Integrated Terminal Performance Improvements - <AUTHOR> https://code.visualstudio.com/blogs/2017/10/03/terminal-renderer <comment><USER2> I really wish Microsoft had used a different platform to build VS code on, like C#/Mono, Java, anything except Javascript/Electron basically. I just started using VS code for C++ development, trying to switch from Vim, an I basically like everything about the concept, but the execution and quality/polish of the software is mediocre at best. At least three times a day random stuff breaks: code completion stops working, switching between header/source (using a plugin) stops working, all keyboard input except shortcuts stops working, Vim plugin acting up, the app randomly starts to use 40% cpu until I kill it etc. On top of that performance is just so-so for most things (editing, autocomplete), and quite slow for others (e.g. gotoSymbol for the whole project). This was very disappointing for me to find out considering all the praise VS code gets for being 'probably the best Electron app'.

I don't mean this as a flame, but the software just feels like all the other applications I tried that are based on web technology. If it works everything is fine, but if you stress the application enough, inevitably things start to fail in ways that suggest it was simply too difficult to properly QA and test the thing to the point it doesn't hit some weird platform edge case. I sincerely think the product itself is awesome, apparently that's enough for people to put up with the shoddy stability and general sense of quality?

Maybe there are other reasons and the platform is not actually the problem, but I find it remarkable that something as advanced as VS code fails in similar ways my own web-based projects usually fail.

And now I read they are going to implement their own console rendering using HTML canvas, because the obvious ways to implement it when you are stuck with a Electron have major shortcomings... Somehow I just feel Microsoft with all their talent and resources could have made an even more impressive product if they had made the exact same thing based on some other platform...

<comment><USER3> Something is seriously wrong with your setup. I know many vscode users, and none of them are having your problems.

I'm not saying you aren't having real problems, but they aren't common and they can appear in any editor -- I used to fill vim with plugins and it would hang frequently.

<comment><USER2> My setup is just the official, latest release, with the Microsoft plugin for C++, the Vim bindings everyone uses, and one additional plugin for switching between header and source. I customized nothing besides a few keybindings and enabling neovim mode. This is on Ubuntu by the way.

I also used VS code a little on macOS for web development, and to be fair, I didn't run into any of these problems there. But that's for projects that are literally 100 times smaller than the C++ project I'm working on.

I don't really buy the anecdotal 'other developers never have any problems with VS code' observation. I've been following the VS code release announcements here on HN for a while (it's what got me interested in trying VS code), and they regularly seem to contain fixes for weird platform problems or regressions, to the point they've even had to retract a few of them because of serious problems found after deploying the update.

<comment><USER4> Look at the past threads for releases (I wont link, but) they are filled with nothing but praise. I'm totally non-affiliated with VSCode, but switched from Atom a few months ago and yes, anecdotally it's been an amazingly smooth experience.

I am actually the opposite of you: totally thankful for JS and electron, and I think they are the best possible future for apps.

To be honest, I really think people have an emotional reaction to JS/Electron one because it's seen as a threat to their preferred language, and two because it has all this built up hate due to legitimate past problems. A few years of pretty hectic pace in JS-land and now it's close to greatness, but still very inconsistent, so people still love to hate it. Couple that with some poorly made apps (looking at you Spotify/Slack) and you have a weird sect on HN that now vilifies Electron/JS with totally incorrect arguments about stability and speed (both are very doable with modern practices).

I'm not saying you are this person, or your grievances aren't real. But I'd be happy to put some money on the following points:

1\. Electron/JS apps will be more prolific in the next 5 years

2\. They will also be clearly the best platform for speed, stability and flexibility due to massive and ever improving ecosystems and dev tools.

Both have been happening, and to be honest, today we're at a point where I think it's a no-brainer to choose JS for just about any complex UI. The problem is you're wading into a fast-changing, diverse ecosystem, and a few wrong choices there can be very painful.

<comment><USER5> > it's a no-brainer to choose JS for just about any complex UI

Javascript? Sure. Electron? Maybe not. Show me an Electron app with load times that aren't measured in seconds. Or an Electron-based text editor that doesn't choke on a moderately sized text file. VS Code is currently taking half a gig of ram on my notebook with three text files open...

I happen to quite like VS Code, but to claim that Electron is a no-brainer is simply false. There are serious tradeoffs.

<comment><USER6> VS Code doesn't seem to choke to moderately sized files. There is a large amount of non-Electron code used for its text editor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Excited that terminal is getting love. Thanks team VSCode.

Hope the configurable panels allowing terminal on right side will get merged soon.

[0] [https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/pull/34267](https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/pull/34267) [1] [https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/2806](https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/2806)

</comment><comment><USER8> That is pretty concerning if they have to drop down to what is essentially a slightly improved framebuffer to get acceptable performance for a _terminal emulator_. The Electron waters are shallow and when you jump in head first you might hit a performance wall sooner than your feet hit the water.

I predict that by 2020 they'll have migrated the editor and terminal emulator to an OpenGL surface.

<comment><USER9> Or maybe you just underestimate the demands of a terminal emulator? More specifically, the demands of many users of a terminal emulator. People want to try to see the matrix, they want 60fps scrolls full of arcane details too quick to actually be useful, but clear enough to kind of skim to give the impression that it may be useful.

VSCode isn't the first terminal emulator to use a videogame canvas renderer approach (by decades), and won't be the last. (Not just because the work was PRed to a shared library that other applications use too, but also because there will always be people trying to see the matrix in terminal emulators as long as there are terminals to emulate.)

<comment><USER8> That was done because it was the only method available or because they started out with high performance / low latency / ... goals. Here is the VS Code team saying DOM performance was useless. And at the end of the day we're talking about 80x20 characters, sometimes color.

<comment><USER9> No, the VS Code team is saying DOM performance isn't enough for the high performance / low latency demands they are seeing.

The performance with DOM was already good enough for all my needs, personally.

They had a lot of people wanting 60fps consoles, so they decided to take a 60fps approach, and even though it is "just" text/color/limited graphics, it shouldn't be a surprise that the 60fps approach is the same one they would take for a more graphics-focused approach somewhere else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What's the case for using the terminal in VSCode? I use a modern multitasking computer where VSCode is in one area or screen and my terminal in another (and other things in others).

By using my own terminal I get to keep everything custom about that terminal rather than having another one.

Surely there's reasons that I'm missing?

Edit: thanks for all the responses. A lot of great new things I didn't think of before!

<comment><USER7> For example, you can use linter in terminal which makes click on output messages interactive -> going directly to source code.

edit: quick youtube example how it works together [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMrDePs86Uo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMrDePs86Uo)

<comment><USER11> Wouldn't it be better to run the linter in the background and have the editor mark the problem lines? I have keyboard shortcuts bound to "next marker" and "previous marker" so I can jump to the next problem.

They don't work across an entire workspace, sadly, and I have an outstanding Github issue about it that has not seen any activity for years. Project-wide linting is something that VSCode really lacks right now. For example, it's easy to change something in one file that breaks another file, but you won't get any error markers until you go to the broken file.

<comment><USER12> > Wouldn't it be better to run the linter in the background and have the > editor mark the problem lines? I have keyboard shortcuts bound to "next > marker" and "previous marker" so I can jump to the next problem.

The ESLint plugin does both these things; linting is just an example. I use the terminal's click-to-open file feature for opening files that have have merge conflicts during git rebase, and for opening spec files that failed. It's just handy to have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Love the integrated terminal in VS Code! Great work by the team on this and appreciate the writeup.

Curious what keyboard shortcut people use to move focus from editors to the Terminal and create new terminals? Anyone use tmux inside terminal?

<comment><AUTHOR> Author of the blog post here. The standard shortcuts are ctrl+` for toggling the panel and ctrl+shift+` for creating a new terminal. This is what I use on top of that:

{ "key": "ctrl+`", "command": "workbench.action.terminal.focus", "when": "!terminalFocus" }

This will focus the terminal if the focus is anywhere else, if the terminal is focused it will close it.

You can add this one if you want ctrl+` to only toggle focus between the terminal and the last editor:

{ "key": "ctrl+`", "command": "workbench.action.focusActiveEditorGroup", "when": "terminalFocus" }

On tmux, Joao from the team did a write up on configuring persistent sessions in the terminal using tmux [https://medium.com/@joaomoreno/persistent- terminal-sessions-...](https://medium.com/@joaomoreno/persistent-terminal- sessions-in-vs-code-8fc469ed6b41)

<comment><USER11> Last I checked, this only makes sense on US keyboards. On most non-US keyboards, the backtick requires option/alt and isn't practical as a shortcut.

<comment><USER14> I think you could just add a custom keybinding now that you know the commands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Misaligned characters: Due to many monospace fonts not being strictly > monospace for some Unicode characters, this could lead to situations like > the one seen on the right-side of the image below: (image)

What are they referring to? I've been staring at the pic for nearly a minute and can't see anything misaligned.

<comment><USER16> Top right and bottom right corners of the green box.

<comment><USER15> Oh duh! I was staring at the text that I didn't even notice the borders. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Obligatory comment: I really like VSCode but keep jumping back and forth between it and Sublime because of startup time.

I like VSCode enough to use it daily and extensively and jump back to sublime when I need to jump around projects fast–when startup time becomes crucial.

I believe they will solve this issue at some point.

<comment><USER11> While VSCode is great, it's also useless as $EDITOR.

It's very slow to start (when it's already running), and while you'd think you could speed this up by making it open a new tab in your current window _and_ and return control the parent process when you close that tab ("code -r -w", I believe), that's not possible. It can open the new tab, but it never relinquishes control, at least not for me.

Wouldn't be an issue if startup was super fast with "code -w", but creating new windows, even when VSCode is running, takes several seconds.

So I still use "joe" as $EDITOR.

<comment><AUTHOR> > and while you'd think you could speed this up by making it open a new tab in > your current window and and return control the parent process when you close > that tab ("code -r -w", I believe), that's not possible.

Exactly this is actually coming in v1.17.

<comment><USER11> Awesome. Of course, fast window startup would be even better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> [https://github.com/sourcelair/xterm.js/pull/938](https://github.com/sourcelair/xterm.js/pull/938) is the PR does rendering using canvas

</comment><comment><USER14> I've been using VSCode for a while. I have this one issue with it, I couldn't figure out how to switch between the Terminal & the editor. Often I just (CMD+ Tab) to go to an independent terminal and execute some command. The only way I could figure out to do this within VSCode is "Contrl + ~", but have to do it twice if it's already open. So, does any of you know if there's an easy way of switching between the editor and the terminal?

<comment><USER19> If i understand you correctly this should help you, especially the answer by Tyriar. [https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/12054](https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/12054)

<comment><USER14> Oh boy you just saved my ass, thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm an iOS Developer learning React, using Webstorm I can get all the auto completion + some other things I like from Xcode. Can I set up VS Code to do the same?

<comment><USER21> I don't have experience with React Native, but certainly React + TypeScript gives you autocomplete in VsCode.

Try cloning my repo here:

[https://github.com/styfle/react-server-example- tsx](https://github.com/styfle/react-server-example-tsx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Are there any macOS terminals like iTerm but with performance and resource efficiency as the top goals?

<comment><USER23> You can try Alacritty

<comment><USER12> Alacritty is extremely fast, but you need to use a terminal multiplexer like tmux or screen if you want commonly used features like tabs or scrolling. Which would be fine, except that both tmux and vim run significantly slower than expected in Alacritty on macOS; there's a performance bug somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> That's great! Does anyone know if the code editor itself uses canvas rendering? If not then why?

<comment><USER25> It doesn't use canvas

<comment><USER26> Having never looked at the source, I'm curious about how you build an editor using web technologies. Is it just a big textarea that gets manipulated with JS?

<comment><USER27> It's not one large textarea. There is a textarea which is 1x1 and right next to the cursor. I have no idea what they are for.

Just open the dev tools and have some fun. You'll learn a lot.

<comment><USER11> The textarea is to accept input, presumably. It's a trick often used in a normal browser HTML page, too. You get focus, keypresses, copy/paste, etc. via the native browser UI. It's a shame that HTML doesn't provide something similar, but as a hack it's not too bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why are they focusing on this when there is a huge usability problem on osx + high res displays

<comment><USER29> I'm using a macbook pro and it seems fine. Is the text blurry on 4k/5k?

<comment><USER17> I own LG Ultrafine 5K; when I work with VS Code full screen it blinks like framerate is 10fps or something. Otherwise it works OK on MacBook screen.

<comment><USER30> I'm running a Touch Bar MBP connected to the LG UltraFine 5K with no visible problems FullScreen or not on the LG panel.

Resolution is set for "Default for display" and I run Flux. Initially I had some issues with the monitor that went away when I got a new USB-C cable. Perhaps that would help...?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Y Combinator Room on Meebo - <AUTHOR> http://www.meebo.com/room/ycombinator/ <comment><USER2> There's #news.yc on the EFnet IRC network, and it has a few regular visitors.

<http://www.efnet.org/?module=servers>

<comment><USER3> Move it to Freenode =D

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone, - I added a room on Meebo which might faciliate some real time conversations. See you all there!

</comment><comment><USER4> If you'd care to use a non funded-up-the ying/yang chat startup that has mobile support: <http://mychatlog.com/chat?channel=ycombinator>

</comment><comment><USER5> We really need an official chat room for this sort of thing. IRC would work best.

Then again, maybe no chat room would work best, too.

</comment><comment><USER4> Umm the meebo room keeps disconnecting & can't reattach. <http://mychatlog.com/chat?channel=ycombinator> anyone?</comment>


Show HN: Dungeon Map Doodler – Free online map drawing tool - <AUTHOR> https://dungeonmapdoodler.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey everyone, this is a little project I've been working on for the last few months. It's written in pure javascript canvas, running totally client side and supports offline mode as a PWA. It's a tool for people who play tabletop RPGs like Dungeons & Dragons to quickly create custom maps in a hand drawn style. It's still a work in progress, but it's starting to come along pretty well. I'd love to hear what you think!

<comment><USER2> Nice!

I mostly know [1] which is a similar tool, maybe with some more emphasis on aesthetics. What kind of features (if any, but I'd guess there are) makes Dungeon Map Doodler different?

[1]: [https://deepnight.net/tools/rpg-map/](https://deepnight.net/tools/rpg- map/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh wow, the dynamic lighting on those maps look really nice! My initial goal was just to make printable maps in a hand drawn style really easy to create. Lots of people draw their own maps, then spend a huge amount of time adding in all that crosshatching manually, and I thought I could save people a bit of time. I've noticed a lot of these map making tools try to do everything and end up becoming really complicated, but I'm trying my best to avoid making it too hard to use. Essentially, most people seem to be trying to make Photoshop for maps, and I'm making Paint. A tool that anybody can open and use immediately without spending a bunch of time learning the system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I gotta say, this is amazing! I'm (very slowly) working on a textmode RPG. Something like this really helps me to come up with the world!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! That sounds cool, I'm glad my tool can help you with your own project!</comment></comment>


The Tragedy of the Re-Auth - <AUTHOR> https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2013/03/06/Tragedy-of-the-Identity-Commons <comment><AUTHOR> I've got no argument with, "If... you find yourself about to say "But you shouldn't want to do X" for any value of X, you should be nervous." When he nearly proposes repealing HIPAA (which might be a good idea for other reasons!), however, he's in the weeds. If there is a disagreement between the real world and your protocol, your protocol is wrong.</comment>


COBOL and Salaries - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwir0J-gofrKAhXCwYMKHQgdC5wQFghFMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Freadwrite.com%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Fcobol-programming-language-hot-or-not&usg=AFQjCNEEKrBjKqLXLOGxSagvJ2GZaWJQsg&sig2=o-RpcFLOPz0h3GyLBNSqUA <comment><USER2> Note that the actual URL of this story is:

[http://readwrite.com/2014/09/17/cobol-programming- language-h...](http://readwrite.com/2014/09/17/cobol-programming-language-hot- or-not)

The posted Google URL just redirects to it.

Please don't do that.</comment>


Verizon data overages, other charges hit Florida mom for $9,100 - <AUTHOR> http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/09/verizon_data_overages_other_ch.html <comment><USER2> Chances are she has an app on her phone, pulling data for malicious reason, or simply ads. I have seen cases where the ad was incorrectly implemented and went into some form of loop, pulling 10gb in short amount of time</comment>


On science crowdfunding - <AUTHOR> http://www.indysci.org/mission/oncrowdfunding.html

<comment><USER2> I like the idea of full disclosure, but when pitching to the Internet crowd for donations, I think you need that "cool" idea to get people to read the details behind your project. I absolutely agree with being honest disclosure, but with all the things out there competing for attention, you need a quick picture or phrase to capture your audience's attention. It seems difficult to be 100% honest and still be interesting.</comment>


Today's analog of Bell Labs and Xerox PARC labs? - <AUTHOR>

Can you name some? <comment><USER2> _Today's analog of Bell Labs and Xerox PARC labs?_

Remember that back in the time of PARC, to do that kind of research, you needed a computer the size of a small house. With utility computing we've dropped the cost to less than one server and based on usage.

Remember as well that PARC was essentially just a few people: Starkweather (laser printer), Metcalfe (ethernet) and Kay (PC, GUI, Smalltalk, etc).

So doing the math, it seems that today's analog of PARC is a single woman in Senegal or a couple of guys in Poland. It could be anywhere, and that's pretty exciting!

</comment><comment><USER2> Very few. Here are a couple:

Microsoft Research (research.microsoft.com)

Viewpoints Research (vpri.org)</comment>


Show HN: GitCash - On-Chain Bitcoin Cash Tipping on GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://gitcash.io <comment><USER2> The project might need a different name that doesn't contain "Git". Github and older trademarks have been grandfathered in.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17289138](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17289138)

<comment><USER3> The is really good info to know as I was planning a "Git..." side project.</comment></comment>


Meet the World's Super Class: Why They Call the Shots - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/id/130637/output/print

<comment><USER2> I find the conclusion bizarre...

There has always been a class of ruling super-elites. Always has, always will be. Period.

The beauty of free-market capitalism (coupled with representative republicanism) is that the class is very fluid and far more transparent. People rise to "eliteness" and fall back down again - and far, far more people today have a shot at this kind of eliteness than ever have before. A lot of the old rules still apply (e.g., it helps to start off rich), but a lot of the old rules have been broken (e.g., you don't have to be the king's son).

What's the author's proposed solution (in search of a problem?)? Global governance! Yes, that's right. Let's take a system whereby people have the opportunity and fortune to become part of the elite by merit or sheer good luck or grassroots political support and change it so that only those who are approved may become part of the elite, and let's give that small group absolute power, and give them a structure by which they will never lose their eliteness, and make sure that merit or good luck has nothing to do with it, and oh, by the way, there won't be any way at all for them to be held accountable.

 _Great_ idea.

<comment><USER3> > _There has always been a class of ruling super-elites. Always has, always > will be. Period._

Depends on the culture and technology level. With primitive technology in certain cultures, there's a "big man" who still has to farm his own yams but who gets a little more input generally -- however, he doesn't actually get to _order_ people about. Then you get a little more technology and some bigwig is bossing people around.

I think we will come out the other side where technology is so advanced that nobody really needs to depend on other people, thus we will be independently equal, and thus, not be ruled over. Not to mention, with nonbiological intelligence, the difference between any two humans intellectually will just be noise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sorry I can't up-vote any article that mentions Mark Zuckerberg as one of the world's "SuperClass". Does anyone really think Facebook has, even within an order of magnitude, the same world-wide pull as the Fed? I'm pretty sure Bear Stearns didn't call in their VPs through Facebook Chat.

<comment><USER5> I disagree with you. I think the influence of facebook (and other social networks), especially in helping to bring large groups of people together for a common cause, is understated. Also, mark Zuckerberg _is_ one of the worlds SuperClass, at least if your basis for this is on wealth,as hes worth at least $1 billion.

<comment><USER6> "hes worth at least $1 billion"

On paper.

<comment><USER3> Together, he and I are worth one billion twenty-four dollars and eighteen cents.

<comment><USER3> On paper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm sorry, but this guy really needed to do some research. He doesn't even mention the Pentavirate... You know, The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, _and_ Colonel Sanders before he went tits up.

<comment><USER3> When he went tits-up was it dark meat or light?

<comment><USER7> it was that addictive chemical that makes you crave it fortnightly</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What AI/ML domain should I choose at FANG? - <AUTHOR> I have a neat opportunity to join an AI/ML team at FANG, where I can choose the team. I have no formal AI/ML background, so would very much be learning on the job (I realize it won't be a walk in the park).<p>The issue is, that there's mindblowing tech all over the company, and I'd like to learn all of it. How should I think about zeroing in on a domain? Domains include Ranking, Computer Vision, NLP, Personalization, among others. <comment><USER2> Ranking is more specific to the particular company. At Netflix and Amazon it is obviously very important, as it is part of their recommender systems. At Google, probably less so.

Computer Vision and NLP are both extremely hot research topics. Knowledge gained in either one is highly applicable elsewhere. If you go into NLP I recommend learning about the problems other languages pose, don't just learn NLP for English, if you can.

Personalisation is not something I can say anything about.</comment>


Poverty, more than geography, determines who gets online in America - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/15/8965409/us-internet-access-map-white-house-report-broadband-inequality <comment><USER2> The "mean household income" is way off on the map. For example, Sioux County ND on the map has a mean household income of $80,540. Looking at Census.gov 2013 data we get a "Mean household income" of $56,657.

// interestingly the "Median household income" is listed at $36,111.</comment>


Of Strings and Kings: Musical Duets with Machine Learning Algorithms - <AUTHOR> https://ofstringsandkings.pointlinesurface.com/ <comment><USER2> Amazing work. Thank you very much also for the references.</comment>


Go + gxui: Rendering native app GUIs on any platform? - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/google/gxui/issues/49#issuecomment-113700372 <comment><USER2> I've not tried this but I thought I'd mention that I've been using the QT QML packages for building desktops apps and the results are amazing!

[https://github.com/go-qml/qml](https://github.com/go-qml/qml)

Even better with the Material additions from here:

[https://github.com/papyros/qml-material](https://github.com/papyros/qml- material)

Building Google Material themed apps easily with a Golang back end? Lovely!

I really hope the Golang team are considering the QML package as part of the standard library in Go v2, it would an absolutely awesome GUI kit to have as standard!

<comment><USER3> Qt is an amazing framework which got many things right!

The combo C++ QML QtQuick made my life so much easier for a cross-platform OSX/Win app.

I was able to develop most of it on Linux, and it even looks nifty!

What else can you wish ? :)

<comment><USER4> I also prefer Qt but starting with Qt4 it imposes a minimum memory overhead of 25MiB to 30MiB for even a simple single window application with nothing in it. QML is likely higher. I don't like Gtk3 but they don't have this particular disadvantage. It's too much overhead and I haven't found a fix.

<comment><USER3> Yes that's one of the downside. Also, the binaries can get fat really quick. Especially when you link statically with some of the Qt components.

I guess it's a fair trade-off when you target today's desktop systems. Otherwise, it might worth looking at Qt for Embedded Linux.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was excited to see "native" UI -- which I read as using the specific OS APIs to create native controls.

This instead seems to be taking the Kivy OpenGL controls approach. It looks very nifty and as though it took effort by some smart folks.

I was only hoping for truly native controls so as to provide access to screen readers and other a11y solutions by default.

</comment><comment><USER6> > "This is so figgin cool, I woke up my wife this morning and showed her. She > had no idea what she was looking at, but I know she recognized it as figgin > cool as I'd normally get punched for waking her that early on a Saturday."

</comment><comment><USER7> How is this a 'native app GUI'? It's only OpenGL as far as I can tell?

<comment><USER8> OpenGL is native. I assume you're thinking of the native WIMP APIs such as Win32, Cocoa, and so forth. But OpenGL does run natively on the client OS - even if the widgets then have to be re-implemented.

<comment><USER7> For 20 years, 'native GUI' has meant 'using the system's toolkit', not 'doesn't use web page to half-ass impersonate local application'. If this is really only OpenGL, then a more apt title would be 'Go + gxui: Rendering triangles very fast on any platform?'. There is quite a gap (like, Grand Canyon sized gap) between 'able to render what OpenGL provides' and 'render GUI'. Even building a UI as primitive as Motif is many man-months of effort for any serious application, if all you have to work with is OpenGL.

<comment><USER8> I don't think anyone has ever said "native GUI" in the last 20 years. It's pretty nonsensical if you actually break down that passage to it's core components because it doesn't actually describe what specifically is "native":

\- the libraries? But that's a programming interface for drawing graphics, not itself a graphical interface.

\- the aesthetics of the widgets? This would be a more accurate interpretation, but the problem with that interpretation is that you could design web pages to look like Win32 forms and people widely consider HTML applications to be native.

\- the layers of abstraction between your code and the rendering of your user interface? What about people who use .NET, MVC's or other wrappers?

\- the author of the toolkits (eg MS toolkits for Windows, Apple for OS X)? So would that mean there's no native Linux GUI's because Linus Torvalds hasn't written any Linux widget libraries?

Saying "native GUI" doesn't really describe your point. Which is why I made the distinction between _widget reimplementation being drawn natively on the OS_ vs _widgets being drawn via Microsoft or Apples own APIs_. This project being the former and your point being the latter - both being native in their own way yet different in their details.

<comment><USER9> > _I don 't think anyone has ever said "native GUI" in the last 20 years. It's > pretty nonsensical if you actually break down that passage to it's core > components because it doesn't actually describe what specifically is > "native"_

They have, and they have said it exactly as the parent mentions.

See for example complaints about webkit based apps not looking and behaving native on iOS, and similar complaints for all kinds of desktop apps using some third party toolkit: from Eclipse and Firefox to Opera (when it used to do that) and GIMP on OS X, anything Swing.

> _it doesn 't actually describe what specifically is "native"_

It's pretty much agreed what's native is the specific, OS-based (or user- chosen-toolkit-based on Linux) implementation of widgets and controls, as it pertains to both look and feel.

There are even whole terms often associated with such complaints, such as "uncanny valley" etc.

> _So would that mean there 's no native Linux GUI's because Linus Torvalds > hasn't written any Linux widget libraries?_

No, for a Gnome user, non native is anything non Gnome (GTK). For a KDE user anything non KDE. But the analogy is not perfect, because Linux doesn't come with a pre-built specific GUI lib for all users, so users are accustomed to a hodgepodge of varying behaving and looking apps to serve all their needs anyway, with some sugar of cooperation for things like drag and drop on top.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Please forgive me if the title isn't 100% accurate. After thinking about it, this possibility of combining both native and web view rendering seems like it could be an interesting approach for a wide variety of potential use-cases.

Are there any nice tools out there for creating apps that render to both native + web?

<comment><USER10> Create HTML app and pack it in some kind of shell (chromium embeeded, atom shell, nodewebkit)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It is truly ugly. I say that out of wishing that they had designed it differently.

</comment><comment><USER12> 404?

</comment><comment><USER13> First of all, these are not OS-native to any OS I know. So it's not native GUI. "Native" refers to the OS, not to the hardware.

Second, the GUI looks atrocious. What is wrong with designers nowadays that they think we live in a cartoonish world?</comment>


Using hg-git to work in git and push to hg - <AUTHOR> http://traviscline.com/blog/2010/04/27/using-hg-git-to-work-in-git-and-push-to-hg/

<comment><USER2> Finally, the amazing user interface of git combined with the legendary server- side performance and scalability of mercurial!

<comment><USER3> What scalability/server-side performance issues are you referencing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It'd be really cool if this could be bridged server-side -- there's a bunch of Python libraries on bitbucket that would be nice to be able to track as git submodules without adding a client-side burden.

</comment><comment><USER5> use pip to manage this: pip -E INST install hg-git export PYTHONPATH=$PWD/INST/lib/python2.6/site-packages

At this point you can use "hggit =" in your hgrc

Enjoy.</comment>


Joe Rogan got ripped off - <AUTHOR> https://www.supercast.com/blog/joe-rogan-got-ripped-off <comment><USER2> As an avid podcast listener and casual Joe Rogan listener I can tell you that I'm probably done listening after the transition. I'm not ever going to use Spotify to listen to podcasts. Podcasts were, and should continue to be, a free RSS feed which made them great. I'm not going to help destroy that great freedom.

<comment><USER3> I don't think of Spotify as completely walled. Does the free version put ads in the middle of a podcast or only inbetween tracks?

<comment><USER4> Spotify literally does not work is some countries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A few of the YouTubers I follow are desperately trying to move their fan base off of YT, just to make themselves more immune to the capricious whims of YT (one of them got banned temporarily for "impersonating" themselves). It's kind of fascinating seeing podcasters give up the kind of freedom that YT producers would kill for.

<comment><USER6> I think Peertube is the way to go, especially after this [https://sourcehut.org/blog/2020-05-15-peertube-bootstrap- fun...](https://sourcehut.org/blog/2020-05-15-peertube-bootstrap-fund/), if only someone could drag content producers to choose freedom instead of walled gardens...

<comment><USER5> You make it sound like YouTubers want walled gardens, which is kind of countermanded by the constant complaints YouTubers have about YouTube. I think that YouTubers think they're _stuck_ with the walled garden more than anything else.

The problem for YouTubers is that their fans are on YouTube, and moving fans from one platform to another is really, really hard.

I've also been rather negative on the viability of distributed social media sites, because they're really hard to explain to non-nerds. Even as someone who understands the theory and goals, dealing with picking an instance and navigating the differences is a hurdle I'm not really interesting in dealing with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Just a quick sidenote: Joe's friends have said that people who are throwing around numbers about how much he got from Spotify are estimating way lower than it really is. The $100M is the most common number being thrown around.

I can't tell how much the writer knows Joe's content, but he would probably have never went with a subscription model. The free access has always been one of the #1 things he attributes to his success. I say this as a listener from episode ~250 which is still not that long ago.

It's clear to a long-time fan that Spotify made some assurances that their app can be downloaded for free so all his listeners can join him.

<comment><USER8> I saw the same video [0]. It would seem unlikely that Joe wouldn't have the proper business and legal advice to make a deal like this and not come out it "ripped off". He's a successful stand up, been in sitcoms and general show-biz for decades.

[0] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sq9r87jnRo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sq9r87jnRo)

<comment><USER9> Unrelated but I really struggle with this kind of double and triple negative wording.

It WOULD seem UNLIKELY that he WOULD NOT have the proper advice to make a deal like this AND NOT be ripped off.

"He probably has good advisors that made sure he wasn't being ripped off."

It honestly took me 5 minutes to figure out what you were saying. I feel like I uniquely struggle with this, like I have some kind of undiscovered form of dyslexia. Maybe it's just late.

<comment><USER10> It's bad writing but I think it's unusual to have that much trouble parsing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have no idea if it's true, but I've heard that a major factor was recent pushback he was getting from YouTube with respect to contrarian coverage of the pandemic. Apparently he wanted to have guests who would provide alternative public health narratives and was told that this was a no-go on YouTube. Much of his audience consumes the show as video on YouTube and Spotify is another major brand that will offer a similar experience. He is hoping that Spotify will give him more creative freedom and apparently was successful in incorporating some guarantees into his new contract. I do know that during his recent live episodes there have been opinions shared about the quarantine and the pandemic that would have caused issues with YouTube's current policies regarding public health misinformation.

<comment><USER12> >Apparently he wanted to have guests who would provide alternative public health narratives and was told that this was a no-go on YouTube.

As it should be.

>He is hoping that Spotify will give him more creative freedom

Spreading pseudoscience isn't creative, its destructive.

<comment><USER13> > with respect to contrarian coverage of the pandemic

How is contrarian coverage "pseudoscience"?

An example of contrarian coverage is the suicide rate rising due to the Bay Area stay-at-home order: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23269396](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23269396)

<comment><USER14> How is a report from medical professionals on an abc affiliate contrarian?

<comment><USER15> Because by far the dominant narrative among urban, educated people is that continuing lockdowns are worth it because they prevent death from COVID-19. Arguments that the lockdowns are doing more harm than good are (wrongly, IMHO) associated with political conservatism, rejection of science, and so on.

Thus, evidence of the harm of lockdowns can be considered contrarian, regardless of whether it comes from medical professionals.

<comment><USER16> I have never been in an accident where I was helped by wearing a seatbelt, and preparations for Y2K cost many times more than any of the harm that was caused by Y2K bugs. Considering that I've never experienced malnutrition, I seem to waste a lot of time money and effort on nutrition, too.

Ignoring mental health consequences of difficult times is foolish, but this sounds much more like it was a "well, actually" sort of conversation meant to stroke people's egos.

<comment><USER17> The argument isn't that that point of view is correct. The argument is that it should be allowed to be presented.

<comment><USER18> The problem is that Google is exposed to political, financial, and legislative risks from all sides -- or else Google would host all content, including pirated movies, and they'd pass off all liability to the primary offender.

Then they'd collect advertising revenue based on all the eyeballs they can get.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Erm... Joe knows what he is making without Spotify and it isn't enough to make the deal seem as obviously-bad as the article makes it out to be. Also, I doubt Joe negotiated a $100 million deal without expensive legal & financial advice. If anything, the deal's closure is evidence that the article's assumptions are wrong.

<comment><USER20> Whenever I see an article like this I always assume it ends with "...and that's why <Joe Rogan> should have gone with me, instead. My services are very affordable and available for purchase now!"

<comment><USER21> And this one does! It ends with an ad for their company/product, which is a podcast monetization platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is it still Podcasting when Spotify doesn't even have the functionality to automatically download new episodes to your device? Wasn't this, like, the whole point of Podcasts in the first place? Subscribe, and as long as you sync (== plug in) your iPod before you leave the house, it'll have all of the new podcasts you want to listen to?

I mean, yeah, I get it, phones have data plans, but still. I LOVE Spotify, I'm a family plan subscriber, etc etc. But I'm not interested in my rates going up to pay for access to content I don't care about and could get for free if I did.

I tried to switch over to Spotify as a podcast app when Sonos ditched the ability to stream from your phone (the AirPlay2 cutover), but Spotify's podcast functionality is virtually nonexistent.

[https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/Podcasts- Automat...](https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/Podcasts- Automatically-save-offline-new-Podcasts-and-remove/idi-p/1356299)

</comment><comment><USER23> The general idea in the article I think is right but there's some caveats. I don't think his audience will suffer as much as the author thinks. Joe Rogan is pretty unique in the podcasting space, Spotify is already popular and I think people in general tend to overestimate the degree of backlash for these things. (the blizzard boycott comes to mind).

Also we don't really know Rogan's plans. If he plans on keeping this going for another 10-15 years staying independent would make some sense. But if he wants to retire after his Spotify deal runs out this may not be unreasonable.

<comment> aj-4 Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I get clips through the YouTube algorithm and if I like them, watch the whole podcast.

point being, I think the YouTube platform has played quite a large role where users don't have to "seek out" new episodes and I don't think that can be understated.

ultimately, only the numbers will tell.

<comment><USER24> Supposedly they're still able to put clips on YouTube, you just have to go to Spotify to hear the rest of the podcast.

It definitely adds a layer of friction, though. Instead of just clicking and immediately watching the full video on YouTube, you have to shift apps, to something you might not be signed up for or want to pay for (I'm one of the latter, I used to pay for Spotify years ago but stopped and I don't want to go back to it).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think that one thing this analysis is missing is why F1 drivers go to Ferrari. F1 drivers don't drive for Ferrari because they pay the best. They drive for Ferrari because of the dream. On Youtube Joe Rogan is just some guy. Spotify is offering Joe Rogan more than that.

Personally, I think the real point in this analysis is that 90% of people just aren't going to sollow him to spotify. Which is fine for spotify, they're buying users, but for Joe Rogan it'll be the end of his place in popular culture.

<comment><USER26> My guess Howard Stern is a good example from last decade. He is still around, but mostly irrelevant.

<comment><USER27> Still has a massive audience, recently had a best selling booking, and generates headlines -- but I guess you have a unique definition of relevance. I'd encourage you to listen to his guest interviews -- they are amazing.

<comment><USER28> I was previously a Stern fan and I distinctly recall listening to him on my way to school on 9/11 as he was covering the planes hitting the twin towers. I haven't heard or seen a single thing from Stern since he switched to satellite. I have no idea how to even listen to his guest interviews if I wanted. I could search for it, but that's kind of the point, I would have to search. It's never popped up in my YT/Twitter/FB feed. Friction is powerful, especially at scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The math is certainly interesting. But it ignores the fact that not everyone is looking to maximize every revenue dollar. Joe Rogan has made an EXTRAORDINARY amount of money. From the outside looking in it seems silly to poo-poo a guy that's made 10s of millions because maybe he could have made 100's of millions.

<comment><USER30> They didn't ignore that fact, they explicitly mentioned it in the article.

> Stern and Rogan are already super rich. The difference between $50mm/year of > profit and $100mm means zero to their day-to-day lifestyle. What I imagine > does matter to them is the size of their audience and their impact, and both > made choices that will limit that forever.

<comment><USER29> Ok thanks. Point stands.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If anybody lives their life exactly the way they want to live, then it's Rogan. His goals may be different from the writer's goals but I am 100% sure he got exactly what he wanted.

</comment><comment><USER32> Anybody an idea what sidekick Jamie's cut is from this enterprise?

Can't imagine Jamie doesn't have equity in the show and remained just a employee. On this kind of level of earnings, an important part is choosing who you share with.

Cheap debt influences the cashflow multiplier in a great way when doing a discounted cash flow analysis. The estimated financial gains are off by at least a factor 2 or 3. It doesn't make sense to make a deal of 100 million when you received 30 million last year.

> Joe Rogan's podcast 'The Joe Rogan Experience' earned a staggering $30 > million in revenue across 190 million downloads per month in 2019.

</comment><comment><USER33> > _In my last post I estimated Rogan was making around $64MM /year._

Colour me skeptical.

I have a hard time believing that Joe (who has been in show business a long time), or the business people he surrounds himself with as advisors, would sign a ~$100MM exclusive contact when they're printing $50MM+ a year. That doesn't make sense, does it?

<comment><USER34> It makes sense if he's not maximizing ad revenues, such as wasting precious ad time on free ads for Onnit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> _In September, I wrote a post about how Howard Stern is getting ripped off by Sirius. I made the case that Howard Stern is making $90 million a year when he could be making 2-3x by cutting out the middle-man and doing a subscription podcast._

Sure, until subscription fatigue kicks in. People pay for Spotify or SiriousXM because of the overall value. I doubt many people would be interested in paying just for Stern or Rogan's podcast. That is in addition to all the other services they're already paying for, such as Netflix, Prime, HBO, etc...

<comment><USER36> This is where cable companies really screwed up.

They could have offered consumers a choice of channels instead of packages. It would have required changing their business model but most cable companies are local monopolies so they should be able to declare new economics.

With their position as ISPs for many they were well positioned to offer streaming services first. These could have subscriptions by show instead of network. I would happily pay for the handful of shows I actually watch rather than the pantheon of streaming services we have now.

<comment><USER37> LTT did an episode about the pantheon of streaming services causing a resurgence in piracy. It is getting ridiculous. Everyone wants their $8-16/mo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Yep, this is very questionable (although is kind of typical of the 21st century business "knawledge").

First, if Rogan is doing this deal then he values himself at less than whatever they paid. I am assuming he has a fairly good understanding of that worth is (the guy has worked in media for a very long time) given that he knows what he earns, and the author doesn't/

Second, the value of these kind of audiences is pretty much always over- estimated. Spotify is way overvaluing Rogan's worth, and the author is way overvaluing Rogan's worth too. No, there isn't a huge subscription business here (Stern doesn't have one, people buy Sirius subs). Can you make money from podcast subscriptions? Yes. Should you? No.

Third, most of these media-ish companies don't think about this in a very sophisticated way (as Rogan's quote at the end demonstrates). They are desperate to create growth at any cost, they seldom focus on product or think about customer/supplier value, and usually have execs with bureaucratic/big media ways of thinking (which is useless for growth). I suspect this will be more Ninja and Mixer than Stern/Sirius...they have bought some listeners great...but unless they buy literally every podcast, their platform isn't growing (it is actually very like Twitch, what incentive does any podcaster have to move onto Spotify and make them rich...it is a ludicrous insight into the level of thought that goes into these huge, expensive deals...now Ninja is streaming to a few thousand rather than 30k...genius play Microsoft).

Fourth, the stuff about Spotify not having editorial control is not true. I don't know who is fooling who here but this is like Facebook acquiring WhatsApp and saying they are going to show ads...LOOOOOL. Spotify is a content company, if Facebook gets blamed for what other people right on their platform then Spotify is going to get hammered when Rogan (inevitably) does something unwise.

</comment><comment> aj-4 yea.. same thing that's happening in the live stream world with Ninja leaving Twitch and etc.

Ultimately seems to be a lose-lose-lose for the platform (where they don't pull 1/4 of their prior numbers), fans (who generally just stop caring), and creator (who makes money short term but loses major brand equity, relevance, growth)

Rogan didn't know how high he could've taken it. Now he does. Maybe he was ready to retire anyway?

<comment><USER13> > Maybe he was ready to retire anyway?

The article's revenue estimates are based on Rogan doing more work...setting up subscription programs, keeping up with YouTube's content policies to avoid getting kicked off the platform, and continuing to find podcast guests and creative material.

Perhaps he wants to kick back, not work so hard (depending on the contract he actually signed), and collect a steady paycheck? The author likens Rogan's podcast to sitting on an oilfield (where the value of oil can be easily evaluated), but creative endeavors are hardly so cut and dried.

<comment> aj-4 those things you listed as "work" all still apply though, except now there's a contractual obligation

if his desire was to kick back it seems like the move would be to just relax his release schedule

wanting something steady in the chaos of creative work though, I can completely understand

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The criticism in the article is based on comparing Joe Rogan's' podcast to a SaaS business and is fundamentally flawed.

>And make no mistake: Joe Rogan is a business...I think he is capable of, his corporation would easily be valued at over $1,000,000,000...

>As I pointed out in my last post, if Rogan had added subscription, he would have owned a company that looked like the world's best SaaS business.

The problem is that there is no exit for this business. Nobody is going to pay 20x past earnings for JRE without Joe. This is the difference between being a performer (literally a gig worker), and a business owner.

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't think he got ripped off, I for one, prefer that some audience is taken away from YouTube.

Also would like to see alternative opinions that contrast the consensus / mainstream narrative.

Also hope the video is still about on Spotify.

</comment><comment><USER41> Sure, Rogan gave up _hypothetical_ 10s of millions for this. But those millions required work and marketing and sponsor management, and those 10s of millions weren't guaranteed.

With Spotify he just secured a guaranteed paycheck and a guarantee that he (and his team) don't need to work nearly as hard.

And what audience does he _really_ lose? Non-paying customers via YouTube and podcast apps can be non-paying customers on Spotify and it makes no difference to him.

<comment><USER42> Hundreds of millions or billions, not 10s of millions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> May be I am dense but how is a podcast generating a recurring revenue? IMO the podcast is heavily tied to the main guy. In this case it's only worth that much because Joe Rogan is there. If he gets hit by a bus or decides to just leave, Spotify is fucked. To me that is what this makes the whole deal risky. With that kind of risk, I don't expect Spotify to pay up that much.

</comment><comment><USER44> He got ripped off and so did the rest of us.

This whole 'privatization of podcasting' process is nothing but harmful to culture.

Spotify is a pure predator.

<comment><USER45> [https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/on-the-spotify-joe- rogan-...](https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/on-the-spotify-joe-rogan-deal- and)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23261495](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23261495)

<comment><USER44> Yup - seems like these support the assertions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> > As I said in my last post, were he to build the level of advertising and > subscription revenue I think he is capable of, his corporation would easily > be valued at over $1,000,000,000...

That's a big _if_, and so far as I can see, there's not much in the way of justification for that in the article.

<comment><USER47> Not to mention if the podcast got so full of advertisements and money grabs like that many people, including me, would stop listening. I've seen so many podcasts start out good then get more and more into advertising obligations, which often comes with things such as increasing the volume/interruption characteristics of said ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'm lost at the units. Could someone tell me how much is $100-$200mm ? (dollaromillimeters?)

Edit: Found on Quora what MM means:

>Lowercase "mm" does mean millimeters, but uppercase "MM" is used for millions. "Mille" is Latin for "thousand". MM is Mille Mille.

</comment><comment><USER49> ```We will still have clips up on YouTube but full versions of the show will only be on Spotify after the end of the year.```

Seems like Rogan is going to retain upload rights to other platforms, negating nearly all the articles assertions.

</comment><comment><USER50> Whoever wrote this doesnt have a clue as to the inner-workings of this deal.

<comment><USER51> They certainly aren't given Joe Rogan very much credit, that's for sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I don't really care if this move is economically less profitable to Joe Rogan and don't understand why this author does either. Anyways, I have been a long term fan of JRE. In the inital phase of lockdown, Joe was pro-lockdown but in the past weeks (shrugging and not commenting at the mention of Elon Musk's tweets in Tim Poole's episode), he's switched to anti-lockdown which started around the Elon Musk episode. The episodes after that have received a lot of criticisim as well.

Now I force myself to see all his episodes with utmost skepticism and doing that I can neither enjoy nor tolerate them anymore. And now with this move to Spotify, I will finally have a reason to quit, sadly. It was great while it lasted though.

<comment><USER53> What are your issues with how Rogan justifies his position of being anti- lockdown?

<comment><USER52> It's the transition that seems strange to me. They have been ripping on politicians all this time, those who were anti-lockdown in the beginning of the crisis.

Its not just the anti-lockdown comments that turned me off. I can agree to some degree with that. There's more like in the episodes that followed afterwards with Brendan Schaub or fight companion where they are just spouting stupid shit. But I guess you can't always invite the best guests.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I don't think this means anyone was "ripped off." If someone offered me $100m/yr hassle free vs needing to run an entire company and making a billion I'd take the $100m every time.

</comment><comment><USER55> lol this article casually talks about how he'd have to run the business himself "(not hard though)"

I don't think you realize that when you get to extreme wealth, your time is the most precious thing you have. Having a month more of free time every year is really priceless.

He made a good deal.

</comment><comment><USER56> Didn't we all (well, most of us) get ripped off by becoming employees? Where do you draw the line?

</comment><comment><USER57> blah blah blah...at 52 he has FU money even for his children. Once this contract is over he can try a new model, with plenty of runaway.

<comment><USER18> Colbert is bigger than Rogan, has way more money and negotiating leverage, has experience running his own ship, but still had to tone down his humor to grandpa levels of stale. Ba dump tss, play him off Johnny, kind of stuff. Colbert could also say "fuck you" to the world, but he would also be saying "fuck you" to himself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Gee...if only he had a middleman like you to save him all that money for a %, then he could cut out all those middlemen taking a % you are complaining about.

</comment><comment><USER59> Rogan has also said he doesnt like paywalls because your growth figures drop substantially. We have no idea about his churn figures, being free might be a requirement or a long term growth play.

</comment><comment><USER60> Taking into account that all Rogan does these days is defend Trump, I could care less. Let his podcast shrivel away hidden behind a Spotify paywall.

<comment><USER61> haha, he is a democrat and had ton of dem candidates on his show. Just because he thinks biden is an awful candidate doesn't make him trump fan.

Not every decision trump or his administration does is bad. That's a fact. Is he a manchild only interested in himself? Absolutely but,

If trump says 2+2=4 are you going to argue with that? Does agreeing that 2+2=4 makes you trump supporter?

<comment><USER60> Than why are almost all his recent shows about how Trump is right, or how the media is attacking Trump. The media has a "right" to attack Trump for blatantly lying. Do you even listen to his shows?

<comment><USER61> He is giving trump dues when they are due.

I have seen some of those questions trying to get tramp to fail for some quick news.

Those attempts are as childish as trump is. And it doesnt belong to journalism.

Uhhm... he also said trump was right to close the border with china and eu at the start of pandemic and that he was called rasist for it. He was right though, that was the right move. Whatever the motivation, restricting frivolous travel is a way to go to fight pandemics.

He laughed at some joke tweets.

I cant recall anything else apart from that.

Look he is a democrat by believes, he wants tulsi gabbard to be the president.

> Do you even listen to his shows?

this is not reddit, cut this out or get out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Maybe Joe doesn't want to work 16 hour days to become a billionaire, maybe he wants a giant check and to keep living a life he's enjoying.

This tunnel vision of this place is incredible. Not everyone wants to be Elon Musk. Some people are happy where they are.</comment>


Robots 'to replace up to 20M factory jobs' by 2030 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48760799 <comment><USER2> All well replacing mundane jobs with robots, but what will those displaced workers do. Also come 2030, the population will of increased, which will be mostly in the demographics who lost their jobs to robots in the first place.

But then the whole cost effective argument is from a company perspective, what it costs them on the balance sheets.

The fallout and full cost of loosing workers is very much ringfenced for companies, but the social impacts can be far far deeper and far more costly to a community than any saving made on a balance sheet.

So I get the whole workers rights perspective, equally, I'm mindful that some jobs really are not fit for humans, just because they can do them, don't mean we can't technology them away. But a balance is needed, so if they had a robot tax as many have raised and mooted in the past, then perhaps that could be used to find education, free recreational activities. Otherwise we will just fuel an endless supply of humans in production line style that feel useless in society and become statisticaly abandoned or worse.

Certainly won't need 20M robot maintenance jobs, let alone the skill set from picking fruit and moving onto robot maintenance for many will be a transition out of their reach.

So all yay for robots replacing menial jobs, but let's make sure such displaced menial workers are afforded some education and opportunity into better jobs. Otherwise it will not end well socially.

<comment><USER3> The first thing to understand in these discussions is that this has been happening continuously for 250 years. The Industrial revolution never stopped.

For all these 25 decades, people have worried a lot about what will happen to everyone losing their jobs to new technology. It's always turned out that new jobs kept appearing as the old ones disappeared, and the result of the increased productivity the "lost jobs" represent has manifested in proportionally increased wages. It's hard to compare directly, but we're about 30x richer per person then 250 years ago. And also a lot more people.

Right now we're supposed to be in the middle of a Job Automation Holocaust. THIS TIME IT'S (as usual) DIFFERENT! And yet if you lift your gaze from the theories and look at real world indicators, unemployment is extremely low.

Now, it's of course true that this time it actually _can_ be different, and I don't mind people making arguments to that effect. I have less respect for those who argue like this is a brand new disaster falling from the sky, not the prevailing trend since centuries.

<comment><USER4> One thing that is different this time is that we are more directly replacing humans.

When we replaced, say, horse drawn wagons with trucks, yes, we killed off a lot of jobs associated with wagons. Wagon drivers, wagon builders, horse trainers, horse feed suppliers, etc., might have lost some or all of their work.

But trucks needed drivers, truck makers, mechanics, fuel supply, and so on, so a lot of new work was created.

Now suppose we replace human driven trucks with self-driving trucks, getting rid of a lot of truck driver jobs, and also a lot of jobs related to supporting truck drivers.

Yes, the self-driving trucks will create some new work. But a self-driving truck is pretty much just a regular truck with some extra sensors, a computer, some actuators to let the computer operate the controls, and some software. The sensors, computers, and actuators are all commodity items or close to it.

So rather than create new jobs sufficient to counter the lost jobs of truck drivers and those who support truck drives, switching to self-driving trucks just increases demand a bit for some commodity hardware, and requires some extra training for truck mechanics to maintain the new equipment.

We're starting to transition from a type of industrial revolution where people using machines are replaced by people using very different machines, to a type where people using machines are being replaced by very similar machines that require fewer or no humans to operate.

<comment><USER5> Prior to the industrial revolution something like 80% of the US population was in agriculture and now it's 1.5% and we are still at near full unemployment. I think the idea that humans will somehow run out of useful stuff to do once we have robots doing the current set of things is a very fixed-mindset way of thinking. If there is money kicking around, people will find productive stuff to do and build companies to do things that weren't possible before.

<comment> spaced-out Sure, there will be new work created, but what makes you so sure that new work will go to humans? Why wouldn't the guy doing things that were not possible before just buy robots do those new jobs?

<comment><USER6> Well, we kind-of define work as being that done by humans.

My laptop does more number-crunching than all the human computers of last century every morning, but we don't count this as work taken away from anyone.

Humans find new things to do, providing services (or amusements) to each other which were not previously thought necessary. The entire services sector of the economy is things that basically weren't done 100 years ago (or were done on such a tiny scale as not to matter). And we all work hard to afford these new things, by making other such new things (like websites!), partly as a game of keeping up with the neighbors, rather than being content with our great- grandparents' living standards.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, another way to say the same thing is that an unemployed human is an underexploited resource. Capitalism is really good at not letting those go to waste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Globally. The title is somewhat misleading. That's roughly 0.4% of global jobs in 2019 being lost over a decade; So, something like 0.04% per year. I think society will survive.

If anything, those numbers are underwhelming. Having worked with industrial robots it's not surprising that they won't be taking over the world any time soon.

Robots are a large up front investment in a company's immediate processes. This investment is only good if the processes remain mostly static for a very long time. Even then, there is a major cost when processes finally change. It's stupidly similar to software development in so many ways.

Mass automation already happened, at least in my country (USA). The data shown in the article seems to indicate most of the increased use will be in countries like China. Rising wages are likely the dominant factor driving increased adoption in that situation, not new technology.

Everyone I know who actually buys robots views them as a trade off, not a panacea. As robots' capabilities slowly improve, their use will increase a bit, but operator guided machinery (ie CNCs, injection molding, task specific machines for things like packaging) glued together with flexible human workers isn't going anywhere until we hit something resembling AGI.

Can't speak to the use of robots outside of manufacturing, but that's not what the article is about.

<comment><USER8> Curious your thoughts on the upcoming wave of low cost "co-bots". While still too expensive to make the analogy of the PC vs the mainframe, they have started approaching the 15-30k/base price. While obviously less capable, much like the PC, I believe they will have effective uses.

Thoughts on how this might change the equation?

<comment><USER9> In the larger scale type of manufacturing I'm working with, those small bots tend to have trade-offs that mean they're not really worth choosing over a larger, more traditional manufacturing robot, or a solution without robotics at all. Mounting difficulties, lack of range of movement, and lack of robustness being the core issues. In most scenarios, you're better off avoiding robots and going for something statically mounted. Failing that, choosing a Kawasaki model that's been in production the last 30 years. Then you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's going to run for the next decade without a hitch. You can find operators with experience relatively cheap. Every imaginable mounting head exists and has been in production long enough to know the issues you're going to face with it.

The big robot will survive in large scale manufacturing for the same reason Java survives in enterprise; it's part of the culture at this point. It does its job well, it hardly ever fails, and it's relatively easy to bring someone up to speed on working with them. Like Java, you'll probably see a number of companies pop up that prefer a newer technology, because it fits their use case well. But I'd expect the bulk of total money spent to continue to be on the kinds of industrial robots we work with now.

The place I can see small robots making an impact is knowledge work, such as laboratories or design. And realistically, in those fields we've never been time constrained. It's more common, in my experience, that the limiting factor is the number of good ideas a person can come up with. There's no way to reduce "hours formulating an idea" short of AGI. Scientists have to read papers, designers have to study a company or product to make all of the branding coherent.

All of that said, the newer, low cost bots will probably move the needle, but they won't accelerate the pace of automation significantly. More likely, they'll contribute to maintaining the current acceleration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I can imagine at least two hugely positive outcomes from the rise of robots and automation:

1) Human labor will no longer dominate COGS--global shipping and logistics will. There will therefore be a massive onshoring of manufacturing back to the developed world. As a result, we will stop subsidizing human rights abuses and substandard living conditions around the globe.

2) In developed countries, this massive onshoring of automated production will make it clear that low-skill, high-paying factory jobs are forever a thing of the past. Simultaneously, xenophobia--"they took our jobs"\--may cease to be an effective political tool. Perhaps this will trigger an honest discussion around UBI and revamped social safety nets.

<comment><USER11> On your first point, manufacturers moving to places with lower cost human labor with laxer standards does not 'subsidize' substandard living conditions, it raises them. Look at the massive economic growth that has occurred in places like China. If we pull out, standards in poor countries will get worse not better.

<comment><USER12> It may raise living conditions, but the point about "human rights abuses" still stands.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is okay on countries with a graying population like East Asia, North America and Europe.

This is bad news for most of the Southern Hemisphere with young populations which will continue to grow till the end of this century.

Unless something changes economically or in pop growth, there are going to be massive economic problems.

<comment><USER14> If the robots are cheaper than human labor, there will be more goods available and the goods should be cheaper.

The problem will be that we are used to matching supply and demand by rewarding productivity, not real shortages.

Ironically, the very best jobs in extremely productive economies like the US are detached from productivity and linked to perception and politics and the like (or do people believe that every $10 million CEO is that much better than the next guy on the list).

<comment><USER15> The thing about robots is that you can also stop production instantly if demand goes down. You have much fewer costs when not at full capacity.

It might even be true that robots might not be cheaper than human labor but have other advantages that make them preferable.

<comment><USER16> You likely will have more versatility in future robots allowing for capacity to pivot to various products based on the associated economics.

<comment><USER15> Also robots are owned by the company, so they're assets, not liabilities.

<comment><USER6> > robots is that you can also stop production instantly if demand goes down. > You have much fewer costs when not at full capacity.

I think you have this exactly backwards.

In a highly automated factory the main cost is capital, i.e. the machines might cost decades worth of payroll. So having them sit idle is extremely expensive, or to say it another way, producing nothing saves you almost no money.

A low-automation factory is the opposite. Big traditional garment factories are basically just sheds with some tables. Almost all the cost is workers, and in many places & times you only hire them when you get a big order.

The automated garment-sewing machines (if we get there) can't do anything else. Factory robots aren't very C-3PO. Whereas the sweatshop workers can be assembling cellphones (or building rice terraces) next week.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The job loss and displacement due to improvements and automation are quite scary to me. I often find myself thinking about what people will be left to do after automation displaces most workforce and the leftover jobs get so efficient that 1 person will do the job of 10.

Look at where web development was not that long ago. It used to take a few people and many moving pieces to put together a website. You needed a designer to design it. A developer to code it. A hosting company to host it. A maintenance person to keep updating and make changes. Now, anyone can fire up a webflow site in under a day. No coding needed, no hosting, do your own maintenance.

Now this is only efficiency we are talking about. What happens when we get to a place where you just pick some parameters and any website imaginable is spot out on your screen for you? Imagine how many websites exist already, what's to stop that data from flowing into a large dataset where design is no longer needed, code is unnecessary, updates are done through a cms. Algorithms already draw art, ok, let's modify them to make illustrations, logos, anything creative. We just displaced 2 professions. Why stop there? Feed the machines every imaginable font and let it create new fonts for us. Font designer gone.

This is only the industry I'm aware of. I can imagine others are no less prone to automation and complete efficiency disruption.

What will people do when to get a basic job requires 20 years of education? Are we to believe all humans will have advanced degrees to do those jobs? What about those who simply can't or won't like doing that job?

</comment><comment><USER18> Not sure how in advanced economies this can be anything more than marginal... Visited the volkswagon factory at their headquarters in Germany last year. One of the biggest manufacturing plants in the world. You get in a little buggy and get driven around for kilometers of factory floor and it's nearly all robots. Barely any people to be seen.

</comment><comment><USER19> I hope all those displaced people are given a path forward, every person deserves to make a living and have a good life.

What happened to displaced workers during the industrial revolution?

<comment><USER20> Many were forced into terrible working conditions and work houses. It helped lead to communist revolutions. Lots of people starved. So not really a great template.

<comment><USER19> Definitely not a good thing, I was asking because I wanted some insight into what's coming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Wow, add in those truckers that'll lose those jobs from autonomous and some states end up VERY hollowed out.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think the people that presume their intelligence will inform how automation plays out will be sorely disappointed when the future is nothing like they expected. To be honest, I don't want to make any predictions about automation but I'm highly skeptical of the pessimism that dominates the discussion and fatalism around things like UBI.

<comment><USER23> There isn't much to "expect", large scale automation is happening for more than 50 years now. It's similar to people saying "AI will revolutionise the world", it already is revolutionising for several decades. It seems to me that this notion became popular in the last few years and has been so simplified/vulgarised that people expect half the world to lose their job at once when "robots" and "ai" take over.

Job automation isn't a single point in time, it's a gradual process that's been happening for as long as work existed. And as long as we run our current economic system there will be jobs to replace automated ones. Currently it seems like services are the new factory jobs (uber, food delivery, &c.).

> Automation, which is both the most advanced sector of modern industry and > the epitome of its practice, obliges the commodity system to resolve the > following contradiction: The techno- logical developments that objectively > tend to eliminate work must at the same time preserve labor as a commodity, > because labor is the only creator of commodities. The only way to prevent > automation (or any other less extreme method of increasing labor > productivity) from reducing society's total necessary labor time is to > create new jobs. To this end the reserve army of the unemployed is enlisted > into the tertiary or "service" sector, reinforcing the troops responsible > for distributing and glorifying the latest commodities; and in this it is > serving a real need, in the sense that increasingly extensive campaigns are > necessary to convince people to buy increasingly unnecessary commodities.

\- Guyd Debord, 1967

<comment><USER24> Service and retail workers will have to unionize before they have the pay and benefits that made manufacturing such good work. That's how factory workers did it. Service and retail work are approaching the living hell of the pre- union Industrial Age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I feel like I've heard this before.

<comment><USER26> And, in fact, it has happened before.

<comment><USER27> And it will happen again.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/BSG/comments/76z43l/help_with_all_o...](https://www.reddit.com/r/BSG/comments/76z43l/help_with_all_of_this_has_happened_before_quotes/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> But what about the positive headline?

20 million robots to produce one developer job by 2030?

</comment><comment><USER29> That seems low

<comment><USER30> 2030 isn't that far away. Do you think we could automate more than 2M jobs/year for the next 10 years? I kinda doubt it.

<comment><USER29> I work in robotics automation. The industry is poised for massive improvements in orchestration efficiency. Robotics currently does not take advantage of several known and trusted technologies. That alone will be huge. If we count the automation of driving jobs and efficiency improvements due to machine learning, I'd say the number is low.

<comment><USER31> What are these known and trusted technologies ?

<comment><USER32> Feedback for one, many industrial robots operate entirely open-loop. It was invented in 1927, so robotics has some catching up to do.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative- feedback_amplifier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative-feedback_amplifier)

<comment><USER33> Can you elaborate? I'm not seeing the connection.

<comment><USER34> Robotics could be much more efficient, require less maintenance and cause less havoc when malfunctioning. That alone reduces the amount of jobs required by a fair bit

<comment><USER33> What does this have to do with robots running "open loop?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If anyone is looking for the report that this article is referring to:

[http://resources.oxfordeconomics.com/how-robots-change- the-w...](http://resources.oxfordeconomics.com/how-robots-change-the-world)

</comment><comment><USER36> The cost savings of the robots could be taxed to supplement social welfare programming

<comment><USER37> Robot are just means of production, capital. We don't need to invent robot taxes; we just need to increase taxes on those people/companies with the most capital and the most benefits (well, and close loopholes).

The question about approaching full automation is whether all that wealth will be for humanity or for some selected rich people.

<comment><USER38> It might be easier to tax physical bots though than the capital behind them. Just like with individuals as opposed to anonymous companies. Zero's and ones are easier to push around.

<comment><USER37> Capital in the economic sense is not just dollars, it includes buildings and trucks and cranes and agricultural tractors.

The minute you overspecify a law to apply only to some products you are creating opportunities for loopholes. See this classic story about vans vs cars, and import taxes: [https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45875405](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45875405)

Is a John Deere tractor a robot? What about a roomba? A 3d printer? What about a disassembled robot? The wheels of a robot? How do you define robot?

What do you tax, the purchase of a robot? The use? The ownership?

There are very tricky questions that try to fix an artificial problem. Tax the company or the person behind x, be x a robot, a field, or a brand that generates money (or not, if you are against taxes). This is not a new problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> America already took the hit when most manufacturing moved overseas. This is going to be a bigger impact on those developing countries which manufacture everything.

</comment><comment><USER40> If a machine can do the work of 10 people, it should be owned by 10 people who rent it to the company benefiting from its labor.

<comment><USER41> Those 10 people are free to buy such a machine and rent it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Okay, so socialism it is then.

Or more palatable for HN: Universal Basic Income.

Not that it matters if Earth is a flaming hellscape by 2050 thanks to the ongoing pollution that will likely only be made worse by this automation.

</comment><comment><USER43> >But this report presents a more nuanced view, stressing that the productivity benefits from automation should boost growth, meaning as many jobs are created as lost.

Way to bury the lede, Rory.

<comment><USER29> High technology jobs that you can only get if you went to college and got a technical degree. Which is disproportionately available to families who are already wealthy. Meaning the working class gets hollowed out, the rich and powerful get more rich and powerful and the unemployment and related addiction crisis get even worse. Yay! Brave new future.

<comment><USER38> The US are the anomaly. In most of the developed world, higher education is actually quite affordable. Technical education is also the easiest to get funding for.

It turns out financial limitations are the easy factor to solve. Other, non- financial limits to social mobility are so much more stubborn.

<comment><USER34> In fact, in some northern countries like Finland, all education is completely free, and the government pays you allowance so you can focus on studies.

The only requirement is to pass the entry exams, which anyone can take

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Guess they've started removing the "possibility" from headlines. People have stopped clicking with the words "may" or "could" in the title?

"Up to 20 million manufacturing jobs around the world could be replaced by robots by 2030, according to analysis firm Oxford Economics."

<comment><USER45> Title looks fine to me. It says "up to 20M jobs". I always take that to mean anywhere between zero and the stated number. So "may"/"could" is sort of implied IMO.</comment></comment>