Apple sends a letter to Hey: Change your app or get out of the App Store - <AUTHOR> https://www.protocol.com/apple-hey-rejection-letter <comment><USER2> previously:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569065](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569065)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095)

</comment><comment><USER3> > We understand that Basecamp has developed a number of apps and many > subsequent versions for the App Store for many years, and that the App Store > has distributed millions of these apps to iOS users. These apps do not offer > in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the > App Store over the last eight years.

They literally have paid 8 years of Developer Program fees for supporting the AppStore.

<comment><USER4> It's a different matter whether 30% is a valid cut for Apple to make on Hey In App subscriptions. But $2,400 (8*$300/year?) for the delivery and update, notifications and Siri integration etc to millions of apps/devices sounds a pretty good deal.

<comment><USER5> \+ the hardware mandatory to build and submit Apps to the AppStore, right?

<comment><USER6> Yes. Apple forces you to buy their overpriced hardware if you want to develop for their platform.

<comment><USER7> Xcode comes with an iOS simulator so you don't need hardware, but it would be a bad idea not to test on an actual device.

<comment><USER6> How do I run xcode on Linux or Windows?

<comment><USER8> In qemu.

<comment><USER6> Is this legally possible without software piracy? Can you link me to instructions? Does apple have documentation anywhere?

<comment><USER8> IANAL.

[https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM](https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM)

I don't know if Apple has documentation somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years."

This is pretty grotesque coming from a trillion-dollar company that anyway already charges developers a yearly fee.

<comment><USER10> "We didn't get our cut" should only apply if they add value.

What value does the App Store provide Hey?

<comment><USER11> Access to 20 billion unjailbroken iPhones

<comment><USER12> Take away those apps and those iPhone's become useless bricks. Apps + developers add huge value to the platform.

<comment><USER13> I think you are vastly overstating the importance of apps.

Apple could easily remove the App Store tomorrow, sign deals with a dozen or so companies e.g. Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Snap, Google, Microsoft etc and they would still sell devices.

<comment><USER12> I think if you think back to 2007/8 and people had the choice of Android with millions of apps and a higher priced iOS ecosystem which only has some high profile apps so few people would choose iOS that it would quickly become a waste of money for FB/Twitter/MS to build their apps for it and it would die.

<comment><USER14> In 2007/8 people were buying iPhones despite them not having an app store at all.

<comment><USER12> There was no App Store for the first year, which I believe is a time when Android didn't exist. An app-less iPhone would not be able to compete with an app-store backed Android.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It seems like we soon see movement on this issue given the EU antitrust and other social unrest. People are tired of things being not only unfair but not even remotely reasonable. It is laughable that Apple Music on Android doesn't use the built in IAP but forces you to pay via Apple. This will come back to haunt them. It doesn't matter that the ToS don't forbid this but in civil suits, it doesn't give them a leg to stand on. They are doing the exact thing they argue would prevent them from making any revenue if they changed their policy. If Apple was smart they would lower their percentage and move on. Better to pick the number than have it forced on you.

<comment><USER16> If the regulation is smart (sometimes the EU does ok with tech regulation, sometimes they fail miserably) then it's not about picking a number.

The number is never the issue. The issue is that apple has artificially blocked any competing channels from distributing to iOS.

I don't believe they should be allowed to have a legal monopoly on app distribution. In fact, I'd go as far as the ruling for IE with Microsoft around basically the same issue but for web apps -

Not only are you not allowed a legal monopoly on app distribution, you MUST ask the user which app distribution methods they'd like to enable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Apple demands that taxes are paid and laws are adhered to in their kingdom of apps. Meanwhile, they are tax evaders themselves.

<comment><USER18> It's good to be the King!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Apple forces Hey's app in front of unsuspecting users with App Store promotions. If the app doesn't provide any value to a random person who comes across it in the App Store, that doesn't mean it should be banned from the App Store. That means it should be banned from promotion in the App Store.

Hey should still be able to link its users directly to the App Store entry and otherwise make it unlisted in the App Store.

Apple can find a creative way to tax this if they wanted, but what is the yearly developer fee for if not a fee for distribution and security/compliance certifications?

Apple needs to stop conflating distribution on their platform with promotion on their platform. Not every app needs both. 30% cut only makes sense in a publishing deal where Apple promotes the product in the storefront.

</comment><comment><USER20> > The HEY Email app is marketed as an email app on the App Store, but when > users download your app, it does not work. Users cannot use the app to > access email or perform any useful function until after they go to the > Basecamp website for Hey Email and purchase a license to use the HEY Email > app.

The Fastmail email app works exactly the same way and is available on the app store without issue. Seems like a pretty arbitrary decision here.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm on Apple's side on this one. They've made Hey's choice simple: change it so it's compatible for people to use their mainstream email services (no $ involved), or make it subscription out of the box. Currently you need some dumb invite-only code.

I actually feel misled by Hey's comments pointing out that Netflix, etc. require a subscription to make the app useful. It wasn't until I little additional digging revealed that the main difference you can order it straight away, and Apple still charges them the 30% fee. To get around this, Netflix charges for in-app or you can order cheaper directly from their site. I don't believe Apple's store T&C's indicate Netflix is violating anything through this model.

Really this is about how much is too much for Apple's fee structure. I suspect regulators may try to force Apple to allow other App Stores (like Android) but then the usual problems will surface re: security, etc.

<comment><USER22> I'm with HEY on this issue.

As of a few months ago, Netflix abandoned in-app purchases entirely on Apple platforms. Try it yourself: sign out of your Netflix account on iOS and try and create a new account. There is no option to pay for a Netflix subscription within the app on iOS. It just isn't there.

Fastmail is another app already on the App store that requires an account (but has no option to sign up within the app itself). Salesforce Inbox and GMail are two other email apps currently on the App store that do not allow the user to sign up within the app itself.

(An aside about Gmail: I'm now receiving almost-daily emails from Google

> Your Gmail is full. Get more storage now with a Google One membership. Plans > start at $1.99 a month.

How much of that money do you think Apple would like to get? How much of that money goes to Apple? None. That is not implemented as an in-app purchase. )

<comment><USER21> I'm still seeing in-app purchases as an option via App Store for Netflix. I can't comment on the other apps you mentioned except for Gmail. And here's where I disagree with you.

Gmail is still functional without paying anything. You don't hit a paywall immediately after downloading. The app provides immediate functionality to users. If Google decided to force subscription-only, that's when Apple would be saying you need to either open it up, or use our in-app subscription service. Google's upsell is not a requirement to use Gmail's basic functionality.

The app must provide immediately functionality after downloading. Guess how much functionality the Hey app I downloaded is providing to me right now? Zero. Because I need an "invite-only" code.

<comment><USER22> My Hey app is also providing me with zero functionality as well. I'm not being dismissive of your issue.

You know, maybe you do have a point (HEY should be using Apple's in-app purchase system). They should set it up as a weekly auto-renewing subscription at the most expensive price point possible ($1,299 USD). Maybe then Apple would leave them alone.

*(@dhh has said that HEY will be removing the invitation-only restriction in July).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> A curious thought experiment here is: what would the situation be in the case of a hypothetical third-party app that provided access to your Hey email?

(I mean via some API that Hey offered - I think they don't actually offer one, but it's a hypothetical.)

You would obviously still need a paid Hey account to use such an app, but there would be no way for the app's providers to enable you to sign up for one using Apple IAP. What then?

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm probably missing something, but can't Hey just make subscriptions in their page and let the App from free in the App Store?

Is the same as gmail, I can pay for a Google Suite, but the app is freely distributed in stores.

Basecamp should have great products (I've never used them), but it seems they are using this as a marketing strategy.

<comment><USER25> >I'm probably missing something, but can't Hey just make subscriptions in their page and let the App from free in the App Store?

That is exactly what they are doing at the moment. Apple has decided to invent a new requirement that this approach is only valid for business applications, and consumer client apps must offer in-app signup and purchase.

I'm generally pro-Apple on these issues. It's their store running on their products on their infrastructure. However in this case I don't believe Hey is violating the current stated and published app store rules. Apple's decision in this case seems capricious and arbitrary, and more than a little hypocritical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Would it be allowed under the App Store guidelines to offer IAP, but then give customers who purchase the service through the website 30% cashback? The price would be the same in both places, you'd be purchasing the exact same service. But a certain group of customers would get a 'loyalty bonus'…

<comment><USER27> Or do as Tinder, and charge 30% more in the app compared to their prices on tinder.com

<comment><USER28> You have to raise the price by 43%: 1.43 * 0.7 = 1.00

<comment><USER29> And most importantly, you're not actually allowed to communicate what the actual price of the service is. So any customer who doesn't look up the pricing on their website will think that it's $142 a year, not $99 a year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Finally a great breakdown of the issue and a fair look into what both sides, namely Apple, are trying to do here.

> That, Apple said, is not what Hey is. Hey is a consumer app, paid for by > users. And Apple takes issue with the idea that when one of those > prospective users downloads the app, there's nothing they can do with it — > they can't sign up, they can't pay, they have to go somewhere else before > they can use the app. Apple doesn't like apps like that, at least when it > feels they should be more accessible to their intended audience.

<comment><USER31> The Hey onboarding today is tied to a website-driven invite and signup process. While that _could_ be a bad customer experience through some lens, what percentage of users following this flow are or will be downloading this app prior to signing up?

In a larger sense, Apple seems to be saying that, at least for consumer apps, they have an expected user flow from launch/beta through purchase. That flow makes Apple the primary channel and pipeline. If you have a multi-channel app (web + app, in this case), they want the main experience through the app regardless of business model or context. This makes the customer experience argument seem like misdirection.

</comment></comment><comment> grey-area It seems any company becomes evil when it gets large enough.

</comment><comment><USER32> While obviously what Apple is doing is crap, why not just increase their in- app prices only on iOS? That's what Marvel have been doing with their comics. A comic that through their website costs £3, on the Android reader costs £3.29 and on their iOS reader costs £3.49. I always just buy them online and immediately download to my ipad without paying the Apple premium.

Yes, it sucks - but it seems like a relatively easy way out.

<comment><USER33> ...because raising the price also reduces demand. This is the nature of the supply-demand curve. So you _still_ end up with less revenues.

Imagine that Hey found the ideal price point on the supply-demand curve. When you factor in Apple's fee - the new optimal price point on the curve may shift higher, but your net revenues will still be lower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Maybe the pandemic finally offers enough motivation for EU and US to make a strong decision about this. The (smart)phone market, for many people the only computing device they own, is utterly dominated by 2 monopolies under Apple and Google.

The CEOs should get a medal and all the honours for providing society this good platforms then promptly forced to allow separate AppStores on equal footing.

<comment><USER35> > 2 monopolies

Uh...

Also, monopoly has a very specific definition. It does not mean "company with large marketshare".

<comment><USER34> You are trying hard not to understand the message. The laws change to fit what people consider right.

What Apple is doing might be almost legal but it is not right and laws can be written to spell this out for them and others.

Computing should be declared a human right and selling mass produced general purpose computers without allowing anybody to deploy any desired software on that computer should be illegal.

<comment><USER35> You may not like Apple, but I think it's quite a leap of faith to declare computing a "human right".

You want an experience with an Apple product that Apple doesn't provide, whether you agree with it or not. Where do we draw the line? Should we force all vegan restaurants to serve meat? Surely if computing is a human right, then food is as well and thus I'm entitled to the experience I want as a result. Apple would argue, and rightfully so, most of their customers want a walled garden. People don't want to have to worry about malware, scams, etc. Why should they be deprived of offering this experience when you have plenty of other choices for unconstrained computing.

<comment><USER34> Some country was thinking about declaring Internet Access a human right. I think computing should come before that.

The scale of any company should invite extra scrutiny from the state. Apple is at a scale where it has massive societal impact, it's not the burger joint down the road.

It would be trivial for Apple to add a toggle allowing users to switch from 'walled garden' mode to something more permissive.

On macOS you can install any software, or from identified developers or from the App Store and I don't see macOS users screaming they can't manage without their walled garden.

Why wouldn't iOS allow any installs from identified developers or from anywhere?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Would it be more fair that

\- developers paid a hosting subscription for their app

\- pay for bandwidth used by the app downloads

\- pay for each update review

\- optional pay for promotion

\- Apple would not block legal content, just put it under a new category of stuff Apple disaproves but is legal.

This would fix a part for the issues with stores, Apple can't say that they are hosting your app for free anymore or that they provide you bandwidth.

The disadvantage I see is that small apps will have to pay a the yearly subscriptions but if the price is fair I see it similar as you pay for a domain and webhosting.

Apple will have to find a new way to make money though, like maybe have better services instead of crippling competition, have better dev tools and hardware.

Imagine there are only 2 companies that offer web hosting , and they will take 30% of your money (not profit but total) and on top of that they can reject your content if they don't like it.

<comment><USER37> That's absurd. The app store is not a service to developers but to consumers that Apple uses in order to have a working ecosystem.

<comment><USER38> I don't really understand the argument. The App Store can be a service to both developers and consumers.

That's typically what a store is. Product manufacturers accept that they will sell more of their product in stores, enough to make up for the margin added by the retailer, vs direct sales. Consumers accept to pay more the convenience.

<comment><USER37> It's only indirectly true that the App Store is a service to developers.

It's a very straightforward argument.

Apple has the App Store in order to keep consumers. That it helps developers is a side benefit. Apple would drop the store if didn't retain consumers on the platforms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I can offer some opinion as developer in a small indie game company (shameless self-promotion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565739](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565739)).

Supporting iOS is super hard for us. The Apple market is heavily controlled and supervised. We have had apps rejected because we included links to the Android equivalent in the description (same price, so no big reason to switch platforms when you are already on our iTunes page, and no way anyone can install an Android app on an iPhone anyway). Apple used to offer a more or less standard set of phones, resolutions, and architecture. But that has diversified more in the last years. For Android and Linux, we have it much easier to build tools, to handle dependencies, and generally to deploy. Actually, all development happens on Linux, simply because it's a much better and more comfortable platform. When we need to deploy for iOS, we boot the mac computer (which we had to pay for), re-compile the game, try it on the iPhone (which we also had to pay for), upload, and turn it off. Additionally, and I don't have all the details on this myself, Google apparently has also made it much easier for us than Apple to operate when it comes to taxes and banking.

We normally have to sell thousands of units per month to "make it" (and we don't). For Android, the fees are low enough to justify keeping things open even if we don't sell much one month.

In a wider perspective, we operate in a market with lots of apps and games being offered for free, really high fees and standards set by the major stores, and continuous pressure from the community, our competitors (of course!) and ourselves to release more of our work as open source. Essentially, the combination is crushing, and Apple's move does not help :(

For what is worth, we recently launched "safe2play" ([https://keera.co.uk/2020/06/17/safe2play-caring-for- privacy-...](https://keera.co.uk/2020/06/17/safe2play-caring-for-privacy-in- an-interconnected-world/)), which is an idea meant to make both people safer and the pricing model more transparent. It would probably align with Apple's desires better too, although that's an unintended side-effect.

</comment><comment><USER40> Generically speaking, I thought that the promise of the Internet was to have more (and more direct) access to resources.

When it comes to e-commerce or e-subscriptions that should have meant the end of the middlemen, the products or contents/whatever are delivered directly from the author/producer/supplier to the end user, cutting costs.

</comment><comment><USER41> If the app was like $1 or $2 on the app store just to avoid this headache, I would pay it.

<comment><USER22> So would everyone else. Part of the problem is that hey is still in invite- only, and everyone who is able would just pay $1 or $2 to get around the invitation list.

<comment><USER41> Wish there wasn't a stupid invite list so I can use it now instead of waiting :/

<comment><USER22> Ditto :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Honestly, Apple's response is actually pretty reasonable, all things considered. Read the full letter — it was clear, fair, and professional — despite coming off the back of a lot of bad press.

I see plenty of comments are focussing on this quote, re their Basecamp apps:

> These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not > contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years

Apple have (freely) provided Basecamp a platform to grow their business via the App Store, whilst giving Apple (effectively) nothing in return.

Now that Basecamp want to grow their revenue further (at Apple's expense), AND they are breaching the rules (whether you agree with them or not) — I don't blame Apple for pressing the brakes. Especially not after all the negative press this whole debacle has brought them.

<comment><USER16> Some people are going to quibble with you over the costs paid for developers licenses, but I think that's missing the real problem.

Apple is welcome to provide a platform for developers to distribute apps on, on that platform I believe they should be able to charge whatever they determine is reasonable.

Apple SHOULD NOT be allowed to have a legal monopoly on making that platform.

It's not really a _fair_ price (doesn't matter what it is) if there's no alternatives because you've literally blocked them from competing.

This is the problem.

<comment><USER7> My Smart TV doesn't let just anyone deploy apps on it, is that an unfair monopoly? I can always buy a different TV or in this a different phone.

<comment><USER16> The issue is rarely that such a tactic exists, the issue is when a single player (or a few very large players) dominates the market and uses that tactic to stifle other entrants.

In 2001 when MS was sued by the government for this exact issue, it was the combination of market dominance and tactics around vendor lock in that got them in trouble.

I think in this case it's pretty clear that Apple is abusing their market position in a similar way (as simply noted by how many of the comments in this thread are "App store is good because of huge distribution channel")

So yes, in theory you could switch from Apple to Android, but honestly, Android has exactly the same problem.

I'll add, I'm in no way absolving Google of the same practice. I think it's well past time the government took them both to task for the app stores.

\---

Finally - Your tv comes with several ports on the back explicitly designed to let it play signals from other vendors (like your cable box, fire tv, apple tv, or any other)

So that's a trash comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Maybe they should follow what Netflix is doing, since they don't have in-app purchases in iOS which is why they don't allow registrations at all and force you to sign up on the web.

Not sure about Netflix's Android app though, but Google has sort of done this to Epic Games but only allowing logins and no registrations + card checks might bypass the Apple 30% tax.

<comment><USER44> They did—or at least, are trying to. The issue is Apple is saying, based on unwritten rules, that Netflix is allowed to do it, while Hey isn't. And that's the crux of the problem

<comment><USER45> The reason Netflix is allowed to do it is because they are classified as a reader app

> if an app is a way to exclusively consume content purchased elsewhere, like > songs or movies or podcasts, they don't have to have in-app purchases.

According to apple an exclusive email client is not classified as a reader app and so they are forced to offer in app purchases. The guidelines are super confusing and in my opinion pretty crap but it's not a case of favouritism or giving special exemptions to Netflix for example

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Apple's policy really degrades the experience of apps on their platform, such as Kindle.

</comment><comment><USER47> Basecamp obviously knew this would go down like this.

The cynic in me thinks this controversy was planned from the beginning as a PR / marketing exercise.

<comment><USER12> I've seen this comment all over the place and I genuinely can't believe people think this. Apple accepted v1.0 of the app. They're rejecting v1.0.1 which just contains some bug fixes. How could anybody predict this? It's also going to damage their long term relationship with Apple (an important partner) and if they lose this fight their entire product is in danger as being unable to access an email service on one of the most popular phones is going to be unsustainable for Hey.

<comment><USER47> Apple's stance on IAP isn't unknown, Spotify fought them and eventually just started charging a 30% premium on iOS subscriptions. Hey could do the same thing and likely will, but a public fight in the meantime is generating buzz.

They were probably surprised they got 1.0 approved, I certainly would have been. Apple says they made a mistake approving it, which is not unheard of, and them clearly identified the guidelines they're breaking.

Basecamp is full of smart and prominent people who know what they're doing. I can't believe they didn't predict or plan for this scenario when it's one of the most obvious to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Apple should just offer Hey the option of providing the Hey app without the 30% cut, but negotiate how much Hey wants to pay for use of Apple's SDKs.

<comment><USER37> Apple should negotiate with all developers as to how much they want to pay developers for offering content on their devices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Do they also ban apps that show public transport schedules, because you can't buy tickets through them?

<comment><USER2> That's really a nonsensical example. An app not having a feature to pay for something is very different from an app _requiring_ to buy something elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm probably in the minority with this view, but I do think that Apple's response makes 100% sense and is fair and reasonable.

\- I don't like how everyone claims they want a 30% cut. That is factually not quite true. It is 30% for non subs, which I think is fair. If I want to sell a product on a specific distribution channel then the cut should represent the possible reach and sales opportunity. In the case of subs it's only 15%. This is quite different than 30%. 30% is only for the first 12 months and for a sub which is paid annually this is nothing. Given that the first 12 months are very crucial in gaining critical mass I think 30% is fair and later it is really only 15%.

\- I have huge respect for DHH, but he criticises that Apple has published their response to journalists, which is a bit rich given that he started this "dog fight" in the public

\- The apps to which DHH compares Hey with are very different in nature and all the mail apps he constantly mentions are also different in nature. They all implement the suggestions which Apple has suggested in their response, so it's really Hey who wants to be treated with different rules because DHH thinks his online status can bully Apple into giving in? Not sure if that is right

\- Also I think it is possible to do both. You can disagree with the rules and fight them in a civil way in court, whilst also temporarily comply with the rules like everyone else to get your app public. This approach of not wanting to play by the rules, put them on fire and still publish an app whilst everything is burning seems like a weird strategy to me. Slightly unnecessarily aggressive in tone.

<comment><USER51> ==Given that the first 12 months are very crucial in gaining critical mass I think 30% is fair and later it is really only 15%.==

It's a lot harder to gain critical mass when you are paying 30% directly to Apple, no?

== You can disagree with the rules and fight them in a civil way in court, whilst also temporarily comply with the rules like everyone else to get your app public.==

Make less money today while you fight the largest company in the history of earth in court. Meanwhile, Apple will just built a competing product and embed it in iOS (see: AppleTV). The rules seem to change while the game has already started.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Apple's position is clear and legal, and it's how the economy works _including the proposed hey.com business model_. There's no antitrust violation here, so pay your fees or go somewhere else. Apple don't owe hey.com a place in the App store, just like hey.com doesn't owe me a free email address @hey.com.

<comment><USER53> I wish I could downvote you. What apple is doing is much worse than microsoft ever did, and they deserve to get a big antitrust lawsuit against them.

Just because their own rules say 'everybody owes us money' doesn't mean that it's legal.

<comment><USER52> These aren't Apple's rules–they're ours. It's the parameters of a free marketplace and flows from the idea of legal ownership of property. Apple has a minority share of the smartphone market, so antitrust does not apply. Antitrust a specific remedy to prevent monopolistic abuses.

If I build a high end hotel and the fee is $10,000 a night to stay there, you can't apply to the Supreme Court to have your bill reduced. It's my hotel and I can set the price to whatever I damn well please because it's a _free market_.

<comment><USER51> This analogy makes no sense. It's not a business to consumer issue. The problem is Apple running their own marketplace and inconsistently applying the rules they have created for that marketplace.

If the hotel opened a food court and treated the vendors like this, it might be an apt analogy.

<comment><USER52> Well, let's use the food court analogy then: whoever owns the food court is permitted by law to set whatever rental prices they choose for their tenants (provided they aren't discriminating against people based on certain characteristics). They don't have to be consistent, because the food court is their property and they have very wide discretion over how it is used. Fair? No. Legal? Yes!

<comment><USER51> I think it's legality is up for discussion (that's the discussion people are currently having). Because your analogy still falls short because the hotel now opened their own stall in the food court and is competing in the marketplace.

What are they doing with the proprietary data from other marketplace competitors?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


PayPal Quits Facebook Libra for China? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/behind-the-great-wall/paypal-quits-facebook-libra-for-china-3ebd6563adf2 <comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are you voting? - <AUTHOR> Today are the US Midterm Elections. Just curious... Are you voting today? If yes, where are you located? If not, why not? <comment><USER2> Statistically there's no point in me voting. I'm in a 90% dominated (R) area. So I won't be and I encourage others to do the same.

Democracy is real, but a state which is two party FPTP is only barely within the definition. It is set up so there is no legitimate third choice, and even if there was they would have no power to accomplish anything anyway.

Whatever we currently have exists to make us feel like we have just enough choice to keep us quiet and passive, "wait for the next election" they say, "you can change things" they lie, but statistically almost nobody in the country has the power to perform real change (less than 10% of states, and even in those states only a relatively small swing-district minority).

Go vote, but you've fallen into their trap. The trap of believing that US "democracy" isn't fundamentally broken/useless. Until the baby boomers and older literally die off the whole thing has no purpose at all (unless you happen to be in the 1% of voters that matter).

<comment><USER3> Why would participating in a broken democratic system automatically imply you believe it isn't broken? It's all you can do to have even the tiniest amount of influence. Sure, your vote might not be worth much now, but that influence accumulates. It's literally the only thing you can do that has any impact at all, but you don't want to? Refusing to participate is not going to change anything, it's not going to fix the system.

As to your first point: "I don't vote, because not enough people vote for what I want" is a self-defeating argument. It's a dangerous argument, too, because it just reinforces the status quo even more. If you're unhappy with the current numbers, the very least you can do is make your tiny part of a percentage change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating." \- Boss Tweed quoted recently by Lawrence Lessig

While I believe the above statement is fundamentally true I"m still going to vote. For me personally, I think I'm doing that as a some sort of ritual to hold onto my belief in democracy even though I recognize that our current system is badly broken.

</comment><comment> 0x5f3759df-i I already voted early, the apathy and boasting about not voting going on here is the exact reason our politicians such fucking idiots.

People complain that the baby boomers control politics but that's because they are the only ones that show up to vote so their interests are met.

By not voting you are just giving a louder voice to those that do. Not voting as a form of protest does not exclude you from the laws that are passed by the people voted in by those that did.

I'm real fucking sick of the deafest and general negativity here on HN.

<comment><USER5> > _...the apathy and boasting about not voting going on here is the exact > reason our politicians such idiots._

Or, alternatively, that our politicians are such idiots is the exact reason that there's apathy and boasting about not voting.

> _People complain that the baby boomers control politics but that 's because > they are the only ones that show up to vote so their interests are met._

Close to half of the voters in 2008 and 2012 were under the age of 45. It still resulted in one of the most useless Congresses in history, a pointless budget deadlock that damaged the US credit rating, increased powers of federal surveillance, continued insane drug policy ... the only issue that might be considered a win by the liberals of that age group is health care, and that came at a very steep political price and arrived at the door step a jumbled, broken mess.

Do you _really_ believe that if the voter turnout by those under 45 had been 10% or 20% higher that it would have had much of an impact on the political process?

> _By not voting you are just giving a louder voice to those that do._

That's not how it works. The loudest of voices do not belong to voters; they belong to blowhards career politicians and media personalities and people with enough money to buy politicians of any party.

> _Not voting as a form of protest does not exclude you from the laws that are > passed by the people voted in by those that did._

Maybe not, but it removes any claim to the wishes of the majority by those that write and enforce the laws.

And by the way, except for two elections, voter turnout in the U.S. has hovered between 70% and 80% since the 60s.

<comment><USER6> > And by the way, except for two elections, voter turnout in the U.S. has > hovered between 70% and 80% since the 60s.

Where are you getting this from? I was under the impression it's closer to 50%.

<comment><USER5> Oh! I was wrong. I had gone off of a graph of voter turnout for several different countries ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turnout.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turnout.png) \-- it came up while searching for demographic information on voters), but I'm colorblind, and didn't realize I was associating the wrong lines with the wrong country. Hate when that happens.

US voter turnout has been oscillating between 50% and 65% since about 1904 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections)), although there is a (very) gradual declining trend.

Thanks for catching that error.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal."

Yes, I'll be voting today, but primarily because there are some contentious local candidates and local issues. Like most voters I'm pretty disillusioned by the state of politics at the state and federal levels.

I'm starting to think of low voter turnouts as a quiet protest against a broken and corrupt political process, and seen that way, I really can't in good conscience encourage anyone else to vote.

<comment> 0x5f3759df-i There is no way to determine whether someone is not voting out of protest or just simple laziness. That is not an effective way to protest. Voting for a smaller party that never wins would be more effective way of protest.

A "quiet protest" has never fixed anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yes, I'm voting. (Minnesota, 2nd district) I think voting is the bare minimum. The real important part is to get involved in primary races to help shape who the candidates will be. People are always bitching about the candidates, but don't participate in choosing them. Be politically active, not just on election day, but all year!

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't vote as protest that our first past the post election system doesn't accurately represent the will of the people as well as other voting schemes.

<comment><USER9> I'm honestly curious if you think this is a valid form of protest as opposed to a form of apathy or laziness.

Personally I don't believe you can _change_ the system from _outside_ the system without replacing the system (i.e. having a revolution), and currently the number of people who are acting to replace the system from without is sufficiently small (and with a sufficiently large number of ignorable fringe elements) not to have any real effect.

Any protest that involves quietly sitting at home cannot have any real effect unless a large enough population does it to make the rest of the people realise that something is very wrong, rather than the usual hefty percentage of apathetic or otherwise uninvolved people.

On the other hand you've got people like Lawrence Lessig and the Mayday PAC ([https://mayday.us/](https://mayday.us/)) who are actively trying to change the system from _within_ , by electing candidates who support wide-ranging form. This is a way to change the system, but it requires engaging with the system on its (current) terms, not sitting it out because of, y'know, reasons.

<comment><USER2> You're suggesting a super PAC to solve the problems with US politics? There's something unsettling and ironical about that.

<comment><USER9> You get the irony then. If Mayday succeeds, it'll render itself obsolete if not illegal. This is entirely deliberate on the part of the people involved.

However, and more to the point, Mayday is an example of trying to change the system from _within_ rather than from _without_. The system is currently too powerful to try changing without engaging with it on its own terms, so it can only be changed from within.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I recently phone banked for my party for the first time and found that the voter rolls the party was working from had age, gender, race, and how many out of the previous 3 elections the voter had actually shown up to the polls.

It is no wonder that politicians ignore issues affecting of young people: they know for a fact that they don't vote in large numbers.

I voted today. I have always voted since I was of age. I get discouraged living in Florida and having my vote drowned in a sea of geriatrics. But I recognize that participating is the only way to affect change.

</comment><comment><USER11> Yes, I will be voting. I live in south-east Michigan.

I will be voting because although my vote is statistically insignificant for the larger elections, it carries more weight for local elections.

To the people that say "Don't vote, it's a broken system", I say why not go an write in NOBODY. Do _something_ , because nobody sees _not voting_ as any kind of protest. It's lazy, and you'll never change anything at all by staying home.

<comment><USER8> Writing in for a non-registered write in candidate in Michigan (I live in Michigan, you need to petition to be a write in candidate) results in your vote being thrown out.

So there is no difference between not voting, and writing in "NOBODY". The only difference is the civic duty circlejerk.

<comment><USER12> In UK elections they do announce the number of spoiled ballots, which might give indication of the number of "neither" votes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nope. Not a citizen, or even located geographically close ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you have the opportunity to vote in your location? If yes, do you?

<comment><USER14> My country has an up-coming election of self-governance officials (city mayors, etc.). I don't see myself voting as not only there is absolutely no one worth voting for, but this year candidates try to one-up one another in the contest for most stupid election poster.

Just take a look at some: [http://joemonster.org/link/pokaz/58169/Kwiatki_kampanii_samo...](http://joemonster.org/link/pokaz/58169/Kwiatki_kampanii_samorzadowej_2014)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Tuscaloosa, AL. I live in Alabama full time because I go to school here and work here during the summers, and have for two years. Technically, though, I'm a resident of Louisiana.

I registered to vote in Tuscaloosa in the last presidential election, because I was told I could. Since then, Alabama has passed voter ID laws, and because I don't possess an Alabama photo ID (my driver's license is from Louisiana), I can't vote in Alabama.

I can't vote in Louisiana because I'm not registered there, and even if I was, I don't know anything about the candidates or have any stake in the election there.

<comment><USER15> Wait, I just looked it up. I can vote with a University ID card.

I'm gonna go vote now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't agree with Doug Casey on a lot of stuff, but his five reasons not to vote are pretty funny and an excellent foil to the constant & unexamined appeals that we vote:

[http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/doug-caseys-top- five-r...](http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/doug-caseys-top-five-reasons- not-vote)

</comment><comment><USER17> I always vote. Thank you to the 60+% of you who don't vote, giving my vote more weight.

</comment><comment><USER18> I voted (and will continue to vote) in every election since I was old enough - didn't matter how big or small. I always look at it as you don't vote you don't have the right to bitch about things :).

<comment><USER19> That's a common aphorism, but it's not logical. Declining to vote doesn't negate your right to bitch about the political system or even individual politicians, any more than voting and _your guy winning_ negates your right to bitch about that individual (which is slightly more logical, but still doesn't pass muster)

<comment><USER11> By not voting your showing that you won't even make the slightest effort to get the government you want. I mean, voting isn't hard. It takes maybe 20 minutes. If all the people that don't vote because they don't think it would matter, actually fucking voted, we'd have a significantly different government.

<comment><USER20> Do you honestly think that we just need more people voting to change the system? The average voter isn't going to understand the underlying failures of a 2 party democracy in which no third party has a chance at significantly upsetting the status quo. Are you going to vote to continue the foreign wars or vote to continue the foreign wars while saying you won't? That's your choice. Also people aren't going to become informed to vote. More people voting would probably just mean a similar split to the current one.

<comment><USER11> Yes, I honestly think that the system would be more representative of the country if more of the country voted. Young people's views, and those of boomers and the elderly differ greatly on many issues, but they don't vote.

I'm not saying it would magically fix everything but it's certainly a start. But by all means, continue to not vote, and complain about the system, because that's _sure to help_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> No, for several reasons.

The congressional election in my district is essentially a foregone conclusion and since our voting system is winner-take-all there is really no point in voting for the opposition. I also happen to think both candidates are unqualified to represent themselves, much less a state.

My state has judicial elections as well, which might be worth voting in if any of the candidates were less despicable. Some of their ads are Onion-worthy. All judicial candidates I've seen have breathlessly tried to one-up their opponents by being "tougher on crime" while glossing over thier utter disregard for the either the federal or state Constitutions. It's made me wonder if defense attorneys can even pursue a judicial career in a place like this.

Some have made the argument that not voting is also equivalent to a vote of no confidence in the available candidates and/or system as a whole. I kind of agree with this, but doubt that such a protest is really effective.

One of the few things our highly divided political factions do agree on is that everyone should vote. Preferably for their party, but at least vote for someone. Depending on your perspective, this is either evidence that voting is such an obviously good thing which everyone should do regardless of their circumstances, or (if you are less trusting of their stated motivations) an attempt to ensure their own legitimacy. In a way, each vote that isn't cast is a vote against all the candidates, so the idea that someone would not vote is equally offensive to our political factions regardless of what side of the aisle they sit on. Since I happen to think that many of these individuals do not deserve their present positions, and the candidates their respective caucases and donors have promoted to replace them are no better, not voting is the most natural expression of my opinion "you are all unqualified."

Basically, the marginal value of spending my time not voting (e.g. working, reading, even writing about why I don't see a point in voting in this election) far exceeds the expected return on that same time should I spend it voting. I suspect it's the same for many people. Most arguments to the contrary appeal to various theoretical notions or idealistic purposes/side effects of voting, which to me just sounds like "you should vote because it will make you feel good." If it makes you feel good, then go ahead. Some people like to feel like they're participating. I prefer to _know_ that I'm impacting the decisions that get made in my state in a positive way, and I don't consider selecting the lesser of two evils to meet that requirement.

</comment><comment><USER22> Yep. Oakland, CA.

</comment><comment><USER23> Yes

<comment><AUTHOR> Great!</comment></comment>


The Morris Worm source code in C – decompiled version - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/arialdomartini/morris-worm <comment><USER2> A nice analysis of the worm that was published shortly after the incident is _" With Microscope and Tweezers: An Analysis of the Internet Virus of November 1988"_ by Eichin and Rochlis [1].

I was an intern at IBM UK at the time and I remember it caused quite a lot of interest, and perhaps confusion. The gateway between IBM's corporate network (VNET, mainly) and and the (then) academic-only internet was shut down for a few days while people got a grip on exactly what was going on. Simpler times.

[1] [http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ece845/docs/eichin.pdf](http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ece845/docs/eichin.pdf)

<comment><USER2> _" and I remember it caused quite a lot of interest, and perhaps confusion"_

To be clear, by "it" I was referring to the work incident, not the paper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This appears to be a decompilation, not the original source.

However, it appears to be a very old decompilation, perhaps done while the worm was still live: [https://github.com/arialdomartini/morris- worm/blob/master/st...](https://github.com/arialdomartini/morris- worm/blob/master/stubs.c#L4-L6)

<comment><USER4> It does contain comments, though. Like this: [https://github.com/arialdomartini/morris- worm/blob/master/wo...](https://github.com/arialdomartini/morris- worm/blob/master/worm.c#L140)

<comment><USER3> But they're not RTM's comments; they're clearly from someone analyzing the worm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Morris is at YC, can't he just post the source?

<comment><USER6> Apparently he's pretty sensitive about this and prefers to keep private about it.

<comment><USER5> I'd imagine the people that had to clean up after him were a lot more sensitive about it. Posting the source for historical reasons would be one way to make amends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Jeez, has it been 30 years already?!?

I remember some folks in Berkeley (Bostic?) posting a patch to fix the bug in the worm! The worm was discovered because it kept infecting the same machines again and again; the patch fixed this bug. Ah, good times.</comment>


Blame Cassandra for Everything you Don't Like - <AUTHOR> http://jots.mypopescu.com/post/1082974003/blame-cassandra-for-everything-you-dont-like <comment><USER2> i cant fathom someone getting upset enough by techcrunch being well.. techcrunch to write a blog post no matter how short about it. techcrunch trades in rumor and gossip. don't want to get sucked in? block the site from your machine ( works for me ).

</comment><comment><USER3> I saw that report. If it was Cassendra's fault than the database would have been fired, not the VP of engineering. Digg was great, now it's not, AND it's broken all the time.

<comment><USER4> Not necessarily true. A VP can, and maybe should be, fired for choosing a technology, like Cassandra (or implementation of using Cassandra) which turns out to be very problematic.

There is a lot here this is not known, and maybe there is a valid reason for firing the VP because I chose to "fire" the last database and switch to Cassendra.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well they do claim "sources" after all. They just don't name their sources or what they said exactly... does that mean that the conclusions aren't true?</comment>


When Introverts Act Like Extraverts (and Vice Versa) - <AUTHOR> https://www.learningandthebrain.com/blog/when-introverts-act-like-extraverts-and-vice-versa/ <comment><USER2> One thing I don't see mentioned very much is that introversion/extroversion is a very different axis from shyness/outgoingness. I feel like these two axes get conflated really often (like in this article) but they really are two different things. I'm an introvert, I get energy being alone, but when I need to I can be very outgoing and make small talk and all of the things that introverts supposedly hate. I just need time to recharge by myself afterwards. On the other hand I've had friends that got energy from others but tended to be a wallflower (for lack of a better term) when they were around others. I hope people recognize it's more subtle of a distinction than just introvert/extrovert and don't let their self chosen label define them.

<comment><USER3> > I just need time to recharge by myself afterwards

Yes!

The way I've started explaining this to people is it's like going to the gym: I like going to the gym. I make sure to go to the gym regularly. But I can't spend all day at the gym, and if I spend many hours at the gym I'm going to be very sore and tired and need a day or two off.

<comment><USER4> Good analogy, and I find it slightly ironic, because the introvert will go to the gym, focus for an hour, and be tired out, while the extrovert will go to the gym, talk to people half the time, and not put in nearly as heavy a workout...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Trying to force introverts into pro-longed extroversion is exhausting. It is not how we are built. I think oftentimes people view introverts as anti- social, which is not always the case. We are just differently social.

Instead of trying to force introverts to be more like extroverts, encourage them to share their skills/talents in a positive way. This is where you will see us shine and you might even forget that we are introverts.

Throwing us into a party with 100 strangers and expecting us to thrive, is not gonna do it. Asking us to teach a large group of strangers something valuable or lead a project that we know a lot about will energize us like nothing else. This is how we connect with people and how we make our mark in society.

A lot of introverts are quiet leaders and have a way of making a huge impact in ways that extroverts just don't understand. Don't get me wrong, I love the extroverts in my life, but I don't want to be like them :)

<comment><USER6> I think I agree with you. I am an introvert, but have vast variety of interest in science, technology, startups etc. I don't like at all to do small talk with friends, i get bored and tired really fast, unless the topic hits one of these areas. I liked to socialize on forums on programming, and made a bunch of friends sincr when i was in middle school or high school that way. I gave a bunch of talks and raised enthusiasm on some programming concepts back in the day. Everything else was too boring.

<comment><USER7> I'm an extrovert, and I am also interested in "science" and "technology" (but not startups). One of my primary hobbies is very math-heavy, and involves hours and sometimes days of intense focus. I also gave talks in the past, e.g. on functional programming.

The point is, I have no idea how any of this is related to being introvert or extrovert (and was wondering the same in the post you replied to).

People can shut themselves into their room with only oscilloscopes and MATLAB as company on one weekend, and meet up with friends on the next one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> More inane pseudoscience about the moronic introvert/extrovert dichotomy. A two week study with 130 students and we're supposed to learn something? Change our behavior? This is just astrology for people who love Ted talks.

<comment><USER9> > _the moronic introvert /extrovert dichotomy_

Why is that dichotomy moronic?

<comment><USER10> There is no scientific foundation for it. Jung dreamt it up with an extremely literary approach. Then the swindlers Briggs and Myers popularised it with their 20th century astrology.

<comment><USER11> The introversion-extraversion personality axis is the only part of the MBTI that modern psychometrics accepts basically without reservation. It lives on as the introversion-extraversion factor of the Big 5 Personality Model.

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

I find it interesting that the rest of the MBTI is so thoroughly rejected -- in particular, I read in work that accepts the MBTI (uh-oh, red flag!) that males tend to split 75% T / 25% F and females do the reverse, 75% F / 25% T.

It seems to me that this very large difference in responses should be sufficient to show that the T / F axis is capturing _something_. If the T / F distinction were meaningless, it wouldn't be able to predict anything, but it clearly can predict the respondent's sex.

<comment><USER10> It is capturing something right. But it is flatting down a much more complex reality.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Correlates)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This reads like a jumble of fragmented maybes.

The first thing that bugs me is the casual spelling of "extravert," where "extrovert" is the common spelling unless you're referring specifically to the Jungian interpretation of the trait(s).

The second thing that bugs me is the "acts like" construction. The students in the experiment were indeed acting when they explicitly adopted traits they don't usually express for a period of time, but to also use "acting" throughout the rest of the essay as a fundamental organizing principle is to assume a person's motivations absent evidence, vs. sometihng like "appears to," which maintains the relationship that a person's motivations are a matter of interpretation by the observer.

He gives a nod to neuroplasticity toward the end, which...fine, but it appears to be a euphemism for "nobody is really anything" when balanced against the rest of the text.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm an introvert and this writer (though well-intentioned) completely misunderstands what introversion _is_.

A sample of his misleading analysis:

 _> , this framework rests on the unspoken assumption that introverts and extroverts remain constant in their identities. [...] What if that weren't true? What if we could deliberately act more one way other the other?_

 _> That is: am I promoting extraversion simply because I'm an extravert? The answer is: I am a little bit of both. [...] I think we're all a bit of both._

No, introversion is _not_ how one voluntarily acts in solitude for a little while and if that same person is later eating lunch with friends, he does _not_ become an extrovert.

And no, you can't be "a little bit of both".

The way I like to explain introversion vs extroversion is it's an underlying personality trait _that doesn 't change_ such as being left-handed or right- handed. When we say we're "right-handed", that "right-handedness" trait doesn't go away just because we play the low bass notes on the piano with the left hand, or flick the turn signal levers of the car steering with our left hand. Just because right-handed people use their left hands some of the time for many tasks doesn't mean they are a "little bit of both". Our category of "left-handed" vs "right-handed" is specifically labeling the _underlying tendency_ of which limb is favored and not about the cherry-picked tasks that use the opposite limb.

I've been to hundreds of parties and yes I do hang out with friends from time to time. I'm still an introvert. I'm not a little bit of both. The author's article does more harm than good in understanding what true introversion actually is.

<comment><USER14> > _And no, you can 't be "a little bit of both"._

This is absolutely untrue.

Extroversion - Introversion is a spectrum and people can exist anywhere along it.

From personal experience, I am an introvert. I recharge from time alone or with a very small group of good, close friends and colleagues. Regardless, I was developer evangelist #3 for Twilio (circa 2011-2013) covering literally all of North America at some point where a major part of my job was to speak in front of large groups regularly (spoke at 15+ confs/year, no clue how many user groups) and spend every spare moment trying to understand every person, project, and community I came across. I can thrive and get recharged (much more slowly!) from that too. I've continued similar things at Okta for the last 3 years.

After most of those trips - I found 3 days is my threshold - yes, I need to stop and be back among that small group/alone to recharge. But those quiet times alone are when I came up with the best solutions to the ugliest problems and helped me do my job.. and many others do their own better.

Like anything, it's a balance.. but it's not one that most people can adjust without significant work.

<comment><USER13> _> , it's a balance.. but it's not one that most people can adjust without significant work._

Instead of engaging your other points, let me focus on that one I quoted. Does "significant work" mean you agree with the author's idea that we can change our introversion?

If so, you're using the term very differently from me and it's not productive for us to even debate it because we're not even on the same page of what introversion _is_. Because I'm saying this: if I go to another social function, and even if I _enjoy_ that social function, that does _not_ make me "less introverted" and I have not become "more balanced".

<comment><USER14> Yes, I'm using it as the author did, not as you've defined.

Introvert vs Extrovert is where you draw your energy or what recharges you, _not_ what you enjoy though those things often overlap.

It's not a switch, it's a slider. People operate at different points along it and can even shift or operate within a range depending on a variety of things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What's the supporting scientific evidence for the idea of an introversion- extroversion personality trait?

<comment><USER16> Extraversion is one of the "Big Five" personality traits [1]. As far as I understand it, this means that it's been verified that it empirically exists as an independent-ish variable based on statistical analysis, but it's also not based on any underlying psychological or neurological model that's been independently validated. Also, the descriptions of this variable in Big Five literature don't always match popular ideas about what the term means.

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

<comment><USER15> That covers about all I've heard too. Wonder how solid / convincing / replicable that really is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't think there is really anything substantive in this article, but if there is one thing we can learn from it, it's that we need to be much more clear what we're talking about when we use the words introvert and extrovert. I prefer the definition that introverts gain energy from being alone, and extroverts gain energy from being with others. People often make the mistake of coupling other things to this: shyness and introversion tend to be associated, and it leads to people saying things like "I'm an introvert there I can't (it's impossible) be a good socializer". The fact that introversion/extroversion is a spectrum certainly doesn't do us any favors either.

</comment><comment><USER18> I guess one test of introversion is whether being in a group is invigorating or tiring. I am tired after interacting with most groups except with my closest friends.

</comment><comment><USER19> this seems pretty straightforward. "introvert" and "extrovert" are grammatical traps that lead to fallacious reasoning, because these are not things that we _are_.

introversion and extroversion are just groupings of behaviors we each _exhibit_ based on social context. sure, some people tend to skew one way or another statistically, but it's not an intinsic attribute.

(it's more interesting to examine the specific situations in which one exhibits one or the other set of behaviors.)

</comment><comment><USER20> The author references Quiet, which is a great read but it doesn't seem like they understood it at all.

</comment><comment><USER21> Coincidentally I started reading 'Quiet' this week. Really recommend it, interesting book!

</comment><comment><USER22> Humans are not that different from animals but surprisingly show mixed behaviours, unlike other animal species. Are we even one species and not many subspecies pretending to be one?

A cooperator engages prey both when it is alone or with a companion. Most common behaviour of extroverts.

A cheater only engages when it is the first to find prey, but lets another individual make the kill if it arrives second. The author of the article in this case. Plenty of extrovert cheaters too pretend to read books by citing cliff notes. Ambiverts I suppose.

A scavenger and a solitary hunter never hunts and waits for another individual to make a kill. A solitary avoids others and always hunts alone. Dangerous l33t hackers on the loose.

Taken from [https://doi.org/10.1086/284844](https://doi.org/10.1086/284844)</comment>


MillionaireGoogle, for the sophisticated invididual - <AUTHOR> http://millionairegoogle.com/

<comment><USER2> Ugh, I hate what these instant-private-beta scripts have done to the web app landscape.

I know this one is a joke and I appreciate that, but it's frustrating that my legitimate app may be losing potential users because they're burned out by all these other pages vying for their attention.

</comment><comment><USER3> Finally! so long poor folks.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are some obviously unverified "millionaires" commenting on this post.First thing I'm searching for is images of poor people flying on public "commercial" airplanes. Lols.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is this real or an AFD joke?</comment>


List Of All Countries In All Languages & All Data Formats - <AUTHOR> http://dev.umpirsky.com/list-of-all-countries-in-all-languages-and-all-data-formats/ via: http://www.functionn.in/2012/12/list-of-all-countries-in-all-languages.html
Very comprehensive list of countries, definitely useful and to one to bookmark.
Some of the data formats available are: Text, JSON, YAML, XML, HTML (Select, Flags), CSV, SQL, PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, SQL Server.
I like the fact that you can also export to any other format by using the Exporter. <comment><AUTHOR> via: [http://www.functionn.in/2012/12/list-of-all-countries-in- all...](http://www.functionn.in/2012/12/list-of-all-countries-in-all- languages.html)

Very comprehensive list of countries in the following formats: Text, JSON, YAML, XML, HTML (Select, Flags), CSV, SQL, PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, SQL Server.

I like that fact that you can export it to any other formats using the Exporter and extending it.</comment>


30% of Servers Are Sitting "Comatose" - <AUTHOR> http://anthesisgroup.com/30-of-servers-are-sitting-comatose/

<comment><USER2> Nice ad, not.

It is interesting to look at server utilization, Google had a very publicized plan for power driven computing (basically you switched on more machines as you needed them, turned them off when they were idle). Which kind of works and kind of doesn't when you consider the complete picture of computational dynamics. Of the many resources requires (memory, compute, storage, and networking) only compute is easily "turned off" and "turned on" again. Next best is memory with many non-server memory systems allowing for a low power standby mode, disks and networks are both pretty much a massive latency hit when powered down.

And oddly latency is the fidelity of internet interaction. We think of things with low latency and rapid response as "good" and things which have high latency and slow response as "bad". Just as an amplifier with poor frequency response is 'muddy' and one that has high frequency response 'crisp'. At scale your idle machine are essentially latency capacitors waiting for that sudden burst of packets that happens during the commercial breaks.

It is an area that is ripe for improvement but it needs some pretty deep thinking to go along with that.

<comment><USER3> > disks and networks are both pretty much a massive latency hit when powered > down.

Is that still true with SSD's? I can't imagine they take anything like as long to come on as spinning rust but I've no idea so now I'm curious :).

<comment><USER4> Many SSDs have tremendously long startup consistency checks. An unclean restart of a FusionIO card used to take an insane amount of time (I haven't tried it in years; it could be better now).

<comment><USER5> What is 'long' in this context? (milliseconds, seconds, or minutes?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you read the findings, it's basically a 3 page "case study" (i.e. advert), the last page of which is a screenshot of "TSO Logic" \- which claims to solve this. One reference is from 2008 and another is TSO Logic's own data.

There probably is wastage, though it would nice to see a proper, modern, scientific study on this though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here is NRDC's study from 2014, looks like it's more solid: [http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/data-center-efficiency- asse...](http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/data-center-efficiency-assessment- IP.pdf)

Originally I submitted Computerworld story [1], which is a summary of a few studies (including NRDC's), but that submission's url got changed to pdf, and today I got mod-email that it's "a good story to repost", so I posted announcement this time.

[1] [http://www.computerworld.com/article/2937408/data- center/1-i...](http://www.computerworld.com/article/2937408/data- center/1-in-3-data-center-servers-is-a-zombie.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Once upon a time I worked at major hosted server provider. Our accounting and billing systems were so dysfunctional we had no method of closing out unused servers to let them be re-used for new customers.

In short we were building new servers every time a new order came in and when a customer cancelled or stopped paying their server would continue to sit idle. An audit was eventually run and something like 25% of our tens of thousands of servers were simply sitting there waiting for a new client.

I think at this point our billing developer was fired but this was so long ago the details have become fuzzy.

<comment><USER8> I'm surprised by the fact that that was allowed to happen and the company hadn't gone bankrupt

<comment><USER9> Depending on the hardware you're buying, and your margins, dedicated servers were/are highly profitable. More margin = bad business practices can survive longer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Though not directly related, I wonder how much web hosts like DO and Dreamhost take idle VPSes into account when thinking about their business. I imagine they're counting on some percentage of their users with the hobby plans to just have one lying around just "in case". The idle stats also probably help them claim "unlimited bandwidth & storage" (in the case of Dreamhost anyways).

<comment><USER9> I've both worked for hosting companies, and was also a founder of one ~10 years ago. You most certainly oversell your equipment on shared plans, as its the only way to make money at scale ("we'll make it up on volume!"). Its difficult with bandwidth, but your typical brochureware/static/joomla/drupal site is going to sit idle most of the time. Also, very few sites are going to consume a significant amount of storage space, which is easily mitigate with shared filesystems (NFS back in the day, more likely Gluster or Ceph now depending on use case).

Today this lives on of course: you'll notice on AWS' EC2 pricing you can get memory and CPU time commits, but Amazon doesn't give you any sort of bandwidth guarantee for your instance (I don't mean transfer in the aggregate sense, but I mean how many MB/s your instance can sustain).

<comment><USER11> For the love of god, do not deploy your webapp on gluster. Such regret.

<comment><USER9> I keep hearing that unfortunately. Distributed POSIX filesystems are _hard_ , although in my opinion NFSv4 has come a long way (which is why Amazon is using it for its new Elastic Filesystem offering).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would like more information on how they reached this conclusion. "Comatose servers are those that have not delivered information or computing services in six months or more" doesn't tell me enough.

Are these servers unsold resources? Are they hot spares? How many bytes of traffic and how many CPU cycles count as computing services? How much do they cost versus the cost of the whole datacenter including employees? Looking at other industries, is a 70% yield really that low?

<comment><USER11> The paper makes it clear they're not counting servers waiting to be provisioned. But they're not so clear on how the tool makes the distinction, or how they know to exclude hot spares.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd be surprised if it made a difference, but the definition of a dead or comatose server would seem to include failover cluster members.

<comment><USER14> Most organisations I've worked for were scaled N+1 for day-to-day reliability with 2N for disaster recovery. This meant that the total servers required were 2(N+1). You get even more idle servers when you consider that they were scaled for New Year's eve traffic, which is typically 10x regular peak traffic (phone system).

30% idle is easily achievable if you're doing proper disaster recovery (recovery when the entire office is gone due to earthquake, flood, fire, etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is what being a "green" hosting company should mean: not having a one third of your servers sitting idle.

<comment><USER16> Agreed. Plus encouraging developers to use higher-performance platforms and frameworks in order to meet load requirements with fewer servers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> In any complex system you'll start seeing "idleness" and "waste"... which are sometimes a "just in case" capacity and maintenance-cost tradeoff that isn't immediately obvious.

P.S.: I bet there are some biological analogies are apropos. How long would you live if everything was redlined?

</comment><comment><USER18> By price? Or by number? This is an important distinction. I have several tiny VPS servers sitting idle, but they cost less than $10/month each. I do not have any giant AWS machines sitting idle, though.

</comment><comment><USER19> testing

</comment><comment><USER20> I wish DigitalOcean would have one or two instances of each type (perhaps only the most popular distros, to avoid having too many unused instances sitting around) so that creating a new VPS is instant. Of course, some of the time - when multiple people are setting up instances - you'd have to wait the normal 60 seconds. But sometimes, it would be instant. That would be great.

<comment><USER21> Your idea is good but not relevant to the posted article, which is about physical server utilization.

You could probably implement your idea just for yourself with a script though.

<comment><USER20> You're right - I should have pointed out that it was only a tangentially related thought. Something I think about whenever I boot up an instance.</comment></comment></comment>


How does the heap work? A reverse engineering approach - <AUTHOR> https://blog.holbertonschool.com/hack-the-virtual-memory-malloc-the-heap-the-program-break/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey I am the author of the post, please LMK if you have any question! Hope you like it. Thanks!</comment>


The new trend toward reasonable, 'missing middle housing' - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/downsizing-the-american-dream-the-new-trend-toward-missing-middle-housing/2019/02/13/0f6d0568-232b-11e9-81fd-b7b05d5bed90_story.html <comment><AUTHOR> This site: [http://missingmiddlehousing.com/](http://missingmiddlehousing.com/) has more useful detail than the WaPo article.</comment>


Adrian Cockcroft on Chaos Architecture: "Four Layers, Two Teams and an Attitude" - <AUTHOR> https://www.infoq.com/news/2017/11/cockcroft-chaos-architecture <comment><USER2> Direct link to slides: [https://qconsf.com/system/files/presentation- slides/chaos_ar...](https://qconsf.com/system/files/presentation- slides/chaos_architecture_qconsf.pptx)</comment>


Sense's gorgeous new sleep tracker has voice control for the perfect alarm clock - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/11/01/senses-gorgeous-new-sleep-tracker-adds-voice-control-get-way/ <comment><USER2> Here's an alternate (and far less complimentary) take on Sense: [https://www.google.com/amp/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/cir...](https://www.google.com/amp/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/circuitbreaker/2016/7/26/12283986/sense- sleep-tracker-review-alarm-clock)

PS. Does anyone know how I can get the non-AMP link for a website via the mobile Google search?</comment>


Steam game with price that breaks UI (depending on location) - kalium-xyz https://store.steampowered.com/app/1035340/_/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a $199.99 price for me and I'm in the USA. I think it is a Chinese simulation of the eye in VR.

<comment><USER2> It is, its 50K usd in jp</comment></comment>


Apple Profit and Revenue Slide as It Copes with Slumping iPhone Sales - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-profit-and-revenue-slide-as-it-copes-with-dwindling-iphone-sales-1477427419 <comment><USER2> I think the market for high-end phones and devices is probably starting to saturate. Apple has also been relying a bit too much on planned obsolescence, specifically through software updates.

Iterating over iDevices and essentially making them thinner and thinner or mini versions of them (i.e. the watch) doesn't really speak of "innovation" to me.

Apple's real prowess has been in economies of scale, industrial engineering, and supply chain management. This is how they extract more profit from their devices.

However, that profit is now largely based on the same principles of why high- fashion brands can charge $500 for a pair of jeans or shoes. It's also a bit perilous in the sense that once demand falls for "the brand" then a lot of margin just vanishes off the books.

<comment><USER3> > I think the market for high-end phones and devices is probably starting to > saturate. Apple has also been relying a bit too much on planned > obsolescence, specifically through software updates.

My iPhone 4 had four years of updates provided instantly and at no cost. In comparison to competitors I'd argue strongly that Apple has historically had better support for old models than most.

However. I owned my 4 for a pretty long time, because it did everything I needed (until the home button died). I expect my 6s will last a long time too - probably again limited by a hardware fault. Much like PCs, the improvements get smaller and so the impetus to upgrade regularly drops.

<comment><USER4> Apple absolutely does do planned obsolescence. Apple continuously hammers you with popups to update the OS till you accept. My 4S slowed down to a crawl after I foolishly kept updating the OS. Luckily, I've found a way to block the updates now and hopefully my 6S will give me a much more pleasant experience than my 4S.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Apple sales slump... compared to unrealistic expectations."

Wake me up with some news.

</comment><comment><USER6> Please open macOS to non Apple hardware. I'd actually buy a license for that.

<comment><USER7> Apple is a hardware company. That's where they make their money. What would be their motivation to open macOS? Do you think that macOS license sales would provide a meaningful offset to the drop in revenues and profits?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The iPhone 7 was released at the end of the quarter, the article means exactly nothing.

<comment><USER9> Same was true for the iPhone 6S, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPhone 5, etc. Yet this is the first time in 15 years Apple revenues have shrunk year over year.

That means something.

<comment><USER10> Sure it means something, it means that Apple had a spectacular 2015.

In 2001, Apple had revenues of $5.3 billion and a net loss of $25 million.

2014, revenues of $182.8 billion with $39.5 billion in profit.

2015, revenues of $233.7 billion with $53.4 billion in profit.

2016, revenues of $215.6 billion with $45.7 billion in profit.

Apple's 2016 revenues shrunk in comparison to a peak year but it's still their 2nd best showing ever.

<comment><USER9> This is not telling the complete story. In 2016, Apple shrunk around 25% in China, after growing 100% in China in 2015.

Something is very odd with their China business.

<comment><USER11> I think you just agreed with the parent comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Phones are a commodity.

<comment><USER13> I think the phone market should follow the PC market since the phone is much like a miniaturized PC. However Samsung and apple have been able to achieve high margins. Porters five forces tell us given the competition the margins should erode.</comment></comment>


Comcast deleted net neutrality pledge the same day FCC announced repeal - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/ <comment><USER2> Unfortunately, this was neither surprising nor unexpected</comment>


World's Smallest Drone Autopilot System Goes Open Source - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/08/drone-autopilot/

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of the openpilot controller:

[http://www.openpilot.org](http://www.openpilot.org)</comment>


Ask HN: If you had $500 to spend on Startup services – what would they be? - <AUTHOR> I recently won a competition and got this small yet fun reward. Since I only need a premium WIX account and a server, i'm having a hard time thinking of other "essential services" to spend this money on. I only have a few more days to do so.
Any ideas??
Thanks! <comment><USER2> if your startup is a web app, an user onboarding tool would be recommended. eg: onboardx.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Perfect. Thank you!</comment></comment>


Behind the European Privacy Ruling That's Confounding Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/business/international/behind-the-european-privacy-ruling-thats-confounding-silicon-valley.html?ref=technology&_r=0 <comment><USER2> Good job.We all need privacy on out data one way or the other.</comment>


Notre-Dame's Toxic Fallout - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/14/world/europe/notre-dame-fire-lead.html <comment><USER2> Lead is one of the most toxic materials that children can be exposed to and the effects last a lifetime. My concern over lead exposure with young children has led to me buying almost nothing from China any more -- the supply chain and manufacturing process there is riddled with examples of lead, formaldehyde, and other toxic materials being used as cheap substitutes. What one of the mayors says in the article is probably true, that some of the lead hot spots around Paris were not caused by the fire but exist from other sources.

<comment><USER3> Are there particular product categories which we should avoid mostly, or does it apply to anything and everything coming out of China?

<comment><USER2> Anything and everything, unfortunately.

<comment><USER3> Just to be clear, everything from Chinese origin or everything manufactured in China? Because in the case of the latter it seems that pretty much everything these days is manufactured there.

<comment><USER2> >everything from Chinese origin or everything manufactured in China?

Not sure what the difference is between these two.

It's not that every item from China is tainted, it's that the supply chain isn't as trusted and that leads to a higher rate of contaminated products.

>Because in the case of the latter it seems that pretty much everything these days is manufactured there.

Yes, it's a real pain to source alternative products. I used to love the convenience and price of Alibaba, Amazon, and the other front ends for the modern miracle that is Shenzhen. But once I started to read up more on the science of toxic chemicals behind it, it radically changed my view and it's hard to go back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Dang. I both live and work within 10 minutes walk from Notre Dame and mostly don't leave the area on a daily basis. I wonder if there is any possibility this is a contributing factor in my recent deteriorating health.

<comment><USER5> You can ask for a blood test that measures your lead level in your blood.

<comment><USER6> Probably also include a hair test. Blood shows what's going on _right now_ , hair includes the last couple of weeks _(with some caveats, which the doctor should be aware of so no need to discuss it here, for example hair does not automatically show up in hair proportionally to what was in blood during the time - too many transport phenomena in the body other than mere diffusion)_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems a overblown. For all of the pages of reporting, they only cite two blood test results of kids, and they were both under the 2.5 ug/dL guideline. Many, many children test over this level in the U.S., and in the eighties a large percentage of kids tested over 10.

<comment><USER8> There's no safe level of lead, the symptoms start at nothing at 0.0ug/dL and increase proportionally.

<comment><USER9> Yes, but, everyone is exposed to varying degrees and its not uncommon for kids to have above that level.

You can get results for san francisco tests for example. The majority of cases are from lead paint exposure which is very dangerous

<comment><USER8> It's not uncommon to have heart attacks, does that mean there is a safe level of cardiac arrest?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Notre-Dame was on an island in the middle of the river Seine. It's strange that the article doesn't mention "river" or "water" even once...

<comment><USER11> Well, the Seine is already a bit of desperate case.

Jacque Chirac (mayor of Paris at the time) famously said in 1988 "I would swim in the Seine within 3 years, with witnesses, to prove the Seine has become a clean river" to illustrate his commitment to clean the Seine.

Spoiler alert, he never swam in it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Um, I know it's grim news, but... pretty amazing 3D data illustration using Google Earth!

<comment><USER13> I'm not a fan of how they hacked the scrollbar though

<comment><USER14> I'm never a fan of this, but on this page the visualization was so compelling I didn't even notice. That's a good bar to set for anyone thinking of stealing our scrollbars. I think a component of it, is that the part that hijacked the scroll bar is really the money shot of the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The concern should be another angle as I tried to post another thread. More about the importance of people and media. Whilst anarchies is not useful, all gov cannot be trusted totally.

</comment><comment><USER16> Why were there over 400 tons of lead on the roof?! (honest question)

<comment><USER17> To keep the water out. The roof covering was made out of lead, instead of copper or wood shingles.

<comment><USER18> This. Lead is cheap, easy to work, and does not corrode. It's actually a pretty neat material. Damn shame that it's poisonous.

<comment><USER16> And it is being used on an industrial scale in a place visited by 16 million people a year?!

<comment><USER19> Yes. If you recall your history classes, materials science has always been as advanced as it is today. Architects and construction teams in the Middle Ages had easy access to fiberglass insulation, polymer vapor barriers, and modern fabrics, but simply chose not to use them, possibly for aesthetic reasons.

In all seriousness, lead (much like asbestos) is a perfectly fine building material so long as you aren't trying to ingest or inhale it. Permanent waterproofing is easy with a material that melts at temperatures possible with fires even prehistoric man was capable of building (it doesn't deteriorate like tar eventually does). They only become dangerous when that's a possibility, such as when paints made from it are deteriorating, when demolition or renovation of a structure is occurring, or in the case of Notre- Dame, when the structure is on fire.

It's unlikely that the new roof on the cathedral is going to be rebuilt using these ancient techniques- but if old construction isn't broken, there's no reason to actively tear it down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This will have long term serious problems that will then be blamed on previous administrations who didn't know any better. But they know better now.

All the kids in the fallout zone need to be tested for lead levels. Those with dangerously high levels (there is no doubt there will be many based on the environmental levels reported in the article) need to be relocated to areas with lower lead levels. Those with close to high levels need frequent retests, at least every 3 months.</comment>


iMessage Preview Problems; leak your location by receiving a text message - <AUTHOR> https://theantisocialengineer.com/imessage-preview-problems/ <comment><USER2> tl;dr iMessage now previews links automatically

> The updated iMessage loads the link preview and in essence clicks the link > for you! That's what irks us with this, the choice. OK we might not stop > people clicking links anytime soon but Apple have taken this very choice > away from us and facilitate the information leakage. The very act of > receiving an SMS message can reveal your rough geographic location, your > cellular operator, your current WiFi network.

<comment><USER3> What makes this more frustrating is that the link previews are a pretty terrible user experience.

<comment><USER4> I don't use iMessage but I've noticed this "design pattern" turning up in various other apps, and I _hate those bloody things_. They're extremely distracting and annoying because they often include "loud" imagery too, when I'm only trying to read the text. I turn them off whenever I can.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5>
       > Early 2016 we were the first company in the UK to offer
       > SMShing services. These SMS messages are like phishing
       > emails and contain a pretext alongside a link within the
       > message.  When a mark receives an SMS message and clicks the
       > link a host of details are available to us.

This kind of thing happens with email too. In Apple Mail you can disable the loading of external contents. Does anyone know in detail how the preview in iMessage work?

</comment><comment><USER6> Sending the requests from the client is probably not the most secure idea. Requests should be proxied through a cloud server on Apple's end to reduce the security risk of these previews.

<comment><USER7> As has been pointed out below, iMessages are end-to-end encrypted so Apple has no way to read the URL to proxy it.

<comment><USER3> You could still have the client use Apple as a proxy. This would reduce the privacy of the message but only the URL and only exposing it to specific service at Apple. If it is a SOCKS proxy, you could reduce the exposure to just the IP address and some amount of leakage to whatever DNS server the phone is using.

<comment><USER2> Why not have the sender do that work so Apple can just stay out of it?

<comment><USER3> The sender could be a dumb SMS client. I'd be happy to just turn off previews entirely.

<comment><USER8> Which is the right way to do it and exactly how ever email client does. Do you want to see previews? Have the device make the request. Do you not want to see previews? The device shouldn't make those requests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Incidentally, I received a bit of iMessage spam this weekend that I looked into. Was a series of 302s to an affiliate link. So this is actively being used right now for financial gain.

</comment><comment><USER10> Apple should fetch the data via their servers instead of the clients'. It leaks way too much information.

<comment><USER11> Messages are end-to-end encrypted in iMessage, meaning Apple cannot read the message contents. This solution would require Apple to bypass that encryption for URLs (which are often privacy-sensitive).

A good approach would be for the sender to fetch the URL and embed the preview as metadata along with the message. The only downside is that the sender could spoof the preview, but I think that's an acceptable trade-off here (not much of a phishing vector when you end up loading the original site once you open the link anyway).

<comment><USER12> No need to do in transit. I mean iMessage could simply proxy all http/https requests post decryption in iMessage, pre-request.

At the end of the day this privacy trade off (apple gets your browsing info) is probably more secure than an embedded webview that could potentially be exploited and is auto-loaded. Similar to how Chrome alerts of malicious sites...I see this as a long term larger attack vector than privacy leakage.

<comment><USER11> The URL being disclosed to Apple was what I was getting at, which would happen with any approach that involves Apple performing the request on behalf of the user. I don't think the trade-off you're describing is necessary given that the sender could prepare the preview.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Many comments are in regards to fixing this feature. I think this is one of those situations where the feature (previewing links) is not a good idea in the first place, or at least do not enable it by default.

</comment><comment><USER14> What's wrong with web hosts nowadays? a few 100 users and everything dies.

Cached: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Ftheantisocialengineer.com%2Fimessage- preview-problems%2F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)

<comment><USER15> Wordpress with no caching plugin on a $5-a-month droplet, that's what. It's a pleasant enough platform to use, but if you don't cache content and you make the HN frontpage, you're gonna have a bad time.

<comment><USER16> If you are going to use a out of the box like wordpress why use a VPS instead of a hosting provider? Purely just to store your own data?

<comment><USER15> Probably. You can also use a VPS for more things than just Wordpress, and shared web hosting tends to be kind of a crapshoot in any case; if you're up to doing sysadmin work, you really are better off with a VPS, not least because someone else's screwup is a lot less likely to impact your site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find myself thinking a recent story of an middle eastern human rights activist who's iPhone was attempted hacked via a sms url. He avoided it by not tapping the url. I do wonder if this preview "feature" will help automate future attacks.

It seems that whenever we try to make software helpful we produce more problems.

</comment><comment><USER18> it also happens on the macOS and there is no way to disable it.

<comment><USER7> You can disable auto-loading of images in Mail.app.

<comment><USER2> What does that have to do with Messages?

<comment><USER7> My mistake, I though the comment was wrt mail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well it's possible to disable imessage right?

Go to settings > messages > and disable iMessage.

That should be a temporary fix right?

</comment><comment><USER20> imessage won't auto-load previews until you ask it to do it the first time.

<comment> yoz-y But there is no way to disable this once you have accepted it. I do not actually remember having been given the choice but it has been some time so I probably just do not remember.

Ideally one could enable previews only from contacts.

<comment><USER20> correct - i couldn't find a way to disable if you've changed your mind.</comment></comment></comment>


The Boring Company's Chicago project seems awfully cheap for something so big - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/14/17464612/boring-company-chicago-elon-musk-cost-estimate <comment><USER2> If Chicago has the same underpinning of clay much of London has and he's below basement level, dig cost can be pretty tractable. That said, I too have doubts the model can work.

Basically, I think he's overstated the potential savings from process improvement and understated the on costs of safety and compliance to standards like air quality and escape paths.

</comment><comment><USER3> Chicagoan here. What the city really needs is a ring line - a wheel for all the spokes of current train lines. There's already a CTA train going from O'Hare to downtown (and back out again!). It's hard to imagine this having much appeal besides a shiny new toy for the consultants flying into the city.</comment>