Confusing UI in iOS7 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/design-ux/ce87662270cf <comment><USER2> This kind of post annoys me. It's driven by the fact that the author has some _theories_ about UI design, and wants to share them with us. There's nothing wrong with that. But this post pretends to be like a real usability audit, which it is not.

> _When I tap it, it turns red — but wait — it doesn't give me the visual > feedback. Did I break it?_

> _The alarm is shown as a red filled square, so when I tap it, it should > perform a negative action, right?_

These comments are disingenous. You didn't get confused by these things.

You, as a person who's analysing a UI, have an almost totally different mindset to someone who is just using the thing for real. You know this, so here, you're just play-acting. You're thinking, what might I get confused about if I was a normal user? That's a bad way to look for what's really wrong in a UI design.

Yes, when you present points like these, they sound reasonable, but that doesn't mean they're right. Perhaps the alternative (e.g. banning the use of red anywhere in the OS other than for a negative action) might be over- restrictive as a requirement, which could cause excessive complexity elsewhere in the UI and lead to a worse overall result. Or perhaps you're right, the colour–meaning thing should be 100% consistent above all other considerations. Either way, you don't know, and speculation about what _might_ confuse a real user should not be presented as fact.

Theories just guide us in what to _test_.

<comment><USER3> > _This kind of post annoys me. It 's driven by the fact that the author has > some theories about UI design, and wants to share them with us. There's > nothing wrong with that. But this post pretends to be like a real usability > audit, which it is not._

Wrong on all counts. What the author complaints about are examples of broken standard usability guidelines that all experts agree upon.

Like consistency, affordances, the principle of least surprise, color coding actions, etc.

The excerpt you provide is characteristic: "When I tap it, it turns red — but wait — it doesn't give me the visual feedback. Did I break it?"

The similar looking button in the Timer screen DID give visual feedback when pressed. In a consistent UI, either this button would do too, or neither would.

> _These comments are disingenous. You didn 't get confused by these things. > You, as a person who's analysing a UI, have an almost totally different > mindset to someone who is just using the thing for real._

Wrong again. Even a UI expert, or someone like me, who's been using DOS, Windows, SunOS, HPUX, Linux, FreeBSD and OS X UIs for 20+ years (and has designed some apps' UIs) can be confused by a UI, even in the most common app and in the most basic actions.

<comment><USER4> > The similar looking button in the Timer screen DID give visual feedback when > pressed. In a consistent UI, either this button would do too, or neither > would.

Visual feedback needs to serve a purpose. This is a stop watch we're talking about - one that shows time in tens of milliseconds, which is less than one frame interval at 60fps. Any animation done would hinder the _function_ of the stop watch and raise ambiguity about when the stop watch actually started and stopped. So not using an animation _is_ the right thing to do here. If they'd gone for consistency in this case, it would've been "foolish consistency" [1].

[1] "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." \- Ralph Waldo Emerson

edit: typo fix.

<comment><USER5> That is a ludicrous argument. An animation does not affect timer functionality unless you are an incompetent coder.

<comment><USER6> Yes, but it's equally ludicrous to say that the stopwatch "didn't give the visual feedback". It started incrementing those huge numbers, didn't it?

<comment><USER5> That is not the visual feedback being discussed. Buttons should act identically across a platform. There is no compelling reason for a difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm actually surprised that there's so little visual consistency there... this stuff usually would be handled by reusable widgets - which, of course, gives you consistency for free.

Still, people bag on Apple's design problems because Apple's stuff often feels _almost_ perfect. I tried out a BB Q10 the other day and I couldn't even figure out how the heck you get to the home screen. I got stuck in the voice- search app and couldn't figure out how to back out. That's one of those "I'd give it a detailed critique but where the heck do I even _begin_ " moments.

<comment><USER8> In my UX design classes, we would use the phrase "You can't polish a turd" to describe this situation.

<comment><USER9> This is exactly backwards - all of the iOS 7 complaints I've heard so far have been about the UI polish and _not_ the underlying functionality. Polishing a turd would be a beautiful UI in front of a buggy, slow system. Apple didn't ship a polished turd, they shipped a rough, unhewn diamond.

<comment><USER10> But each major iOS version _is_ slower than the one before, it's just that we got used to it (and loud people on the internet always use recent devices anyway). I think this blog post is a good example of something that is definitely a polished turd. A clean, beautiful UI for a resource hog:

[http://blog.ittybittyapps.com/blog/2013/09/20/lifting-the- li...](http://blog.ittybittyapps.com/blog/2013/09/20/lifting-the-lid-on- ios-7s-uipicker/)

And something else that we have accepted is that Apple's services are what they are. For example, iOS 7 has polished the Photos and Camera apps. But in the big picture, Apple's ecosystem for photos is still a complete mess. There is Photos.app with its own Camera Roll, iPhoto for iOS, Photostreams, Journals, Moments, iPhoto '09 with its own Events, and no sane way to keep everything in sync.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > I have no idea why the calendar is in German although the rest is in English

I had the same issue (with a different language). I really hope it's a bug because it makes no sense. Here goes:

In General > International, you can set "language" to english. So far so good. Then you can set "region format" for things like date and time formatting to use a sensible local format instead of e.g. the crazy US date format.

But when you go into Region Format, it turns out to be some sort of weird mix of countries and languages.

If you select a country — e.g. Germany, Finland, Croatia — , you'll get the english dates in the region's format but if you select a language (and possibly a territory for the language) — Chinese > Singapore, Cherokee (United States) or Lingala > Congo Brazzaville, you'll get the date formatted in that language instead, with your specified system-wide language ignored.

By default, you probably have a language selected — I had anyway. I think it's the same setting as in iOS6 but the semantics have changed.

edit: after checking, it worked the exact same way in iOS6 and a colleague (who also updated to iOS7) had the right setting without changing anything, so I guess both TFAA and I had the "wrong" setting in iOS6 and it got ported over to iOS7. Yet as TFAA I was kind-of shocked to see dates in a language different than the rest of the OS in iOS7 even though I apparently did not notice it in 6.

<comment><USER12> Not a bug, working as intended.

German region format obviously also emtails German day and month names. That's really quite obvious.

<comment><USER13> > German region format obviously also emtails German day and month names. > That's really quite obvious.

No it's not obvious at all and it's shouldn't be that way. If I set my language somewhere it should be applied everywhere. I want Monday as first day of the week, not Montag.

Other companies that seem incapable of getting language right: Microsoft and Google.

<comment><USER12> Uhm, why exactly should that be the case? I think you should think over your assumptions. Date format and date names are intertwined, you cannot separate the two.

<comment><USER13> No they are not? How are they intertwined? One is language, one is style.

That is not even mentioning that "ISO 8601 Data elements and interchange formats – Information interchange – Representation of dates and times" puts Monday as day one.

Plus all the clients that aren't broken and can separate language from style.

Oh well, I think I got trolled -.-

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The lack of affordance in iOS7 is a real usability killer. People argue that the lack of button borders and inconsistency invites exploration. That's the kind of BS argument bad designers make when their designs test poorly. iOS7 is great in many ways, but is harder to use than ever before. Ugg.

<comment><USER15> What about when people back in the day argued that links on the web were difficult to use because they were just underlined text instead of buttons? Lots of link styles today have no text decoration but are rather just a different color, and are as easy as ever to use.

<comment><USER16> Web browsers let you hover over a link to query if it's clickable _before_ clicking it.

Also in this case the problem is if a site has some text that's blue & clickable, and some text that's blue & _not_ clickable. That's more or less what iOS 7 is doing. Colored text doesn't mean it performs an action. It might, it might not. Similarly, black text might be clickable, it might not. It might have a border, it might not. And these are all mixed together in the same app, or even a single screen such as the case of the alarm that the article is talking about.

<comment><USER17> Mousing over ever piece of text in a document to see if it's clickable isn't a great user experience. If you've ever tried using a site whose link style is 'non-underlined, blackish blue', you'll understand the problem, particularly if you suffer from colour blindness. The Guardian is a prime example of poor- usability when it comes to text links.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nice post. The one that REALLY annoys me is reminders. If I want to add a reminder, I would assume subconsciously I have to press the add symbol. But that adds a new list. To add a new item you have to tap an _empty white box with no visual cue_. Brilliant.

<comment><USER19> For me the big annoyance are the "shuffle" and "repeat" buttons in the music app. Identical buttons right next to each other in the interface and they behave differently. I can't even tell if the shuffle is active or not as the labels toggle between "shuffle" and "shuffle all". Which one is "off" ?

<comment><USER20> I take it you haven't tried to rate a song yet? I spent 5 minutes mashing the screen before I noticed the 'Rating' text. Then spent another 5 minutes tapping, swiping up down left right on that text before I gave up. I finally figured out that you have to tap the track (silly me, thought that would play it over again) to rate it. I still don't actually know if that 'Rating' text does anything

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Finally a post that doesn't just say "iOS7 BAD". Pretty well motivated, and I can agree with it in part. The inconsistencies it shows with the red button are confusing indeed (I just tried it on my iPad, the button in the stopwatch will change state when you begin touching, the one in the timer changes state when you lift your button, which is confusing because it doesn't work as expected).

The one thing I don't agree with is how the writer argues that, because the UI elements like the "+" button are red, it means they might be misinterpreted as performing a negative action. I think it's not a good point because it's easy to tell that red is the accent color of the application (for example the active navbar button is red), and thus it doesn't really play a role in telling the user whether the action is a positive or a negative one. The fact that the big round buttons start as green, and only become red once tapped (along with a change in their label), should make it easy to tell that they're not red because it's the accent color of the app, instead they're red because they perform a destructive action (in this case, resetting the timer). Their label further confirms their purpose.

As a last remark, I don't think that even the least savvy users are to be treated as "dumb". If they care enough, they will figure it out nonetheless. This isn't one of those issues that would make it impossible to use the app. You just need to put a small amount of thought in using it.

<comment><USER22> The + sign and nav buttons are "tinted" as red, as are the rest of the app's functions. When overlay UI appears, such color tints become grey. That's consistent throughout Apple's apps -- every app has a colour to tint with.

The green circles shown are the inconsistent buttons. They're trying to do too much, both compensating for the choice of red and encouraging you to click them. Their thick circle borders are redundant, and the lack of consistency on these custom buttons is indeed an issue.

The calendar is probably set to a different language/country's date formatting. That's a feature and is observable in other OSes. (English menu, arabic dates, for example)

The unique bit about alarms -- for iPad only -- is that table representation. They should have cut it out until the next iOS revision.

<comment><USER23> I didn't even know the color changed until I read this article. I'm read green color blind/deficient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> My biggest gripe with iOS 7 is how I can't predict that a UI element is tappable. With every new app (i.e. every app I already have that has been updated for iOS 7 and automatically upgraded by the iOS without me really knowing) I find myself having to tap various bits of UI stuff to figure things out. What's fascinating to me is seeing how my 2 year old does with it.

<comment><USER25> It's even better when those taps lead to actions. I permanently deleted some messages because of a non-descript icon (on Android's confusing modern look).

The worst thing about all this icon frenzy to me is that they often even take up more space than text that could descripe their function.

<comment><USER26> * The worst thing about all this icon frenzy to me is that they often even take up more space than text that could descripe their function. *

That highly depends on the language that you're using... Having localized our app into 16 different languages I've found that there are many languages where the text simply does not fit into the allotted space. In those cases I think using icons are a lot more effective than a bunch of ellipsized text.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is it just me or is all that gray stuff kinda ugly? And I thought WE started the gray trend way back when... (see [http://qbix.com](http://qbix.com)) :)

I think iOS 7 is Apple's Vista :-(

Except instead of functionality gaffes, it's the UI changes that no one really wants.

<comment><USER28> I must be the only one who loves it. It just feels so much nicer to use. There are the little annoyances, sure, but things like the Reminders app were in iOS 6 anyway.

<comment><USER29> You're absolutely not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Apple definitely removed as many affordances as possible with each screen, almost to the extreme. Now, have I figured out how each screen works? Yes. Do I think the UI would be improved with a few more visual hints (button backgrounds, consistent color choice for actions)? Yes.

iOS 7 is such a large reset from previous iOS versions, and I would expect to see this new design language evolve over future releases. The best comparison I read: think of the changes between OS9 and OSX.

</comment><comment><USER31> The problem with pretending to be someone unfamiliar with touch UI (and computers in general) is that whatever you claim to be confusing is still just conjecture. You claim one thing, Apple claims another. If you'd highlighted the parts that are genuinely confusing to you (and I'm sure they exist) rather than talking about rectangles v.s. red things in corners, or written up a walk-through with someone who realistically might get that confused (not denying they exist), then it would be easier to take this post seriously.

</comment><comment><USER32> I work with people who have TBI (Traumatic Brain Injuries) on a daily basis. Many have cognitive issues with short or long term memory.

We use iPads during "Tech days". On iPads that we have updated to iOS7, people that normally have no problem are having a heck of a time with the new UI, where things are, new actions with swiping, buttons, fonts, ect. It's not as, dare I day, intuitive. Even using more outlines on the new blue buttons (like in the App store) would make it better

Yes, most will relearn it, but it will take months for some. Great UI, Flat UI, doesn't have to mean less intuitive (borders around buttons, ect).

So we are sticking with iOS 6 on most of them.

<comment><USER33> "Intuitive" is the great misused word of our industry.

The only intuitive things in human experience are fear of heights and the location of your mother's milk (I'm probably quoting but can't remember who). What people call intuitive is merely the familiar, all else is learnt.

IOS7 requires relearning, as you have confirmed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> With all of these iOS7 bashing articles I've read, I really expected to be perturbed by the upgrade. So far I've found very little to complain about. To me, the call to actions are now clearer than they've ever been because so much of the interface is simplified. I simply don't have these problems of being thrown off by an "incorrectly" used color. There's just not a lot of detail to mentally parse when looking at the interface.

I wonder how many people that aren't looking at this with a UX hat on are actually experiencing these problems.

<comment><USER35> Little to no problems. There are a couple of miss alignments here and there, but overall they did a great job on iOS 7 from an UX point of view. There's even a countdown timer on the lock screen when snoozing an alarm. There's more important information shown to the user thanks to this over simplified interface.

"Content first" was one of the main topics in the UX crowd lately, and frankly, iOS 7 is a good example of this concept.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I was reading a book on dashboard design by Stephen Phew. I don't have it in front of me so I can't remember the name exactly. One of the chapters was dedicated to Gestalt principles. Basically, it was about how your brain interprets data. An excellent read. The main feature iOS 7 does is it clears the visual clutter, making the content do the talking. That is a huge improvement. According to what I read in the book and from what I observed in iOS 7, it looks to me like they hit the nail on the head with cleaning up clutter. Having used iOS 7 for some time now, it's quite clearly less taxing on my eyes and brain to use.

Pointing out inconsistencies can be fun, but I believe that it distracts from the overall feel you get from using an improved OS.

The arguments of keeping a 90 year old grandmother up to date with the UI seems a bit ridiculous to me. They can always stay on old versions if they need to. You can keep their PCs on Windows XP as well. Progress should not wait for the lowest denominator of users.

<comment><USER37> I think one of the major points of iOS7 is that grandma is getting kicked to the curb. iOS devices are designed for people who already know how to use them, or for young people, who will figure them out.

<comment><USER38> Except this doesn't seem to be borne out in reality. I have installed it for people in their 60's, 70's and 80s who find a Mac barely usable, who have had no trouble at all with moving to iOS7 after using iOS6.

<comment><USER36> Any change can be construed as kicking a percentage of users to the curb. I just don't think it's reasonable to hold back design for them. If they learn, great. If not, maybe it's a sign that you should be spending more time teaching your grandma.

PS. Your grandma says you never call. She knows you're busy but still, a phone call once a week never killed anyone.

<comment><USER38> "Any change can be construed as kicking a percentage of users to the curb."

True! But not by a rational person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Everything is confusing if you pretend to be an idiot.

<comment><USER40> Actually, that's backwards... You know that something is well designed precisely by pretending to be an idiot, and asking yourself if you still know what to do...

<comment><USER41> That's a very rudimentary view of UX. If I'm writing an app that helps radiological engineers calculate radiation dose, should I pretend to be an idiot? Likewise, in a world where kids have grown up with these devices, should we still think that way about UX? I think we can give users some benefit of the doubt. Each app should have a design that reflects the purpose of the app. Consistency is not always the top priority in UX.

<comment><USER40> I'm not saying that's the _only_ step in design... In my attempt at brevity, I lost the nuance.

The point I was trying to make is that if you're taking the view that your users need to have a significantly higher than average the level of knowledge in a domain area (i.e. equivalent to the knowledge of the domain area that the product designer has), you're going to end up with an un-usable product for the left end of the bell curve of your user population.

That left end of the bell curve is relative (as you point out) to your user population, but exists nonetheless - an "idiot" radiological engineer is not an idiot in relation to the general population, but is one in relation to the 99th percentile best radiological engineer (and, hopefully, in relation to the radiological engineer building your product).

What I was trying to say is that a well-designed UX requires that the 1% "idiot" of your target user population still knows what to do...

<comment><USER41> Gotcha, I'd agree with that. I have some bitterness extending from sham "UX Hackers" selling e-books that basically boil down to pretending to be an idiot, and thinks that is enough. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> iOS7 apps are littered with this kind of stuff. In truth, I doubt iOS7 is any more confusing to a newbie than the original iOS was, and since there's so very little to do in most places, it doesn't take much experimenting to learn. The most grating thing to me at an intellectual level is the lack of consistency, but part of the smartphone experience is using apps which often have their own styles anyway (especially games).

I just tell myself it's all a giant A/B test and iOS8 will consolidate one specific set of styles.

<comment><USER43> "In truth" implies you have a fact to share, when in fact, it's just your opinion. Better to use "In all honesty" since you were being a bit dishonest in saying that "IOS7 apps are littered with this kind of stuff".

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The next Apple statement placating congress about jobs created can probably also include

" With iOS 7, we have also created the largest number of design critics, UI designers and UX experts in history - Everybody is now an expert and we believe the world will be a better place for it. "

<comment> hippee-lee Hopefully those said experts will also out their money where their mouths are and get busy making a competitive alternative that addresses the issues identified.

As bad as the critics make it out I wonder if they have seen it used in the wild by someone non-technical. My mother in law asked me about upgrading her iPad on Sunday. She did so and I expected a bunch of confusion and questions re: photo's and email; the two apps she uses most (besides mindless games that aren't affected by any OS changes whatsoever).

Her comment last nigh? "It's really different I really like how they organized my photos for me."

So that's an n of one. But it's closer to observing it in the wild vs. a small circle of tech savvy perfectionists.

If the critics want me to take them seriously they should not focus on themselves so much but the average person and their experience immediately after upgrading, a day later, a week later and a month later. Otherwise, IMO it's just a whiney tech pundit fishing with link bait.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Can't be that confusing if you can still figure it out on your own. Dwarf fortress, now that shit is confusing.

<comment><USER46> Dwarf Fortress has never been and will probably never be for public mass consumption. Unless of course they code in a giant Fortress swallowing dragon named "The Public"

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I have a very small tidbit to contribute to the list of inconsistencies. If you were at WWDC or watched the videos online, you will have noticed the same theme being hammered in again and again: "iOS7 puts the user's content first", "we have taken away all the chrome and UI distractions to allow the user to focus on the content" etc. If you have tried to adjust the volume while watching a video, however, you may have noticed that the volume popup has a very thick blur behind it, basically obscuring the content at the center of the video you are watching for 3 seconds or more, which in several occasions (e.g. news interviews where people's faces were completely blurred out) forced me to go back to the piece I missed.

What I find particularly unsettling about this is that the user doesn't even need any kind of visual feedback. The only feedback that truly matters is the one from his ears. Imagine if your TV obscured a big chunk right in the middle of the screen every time you adjusted the volume. I find this deeply distracting and in direct contrast with the iOS7 design philosophy portrayed by its designers.

</comment><comment><USER48> _" it can teach us a lot about how a sloppy interface implementation can successfully confuse users"_

As I read that one of those in-viewport, youtube-a-like progress bars was repeatedly shooting across the top of the screen.

</comment><comment><USER49> that's it? that's so specific. For me this update brought the feeling that I can hardly see anymore. I'm always squinting now to try and distinguish things, whereas in iOS 6 and before I had no problem. What is it? The colors, the lack of depth, the low contrast, the super thin lines - all of it together and I struggle to make sense of it. That white on green is just blinding.

This is the problem - changing the l&f across the board is not a good MO in 2013. Yeah, I know, it's Apple and their fashion dictatorship. I've been through Mac UI changes since 1988. But I feel like I can barely use this tool now for what should be surfacey and easily hackable issues. I like the fundamentals, the animation is fine, the general UI tweaks are great.. it just hurts to use it now.

Apple needs to solve the one-size fits all UI problem. I don't care how they do it, I don't have a great suggestion ('theme support' is not one) -- but this state of affairs just sucks.

<comment><USER50> The thin lines and low contrast are the worst part. It's horrible.

I can't wait for Winterboard to make iOS 7 _usable_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> iOS7 is a beautiful new path in the history of these amazing devices. Are there a few warts here and there? Sure. That's part of the process of evolving anything. With user feedback and experience future evolutionary steps will improve upon this and nobody will remember the warts.

Usability? There are loads of examples of usability not being as much of a problem as many make it out to be. You can start with Windows as an example of something that billions of people use without problems while usability experts blog about how horrible it is --yet five year olds in schools all over the world seem to not have any issues. Another one is computer games. No two games seem to have the same interface (save such things as basic navigation commands) yet people adapt and become very adept at operating them. I always take usability reports with a grain of salt. Some are legitimate and honest, most are less than that.

</comment><comment><USER52> Gone are the days when Apple used to make "perfect" user experiences. These days Apple seems care more about "modern aestethics" that look "beautiful" than actually _good design_ , as it used to when Steve Jobs was alive.

I expect the Mac OS X interface to become worse with time, too.

<comment><USER53> Funny, that's exactly what people used to say when OS X came out, right after Steve Jobs came back …

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I can't confirm it because I don't have iOS 6 to hand, but I'm pretty sure the difference in button highlights will be the same.

The buttons in Timer works based on the OS wide standard of activating on release.

For a stopwatch, however, you want it to be instant because it's time sensitive. It would kinda suck if you're timings were all out by a bit because you kept you're finger on there slightly too long.

This is actually an example of breaking a convention to improve usability [1]. It's also an example of how if you're looking hard enough you'll find inconsistencies and things that are theoretically horrific in stuff you've been using absolutely fine for years.

The real inconsistency on this screen is that the Reset button doesn't activate on release. If ever there was a time you want to be able to back out of an action by moving your finger away from the button before release I'd say this is it.

While the faux naivity is a bit irritating, it does make a valid point (if not entirely novel). The more you pare back your UI the more you lose distinction between interactive and non-interactive elements. If your buttons are simply color tinted text, it's difficult to unambiguously use color tinting to highlight text of note such as the current day.

What makes iOS 7 really interesting is how it tries to counter that. For example, color hinted text in the edges of the screen will always be actions, so color is enough; color hinted text in the middle of the screen could just be marking interesting things, so actions are usually accompanied by thin borders.

An proper dive into the design and the trade-offs rather than endless "look at this edge-case" would be really interesting.

[1] Caveat because I'm sure otherwise someone will try and pull me up on it. No, this isn't amazing revolutionary design by Apple or super-human attention to detail. I'm sure the Android and WP 7 equivalents work the same.

<comment> matt-attack > If your buttons are simply color tinted text, it's difficult to > unambiguously use color tinting to highlight text of note such as the > current day.

This is an excellent point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Man, nothing inflames the religious like a critique of their favorite baby. It's exhausting reading through these comments that, no, the OP is a stupid liar and wrong and an idiot for not recognizing that iOS7 is the new benchmark of perfection and should only be talked about in glowing terms.

</comment><comment><USER56> This (among other examples) is why I'm sticking with iOS 6 for the foreseeable future. I haven't wanted any new substantive feature of iOS for several iterations - and while the design was tempting for me, if it comes with this much punishment I'm out.

<comment><USER57> You're missing the forest for a stump.

The overall experience is considerably smoother and more cohesive with less cognitive clutter. There is a definite transition period; stick with it and you'll be happier on the other side.

<comment> shock-value That's not necessarily true. I used the beta for a few weeks (on my iPhone) and couldn't get over the new visual style and UI changes. I've been following its development and know they haven't done much besides fix bugs since the beta (as is usual). So I've reverted to iOS 6 and have no immediate plans to upgrade.

<comment><USER57> It took me more than "a few weeks" to get comfortable with it. In fact, I actively advised people to avoid it until the last beta and the GM.

As of the last beta and GM, either iOS suddenly changed drastically for the better, or my perception finally adapted.

Either way, now the old version is frustrating, lacking essential features to accomplish common intents. I believe it's my acceptance or comprehension of the new flow that shifted.

FWIW, I work with several major versions in the course of my day, from 4.x through 7.x.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I'm glad I bought my mother an iPhone 3GS, why? because it won't upgrade to iOS7 and she won't have to relearn how to use it again.

<comment><USER38> My mother in law barely noticed the upgrade to her 4s, but she did like the iOS7 version of the app 'teevee2'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> What I find worrisome is that these UI ideas are bleeding over into OSX. Take a look at the new Build Phases tab in Xcode. It used to be nice and clear, now it's just a see of white, and it's hard to visually see how different elements on that page relate to each other, especially on a large screen.

As I often say, life is about balance. Apple used to have way too much UI chrome. Now they have way too little. I hope they swing back a bit and find that balance soon. An I hope they stop sticking so many pure white backgrounds all over the place, it makes it hard on the eyes, at least for me.

<comment><USER10> Also: Good luck figuring out which part of the Xcode UI has the focus right now. Code editor? Assistant editor? Debugger console? File hierarchy? The clues are so subtle that they might as well not be there. Having to look for the blinking cursor on a big screen is annoying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I also feel this complaint about iOS7, while relevant to the phone UI, is using the iPad UI to make a greater point: that iOS7 doesn't feel like it was designed for the iPad.

Skeuomorphic vs. Flat aside, the sparseness in how iOS7 looks on my iPad prompted me to revert the upgrade and go back to corinthian-leather-infested iOS6 for now.

The lack of visual cues in iOS7 is a bit off putting combined with the "designed primarily for iPhone" keep me from upgrading mine and my parents' iPads.

That said, I'm loving iOS7 on my iPhone5. It feels liberating.

</comment><comment><USER61> I believe Montag was highlighted because that's the current day.

<comment><USER62> In an English locale (as the rest of the UI suggests), "Montag" isn't a day at all, let alone the current day.

The incorrect text is a UI bug, certainly, but the underlying _issue_ suggested in multiple places is, how can you distinguish between a negative action and an accent in apps where both of those are identified by the same colour?

<comment><USER63> UI language and locale can be two different things. It has been the same for me for years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> The iOS 6 version of the alarms app for iPad had a similarly confusing interface. It's a complete disaster -- one that I was hoping they would remedy in iOS 7, but that doesn't seem to have happened. I've always been surprised that this app managed to get out of Apple's internal UI review -- now not once but twice.

</comment><comment><USER65> Outsourced their UI design to Google+

</comment><comment><USER66> That interface makes my eyes bleed. So low contrast. I can tell the designers have young eyes.

</comment><comment><USER67> Apple lost intuitive when it went to OSX. Things were just there, and worked, menus had understandable names dialogs were terse and to the point. Sometimes it was messy but you never felt lost.

<comment><USER68> Just to be clear: you are seriously suggesting the intuitive usability of went _down_ in OS X? As opposed to the label-less icon buttons in the control strip that you had to click/drag to get it to show and hide?

The release of OS X, and the subsequent program rewrites to support it, put apple back on the tech map. I find it hard to believe this doubled as their usability death sentence.

<comment><USER67> Im not saying it was less "Usable" using BSD saved them from years of pain transitioning from MacOS to something that was more network/internet savvy.

But there was a price was a hit to the UX and UI. which were actually pretty sensible. All the fancy graphics and lack of helpful text labels and assistance has become more a pain for new users.

<comment><USER69> Seconded....

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> The under pinnings of iOS7 are great (from a developer standpoint), but this release honestly doesn't feel like an Apple product. I have the iPhone 4 and Instagram's filters are cut off on the bottom and the photo/video frame is also mis-aligned.

I feel like any other company could have come out with this release and it would have been met with far less analytical criticism. Why is there so much analysis on v.1 of a their new UI?

</comment><comment><USER71> I think an argument can be made for the difference between the stop timer, and the stop stopwatch.

Red (in those two cases) means stop, so the button turns red. Stopping a stopwatch is an expected action to perform, so the button remains white (to be consistent with start). Stopping a timer is an unexpected action—you are cancelling the timer. To denote this, they use dark grey.

</comment><comment><USER72> Its a massive step in the right direction. Its a giant overhaul that was accomplished in a crazy amount of time. Yes theres some obvious missteps, and having literally everything look different across the board is going to be confusing for many people, but either way the transition wasn't going to be fun.

This really isn't news.

</comment><comment><USER73> The timer circles go gray when touched to indicate you can hold the button and then let go when you are ready.

<comment><USER74> Can you not do the same with the stop watch? Or is the idea that as soon as you touch is starts, to reduce lag?

If so that is quite clever...

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> pretty annoying reading articles in safari scrolling down and accidently pulling up the control center

<comment><USER76> That was one of the first things I noticed. You can disable it in general settings but unfortunately it is all or nothing. Now I can only pull it up from the lock screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> It seems like the iPad version of iOS 7 isn't nearly as polished as the iPhone version.

</comment><comment><USER78> I really like how time setting interface is done in Meego. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoiIaB7FsPY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoiIaB7FsPY)

</comment><comment><USER79> I just opened up the clock app on my iPhone after reading this post and it's shocking how much cleaner/clearer the interface is on the iPhone than it is on the iPad.

</comment><comment><USER80> Nice article, I agree with most points.

Just one comment. Don't people know you can drag and drop alarms; you just have to tap and hold? Similar to rearranging apps on home screen.

<comment><USER22> People were mentally comparing it to how the calendar works ("drag and drop") as opposed to the home screen ("hold to enter edit mode so icons wiggle in fear, then drag and drop"). In part this is because we intuitively assume that the only thing we should be able to do with such icons is either click once to select, or hold to drag and drop. It doesn't occur to us that hold might do something else, as in the home screen's swipe, for instance. This makes even less sense when you realize a calendar has many reasons to enable dragging blank space to move around to new dates and times, while a schedule of alarms auto-repeats every 7 days and has no need for horizontal scrolling as a result. It was simply rushed for iPad. Neat idea, needs more work. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> And yet, despite all the valid criticism of all the flaws in iOS 7, it's a massive improvement over iOS 6. And the user reactions show that.

<comment><USER10> How do they show it? We don't know how many % of the iOS user base uses Twitter or any observable channel to praise iOS 7 or complain about it.

Plus it's impossible to downgrade, so any iOS 7 user in a statistic might be an unhappy one; or the other way around, maybe I _would_ love iOS 7 on my iPad 3rd gen, but I won't irreversibly upgrade for now.

<comment><USER81> [http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/24/ios-7-shines-as- ap...](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/24/ios-7-shines-as-apple-bests- android-windows-phone-in-user-experience-shootout)

<comment><USER10> That's not a study of actual users, but the application of random metrics plus a bit of personal opinion (in the user friction section). It's as good or bad as the OP.

This is what I'd love to see, regardless of the results: [http://www.nngroup.com/articles/windows-8-disappointing- usab...](http://www.nngroup.com/articles/windows-8-disappointing-usability/)

As far as I know, the closest thing that's publicly available are customer satisfaction surveys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> iOS7 default apps are quite confusing. The calendar is way worst than before. Now you tap on a event from the month view and you don't see it in the day view if your current time is not close to the event time.. It feel rushed. I hope they fix it but it might not happen before next year. That good for third party app though.

</comment><comment><USER83> All this free UX QA is going to make for a heck of an UI in about 6-12 months....

</comment><comment><USER84> iOS 5 I miss you so. iOS 6 brought in skeuomorphism on steroids. And now iOS 7 removed all the skeuomorphism. I miss the balance in iOS 5.

</comment><comment><USER85> In long run is it safe to say apple can't succeed without Steve Jobs.

</comment><comment><USER86> It's clear to me that my next OS after iOS6 will be Windows 8 RT.</comment>


Java Memory Analyzer - <AUTHOR> https://heaphero.io/ <comment><USER2> Am I alone in thinking things like online pastebins, base64encoders/decoders, online heap analysers, online json linters, etc are all security issues where the sites can just harvest tons of data?

Uploading a bunch of stack traces to generate a flame map is one thing, but the heap can have secrets and keys and so on in memory.

<comment><USER3> On these lines, allow me to introduce a valuable new service: MRLTaaS (Most Recent Leak Time as a Service)

Ever wondered when the most recent leak of your most valuable secrets occurred? Simply upload your password file to my web service and within moments the magic of our distributed AI will return the current date/time...

<comment><USER2> I found one that checks your hmac generation: [https://www.freeformatter.com/hmac- generator.html](https://www.freeformatter.com/hmac-generator.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can recommend the Eclipse MAT tool if you want to do this kind of thing locally. A little awkward when you need to do advanced searches through the heap, but generally pretty good.

<comment><USER5> Or the NetBeans built-in profiler as well.

Android also has quite capable profilers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The JDK comes with a powerful memory leak tool.

$ java -XX:StartFlightRecording:settings=profile MyApp

$ jcmd MyApp JFR.dump paths-to-gc-root=true filename=dump.jfr

$ jfr print --events OldObjectSample --stack-depth 64 dump.jfr

The tool will list objects on the heap, their path to the GC roots and allocation stack trace. That is usually sufficient to solve the memory leak. No need to create a large HPROF file or upload data to a server. Everything can be done in the shell.

[https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/13/troubleshoot/troub...](https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/13/troubleshoot/troubleshoot- memory-leaks.html#GUID-FA5677A5-B175-40B4-B7F0-851118B6B7AD)

Sensitive information, like credit card numbers, will not even leave the Java heap.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have a JavaFX app which is consuming far more memory than the heap allocates... even when I set Xmx. For example, with java -Xmx64m I can see that the app runs just fine, but it still consumes over 200MB according to the OS (checked with htop and with Mac's System Monitor). Does anyone know a tool to help find out why the JVM is holding on to so much memory beyond the heap, or how to make the JVM use less native memory?

I've found out that vmmap (as shown here[1]) is only a little helpful, as it has so much info I can't really make sense of it... and I also found this[2] answer on StackOverflow that was very helpful as it lets me see the native memory allocation by the JVM... but all I know now is that less than half of my JVM memory consumption is the actual heap: the rest is thread stacks (huge for JavaFX - around 50MB for my app), GC-allocated memory and around 25MB of class definitions!

[1] [https://plumbr.io/blog/memory-leaks/why-does-my-java- process...](https://plumbr.io/blog/memory-leaks/why-does-my-java-process- consume-more-memory-than-xmx)

[2] [https://stackoverflow.com/a/30941584/1007991](https://stackoverflow.com/a/30941584/1007991)

<comment><USER8> Have you tried VisualVM [0,1,2]? I've found it pretty easy to use. I'm not sure how helpful it will be for native memory, however (likely not much!).

[0]: [https://visualvm.github.io/](https://visualvm.github.io/)

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

[2]: [https://visualvm.github.io/](https://visualvm.github.io/)

<comment><USER7> That's the oldest tool in the Java dev toolbox... but it only shows heap usage and metaspace. Also, after Java 9+ they seem to have retired jvisualvm and the tool to use now is [https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/jmc/Main](https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/jmc/Main)

<comment><USER9> VisualVM is still being developed: [https://visualvm.github.io](https://visualvm.github.io)

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I saw that... last release was just a few days ago... I thought that since the Java standard distribution stopped shipping it, it would just die off and JMC would become the new standard tool... knowing that it's still alive makes me very happy, especially after Oracle fired the whole team working on JMC[1] immediately after open-sourcing it..

However, in the VisualVM downloads page[2], they say:

"VisualVM has also been distributed in Oracle JDK 6~8 as Java VisualVM. It has been discontinued in Oracle JDK 9. See the Upgrading Java VisualVM page to learn how to upgrade to the latest VisualVM."

That's confusing wording: it sounds like they did "discontinue" something... I think they mean it just stopped being bundled with the JVM, which is not the same thing as discontinuing it.

[1] [https://www.infoq.com/news/2018/06/open-source- jmc/](https://www.infoq.com/news/2018/06/open-source-jmc/) [2] [https://visualvm.github.io/download.html](https://visualvm.github.io/download.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Uploading a 16GB file (less when compressed) doesn't sound too much fun. I prefer just using a local tool

</comment><comment><USER11> No thanks, I will prefer jprofiler.. A local tool is 100x better than a cloud one, especially when dealing with sensitive content

</comment><comment><USER12> +1 for Eclipse MAT. It works well for me.</comment>


Federal Court Establishes Constitutional Right to Film Police Officers in Public - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/07/07/third_circuit_affirms_the_constitutional_right_to_record_police_officers.html <comment><USER2> _Fortunately, Friday's ruling establishes the right to record within the 3rd Circuit beyond any doubt, meaning officers who violate that right in Delaware, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania may be sued_

Key term here is, _may_ be sued.

I think it's great that these decisions are widespread and unambiguous, however on the street in real time, they basically don't matter.

From a cop's perspective they evaluate it like this: There is a very high risk of a shit storm coming from someone releasing a video of me doing something questionable. Alternatively there is a fairly low risk that if I take or break that same person's camera that they will accurately identify me, find legal counsel, sue me and then stick out the trial backed by police union and LEO supporters. Even if all that happened, the likely outcome is that I would get suspended with pay.

So it seems pretty clear cut that for officers that would have the intention of obstructing first amendment protections, because of their actions, that any legal recourse is trivial compared to the alternative of letting anyone film whatever.

<comment><USER3> But live streaming is becoming more mainstream, and I think a cop would have to be dumb as rocks not to be aware of that fact. The shit storm due to a video of questionable activity is nothing compared to the shit storm of questionable activity that ends abruptly as the officer's boot meets the lens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Until there is harsh punishment for officers who violate thie right, nothing will change.

The reality is, _there is no punishment for violating someone 's Constitutional rights_. Nobody gets jailed for it. Until and unless that starts happening, this ruling is moot.

<comment><USER5> There are complementary approaches to reform policing:

0\. Citizen-led policing, e.g., what Michael A. Wood, Jr. advocates.

1\. Police must face both criminal and civil liability, with mandatory insurance for the latter.

2\. Selection must screen for those whom can stay cool: eg those with front- line battle experience don't get scared as easily.

3\. Training must be exhaustive, continuous and realistic, situational, diplomacy and use-of-force.

<comment><USER5> Maybe also "record and share everything, (nearly) all the time" in terms of body- and dash-cams.

<comment><USER6> I think there's a legit concern around sharing everything, since so much of police work involves being a first responder to some really tragic things - I'd be pretty upset if the video of a loved one dying in a car crash popped up on YouTube. But _storing_ everything for some limited period of time seems very reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This ruling effects New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.

Similar rulings exist for Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Washington state.

Hopefully the remaining circuit courts (most notably, the 2nd circuit which includes New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) will have similar rulings if the issue ever arises in those states.

</comment><comment><USER8> And of course, the cops get immunity for their crimes.

<comment><USER9> Those two in Philadelphia did, because the ruling wasn't applied retroactively. The dissenting judge argued that it should have been. But there's nothing in the opinion about immunity for future violations.

<comment><USER8> No, the court just wants to pretend like it is the source of inalienable rights, as if these rights just came into being because of its decision. They didn't.

<comment><USER9> Courts clarify Constitutional rights. Which they did here. Or mangle them, as they've done re the drug war etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to program a text adventure in C (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://home.hccnet.nl/r.helderman/adventures/htpataic01.html <comment><USER2> I suggest to look into [https://ifcomp.org/](https://ifcomp.org/) \- the annual interactive fiction competition is running for 25 years now and there are some great games and resources over there.

<comment><USER3> The greatest text games I have played are Curses! and Anchorhead. Both are immersive and vast. Anchorhead is genuinely scary. There are some pointless puzzles and timed puzzles, but overall, truly worth trying out.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the suggestions! I've never heard of IF before - but I'm a long time MUD / roguelike player. This looks really great.

<comment><USER5> I recommend Counterfeit Monkey, it's the top-rated game on IFDB and I think it deserves that spot. It's also a game that would be impossible to create graphically.

[https://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=aearuuxv83plclpl](https://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=aearuuxv83plclpl)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ask HN: what's a good JS (browser focused) text adventure engine? I see me making a text adventure (adding one mini chapter) each day as a good lockdown project.

Note: I might call it "Everything is better in quarantine." The goal would be to (not) go mad.

<comment><USER7> The classic engine is Inform, and a quick look in the manual says it can publish to a playable webpage: [http://inform7.com/](http://inform7.com/)

<comment><USER8> Inform is definitely the leader in parser fiction and there's been some amazing games made from it (Counterfeit Monkey and Hadean Lands being two of my favorites).

I would throw Ink (from Inkle, creators of 80 Days, Steve Jackson's Sorcery!, and Heaven's Vault) in the ring for the choice-driven variant of IF. It also publishes a playable webpage. I made a sort of unconventional portfolio-like page with it here: [https://maxsond.github.io/](https://maxsond.github.io/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like this, very creative!

The code generation looks interesting. I'll have to take another look later; can it not be done with the preprocessor?

</comment><comment><USER10> Awesome work. Thanks. Looking forward to see more of those vintage games again :)

</comment><comment><USER11> Wow! This tutorial was very fun to follow.

</comment><comment><USER12> Thank you for writing this up!

</comment><comment><USER13> This programmer, Mr. Ruud Helderman, is like Cool McCool, "Danger is my business!". For example, the parser, function matchParam:

      OBJECT *obj;
      par->tag = src;
      par->distance = *src == '\0' ? distNoObjectSpecified : distUnknownObject;
      forEachObject(obj)
        ...

The initialization of the obj variable received an obliviate spell.

Also function parseAndExecute (). The way he deal with invalid input is, epic:

      static const COMMAND commands[] =
      {
          {executeQuit      , "quit"},
          {executeLookAround, "look"},
          ...
      }
      for (cmd = commands; !matchCommand(input, cmd->pattern); cmd++);
      return (*cmd->function)();

<comment><USER14> This is C89 style code where you couldn't declare the loop variables in the for loop, as in "for (OBJECT * obj = ... ". There's no problem with this code. The _obj_ variable is initialized in the _forEachObject_ macro which expands to a for loop. (Pretty damn sure - I haven't actually looked up the definition).

The array iteration code is also solid. Seems like a pretty good programmer, judging from the code you cite here at least.

While I personally like to put a few assertions just to find my typos quicker, adding additional fluff here is mostly detrimental. The kind of bugs that can happen with this sort of "dangerous" code are the ones that you basically just typos that you catch on the first run. I.e. it's not like there are any rarely occurring edge cases that are unhandled, since the code is extremely straightforward. The "complexity" is very low.

<comment><USER15> > The array iteration code is also solid.

Shouldn't there be a NULL at the end of the array and do a null check in the iteration?

<comment><USER16> I think the last array entry {executeNoMatch , "A?"} will match on any string (and print the fallback "I don't know how to VERB" message), so it's impossible to fall off the end of the array. If you wanted to use a more defensive-programming style then you could add a sentinel of some kind and assert that you never hit it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's ok, but inform 6 is better for this.

<comment><USER18> It's great that you read the linked page, because at the introduction he wrote:

But then, why this tutorial? Why write an adventure game using a general- purpose programming language? Because doing so can be entertaining, challenging and educational. The programming language C may not be the most obvious choice for writing a text adventure; it's nothing like LISP-based languages like MDL and ZIL. But while writing my own humble text adventure, I learned that C fits the bill quite well.</comment></comment>


Russia's Kaspersky threatened to 'rub out' rival, email shows - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/28/us-kaspersky-rivals-idUSKCN0QX2GO20150828

<comment><USER2> First news: Anonymous sources accuse Russian company that frequently ashames USA government of being evil.

Second news: Evil Russian company is competitive to competitor that poaches its employers.

It is hard to create more non-events than this. Maybe in the next one they will say that Karpesky sells anti-virus software.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think that accurately characterizes the situation. The article says Kapersky sabotaged competitors' antimalware products (and thereby sabotaged probably millions of end-user computers).

<comment><USER3> I think it does some up the situation.

Kaspersky blasted the equation group which hinted at it being US orgs part of it.

Since then there have been numerous articles against kaspersky, imo trying to make them look bad.

There was a previous article recently posted on HN which basically about the same thing.

Kaspersky felt other companies were stealing it's virus signatures/heuristics so they created false positives to discredit the company, which would prove they were taking their info (cause they would flag as false positives based on the bad info they took).

I don't think anyone has proof they actually did this, and other av vendors are keeping quiet, which might mean nothing happened or they are upto their own no-good deeds they don't want brought to light</comment></comment></comment>


Bitconnect Re-launches - <AUTHOR> https://bitconnectx.co <comment><USER2> That ain't bitconnect. Only common thing is that both are fraud.

<comment><USER3> The official twitter @bitconnect mentions this ICO..

[https://twitter.com/bitconnect/status/953002461400313864](https://twitter.com/bitconnect/status/953002461400313864)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The audacity..</comment>


Ask HN: Asking About Career Path - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I have been in enterprise development with Java for 5 years. I consider myself senior (in my skill that is, not just number of years I put in). I'm still very interested in writing code and designing software. I have great review from the management. But I have a feeling like if I just keep doing what I'm doing now (for a very big investment firm, non-trading activities) I could never earn the kind of money I wanted to. It seems like enterprise developer like me always seem to be a cost/expense to an organization rather than a source of revenue.
So I am thinking about what to do if I want to get a big salary jump. I can ask for a big raise (been here 5 years but the annual raise not that big) but I doubt it could help. Or I can just start over again in a new firm. I just need to make sure whatever firm I chose to work for, I want to be a source of revenue generating, not just an IT "expense". In my opinion, software companies like MS, google , Oracle always treasures their engineering staff better than the business staff. Or I can consider working for a  consultant firm since I bring home the money for them as well.
I'd like to hear your opinions. Thank you <comment><USER2> If you want more money, get closer to the money.

In most financial firms, software development staff is a cost center, even if the projects themselves are viewed as investments. So make sure you're not simply someone who does a very good job at executing project plans from other people.

Positions that are closer to the money in enterprise firms than "very good Java software developer" include:

* Architects who decide how very good developers should be writing code

* Product leads/managers who decide what very good developers should be writing in the first place

* Anybody involved in the software development process that has mastered the problem domain itself; so, for instance, if you're working on clearing software, you should be a world expert in clearing.

* People who come up with very good ideas for software projects that save or make money for the firm.

Things you can do to execute this:

* Try to move into an architecture role (be warned: this is what most devs try to do, so the law of supply and demand limits the upside here)

* Talk to your manager about what the next 3 steps are on the career path that ends with you managing a team, and then spend another 10 minutes talking about how to execute step 1 and have it recognized.

* Change groups you work on (say, from clearing to order management) and coincident to that move invest a month of diligent nighttime reading to become an expert in the problem domain of the new group, which gives you business value.

* Survey every project you've worked on so far for the company, make a list of 5 problems those projects had that cost the company money, come up with a solution to one of those problems that you can implement on your own (for instance, refactoring classes, or factoring out thorny configuration logic into Scala, or &c &c &c), and then talk to your manager about how you can demo that idea to the group.

The goal at the end of the day is to be in a position where, when you have the performance review, you can confidently put on the table a bunch of things you've done for the business. You'll know it when you've got the upper hand in negotiation; the company won't be able to afford losing you.

As much as "become an architect!" is a trap for enterprise devs, be aware that if money is your objective, "go move to a software company!" is _an even bigger trap_. You will make more money over your career by carefully planning and executing a strategy to increase your value to an enterprise than you will at startups.

( _NB: I'm not an enterprise dev, but I work closely with a lot of enterprise devs, have successful enterprise dev friends, and have started companies with people that have later gone on to de-pants my projected lifetime earnings at enterprises_ ).

</comment><comment><USER3> I really question what you think "senior" means. A career for most people can be 40 years, and you're calling yourself "senior" after 5? What do you think guys with 20 years experience - who've led teams, managed budgets, seen the full SDLC, seen the same fads cycle every decade with different buzzwords, worked in multiple industries, multiple languages, multiple _countries_ , been QA, developers, architects, project managers, business analysts at different points in their careers - see and hear when some kid (no offense) calls himself "senior"?

A revenue generating programmer in an investment bank is called a "quant". Maybe you could give that a whirl.

<comment><USER4> I think I'm getting to be a cranky old developer like you (I'm just shy of 20 years of professional programming). I thought the same when I saw five years = senior.

On the other hand, 6 years into my career I was promoted to Principal Engineer, over guys with 3 times my experience. Go figure.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, it's like kids who show up to their first interview and say "I have 15 years experience", meaning they have been playing with computers since they were little. Ermm, no, work you didn't get paid for doesn't count. You aren't being paid to program. You're being paid to solve business problems with code. Even for hardcore geeks this is true, the problem a compiler writer is working on is actually the problem of the CFD guys who want to optimize their simulations, and their problem is actually the problem of the auto guys who want to build better cars. Or if you're working on a filesystem your problem is actually the problem of the database guys who want to process transactions faster, and their problem is really the problem of traders. Experience of that is what matters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would say you should look for companies where the software is the product and start applying there. When you are a support role in a company in which the product is something else you will always be an expense by definition. You can either jump ship or document precisely how you are making the company money. When it comes time for review give the reasons that you are worth $x more a year and back it up with actual numbers. For example, I had x idea that I implemented and by the metrics I put into the software I was able to measure a y decrease in time spent accomplishing task w. This led to a increase of profitability of $z and n hours saved overall.

I would say that jumping ship to a company whose focus is software would be more fun and bring a larger monetary increase. The economics of today is that you really can negotiate a larger salary by moving to another company than just getting marginal cost of living increase raises.</comment>


Experiment No 8 — Responding to Voice Commands - <AUTHOR> http://www.jordanm.co.uk/lab/respondtovoice

<comment><USER2> After watching Starfire[0], I came to the conclusion that computer voice commands were another form of mystery meat navigation[1], with the added issue of interrupting the people around me. I have used it on my phone a few times, because the button surface area is small, but that's about it.

[0] <http://asktog.com/starfire/>

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_meat_navigation>

</comment><comment><USER3> I first started experimenting with voice commands when the chrome speech input field came out, because Google's endpoint for taking audio clips became exposed. I wrote a python recorder that would start recording upon utterances, then stop and curl the result to Google, take the result, primitively do some NLP, route the request to Yelp/Google/Wikipedia and return a response to a web frontend.

What I learned? Even Google's voice transcriber, which is trained on an immense set of n-grams and such, is not very good. There's a lot of advanced signal processing + heuristics using ngrams to figure out what people are saying. Also, since it is very computationally demanding, Google hosts a web API instead of making it a local transcribing. So the internet itself becomes a bottleneck to timely transcribing. It's noticeably laggy.

We're not yet close to having computers capable of hearing with the same effectiveness as humans. Hopefully it happens eventually though -- that would unlock a world of interfaces. At the moment it's far too finicky to be practical.

If you're curious and want to try this yourself, Apple's endpoint for Siri voice commands is also available, someone's found it.

</comment><comment><USER4> as a non-native speaker, i for the life of me can't get any of the commands right.

</comment><comment><USER5> Make the page doctor.</comment>


The US declared war on TikTok because it can't handle the truth - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/21355465/tiktok-us-china-information-nationalism-online-propaganda <comment><USER2> TikTok is just the straw that broke the camel's back.

The US was never going to perpetually entertain a lop side trade relationship with a wealthy country that had the kind of human rights and foreign policy situation the west traditionally only ignores if you're poor.

It just so happens that the current administration is not run by political professionals so it comes across like a toddler throwing a tantrum and obviously many people take significant issue with the specific policies presented (i.e. this whole TikTok debacle).

Make no mistake, regardless of who's in the oval office next February we are in for cooler trade relations with China. This has been a long time coming and there's bipartisan support. The left is no fan of off-shoring industry to places with more lax worker and environmental protections. The right is no fan of doing business with a bunch of reds who hate religious freedom. Neither side is a fan of either of those things coming at the expense of working class Americans.

<comment><USER3> > a lop side trade relationship with a wealthy country that had the kind of > human rights and foreign policy situation the west traditionally only > ignores if you're poor

I have a hard time believing the US _actually_ cares about human rights abuses in other countries, when they are the beneficiaries. They won't put their money where their mouth is when it comes to ethics and trade.

I think the only way you can influence China to change is to reinvent how trade works. Rather than trade deals, the US could simply have a set of rules that cause increases in tariffs. Forced labor? +80% to all goods. Won't let international observers monitor your elections? +20%. No elections? +50%. And then enforce these rules strongly, and make no exceptions. That would put ethics into the equations of trade, and reduce trade with countries who are not ethical.

But that's a pipe dream that will never, ever happen.

<comment><USER4> I've often thought we should introduce tariffs based on wages paid in the source country. The goal would be to prevent goods from being artificially cheap due to exploitative labor practices..

<comment><USER5> And then some big low-wage country answers with tariffs based on, say, the number of people employed and paid above the poverty line, and argues that it's bad to produce goods using just a few obscenely well paid people and a lot of robots, and that this badness should be counteracted using tariffs.

<comment><USER6> The US is the country with the big consumer market, though. Who cares if small country X has high tariffs?

<comment><USER5> Well... I expect farmers do, and Harley Davidson employees, and Boeing employees, and, well, really anyone with a job that involves selling goods or services abroad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> censorship and spying by the CCP is an important issue, but i don't understand why anyone should let chinese apps operate in their market when china doesn't reciprocate.

the trade issue alone is enough for me to support banning it the rest is just noise.

<comment><USER8> I'm no fan or Trump or general US foreign policy, but how these stories are being spun as the US being the bogeyman and a censor when China literally filters the foreign internet and dictates which apps are available for use in the country.

It's absurd we should allow apps with deep CCP interests on our networks and devices when they veraciously block & censor any access to their people.

<comment><USER9> The point is we do allow apps with deep USA interests.

USA propaganda, censorship, and surveilence is not "good".

There is universal, unalienable, human rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They do not have absolute control over them. Govs "rights" end where ours start.

Routinely forgotten when people get fear mongered or try hard waving the flag.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a person outside US I think the truth is more simpler, the China economic war is the topic Trump uses to win the election, is the exact thing with the immigrants and the wall.

TikTok is just the next step, I am expecting that all the bad things and Trump failures(no wall, COVID) will be blamed on China and after Trump will make China pay it will rain with money.

<comment><USER11> As someone also outside US and China I have found this saga really entertaining. As stated in the article, TikTok doesn't capture more info than Facebook, whatsapp or many other American companies. And as shown by Snowden, those companies happily share that data with the US government.

The only reason why there is so much ruckus is because it is another government doing it.

But this type of censoring is equivalent to what the China is doing with the great-firewall. All in the name of national security and preserving g the country values.

As an outsider user of technology, one has to accept that most applications are going to share whatever you put out there. And when you really want to share things privately, you should use encryption methods or meet I real life.

I ve learned to avoid any expectation of privacy online.

<comment><USER12> As yet another person outside of the USA I see the apps as being basically the same, all based on psychological research related to attention and how to get and keep it. I don't use any of them and block a number of them on my network at home so as to keep my daughters from becoming hooked.

I do see a difference between the way these companies interface with their respective governments, as far as I know there is no USA equivalent of the Chinese version of the Soviet Nomenklatura. Especially since Xi Jinping came to power the CCP has been taking strides to reinforce its control over business [1], backed by a number of laws which mandate companies to assist the state when it so demands.

So what do I do? I blocked TikTok a while ago, I blocked Facebook more or less forever. Instagram and Twitter are unblocked for now, the first because my 15yo daughter uses it, the second because nobody here uses it personally nor has any inclination of doing so while it is often used by others as a news distribution channel. We don't use Google directly but get search results through a local Searx instance which includes - among others - Google Search. We don't use Google Maps [2] , that task is relegated to ~OsmAnd (for navigation and mapping) and some local mapping sites. No Gmail, I run my own mail server. No Zoom, again using our own video conferencing (Jitsi Meet) and chat (Nextcloud talk) servers. No Google Docs, Libreoffice Online in Nextcloud works fine. In short we use no external services when we can avoid them, keeping nearly everything in-house and under our own control. A private VPN makes sure our data stays ours even when using public Wifi. While this may sound elaborate and in some ways probably _is_ elaborate it makes it possible to reap the benefits of the 'net without ending up being milked dry by all those data herders out there, whether they're driven by profit maximisation or intended as tool in geopolitical power plays.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china- business...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business-xi- jinping-communist-party-state-private-enterprise-huawei)

[2] ...which has the added benefit of not having to suffer through bouts of stupidity like Google's latest regressive piece of systemic racism where they start marking the skin colour of business owners when they're sufficiently pigmented: [https://twitter.com/googlemaps/status/1288850928632832000](https://twitter.com/googlemaps/status/1288850928632832000)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In my opinion, Trump is doing this so that on September 16th (or whatever the date is now) he can proclaim how good of a business man he is, how he is such a deal maker and can bring companies to the USA. He won on that moniker the first time, he realizes he isn't going to win on the "best economy ever".

</comment><comment><USER14> It is worth noting the article author may be motivated by prejudice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Actual_langua...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Actual_language_from_her_tweets)

<comment><USER15> They listed these quotes as coming from the author:

\- "Oh man, it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." - "Caucasians were "only fit to live underground like groveling goblins."" \- "Dumbass fucking white people" \- "#CancelWhitePeople"

Is there a context for those that explains them?

<comment><USER14> "Counter-trolling", supposedly: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us- canada-45052534](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534)

Helpfully the tweets have since been deleted, so it's all speculation and hearsay, unless someone saved them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> More like TikTok declared war on America.

</comment><comment><USER17> _Sarah Jeong_

Dropped. There's no way this article is not extremely biased and purposefully deceiving.

</comment><comment><USER18> I watched _Enchanted_ several years ago with a child who was disappointed that it didn't follow the clear-cut good triumphs over evil happily-ever-after fairy tale tropes.

I bet that no-longer-a-child would rebel if they, at the age they are now, were forced to consume fairy tale fare instead of more plausible plots.

(Bonus clip: Cinderella meets a handyman prince [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQYNUwYHV1c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQYNUwYHV1c)

What do you think of that invention, Elon Musk?)

</comment><comment><USER19> > The executive order is instead better understood as an attempt to bully > companies into regulating speech according to the government's tastes.

Hmm. But what if the Chinese use Tik Tok or other social media companies to spread anti-American or pro-Chinese dystopia propaganda? We've seen how susceptible people are to disinformation, so should we trust an opponent (let's not pretend China isn't since we already tried to work with them) with social media applications in the US or west at large?

That's aside from, well, if you're going to ban and restrict US companies from spreading free speech then I just don't see why we should let China use our strength against us. Idk why people think that anybody (Americans included) will just always "choose Democracy" or w/e - we're clearly susceptible to mind infections and herd mentality toward really dumb ideas. China can use free speech in the US against us. We do need to protect against that.

At a minimum we need to make Chinese companies store their data about Americans within the US and it needs to be routinely audited.

<comment><USER20> >China can use free speech in the US against us. We do need to protect against that.

It's a bit bizarre how frequently I read comments like this about the whole issue. This is a big part of China's reasoning for not allowing "western imperialist propaganda" in their country.

I am curious about you and other people that have this opinion if you're all aware of that...? They believe their people are susceptible to western dystopic "democracy" propaganda and to protect them they regulate content. I just didn't think people thought the US needed to be protected from outside propaganda in the same way.

<comment><USER19> I think protect against it is different than banning it. Think about it like this, a protection would be having a source label that the content comes directly from the Chinese Communist Party. In that case you still have access to the content, but you know who it is coming from.

I think it's also been clearly shown that disinformation campaigns (which can include ideological disinformation - capitalism bad, Chinese communism good) have a real effect.

To your more broad point about China I think the issue that is at the heart of so many complaints is that the Chinese Communist Party doesn't engage in competition with free ideas. In a sense, they are saying, Western ideals can't compete here, but we will export ideas to the West and see how many we can win over.

I'm willing to bet that (and this was the whole point of us opening up to China in the first place) if China didn't censor or block Western companies, then we wouldn't have this same issue. If the Chinese were exposed to "Western propaganda" and Americans were subsequently exposed to "Chinese Communist Party" propaganda due to free-flowing of ideas then what's there really to complain about? Most Americans would surely see this as a fair exchange.

I think it boils down to this:

"They get to do stuff to us, and we can't do stuff to them, so let's make it so they don't get to do stuff to us unless we can do stuff to them".</comment></comment></comment>


Some thoughts on social networking services - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sn/sn/blob/master/THOUGHTS.md

<comment><USER2> A blog post is not a Show HN. Please read the rules.

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

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that, thanks for making the changes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Open Source social networks exists, but no-one is using them (chicken-egg problem).</comment>


Unintended Consequences: Credit Card Interest Rates now Much Higher - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/credit-card-interest-rates-much-higher/61934/

<comment><USER2> Credit card interest rates don't generally relate to default probabilities in a sane way, as Mike Konczal explains here: [http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/credit-card- reform...](http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/credit-card-reform-does- my-credit-cards-interest-rate-mean-anything/)

There is no rational model that relates your credit card interest rate in a reasonable way to your own actions. If you send in a $5 payment two days late, that's often treated the same as sending in a $5000 payment one month late. But any sane bank officer will tell you that these two events are vastly different when it comes to default probabilities. Credit cards in the US are an insane debt instrument, and ideally, people would use them only for providing transactional credit and not for loans.

Its funny, given the wealth of data available to credit card providers, they have the ability to carefully fine tune rates to a decent estimate of loss probabilities. If that happened, you'd see rates smoothly transition along a curve in response to your actions rather than see-sawing between two or three rates. But pricing in default risk isn't the goal since defaults are great for credit card companies. The more you default, the more fees and interest they can tack on, and many borrowers will end up paying most of that back. It is so much more profitable to earn $5000 on a debt of $1000 after all, even if you have to wait 2 or 3 years to actually get it.

</comment><comment><USER3> My card rate is -2% since I got 2% rebate on every purchase, 3%-5% for certain things like gas.

<comment><USER4> This is pretty important - if you're not paying for everything with a rewards card, you're subsidizing those of us who do.

<comment><USER5> Yes, exactly. This is why rewards cards are ultimately so evil: they're based on a bastardization of an incentive structure that needs to die.

Rewards payouts are funded by interchange fees which are paid by the retailer... aka the consumer. If you use rewards cards, your rewards payment is subsidized by populations whom don't use rewards cards.

The whole reason interchange fees existed in the first place was to move some of the costs of operating the networks away from banks to merchants. Merchants have a natural incentive to accept cards (sales!), while banks originally didn't have the same incentive to offer them. Interchange fees were meant to level the field.

In a competitive environment, interchange fees should go down and reach an socially efficient level. Instead, the US has the highest interchange fees in the world due to network consolidation and the four-party system catering to banks, not to merchants.

IIRC, the average US household pays ~$400/yr in interchange fees. Rewards cards are silly and I'm glad they'll be dying a slow death soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Funny thing is, mine recently went down. Obama's bill has made it illegal for credit card companies to continue to penalize you with higher interest rates for a late payment made more that six months ago (as I understand it). I called my credit card co and told them they have no reason for having my interest rate at 28%+ when I made one late payment years ago over the life of my card (15 years or more?). They dropped my rate to 9.9% three minutes later. I highly recommend calling them and asking them why your rate is so high -- especially if you have a late payment in your past that is more than six months old. And, if you've made a late payment recently, put an alarm in your calendar to call them six months from now. This was an awesome thing the Obama admin did that can save americans millions of dollars, but does anyone appreciate it or take advantage of it?

<comment><USER7> I think you've missed the point of the article. The law prevents the CC companies from doing any statistical analysis to assess the higher costs to the greatest risks. That means that people who pose a lower default risk will have to pay just as much as those that pose a higher risk.

You might think it's great, but that's because somebody else is paying the cost of your default risk.

<comment><USER8> They are allowed to do statistical analysis using such factors as credit score and amount of debt. The difference is that now they can't increase your rate on existing balances. They can still raise your rates, but only if you want to borrow more from them and don't opt to pay off the balance at the previous rate.

This seems much more transparent to me - you are selling a fixed-rate bond, rather than borrowing at a rate subject to their whim.

<comment><USER7> You make a good point, but I don't think it's completely correct.

I think what you're missing is that the period of the loan from the CC is also open-ended. With a conventional loan, the lender knows that he'll be repaid (i.e., risk goes to 0) at the end of the term (30 year mortgage, 5 years for a car, etc.).

With the CC, the borrower may be holding those funds pretty much forever. This means that the lender is assuming more risk: first, that at some point way down the road the borrower will default; and second, that changes in the cost of capital make the CC "loan" unprofitable. This latter risk is much more acute today, precisely because interest rates are so low. If the CC rate is calculated to be profitable based on (e.g.) today's prime rate, then there's every possibility that 10 years down the road it's going to be a lousy deal for the CC company.

So as I said (but not for precisely my original reasons) you're putting more risk on the CC company. And the CC company has to recoup the costs of that risk somehow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Who cares? I wouldn't care if my credit card interest rate was %100. I always pay it off in its entirety every month. I will never carry a balance, and thus never accrue interest, unless there's a real emergency. If there's a real emergency, the amount of money it costs is not really a concern, the emergency is. That's what makes it an emergency, it's more important than money.

A credit card to me is just a convenient way to buy things online and in person without having to deal with cash. IMHO, if you ever carry a balance in a non-emergency situation, you're part of the problem, and you deserve to pay that higher interest rate.

Don't buy things you can not afford.

<comment><USER10> _Don't buy things you can not afford._

This is a fine rule to aim for (prudent for individuals and all that), but it makes me wonder. If everyone in the world (and the nations of the world) actually began to live by this advice, wouldn't that trigger an immense depression? (When responding, please take me at my word: I'm not consciously posting flame-bait; I'm just truly ignorant when it comes to economics.)

<comment><USER11> An increase in the savings rate has significantly negative effects on GDP growth in the short-term. So, if the US suddenly lived within its means, it would cause/worsen a short-term depression.

In the long-run, a bigger capital base can create more technology and/or capital investment, which improves productivity, which improves standards of living.

<comment><USER7> I agree with your conclusion, but part of your logic is faulty. You seem to be assuming that all savings takes the form of holding debt from others, e.g., bonds. But that's only one possibility. You can also save by owning equity in others, e.g., stocks.

However, I don't want somebody else to own equity in my house, rather me having a normal mortgage.

At the very least, such a change would cause all kinds of liquidity problems, and would certainly cause the significant negative effects you predict.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> James-Foster The end result of this regulation will be more transparency in borrowing costs, and nothing more. From a pure economics point of view, it doesn't make sense that the overall cost of having/using a credit card will be any higher for any given class of risk since this regulation doesn't affect the overall risk of lending to any given credit class. Competition ensures this.

In other words, people in the credit class of FICO 800 or better should not see any additional increase in their interest rate, while less credit-worthy people who in the past were charged more hidden fees, will see an increase in interest rate to recoup the lost revenue needed to justify lending at that class of risk.

If there is currently an overall upward trend in the cost of having/using a credit card, this would be attributable to something entirely different, say a smaller overall pool of lendable capital due to a weaker economy, or maybe a regulatory change that did impact the risk of lending, bankruptcy reform for example...

</comment><comment><USER12> My card rate is and always has been 0 and it's the way it should be.

<comment><USER13> As is mine. Why waste money on interest? If you don't have enough to pay for a thing, you shouldn't buy the thing.

<comment><USER14> I agree with you, and I think it's because we spend our money on technology. When you buy the latest gadget immediately, it just becomes obsolete. When you save up to buy the latest gadget, a better one comes out before you're done saving. So you get a better a gadget and have more money for more gadgets.

I guess a lot of people want to have the "latest and greatest" for fashion reasons, and credit cards are appealing for that reason. I did that in college and it took me like a year of having a real job to pay it off. Sadly, other people never do pay it off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Obligatory warning: Megan McArdle has a long and well-documented history of playing somewhat loosely with her facts in order to make political points. Bear that in mind when considering arguments she makes.

<comment><USER7> I think that in making an _ad hominem_ argument like that, you ought to at least provide documentation rather than just sling accusations.

In my experience, her reasoning has been sound and I'm not aware of a high degree of factual errors in her writings.

If you're right, please help us understand. Otherwise you sound like a partisan yourself.

<comment><USER15> I've posted an example in response to one of the other comments. In the future I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from conflating source criticism with _ad hominem_ attacks; someone who has, in the past, been demonstrated to misrepresent or misreport facts in service to political goals is an unreliable source, and there's no fallacy in pointing this out.

<comment><USER7> _I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from conflating source criticism with ad hominem attacks_

I only conflate them because a criticism of the source (as opposed to a criticism of the argument, or objection to a fact) _is_ an _ad hominem_ attack.

See wikipedia: <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ad_hominem>

_An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise._

You cite an (alleged) characteristic of Ms. McArdle, that she's had factual errors in the past. You have not even mentioned the facts of this article: your argument is based on that characteristic of Ms. McArdle. QED

<comment><USER15> An _ad hominem_ attack is, or is usually understood to be, fallacious and as such an invalid point. But bringing up a past record of unreliability in a given source is neither fallacious nor invalid; it is in fact extremely relevant when considering how carefully to examine claims made or how thoroughly to check sources cited.

In other words: "this person has been known in the past to misrepresent/misreport things" is perfectly valid to point out, as such a source should be taken with a grain of salt and subjected to scrutiny. Megan McArdle is one such source.

<comment><USER7> I went back and looked at your original post. You said _Bear that in mind when considering arguments she makes._

Based on this, I think I may have been a little harsh. You didn't cite specifics in her history, nor did you make specific objection to the argument or facts of the OP. However, you also didn't explicitly say they're wrong; you advised vigilance. As there's nothing wrong with that, I now think I owe you some apology.

That said, I still believe that you came across like a partisan mudslinger. And I stand by my claim that an effort to defeat an argument by addressing its author rather than its argument or facts, is by definition an _ad hominem_ attack.

If you go read the OP, you'll find that it's really an exercise in balance. There's not much factual in it, nor does there need to be. Nor does she really come out on one side of the argument or the other. All she's saying is that the situation isn't as simple as "the government identified a problem and fixed it for us", and I think she makes that point well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Silly article when CC co's last year raised the majority of card holders rates to 29.99% unless they chose to "cancel" that card, locking in the previous rate. Much of the hikes were done even to those with no "cause." Meaning, a missed / late payment, recent foreclosure, etc.

I also called and asked my CC companies why they were continuing to raise my rates..late payment that year = rate hike of 10%.

</comment><comment><USER17> Thank God all my CCs are already jacked all the way up to 28% interest rates, so they can't ass fuck me anymore than I already am being ass fucked. (Before the Republican Randroid's come out of the wood work to tell me it's my own fault—it is, I know, but like a lot of Americans, in the past couple years we've had no choice but to use CC's for necessary living expenses.)

My top goal right now is to live cheap, pay off all debt, and never again take on any debt. Ever. Debt is a fool's game, like any well-designed casino, "the house always wins." Hopefully an enormous number of Americans will learn this lesson and do likewise, and utterly punish the banks where it counts—on their bottom line. It wasn't too long ago that American's were amongst the most frugal and biggest savers in the world, which laid the foundation for a great cultural-Puritan work ethic.</comment>


'Extreme programming' controls Mars Lander robot  - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9094138&intsrc=hm_list <comment><USER2> It's not clear they are using the term "extreme programming" as we understand it. I'm disappointed the article doesn't talk more about the process they use. Maybe someone there reads this and can elaborate...</comment>


Photorealistic Image Resynthesis for Gaze Manipulation - <AUTHOR> http://sites.skoltech.ru/compvision/projects/deepwarp/ <comment><USER2> Vertical movements are a bit weird, sometimes the eyelid seems to artificial. The horizontal movement is very good.</comment>


Show HN: Middleware to plug your Express app into IFTTT.com - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/b00giZm/express-ifttt-webhook

<comment><USER2> This looks awesome! I've always been looking for something like this. Stamplay[1] has been like IFTTT for backend development, but it simply can't match the number and quality of modules of IFTTT (yet). This will make integration with many different service providers super easy.

[1] [http://stamplay.com/](http://stamplay.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This looks fantastic. I don't have a lot of experience with Express, but this seems like a great way to connect IFTTT to smaller, personal web apps. I'm definitely going to look into applying this to some other frameworks.

<comment><AUTHOR> It really shines for RaspberryPi home automation :) I'm currently preparing a blog with a little more details about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's pretty clever - they implement the Wordpress Blog API in Express so they can use IFTTT - no reason to think that you couldn't do the same in any other framework.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, the original implementation was using PHP. But the overall architecture of Express made it pretty easy to build on top.</comment></comment>