Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v317/n3/full/scientificamerican0917-12.html <comment><USER2> Coincidently I've been reading and youtubing about human evolution recently. If anyone's interested here are some bullet point facts that may surprise other laymen.

* In the last few years the Out Of Africa theory (modern humans originated solely in Africa) has received stiff competition from the Multi Regional theory. Namely that waves of human species have left Africa since we diverged from chimpanzees 4 million years ago and that our ancestors are from all the homo-inhabited regions of the world to a greater or lesser extent.

* Neanderthals and Denisovans are 2 known species that certainly inhabited much of the world (apart from the Americas) from around 2/300,000 to 50,000 years ago.

* We certainly bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, some of us contain up to 4% of their DNA.

* Mammals generally take about 5 million years before they evolve far enough to be reproductively isolated. Of course before then there can still be breeding problems, for which there is evidence of in our breeding with the aforementioned.

* DNA from human skeletons several hunreds of thousands of years old can still be analysed.

* Mitochondrial DNA is passed by mothers only and so undergoes very little mutation. So it provides a stable and valuable signature for detecting ancient affinities between species/sub-species.

* By analysing the variation within genes certain characteristics can be interpreted like population size (eg; there were very few Denisovans) and that there are as yet unidentified species that humans have inherited from.

* Neanderthals possessed the FOXP2 gene known to be central in human speech.

* One of the oldest known oral traditions has evidence to verify a story from around 30,000 years ago: that Australian aboriginees brought the palm tree seeds with them from the north. See: [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-03/aboriginal-legend-palm...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-03/aboriginal-legend-palm-tree-origin-central-australia-research/6369832)

Forgive any errors in this amateur homework report.

<comment><USER3> Wow. That last bullet point is particularly remarkable to me - both the implied level of 'technological understanding' and presumed foreplanning for significant journeys 30K years back and for the capacity of oral history to record what come today might not be the most pertinent information.

Also quite amusing in the context of contemporary Australia's philosophy where alien plants and animals are concerned! :)

<comment><USER4> Citing that article:

> "It suggests that Aboriginal oral traditions may have endured for up to > 30,000 years, and lends further weight to the idea that some Aboriginal > myths pertaining to gigantic animals may be authentic records of extinct > megafauna"

Wow ^ 2

<comment><USER5> I'm always _extremely_ skeptical when someone suggests that oral traditions could possibly have survived for long periods of time. That's twelve hundred generations! Given what we know about the speed at which Chinese Whispers tend to drift, the idea that any story can last 1200 generations is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof.

Hundreds of Aboriginal tribes had hundreds of contradictory myths on hundreds of subjects. Most of them are verifiably false (e.g. those rocks over there are not, in fact, the remains of three young women who got turned into stone for disobeying their father). Some of them are probably correct by complete accident.

As for gigantic animals... well, they're a pretty common motif in myths and stories all around the world. Maybe it's some distant memory our cultures all have of the larger animals that used to live around here... or maybe it's just because giant animals are cool. In Aboriginal myths, giant animals are often _really really_ giant, because they're used as explanations for geographic features -- e.g. rivers are caused by the meanderings of a giant snake.

<comment><USER6> Some tribes in north of Australia have verifiable myths about the geography of the lands that have been under the sea off the north of Australia for 6-8 thousand years at least (meaning, the description of the land features matches the sea floor geography).

<comment><USER7> Has anyone quantified their myths properly? If not then they're just cherry picking.

<comment><USER6> Do you have any proof that they are just cherry picking?

<comment><USER7> No, I just assume they are until they provide data to prove otherwise. We don't even know if the same tribes were in the same area that long ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The San people of southern Africa are claimed to be the living human group with the most ancient divergence from the rest of humanity, around 200,000 years ago. That they are so similar to the rest of humanity has always made me wonder if the commonly accepted divergence date ranges should be pushed back.

From the Wiki:

"A DNA study of fully sequenced genomes, published in September 2016, showed that the ancestors of today's San hunter-gatherers began to diverge from other human populations in Africa about 200,000 years ago and were fully isolated by 100,000 years ago, well before the first archaeological evidence of modern behaviour in humans."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_people?wprov=sfla1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_people?wprov=sfla1)

<comment><USER9> Do you know if they are related to the Berbers?

<comment><USER6> Well, we are all related to each other, the only question is how _closely_ related we are. And as for that, any non-Khoisan/non-Pygmy human subgroup is more closely related to any other non-Khoisan/non-Pygmy subgroup than they are to Khoisan or Pygmy people. In other words, Khoisan and Pygmyies are the most distant cousins to all other homo sapiens (diverged from us 175-200 thousand years ago).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was always surprised by the tendency of anthropologists to assign hard evolutionary 'milepoints' based on the very limited set of archeological data. Most egregious example is 'behavioral modernity' theory which claims that homo sapiens developed language, culture and art only relatively recently (30kya) because that's how old the currently oldest archeological finds of culture/art expression are. This doesn't stand up even to the simplest application of Occam's razor.

<comment><USER10> But then the question is why our ancestors didn't invent stuff 100 thousand years earlier.

<comment><USER6> Well, that's not what I'm arguing. What I am arguing is that lack of proof is not proof of lack - the fact that, for example, currently oldest artwork we know of is 30 000 years old does not prove that's when homo sapiens started making art and not any earlier, but instead that it proves that humans have been making art AT LEAST 30kya, AND that they must have started doing it earlier.

P.S. the 'oldest art is 30 thousand years old' bit is in the context of 'behavioral modernity' theory at the time it was posited, based on European cave art; in the meantime, we've found even older art in a cave in Indonesia (40 thousand years old).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've never really grasped where the surprise comes from with these kinds of discoveries - we know that our ancestry always had the potential to give rise to lines that look very much like us, since _we_ look very much like us. Why should it be a surprise if it happened more than once? We're looking at a terribly long timescale, after all - at least by comparison to our recorded history.

<comment><USER12> Evolution is not linear. At each step there are multiple choices. If you split a population, each one will have different problems in it's environment to solve or they may "find" different solutions to the same problems.

After some time the changes in the ADN make the two population incompatible for reproduction, so they become different species. [An easy case is when the number of chromosomes changes in one of the part but it doesn't change in the others. But more subtle changes are more frequent.]

<comment><USER13> > After some time the changes in the ADN make the two population incompatible > for reproduction, so they become different species.

The time scales being discussed here are orders of magnitude too short to even consider speciation, evidenced by what we know about our human/Neanderthal hybrid ancestors, and the fact that a Pygmy or Khoi-San person can have viable offspring with any person of the opposite gender in the human diaspora today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm surprised how much variations there are in the dating of the fossils. At first it's 40'000 years, then 160'000, then between 280'000 and 350'000.

Can someone explain to me why there's so much difference?

<comment><USER15> Carbon dating is a flawed concept.

<comment><USER16> They're obviously not using carbon dating. The ages are too big.

IIRC The half life of carbon 14 is too short to distinguish samples that have been decaying for 50k years from background noise. You have to use other kinds of radiometric dating instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wish they'd go into more detail about how the shape of the brain case affects brain organization. Does anyone have a good layman-oriented source on that?

Edit: it looks like both are affected by differences in brain development. [https://www.mpg.de/623578/pressRelease201011021](https://www.mpg.de/623578/pressRelease201011021)

</comment><comment><USER18> It doesn't seem like there's anything new in this article compared to the original announcement.</comment>


Ask HN: Limiting CPU, memory, and I/O usage on a program for testing - <AUTHOR> It's great that we're now in an era of computing where we have an immense and vast amount of computational power at the edge of our fingertips, but it's also a burden because it leaves us vulnerable to writing software that consumes far more CPU, memory, and I/O than necessary.<p>Does anyone know of software that allows you to test with certain (CPU, RAM, I/O) thresholds in place? And also, what about monitoring tools to see how much CPU, memory, and I/O a program consumes when run? <comment><USER2> Well you can always launch your software inside a limited VM, I'm thinking of cgroups for limiting CPU if a VM is unfeasible.

Limiting network bandwidth (or introducing random packet drops etc.) can be done with pf.

Monitoring CPU/MEM load is best done with htop (if you're interested in long term metrics, look for Nagios).

Short term IO (HDD!) load is best done via iotop. Oh, and iftop is your friend for on-demand monitoring of network.</comment>


Ask HN: What happens if you have a convertible note and are acquired? - <AUTHOR>

If I have a $500k convertible note and then raise VC later it's easy: the note converts to shares at a discount.
But what if I sell before before the note has converted t shares? It wouldn't make sense to treat the acquisition price as "financing", so what typically happens?
What if the company is highly profitable and never raises more money and never gets acquired? <comment><USER2> In both cases, the investor typically has the option to seek repayment or convert. The conversion would be at the valuation you agreed for the note.</comment>


A month without bacon because my genes said so - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/19/dnafit-food-diary/ <comment><USER2> why do i get the impression most people would just end up with the same diet plan?</comment>


Tesla Predicts Accident and Gives Warning Before It Happens - <AUTHOR> http://www.eteknix.com/tesla-predicts-accident-gives-warning-happens-video/ <comment><USER2> Dupe of yesterday's news.</comment>


Apple Reports First Quarter Results: $13.06 Billion Net Profit - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/01/24Apple-Reports-First-Quarter-Results.html <comment><USER3> If you're following the call (fantastic liveblog from Jacqui Cheng at Ars[1]) really great exchange when they try to shoehorn the mac-windows analogy into mobile OS's:

Tim: I wouldn't classify it like Mac and Windows at all. The Mac has outgrown the market for over 20 quarters in a row, but still has a single-digit percentage of the worldwide market

whereas iOS, if you look at phones and tablets and iPod touch, we've sold over 315 million iOS devices

If you look at the NPD data, it shows in the US, and this is just looking at October & November, so part of our launch in October and all of it in November, it shows iPhone at 43% and Android at 47%

the Nielsen data from a few days ago shows iPhone at 45% versus Android at 47%

Comscore data that came out on October/November shows iPhone at 42% and Android at 41%

it seems that all of the data from the US would seem it's a very close race for iPhone, and I think on the iPad side, I think all of us inherently believe the iPad is way ahead

there's really no comparable product to the iPod touch out there

I wouldn't say it's a two-horse race. There's a horse in Redmond that always suits up and always runs and will keep running

So what we focus on is innovating and making the world's best products. We'll just keep doing that and somewhat ignore how many horses there are.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/01/apple-q1fy2012-liv...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/01/apple-q1fy2012-liveblog.ars)

<comment><USER4> Nice hat tip to Microsoft when he says "I wouldn't say it's a two-horse race. There's a horse in Redmond that always suits up and always runs and will keep running".

I wouldn't expect these words coming from an Apple executive. It means that Cook thinks WP is a good product that can be a rival for iOS; or that he's trying to be politically correct without following Jobs' style. Whichever it is, I really like the new path they're following.

Oh, and it also means that BlackBerry is completely out of the race, but we all knew that already, didn't we?

<comment><USER5> I think it means Tim Cook is a smart executive who doesn't write off his competitors.

Even if you look at Apple's history, way back when, IBM wrote off "all that software stuff" that Microsoft was doing. MSFT ended up having the last laugh there as they ate IBM's lunch with software.

(True, IBM did pivot, but I'm thinking in the Apple/Microsoft perspective).

[EDIT: plus, Microsoft trounced Apple once. That means they could do it again.]

<comment><USER6> > [EDIT: plus, Microsoft trounced Apple once. That means they could do it > again.]

Those were different companies. It was Sculley's Apple (with a lot of an immature Jobs thrown in) and Bill's Microsoft helped by a seriously shortsighted IBM. Plus, Microsoft really didn't eat Apple's lunch until Windows 3, which also ate IBM's lunch for dessert.

I don't think Microsoft is capable of betting the company on some disruptive innovation like they were with Windows 3. They are too big and there is too much infighting between the various divisions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is mighty impressive. To put things in perspective:

Apple's profits ($13 billion) exceeded Google's entire revenue ($10.6 billion).

Source: <https://twitter.com/#!/fmanjoo/status/161932440737296386> (via gruber)

<comment><USER8> Anyone know what their cash on hand is? If they aren't going to start paying dividends again, it seems they must be saving up for something major. Any speculation as to what it might be would be just that, but I can't see them leaving that cash laying around.

<comment><USER9> They'll buy Hollywood before launching their "TV experience".

<comment><USER10> Unlikely, that would skirt _way_ too close to trusts and they don't see themselves as being in the business of content creation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The truly astounding statistic to me is that Apple sold 26% more Macs than the same quarter a year ago. This while PC sales for other manufacturers declines or remained stagnant. We expect to see increases in the tablet and smartphone markets since those markets overall are increasing. But to increase 26% in a stagnant sector is remarkable.

<comment><USER12> With the exception of a handful of brands (e.g. ThinkPads), most people I know can't stand their computers and plan to buy a Mac once their machines die or become unusable. I'm surprised that other PC manufacturers manage to sell anything at all. Crapware, poor build quality, bloated and impossible-to- comprehend product lines, it's like HP, Dell and co are actively trying to go out of business.

<comment><USER13> I used a ThinkPad T400 for about a year and a half before getting a Macbook Pro. The ThinkPad is junk compared to the MBP. Sadly, it's still one of the best Windows business laptops you can get.

<comment><USER14> I've had exactly the opposite experience. I've owned 3 thinkpads, 4 macbook pros (between my wife and i), and an ibook. The thinkpads are tanks that take any beating i give them and keep running. The ibook was solid. The macbook pros have been complete crap--breaking dvd drives, failing harddrives, failing keyboards, cracked displays, failing trackpads. On the dvd drives, Apple has refused to admit the problem, and has repeated deleted forums with people discussing it. They've completely lost me as a customer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _'We are very happy to have generated over $17.5 billion in cash flow from operations during the December quarter," said Peter Oppenheimer, Apple's CFO_

Ok, I'm impressed. That is a literally almost 200 tons of cash when printed in 100 dollar bills [1]. I sure hope they go back to paying dividends.

[1] If you can believe this source ... <http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=441929>

<comment><USER16> Dividends are taxed like ordinary income (IIRC), so paying dividends would be sending money out to shareholders, it gets reduced by taxes, and then the shareholders have to figure out what to do with it that would return as much as Apple would. The best return would thus be likely re-investing it in Apple shares. Its then a smaller amount, due to taxes and thus there's no really positive effect of it. I think the mainstream thinking about dividends isn't quite right-- the value of each Apple share goes up a dollar for every dollar they retain, and more than a dollar for every dollar that Apple can re-invest in its business at a profit.

This is why, for instance, Warren Buffett doesn't pay dividends in Berkshire Hathaway.

Apple is a very fast growing technology stock. It's really not the kind of company that should pay dividends because it has lots of opportunities to invest that money profitably.

Its quite possible that Apple is contemplating a $50-$70B acquisition that is very strategic.

<comment><USER17> Without paying dividends, how is a stock any more an investment than baseball cards?

<comment><USER18> If a company has 100 shares on issue how is paying you $0.10 per share in dividends different from a buy back of 10 shares at $1 each.

Either puts $10 dollars into the pockets of shareholders and out of the hands of the company.

Dividends versus a buyback are the same thing except from a tax point of view.

If you choose not to sell that is like an automatic dividend re-investment plan.

<comment><USER19> Not true. Marc Cuban has written an excellent blog post on this: [http://blogmaverick.com/2004/07/20/microsoft-dividends- and-s...](http://blogmaverick.com/2004/07/20/microsoft-dividends-and-stock- buybacks/)

Dividends reward you for _holding_ a stock. Buybacks you when you sell the stock. I'd much prefer dividends, and if we had a better tax policy on them, I think you'd see companies do a lot less crazy #&*$ to expand into markets that they have no business in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For those keeping tracking, that means their growth rates are absolutely mind- blowing.

Revenues, YoY, grew at about 75%. Profits, YoY, grew at about 117%.

Keep in mind this is billions of dollars we are talking about. It's "relatively easy & common" for a "small" company to grow that fast on say revenues up to $400M or even $1B range. But on QUARTERLY numbers of $25B and still be growing that fast...that's...just...mind blowing.

To show how mind-blowing this is, let's do some speculation - what will those numbers look like for the next 4 years (assuming that growth rates remain constant):

Next Year (Y1) - Revenue = $81B, with Profits = $28.34 in Q1.

Year after (Y2) - Revenue = $141.75B, Profits = $61.49B in Q1.

Y3 - Revenue = $248B, Profits = $133B in Q1

Y4 - Revenue = $434B, Profits = $288B in Q1

Before you dismiss these numbers as fantastical, keep in mind a few things.

a) The tablet market is still nascent and is likely to continue exploding.

b) The smartphone market is nowhere near as big as the mobile market - <USER2> the mobile market still has room for growth.

c) We haven't even seen other products that will likely come out of the pipeline that could create new categories (iTV anyone?)

d) iCloud was just launched. It's like AWS - but for everybody. Give it some time, but I can guarantee you it will be a major, major source of revenue and profits for them (just like Amazon) in the next few years (more than likely towards the latter part of the next decade).

The truth is, seeing these numbers makes me very skeptical myself, but I would have never imagined that I would see a company as old as Apple, doing $26B in revenues per quarter and still growing at 75%/year.

<comment><USER21> "It's like AWS - but for everybody."

what? icloud has exactly zero things in common with AWS.

<comment><USER20> >exactly zero things?

So it's not a 'data storage service in a remote data center'?

Sure, AWS is made for servers - but the core business is the same. Charge people (AWS charges developers) to store your data in our cloud. Apple charges consumers.

Different demographic, exact service. Btw, iCloud is like AWS because AWS has many services (S3, EC2, etc.). Just like iCloud has 'store all your images and files', and 'match your music via iTunes'. Two services, via the same underlying core product.

It's identical to AWS - except for the target market.

<comment><USER22>
        > It's identical to AWS - except for the target market.

It is similar to S3. AWS is way more than just dumb storage.

If anything, iCloud is more like Dropbox for "normal" users. It's more limited than Dropbox in what it stores, but it stores the majority case rather well, including system settings.

In any case, iCloud is most definitely not Apple's AWS.

<comment><USER20> Well, sure...Apple hasn't rolled out a unifying 'cloud product/strategy' yet...but the pieces are there. iTunes Store is just an application on top of the cloud infrastructure. Then iCloud is another application - that while it doesn't compete directly with AWS it does so indirectly...because of the implicit threat that it's just a matter of time before Apple moves in that direction (if they want to).

I prolly shouldn't have used the name 'iCloud' to describe what I meant. What I meant was, Apple has a clear business interest in selling access to a 'cloud digital infrastructure'. At first it was iTunes (they sold that access to the record labels, but consumers subsidized that effort), now they are selling it directly to consumers. So they have made two major forays into the 'cloud infrastructure monetization' business....which is the same business Amazon is in with AWS. They also did it with the App Store, then the Mac App Store (they sold access to third-party developers). Sure, not in the identical way as Amazon did, but it's not that far off.

It's not that far fetched to see that they will eventually be competing head- to-head with AWS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The $13.1B profit is the 4th best quarterly result in world history, the 2nd best in US history (Exxon Q308), and the best by far of any company outside of Oil & Gas. Not inflation adjusted of course.

Source: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_losses)

<comment><USER24> How did AOL Time Warner book a loss of nearly a trillion dollars in a single year?

<comment><USER25> Those free shiny AOL coasters didn't print themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Also, Apple makes 409,000$ profit _per employee_. (last quarter)

From the ever useful Wolfram Alpha: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple+profit%2Femployee...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple+profit%2Femployee%2C+microsoft+profit%2Femployee%2C+google+profit%2Femployee)

<comment><USER27> That is _really_ impressive. The management of Apple is definitely to be commended for doing an epic job.

<comment><USER28> No need for accolades, they pay themselves extraordinarily well.

[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-11/apple-ceo-s- stoc...](http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-11/apple-ceo-s-stock- options-lift-2011-compensation-to-378-million.html)

<comment><USER29> That wasn't pay, those were stock options that are worthless currently --if he leaves before 2016, he gets nothing-- but will pay off well if he sticks around. Half of the stocks vest in 2016, the remainder in 2021.

[http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/10/apple-ceo-tim-cook- di...](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/10/apple-ceo-tim-cook-didnt-really- make-378-million-in-2011/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Quite impressive indeed. I was particularly interested in the insane iPad numbers, which surprised me.

I thought I would use this opportunity to ask the HN community: what do you think people use their iPads for? Honest question - I have had one for a long time now and barely use it as it sits in this awkward middle between a "full" PC and a smartphone. With so many millions of iPads sold and Tim Cook saying "There Will Come A Day When The Tablet Market Is Larger Than The PC Market" I am trying to form an informed opinion but just fail to see what the use case is for the iPad (perhaps reading a book? casual web browsing? netflix/youtube?).

So what do you think the future of tablets holds? Link to studies on the topic are much appreciated as well!

<comment><USER31> I use my iPad all the time in my day to day life, several times a day. In the morning I flip through my Flipboard and catch up email and news while I eat breakfast and sip coffee. I take it with me to class and look through PDF's while the instructor is presenting. For example, I go on Wikipedia and I look at related material as I learn about it. (And yes in a particularly boring class I go to reddit, here, or play a game). In office I like to hook my headphones to it and listen to music. When I work on a problem set I always open the PDF on my iPad-- no need to print. When I go to a talk I always take it with me in case it is boring. While I eat dinner I also browse the internet, with the iPad next to my plate. Finally, I also read all my books on it now.

All these things could be done with a laptop I suppose, but the iPad is so simple to take out from the bag and just start using it right away. It occupies very little space and is much lighter. In fact, I actually don't use my laptop anymore... I use my desktop in office or home, or iPad everywhere else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Gross margin for the quarter: 44.7%

Holy shit.

<comment><USER33> yeah, at those rates they could afford to stop using slave labor or at the very least invest a bit to make life easier for Foxconn employees or maybe startup the charity programs again

<comment><USER34> Foxconn is dominant in its industry. Moving to a another location may eat up way too much from the pie.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do the very least. A bit of CSR might be even good for business.

<comment><USER28> No need to move away from Foxconn, Apple could easily dictate exactly what Foxconn needs to do.

<comment> mkr-hn Foxconn makes stuff for a lot more companies than just Apple: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Major_customers>

They could ask, and even encourage, but not dictate. And Foxconn is not likely to do something that puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

<comment><USER28> They can certainly dictate. Apple has the money and volume to get anything they would like. If Apple told Foxconn that everyone making Apple products will be paid triple what they are making now and work no more than 8 hours a day, it could happen tomorrow.

<comment> mkr-hn What happens when Foxconn does that and every other company switches to Foxconn's competitors?

<comment><USER35> Just about every other company is already having trouble competing with Apple on price and quality. So, my guess as to what happens is that Foxconn attracts and retains the best (most productive + highest quality work) employees, leaving them, and their customers, at a disadvantage to compete with Apple + Foxconn, unless they too improve their wages and labor standards.

<comment><USER28> Apple's cost structure has much more to do with its ability to purchase in advance than the quality of the workers. The workers are exchangeable, but Apple buying up 100% of a components supply for a period of time is not exchangeable. Same for putting down billions for a new factory. They have more cash than the bank and play banker for a lot of people in the supply chain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here's the roundup of estimates, even the rosiest forecast is below the actual quarter:

[http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/scr...](http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/screen- shot-2012-01-23-at-9-34-39-am.png)

Just revealed on the call: they sold 1.4 million Apple TVs this quarter (vs 2.8 million in the 4 previous quarters).

</comment><comment><USER36> The success of apple , in my opinion, is largely built on the work of app developers. Without the effort put into the software, they would not be able to have so much profits.

We, the developers, are in fact the cheap workers in the Apple Empire, not those factory workers from China. Funny thing is they even charge money from us.

<comment><USER37> Consider what convinced us to develop for their platform. That was their work. Developers don't come to the App Store by accident.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> After hours snapshot: AAPL is up 32 points (7.78%), at $453/share, now has more capitalization than XOM (ie, largest cap stock in the world).

</comment><comment><USER39> In december I bought a Macbook Air, iPhone and passed down my iPad to my nephew. I don't begrudge any of their profit, well done to them I say.

</comment><comment><USER40> I wonder what's Apple's strategy when everybody who wants/needs an iPhone gets one (and I'm sure they have one in place). This is a very deep well right now and the record profits will likely continue to be posted for years to come, but the demand is bound to subside eventually right?

Once everybody has a decent iPhone/smartphone is there really a need for anyone to upgrade more often then let's say every 2-4 years?

Can Apple/Samsung sustain their growth when the only really new prospects are the next generation of teenagers entering the market?

<comment><USER41> Most iPhone owners I know buy new versions every single time, just because they can. (And every time they show me how cool the apps are on their new phone, though I haven't been impressed in a while).

<comment><USER42> > just because they can.

That's largely driven by a very high resale value for last year's model, though; that also won't survive market saturation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> And this is a company allergic to paying dividends. If I were a shareholder, I would be asking some questions.

<comment><USER44> I'm a shareholder, and I'm pretty thrilled. I've got a few shares from the $40s, and a bunch from the $70s. I'll take success over dividends any day.

<comment><USER43> Why? The only way you'll get that return is if you sell your stock today. That destroys any chance for you to earn future value from the performance of the company.

Dividends are the better way companies return value to their shareholders, not encouraging them to engage in "flipping" which is not sustainable for long- term value.

<http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/15/technology/thebuzz/index.htm>

<comment><USER45> Not necessarily. Paying dividends forces everyone to "sell" whether they want to or not, and the only way to stay on the ride is to accept the taxes you have to pay and then buy back in. When the company reinvests (and/or buys back stock), your money grows tax-free.

A split would be nice, though.

<comment><USER44> > A split would be nice, though.

Why? One $100 share versus one hundred $1 shares is functionally the same thing.

<comment><USER45> You can sell just part of your holdings when you have 100 * $1.

<comment><USER44> Even at $450/share it seems a little silly to sell them one at a time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Congratulations to Apple on a blow out quarter. _BUT_ , I've got to ask the hard question. What the hell is Apple planning to do with their $97.6 BILLION in cash?

Apple's recent acquisitions pale in comparison to other's in the tech space so this cash pile is even more acute.

<comment><USER47> It's not so much to buy companies, it's to buy up key suppliers' capacity to ensure component availability.

Like when Apple bought up all the 1998 Christmas season air freight cargo space from Asia to the US, to carry the new iMacs, rather than shipping them by boat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> It's worth noting that iOS is pretty conclusively outselling Android at this point. 60+ million devices in Q112 vs. at most 50 million Android devices. Android _may_ be selling more phones, but at the operating system level, there's no contest.

</comment><comment><USER49> The $46.33 billion in revenue is insane. The Airspace broke it down in comparisons—over $5,000 per second! <http://theairspace.net/events/apples-q1/>

</comment><comment><USER50> I guess someone saw that coming: [http://thestreethub.com/rushi-shah-on-apple- inc-aapl-until-o...](http://thestreethub.com/rushi-shah-on-apple-inc-aapl- until-oct-05-2012)

</comment><comment> mkr-hn It's great that Apple is reviving a stagnant market, but this isn't going to last forever. It's an artifact of soaring market share and turning smartphones and tablets into more than an executive toy.

It could go on for a long time, but all it takes is someone figuring out how to compete, and that's going to become more likely as their profile grows. Apple has earned its wealth, but it's too easy for them to forget what made it possible and slide into mediocrity.

<comment><USER51> Out of all the big players in tech, I think Apple understands very well about sliding into mediocrity. Apple has been around for a few decades now and they already experienced a huge decline before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Impressive but I can't help to think about the people who create all the Apple products.

</comment><comment><USER53> who is in charge of that bank account... I wonder do they get interest? :)

<comment><USER53> Yeah . I was down voted because I asked a semi serious question. Awesome.

<comment><USER54> At that scale they don't use bank accounts. Probably a lot of it is invested in short term T bills, while liquid cash is kept in a money market. And yes, apple will be making interest on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I wonder how long it's going to be until the monster in DC wants a bigger slice of Apple.

Big oil gets targeted constantly for windfall tax proposals. As Apple marches toward $50+ billion in profit, it seems impossible the government will just leave the world's richest and most powerful corporation alone.

<comment><USER56> You're missing why oil companies are good targets for that sort of thing - people have little choice but to buy their products, prices to consumers are rising so the companies are unpopular and they are directly or indirectly responsible for shed loads of environmental damage.

That's not the case with Apple, Google, MS or other tech companies.

<comment><USER55> To the beast in DC, it has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments you posit. You're talking about logic; it doesn't apply to their decision making.

It's about the money. That's why big oil has always been a target, it has been the most profitable enterprise in America since Rockefeller formed Standard Oil.

News flash: they also didn't target big tobacco because cigarettes are bad for you (that was merely the excuse they needed), or to pay for healthcare bills. They targeted them to steal / fleece a golden goose, and then divert the stolen money to other projects. Which is exactly what they did.

<comment><USER56> The public don't like taxes of any sort on anything, however targeting specific taxes is far easier to sell if they're levelled at companies seen to be bad hence tobacco and alcohol taxes, banking taxes, oil and so on.

Walmart are massively profitable and are by many measures the biggest company in the world yet remain untargeted. If what you say is true why is this?

As you say, it's the excuse they need but if they don't have an excuse then the won't/can't do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> If only they put their record-breaking profits into building factories and inspiring local workers, rather than relying on near-slave labor in a faraway land.

<comment><USER58> Not to forget that they don't just sell their products in the US. And not to forget that their sales in APAC region is bound to grow significantly in the future. Not justifying the bad work conditions you're pointing to, but it seems fair to generate employment in places where they're getting their profits from.

<comment><USER57> My point is that, last I heard, Apple is sitting on $70 billion. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs was telling Obama that the US could never produce the iPhone. Why? Because he seemed to think that near-slave conditions (e.g. rousting 8,000 workers from corporate housing for immediate 12-hour shifts) were necessary simply to create the products he sold.

Also, keep in mind that nobody working at Foxconn can afford to purchase the iPads they build. It appears that this will remain the case, no matter how long they work there.

<comment><USER44> > Also, keep in mind that nobody working at Foxconn can afford to purchase the > iPads they build. It appears that this will remain the case, no matter how > long they work there.

The same is true for the average American worker at a BMW factory.

<comment><USER57> I don't think you should try to draw conclusions by comparing commodity personal electronics to luxury automobiles.

<comment><USER59> Then what is that example trying to prove? There is no way I could afford to pay for the software my company produces.. Should everyone work in a place where they can afford what they build?

<comment><USER57> Why do you think that US auto workers, making a living wage producing luxury automobiles, have anything to do with near-slave labor?

If Apple has stowed away $70 billion, don't you think they could afford to pay higher wages, benefits for those mangled by RSI (back to back 12 shifts, not counting unpaid overtime) or machinery, and generally not treat people like dirt? I think they can afford to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Ho-lee-crap.

</comment><comment><USER61> Not a fan of apple products, but those are awesome results. Nice work apple.

<comment><USER62> won by unethical manufacturing labor and lockin-in customers. not impressed.

<comment><USER63> And who do you think is building your Android handset, exactly?

<comment><USER62> At least i can charge it with regular usb connectors. use regular microSD cards. remove the sim card with bare hands. etc. etc.

...now i only have one problem to deal with.

<comment><USER64> So, like this?

[http://www.usbfever.com/index_eproduct_view.php?products_id=...](http://www.usbfever.com/index_eproduct_view.php?products_id=2390)

And since when is removing your sim card with "bare hands" a feature? Not to mention all it takes is a pin for the iPhone.

<comment><USER62> I take it you never traveled in your life?

<comment><USER44> I'd imagine even in the worst areas of the developing world you'd be able to find a narrow pin to eject a SIM card.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> How I read it : Apple shows that their hardware is overpriced.

</comment><comment><USER66> Any chance it might have something to do with Steve Job's death? Edit: Why is this being down voted? There are typically record sales following the death of cultural icons (Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, John Lennon, etc.). Steve Jobs is arguably one of those icons.

<comment><USER38> Doubtful. More likely pent-up demand for the next-gen iPhone.

Apple had in previous years been like clockwork - every summer, new iPhone. Then 2011, and no successor in July... so many people waited (I did). Also this is the first iPhone launch without AT&T exclusivity (both VZ and Sprint are alternatives to the big bad T)

<comment> X-Istence Just wanted to chime in with an "me too".

I had an iPhone 3G for three years before I ended up switching to AT&T from T-Mobile and bought an iPhone 4S and too date it is still my most favourite purchase.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Is it just me who is slightly uneasy at the idea that one company can generate billions in profit at the expense of millions of people who had to pay much more than the product was actually worth to produce. Is that a fair bargain, or is it exploitation of a monopoly of invention?

<comment><USER68> All business charge highest possible price for service and product that buyers in the market accept. The cost of making something is practically irrelevant. We all know raw material in a good restaurant costs only a fraction of price on menu. But people will all swarm there if it is a high rated by critics. Will you feel uneasy?

<comment><USER67> No. One restaurant is unlikely to be able to make billions in profit. It is unlikely to be able to make billions in profit from charging millions of people _much_ more than a product is actually worth to produce. That is, of course, because the dinners in that restaurant are not mass produced for the millions, but finely produced for the very few.

Of course most businesses try to charge the highest possible price, but that does not mean that to do so is necessarily right as far as society as a whole is concerned. What, for example, has Bill Gates done to be worth more than whole countries but win some genetic lottery. How many millions are poor and perhaps starving and how many geniuses or great inventions have we missed on because of the insane concentration of wealth that our society permits on the hand of very few people or companies?

Just because communism has failed I do not think means we should all try and rip off each other through an exploitative monopoly of invention. Not Apple, nor any other business can make 30% profit which amounts to billions by morally clean means. That, I think, is what makes me uneasy.

<comment><USER69> I will concede that there are many reasonable social frameworks designed to maximize societal wealth in the long run. You are simply describing your own version.

After all, capitalism is one solution to this very complex problem of resource allocation. It's not without flaws, of course: e.g. externalities. That's where regulation steps in. It's possible to get companies to pay for the negative externalities they are creating or even stop altogether (see: pollution). A theme in my post will be: let's not throw the baby (capitalism) out with the bath water (negative externalities).

Here are some points I came across reading your post.

1) You say that products should be priced close to their cost, that they should not charge "the highest possible price". Why? If Apple forcefully lowered their prices you could actually argue that Apple is trying to squeeze competitors out. Apple is hugely efficient. If they charge slightly above cost, do you think any other company would be able to sell anything remotely similar for a reasonable price?

I know you're going to say that Apple uses underhanded means to be so efficient. I agree with that. By abusing human rights, Apple is getting a cheaper deal unfairly.

But your claim that "products should be priced near cost" is flat out wrong. If the observation "Apple unfairly gets highly efficient" led to a policy "let's force all companies to sell at slightly above cost" to "benefit consumers", that would actually exacerbate the issue, with everyone rushing to abuse human rights in order to compete with Apple's efficiency. Profits are not evil. If you're going to target Apple's ethics, by all means do so, but do not use false economic arguments to support that claim.

2) You want geniuses and great inventions to come about, but then once they do (e.g. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates) you don't want them to make too much money. How much is too much? For you, billions. For others, millions. Maybe even just thousands. Where do you draw the line between "too much" and "enough"? Do you think it would be a good precedent to force all companies making over a million dollars a year to donate half of it to some charity? I think this is yet another slightly irrelevant argument you make to support your main point, which is that Apple shouldn't be able to get away abusing human rights. To verify this, imagine: suppose Apple makes billions but also supports human rights everywhere by only working with legitimate companies. Do you now have respect for Apple? Or do you think they should still do more things for society? If the latter is the case, you're basically saying that all wealth should be redistributed by law, to some arbitrary degree (maybe the voters decide?). Hmm... not exactly communism, but not capitalism either. I have no additional points here, I haven't had time to imagine such a world in detail. I won't dismiss it outright, though.

3) Patent monopolies. I do agree that patents are tricky. On one hand, you want society to benefit as soon and as much as possible from new stuff. On the other hand, you want to encourage inventors to spend lots of money on research with the promise that they will be rewarded handsomely with patent monopolies. If you remove patents, you risk a world where no one will ever sink mounds of money and time into research (I would even contend that this world wouldn't be quite so bad, seeing projects like Wikipedia, as long as theft is not tolerated). If you support patents too strongly, you risk a world where society is squeezed dry even after the original inventor passes away (I believe the incumbents want this way, and it's bad). There is a middle ground here...

Indeed, your last statement really is the heart of your argument, which is what you should really focus on instead of spurious economic arguments: neglecting human rights is a negative externality. We as a society should pay to uphold human rights and punish those who do not.

EDIT: Some grammar issues.

<comment><USER67> I think you are mistaken in suggesting that my main argument is that of human rights. That is because everyone agrees that human rights should be upheld, thus there is no argument to make.

You make some very good points though. If Apple is to charge just above the cost, thus making "enough" profit, whatever that may be, then you say Apple would beat all competition. You say that is so because they are very efficient. Perhaps, but I think it is more likely that they would beat everyone because of their inventions. Iphone, Ipad. Efficiency therefore has little to do with it. Just as Bill Gates became a billionaire despite of any efficiency. They invented something. Then they have gone on to exploit such invention by ripping people off through charging them 30% more than the product is actually worth. Not 10, not 20, but 30. That is greedy and the consequences are concentration of wealth in the hands of the few for their benefit alone.

As for the solution, government already decides how to distribute wealth through taxes. I think it should go further. Perhaps there should be a law that no man can be paid in total above, say, 1 million per year. Nor can any company make more than 10 billion in profit. Both, of course, increasing by the base inflation point. With an individual is easier, you just make it illegal. With a company is more difficult. Maybe the profit above the 10 billion can be a rebate to those that purchased their product or service.

The very existence of the law would probably incentive companies to treat their employees and their customers better rather than focusing on a Darwinian jungle of eating everyone at any expense and ripping off everyone as much as you can get away with.

<comment><USER69> You are being downvoted not only because a large portion of HN believes that adding huge amounts of value to society should pay off handsomely, but also because a lot of your points are easily falsified.

Changing the example from Apple to Microsoft does not make my point any less true. In any market, the most efficient player, if he chooses to cut prices drastically, will make it tougher for other players, even if he's not actually that efficient. Through competition, this process weeds out the less efficient companies and ends up lowering prices. Microsoft was one of the only producers of a decent operating system. You can argue that Microsoft was a bloated bureaucracy, but they were surely the most efficient player of their time. They would have dearly hurt competition if they lowered prices.

In fact, many today argue that students who pirated Microsoft software cemented Microsoft's monopoly. Generations of youngsters too poor to afford Windows somehow got their hands on it and trained themselves so that when they got old, they were already equipped to use Word, Excel, etc.

If the observation "Microsoft makes too much money" led to the policy "make them cut their prices" I would bet that the exact opposite of what you intended would occur. They would have cut their prices by half for about a year, driven out their competition, gotten every cat, dog, and donkey on their OS, and cemented their monopoly status.

This phenomenon is not rocket science or new... it's called predatory pricing: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing>.

As for distribution of wealth... I was able to think a little bit more about it, and I have been able to pinpoint some cons with your idea. Basically, your idea is closer to communism than capitalism, so my rebuttal is basically a rebuttal against communism. I do not attach any a priori negativity against communism. I like to argue ideas on their merits, so hear me out.

As I mentioned before, you might think a cap of 1 million per year per person is reasonable, but someone else might think the cap should be 100,000. "There's too many starving kids in the world", he might say. In fact, if members of the government aren't so well paid, they will probably take an existing precedent of 1 million and abuse it to grab more and more cuts from successful businesses. "If you give an inch, they'll take a mile." But let's say your government is corruption-free for the sake of argument. Is it still a good idea?

Allow me to tell a story. WIDCO is a company that makes widgets. These widgets are very complicated and so require manual labor. Meet employees Bob and Jake. They're both exceptional widget makers, but Jake is above and beyond the better one. He might possibly be the best in the world. A normal employee averages 50 widgets a day; Bob averages 100; Jake averages 300. It's clear that Jake is providing quite a lot more value to WIDCO than any other employee. But because of regulation, WIDCO can pay at most $100,000 to Jake. Jake understands. He is a humble man and understands that $100,000 is enough for him and his family. But day after day, he gets demoralized because he realizes that his hard work and skill is being used to subsidize the pensions of employees who just can't do the work as well. Eventually, Jake realizes that he'd rather leave early to his family than work his ass off for no additional benefit. He figures that making about 150 widgets or so a day is enough to keep his salary constant. So he works just 4 hours a day and goes home soon after. Bob never feels this as he's getting paid $85,000, which he can still increase by getting better at producing widgets. He still believes in hard work and produces more and more. Until he reaches the cap, of course.

You might think, oh well Jake goes home! Better welfare! But whereas today, Jake actually has a choice between working more + get paid more vs. stop working + go home, in this world the government's basically removing that choice. Now, if that choice is absent in today's world, yes that is a problem that points to human rights abuses like I mentioned in my first post.

Do you want to discourage employees like Jake? You can imagine employees like Jake in the real world, who really aren't greedy, but who also aren't gonna just work for free when they have alternatives like going home.

You can see that the artificial salary cap has DECREASED the production rate of WIDCO.

Above all, I think you have a deep-seated belief that consumers need protection from themselves. It's not a black-and-white issue, of course, but you're strongly putting words in their mouths by claiming that they're being "ripped off". When millions of people can't wait long enough to hand money to Apple, are they really being ripped off? On what basis do you get to decide how they should spend their money? What if they're actually getting a DISCOUNT for the happiness they derive from the IPad? Before, they had to spend a weekend in Tahoe to get X units of happiness. Now, they just need to spend $600 on an IPad for the same X. In that case, they're not being ripped off at all right?

My advice to your future theorycrafting: think through the consequences of policies, not just the immediate and close ones, but also the long term and global ones.

<comment><USER67> I do not mind the downvoting. I expected it, but still chose to reply because I do not think that my points are not worth making, I do not think I am trolling, but instead it seems that I have been able to generate a nice intellectual debate about a matter which is extremely relevant today in a forum where intellectual debate is encouraged.

I should also add that perhaps I do not hold any _belief_ in what I said or any sort of conviction. I am theorising about how a system can be improved and am very much open to be shown that my suggestions are not optimal.

You say that my points are easily refuted, yet it seem that you are not addressing them fully.

Predatory pricing, according to the linked wikipedia article, occurs when the price is set below the cost of production. I have nothing against profits, but exuberant profit which I think is the product of exploitation.

Apple invented the Iphone and the Ipad and before that the Ipod. All are great products. All wanted these products. The products have benefited society greatly. That all is good.

It also explains the great profit made, in my opinion. The competition, which to start with there was none, came later to the game and as such had a less favourable environment because they faced a competitor, unlike Apple to begin with. I think therefore that the profit generated has little to do with efficiency - although that probably is a factor - and much more to do with the fact that they invented a unique product which everyone wanted. Thus, had a monopoly in practice.

Invention is of course to be encouraged, but not the exploitation of such invention. I do not think it can be doubted that they made a 30% profit on their revenue because they priced their products 30% higher than their actual cost. That means that millions of people had to give away more of their wealth to one person or one company making such person or company richer, while everyone else poorer.

No one forced them, but that is beside the point. No one forces anyone to buy electricity. What person can today for example have a decent job and not a computer. It can even be said what person can have a decent job and not an Iphone or a smartphone.

If you agree with that point, that one should be able to make a profit but not excessive profit, then the question becomes technical, namely, what is excessive.

I said 1 million in total remuneration for an individual. You say why not 100,000? The example you gave is a very good answer to that question. 100,000 would not allow for differentiation between individual productivity. That cap can easily be reached, as you showed from that example. There are many people today earning 100,000 and probably they deserve it. They are many people earning 400,000 or 500,000. You can count on one hand however the people that are earning a million or more in total remuneration. In my opinion, such people are awarded such amounts not because of any genuine extra productivity, but because there is no mechanism which can keep a check and balance on their pay.

1 million therefore allows for the differentiation of individual production and is a sufficient amount to incentivise producers.

So what argument can there be against setting a maximum remuneration at a cap of 1 million? The only one I can think of is that of founders. Bill Gates for example has certainly contributed more to the world than many others who may be capped at one million.

It is not difficult, conceptually and even practically to make an exception for founders and set their cap to 1 billion. One billion, in my opinion, is a sufficient incentive for anyone. Why, afterall, should their children, who merely won a lottery, have a higher claim on their fathers wealth than 1 billion?

You may say that it seems that I am simply picking up these numbers from thin air. Perhaps you are right. I think however that the vast majority of people - and we live in a democracy where the majority rules - would agree that if a cap is to be set it should be at such levels, or perhaps, slightly higher, i.e. maybe 2 million and 2 billion. That, however is a point about technical matters which is worthy of discussion if one agrees with the main principle. Which is that society should have a say on the maximum profit and remuneration of an individual and company so that society as a whole can benefit at an optimal level.

As to whether it is more communism or capitalism in my opinion is irrelevant. It is neither. It is a mixture of the two. You can have profit - capitalism - but not too much profit - communism.

I do not think simply because something may be linked to some ideology it should be discounted for that reason alone, as you accepted. Neither communism nor capitalism are perfect, they both are extremes, thus perhaps a middle ground would be best.

<comment><USER47> "That means that millions of people had to give away more of their wealth to one person or one company making such person or company richer, while everyone else poorer."

No, the people who bought Apple's products were not poorer. They converted part of their wealth (or resources if you prefer) from currency to an Apple device, having decided that the exchange was a fair one.

Electronics don't hold their value very well, so over time the person will gradually become "poorer" in the sense that they could not sell their Apple device and get their money back. But in the meantime the person was richer in that he or she had the use of the device.

<comment><USER68> Also this falls into the "pie fallacy" of view of wealth. Total wealth in the world is not a static function that doesn't change overtime. If people decide to exchange some of their wealth and "time" to make them feel happy and satisfied and just their state of happiness make them produce more stuffs/services/quality of life because they are much happier than they were before exchange. Is that a negative thing?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Blueprint – A React UI toolkit for the web - <AUTHOR> http://blueprintjs.com/ <comment><USER2> I see a few comments bringing up mobile. There's already many mobile-friendly UI frameworks; not everything has to be mobile-first. Yes, in many cases it makes sense to go for a mobile-first approach, especially with consumer-facing applications. Mobile is huge and apparently it's still continuing to grow.

At the same time, there's many legitimate cases in which you want to optimize for desktop. For example: consider an IDE, where you have lots of panels and toolbars. In some cases it's unclear how you'd be able to support both desktop and mobile without significantly degrading the experience. Even Google struggles with this. How usable is Data Studio [0] on mobile? It's pretty terrible and unusable. But that's perfectly fine, because the desktop experience is great! I can't speak for others, but I can't imagine myself wanting to use a mobile device to get any work done.

Kudos to Palantir for open sourcing their UI toolkit.

[0] [https://datastudio.google.com](https://datastudio.google.com)

<comment><USER3> For internal projects/webpages (similar to Google Data Studio as mentioned), where you would expect the user to _only_ be using it on a desktop, having no mobile support is fine.

But for external projects/webpages in 2016, where atleast 1/3 of usage can come from mobile devices, having a lack of mobile support is a complete, 100% nonstarter. And there are plenty of competing React UI frameworks with mobile support already.

<comment><USER4> > And there are plenty of competing React UI frameworks with mobile support > already.

Citation needed.

In all honesty though, good quality UI frameworks with good mobile support are on the top of my "#want" list.

<comment><USER5> There are a bunch of bootstrap components ported to React in the Reactstrap project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This looks really nice.

However, what I really want for React is a style-agnostic component library that basically extends the regular set of HTML elements, but comes with no "visual" styling (other than really basic styling like the browser's default styling for <input>, <select> and the like). Only styling that is necessary for the component to function should be included.

Of course, optional themes would be fine. Also, non-visual styling should be completely inlined. Themes could inject "visual" styling via context. User- defined styling would be passed via class or style props.

<comment><USER7> Styling is still "unsolved" with react IMO.

Inline styles feel wrong, CSS alone isn't encapsulated enough to work with components correctly, CSS modules are TOO encapsulated which makes global styles and themes a royal pain, and adding another layer ala SASS or LESS feels like more of a "patch" vs a real solution.

And none of them really solve style inheritance in any way that I'd call elegant.

I end up using SASS and overriding default styles with weird hacks like using `.button.button.button` or (even worse) using `!important`, but it still feels wrong and doesn't scale very well at all.

<comment><USER8> I know everyone has their own favorite method, but one that I'm extremely satisfied with is using webpack > sass-loader > extract-text[1] to `include Styles from './MyComponent.scss'` in each component file, and then it all gets bundled up into a single css file per target (also great for eliminating dead CSS!). I use "layouts" at the root of my react hierarchy (under stores and routers and whatnot) and put my global styles there.

I haven't run into a situation using this setup where I felt like I needed a dirty hack to make something work. It does add a layer of complexity to the build, but if you can get it working once you can just copy paste it into every new webpack config, and It feels very natural and tends to organize itself.

I am really not a fan of this new "css in your js" approach that the cool kids are using, but I guess I'm just getting old.

[1] output of the following config will be:

      dist/
      |_app/
        |_bundle.js
        |_bundle.css
      |_admin/
        |_bundle.js
        |_bundle.css

```

      const webpack = require("webpack");
      const ExtractTextPlugin = require("extract-text-webpack-plugin");
      const ExtractCSS = new ExtractTextPlugin("[name].css");

      module.exports = {
        entry: {
          "./dist/app/bundle": "./app.js",
          "./dist/admin/bundle": "./admin.js",
        },
        output: {
          path: __dirname,
          filename: "[name].js"
        },
        module: {
          loaders: {
            test: /\.scss$/,
            loader: ExtractCSS.extract(["css", "sass?sourceMap"])
          }, {
            test: /\.js$/,
            loader: 'babel',
            exclude: /node_modules/,
            include: __dirname
          },
        },
        sassLoader: {
          includePaths: "source/styles",
          sourceMap: true
        },
        plugins: [ ExtractCSS ]
      }

```

<comment><USER7> That is what we do as well, but if you use a UI toolkit that includes it's own styles, you'll need to override them. That's where the fun hacks like .button.button.button come in to override the included styles.

<comment><USER8> Oh yeah, I see what you're saying. I just don't bother with toolkits since I find that once you factor in said fun, you aren't really saving much time, and you might end up with a lot of jank. I just roll my own based on the needs of the project and keep my cascade very flat and specific. Sass makes this really easy using BEM style naming, where you can do this:

      .my-component {
        &_component-item {
          &--open {
          }
        }
      }

and you get a nice, flat output:

      .my-component {}
      .my-component_component-item {}
      .my-component_component-item--open {}

I wish framework authors would adopt this approach as it completely eliminates specificity conflicts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thanks very much @Plantir for open sourcing React UI toolkit. This already seems to be production ready. Big thanks for the detailed documentation. The amount of time you have spent in creating examples and providing excellent starting point is really great.

I really enjoyed and excited to see your take on Color Theme. Like bootstrap, I don't think sites created using Blueprint will look same. With minimal changes in variables,layout and using your wide ranging color theme wonderful results can be achieved in no time.

Big Thumbs up!!

I have created a small overview videos about various UI component available. (No installation or tutorials, only shown their various artifacts).

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky7ec5Sh2kM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky7ec5Sh2kM)

</comment><comment><USER10> Hi all, I work at Palantir and worked on Blueprint (although I'm currently working on a different project). Happy to answer any questions you have about it.

Just a note - we didn't intend to heavily publicize the project quite yet. For example, the docs site is still a WIP, so apologies if it causes issues for you on mobile devices.

<comment><USER11> Just a nitpick, but when looking at the docs, I can't move with Page Up/Page Down unless I click in the "content column/area", kind of annoying when one navigates using the left bar and then can't move around (on no-mouse setups, e.g. trackpoint + keyboard). So you might want to look at that.

Otherwise no issues (older laptop i5/chrome), so I guess you guys mostly fixed that by now.

<comment><USER10> Good catch, we'll take a look at this. I've filed an issue to track it [0].

[0]: [https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/issues/122](https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/issues/122)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ah, memories. [http://blueprintcss.org/](http://blueprintcss.org/)

<comment><USER13> That was the first CSS grid framework I remember coming across. Last updated in 2011, it's not responsive at all it seems. Completely staggering how far things have come in 5 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Your homepage pushed my CPU to 75% and resulted in an early click on the red cross of the tab. (latest chrome stable/osx 10.11) You should do better.

<comment><USER15> Same thing happened to me (latest chrome/ubuntu 14.04)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is very slick. It's similar to my own project [http://cx.codaxy.com/docs/widgets/date- fields](http://cx.codaxy.com/docs/widgets/date-fields), however, it seems that they went one step further.

<comment><USER17> Impressive work.

[0] [http://cx.codaxy.com](http://cx.codaxy.com)

<comment><USER16> Thanks. Here are a few more links for things implemented with Cx:

[http://cx.codaxy.com/fiddle/?f=vwyHzOO1](http://cx.codaxy.com/fiddle/?f=vwyHzOO1)

[http://cx.codaxy.com/starter/dashboards/sales](http://cx.codaxy.com/starter/dashboards/sales)

[https://codaxy.github.io/state-of- js-2016-explorer/](https://codaxy.github.io/state-of-js-2016-explorer/)

[https://mstijak.github.io/tdo/](https://mstijak.github.io/tdo/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is impressive, I can cover lot's of UI scenarios with it. I also like the first class CSS/HTML API that they have, so I could use them without React. And they seem to have Accessibility covered (need to dive in a bit more), but this is super important. And at last, I dig the visual style, which has good affordances. A nice contrast to Material Design.

</comment><comment><USER19>
      Blueprint is an open source project developed at Palantir.

<comment><USER20> Haha, I'm sure some intern at Palantir is now also writing a Java SWT to Blueprint translator. The poor soul.

<comment><USER21> Notice that this toolkit is written in TypeScript.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wish web based UI-toolkit creators would focus on WebComponents. They can easily be used as leaf-elements in almost any framework.

<comment><USER23> +1 for web components and Polymer [https://beta.webcomponents.org/](https://beta.webcomponents.org/)

<comment><USER24> A lot of people go on about Polymer, but no one actually uses it?

<comment><USER25> Hm, some of the biggest enterprises in the world and industry leaders use it.

I'm not sure why this is repeated on HN all over and over.

[https://youtu.be/VBbejeKHrjg?t=9m32s](https://youtu.be/VBbejeKHrjg?t=9m32s)

<comment><USER23> BTW, Chrome browser's: PDF reader, download listing, new settings are Polymer afaik.

Google uses [https://gaming.youtube.com/](https://gaming.youtube.com/)

IBM uses [https://console.ng.bluemix.net/catalog/](https://console.ng.bluemix.net/catalog/)

<comment><USER25> Theres tons more. Btw. "main" youtube is also switching to polymer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If someone wants to be an exemplary citizen, rendering all of the components on to a single page for us on mobile would be amazing.

<comment><USER27> Yes, I was looking for a "kitchen skin" page and was disappointed not to find one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This looks great. Nice to see a complete UI toolkit with context menus, sortable tables, hotkeys and editable text along with all the normal tooltips, navs, and UI widgets. Bonus points for both sass and less support. Looking forward to trying this out.

</comment><comment><USER29> Is this page written in Blueprint? It makes my Firefox consume 100% CPU.

<comment><USER30> I am using latest FF too. Very lag

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Despite the sluggishness, there's a lot of really likeable stuff in here and it is beautiful (or, a lot more beautiful than I, or most developers, could ever come up with without a team and some pro designers on staff).

I particularly enjoyed the piano example: [http://blueprintjs.com/docs/#components.hotkeys](http://blueprintjs.com/docs/#components.hotkeys)

</comment><comment><USER32> Documentation is unusable on mobile... I hope that was due to someone making some CSS mistakes with their page code and not the framework's code.

<comment><USER33> The framework, while polished, lacks any responsive grid components. A bit of a glaring omission imho, in this age of Bootstrap and Semantic-UI giving you a responsive grid out of the box.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Maybe just me but I'm having a hard time seeing how this is substantially different from or better than bootstrap or foundation with some react-based wrappers like reactstrap. Seems like performance is an issue and you're just as tightly coupled to the framework as with bootstrap/foundation. Am I missing something?

</comment><comment><USER35> I tried to look at the site on my S7, but it ground it to a halt. Tried on my i7 laptop, same result :/

</comment><comment><USER36> Unfortunately, mobile support is not on the roadmap: [https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/issues/105#issuecommen...](https://github.com/palantir/blueprint/issues/105#issuecomment-260151357)

<comment><USER37> > Just as a caution though, the library, in general, is intended for desktop > web applications. We haven't made mobile-compatibility a priority > [https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jasonkillian](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jasonkillian)

Presumably since React Native a solid mobile alternative, but shouldn't 2016-vintage web UI frameworks be responsive?

I guess if you're a big company like Palantir, you have the resources to do native mobile, so I see why they aren't making it a priority.

<comment><USER36> Yes, I would really like to use this but don't have the time or resources to build and maintain a separate mobile UI. With bootstrap/react-bootstrap, things usually turn out OK/good on mobile without me having to really think about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I am the developer of HiveMind (crudzilla.com), I am currently stuck on what I think would be the final feature of the platform that would fulfill my vision of what a modern web application platform should be about.

That feature is a drag-n-drop UI construction mechanism that would basically allow the user to glue together UI components (I call them UI parts) and write code only as a fill-in-the-blank task to complete the application.

I think React, Angular and similar paradigms might eventually make this possible. In the future building web applications, especially typical business crud applications with simple workflows wrap around a UI should not require more than familiarity with a development product and basic programming.

</comment><comment><USER39> Not to sound like a bummer here, but I'm not sure what kind of computer is needed to open this webpage. Simply scrolling up and down that website causes my computer to almost freeze. Firefox 49.0 user here. I would profile it, but I'm afraid of having to restart the computer as a result.

Edit: It looks amazing. (Still the performance issue is reproducible easily)

<comment><USER40> Hi folks, I'm one of the developers of this project -- we hear your perf concerns loud and clear and are tracking the issues :)

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, this page was released a little too early while we were still playing around with animations in the header. I've gone ahead and disabled them for now, so you should see leaner CPU utilization now. Thanks for your comments.

<comment><USER31> Even now, it's still pretty sluggish, all around. My machine is, I think, as big as can be expected (current gen i7, 16GB), though I am on a slow 4G network. But, as others note, it is gorgeous, and the API appears well thought-out, and very complete (or, at least, complete for the kinds of systems UIs I build).

<comment><USER41> Weird, because on my iPhone 6, it works fine with no detectable performance issues at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The documentation page does render legibly on mobile. It looks nice but that doesn't bode well for the library...

</comment><comment><USER28> Question for Palantir devs: is this currently being used in production?

<comment><USER43> I'm a designer at Palantir (also write some code), and yes, it's used pretty much everywhere.

<comment><USER44> Could you please show us a few screenshots? Thanks!

<comment><USER45> You can see some designs here [https://dribbble.com/palantir](https://dribbble.com/palantir)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> ReactJS enlightened web developers with _Component_ based functional/thinking/development model, which brought some order in front-end UI development. And it has been one of the best things with community behind it.

Having worked with both Desktop UI (Swing/GTK) and Server based UI toolkits (JSF), the value of ReactJS is a standard Component Life cycle.

I would propose having a ReactUI component specification with a standard version. The current specification [0] is not decoupled from implementation. The separate spec and implementation numbering will enable multiple implementations - ReactJS from Facebook being one.

I am thinking similar to Reactive-Streams [0] specification and Reactive Extensions [2] which have multiple implementations.

[0] [https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/react- component.html](https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/react-component.html)

[1] [http://www.reactive-streams.org](http://www.reactive-streams.org)

[2] [https://github.com/ReactiveX](https://github.com/ReactiveX)

<comment><USER46> React wasn't the first. :)

Some of us were out in the wilderness building GWT components back in 2009/2010\. And although compiling to JS was a pretty weird option at the time, it mostly worked. Your app looked terrible if you just cobbled together GWT's default components, but if you built your own components with custom CSS, you could end up with a really nice looking application. We even used immutability and one-way data flow where we could, though it wasn't culturally ingrained the way it is in the React community.

I understand why GWT idn't become mainstream. Java was really disliked in the JS community, even more than it is now. But having a big, maintainable web app using DI and all other sorts of fun things was actually kind of fun 6-7 years ago. I like React and Angular 2 better now, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> This looks really nice and well set up. I love the fact that you chose typescript and bundle a good definitions file. I totally understand homepage performance was not on the agenda yet, and its really no big deal to me, but I have to agree with others on the mobile support: this sadly crosses blueprint of my list for 99% of my work, if not all. Will be coming back to see where to project is going though!

</comment><comment><USER48> Coincidentally I was watching "ReactNL 2016 Max Stoiber - Styling React.JS applications" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19gqsBc_Cx0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19gqsBc_Cx0)

Styling in React needs some sort of consistent way forward.

</comment><comment><USER49> Maybe I need to take a few layers of tinfoil off the old hat, and I suspect it's just good old fashioned open source generosity, but..

Given that it's from Palantir, is there any way this could become a security attack vector at scale?

<comment><USER50> Fortunately, it's open source, fully open to code review!

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> A little bit slow on my mobile

<comment><USER52> A little bit slow on my laptop, nevermind mobile. Not good signs.

<comment><USER53> Wanted to say this as well. Definitely a deal breaker.

<comment><USER54> Not too far off the average SPA experience.

<comment><USER53> That makes me sad

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> It seems you may have to include the css for the whole library on every page[0]. I would have much preferred it if the css for each component is included on your page as you require the component.

Though I admit it is confusing since the "Let's Get Started" section of the homepage[1] does not mention including the global css.

[0] [http://blueprintjs.com/docs/](http://blueprintjs.com/docs/) [1] [http://blueprintjs.com/](http://blueprintjs.com/)

</comment><comment><USER56> Impressive.

One question: I couldn't find advanced form components, and specifically dropdown/multiselects. (a bit like this: [https://selectize.github.io/selectize.js/](https://selectize.github.io/selectize.js/), or this: [http://wenzhixin.net.cn/p/multiple-select/docs/#the- basics1](http://wenzhixin.net.cn/p/multiple-select/docs/#the-basics1))

Do you plan to implement this kind of components?

</comment><comment><USER57> This look exceptional ! It's full featured (datepicker, tree) and professional looking. It's also seems to by typescripted. But the slider needs work on touchscreen.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> What I like the most is that the UI is just really nice and clean

</comment><comment><USER58> There is also [http://react.semantic-ui.com/](http://react.semantic-ui.com/) which I have found to be very useful.

</comment><comment><USER59> Those themes are gorgeous, where I can find those theme?

</comment><comment><USER60> The design looks amazing. I love how easy it is for "programmer ui design" to look quite good these days.

</comment><comment><USER61> Great work, it looks very nice! One thing I always find missing from most of these React toolkits is a TreeTable component. This is a component that I often require in business applications, and I suspect other will too. Is this something that you would consider adding in the future?

</comment><comment><USER20> I wonder why all the UI toolkits always come without some form of layout support.

What is Qt without a GridLayout?

<comment><USER62> What are you talking about?

\- bootstrap contains a grid layout

\- semantic-ui contains a grid layout

\- bulma contains a grid layout

\- purecss contains a grid layout

\- tachyon contains a grid layout

\- skeleton contains a grid layout

\- milligram contains a grid layout

\- spectre contains a grid layout

and the list goes on.

<comment><USER20> That's nice but their idea of grid is to hand you a bunch of fixed-sizes CSS you can slap on elements. That has very little to do with the actual _layouting_ a UI toolkit like Qt provides for.

<comment><USER63> I don't know anything about Qt but if it's so good, why hasn't someone made something equivalent for web that just generates the underlying HTML/CSS?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> This is very well done. If they provided a React Native one as well, that would be even cooler.

</comment><comment><USER65> Docs are utterly broken on mobile.

</comment><comment><USER66> Everything looked good until the grid/table. Those are vastly underpowered/featured versus other solutions (kendoui, devexpress, etc) we are currently using/have evaluated.

</comment><comment><USER67> Cool/interactive logo on the web page -- how is that done ?

<comment><USER28> Canvas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> My RT-AC68U router flagged this website as having malware. Seems more related to email than the website though.

Description: Sites whose addresses have been found in spam messages.

</comment><comment><USER69> For some reason this page is really slow on Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER70> This looks amazingly good and well thought through.

</comment><comment><USER71> Site is super slow and jaggy on a macbook pro..

No demo's

<comment><USER72> I was about to give up, but I found in documentation, one of the last link on the side bar, is Components, there you can see a demo of good list of components. [http://blueprintjs.com/docs/#components](http://blueprintjs.com/docs/#components)

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Since you guys are taking a lot of insults here I want to try and offer you something constructive.

Having bugs is ok. Failing at mobile and performance is not. It melts away your credibility because doing these things right is table stakes.

This is all compounded by the fact that it's a toolkit that serves as base for other developers, rather than just a slow app.

Finally, your flippant response to criticism gives the impression that you don't understand or care about craftsmanship.

However, thanks for making the contribution. Look forward to trying your next major release.

<comment><USER74> Not all things are supposed to be mobile. All the products we write are supposed to run on a large display for our case.

<comment><USER75> I still can't imagine tying yourself to a system that precludes mobile. That seems like a terribly bad idea at this point.

<comment><USER43> For certain applications, you're right that's an awful idea.

For others, it's an equally bad idea to limit your toolbox based on an irrelevant criterion.

<comment><USER75> I question how truly limiting that is. I mean, if you have a framework or library that has the restriction that it won't work well on mobile -- unless there is a really good reason for that restriction -- it seems to me that that framework/library probably isn't ready for prime time and will either gain mobile support, or will soon disappear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> why did you publish this on Saturday??? now i have no excuse to try to replace react-material...

</comment><comment><USER77> This is really slick and fresh looking. Almost inspires me to build something with it

<comment><USER43> You should go for it! It actually _feels_ good to use, which is one of those rarer qualities to come across in these sorts of libraries.

Disclaimer: I'm a designer at Palantir and have been using it for quite a while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> very neat, i am definitely going to be trying this out on a new side project

</comment><comment><USER79> Not loading on safari ios 9

</comment><comment><USER80> The text is garbled (on top of eachother) on safari ios.

</comment><comment><USER81> Trying to load that site is slowing down my browser.

</comment><comment><USER82> Is it possible to use this without React/NPM?

</comment><comment><USER83> Smooth as butter in safari on my iPhone se.

</comment><comment><USER84> Very impressive! Keep up the good work.

</comment><comment><USER72> Thanks for this I see a great value on this, you got my github star.

</comment><comment><USER85> This is amazing!

</comment><comment><USER86> Renders and scrolls slow

</comment><comment><USER87> I saw no favicon and closed this thing immediately.

Seriously guys, it's 2016 and you still don't have a favicon. Not having a favicon on your docs page is plain bad for a few reasons:

1\. I have zero context about your page. If I don't have that 20x20 square on my tab anchoring me to reality, my 2 second attention span will have made me forget where I am even before I load your page on my internet-connected toaster oven's 7 segment display. Not. Cool.

2\. No support for 7 segment or e-ink displays. WTF?? How am I supposed to use this for IoT applications, like my toaster oven[1] or my dishwasher.

3\. This is how it shows up on my kindle: [http://67.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhw2rvgsnu1qzhofn.jpg](http://67.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhw2rvgsnu1qzhofn.jpg) ARE YOU INCOMPETENT??

[1] See bullet point 1

[2] [https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...](https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//archive/mapreduce- osdi04.pdf)

[3] [http://jepsen.io/](http://jepsen.io/)

[4] [https://palantir.com/spying-on-my-shit](https://palantir.com/spying-on- my-shit)

<comment><USER88> > _I saw no favicon and closed this thing immediately. Seriously guys, it 's > 2016 and you still don't have a favicon._

This is the sort of knee-jerk dismissal that the Show HN guidelines ask you to avoid when commenting here:

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

Favicons have their importance but it's just rude to swipe someone's entire work off the table this way.

Edit: Doh. Carry on.

<comment><USER89> I mean, it's obviously satire, and it's taking a shot at something you've previously said is damaging to HN.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9238739](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9238739)

I'd agree that pokebowl's comment is a suboptimal way of getting that point across.

<comment><USER88> > _obviously_

Oops. I completely missed that.

This is what comes of moderating in haste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Safe to say it sux.

<comment><USER88> Please don't post uncivil, unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. We ban accounts that do this repeatedly.

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

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> Cool stuff

</comment><comment><USER92> TBH, I expected more from what's supposed to be a Palantir project. I mean come on, why is the site not mobile-first?

<comment><USER93> 99% of our use cases are desktop-only – we build analytical tools. Our focus is on making those experiences great.</comment></comment>


Hedy Lamarr's Forgotten, Frustrated Career as a Wartime Inventor - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/hedy-lamarrs-forgotten-frustrated-career-as-a-wartime-inventor <comment><USER2> She absolutely did not invent frequency hopping. This seems to be a recent meme, and it's fiction.</comment>


Dear Speakers: things that interfere with getting a message across to an audience - <AUTHOR> http://duncandavidson.com/2009/03/dear-speakers.html

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure on the pacing thing. I love the Clifford Stoll talk from TED and he's flying all over the place the whole talk. Admittedly its not actually pacing.

For those who do want to get better at public speaking (including me), I'd highly recommend the book "Presentation Zen."

<comment><USER3> There are exceptions to every rule, and Clifford Stoll is definitely an exception: his power and madness make it work.

You can see Jessica Livingston pacing back and forth here: [http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2008/12/jessica- livingsto...](http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2008/12/jessica-livingston- on-founders-at-work.html) It is annoying, and she seems nervous.

Note: This is not meant to pick on JL, very few people get it right, and I could just as easily have picked another example.

<comment><USER2> I see your point, but when I hear "exceptions to every rule" I want to explore the boundaries of those exceptions. I think that presentations are creative performances, essentially, so it's likely that the number of exceptions are going to be large.

<comment><USER3> absolutely right...

It's just like every other artform - the rules are there to give people a framework they can work from, but the best performers break the rules. Clifford Stoll is a great example of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Additional advice:

1) Video tape yourself giving your talk. Tape off a section of your floor, set the camera up on a tripod, and give your talk (complete with powerpoint or whatever you're using). Then watch it. Ask yourself, "Would I want to listen to this person?" Probably the answer is "no". Figure out why, and fix it.

2) Just like you should walk with purpose, your hand should communicate with purpose, too. Too often speakers flail their arms wildly about, rather than using them as a tool of communication.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very timely. I'm presenting at Rails Conf this year and the last time I gave a presentation was, uh, high school. :\

<comment><USER6> I don't think you need to be too nervous at technical speaking engagements. In my experience, most people just show up to hear you say the name of the talk, and then they tune out and start using their laptop. So if you pace around the stage, they won't notice, 'cause they're off in some other world.

(You could say, "Well, that's because all your talks are _so boring_.". Maybe, but this happens at even the most interesting speaker's talks as well.)</comment></comment>


My Grep is faster than yours - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/feel-the-hum-of-your-system/humio-logging-for-systems-that-you-care-about-6e244ddfd95 <comment><AUTHOR> Humio is a TB scala distributed Log Store with a powerful query language and streamed results.</comment>