such public networks could be feasible.

I actually see this as covering technology in an extremely broad sense. It applies to everything from Google search and ads, to Amazon and online retail, to Uber and taxi apps, maybe even the US dollar and currency, or perhaps even government itself.

</comment><comment><USER41> I think the slowly most businesses would realize if you are a big company, it makes much more sense to capture exclusively the high end market (iPhone) and try to stay as much away as possible from the low end market. This gives you a lion's share of the profits, while making sure you don't get labelled a monopoly (and people asking you to make your platform open). This is the exact model of Apple. iPhones dominate the high end market, and the high price ensures both a.) high capture of the profit. b.) less market share due to simply being out of reach for a lot of people.

Once you are in the above position, you can do anything on your platform, and since you aren't a monopoly, you have much more leeway than your competitors. Your competitor might be forced to unbundle and compromise the uniformity of their platform, while you can simply choose to not even allow alternative browsers, because you know, you aren't a monopoly. Getting the low end market share might be come to seen as more of a headache than required.

<comment><USER42> Its an interesting take on things. Other view is that Apple is an abusive monopoly any is getting away with it for the same reasons Google is. America is permitting Monolpolies at the moment because it is scared of China.

Presumably the US has doubts that capitalism is best and is betting on state supported Monoplies. ;)

<comment><USER43> i don't understand how Apple is an "abusive monopoly" when their iphone market share is 15.8%, while samsung is at 17.3%.

was your characterisation related to their app store by any chance?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Distressingly absent from this list is the company that cheerfully collects and sells even more data that Google about the average American's life and collects MUCH more of their money: Amazon.

<comment><USER45> Collects money, yes. But collects more data? I'm dubious.

<comment><USER46> Maybe not more data, but perhaps more _important_ data?

"Things you've bought before or looked into buying before" seems like much more useful data to sell ads than "non-shopping things you've searched for." It's definitely a higher signal to noise ratio.

<comment><USER47> If your Amazon receipts go to Gmail, Google collects not just all of that data, but from every other site you've bought stuff from: [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/google-gmail-tracks- purchase...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/google-gmail-tracks-purchase- history-how-to-delete-it.html)

<comment><USER26> Google stopped mining Gmail two years ago:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail- ads.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail-ads.html)

Any aggregation or segmentation of emails by ML/AI algorithms, as your article talks about, is analogous to having smarter filters in your inbox. It's tech illiteracy to confuse these perception NNs with data mining for business purposes.

<comment><USER47> Your employer is collecting this data _right now_ , as my link points out. And it's actually gotten better at it in the last few months, as I purged all of my purchases from Gmail that it detected, and then a few weeks later, it found more, as they'd refined their ability to mine more transactional emails.

It is absolutely mining email, and it's extracting purchase data from it, that isn't even used in Gmail or revealed to users in any visible context, it's buried in settings. What Google uses it for? I don't know, as you said, they claimed they stopped using Gmail data _for ad targeting purposes_ two years ago. But they're definitely working on extracting this very valuable and marketable data... for some reason.

Is it possible that Google generically collects user purchase data, including from Gmail, and then whilst not using "Gmail data" for ad targeting, it does use the "purchase data" which has been generically made part of a user's Google profile? That'd be splitting hairs real close, but it'd probably be good enough for the lawyers.

<comment><USER26> Again, last time you doxxed me on HN I told you my profile on HN, which you looked at, says my opinions are my own and do not reflect any organization.

It's technical illiteracy to confuse parsing and filtering with data mining for ads. Read the article, or don't, this is just a comment.

<comment><USER47> I recognize the difference, but they're parsing and filtering the most valuable advertising data, and then just... shoving it in settings and doing nothing with it? There's no clear reason why Google is collecting purchase data from Gmail, and actively working on refining the code used for it. If you look at my comment that you originally responded to, I did not say they used it for ad targeting, merely that they collected it, which is true. Even if they do not use it for ad targeting, the only purpose your article states they won't use that data, it's still very valuable research data to collect.

Not only that, but as the articles about purchase data parsing states, you can't even opt out of it or remove items from Google's purchase history information except to delete the emails themselves. Which, for people entrusting their communications to Gmail, is a drastic step. It's surprising to even have a "remove" button, but for it then to tell you, in order to do so, you have to delete your emails.

As an aside, it's not doxxing someone when you post as your real name, and publish your employer publicly under the same name. The "my opinions are my own" line is a release of Google's legal liability for what you say, which is why a lot of employers suggest or require similar statements. However, it's psychologically impossible for your opinions to not be swayed by the employer who pays you and whom you spend a large percentage of your time with, regardless of whether or not you are "representing" them officially or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Relevant tweet from a Yelp SVP, who propagated many allegations of anticompetitive behavior in Google Search:

> :)

[https://twitter.com/lutherlowe/status/1134621790720995328](https://twitter.com/lutherlowe/status/1134621790720995328)

<comment><USER49> Maybe someone will investigate their mafia-like treatment of small businesses as well.

<comment><USER50> Two wrongs.. whataboutism.. etc.

Maybe yelp had to resort to these monetizing tactics because their results were buried by google promoting their own business-ratings copy-cat service?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Can someone knowledgeable in this area lay out some of the potential anti- trust points that could be shown by the probe?

<comment><USER52> This is just speculation, but I read somewhere recently that alleged that Youtube wasn't the gift to the world it appears to be. While I love Youtube for the most part (Free, High Quality), it is strange that we haven't seen much competition. Maybe it's a loss leader for Google and nobody else can afford the expense, or maybe they're doing something shady to make sure nobody else can afford to compete.

<comment><USER53> Can you please find this source? It seems to me like there's quite a story here if your idea is even remotely true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> With Eric Schmidt leaving, the hanging sword has finally came down. He knew how to play lobbyist network in DC even with unfavorable administration if you had almost unlimited money supply. Breitbart publishing recent video leaks on Google execs in tears on election results meant this was inevitable.

Google has LOT to lose from this. They had previously made absurd the argument that they are not monopoly and Amazon is their biggest competition. Somehow lobby money made this argument magically acceptable and everybody moved on. Now they would have charges from Yelp, funding services like gmail using search business to bankrupt other players, making arbitrary decisions for advertisers, youtube piracy, website takedowns and de-rankings, Chrome defaults, AMP...

However, I wonder what could be the end game here for the government? Google is still very monolithic as far as revenues are concerned, so how do you even break it up in any viable way? My guess is that they would probably impose some fine and settlement agreement.

</comment><comment><USER55> 1\. I fully agree with an investigation into Google.

2\. Why hasn't any federal agency looked into Apple's behavior, where they sell hardware (and here bestow it's ownership to the consumer), but continue to play middleman in what apps the user is allowed to run. It's contrary to the fundamental concept of ownership, and worse, to the tenets of decades of general purpose computing

And before regurgitations of "it's unit sales aren't a majority" gets thrown at me as a justification for monopolistic behavior, please note the truth [1] that iOS install base/usage in the US is almost 10% more than Android, AND iDevices constitute a majority.

[1]: [http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united- stat...](http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of- america)

</comment><comment><USER56> Yep. Been coming. Platforms are super interesting with laws/regulations. Going to be interesting to watch what is decided.

</comment><comment><USER57> The 2012 leaked memo from the last time they tried this: [http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/](http://graphics.wsj.com/google- ftc-report/)

</comment><comment><USER58> >closely examine Google's business practices related to its search and other businesses

Not a lot of detail.

</comment><comment><USER59> As an ex-Googler: good. Google has done a lot of good in the past, and that continues today, but it's pretty clear nobody should have as much control over "making information universally accessible and useful" as Google does. Especially after they give up any pretense of "don't be evil".

I also very much hope FB is next.

</comment><comment><USER60> Google isn't a monopoly and using a competing search engine is quite easy.

Pretty sad that providing an excellent service that customers love is seen as a bad thing, especially on HN. Sad bitter people celebrating the thought of Google being punished for being at the top of their game... get a life.

</comment><comment><USER61> Questions from someone who doesn't know a lot about antitrust law, in case someone knowledgeable cares to chime in:

To what extent does antitrust law require specific intentional or knowing conduct? Is there some "knew or should have known" standard that would require Google to explain why they didn't anticipate or investigate some suspiciously favorable placement of Google products/services/affiliates? Or can Google basically shrug and say "algorithm" a lot and the Justice Department would have an uphill battle to prove intent?

<comment><USER44> It requires no intent, and iirc the argument of Standard Oil before their censure was precisely that they didn't mean to stifle trade, they were just better than everyone else at it. The Supreme Court said they didn't really care why or how, they cared that it was a monopoly in fact.

But historically anti-trust suits have usually been about what happens when negative sentiment towards American mega-corporations grows too high. Essentially the rules are different for big companies. In reality, most of the things companies need to do to avoid anti-trust cases are performative. Even more ironically, the super rich at the tops of corporate pyramids often end up _profiting_ from these sorts of actions. All an anti-trust suit can do is mandate companies fracture into multiple legal entities. Usually the same owners retain their ownership, only now over dozens or more of companies which each individually pay upwards.

What's even more distressing about these laws is that they're quite unusable against entities that are at least as frightening, like Amazon (and historically Walmart). Amazon is the omni-company, and now they're gonna get into consumer telecom too. And because they're lateral as opposed to vertical and they choked out the competition during a recession, they don't even have to pretend the're offering a square deal to their resellers.

<comment><USER4> Amazon could very well be the next target. Their practice of driving out smaller resellers in a category and then jacking up prices could be looked at as an antitrust issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> [http://archive.is/PHSfY](http://archive.is/PHSfY)

</comment><comment><USER63> Imagine what competition in the search space would do for adword prices. I have no idea how one would go about breaking up google search, and the infrastructure/IP behind it. Or changing consumer habits, but there would be a lot of beneifts to everyone.

<comment><USER64> Adwords prices are based off the bids submitted - whether this is done through one centralized exchange or many competing ones makes little difference. Each search-based digital advertiser will end up charging the maximum it can while avoiding "vacancies".

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> This should be part of some philosophy course: how can one become evil, even when starting with good intentions.

</comment><comment><USER66> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18647750](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18647750)

</comment><comment><USER67> Stop the bubbling

Stop the personalization engines

</comment><comment><USER68> I am quite creeped out by Google following me about and requesting that I rate random shops

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't see how after the FTC came up empty the DOJ would fare any better as arguable the sherman act is a much tougher route, and the competition landscape has changed to google's detriment (amazon ads, facebook, etc).

Anyway the article is quite scarce and the source is the WSJ so they might be trying to amplify some stuff or even advocate for it.

<comment><USER69> The FTC backed off because the administration at the time (2012-2013) were friendly with Google.

<comment><USER70> Source is probably controversial, but I'm interested in refutations: [https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it- seems/](https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I'd be more interested in Google/Amazon/FB paying taxes than in anti-trust actions.

<comment><USER72> They pay a ton of taxes :), payroll, property, etc.

Corporate taxes they pay on profits if you invest a ton you can deduct it from profits. Nothing nefarious going on here.

<comment><USER73> > Corporate taxes they pay on profits if you invest a ton you can deduct it > from profits. Nothing nefarious going on here.

One's definition of "deductions" and "profits" can, of course, depend on how much one spends on tax lawyers, one's appetite for testing the untested boundaries of the relevant tax laws, and one's willingness to do fun and interesting things with structuring international subsidiaries.

The ultimate result may or may not correlate with what the average citizen would accept as legitimate. Whether you think this is okay is a matter of opinion.

<comment><USER70> We need to care about governance beforehand.

Tax laws are what you're looking to change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> For everyone here squealing with glee: This will be just another Tuesday for the legal team at Big G ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

<comment><USER69> You can't seriously believe this. The US bringing a case a vastly more a BFD than Europe's prodding at companies for cash.

<comment><USER70> See USA's FTC etc - we take our fair share of drive by fines, and change nothing afterwards.

Doubt it'll happen in this case...people want blood from Google or FB, and they're going to get it.

Other commenters had it right, though - ISPs, and lobbyists should be hanging next to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Thank God! It's time to control this unethical and ruthless internet- suppressing evil corporation. Google took over the internet and it thinks it is theirs. Google took over the search. Google took over advertising, a real currency of the internet. And they believe that this currency belongs to them. Google hampers creation and creators on the internet. Google is a world wide surveillance machine. Google controls too much. It's time to break this evil behemoth.

And now let's listen to the Google fans and apologists about how everything is just one click away...

<comment><USER76> We've already asked you several times not to post like this. It breaks the site guidelines. We're here for curiosity, not flamey rants.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> and third world countries are corrupt? They are just open about it and give everyone a chance to bid. Imagine the hundreds of billions this decision was worth to Google. Total cost to Google? Probably tens of millions, and a lot of lobbying work was overlapping.

</comment><comment><USER78> Good. To quote an old friend who worked for Google:

"I'm worried that if the rest of America knew what we were actually doing here they would literally come here and kill us..."

<comment><USER79> As a Googler, that's a sentiment I have never heard expressed, nor have I felt anything even remotely like it myself. My guess would be that most people would feel a lot better about the company if they could see how the sausage gets made. At least, judging by the reactions of my family members when they ask me concerned questions and I explain how things work, that's what would happen.

That being said, it will be interesting to see what comes out of this investigation. I'm curious to know what practices they are going to zero in on. No company should be immune to the law.

<comment><USER80> _As a Googler, that 's a sentiment I have never heard expressed_

I've seen a lot of Googlers coming here lately, professing to be Googlers and stating "this hasn't been my experience".

Asked genuinely: as someone inside the company-with much better access to sentiment, opinion and company culture than I could ever hope to have, is Google truly that open and transparent to employees that you actually had an expectation to see this sentiment "expressed" elsewhere?

(I would pose a similar to question to other FAANG employees who do the "as an employee of faang[]:")

<comment><USER81> Many many googlers constantly advocate their resentment to the company. The company gives more avenues for this than any other company in the world.

<comment><USER80> That's fantastic-that employees feel they can express resentment without reprisal, however I'm left feeling that my question wasn't really answered- regarding the sentiment quoted and the context being discussed via the article linked.

 _" I'm worried that if the rest of America knew what we were actually doing here they would literally come here and kill us..."_

This is a VERY specific and very interesting response to the goings on of your employer. My company frequently has feedback surveys prompted by HR for employee satisfaction, I still hear through back-channel mediums a lot of gripes and kvetches that were uttered over libations with the understanding that the discussion doesn't leave the bar.

I'm inquiring how insulated individuals at Google are from even _that_ level of 'resentment' born dialogue between colleagues and coworkers.

<comment><USER82> I think you're still assuming it's less open than it is. There's a (well documented now) culture of what might be be described as direct and open insubordination when management does things that are not well liked.

I think your question was answered, but you don't really believe it, because it's difficult to believe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> If, and it is an impossible if, the big nine or ten AI companies (mostly in USA and China) could be split into smaller companies like Judge Green did to AT&T so many years ago, then, I think that would overall be a good thing.

However, it is not right for the large companies in just one country to be split up.

Piketty in Capital in the 21st Century makes good points on how mass amounts of capital earn more money than mass amounts of labor. It is the same winner take all situation in high tech.

It is easy conceptually: governments just need to apply the law fairly. But in my country (USA) corporate interests have almost totally co-opted both main political parties and control most of the regulatory institutions.</comment>


Media Killed the Bookmarking Star: del.icio.us traffic falls below StumbleUpon, Reddit - <AUTHOR> http://socialnewswatch.com/social-media-social-bookmarking/ <comment><USER2> The problem with all these web analytics is that they usually fail to take into account API usage-- I wonder what percentage of the del.icio.us userbase uses the FF extension or other widgets to use the service?

</comment><comment><USER3> No. Not being able to find stuff you previously saved quickly is what killed it (at least del.icio.us). Tags, at least for me, simply aren't good enough.

</comment><comment><USER4> I just have a "to read" page in my personal wiki where I can copy and paste a link in about 5 seconds, and I don't need to type a title. I have fulltext search which makes up for the loss of tagging. And plus I don't need to type a title.

</comment><comment><USER5> The participation threshold is too high. I was just talking to a former heavy del.icio.us user who only uses their front page now. Users always seem to prefer lower-friction services even if they're not as rich in content.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think their god-awful name had at least a little to do with it.</comment>


How mathematics can make epidemics history - <AUTHOR> http://aeon.co/magazine/health/how-mathematics-can-make-epidemics-history

<comment><USER2> An exceedingly simple model, the Galton-Watson process, was introduced in 1875 and exhibits the behaviour of the 'reproduction number'. If the average number of offspring in a Galton-Watson process is less than 1, the population dies off with probability 1, with thin tails on the number of generations before extinction; if it's more than 1, it has a positive chance to survive forever.</comment>


Viva Las Vegas? - <AUTHOR> https://spectator.us/viva-las-vegas/ <comment><USER2> >We've replaced true ambition with egalitarian goals, free of risks, secure and comfortable. We crush true originality and individualism because it may lead to unbridled success and happiness, bursting the bubble in which the rest of us can hide. We convince ourselves that this scaled homogeneity is happiness, but it's little more than carefully packaged mass nihilism. We are the Nietzschean nightmare of the Last Men. If Vegas today is a prediction of America tomorrow, our future is Resorts World: a delusional and degraded service economy for China.

If you told me that this was written by a 13-year old who thinks Atlas Shrugged is non-fiction, I would have replied "Hmm. That's alright for a 13-year-old. Once he gets out of this phase he should be a pretty good writer."

<comment><USER3> Hahahaha.... I just made it through the article and was trying to figure out the weird taste it left in my mouth. You just named it perfectly.</comment></comment>


Alabama governor: Non-Christians are 'not my brother' - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-alabama-governor-20110119,0,4351953.story <comment><USER2> Though to be fair, as long as he isn't discriminating among people as Governor, he is free to preach and display a sense of any community he wants at Church. What is more troubling is the sort of de-facto discrimination that Glenn Greenwald and Seymour Hersh, among others have been talking about.</comment>


October 10th, NYSE Shall be Erased from the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz0swK0mpMk&feature=channel_video_title <comment><USER2> this should be interesting</comment>


The Bizarre Tale of a Man Murdered Over a Jetpack - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2014/03/03/where_eagles_dare_the_jetpack_murder.html

<comment><USER2> This story doesn't hold up under scrutiny. In modern times, if a device has been designed, another one can be built using the knowledge acquired from the first project. So the fact that the prototype rocket pack's location is not known doesn't matter, all one needs is the specifications and method of construction.

The story resembles the kinds of stories told in the pre-industrial era, when one-of-a-kind devices were built that could not be recreated, like the Antikythera device:

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

But this isn't how modern technology works. Something is rotten in Denmark.</comment>


Who the Hell Is This Joyce (1928) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/09/21/who-the-hell-is-this-joyce/ <comment><USER2> Really impressed with H. G. Wells here; he manages to:

\- imagine (correctly or incorrectly) a system of values/upbringing that might result in _Finnegan 's Wake_ being seen as good or worthwhile [not his words, but for example: valuing "artistic" / "creative expression" over pleasure or illumination for the reader],

\- articulate his own values and why as a result he considers it not worth his time,

\- yet remain humble [you may not think so but this is how it appears to me] that this is just his own point of view and for others with different values, this "extraordinary experiment" may be worthwhile after all — or not.

This ability to imagine another point of view, another system of preferences even, and come with a plausible explanation of it.

<comment><USER3> I agree in part but also disagree: It has a certain accommodation to it--you are probably fine where you are. I'm fine over here.

But why is this necessary, unless you basically hate a person and don't think you could ever reconcile? It's a psychology of tribalism.

Unfortunately the letter also has a certain "shoot first, ask questions later" aspect to it. Like, why wouldn't Wells diplomatically _ask_ Joyce about the perspectives that informed his writing to the public in such a way?

The "articulate his own values and why as a result he considers it not worth his time" aspect is also a bit of a cringe along the same lines. You can see it all the time today, in comments on things that are shared on various, ahem, online communities. Especially in response to new projects or posts that don't seem completely pragmatic or tuned for performance, as if everything is meant for a paying audience of common moviegoers. Why wasn't I consulted? I'm a common man! I represent your most common audience!

Nah, I think Wells was also feeling afraid of being left out, tossed into the dustbin. Why else would you stake your entire identity so firmly in opposition to someone else, in a letter to that person, instead of keeping it open and asking questions? You're arguing for your own existence. Maslow has entered the chat with some cake and coffee and a monthly stipend.

Finally he seems to project some pretty nasty subjective perceptions right into Joyce's rationale. It kinda pulls Joyce down from what Wells seems to treat as a high horse. But it also promotes Wells' own perceptions all the way down the page. Like he invited himself to a debate and forgot to summon a live opponent.

TBH while it's amusing to read, and especially in a pompous voice, it also illustrates (to some, and hopefully) how we can learn to do much better for ourselves and others as a thoughtful corresponding audience.

<comment><USER2> Interesting perception. I looked up the context of this letter: according to the books linked below and [https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/](https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/) — the timeline was this:

\- In 1917 (when Wells would have been ~51 and Joyce ~35), Wells had written "one of the most favourable reviews" of Joyce's _A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_. This was very helpful to Joyce, and Joyce wrote a letter to Wells thanking him. Even earlier, Wells had helped Joyce secure a grant.

\- In 1928 (a few days before this letter), Wells and Joyce met for the first time and had lunch. During this lunch meeting they discussed Joyce's work, and Joyce "as was his fashion" asked Wells for a favour (probably enlisting his support when it finally came out as a book).

\- Wells then _replied_ with this letter, which explains why the second sentence of Wells's letter has "I don't think I can do anything for the propaganda of your work." Joyce found the letter "friendly and honest".[1]

I think some of what you said may make more sense for an unsolicited letter, especially one posted in public (like the comments on online communities that you mention) — bothering to write to someone to attack them. Here, though, I'm afraid I can't share your perception that Wells was "afraid of being left out", or "stak[ing his] entire identity" or "invited himself to a debate" — he was simply declining a request: "Sorry I can't help you in the way you asked: here's why, but good luck anyway". One part of what you said that I can fully agree with is that it "promotes Wells' own perceptions all the way down the page": because explaining his perception is the point, and it's one of the polite things you can do when saying No.

[1]: [https://books.google.com/books?id=eVGFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=eVGFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158&lpg=PT158) and [https://books.google.com/books?id=8MkRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=P...](https://books.google.com/books?id=8MkRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92) and [https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/](https://jamesjoyce.ie/day-24-february/)

<comment><USER3> Ah, I see what you're saying. You're responding to the historical question of veracity of details as if I wrote them to say that Wells was literally just a this or that, but I'm writing metaphorically to intuit Wells' psychological position. A metaphorical debate--he wrote _as if_.

Sorry I can't be more clear for now but this kind of mixing of language interpretations happens sometimes. For example in MBTI soft-theory land this happens quite often on a tech site like HN when an INTJ writes metaphorically and an INTP consumes literally for logical analysis. Instant disagreement is common.

<comment><USER4> Your comment has a certain accommodation to it -- you are probably fine where you are (in INTP land). I'm fine over here (as an INTJ).

But yes, nothing about your comment came across as hypothetical conjecture. The tone is overwhelmingly "here is my conclusion, watch me work vigorously back to it and then insinuate many bad things as a result of my mistake".

<comment><USER3> > you are probably fine where you are (in INTP land). I'm fine over here (as > an INTJ).

Which is still qualitatively a different type of accommodation, as I'm saying we are likely, or possibly both right while also respecting the approach taken. Do you see how this is different from missing the purpose of the approach taken, remarking on how it is not fit for consumption by the common man, and saying, "it's OK, there is room for us both to be wrong here?"

> hypothetical conjecture

Why, because I don't have Wells in the room to ask? Accusing someone of hypothetical conjecture on a reading of a historical document is poor form here, given the context. I was given historical data based on a conjectural map of my writing onto someone else's psychology. I gave a valid reason why such a map leads away from my intended meaning. If you have a specific critique about the other post's contents, please go ahead. Otherwise criticizing my tone, whether to make Wells and I "both wrong" or for some other reason is unfair to the spirit of the discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 100% of my interest in James Joyce comes from Joseph Campbell.

The first time I tried to read Joyce my attempt did not go well because I didn't really understand why Campbell was so taken with these works, so my own expectations about what I was getting into were wildly off the mark.

So I really get where H. G. Wells is coming from. Though I have to admit that Wells' writing is way, way more articulate than my thoughts at the time.

Many years later I got back into Joseph Campbell by way of Julian Jaynes and wound up with Finnegan's Wake again only I suppose with a different set of expectations and perspective. It's still not something I personally would read for idle pleasure but I feel like I'm understanding more of the big picture Joseph Campbell was all about, so it was a worthwhile read.

<comment><USER6> IMHO, Ulysses is worth the time, but I agree about Finnegans Wake

<comment><USER7> Also, Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist are excellent and not nearly as dense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Your last two works have been more amusing and exciting to write than they > will ever be to read.

I'm imagining HG Wells on a modern software team, code-reviewing a large refactoring diff.

<comment><USER9> Well Finnegans Wake is, in an artistic way, one literary version of IOCCC

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This reminds me of Vladimir Nabokov's opinion of Joyce.

Here's Martin Amis, speaking at Nabokov's centenary celebration in 1999:

"[O]nly once, I think, did [Nabokov] bow to a superior talent. Of James Joyce he said, 'My stuff is patball to his champion game.'

"Now, how sincere was Nabokov being? In my view the bidding starts at 50% and then drops sharply. Anyway it's a judgment he whittled away at elsewhere. That 600-page crossword clue Finnegans Wake Nabokov considered a tragic failure: 'a cold pudding of a book, a persistent snore in the next room.'"

</comment><comment><USER11> "But the world is wide and there is room for both of us to be wrong."

<comment><USER3> Sadly it's not meant as an insult and yet it seems Wells was not able to afford his more passionate sentences a little touch-up. That a feud occurred around writing like this is unfortunate but it's also notable that Joyce was extremely graceful in his correspondence. He demonstrates an open-mindedness that Wells could have used to his own advantage. But Wells seemed strongly captured by his own perceptions and chose to give the finger to what could be called a growth mindset.

Plus it's terrible to tell a friend that you may both be wrong, when they may still have something to say--unless you are ready to be accused of backing out of the entire friendship arrangement. Relationships are all about reconciliation. They're not about subjective meta-narratives which attempt to evenly dole out critique, but from one side. It makes the doling side appear delicate and fearful of their own weaknesses.

Better to listen to friends, ask questions, and present your concerns as if they are third parties to yourself. Otherwise you will end up without friends when you need them most. Wells' own writing was likely gasoline on the fire, but I don't think he knew what he was getting into. Simply admitting possible fault as an entry point to subjective commentary like "BUT you're in the same fault zone with me" is a slap in the face.

<comment><USER12> > Plus it's terrible to tell a friend that you may both be wrong

You're very definitely not British.

<comment><USER3> Could you explain this comment? I'm not British.

<comment><USER13> You seem to be taking excessive British politeness as more of an insult when it's really an attempt at diffusing any hurt/confrontation from the underlying critiques. The intention of adding that statement is not really to reiterate he thinks Joyce is bad or wrong, the main point was admitting he may very well be wrong himself - as a saving-face escape hatch of sorts.

Adding "maybe we're both wrong" is similarly a way to avoid confrontation and politely avoid open disagreement - allowing them both to remain on the same plane of neutrality and maintain respectful discourse.

It's always difficult to explain these sorts of things without tonality and cultural familiarity (much like explaining sarcasm on the internet). For the British culturally there is an underlying assumption that you're trying to be respectful/non-confrontational even when you're technically critiquing someone's work (which is a sort of overwhelming politeness the British are famous for - being polite means never being brash or overly direct). Another example of this sort of indirection is a "backhanded compliment".

<comment><USER3> That's so interesting. Thank you for your explanation. I think I can only offer in reply that if Wells' English is excessive British politeness, I wonder if there is even an adjective which could begin to describe Joyce's Irish politeness. :-)

With all due respect to cultural differences, one of these levels of politeness seems to have comparatively and metaphorically wiped the floor with the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Your last two works have been more amusing and exciting to write than they will ever be to read."

Part of this message would be good for programmers to hear too

<comment><USER15> Isn't this the perfect code? Fun to write, boring to read. When reading existing code, I love boring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > And while you were brought up under the delusion of political suppression I > was brought up under the delusion of political responsibility.

So much relevant to today in this personal letter.

</comment><comment><USER16> So Wells = modernist and Joyce = (early) postmodernist? This all looks familiar and relevant to our times, the struggle between one who believes in a shared reality and possibility of progress, and the other whose MO is to persistently challenge and deconstruct. I've only read Dubliners so not an expert on Joyce by any means though.

> But the world is wide and there is room for both of us to be wrong.

Perhaps not so in the 21st century, the postmodernists have won. External reality is a mirage now and we can choose from any of the countless, mutually incompatible narratives as we see fit.

<comment><USER17> I would describe Wells not as modernist but as a hangover of a certain strain of Victorian thinking: a basically rationalist, socialist worldview, optimistic about the prospect of improving the world if we could just drop all our silly prejudices. John Stuart Mill, George Bernard Shaw, the Fabian Society.... This perspective didn't fare very well in the early twentieth Century. Orwell describes Wells somewhere as 'too sane to understand the modern world'.

I'd count Joyce as a canonical modernist. (If he isn't, who is?)

<comment><USER16> Thanks, so Finnegans Wake is considered a modernist novel? Interesting. Totally out of my depth here but it seems so much at odds with modernist ideas in other artistic disciplines, e.g., architecture.

<comment><USER17> Definitely.

Yes, there are lots of modernisms. Modernism in literature really has very little in common with modernism in architecture, for instance. Even more confusing, each of these modernisms has its own postmodernism, all 'post' their respective modernisms in different ways.

The sort of fragmentation of language and narrative that we see in Ulysses and Finnegans Wake is a pretty central modernist trait, I'd say. An even more central example would be something like Eliot's The Wasteland.

<comment><USER18> Relevant Wikipedia entry: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_literature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_literature)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> previous discussion 4 years ago

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12552507](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12552507)

</comment><comment><USER20> This is a wonderful critique and made all the more enjoyable with hindsight. Wells here represents a common view but not an enlightened one and history has favored the latter.

Joyce was arguably the greatest writer of the 20th century.

Wells wrote enjoyable books that could entertain most anyone.

</comment><comment><USER21> I mean, these two quotes by Joyce himself say it all:

"If I gave it all up immediately, I'd lose my immortality. I've put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and that's the only way of insuring one's immortality." -Joyce's reply for a request for a plan of Ulysses, as quoted in James Joyce (1959) by Richard Ellmann

"The demand that I make of my reader is that he should devote his whole Life to reading my works." -Interview with Max Eastman in Harper's Magazine, as quoted in James Joyce (1959) by Richard Ellmann. Eastman noted "He smiled as he said that — smiled, and then repeated it."

</comment><comment><USER22> > Your last two works have been more amusing and exciting to write than they > will ever be to read.

That pretty well sums up my experience with Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake as well, though to be fair I have never given the latter much of a try.

<comment><USER21> Have you read Dubliners? Such a good collection of stories. Honestly he mastered "great" writing and seems he just got bored and wanted to play at a higher level.

<comment><USER23> The Dubliners is my desert island book. I can happily just sit there and re- read The Dead over and over again and never bore of it, there's so much there. Especially the way it builds to that incredible ending passage.

 _His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead._

<comment><USER24> Yes! Sorry, I'm just here to fan over Dubliners too. Every winter, on a snowy Massachusetts day, I read them all over again. It's incredible how The Dead and Araby contain so much of what makes us humans. It's hard to explain the images and feelings Joyce brings out in me as I'm reading them. I've met people who think it's boring, and while I understand that different people are attracted to different styles of writing, I'm always amazed that it's possible to dislike Dubliners.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Great find! Another interesting and rather different take on Finnegan's Wake is Terence McKenna's FW talk : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdXBulkqH5s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdXBulkqH5s) , worth listening to.

</comment><comment><USER26> >You began Catholic, that is to say you began with a system of values in stark opposition to reality

Heh.

<comment><USER27> I plan on quoting this in a letter to a friend who despises his Catholic upbringing yet recognizes that he has certain baggage from it. It will amuse him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> [https://www.rte.ie/culture/2020/0610/1146705-listen- ulysses-...](https://www.rte.ie/culture/2020/0610/1146705-listen-ulysses- james-joyce-podcast/)

For those who want to dip their toe into Ulysses

</comment><comment><USER29> So recently I noted that Dickens' re-evaluation came 70 years after his death [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23454834](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23454834) \- it is now 79 years after the death of Joyce - is there a re-evaluation under way, is he going down, and if so who is going up? I personally don't think Wells is going up, but Verne might be (based on nothing more than feeling).

on edit: although of course there would be no reason that the critical reputation of Verne should be gained at the expense of Joyce. Just that we are far enough away from a generation of writers that you would think there would be some shaking up of the critical order.

</comment><comment><USER30> Please, tell me, is there a reply? I want to see Joyces response.

<comment><USER31> There's more info here on their relationship: [https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/03/09/henry-james-h-g- wel...](https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/03/09/henry-james-h-g-wells-art/)

<comment><USER32> Thanks for the link, it is an interesting read. But it is about interaction between Henry James and H.G.Wells, not between James Joyce and Wells.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I think putting H. G. Wells in the byline, while setting the date to 2016, is confusing/incorrect.

</comment><comment><USER34> That was an amazing read!

</comment><comment><USER35> funny letter. "You have turned your back on common men—on their elementary needs and their restricted time and intelligence, and... you have elaborated.

</comment><comment><USER36> I just finished Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy. (9.3/10)

Should I read Ulysses? I've wanted to read it on account of its acclaim but after reading some comments here I feel like maybe not?

<comment><USER37> Anna Karenina is a classical novel that follows classical literary conventions. It's heavy and will give your understanding of Russian naming a workout, but it's still basically readable.

Ulysses, on the other hand, is hundreds and hundreds of pages of modernist stream of consciousness, from the point of view of many characters who don't believe in providing context, where every sentence is packed full of complicated wordplay and obscure allusions, and everything happens at a snail's pace. If the idea of reading a book where you literally can't understand half of it gives you pause, Ulysses is probably not the book for you.

For what it's worth, Joyce is commenting on Finnegans Wake, which goes 10x on everything above and is basically entirely incomprehensible.

<comment><USER38> You should add "in your opinion." Just because you couldn't understand or appreciate Ulysses, it doesn't mean that other people cannot, it takes a certain amount of education and reading of other books to be able to "get" Joyce and especially Ulysses.

Do you expect a person to fully understand C++ the first time they use it?

<comment><USER37> I read Ulysses to the end and appreciated it as the literary experiment it is. I don't intend to do it again though, and despite being quite widely read, thank you very much, I'm not going to claim I understood more than a fraction of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I've has Ulysses on my shelf for years. Wells may have just put it there for another few years.

<comment><USER37> I managed to struggle my way through Ulysses, which at least has some semblance of narrative structure and mostly uses actual English words, but Wells is commenting on Finnegans Wake, which is _thoroughly_ impenetrable. Here's the second paragraph:

 _Sir Tristram, violer d 'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passen- core rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: nor had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet, though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe. Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface._

( from [http://finwake.com/1024chapter1/1024finn1.htm](http://finwake.com/1024chapter1/1024finn1.htm) )

<comment><USER40> Ah, but you left out the first paragraph which clarifies the second entirely!

>riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

And you'll just have to read to the end of the book to find out how the sentence begins.

Joking aside, I actually love this style of writing even though I get virtually no narrative from it. I read it almost like some sort of abstract poetry, letting my mind wander as the words go by.

Also, I find it reads a lot better out loud than silently: easier to notice some of the strange dream-like word mixes. Like `venissoon` kind of sounds like `very soon`. I only saw `venison` until I read it out loud.

<comment><USER37> I love Jabberwocky as well, but that's a single page, not 500.

[https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/42916/jabberwocky](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/42916/jabberwocky)

<comment><USER41> That is a great comparison. I love Jabberwocky, but you can't read an entire book in that style. Yet Joyce apparently did write that book.

I've never read Joyce, but based on these couple of lines I think I understand Wells' letter. It's magnificent to be able to write like that, but please keep it short. Nobody can withstand that for more than a page or two.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > You began Catholic, that is to say you began with a system of values in > stark opposition to reality.

Well, I agree, but I also have never seen it written so nicely like this.

<comment><USER43> It sounds like it might be clever, but then I realize I don't know what it means.

If you had values not in opposition to reality, then they wouldn't be relevant to reality, would they? Because in not opposing reality, they couldn't guide you in changing it.

The most you could really say about values being objectively wrong is if they are inconsistent and _could not_ be fulfilled in reality in any possible universe. But what is a possible universe? And what if all value systems are impossible to completely fulfill?

<comment><USER44> You're overthinking it. Some people have a "fuck this world" attitude, others don't, that's all Wells wanted to say.

<comment><USER45> It's quite clearly a scientism/superstition feud. Remember that Ireland was _extremely_ Catholic at this point, and the guilt/purity psychology of that would pervade everything.

Wells is arguing that Joyce is being shocking for the sake of it in an internal struggle with his conservative values, while Wells sees himself as a scientific man "never been shocked to outcries by the existence of water closets and menstrual bandages".

(Presumably a reference to Ulysees and the content that got it banned: [https://www.bl.uk/20th-century- literature/articles/ulysses-a...](https://www.bl.uk/20th-century- literature/articles/ulysses-and-obscenity#) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> _" My warmest wishes to you Joyce. I can't follow your banner any more than you can follow mine. But the world is wide and there is room for both of us to be wrong."_

Thats HG Wells for - "You Suck".

<comment><USER47> I don't know, I read it as "you don't like my books and I don't like yours, and that's fine!"

It's a great piece: An eloquent reminder that disagreement doesn't have to mean disrespect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> James Joyce

</comment><comment><USER49> It seems theres a bit of an impression of Wells here that he is being even- handed, but I would beg to differ.

He frames himself and Joyce as opposites, as if in an attempt to make what follows fair game.

I think if someone came up to me and said, "Not that my opinion matters, but I think you're disgusting", I'd still be pretty offended. I think onlookers would see something like that as unnecessary.

Just don't write the letter next time, eh Wells?

<comment><USER50> Context matters. Per the other comments up-thread, the letter was a response to a request for help in advertising a specific book (Finnegan's Wake) that Joyce made of Wells. Not writing the letter and just not responding to the request would be fairly rude too, no? Just refusing without expalaining why would also be a bit odd, given that Wells had provided just such help for Joyce's previous work.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Front-end dev trends for 2016 - <AUTHOR> What do you expect to see in front-end development in 2016. Any revolutional new things ? Consolidatons ? Frameworks etc. ? <comment><USER2> I expect to see projects from large companies designed for operating at scale backed by teams with deep institutional knowledge continue to be promoted to individual developers for projects that could run on a single pizza box.</comment>


The coronavirus may not have originated in China, says Oxford professor - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/the-coronavirus-may-not-have-originated-in-china-says-oxford-professor/ <comment><USER2> All these test kits would check for the presence of small fragments of RNA. If you are applying the test on lots of sewage, it is likely to find some weird false positive that is not COVID-19 in the first.

I would find it even more interesting if there were specific agents in sewage, irrelevant from COVID-19, that would cause a false positive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you know what the false positive rates of these tests are ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What's this about a corona case in the Falklands in February? I cannot find any mention of that elsewhere?

[https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-falkland-islands- coro...](https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-falkland-islands-coronavirus- case.html) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Falkl...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Falkland_Islands)

<comment> Pick-A-Hill2019 I'm glad that I'm not the only one scratching their heads slightly. According to the article " claims to have found the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in a Barcelona sewage sample from 12 March 2019[1]. Further reading of [1] says that zilch (zero, nill, nothing) was found in samples taken on the 11 March 2019 (the day before) and that equally zilch was found on 13 March 2019 (the day afterwards)[2] and yet the article casually makes the assertion " have found the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in a Barcelona sewage sample from 12 March 2019". Uhmm yeah, no.

[1] [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.13.20129627v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.13.20129627v1.full.pdf)

[2] "archival WWTP samples from January 2018 to December 2019 (Figure 2). All samples came out to be negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes with the exception of March 12, 2019".

I'm not an expert (or anything even close to being one in this domain) but let's not post anything that has yet to be properly peer reviewed. Not a dig at the submitter, but an eye-roll at the article.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here we go...

paper link here [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.13.20129627v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.13.20129627v1)

</comment><comment><USER4> A few day ago an another study said that the first case was reported in Spain.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you have link to the paper ?</comment></comment>


IBM Abandons Harmony for Java Unity with Oracle - <AUTHOR> http://java.sys-con.com/node/1572294

<comment><USER2> Oh no. :( Ok, it was inevitable that big blue would sell out, but Google is going to win this fight.</comment>


Apathy of the Google extension review process... - <AUTHOR>

Application development should always be supported by the underlying platform developers.. iphone apps is supported well by apple, andrioid by google. While the quality of these two may be different due to the high standards that the two companies
hold the developers to. It should be hard to set the infrastructure up, to packaging and deliver it to the end users. After all the hard work is done you are happy and just upload your beta tested package over the market while munching on a pizza celebrating your success! Not so easy with chrome extensions... The support sucks... Worst the team that approves and reviews seems to be like a call center in an alternate universe living across a black hole.... Once your product enters for final review it almost never comes out.... And they make sure you never get to understand why or how...
Here is the thread unanswered on the support forum:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=180dff32974ef19b&hl=en&fid=180dff32974ef19b000491b267b5615f <comment><USER2> I'm sorry that you've had issues with the review system. A tiny number of extensions are flagged for review automatically. In your case, it was not because of NPAPI or file:// access. (The heuristic in this case resulted in a false positive.)

(And uploading extensions from multiple accounts is likely to get the attention of spam filters, so you should refrain from that.)

I am not typically an extension reviewer and I don't want to preempt them in this case by approving it right now. However, I'll track someone down on Monday. If you haven't seen any movement by Wednesday, email me (stick @chromium.org on the end of my username.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for your help I will keep on a look out for the status change or any emails that come my way...

<comment><USER2> This should have been resolved for you now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just to be clear, I want to be very clear to make the distinction between the word "support team" which is the forum, which is not the point of criticism here...They are very helpful always... its the extension reviewers who I am talking about...</comment>


Gadgets powered wirelessly at home with a simple Wi-Fi router - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27633-gadgets-powered-wirelessly-at-home-with-a-simple-wifi-router.html#.VWzNmJpVhBc <comment><USER2> This kind of thing has been around since Tesla ( the inventor ) or longer. It always seems there isn't always enough power available in one frequency. Can you use more than one circuit on more than one frequency and aggregate the collected power somehow?</comment>


FreeBSD now supports the Playstation 3 - <AUTHOR> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2011-January/022104.html

<comment><USER2> I thought the whole thing was hilarious. The pirates couldn't crack the console, so they told everyone not to buy the PS3 because they wouldn't be able to play pirated games and stuff. But then Sony did something stupid and removed the ability to use Unix on the PS3 so those guys (homebrewers) were like 'RAWRRR' and cracked it.

Lesson learned: Never mess with the guys who know what they're doing!

<comment><USER3> You're making a pretty egregious (and insulting) mistake by conflating pirates (i.e., those just want to steal games) with homebrewers (really intelligent electrical engineers, mathematicians with PhDs, tec).

That's not to say that those who crack things (essentially "pirates) like SecureROM and SafeDisk aren't intelligent, but the fail0verflow is on a whole 'nother level.

<comment><USER4> I read what veb said as there were two different groups.

"Pirates" who were unable to crack it. "Homebrewers" who didn't want to (because it previously run Linux so they could do homebrew without cracking it).

Sony remove the Linux ability, so the second group ("Homebrewers"), now had motivation to crack it, and succeeded.

If anything I think veb's comment was complementary of homebrewers. He is saying they succeeded where the pirates failed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> More and more it seems that removing Linux support from PS3 was one of the worst moves of 2010.

<comment><USER6> Or alternatively, one of the best moves.

All a matter of perspective ;)

<comment><USER7> I totally agree with you on this being a matter of prospective... I was on the verge of dumping PS3 for media playback from my file server since dealing with transcoding + the PS3 is IMHO a huge pain in the ass.

With the root key cracked and homebrew soon exploding I'm scheming a quality XBMC port to GameOS... sooner than never ;-)

<comment><USER8> Which part of transcoding is being a pain in the ass? I find fuppes ( <http://fuppes.ulrich-voelkel.de/> ) to be working perfectly. If you're trying to transcode high def mkv/ts/etc, I agree.

<comment><USER9> Transcoding is a pain in the ass because it requires another computer with a decent CPU to decode in realtime (which means you can't run it off a NAS or some other server-based disk backup, unless you want to shell out the bucks for a really overpowered backup solution).

If I'm going to go through all that trouble and cost, it makes more sense to buy a low-cost ION GPU HTPC ($300) that can just run the video (even HD) without transcoding.

<comment><USER10> got one of those ion pcs, i recommend it, and your sentiments about how this all fits together. i think a machine really can only do one thing really well (especially something high performance) at a time, and often MPC software tries to do too much at once.

<comment><USER11> I had an ASRock NetTop 330, measured the wattage draw while playing a 1080p film, it was pulling about 15 watts from the wall. Pretty damn impressive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How does a PS3 compare spec-wise with a regular PC? Alternative server solution?

<comment><USER13> It's tight on RAM (only 256MB main memory + 256MB VRAM, a large portion of which can be used as fast swap space, at least on Linux), the SPUs will sit mostly idle unless your software is specifically written to utilise them. Especially older models consume a lot of power, even when idle. A cheap Atom- based Nettop or NAS is probably better for home server type stuff.</comment></comment>


Lua in Moscow 2019: Interview with Roberto Ierusalimschy - <AUTHOR> https://habr.com/en/company/mailru/blog/459466/ <comment><USER2> This deserves moer attention!

Here's my favourite quote from the interview:

> That's the problem of programmers, they like games and sometimes they like > stuff because it's difficult, not because it's easy.</comment>


Apple's Heir Apparent Is More Like Tim Cook Than Steve Jobs - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-22/apple-s-heir-apparent-is-much-more-like-tim-cook-than-steve-jobs <comment><USER3> That's unfortunate. There is a lot of literature out there that talks about how after the founder leaves, usually the COO takes over, because they would leave if they don't get the job, but after that, usually they look for a more "visionary" person, because the COO makes things efficient but not interesting.

Look at Microsoft. When Gates left, Ballmer took over, and did great things for the company financials. Profits and revenue were consistently up year after year. But the company stagnated product-wise and lost favor among enthusiasts and investors. He left the stock 10% worse than when he got there, despite the profits and revenue.

But since Ballmer left, Nadella has done an amazing job continuing the profit and revenue story while also winning back the hearts and minds of developers and investors with some great new products and product vision.

Apple needs a Nadella -- a long time insider who has a strong product vision.

<comment><USER4> People with this line of critique against Tim Cook don't actually know how Apple works.

By your own metrics Cook is Nadella. The stock more than doubled under his tenure and the installed base for Apple products has grown massively since 2011 (to 1.4 billion). More people than ever own Apple products.

<comment><USER5> That seems to be a result of scaling vertical with the existing product line, not horizontally with new better product categories. Even the new ones are all connected to prior innovations (Apple Watch -> extending iPhone's mobile computing to a new screen ala iPad), (Apple Services -> extending iTunes selling mp3s and video).

Their latest 'new' venture which is the TV play is basically derivative of Netflix and Amazon. Going into finance with the credit card thing is semi- interesting but it was also the thing that killed GE (they became a finance company and lost sight of what made GE great, the best products [1]).

The Beats acquisition was an excellent investment and their Airpod's business is doing amazing. So that's something. They need more of that IMO... if they need anything at all.

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-powered-the-american- century...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-powered-the-american-centurythen- it-burned-out-11544796010)

<comment><USER6> > That seems to be a result of scaling vertical with the existing product > line, not horizontally with new better product categories.

Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't imply a lack of innovation as well. They provide a good enough improvement on all software, hardware and service fronts to keep customer buying year on year.

A lack of a new breakthrough product doesn't mean lack of innovation from Apple. In my opinion it only means two things:

\- The technology is not there yet for a new "iPhone" type of breakthrough.

\- The expectation of people on Apple is so high considering their success in the past decade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Chief Operating Officer Jeff Williams, who has now also taken over the company's legendary design studio."

This might be a dumb question, but does the COO usually manage design? Our COO is very much a supply chain, logistics, procurement and day-to-day administration type manager. I can't imagine him having any sort of sense of good design.

I'm sure he's (he as in Apple's COO) not there in the design trenches on the daily, but he would have final say on overall design, unless I'm misinterpreting what it means in the article.

To be fair I probably would've said the same thing for a CEO before Steve Jobs came along but he's proven himself to a be very rare exception.

<comment><USER8> This also confuses me in politics. In one administration a particular member of the cabinet is justice secretary, and in the next election he's an education secretary. I am highly sceptical of the idea that they've studied the intricacies of effective pedagogy in order to get that job.

<comment><USER9> The jobs are awarded on the basis of political loyalty, ambition, and tribal (party) potential, not domain competence.

In the UK - and I guess the US - they're executive roles. The Prime Minister's office sets policy, with varying levels of debate and pushback, and the department heads implement it.

Executives who climb high enough are allowed to suggest policy of their own, under the oversight of the PM. Ministers direct implementation, but the _details_ of execution are handled by the Civil Service.

No competence is needed. In fact in the last decade or so in the UK most of ministers were absolutely incompetent dolts elevated to purely political appointments - with results that surprised no one.

<comment><USER8> There seems to be no other explanation for the borderline ridiculous proposals that keep making their way into laws, including but certainly not limited to CAJA 2009 which criminalizes sexual drawings of fictional underage characters - which they admitted in their own reports wasn't based on any empirical evidence and in fact only on hearsay and faulty reasoning from the likes of children's charity workers.

This is an egregious case with the chance to ruin lives (in fact, a substantial number of people are convicted under it each year according to stats in the VAWG report) but I wonder what other deplorable incompetence I'm missing out on seeing from the UK government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Which would make complete sense. Anyone like Steve Jobs would be launching their own companies. People running fortune 10/50 companies would have risen through corporate ranks to be CEOs and be more like Cook not Jobs.

<comment><USER11> Interesting point, I'm inclined to believe this is the case as well. Ive would've been a good candidate but he left to do just that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The sooner Cook is out, the better. There have been no current offerings in Apple's lineup I would purchase since 2012-2015, and I know I am not alone in this sentiment.

The RAM and SSD being soldered to the logic board is beyond inexcusable. I _count_ on upgrading my laptops over time, and have, for every Mac I've ever owned, to get a few extra good years out of them.

Even the environmental impact is nonsense.

<comment><USER13> Jobs himself wanted Apple 8-bit computers to have sealed cases. If anything, the latest moves by Apple (the new Mac Pro) shows a trend towards what you want not the other way around.

But I think expecting Apple to become a radically different product company than it's been for the last few decades is asking a lot.

<comment><USER12> The new Mac Pro is a terrible example of _one_ move in an upgradable direction, which has moved to a ludicrous price point that received many laughs while we watched the keynote in one of the senior dev rooms at a top 5 Canadian bank that I work for.

What about Apple _removing_ the non-touchbar model of the MacBook Pro - <USER2> that a direction _anyone_ asked for? The words 'touch bar' are the equivalent of 'Voldemort' in the IT world, with 'butterfly keyboard' maybe second.

Or, let's take the Mac Mini - which, when I was 15 years old, was inexpensive enough that I was able to save up myself and purchase it, new, from an Apple Store - which has now jumped up several hundred dollars in it's basic configuration. That 15-year-old kid, who justified saving up $500 over a whole summer just to get an Apple computer, couldn't have even afforded it now.

What I'm seeing is hardware I don't want - that none of my friends in either the creative professional media industry (audio / film) want - and all of the devs I've seen complain avidly about the first chance they get.

The new Mac Pro only shows me a trend towards more impractically expensive, locked-down hardware, designed basically to increase Apple's year-over-year instead of provide year-over-year excellence in their products.

I used to love Apple, for years and years. I'm forced to use a 2017 15" MBP at the office and I can't stand it. It's disappointing. I still keep an iMac G4 from all those years back in use almost every day as I've filled it with every season of the Simpsons, Futurama, Seinfeld, etc, and I just love the design...it's a sad reminder of how the mighty fall.

<comment><USER13> > The new Mac Pro only shows me a trend towards more impractically expensive, > locked-down hardware, designed basically to increase Apple's year-over-year > instead of provide year-over-year excellence in their products.

Literally nothing has changed for the last few decades! I'm not defending Apple. However, if you think this is anything _new_ you're crazy.

I avoided getting on that bandwagon in the first place and my wallet and my sanity is happy with the choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd love to see what Steve Wozniak would produce if given Apple's current resources. My impression is that he's a real engineer's engineer.

Or barring that, I'd love to just be his neighbor. He seems like a great guy.

<comment><USER15> The history of the CL-9 says it'd be a lot of fun toys for engineers and a stock price jump for Apple's competitors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Number 2 at a company does not automatically mean heir apparent. In fact it has historically been very rare for a COO or other such executive to get promoted to CEO.

<comment><USER17> At Apple, it's the norm in the sense that Cook replaced Jobs.

There was the interregnum during which Apple was more like other companies, but then Jobs returned, and here's what we have.

<comment><USER16> It has happened once, so not exactly the "norm". Also I imagine the circumstances that would require them to pick a new CEO will be very different from last time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I honestly wouldn't mind this at all, I think there's a lot he could and does add to the company

</comment><comment><USER19> I think Eddy Cue would make an excellent CEO. He seems very charismatic which is what Cook never had.

</comment><comment><USER20> Didn't Steve Jobs apparently groom the ousted Scott Forstall to be his successor?

<comment><USER21> No. Every time he took a leave of absence, Tim Cook was the acting CEO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Bring back Forstall! Just kidding. A little.</comment>


Show HN: Sets in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jterenzio/Set.js

<comment><USER2> I wonder if it would be quicker for getHash() to check for object (including functions) first, then for string, then let the rest come as they are, more or less:

        var objectId = 1000000;

        function getHash2(value) {
            if (typeof value === 'object' || typeof value === 'function') {
                if (value === null)
                    return 'null';
                value._hash = value._hash || ('[object ' + (objectId++) + ']');
                return value._hash;
            }
            return typeof value === 'string' ? "'" + value : value
        }</comment>


Google replants its garage roots in tech workshops - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYC4weL-2Qswq77qRU1-gwc1jwlg <comment><USER2> I've actually worked at Google and been certified to use all of the shops including welding and metalworking. And the industrial grade heavy duty plasma cutter. The shops are really cool and they serve a slightly different purpose than for example TechShop. At TechShop a lot of the tinkering is more social, the Google shops are definitely less crowded. We run a similar much smaller shop at Tinkercad and I hope to expand that one in the future as well. The only gripe I have is that the campus is large enough that the Pi shops are a short distance away so you might not drop down there as often as you would like. That said the EE shop was pretty close to core campus.

As for the certification and elitism. The cert process was very straightforward and relevant. People easily forget that metalworking and some woodworking machines don't let you learn by experimenting. These machines kill in seconds, sometimes for mistakes that are very unintuitive. Like wearing gloves has killed several people. Which is unintuitive when you are handling razor sharp pieces of metal. Or the recent fatal accident at MIT where student was pulled in by her hair.

As for the particulars of Ihab. He is a very smart and diligent guy but he had very little practical machine shop experience. He recognized it himself and took classes to compensate. These standards aren't high just due to Rod, but because most Googlers are smart enough to be critical of their own skills when faced with lethal equipment.

</comment><comment><USER3> >The screening standards are so strict that a college degree in mechanical engineering wasn't enough for Google software engineer Ihab Awad.

>He attended a local high school's wood shop class for a semester before earning Broome's clearance. Awad also won Broome's approval to use the welding equipment.

\---

I'm sorry - but the certificated elitism at Google is just out of hand, having to take a freaking HS woodshop class before using the shop, as opposed to simply having someone show one how to use equipment -- these stories, and the hiring process, they all just become tiresome.

It's as if they take the meritocracy on acid... they get a warped sense of reality that only their academic affiliations serve as the measure of a person.

Google is a great company, I know plenty of great people who work there -- I also know a good number of people that turned down working there or quit after some time.

Not all can live the college social measurement lifestyle forever...

(Yes I am jaded about my personal experience with them - but statements like the above are annoying coming from any company)

<comment><USER4> A few things:

Machine shop safety is really important. People die. You need to know how to use the equipment.

These "strict" screening standards that Google has are, well, standard for any machine shop.

I think it's awesome that they have this stuff available to employees for free at all.

<comment><USER3> Yeah - see my point about having someone on staff train them proper use of the equipment, even if its the guy from the high school.

Having the employee take a semester of woodshop at the HS is not bizarre to you at all?

Of course it is awesome - but you can also get a TechShop membership for 99 a month, and take bad ass classes as well.

Though, I am sure the google classes will get even batter with time...

However - I stand by my point.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I agree that it would be ideal if Google had staff to train employees on the use of the machines. Hopefully they're moving in that direction.

But, I get the sense that right now they just have one busy foreman who is doing all he can by restricting access to those who have demonstrated they know how to use the equipment.

I'm sure the employee could have also taken his classes at the TechShop and then gotten certified at Google.</comment></comment></comment></comment>