Apple Pay on the Web - <AUTHOR> https://stripe.com/apple-pay <comment><USER3> Does anyone know if this is going to be available via the standardised Web Payments API? [1] (support being worked on by Chrome [2] and Microsoft Edge [3]) That way web developers won't need to build different implementations for different platforms.

[1]: [https://web-payments.org/specs/#transactions](https://web- payments.org/specs/#transactions)

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

[3]: [https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/02/03/2016-platform...](https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/02/03/2016-platform- priorities/)

<comment><USER4> [https://developer.apple.com/reference/applepayjs](https://developer.apple.com/reference/applepayjs)

It seems like they are not following the standard.

<comment><USER5> Because it is not a standard. It is still in progress and deemed unsafe by Apple. (See their mail to the PR mailing list)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another solid product page by Stripe. Simple, elegant, fast, responsive. For example, the "demo video" isn't actually a video - it's a composition of small images, DOM elements with CSS animation.

<comment><USER7> you need to do that because mobile won't autoplay video. A lot of landingpages use a gaming framework to do it.

<comment><USER8> gaming framework? which one? is there a tool to do these animations? or is it handcoded in JS

<comment><USER7> this is a toutorial on how to build a parallax scroller with Pixi.js [http://www.yeahbutisitflash.com/?p=7046](http://www.yeahbutisitflash.com/?p=7046) here is a list of other js gmaing frameworks: [https://html5gameengine.com](https://html5gameengine.com)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'd be surprised if Apple doesn't buy Stripe soon.

<comment><USER10> Why would Stripe accept an offer unless it's so large that it makes little to no sense for Apple?

<comment><USER11> CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. If Apple showed up with enough cash ($5-6B?) it would be hard for the board to say no. That kind of money might be an overpayment, but with the amount of cash that Apple has, you can afford to make any number of poorly priced strategic investments. Stripe is still small enough that Apple could vastly overpay and it would make little difference for Apple, while being enough money that the board had to agree to the deal.

That said, I sure hope they don't do that. Stripe would do better at a platform company like Amazon than Apple if it was decided they needed to be bought to continue growing.

<comment><USER10> > CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.

While there is a fiduciary responsibility, private != public in this regard. If the Collison's retain enough equity to control the company, doesn't matter what the rest of the board thinks (I have no idea what their cap table looks like, to be clear)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is big news, conversions on mobile web have always been much lower than on desktop. I hope having a little less friction along the way will help improve things.

<comment><USER13> I thought they were better on mobile because it was easy with Safari to scan your credit card and have it auto-fill the fields

<comment><USER14> There are many barriers to purchase on mobile web, such as users being less likely to have enough time to complete the purchase, user distrust of mobile web sites / card forms, potential network disconnect during transaction, difficulty typing the card number (and I bet near 0% of potential customers know about the scan card feature), small screen makes it hard to know if you're really on the right product for you, etc.

This might reduce barriers but there will still be some. Also, I doubt that Safari's credit card autofill had much impact on conversion overall - is there any data about this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Although many merged features between macOS and iOS seem a bit gimmicky, this one is a _huge_ step forward and it is a good example of how to implement a feature that is both convenient and secure.

Heck, I predict it will hugely increase online commerce because people will not feel iffy about handing over credit card details to random web sites; as long as the sites support pay by phone (where the card itself is not even shared), you will be able to fearlessly shop from a lot more web sites. In a way, Amazon should be a bit worried: given a decent cross-site shop-search mechanism and a much more reliable checkout experience, the whole web looks a lot more like one super-store.

</comment><comment><USER16> Can we just take a moment to appreciate how amazing Stripe's front-end design work is? All their pages are gorgeous AND functional.

</comment><comment><USER17> It seems pretty likely now, with the addition of unlocking via the Apple Watch and using an iPhone to authenticate web payments on a Mac, that Apple will be adding a fingerprint sensor to a future MacBook.

<comment><USER18> I'd say this is now less likely. Much more natural to pick up and confirm on your iPhone or Apple Watch.

<comment><USER19> Agreed, at that point it works like two factor authentication so why not?

<comment><USER17> While I'm sure that Apple would love it if everyone owned a Mac, iPhone, and Apple Watch, there are lots of people out there that may only own a Mac, or own a Mac and an Android phone. I think Apple would still prefer that these people use Apple Pay if possible.

<comment><USER20> The laptop has a convenient strong password entry mechanism already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've been looking into payment services lately and it looks like very few have pricing schemes that work well if most of your income consists of micropayments of $1-3 or less. Stripe's pricing seems to be fairly standard, so I'll use it to illustrate my point: the fixed 30c cost on a $1 payment is 30%, which seems prohibitively expensive for this use case.

The only pricing scheme I've found so far that works adequately for my use case seems to be Paypal's Micropayments pricing of 5% + 5c: [https://www.paypal.com/ca/webapps/mpp/merchant- fees](https://www.paypal.com/ca/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees)

Although I've heard enough horror stories about Paypal on the merchant side that I'm a bit hesitant to rely on it as my only payment processor.

I'd appreciate it if anyone here can share their experience with handling micropayments and the services they used to process them.

<comment><USER22> So Heartland Payment has an interesting scheme where micropayments are aggregated over a certain time period (say 2 hours) and then charged en masse. Another work around is to require users buy "credits" that they can then use for micro purchases at any given time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Will this work on other browsers besides Safari?

<comment><USER24> From the demo, the payment overlay seems integrated directly into Safari. Hopefully there's an OS level API that Chrome et al. can hook into, otherwise it's going to be fairly limited in adoption.

<comment><USER25> Personally, if my old macbook can handle the new OS, I'll move my online shopping over to Safari.

That said, I would have much preferred that it work on any browser on any OS and only require an iPhone, but I'm interested in Apple Pay online enough to change some habits.

<comment><USER26> I don't see a lot of merchants implementing it unless it supports more browsers and ideally Windows too. Safari doesn't have very large adoption.

<comment><USER27> Except on mobile where it is dominant. Apple Pay will be coming to mobile safari too and that's were the true advantage is.

I run an online store, about 45% of transactions happen on a iOS devices. I will absolutely be implementing Apple Pay.

<comment><USER28> Huh, what are you selling? Apple accessories? O.o

<comment><USER29> I imagine most stores with a large mobile audience have their conversions heavily lean iOS, just based on app spending.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Nice to see everybody working together

<comment><USER31> Chrome, FireFox etc. :/ I don't see this being on other browsers which is too bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Two features that I am bumfuzzled weren't in Apple Pay from day one:

1\. The ability to use Apple Pay for e-commerce transactions 2\. The ability for any iPhone/iPad to accept Apple pay

The idea that you can only use Apple Pay physically always felt a bit limiting, and iPhone and iPads are becoming a standard PoS device. Supporting acceptance of payments natively on these devices seems like a no-brainer.

<comment><USER33> > The idea that you can only use Apple Pay physically always felt a bit > limiting

Except that you could use it in apps from the start? Device to device sounds great, but that's not close to how Apple Pay works (standard credit cards, not merchant accounts). Square and others now simply provide NFC readers and it works fine.

<comment><USER34> Probably just the idea of being a replacement for Square and similar readers.

But it'd only be Apple devices that can pay at that point, so not really worth it.

<comment><USER32> My thinking is that it would lower the barrier of entry. The iPad/iPhone cannot be used to accept payments without some kind of addon that can break or get lost. The moment someone buys an iPhone/iPad, they can accept payments. It also opens some interesting use cases such as micro-payments between individuals. For example, paying a buddy back for your part of lunch or paying someone in-person for a purchase from Craigslist.

<comment><USER35> > It also opens some interesting use cases such as micro-payments between > individuals. For example, paying a buddy back for your part of lunch or > paying someone in-person for a purchase from Craigslist.

Unless Apple plans on opening a bank, the limiting factor here is still that you/your buddy will be taking a haircut on the credit card processing fees.

Apple Pay doesn't replace the card network, and the card networks are NOT interested in being structured to be micropayment friendly.

<comment><USER32> Another completely missed opportunity on their part. Apple has the cash and where with all to be a bank. All they would need to do is purchase a community bank somewhere, and bam, they could start cutting out credit card processors. No doubt it would be a lot of work, but when you have $200 billion in the bank and their focus, it becomes quite doable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Still no support in Germany. A bit disappointed.

<comment><USER37> [https://support.stripe.com/questions/what-countries-does- str...](https://support.stripe.com/questions/what-countries-does-stripe- support)

<comment><USER38> OP is probably referring to Apple Pay, not Stripe.

Actually surprised that Stripe is still in beta in Germany.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Will wait and see if/when Ebay allows for it. That is my primary use of paypal

</comment><comment><USER40> Sorry if this is off-topic, but I've been wondering this for a long time now: is it just me or does it seem like a lot more risky to type out your credit card info on every site that supports Stripe?

</comment><comment><USER41> Is it going to work with subscriptions?

<comment><USER42> Current Apple Pay works with subscriptions, I don't see why this would not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> .

<comment><USER44> Continuity is really a crutch for identity, and to reduce risk. My bet is once - Apple Pay on Safari on macOS & iOS via iPhone/watch - qualifies for a lower rate, Apple could open up Apple Pay to other browsers, cross platform - <USER2> both desktop and mobile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> only support for Safari on touch-id enabled devices. doubt Apple will provide API or any other x-platform support. most impactful for mobile commerce sites without strong App or App traffic.

</comment><comment><USER46> So this is for the web but only on iOS devices? No support for Safari on macOS?

<comment><USER47> The live demo was literally of Safari on macOS.

<comment><USER46> You realize this post has no mention of WWDC right? I just read the link and commented on the lack of info.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Seems like Stripe is late to the table on this. Hasn't Braintree been supporting this for a while?

<comment><USER49> Apple Pay on Web is not even out yet!

Stripe started supporting mobile Apple Pay in 2014 (or, announced, at least): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8292026](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8292026)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'll deal with anyone except stripe.

Shopify is promoting drop shipping. They even push their shopify payments powered by stripe: [https://www.shopify.com/payment- gateways](https://www.shopify.com/payment-gateways)

Only one problem. Their terms and conditions strictly prohibit drop shopping. [https://stripe.com/us/prohibited- businesses](https://stripe.com/us/prohibited-businesses)

It's there number - 45. Shipping or forwarding brokers.

When emailed, they say of course it's not allowed you must choose another payment processor. But having quizzed my local circle, I know of many drop shippers who are using shopify payments.

I even emailed stripe and they said, sadly drop shipping is not accepted. But they did not say why.

Drop shipping with Shopify is being heavily promoted right now in Internet Marketing circles. Here is one such product that was launched recently: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnp4TnFaVJM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnp4TnFaVJM)

It's all about Shopify and Drop shipping and he's using their own payment processor. You guessed it, powered by stripe.

So what's going on here then?

Are stripe allowing drop shipping when they turn a blind eye to it?

I really wanted to use them, now using a competitor.

<comment><USER51> What is drop shipping?

<comment><USER52> Direct from manufacturer to retailer(they don't keep stock).

<comment> nommm-nommm No, Not from the manufacturer usually, just a third party, and to consumer, not retailers. Some third parties advertise themselves as drop shippers and some don't know they are drop shipping. If I list an iPhone on ebay and instead of shipping it out ( I don't have it) I go to amazon and order it and put the buyers shipping address and have amazon ship it directly to my buyer - that is drop shipping. I am selling something that I don't have in stock and having a third party ship it out.

<comment><USER52> Listen, I work for a giant manufacturer, I know what drop shipping is. You've given another example of drop shipping, the first being manufacturer directly to retail, without using a distributor. In the end, drop shipping is about cutting out the middle man (distributor, or in your case the retailer).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft's Surface 3 tablet runs full version of Windows - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32123506

<comment><USER2> I never investigated Surface 1 & 2, but I thought they ran full versions of Windows.</comment>


Easy Ways to End All Diseases Immediately (and Forever) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/12/alttext_1212 <comment><USER2> Far more effective: <http://vhemt.org></comment>


Carrier Hotels Are Sexy Again - <AUTHOR> https://datacenterfrontier.com/netrality-carrier-hotels/ <comment><USER2> For those like me who'd never heard the term "carrier hotel", it's what is (in the US perhaps much more commonly) also known as a colocation center.

<comment><USER3> More peering sites/IXes than colo in this case.

<comment><USER4> though in reality, today the difference is almost academic. One Wilshire is known as _the_ carrier hotel in Los Angeles, if not all of the US. The 4th floor meet-me room was widely known as the most expensive real estate on the west coast, at one time.

While many large, international networks still setup inside One Wilshire at a premium, if I just need cross connects, I can get them for exactly the same price inside Wilshire Annex -- a more "colocation for server farms" oriented building that is slightly cheaper and much larger (for individual spaces, not in total conditioned square footage, iirc).

Why do large international carriers pay the premium for being in the "carrier hotel" One Wilshire? Because they don't want to rely on CoreSite (the buildings and associated interconnection infrastructure management company) infrastructure. They want "home runs" to the other large international carriers they interconnect with and sell to.

If you aren't ATT or AWS, there is little need to be inside One Wilshire -- except perhaps for the "prestige" factor.

<comment><USER5> I think this is true in a lot of markets. 11 Great Oaks is the place to be in Silicon Valley (with PAIX and MPT as distant second and third), but it's an old, shitty building and you can't get any kind of reasonable power density. Enter 9 Great Oaks, on the other side of the parking lot, which is a modern building that has cross connects at the same price back to 11 Great Oaks.

I think there's a lot of money to be made in having modern buildings that are situated close by the dominant carrier hotels. The crazy money is still made from cross connects, but you can also charge a premium on space because it still makes more sense than running a ton of fiber to the middle of nowhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hey, only one place for the FBI and NSA to strongarm into giving them unfettered access, and then they can sniff many networks at once!

<comment><USER7> Given that these are used for peering between different independent networks -- pretty much the definition of the "public internet" \-- there shouldn't really be much expectation of privacy. At least not if you're smart about it.

(Network taps aside, at that level traffic can often get redirected through hostile networks via BGP spoofing.)

Hopefully any important information going through them is already encrypted.</comment></comment>


Austerity is grinding on – it has cut too deep to 'level up' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/10/austerity-level-up-newcastle-budget-cuts <comment><USER2> That is the structure of right wing politics. It creates disorder which it promises to resolve, but it is a vicious cycle.</comment>


How to Talk to Anti-Maskers - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/opinion/coronavirus-health-experts.html <comment><USER2> > Early in the pandemic, federal officials instructed Americans not to buy or > wear masks. The C.D.C. revised that guidance in April.

That was stupid and a mistake, and I don't have the words to describe the disaster that's come of it. It was a mistake then, even though people may _say_ masking was unneeded then, because it was clear even at the beginning that masks were necessary even in areas that had not yet had the virus. If we hadn't advised against masks then anti-masking might be less of a threat right now. The thing is, that even if masking may not have _seemed_ to have work, they should have advised people to start wearing masks just in case.

</comment><comment><USER3> The same way you talk to normal humans. Why are we trying so hard to label people one dimensionally?</comment>


Intel Disables TSX Instructions - <AUTHOR> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8376/intel-disables-tsx-instructions-erratum-found-in-haswell-haswelleep-broadwelly

<comment><USER2> Incidentally, it's obnoxious that the enthusiast K series CPUs always had them disabled, as well as VT-d (IOMMU) and vPro. While the current implementation of TSX may be immature, and mainly useful 'just' for hardware lock elision, i.e. some percentage boost (although isn't maximizing performance the whole point of K series?)... in principle it could eventually allow new models of programming to be practical, without the huge overhead of STM, so it should be as widely available as possible. And VT-d, while useful for server-level virtualization (as the name suggests), is also required for security against DMA attacks.

<comment><USER3> I agree, that's really annoying. Thankfully it looks like they may be slowly introducing some of these features to the K line. The 4790k for example is the first k chip that advertises support for VT-d. Still no vPro though.

[http://ark.intel.com/compare/80806,80807](http://ark.intel.com/compare/80806,80807)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Everybody still seems to be referencing the original news story, which in turn referenced a tweet. Nobody seems to have a clue what the actual errata is; looking forward to seeing the explanation of the bug and the conditions under which it can occur.

</comment><comment><USER5> Much discussion under this four-day-old submission:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8168569](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8168569)

<comment><USER6> My favorite comment there:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8169697](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8169697)</comment></comment>


Requests, Python HTTP for Humans, reached v1.0 - <AUTHOR> http://kennethreitz.org/announcing-requests-v100.html

<comment><USER2> Congrats, Kenneth - Requests is a very nice library.

I've been using it a lot recently (though I've never had to go too deep into it). I'm impressed with the simplification and removal of code in this release. If only that was a goal for every project :)

<comment><USER3> A nice thing about requests is that you almost never _have_ to go deep into it. Out of the box, it almost always just does what you want. That's harder than it sounds, as evidenced by the failure of the standard library's urllib and urllib2 modules.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The choice of Apache 2.0 for the license is interesting. It makes the library incompatible with GPLv2 software[1], but compatible with being integrated into the Python standard library[2].

[1] <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2>

[2] [http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseF...](http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq#line-75)

<comment><USER5> I'd hardly characterize the ISC license as "esoteric". It's fairly compact, yet plain in its language. Apache 2.0 takes a lawyer's help in trying to understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great work. It's a shame these nice libs weren't built a few years ago, they might have had a chance to become the default in python3. Would be a killer feature to push more people to it.

        "The entire codebase has been rearchitected"

I hope there are a few tests to check for regressions? ;)

<comment><USER7> This is the part that concerns me. Generally, I think of code tightening in on a release, which major swings early in the processes and minor tweaks later. While I _all_ for everything that happened in this change, I wonder if a 0.2 (or even 0.9) would have been appropriate first. Version x.0 in open source software implies "this is ready for production" (as opposed to commercial software, where it seems to mean "let the beta test _really_ commence).

(I just noticed it is at 1.0.2 now. I think I'm going to have to give this a couple weeks before I upgrade any of my projects.)

<comment> j-kidd Look out for the change to the Request constructor that makes `url` no longer the first parameter. Rather poor backward compatibility there.

<comment><USER8> It's a major revision number change, that's the only time to do such a major api change.

<comment> j-kidd While your point is valid, I didn't expect this to happen with requests. Just two weeks ago, I was telling my colleague that requests is such a nice library, we have nothing to worry about when installing a new version. Simply grab the latest!

Then 1.0 happens. I have now moved requests to the "thoroughly test before upgrade" pile.

<comment><USER9> This is what major version numbers are for.

<comment><USER7> It's an interesting challenge in the open source world to deal with. In closed source software, having x.0 break things us understandable. We generally never see all the effort between x.0 and (x+1).0.

In open source, it's harder because all of that is open, which means there is a conflict between x.0 means "release" and x.0 means "development is just beginning. It probably should mean the latter.

But then having a big "It's 1.0 and fabulous!" blog post is the wrong thing to do. It probably should have been "It's 1.0; be careful!" I don't see how you can have it both ways. Linus took care of that with odd/even versioning, but I think you need a huge project for people to pay enough attention to understand unless it became a _de facto_ standard (which it hasn't in over a decade, so it's unlikely to).

(BTW, I am very grateful for the work you've put into this. Requests is truly a model API. My comments are much more meta about versioning and open source in general (using this project as an example) and should in no way be construed as saying I think you are doing something wrong.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's this interesting narrative that develops from time to time in Hacker News. Maybe it's just observer bias, but I had never heard of requests for Python until I read an article on HN about scraping, which in turn got me interested in Python, and now a week later a major release of Requests happens with a top story on HN.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is the blog post the only direct documentation of what needs to change to upgrade to 1.0?

Details seem relatively scant. But maybe that's because response.json() is the only feature I'm using that changed...

</comment><comment><USER12> This is great new - I recently integrated requests into my current project, and it's made many things a lot easier!

</comment><comment><USER13> Is the verbose mode still around? Not having any configuration is nice, but what replaces this?

       session.config['verbose'] = sys.stderr

I couldn't find anything about it in the API docs.

<comment><USER9> I replaced it with _real_ logging!

Need to show how to use it in the docs still.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Used Requests in one of my projects. Definitely one of the best modules out there. Great news for all Python devs.

</comment><comment><USER15> Last week, I showed requests to a class of sysadmins to whom I was teaching Python and they were blown away. Great work.

</comment><comment><USER16> This sounds great. I assume it's Python 3, right?

<comment><USER9> 2.6–3.3

<comment><USER17> If you can share some advice on Python 2/3 compatibility that would we very interesting. Especially things related to Unicode and testing. I see you have a single codebase for both versions. That is the same approach I took with my (much smaller) library, but several people advised against it. I also see you have very few "from __future__ import ..." Is that a conscious decision?

In any case, thank you! I will use Requests as an example to follow.

<comment><USER18> Using a single codebase for both Python 2 and 3 seems the most fashionable thing these days. It is, after all, the approach followed by Pyramid and Django. I also think it makes maintenance easier. The __future__ import is a consequence of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Congrats, Kenneth!

Any hints on how to solve these incompatibilities between HTTPie and Requests v1.0 appreciated: <https://github.com/jkbr/httpie/issues/113>.

</comment><comment><USER20> Very nice, Thank you! I'm curious, why did you remove the json property?

<comment><USER21> just a guess but if .json was implemented as a property and deserialization fails, you would get an AttributeError instead of the error reporting that there was a problem with deserialization. leaving it a method call would allow for the real error to bubble up as normal.

<comment><USER9> Bingo :)

<comment><USER21> i pretty much stopped using properties after I got bit by that. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Looks great! Unfortunately this broke one of our external dependencies which was careless enough to specify any version greater than 0.14.

<comment> j-kidd This is why we should maintain our own pypi repository. Your external dependency did nothing wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Good job I guess (I use `requests` all the time and didn't even notice any issues, that's how neat it is). But the marketing-speak here makes my hair bristle!

"Requests is SEXY AWESOME!" "No wait, it's crap, complex, hard-to-follow code. But the NEW version is SEXY AWESOME!" (...at least until the next release, I suppose)

<comment><USER9> The developer interface was elegant, but the internal code left something to be desired.

That is no longer the case.

<comment><USER24> Leaves the following interesting question:

If the developer interface was elegant, and the library itself ran very well without any errors, is anything actually gained by making the internal code elegant?

What happens if the new version, while more elegant internally, has a new complex bug in it (such as a race condition, that only triggers once every billion requests)? Still worthwhile to fix up the inelegant code that was working correctly?

(Disclaimer: I feel it's better to clean it up regardless, but I have a feeling a study would show something different in terms of lost productivity...)

<comment><USER9> It does surface to the lower-level user interfaces, as shown in the blog post's connection adapter example. For advanced users, these changes will mean the world.

The new code is also _much_ easier to debug and pleasure to work with. Bugs will be significantly easier to fix :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Congrats. Requests has been super useful to me. Awesome stuff.

</comment><comment><USER26> Congratulations Kenneth! Well earned, well deserved.

</comment><comment><USER27> Next step... Tablib v1.0? ;)

<comment><USER9> Actually, yes :)

<comment><USER27> Great! There is a problem with pip install tablib:

<http://dpaste.com/hold/847350/>

xlwt3 development stopped: <http://pypi.python.org/pypi/xlwt3/0.1.2>

Maybe xlwt3 could be replace by openpyxl? <http://pypi.python.org/pypi/openpyxl/1.6.1>

<comment><USER9> Going to do something similar. Remove all the formats. Pull them into separate libraries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What's the equivalent for Ruby?

<comment><USER29> Restclient as well from <https://github.com/archiloque/rest-client>

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Can we all agree that it's a little weird to pause mid-article to fawn upon one's own code?

I love Kenneth Reitz and admire his skill but "come on, man."

<comment><USER31> No, we can't all agree that anything about that post was "weird". I didn't even see any "fawning". Just someone who's enthusiastic about his code. It's ok to love something you made and let people you think it's great. "Fawning" doesn't even mean what you think it means.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, it's not like I want to tattoo the source code all over my body or anything.

<comment><USER32> Haha, on the other hand, one of the typical interview questions is 'mention something you built that you are proud of'. A developer's satisfaction with his own craftsmanship is, to me, a must.

<comment><USER33> So you can't just produce good, solid output without congratulating yourself in public? Interesting.

<comment><USER32> No, what I meant is that if someone _is_ proud of their code and aren't afraid to share it with the world you should know probably lighten the hell up and let them be.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The next ten years of Instapaper - <AUTHOR> http://blog.instapaper.com/post/176732408411 <comment><USER2> Since they don't seem to bother actually sharing their ten year plan, let me share what I want their ten year plan to be:

\- We're planning no new user visible features. Instapaper will continue to work just the way you've grown to like it, and we're not planning to change stuff around.

\- We're working on making text extraction even more reliable. Besides blog posts and news articles, we hope to improve text extraction from PDFs, slide decks or even twitter threads. Whatever textual content you find on the web, with Instapaper you can save it for distraction free reading, now or later.

\- Our apps will see ongoing development to improve compatibility (eg. support new devices/OS updates as they come out), but no major new features. Quality assurance will be our top priority.

\- and last but not least, our goal is to establish a small, but profitable company to keep the project alive! Besides the technical aspects, our new business plan will make sure that we're thinking ahead and that we're never caught off guard by something like the GDPR again.

<comment><USER3> \- Will work with ereader manufacturers to allow them to use Instapaper (like Pocket works on Kobo).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It feels weird to me that they're putting those monetisation hooks back in without talking at all about the future of the product. I've used Instapaper for many years now, and I'm more than happy to pay for a service that I get so much value out of, but that said, Instapaper's largely stagnated in recent years, with very little in the way of major updates or improvements. I'd really love to see even a rough roadmap that could give me some idea of where they want to be say, a year from now, but right now I don't have a ton of confidence.

<comment><USER5> Why do you want major updates and improvements? Are you a customer of Instapaper's, or an investor hoping your dollars today pay off in a much better product later? A thing I like about the service I use is that it _doesn 't_ add major new things regularly; it just does the thing I ask it to do and gets out of the way.

<comment><USER6> I'm in the same category. They said the plan is to "ensure Instapaper can continue for the foreseeable future", which is all the feature I need.

I could believe they will think of other things I want besides continuing to work well. But I don't want them to feel like they have to be on a feature treadmill.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I switched to emailthis after the EU fiasco. [https://www.emailthis.me/](https://www.emailthis.me/)

You get a parsed html email with the article without the adds. It literally supports every app there is for saving (you just share via email). You can read it from any email client and easily share it with your friends. I also use fastmail which has a great full text search so finding old articles is a breeze. You can also do many cool stuff with IFTTT because again, it's just email.

<comment><USER8> What about images?

<comment><USER7> Images are included, not video though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Good to see the 6 months Premium for EU users, but I am still unconvinced; I switched to Pocket after the GDPR fiasco, is there any reason to switch back?

<comment><USER10> It's clear that Pinterest management was behind the GDPR fiasco, and now that Instapaper is independent again, they're trying to make it right.

To me it's a better product than pocket, reason enough for me to switch back.

<comment><USER11> The comment section of the announcement has plenty of Pocket-switchers. I think Instapaper is much more focused than Pocket, which seems to be more geared towards recommendations now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Read-it-later software seems surprisingly hard to monetize given how few are in the space. Pocket, Instapaper and Pinboard seem to be the only valid players.

The ability to facilitate "archiving a webpage" seems to be simple, but read- it-later software needs to be more than that to the modern internet user it seems.

It needs to; \+ Save video and images \+ Most people require a TTS service of sorts \+ Even more people want text-extraction (and boy-oh-boy this is hard) \+ Cross-platform apps & syncing

Where are the big costs here? Is it;

1\. Scale (Syncing all that multimedia must be expensive) 2\. Talent (doubt it's this all the teams seem to be extremely small teams) 3\. AI & Scraping development (Most services are poor in their offerings here, not sure its this)

I've been thinking about the space a LOT and started to try and develop some pieces of software that eventually I hope people will be able to stitch together into something great.

When i've observed problems like this before it seems that eventually a large open source project comes along and kills the markets chance of generating any money, and read-it-later services seem to fit in that fuzzily-defined-in-my- head-only market segment.

</comment><comment><USER13> After all these comments stating that they changed to Pocket I find it important to point out we also have an self-hosted and open source alternative to these 2:

Wallabag ([https://wallabag.org/en](https://wallabag.org/en))

Unfortunately it's very hard to set Wallabag up without having access to VirtualHosts.

<comment><USER14> Slim the server down so it fits on a lambda and include a serverless definition to set it up in one line:

[https://github.com/serverless/serverless](https://github.com/serverless/serverless)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I subscribed. I don't need the premium features, but I also use Instapaper just about every day and want the company to survive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Same here. I don't even dare that by paying for a premium subscription, I lost my 6-month trial period …

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Did I miss something or was there no mention of the plans for the next ten years?

<comment><USER17> You are correct.

So the plan seems that they are hoping up to $350 in revenue per Premium user over that ten year span will cover it. Which seems …low.

<comment><USER2> 35$ per user per year is pretty decent for a low touch app like Instapaper. At that rate, they need just a few thousand subscribers per developer. I don't know how big their team is, and where they work / what kind of salary they pay themselves, and I have no clue how many users they have, but I'm pretty sure there are ways to make the math work out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Well this is kind of annoying. They gave out premium to everyone when Pinterest bought them, but now that they are a private company again they took away features from me that I was used to using as a free user. I get why, but it still rubs me the wrong way. Reminds me of the PushBullet monetization stuff[0].

[0] [https://blog.pushbullet.com/2015/11/17/introducing- pushbulle...](https://blog.pushbullet.com/2015/11/17/introducing-pushbullet- pro/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Straight from their privacy policy [0]:

\-- Please note: To ensure easy account creation, minimal customer errors, and reduced support inquiries, Instapaper accounts initially do not have passwords. If left without a password, anyone can access your account if they know or guess your username. \--

This sounds like a serious security issue if you ask me.

[0] = [https://www.instapaper.com/privacy](https://www.instapaper.com/privacy)

<comment><USER20> Hey there – we started requiring passwords many years ago, but the service originally launched without requiring a password or email address. You can read more about it here: [http://blog.instapaper.com/post/2318776738](http://blog.instapaper.com/post/2318776738)

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure how requiring a minimum password length of 1 character solves anything. Just tried it out and apparently 'a' is an acceptable password.

The article hammers on accessiblity over security and I think you've taken this too far. A minimum password length of 8 is not a 'strange requirement'.

<comment><USER21> Password requirements don't really protect the business, they protect the user, and if the user isn't interested in protecting their data, why should the company force them to care?

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I just don't see the risk here. I don't keep my old magazines in a safe. They go under the coffee table, and then they go outside to the recycling bin.

<comment><USER22> In some countries what you read may be sensitive info for many people.

<comment><USER6> In which case, I'm thinking people in those countries know enough to set a password.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Are there any decent alternatives to Instapaper? Pocket is the obvious one, but doesn't have highlights (which I rely on).

<comment><USER24> Wallabag: [https://www.wallabag.it/en](https://www.wallabag.it/en) (Link to the hosted version, change .it to .org if you prefer to self-host.)

It contains highlighting, send-to-Kindle, decent mobile apps, and all the other features you would usually rely on!

Feature-wise, no alternative compares to it.

The only problem: UI. It's not the UX (things are where you expect them to be), but UI just looks... wrong. The same thing applies to their website(s) as well.

<comment><USER25> I had a look into it while Instapaper was down and couldn't find any send-to- Kindle feature - do you know where that's mentioned at all?

<comment><USER26> [https://github.com/cekage/wallindle](https://github.com/cekage/wallindle)

Needs a jailbroken Kindle...

<comment><USER25> Ah yeah that's not happening. Instapaper it is :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As a UK user it's just nice to finally have it back. Good to know things are still going swimmingly despite the GDPR setbacks.

</comment><comment> q-base I would have loved/expected a short explanation as to why GDPR compliance took so long to achieve.

I really love Instapaper and use it a lot. Especially the send to kindle feature. Luckily for them I did not stumble upon an easy 1:1 replacement.

But not even explaining the challenges seems quite a bit off and suspect. It is not like I keep my health records there (at least to my knowledge :) )

<comment><USER28> Possibly one of the worst cases of irrational GDPR fear. The fines would have been significantly lower than the (irreversible?) loss of European market share.

<comment><USER29> It is impossible for fines ($ or €) to be lower than market share (% or number of users).

Also, what you probably meant is still not possible: As Instapaper was free under Pinterest, market share was connected to $0 of revenue. So any fine would be greater than the revenue of the app's European customers.

<comment><USER28> That's nitpicking on language, in context I am clearly referring to the monetary value of the respective market share. That can be calculated even for a zero revenue company, unless the plan all along was to operate Instapaper as a non-profit and forever offer the service free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> How about making it anything less than painful to use on an iPad. Like, maybe some of your developers can actually try to use it on an iPad? If this has been fixed, I retract. I've moved on long ago.

</comment><comment><USER31> Do they expect to have any EU user after being out 2 months? I've been chatting with the support and I heard only the classic "soon".

<comment><USER32> Funnily enough while the web service was unavailable to EU users (myself included) their Android app worked just fine for me.

<comment><USER33> Are you sure? While I had access to old articles on my iOS app, I wasn't able to add new ones, something I hadn't noticed until weeks later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> so full text search is payed again. i love that feature, but it's not worth 30 bucks a year to me.

</comment><comment><USER35> For someone who only wants a free service, which is better - Pocket or Instapaper?

<comment><USER36> Pocket is owned by Mozilla. Instapaper is (was?) owned by Pinterest.

(I think the choice is obvious :D)

Ideally though, you can host your own FOSS solution on a raspberry pi or something. (Wallabag)

<comment><USER37> Instapaper is owned by the two people who signed this post. For 21 days now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Meanwhile, Instapaper just killed their Apple Watch app: [http://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/08/03/instapaper-apple- wat...](http://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/08/03/instapaper-apple-watch-app- removal/)

<comment><USER39> I can't imagine any significant number of people were using it to justify keeping it, but perhaps I'm wrong.

<comment><USER38> When Instapaper removes Apple Watch support it deletes the app from the watch of everyone who installed the iPhone app update.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Can someone compare Instapaper to Pocket for me? I'm just wondering how they're different.</comment>


Kimiko Ishizaka and MuseScore Team Release Open Well-Tempered Clavier - <AUTHOR> http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/kimiko-ishizaka-and-musescore-team-release-open-well-tempered-clavier <comment><USER2> For loads of other public domain scores/recordings, see the Petrucci music library at [http://www.imslp.org](http://www.imslp.org). As a music academic/teacher, IMSLP is invaluable for me. There are also CC-licensed recordings, though I don't use them much myself.

Much of what they have there are 19th-century editions, which are now of course in the public domain. You might think that 150+ year-old editions aren't super-valuable, but many of them are from the Breitkopf & Härtel collected works editions. These editions are some of the most important works of 19th-century music scholarship, and were collected, edited, and subscribed to by important figures. Robert Schumann's works, for example, were all edited by Clara Schumann (an important composer in her own right), and Johannes Brahms is listed among the subscribers to the Bach complete works edition (among many others).

<comment><AUTHOR> IMSLP is great, and these new releases will be hosted there too. In fact, you can find the 2012 Open Goldberg Variations (similar to this project) on IMSLP.

What IMSLP doesn't have a lot of is new, studio recordings, with the highest standard of playing and recording engineering. That's what the Open Well- Tempered Clavier provides!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> When I was taking music classes in university, I had a professor who opened my eyes to the importance of careful editing and scholarship in regards to music publishing. He was a Bach researcher and harpsichordist, and he had been the editor of a $30 printed edition of the Well-Tempered Klavier. To explain why this edition was worth the money when there were so many free versions out there, he went through each piece and pointed out how many different versions there were (which to pick?), how the originals got mangled over the centuries as each editor added their own "corrections", how there were occasional ambiguities in the score, and so forth. I learned that there was no "the" Well-Tempered Klavier at all; it was history, and as such, required a trained historian to piece together in the most authentic way possible.

Unfortunately, most people aren't aware of this. It would be a shame to lose some of the nuances of the composer's original intent because of, essentially, propagation error.

I wonder how this edition fares? (I don't have my physical score to compare, sadly.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Great insight, and very true. This edition is opinionated. The editor, Olivier Miquel, had some very clear "design goals" in mind. Not like "rewrite Bach", or anything like that, but he wanted it to be "playable" to people who may otherwise find the notation quirks of Bach off-putting. Some people will take issue with these decisions, but it's like you said - there is no one true WTC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fantastic stuff.

I find the choice of MuseScore and it's somewhat proprietary XML-based format an odd choice for "open" though. For example, I tried to open these scores using the MuseScore binary that comes with the latest ubuntu, and it was unable to open the files due to the fact that they're written using the pre- release 2.0 version of MuseScore.

Personally, I find LilyPond ([http://lilypond.org/](http://lilypond.org/)) a much better choice for these sorts of "open score" type projects. It's editable without a GUI, and produces best-of-class output. Think of MuseScore as "a drawing program for musical scores" and LilyPond as "a language for expressing scores in a human-readable, generic form"

The Mutopia Project ([http://www.mutopiaproject.org/](http://www.mutopiaproject.org/)) has been hosting and re-engraving public domain scores for a _very_ long time. All the source code including scores is on github via [https://github.com/MutopiaProject/MutopiaProject](https://github.com/MutopiaProject/MutopiaProject) Although MuseScore has a prettier UI, Mutopia and IMSLP have much larger and comprehensive collections.

Anyway, Kudos certainly to the recording and performers, they're great, and I look forward to score engravings that don't rely on the MuseScore software.

<comment><USER5> Not sure how lack of full backwards compatibility counts for "somewhat proprietary" :) MuseScore 2.0 simple has a superset of features over 1.x plus design changes. One does not easily work around that for users of 1.x.

<comment><USER4> "somewhat proprietary" = "Where is the specification of the XML format of MuseScore 2.0 save files"

All I could find was [http://musescore.org/en/handbook/file- format](http://musescore.org/en/handbook/file-format)

Without a full specification (ideally with parser implementation, example source code for reading & writing, etc.) the XML is essentially proprietary, although still human readable.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure if it's wise to expect specification of a file format published before the actual software using it is actually released. Let's cut the guys some slack.

<comment><USER4> Are there specs for the 1.3 version? Can you provide a link?

This specific project was engraved using MuseScore 2.0, and their files cannot be opened using MuseScore 1.3.

For me, this is contradictory to the notion of "Open".

<comment><USER6> I don't understand. Older versions of programs cannot open files created by new versions - that's a simple fact of life, has nothing to do with whether a program is open or not. I doubt many open programs would limit themselves in that way.

As for whether the MSCX format is documented or not, of course it is. MuseScore is fully open source. Every line of code responsible for reading and writing this format is freely available to you to examine, compile, etc. It doens't get more open than that.

<comment><USER4> Source code is not documentation.

The MuseScore XML files do not contain any link to a DTD, XSD or other XML DOCTYPE metadata, and thus, they are not self-documenting.

By comparison, the MusicXML format is open, because the following documentation is available: [http://www.musicxml.com/for- developers/](http://www.musicxml.com/for-developers/) Those zip files contain a complete and full specification of how to read & write MusicXML files, as I'm sure the MuseScore developers are familiar with.

I wouldn't consider the MuseScore 1.3 or 2.0 format "open" until there is available full specification of the XML file formats, and the ZIP-based container they're usually wrapped in.

Even the MuseScore core developers admit there is no save file documentation and warn against attempting to parse MuseScore's save file format: [http://musescore.org/node/13837](http://musescore.org/node/13837)

This is not "open", and I think it's wrong to sell these engravings as "open scores" in this context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _" Kimiko: My next project, which will be an audio-only project, will be to record the Chopin Préludes on a Pleyel piano that Chopin himself actually played."_

Sounds very interesting. I wonder if there will be any attempt to reflect the performance styles current when Chopin was writing. It would be fun to try to match the acoustic of the first performances as well perhaps.

One way of recovering some flavour of performance style is through students of the composer who recorded...

[http://www.charm.rhul.ac.uk/studies/chapters/chap6.html](http://www.charm.rhul.ac.uk/studies/chapters/chap6.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed. One of the things that Kimiko is looking forward to is the pedal. Chopin is extremely precise with his pedal marks, to the point where many performers overlook them almost altogether because they're so demandingly prescriptive. Kimiko, the purist that she is, wants to perform Chopin's pedalling as close to exactly like he wanted it as possible, and is looking forward to hearing what it sounds like on the Pleyel piano, in the hope that it will explain some of the difficult to understand aspects of his pedalling markings.

<comment><USER7> I shall look out for the kickstarter on this project. Is there a mailing list or other notification of the Chopin project?

(Mind you, Cortot and Schnabel where not what one might call _purists_ ).

<comment><AUTHOR> Kimiko's mailing list: [http://eepurl.com/-9uzf](http://eepurl.com/-9uzf)

<comment><USER7> Subscribed: awaiting the grey listed confirmation email. YC note: they are using mailchimp

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The Musopen project also has a public domain recording and sheet music for this, and many other works.

[https://musopen.org/music/1254/johann-sebastian-bach/the- wel...](https://musopen.org/music/1254/johann-sebastian-bach/the-well- tempered-clavier-book-i-bwv-870-893/)

<comment><AUTHOR> My opinion - this recording is better.

<comment><USER9> Are the recordings in the public domain? Your website says "Some rights reserved" Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Shouldn't it say CC0 per the Kickstarter which says "We are creating a new digital score and studio recording of J.S. Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier (Book 1), and we're placing them in the public domain for everyone to download, own, share, and use, without any limitations."

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that's a Bandcamp thing. The Licence file in the download clarifies that it's CC0.

<comment><USER5> Given that your case is likely to become high profile, you might want to drop them a note to add CC0 to the list :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > So while J.S. Bach didn't invent well-tempered tuning, the 48 was his major, > if not defining contribution to making it popular, as the 48 was pretty much > The Music Theory Bible for generations of composers.

Could someone point me to an explanation for this? How does a newbie such as myself discover the compositional techniques hidden in these?

<comment><USER3> Primarily, the WTC is known for its pristine use of counterpoint, or multiple independent voices working together to create harmony. This is mainly seen in the fugues, though the preludes have plenty of it, too.

In addition, Bach used this work to teach his students musical composition, and many of the pieces exemplify certain compositional techniques. For example, take a look at prelude #1. The entire piece is based on moving between chords by changing a single note, effectively demonstrating voice leading and harmony.

Unfortunately, the WTC was not particularly well known during Bach's time or in the century after. If I'm remembering my music history correctly, it was barely even published during his lifetime. Eventually, it was rediscovered by the Romantic composers and has been famous ever since.

I do not believe Bach actually had any hand in popularizing equal (or well) temperament. This might just be one of those legends attributed to the great composer. (We covered this in music history class when I was at university, but sadly, I don't remember the details.)

<comment><USER11> > The entire piece is based on moving between chords by changing a single note

This statement ceases to be correct for very first chord change of the piece, which goes from C to Dm7. In fact, it's an incorrect description of the piece in general.

<comment><USER3> OK, sorry, I haven't listened to it in a while. Make that "a few notes". Or just boil it down to "voice leading between chords". The point is the same: it's written with a very particular constraint in mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Bach, my all time favourite. An absolute genius; his work was almost forgotten, thank goodness it was rediscovered and preserved. Excellent performance of Prelude and Fugue in C Minor; two pieces I played back in the day for RCM Grade exams.

<comment><USER13> I don't know about "forgotten"... certainly it was unpopular for quite awhile but composers at least always knew of him and his work. Bach was one of the only older composers that Mozart admired, for example.

<comment><USER12> Well, that's true, the masters didn't forget about Bach even though the public mostly ignored it. Thankfully Mozart, Beethoven and Mendelssohn helped to keep an appreciation of Bach's work alive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's beautiful, and thank you so much Kickstarters for funding this. But I find the well-mic'd breathing highly distracting!! Is it just me, or is there an odd clicking (definitely not nails on keys) that seems to come and go?

<comment><AUTHOR> I uploaded a photo of the microphone setup: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertdouglass/16880463591/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertdouglass/16880463591/)

All the noises captured were the noises Kimiko made while creating the work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting that their only "official" release channel seems to be Bandcamp. I'm pretty sure for the Open Goldberg Variations they had a torrent from the start.

I'm sure Archive.org and others are going to pick it up quickly.

</comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone else only see "Some rights reserved" Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) as the license set? They said it would be released in the public domain, shouldn't that be noted on their download page?

<comment><USER9> FYI seems the download contains the correct license, but not the website. Might be an error.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a Bandcamp limitation. I put the license file in the download to clarify that it's CC0.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Totally OT, but in French the word "clavier" means "keyboard", so I thought it was about a new kind of keyboard been released. Oh boy was I confused when I checked the article!

<comment><AUTHOR> That's wonderful! It's not the QWERTY, but the C-C#-D-D# keyboard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > For a long time instruments used to be tuned in such intervals between notes > that transposition (playing a melody in a key different from the originally > intended one) usually produced a melody that was clearly out of tune. > Finding the right intervals was an interesting mathematical problem to > solve, and it was done in the 17th century by Andreas Werckmeister.

This statement is wrong on many counts:

\- The meaning of "out of tune" is culture- and epoque-dependent. For example, arabic music employs scales with 3/4 tone intervals, which to western ears might sound "out of tune", but to arab listeners would sound perfectly normal. In a similar fashion, an equal tempered major triad which would sound "in tune" to our ears (trained as they are on the now universal equal temperament) would sound "out of tune" to musicians and listeners in the 16th and 17th centuries, because they would expect a major third to be pure, i.e. much narrower than in equal temperament. In short, the meaning of "in tune" and "out of tune" is a matter of environmental conditioning, not an absolute truth.

\- Since the middle ages, musicians, instrument makers and theoreticians developed tuning systems that actually allowed transposition. This is true for the hexachord system, based upon pythagorean tuning (perfect fifths of 3/2 ratio), employed in the late medieval era. This is also true for meantone tuning, a system of tuning which tempers the all fifths by a 1/4 of a syntonic comma in order to arrive at pure thirds (a 5/4 ratio interval). Both pythagorean tuning and meantone tuning are acyclical systems (that is, a sequence of 12 fifths does not make 7 octaves), but actually can be considered forms of equal tuning because all scales would sound the same (at least theoretically).

\- The problem of transposition becomes an issue mainly on keyboard instruments, because they split the octave into a fixed number of notes. In both pythagorean tuning and meantone tuning, there is no enharmonic identity - C sharp does not equal D flat, etc. This would impose a practical limit on the possible tonalities that can be used. In the 16th and 17th centuries, a harpsichord or organ with 12 keys to the octave would typically be tuned meantone with C sharp, E flat, F sharp, G sharp and B flat. This would make scales such D flat major, F minor or A flat major quite unpleasant to the ear. This would also cause one fifth to be larger than pure and therefore unusable (the "wolf"). One solution would be the addition of more keys, and indeed in the 16th century many keyboard instruments were produced that included split sharps, and versions of harpsichords were developed with up to 36 keys to the octave, allowing the player to reach very remote tonalities.

\- In the late 17th century people are beginning to explore less tempered versions of meantone, and Werckmeister is indeed the first to publish several methods of tuning which are "well tempered", i.e. they are cyclical (a cycle of 12 fifths) and all fifths are "good" (pure or smaller). Werckmeister was soon followed by other theoreticians, and the issue of well tempered tuning versus meantone tuning, which was practically universal in Europe back then, was a matter of hot debate at the time, even as late as the French revolution. Bach was indeed a proponent of well tempered tuning, but his contemporary the great organ maker Gottfried Silbermann insisted on employing a form of meantone tuning in his organs. Mozart, working in the late 18th century, 50 years after Bach, still used 1/6th comma meantone. The French have continued to employ meantone and meantone-derived tuning well into the 19th century.

\- Well tempered tuning is not a perfect solution to the problem of transposition. In well tempered tuning each tonality would sound slightly different. Some tonalities, usually the ones closer to the C in the cycle of fifths (i.e. C major, G major, F major) would sound purer, and the more remote ones would usually sound more "spicy", "bitter" or "quirky". In some contexts, such as the performance of Bach's cantatas, the keyboard (organ) player would be required to play a transposed part, which would lead him to play in more remote, and therefore more discordant, tonalities.

\- Equal temperament as a universal tuning is a relatively recent phenomenon, but one that has completely tainted our ability to listen with open ears to other ways of tuning keyboard instruments. In fact, singers and players of instruments with flexible tuning (e.g. violins) are so conditioned by equal temperament, that they play discordant, equal-tempered thirds instead of pure thirds, even when unaccompanied. By using equal temperament, we impose a uniformity of intervals and tonalities which was certainly not there in the 18th century.

\- Bach's "well tempered clavier" != equal temperament. In fact, the beauty of realising the 48 on a well tempered harpsichord, unlike the equal tempered modern piano, is that each tonality would have its own character. That is the prime reason why playing Bach on the piano is wrong.

\- The frontispiece of the "well tempered clavier" has led some to speculate that in it Bach has encoded his method of tuning. The first was Bradley Lehman in 2005 [0]. A more recent attempt was made by French harpsichord maker Emile Jobin [1].

[0] [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/outline.html](http://www- personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/outline.html) [1] [http://www.clavecin-en- france.org/spip.php?article52](http://www.clavecin-en- france.org/spip.php?article52) (in French)</comment>


The Mooltipass, offline password keeper - <AUTHOR> https://www.themooltipass.com/ <comment><USER2> Maybe it's just me, but I see the biggest problem in implementing a 2FA policy is the friction of the process. Using a password manager isn't as easy as remembering a single password. Using an offline manager isn't as easy as an online one. This, though ... this is the most over engineered, least user centered thing I've seen in a long time. I couldn't even begin to tell you the amount of task friction and sheer frustration that thing would be for someone like me who logs into and out of properties all day. All for the low price of $130, as if I don't get enough PITA for free.

<comment><USER3> The only reason I remember to bring my cell phone anywhere is because it stays in my pocket. This password thing looks about the size of an 80s cassette player. So all of what you said, plus the idea that you have to lug this thing around... I can't see anyone using this. Ever. If anyone does, please comment.

<comment><USER4> As requested, I'm commenting.

I'm a long time user of the Mooltipass, I backed the crowdfunding campaign and have now got two devices of my own, plus one of the prototype mini devices. I'm not officially affiliated with Mooltipass, but I am a strong advocate for the device, and have got a few other people interested enough to acquire devices themselves.

Let me do a quick run-down of my thoughts on it. Firstly, not everyone has the need for a hardware password manager. It solves issues which not everyone has. I picked mine up originally because it solved issues which I specifically had (mentioned later) but, as with anything, it's not one size fits all. It's an extra thing to carry around, an extra step you have to take, if that doesn't fit in with your workflow, if it's too big of a compromise, that's your choice to make. However, one of the reasons this is great is that it gives you the choice to do so if you want.

Next, the size, as limpkin has already mentioned, there is a mini version in the works, which I have been testing for a while now. My personal feelings are that I like the standard mooltipass as a desktop device, the form factor is nice for something that sits on my desk, but I will definitely keep my mini for portability. My intention is to have my work credentials on one standard device, my home ones on the other one, and then both on the mini, which I will keep in my pocket with me at all times. The size for the mini is maybe the size of two packs of chewing gum, side by side.

Ok, interface and usability. First of all, the standard device has a touch zone which can be a bit temperamental. I believe the choice was made as it would reduce the amount of moving parts. The mini however is using a scrollwheel on the side which is much easier to navigate the menus, and through testing now, has proven to be strong enough to survive in pockets, at the bottom of bags, and generally abused. Currently the only officially supported software for the device is a chrome extension (there are more in the works) and this picks up passwords you manually type into chrome, and offers to store it on the device. You can also manually add credentials using a chrome app (or python one if you so desire). When you visit a website with a known login, the device will flash and ask for permission to send the credentials. So that's a single tap on the device to accept the sending of credentials. That's not all the interaction that's needed, you put a smartcard in to unlock the device (it contains an AES key to decrypt the password database) and enter a 4-digit PIN, but once it's unlocked, it can sit on your desk. If you're not using the chrome extension, you can still use the device as it will also emulate a keyboard and can type the username and password in.

Why did I decide I need one, let alone more? I used to use KeePass, but there was a distinct possibility that my work network may get compromised at some point. I don't think it happened at any point, but if it did, it would be relatively trivial to set up a keylogger and get the master password, as well as get the database. I realise it's possible to have a key on a USB drive, but the fact remains that the lock and the key would have to sit on what could potentially be a compromised computer at some point together. With the mooltipass, at worst the passwords I was using could be compromised, but not the entire database, which might contain bank logins, or other things. I will say again, this is not necessarily a concern for everybody. Most people are not going to get targeted, but I felt there was a significant enough risk that I didn't mind spending a bit of money to help.

I am sure there are more things I could write here, but the post is getting long enough. Feel free to ask more questions about the usage and I'll attempt to answer them.

EDIT: Oh, yes, and I can use it on all computers through the keyboard emulation without having to have access to my keepass db, or setup lastpass etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Creator of the device here. I'll address the few points that were raised in the comments section:

\- Our device is used by thousands of users from all ages... even by elderly people

\- We're about to launch a smaller and simpler version (no tactile interface, just a clickable scroll wheel), which will be sold at less than $50. Mooltipass Mini Prototypes have already been used for 2 months, with a better acceptance factor than the standard version

\- We made a password keeping solution seeing that still very few services implement the different mechanisms created by the FIDO alliance (U2F & others). Unfortunately passwords are here to say for several years at least.

</comment><comment> norea-armozel I think pairing an app on your smart phone would be an easier solution. It's not offline as the device presented, but it would be easier for the average user to get into and to have them start generating different passwords for each service they use online. Plus, I think it would be easier to integrate 2FA this way as well if we're assuming the average service either uses SMS or Google's Authenticator for their the process. And another plus is if the phone has a finger print scanner, it'll make it way easier to unlock the password manager to filling in the logins.

</comment><comment><USER6> I like the reference to The 5th Element there.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jWGbvemTag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jWGbvemTag)

</comment><comment><USER7> I wish I could afford one. An offline password manage seems like it would be really easy to use.</comment>


Google Says Scanning Text Of Your Emails To Sell Ads Is Perfectly Legal - <AUTHOR> http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/09/google-says-scanning-text-of-your-emails-to-sell-ads-is-perfectly-legal.php

<comment><USER2> > Google "unlawfully opens up, reads, and acquires the content of people's > private email messages"

I don't understand the concept of "opening up" an email. Comparing digital things to physical objects is always going to cause problems because they're _not_.

> "all users of email must necessarily expect that their emails will be > subject to automated processing."

Of course they must, in at least some sense. They've got to be processed by various programs to store them in the right place. We also expect them to be scanned and filtered for spam and viruses, which require them being processed.

> The lawsuit notes that the company even scans messages sent to any of the > 425 million active Gmail users from non-Gmail users who never agreed to the > company's terms.

1) Of course it must, for the reasons above.

2) If you send anything to someone else, they can do pretty much whatever they want with it. You're sending an email to someone that has promised to let another company scan it.

<comment><USER3> > "I don't understand the concept of "opening up" an email"

You can look at it same way as you look at "opening a file". Similarly, "read" and "acquire" can also be thought of in a digital way, rather than analog and it's perfectly comparable in this context in my opinion. It's also true, they do "open", "read" and "acquire" contents, even if done by automated, digital means (programs, algos). Now whether that is or should be unlawful, I don't know.

<comment><USER2> But the servers have to process the emails in some sense, they've got to read the headers for a start. They also _must_ touch and process the body of the email. You simply cannot process emails without "opening them up", such a comparison makes absolutely no sense.

<comment><USER3> You had mentioned that you don't understand the concept of "opening up mail". I was just making a point that it is in fact quite comparable (your analog vs digital argument).

In essence though, I don't disagree with you. It must be done for email to work at all.

"Acquiring" though, depending on how you interpret it, doesn't, unless we want spam prevention, custom filters, search etc, which obviously people are used to.

The bigger question is whether doing that to show ads is legal or not.

<comment><USER4> > The bigger question is whether doing that to show ads is legal or not

What is the difference between "opening them" for full text search or spam filtering and "opening them" to use them for advertising?

<comment><USER3> No difference in the opening. The difference is in what they do with the data, which is what I believe the lawsuit is about.

<comment><USER4> If this is is what the lawsuit says: "unlawfully opens up, reads, and acquires the content of people's private email messages"

There is no difference between opening for spam filtering from opening for ad serving

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why is that even a question? Of course it's legal. It's in the terms of using their service in the first place. Nobody's forcing anybody to use Gmail, after all.

<comment><USER6> Maybe this is a difference between the US and Sweden, but at least around here, there are plenty of things that are illegal even if clearly stated in the terms of use and there is no compulsion involved. For example, it's illegal to sell yourself into slavery, even if you and your buyer both agree to it. A better example might be that it is illegal to sell ones vote in national elections.

(do not infer that _I_ think that scanning emails to show ads _should_ be illegal)

<comment><USER5> We have the same sort of law, of course. It's illegal to sell yourself into slavery, illegal to sell human parts even if they're yours, illegal to grow and sell marijuana to your neighbor (um, well, that one's changing).

So clearly there are contractual acts that are illegal. This one isn't, and I find it odd that people would expect it to be, especially given that people don't otherwise seem to care about privacy at all - as long as somebody in arguable authority says it's for their safety from Bad Guys.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Probably the plaintiffs believe in good faith that they are pushing for positive social change against a nefarious practice (and they certainly seem misguided, at best, to me). But

-It's a class-action suit. It's not unlikely the driving force behind organizing the class was the plaintiff's law firm looking for a long shot bet at a cut of a big payout, a reputation-making case, etc. I have no idea if this is the case. The incentives around this kind of thing are varied and not necessarily at all high-minded though.

-It bugs me when people start to think of the Googles of the world as a public utility. Assuming that you could make the world a better place by regulating their behaviour into something socially desirable is short-sighted. We have gmail because Google can monetize it with ads. Treating firms like Google as public utilities subject to public interest based regulation is not that different from treating banks as public utilities that are too big to fail (granted that's a complicated issue on its own)

"People believe, for better or worse, that their email is private correspondence, not subject to the eyes of a $180 billion corporation and its whims," said Consumer Watchdog president Jamie Court.

-I automatically get suspicious when would-be social reformers throw in the market cap of a company like this, as if to say, come on, they can afford to share the wealth. In a system where there's rule of law, it should be that that the practice is either legal or it isn't, right?

-It could well be that California has statutes on the books that clearly make this sort of thing illegal. If that's the case, we should fully support the plaintiff's winning, followed by brisk lobbying of legislators to correct the ridiculousness. Selective enforcement of bad laws is a horrible practice that opens the door to all kinds of arbitrariness and manipulation by the state. See rule of law.

</comment><comment><USER8> You need to scan to detect spam, so scanning itself can't be a legal problem.

I don't see the issue here. The ads are not even slightly surreptitious, and they don't seem to be linked to your non-email ad profile. (They don't follow you across the web.)

(Would it be a problem if they were? Is there a fundamental legal issue here, is it it more of a transparency/disclosure problem?)

<comment><USER2> > Would it be a problem if they were?

This is something I feel could be. I don't expect my emails to be somehow secret to google, and having targeted ads within gmail is fine by me. However I don't like the idea of them popping up on external sites when visited with my browser, or a browser I've used. There they could be revealing information about me to external parties.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have a hard time imagining the problems with this. This is a case of the "Chinese Room": The scanning in the advertising isn't 'understanding' what you wrote, so its completely different from if a person was reading your e-mail.

I would like it if one day we could start to make that distinction.

</comment><comment><USER10> Applying the same logic, would it be fine for me to sell someone a house, keep a key and then take pictures of their rooms every few days so I can advertise to them correctly?

<comment><USER3> Did you sell them a house, or let them live in it for free?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Google appear to be confusing the law with the loyalty of their customers.

<comment><USER4> How so?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What is it 2004?! of course it's legal, same as "scanning" mail content to identify spam or enable full text search. This lawsuit is ridiculous, it's either a money making scam or a PR stunt or both.

<comment><USER13> Maybe today is the right time to ask the question again.

<comment><USER12> It's a stupid question. They want webmail services (nay all cloud services) to cease automatically processing data they store. It's nonsense, that is what these services are all about, they want them to become useless, basically destroying their whole functionality and the economy related to them.</comment></comment></comment>


Going Anti-Postal (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://thehumanist.com/magazine/march-april-2012/up-front/going-anti-postal <comment><USER2> It seems to me that the postal system has become little more than a subsidized marketing channel that is difficult to unsubscribe from, and a lazy communication choice for the most inefficient companies. It should at the very least be priced based on the costs of operating it. In it's current subsidized form it produces incentives to keep using it and makes electronic alternatives seem more expensive.

For environmental, business efficiency, and personal reasons it seems like we would be better off receiving far less physical mail.

<comment><USER3> Maybe you should reread the article. It plainly says that the USPS is not subsidized.

<comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure the article is incorrect on that topic, in that the postal service receives indirect subsidies that some estimate to be worth $18B a year: [http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal- service/](http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/)

I'm sure you could argue with the dollar amount estimate, but not that it isn't a form of subsidy.

However, one thing everyone agrees on is that most of the mail I receive sucks. :)

<comment><USER4> The dollar amount is preposterous and I don't see how those are subsidies that encourage physical marketing.

<comment><USER5> 18 billion is the correct amount

[https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&rlz=1C1C...](https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA706CA706&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=usps+subsidies)

<comment><USER4> That's not proof, that's a number of different stories using the same crappy report.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article seems to be missing something important: the postal service is still subsidized by the federal government, even if there isn't a direct transfer of taxpayer money.

The mail I receive through USPS is ~90% unwanted (maybe more, if you go by weight), despite my ongoing efforts to "go paperless" and opt out of marketing mail. If I could stop this constant flow of junk, I would gladly pay UPS/FedEx twice as much money to deliver the small amount of mail that I actually care about.

<comment><USER7> The USPS is greatly subsidized because of these print advertisements. If they did not exist, you would not get your mail, or it would cost like 10 bucks to send a letter. Priority Mail for 5.95? Try 25.95.

There's a reason why it costs 11 dollars and some change to ship a small box with UPS/FedEx -- that's just the cost of shipping.

We are so blind to the true cost of shipping. What would be better is if we got rid of UPS and FedEx, in my opinion.

<comment><USER8> I was with you until the last sentence. Why on earth would we want to get rid of competition that has driven a lot of the innovation in the shipping/logistics space?

<comment><USER7> Well, I will preface and just say it's my own opinion, and I don't know too much, but my thinking goes something like this -- as you said, the innovation has already happened. There's really nothing left to innovate. As far as I see, FedEx and UPS aren't working on driverless technologies or drone delivery, that would be Google, Amazon, etc. Also, because we have 3 or 4 select giant online retailers, and then the giant big box stores that have the onus to pressure the USPS to innovate. It would drive down costs for everyone on a whole, as well as the retailers. Anywhere up to 80% of the cost of physical goods is transportation, and about half of that is on that last mile. The added benefit of the USPS being a federal agency (well maybe not so much with Trump), we could pressure the politicians to ensure customers are getting good service.

<comment><USER9> >The added benefit of the USPS being a federal agency (well maybe not so much with Trump), we could pressure the politicians to ensure customers are getting good service.

Please tell me this it's a joke.

<comment><USER7> When you start being cynical and think democratic processes are a joke, then yes, they won't work. But I refuse to give in to cynicism. These agencies are to operate for the public benefit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> the idea that mail provides any functional redundancy over the internet is based on a scenario in which the government censors some kind of content that a person requested?

That person would then ostensibly, through a subsidized mail service, be able to send the original purveyor of that content a letter, requesting a facsimile of the webpage they were requesting, and then that provider would send such a facsimile to the requester.

Or perhaps they mean some sort of other redundancy?</comment>


Some dung beetles have taken to decapitating millipedes - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170608-some-dung-beetles-have-taken-to-decapitating-millipedes <comment><USER2> I was hoping for an image or video of the dung beetle in action... instead there were simply a large number of stills of dung-related insects around dung. Kind of disappointing, given the title...

</comment><comment><USER3> Kudos to BBC for linking to actual research articles. I wish everyone was doing that.

This is off topic, but I was looking for a long time for a weekly print journal with a mixture of tech news (focus on IT and CS), science news, and a selection of news from global politics, economics and culture ( the latter e.g. like in the _International New York Tribune_ ). This mixture doesn't seem to exist and the magazines I've found didn't provide full references. I used to read _Wired_ but this has become a gadget advertising magazine, and unfortunately it also promoted the wrong kind of gadgets for me.

Maybe there should be a printed international version of Hacker News!

<comment><USER4> You ever try the Economist? A good science section, plus global politics, economics and culture. Don't let the title put you off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> For an article titled 'decapitating millipedes', there was not much in the article on that specific topic.

<comment><USER6> And given the first few paragraphs explaining how they aren't all like the stereotype, the images were pretty bad.</comment></comment>


Generals.io mobile: swipe to capture other generals - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.generals.io <comment><USER2> Tried it (am a big generals fan on desktop), swiping was way too laggy though. Takes 1-2 seconds for each action to go through on Android.</comment>


AWS needs three years to not attribute a vulnerability - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/aws/aws-codedeploy-agent/issues/30#issuecomment-414797031 <comment><USER2> Wait, does AWS really not have a bug bounty program? If so, that's really confusing to me!</comment>


HP begins TouchPad clearance with $99 fire sale - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/19/hp_begins_touchpad_clearance_with_99_fire_sale.html <comment><USER2> I just got one for free about a week ago. I don't mean to dance on its grave, but I wouldn't pay $50 for one.

I don't find most of the UI beautiful or elegant, most of it was too dark and reminded me of those first ugly mobile Linux GUIs , some of WebOS is quite well-designed, pretty, and usable, though.

The big issue for me is how long it took to load things, be they apps, websites, or search results. Whereas, the iPad 2 does everything just about instantaneously, it was a 3 second wait for anything to happen on the TouchPads. Those 3 second lags really add up on annoyance after a little while.

I wanted to believe, but in the end, it seems I was right.

<comment><USER3> Compared to what else you can buy for $50 (not a single comparably sized tablet I know of), you still wouldn't find it worthwhile? It's fair to compare it to an iPad 2 at its original price, but at $99 that's not what it has to beat.

<comment><USER4> Using it for nothing more than a digital frame and movie player would cover the $99 price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Already seeing these out of stock. Not all the surprising, but had they just sold these at, say, $199 (or even $249) they'd have flown off the shelves. People would put up with some flaws/kinks for something with promise.

What would that have done for HP?

Well... they'd likely have lost money on each one. But... they'd have had a much larger market of consumers and developers. Even better, they may have been able to establish some footholds in verticals that android or ipad might be establishing.

"But wait! They can't lose $X on every unit and still be profitable!". In the short term, probably not. But... they've got profits from other divisions that could have propped this up while they established marketshare. Microsoft's done this quite successfully over the years in some markets.

Instead of charging $499, then planning to spend millions in marketing, just cut the price to cost, and let the product do the talking. I _wanted_ one of these, as did several people I know. But $499... was simply too much for a late contender. But rather than overcharging then trying to bolster demand for it via marketing/ads, they could have cut the price.

It's pretty clear that at $99, they're selling out, even without the chance of any future updates/patches or even mass market utility. $199-$249 and pretty much no marketing costs would have still guaranteed a large market for this, and set the stage for HP to be a real contender in this space.

I guess that's thinking way too much outside the box though... Yes, it's speculation, but it would have been a much stronger alternative than how it ended up, and left HP with a chance to grow here. :/

</comment><comment><USER6> If anybody sees legit links for $99, please post. I was going to get an iPad, but for $99...

Edit: spelling. I can't type.

</comment><comment><USER7> Lots of success reports on this thread - 32gig model for $135-ish (plus tax?)

[http://deals.woot.com/deals/details/9a3e7678-7eb1-4b7f-88ea-...](http://deals.woot.com/deals/details/9a3e7678-7eb1-4b7f-88ea-73f2acd4d0a6/hp- touchpad-16gb-99-and-32gb-149-selloff-starts-8-20?page=4&sort=oldest)

</comment><comment><USER8> In Canada Future Shop, Bestbuy, & The Source all sold out online, but may get more stock. In store they are available, but good luck finding stock.

In the USA apparently HP direct has updated their pricing - they likely have the most stock, so I'd suggest calling/ordering from them first.

I have an iPad & iPad2 already, but I'll pick up one or two of these. I find tablets handy to keep around, keep in the car, etc. Hell, even as a Christmas present you'd be the most popular guy in the office giving these out ;-)

Some ideas for what you can use them for:

Easy browsing on roadtrips (wifi from your phone) Picture Frame/Video player Taking Notes Viewing photos Games on flight, etc.

At $99 this is a no brainer for me, but I get a lot of gadgets

</comment><comment><USER3> At $99 I'm sure I could find a use for one. Low price GeckoBoard/Leftronic mini status board? Good looking digital photo frame?

<comment><USER9> These would rock Geckoboard pretty well I imagine, or any dashboard app. Might consider getting one now...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is really tempting, but the thought of being left with no security updates, no app support, etc., is concerning.

What are the odds of Android being able to show up on it?

<comment><USER10> Valid concerns indeed, but I don't get the desire to install Android on these. It feels kind of like buying a MacBook Pro to install Windows on... if MacBook Pros were built like mid-range Inspirons.

<comment><USER3> If Apple had just announced they were going to stop making computers and were discounting the rest of their stock by 80%, you'd see a lot of people buying them to install Windows on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sold out online at future shop, was going to get one. I could try door crashing the store tomorrow and see if they still have the one for demo...

[http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/hewlett-packard- hp-16...](http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/hewlett-packard-hp-16gb- touchpad-with-wi-fi-16gb- wifi/10173116.aspx?path=01191e3f32fb2966d8a052fd3272bd05en02)

</comment><comment><USER12> Hmm a store near me still has some in stock. I'm actually considering picking one up. The Ars review notes the poor Flash performance as one of the main negatives. Is there any way to disable Flash in the browser?

<comment><USER10> The browser has a built-in ClickToFlash-esque feature that you can enable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Was up coding while monitoring a few sites and saw that Walmart had updated their prices and that my local one had some in stock. Made it to the store in time to get the last two.

</comment><comment><USER14> This worked for me in the last 30 minutes (9:30pm PST aprox)

1\. Go here: <https://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/register_epp.do>

2\. Register a new EPP account using company code: EP4297

3\. Don't click on anything, instead click on this link (32GB): [http://www.shopping.hp.com/store/product/product_detail/FB35...](http://www.shopping.hp.com/store/product/product_detail/FB359UA%2523ABA)

4\. If you buy one (for ($149.00) use this coupon for $15 off: SAVE15HP

4B. If you more than buy one use this coupon for $30 off: SAVE30HP

<comment><USER3> It's already out of stock. Plus, it's not cool to use someone else's corporate discount (isn't that the US Army's code?).

<comment><USER14> Not sure I entirely agree but to each their own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I believe the sale starts on 7 AM eastern time at HP.com. They still have them in stock.

<comment><USER3> It's already out on the 'deal sites' with thousands of comments and over a million views. People are buying them through HP Academy and HP EPP. Amazon had the lower price briefly then went back to $398, probably sold out whoever offered it at less instantly. The 16GB is already sold out at HP direct. By 7AM they won't have any 32GB left to sell either.

Edit: HP.com sold out of all models in around half an hour. Every other store that had it at the reduced price sold out in minutes. I suppose it's impossible, but gotta wonder if anyone at HP will be reconsidering the decision to dispose of WebOS when their TouchPads are sold out nationwide in less than a day.

<comment><USER16> WebOS's value will never be higher. Let the bidding begin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Has anyone ported Android to it yet?

<comment><USER18> Why replace it with an inferior OS?

<comment><USER19> The inferior OS will have better support going forward, and a more impressive library of applications right now?

WebOS might be better now, but definitely not in a year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Cant see any sign of discounting in the UK yet...

</comment><comment><USER21> Office Depot seems to have the 32gb ones for 150.

</comment><comment><USER22> thewiz.com still has the 32gb model in stock for $149

edit: sold out :(

<comment><USER23> When I try to add it to my cart, they tell me it has been removed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Are they also clearing the PC:s? I wouldn't mind an HP Envy..

<comment><USER3> No, HP is not going to stop making PCs, unlike tablets. They're just spinning off the division.

<comment><USER24> Ok. I thought there would be no more PC:s with the HP name. Thanks for the down-votes though!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Why would anyone buy one? It's a door stop.

<comment><USER6> I just want a tablet sized web browser to read HN in bed before I fall asleep. Hard to justify $499 on that.

<comment><USER26> Not only browsing but one cheap e-reader(Kindle App or the Cloud Reader).

<comment><USER27> Yep. You can't beat a $99 tablet that has a _colored_ Kindle app.</comment></comment></comment></comment>