Launch is for Amateurs: Focus on Building a Product & a Brand - <AUTHOR> http://bostinnovation.com/2011/09/16/launch-is-for-amateurs-focus-on-building-a-product-a-brand/ <comment><USER2> I really like this sentence:

"[Let] your product trickle out when _you_ think it's good enough to get people excited, then listening hard for excitement. If you hear some, figure out where it's coming from, and do more of that"

(OP's emphasis)

<comment><USER3> I would expand this premise by saying that a launch should be about unveiling the _company_ , not the _product_.

Once the product trickles out and gets adopted quietly you establish a track record of results. THEN you can tell the world about the wizards behind the curtain, what is next and what is in it for customers, partners and investors. The purpose of the launch should be to accelerate your momentum, not create it where it does not exist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like the sentiment of this post. I'm in a situation right now with our own Johnny and new products coming to market, and I fear he is staffing up for a big push at launch without actually thinking about adding value.

However, this post comes across as just a complaint against marketing in general. He says, "but marketers who busy themselves marketing can destroy value as readily as they create it" but doesn't lay out the case of how that happens. Nor does it explain why Johnny's push to launch is a bad thing.

I was hoping the post would articulate why "Johnny" is a "bad thing," because I have an instinctive feeling that the author is right, but unfortunately the explanation falls short.

<comment><USER5> I think that the "bad thing" about "Johnny" is that he's all sizzle, no steak. When the focus on the product is lost, there's only so much even the greatest ad guru can really do (with enough talent, money, and determination to succeed I think that a great marketing campaign can be enough -- but that's for the rare company that already has the money, when most new business just have the drive).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's a certain fetishization of the Launch that's been happening lately. What should be one (small) step in an iterative process, has become (for many), their startup's raison d'etre. It's something that needs to happen, and it's certainly an easy milestone to point out, but focusing on it is rarely productive.

Building a company is more like watering a plant than birthing a baby. Emphasis on the Launch is built around the idea that there wasn't anything and then, poof, the business is fully formed and developed. Businesses are rarely, if ever, made like that, so building in those assumptions in your marketing and development process are going to start you down the wrong path from the start.

</comment><comment><USER7> I want this article to be true, but I don't think it is.

Early Twitter was a barebones product, and their brand was the fail whale. Yet they skyrocketed starting with well-planned marketing at SXSW.

FriendFeed was a reliable, slick and sophisticated product. They relied on user advocates for their marketing. They did get bought by Facebook for $50MM, but never grew to more than a million users.

<comment><USER8> He said in the article: "Look… some products need a Launch... But for a lot of businesses, it's better to get there as part of a product-driven process."

All your examples are social networks that need a critical mass of users before there is any point. You can't have a social network without people.

For many products, the user experience doesn't depend on other users, so they don't need the same level of marketing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > He knows trade show girls.

Of the dozens of trade shows I've been to, trade-show girls are good for one thing: Collecting contact info of horny guys.

The resulting lead lists had incredibly low signal-to-noise. Then again, I've never worked in the adult game arena.

<comment><USER10> The term horny guys is kinda redundant..

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can think of 50 products that won because they out-marketed a better competitor. It's hard to care about something you don't even know exists. Its hard to feel loyalty without an emotional hook. Marketing exists to do those things.

You cannot argue against the function of marketing in a waterfall framework. Then praise the lean methodology. For this to be apples to apples, you should compare waterfall to lean, and marketing to no marketing (an extreme form of which would be to have no web presence).

The way I see marketing is things that need to be done but a hacker might not enjoy doing.

<comment><USER12> I don't think the article is arguing against marketing. He's arguing against the 'launch' as the focus of marketing, and suggesting instead that building a brand should be the focus of marketing.

Building a brand is a long, ongoing process. You need to have a self- consistent set of values, and those values need to show through in your products. (I mean, there is more to having a brand, but without those consistent values, the other stuff doesn't matter.)

<comment><USER13> You can have a launch strategy while building a brand, the two are not mutually exclusive.

I find it really ironic that this article comes from an "ad man" and a "principle of a strategic marketing firm" because he knows very little about marketing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great article. I disagree with the notion that 'launch is for amateurs'. Launch may be at times for amateurs, but it's really great for the big names, as well -- seems like Apple does pretty well with its launches...

I think that the real point of the article launch is really not so good for amateurs -- though amateurs might want to wait for a big launch in order to release their product, which can be a bad idea.

<comment><USER14> Advice here is really for new companies and products that don't yet have an established emotional connection (i.e. 'brand') with their target audience. So, rather than launch first and hope to stumble in to some sort of resonance with users... reverse the process and first build the brand through end-user experience with the product, then launch. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I agree-Brand builds businesses.</comment>


A Quantum Computer Foundation for Standard Model and SuperString Theories (2002) - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0201092 <comment><USER2> I just skimmed the article, it is not too obviously a crackpot paper, the author seems to know what he is talking about at least to a certain extend, and I did not notice any obvious nonsense like cosmic energy vibrations. But it still looks and feels very amateurish as compared to serious physics papers. If you then look at the titles of the books the author has published - search for Stephen Blaha on Amazon - and find things like »Quantum Big Bang Cosmology: Complex Space-time General Relativity, Quantum Coordinates, Dodecahedral Universe, Inflation, and New Spin 0, 1/2, 1 & 2 Tachyons & Imagyons« your crackpottery alarm should probably go off.

<comment><USER3> I think he's just a noncrackpot who's good at clickbait titles.

<comment><USER4> Naw he looks like a crackpot

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> May this article be another argument for the "we live in a simulation" theory?</comment>


What Could Have Saved Dropbox? - <AUTHOR> http://backdrift.org/what-could-have-saved-dropbox

<comment><USER2> I think the option of having an opt-in Google Authenticator-like service within Dropbox would be extremely useful. I would definitely use something like that.</comment>


Gigster founder interview on Forbes - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2016/08/23/with-gigster-anyone-can-hire-a-great-developer-from-facebook-or-google/#1194ce27119a <comment><AUTHOR> Good to know its working out.. It was my impression that Gigster(YC 2015) had two co-founders [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigster). Why is the article written in such a way as to suggest otherwise?</comment>


Show HN: PlayerCodex.xyz – Find your old Quake buddies (Inc. source) - <AUTHOR> http://www.playercodex.xyz <comment><AUTHOR> The app is built with Passport.Js, Mongo & Node.

The source code is here: [https://github.com/craftfortress/NodeExpressMongoPassport](https://github.com/craftfortress/NodeExpressMongoPassport)

I don't think this thread will make it to the front page, which is a shame. The trouble with building a platform is without advertising, it will be hard to get this ball rolling.</comment>


'Break up big tech's monopoly': Smaller rivals join growing chorus - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-antitrust/break-up-big-techs-monopoly-smaller-rivals-join-growing-chorus-ahead-of-congress-hearing-idUSKBN1ZG17J <comment><USER2> I definitely see the argument for why Big Tech's position in the US is arguably too dominant.

If we look at the picture globally, Big Tech might be necessary for the western world to prevent the proliferation of China's semi-state-backed tech giants outside of China.

Could breaking up big tech in the United States mean ceding position to China's tech giants?

<comment><USER3> No, it would be enforcing the same requirements on chinese companies as the US enforces on their own. If they don't then fine them just as much, to have access to the US market.

It is not like cheap manufacturing, where the US has to cede ground to China because they simply can't compete. Tech is where the US excels.

<comment><USER4> This is rapidly changing. On the international stage we're competing with state backed monopolies that don't suffer the same burden of internal US anti- competitive policy. It may damage access to the US market, but the expanding global market is becoming more appetizing anyway. Consider China's Belt and Roads initiative.

<comment><USER5> I would argue that monopolies have a detrimental effect on innovation, as they kill disruptive new technologies in favor of their established services. Having a strong anti-competitive policy may help us excel over China.

<comment><USER6> Even given actual monopolies (I strongly disagree with the current claims) for competition it is a push and pull thing whose specifics vary by situation.

Monopolies have better economies of scale as an intrinsic real advantage but tend to be more hidebound and less innovative as they both don't need it in the moment and from a fear or cannibalization. But not always for innovation - they may also have the resources to devote to R&D that smaller players would lack.

The mechanism of the monopoly also has significance for it determines what needs to be done to maintain it. Although having a "better" source like leveraging a prior runaway success is no guarantee that they won't turn to bad ways to preserve it like regulatory capture with no other purpose served.

<comment><USER7> Xerox PARC had a ton of innovation and world-class R&D, but consumers didn't benefit from any of it until smaller disruptive startups made good use of it.

<comment><USER8> Whereby the disruptive startups disrupted the very core of the innovations, namely one integrated environment where every component was 'aware' of the capabilities of others, and you could build and interconnect them in a visual way.

Instead we have house of cards, layered up on top of each other, without regard for the bloat, impedance mismatches, (intentional) incompabilities and cognitive load that brings with it.

Nicely done...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> on one side I completely understand the need for healthy market competition in tech industry. However, you have to realize the amount of innovation and products FAANG companies (and Microsoft) have rolled out -- it is unimaginable how we would be able to function equally efficiently both at personal and commercial level.

On personal level for example, I use gmail/google search/rely on google to tell me weather and search news and do FX rate conversion, do some unit conversions, etc. I used to own android based phone and it made life simple to have gmail compatible app and the likes.

Similarly, I can use amazon for shopping, trying out / learning AWS and even get kindle to read ebooks should I desire. heck, amazon provides entire infrastructure to efficiently deliver my parcels --- better than my Government's mailing program.

\- Similarly majority of Business world runs mainly on backs of Microsoft (when it comes to corporate tooling and computer OS).

\- Even take example of Apple -- their products are worldclass and its integration with its own suite of products makes life so much simpler -- iPhone, iWatch, their storage offerings, etc.

Now imagine having to utilize products between dozens of companies instead of these giants who you don't know would be able to survive in long run. And those blaming these tech giants for lack of collaboration for a market standard -- sure, that is correct but remember it was much worse to integrate products and services among different vendors back in 1980s and 1990s when you had dozens of medium and large companies.

<comment><USER10> That's what people said about AT&T before we broke it up in 1982 - that it would hurt innovation. This was the company that had Bell Labs after all.

Instead, we had an absolute revolution in communication technology since - from fax lines, to modems, to cell connections, to the commercial internet.

It turns out that innovation happens more often when there is a lot of competition in the market. And the market figures out how to build standards for interop - you don't need all of the products from the same company to get them to work together.

<comment><USER11> Your claim about innovation thriving when there is competition may be true, but your examples run counter to that. Commercial fax machines, modems, TCP/IP, Arpanet,and cell phones all predate the AT&T breakup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Has a break up ever worked historically? The US telecom industry is not a great example of competition.

I'd much prefer laws preventing user lock in and lowing the burden of starting a competitor to these companies.

<comment><USER13> You might be too young to remember, but phone calls used to cost money. So I think you could say the break up was in fact a success.

<comment><USER12> Landlines are still expensive. You can easily shop around with cell service though, thanks to public management of the spectrum.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This piece starts with Tile and Apple but that isn't going to go anywhere in terms of antitrust. Tile's grievance is just the standard multi-decade grievance of a startup that gets sherlocked by Apple and incorporated into the OS. Unless they have patents that Apple is infringing, there's really no case for them to make.

Google on the other hand is a straightforward antitrust case. I think Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp could potentially also be undone. Amazon seems to have been trying to expand the market definition to all of retail or ecommerce, at least in their PR, but an antitrust case against them would likely define the market more narrowly to particular verticals (like book sales).

</comment><comment><USER6> Really I am sick of the endless hit pieces with definitions so bad that the authors belong in the Hague from dinosaur companies who don't realize the reason they fell isn't because of some bogeyman but because the problem can be found in the mirror - they are the architects of their own downfall.

Translate the subtitle "Smaller rivals join growing chorus ahead of Congress hearing" sensationalist hit piece into reality and you get captain fucking obvious "Rivals: Please hamper our competitors - to grandstanders interested in maintaining lobbyist money shakedown".

The Basecamp complaint is nonsensical even in the framework of nonsense of Trademarks. If I announce that I am selling Yamaha Jetskis and have the actual product (not a counterfeit) their job is to shut the hell up.

<comment><USER15> > definitions so bad that the authors belong in the Hague

As someone from nearby The Hague, um, what does this mean?

<comment><USER6> It was an oblique reference to the trials for travesties and torture. Calling offering and promoting store brands monopolistic abuse for instance.

Not an implication that the trials are illegitimate or anything like that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This has to be done by the ground up by offering better alternatives rather than trying to tear down these tech companies.

Also don't use their services. It is pretty easy to remove most of Google from your life. I don't think Google search is even that much better than the alternatives anymore (I am using Duck Duck Go and they are about the same these days tbh).

<comment><USER17> Competition is not the answer to monopoly, since it the monopoly status which is preventing competition in the first place. This is why antitrust laws exist.

<comment><USER18> GP claims there is healthy competition, eg ddg. Therefore I guess by your claim that monopoly blocks competition, there's no monopoly, unless you want to claim DDG actually sucks, which would be an unpopular stance to stake here on hn.

<comment><USER7> The claim could perhaps be rephrased as stating there is no (substantial) competition. For instance, Sailfish OS is technically a competitor to iOS/Android, but it is by no means one with any considerable market share.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If the Democrats win the election this year, I think Google and Facebook both stand serious chances of looking at antitrust cases.

Google is in the most dire situation. They own search, own the browser and phone walled gardens that bring you there, own all the ads, knee-kick ad blocking attempts, have started taking over content (AMP), have a surveillance panopticon, control standards and neuter challenges to them (HTML5 is less semantic than XHTML), have surveillance devices in the home, embrace-extend- extinguish entire product spaces, kill products people rely on, don't offer support ...

Google has its hands in too many pies, actively hurts other industries, and they're creepy af.

Facebook might have less of a case against it, but they routinely flaunt Democratic lawmakers, shape public opinion in bad ways, and buy out the competition. Not a strong case, but I think it would be argued from a social good perspective.

Apple and Microsoft seem safe. I have no idea about Amazon, since they have competition in all their markets.

<comment><USER20> This is making the assumption that the Democratic party doesn't have a vested interest in these Silicon Valley giants. Democrats running for office might be slinging virtue, but I have my doubts that the party itself is particularly interested in breaking up institutions that are politically aligned with them. Having a Democrat president didn't stop the expansion of the surveillance apparatus or the monopolization of tech and communication.

<comment><USER21> I don't want to sound too blackpill, but anymore I really feel like political- party-based virtue claims - from both sides - are, by and large, expressions of virtue theatre that are designed to garner support.

Some people in politics really do care; but at least in the US, it's hard not to look at the state of things and come to the conclusion that the system lends itself to corruption that goes so deep that nobody with any real influence has a vested interest in "virtues" outside of using them to curry favor with the general public.

Again, I apologize for how jaded this sounds... but it's really hard to feel any other way.

<comment><USER22> It doesn't sound too blackpill to me at all, in fact I'd take it a step further. I often wonder whether the domination of Google-Amazon-Facebook doesn't really serve the interests of the "Deep State" making them essentially bulletproof. Why would you want to break apart a domestic company when they serve as an international parasurveillance apparatus? You hear more from the feds about Apple needing to backdoor their phones than the anti-competitive behavior or spying that the rest take part in. Like you said, it's probably just lip service from (most) of the Democrats.

<comment><USER23> The fact that your comment here hasn't been downvoted to oblivion suggests to me the only beef most people have with what you've said is that you criticized the Democrats. I find this really surprising given typical HN'er political leanings.

Is this an indication of some sort of tipping point being reached? Have most people regardless of politics come to the same conclusion about the reality of the silicon valley surveillance-fueled power grab?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Basecamp is so full of shit here, they just don't want to have to pay for traffic and it's nothing to do with monopoly (if there were three major search engines, they'd all be selling the Basecamp keyword, because users don't care).

<comment><USER24> Imagine having to pay 70k plus a month so people searching for your company name do not get redirected to a competitor using your company name to advertise their business.

also lets be real there's really one 1 search engine.

<comment><USER13> Personally I don't have an ethical problem with search being pay to play. Regardless, I'm pretty sure having competition in the search space wouldn't solve the problem (because as I said, users don't care) - what basecamp really wants here is regulation / a stronger interpretation of trademark law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> A key point for me in regarding big tech monopoly parts is that some of the biggest companies, when viewed from a potential market cap perspective, are possibly worth less than the sum of it's parts.

Facebook has a market-cap of ~630B. Individually you could easily see how an independent Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp would be worth more. AWS is probably the most valuable company in the world but is tucked away with the P&L of the various other parts of Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER26> Breaking them up is great but you are going to end up back in a similar situation if you can't build large platforms/marketplaces like those companies provided.

I think the way to do that without having a conflict of interest is to leverage decentralized technologies to create large public platforms/marketplaces that companies can plug into.

</comment><comment><USER27> I had a different idea. In some areas law makers and tech companies would need to write and follow so many vague rules it could be better to have a government agency that does the work for them. It wouldn't be perfect but it would create a different kind of problem that can be compared to the one we are having right now.

Moderation for example could "simply" be part of law enforcement. Having corporations design their own rules/laws on top of the legal system is costly and undesirable. A proper legal formula would have punishments that scale with the offense.

Having government manage authentication could rule out banning people across all services without stating a reason.

Accidentally having some back ground music in a youtube video wouldn't have cops rip your mailbox out of the ground or cancel your drivers license. It is that absurd to have google do it.

Some processes need some type of private data, if the data is stored on government servers access could be managed on a case by case basis. Likewise, data transferred between google services would have to be routed though gov servers where the request can be compared with the goals.

Google could provide a set of adverts to be shown next to email but gmail wouldn't provide a source of information to display adds elsewhere.

<comment><USER28> > Moderation for example could "simply" be part of law enforcement.

Not in countries with freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution.

<comment><USER27> Oh LOL, I see now that what I said can be taken to mean the opposite of what I had in mind.

I think we have good laws for what goes and doesn't go in public. Much more relaxed than the big platforms terms of service. You already get arrested if you publish the "right" kind of video. I'm simply suggesting we should strip away whatever social engineering facebook and google have in mind.

The dumb account termination as a punishment for everything is like revoking peoples citizenship by administrative punishment - in a one size fits all approach.

Google's tos literally says they can terminate your account without stating a reason. That is much more dystopian than the Chinese social credit system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Don't break them up. Just don't allow them to act monopolistically.

<comment><USER30> That's like asking bees not to sting. Corporations seek monopoly. It's just what they do.

<comment><USER31> You've been posting lots of unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN. Would you please stop?

The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> If the headline at least said "monopolies"...

</comment><comment><USER33> > Google allows competitors to purchase ads on Basecamp's trademark, and then > _blocks consumers from reaching its site_ , Co-Founder David Heinemeier > Hansson told Reuters in an interview.

Emphasis added. What does "blocks" means in this context?

<comment><USER34> Blocks means puts a page of ads first. If I don't pay to "defend my brand", my competitors show up first in a search for my trademarked brand name. If I do pay, my registered users will regularly ship money from me to google just by being lazy.

<comment><USER35> So by "blocking" they mean, "if I don't buy ands and my competitors do, then people will see my competitors' brands before mine". Isn't this fundamental to how advertisement works?

<comment><USER36> If someone searches for "project management software" and then is shown ads from whoever bought ads for those terms, I think everyone would agree that feels fair. If someone clicks your ad, you are happy to pay because this is a fresh new lead delivered into your lap.

What rankles in the Basecamp example (not saying it rises to the level of antitrust, though) is that the user is specifically searching for Basecamp. Basecamp has already "earned" this lead though their other marketing spend, or word of mouth, or whatever. However, if they don't pay Google, they risk losing this lead to competitors sniping the "Basecamp" term. In a way, Google is selling Basecamp's leads to competitors (contrary to what the user actually wants!) using their "monopoly" in search.

<comment><USER37> The user wants the best product for their needs. If Basecamp only survives because its users don't know about alternatives, then it's not a very good business. This is _actual_ competition: building the best product and letting the customers decide what they prefer. They already know about Basecamp in this scenario so seeing ads for other products will only let them make a more informed choice. The competitors, after all, are betting their advertising budget on the opinion that their product is better. It's not free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Apple is the largest security holding in the portfolios of the members of Congress. It is safe from antitrust.

</comment><comment><USER39> Antitrust law in general needs to come out of it's slumber if the us wants to be a dynamic economy. I recommend the book: the myth of capitalism to anyone who wants to get more angry about this subject.

</comment><comment><USER40> that's like saying that it is time for a dead patient to take his medicine.

</comment><comment><USER41> I can't help but think that companies like basecamp or tile, largely brought about this situation to themselves. Neither google nor apple should be platforms to be dependent on. They should be used as startup platforms, get some momentum and then actively seek to build their own outreach to customers independently. Putting all your money in someone else's bag for years and expecting them not to steal some , is borderline delusional. Rent seeking is a spontaneous behavior of big platforms. HN orthodoxy will suggest otherwise, but i think everyone who depends on corporate owned platforms should start pulling away as soon as they have momentum. Citing the lack of alternatives is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if nobody tries to find an alternative pathway , there just won't be one

<comment><USER42> Google has like 80% of the search market share. How does one not become dependent on that traffic source?

<comment><USER43> Before Google, the local newspaper had like 80% of advertising market share in each city, and many were owned by national conglomerates.

<comment><USER44> I highly doubt that.

But anyway, I don't see how that's relevant.

<comment><USER43> Because Google has not changed the structure of the market, only which player sits in that position.

<comment><USER45> But when you advertised in a newspaper, you didn't have to fear the newspaper suddenly becoming your competitor and then refusing to run your ads.

Well, I suppose that might've happened if you were another publication or something. But it was relatively rare. Also, newspapers weren't the only way people advertised, for instance the yellow pages was a big deal when I was a kid. (and it was the subject of a Ralph Nader article calling it out as a monopoly: [https://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2004/08/fo...](https://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2004/08/fort_dix_vetera.html) )

<comment><USER18> Google refused to run someone's ads? When I search for "cloud hosting" the first two things I see are ads for IBM and Lenovo. The third hit is an ad for Google.

<comment><USER45> Right but what about having a product in an app store and then next thing you know Apple or Google has their own product that competes with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> We're essentially living under techno-feudalist system. I don't see breaking up Big Tech's monopoly as fixing this. There needs to be a fundamental shift away from centralized platforms to decentralized p2p platforms. That's the only real way to rebel against the current system of exploitation.

<comment><USER47> I disagree. We have no decentralized platforms that work at scale. I think breaking up the big companies and unwinding the mergers of the last 5 years would be a huge help. Everything from IG and WhatsApp to Whole Foods to the Comcast, Disney, ATT, Verizon acquisitions should all go back out.

The other way to make exploitation harder is to pass some regulations that you aren't allowed to collect data on people and sell it without explicit permission. You must opt-in and you can't be penalized for saying no. People complain about Facebook and Google spying on you and forget that the carriers know where every single person is 24/7\. They know (mostly) every website that every single person visits and at what times via DNS lookups. This data is scary and they shouldn't be able to collect it let alone sell it.</comment></comment>


Apple kills a Kickstarter project - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/20/apple-kills-a-kickstarter-project-portable-power-project-pop-refunding-139170-to-backers <comment><USER2> This is why I don't understand why so many hackers these days like to use apple products.

Apple is the antithesis of the hacker ideal. They're just as bad as Microsoft.

I mean, seriously. Have you ever been to a radioshack? Multi-charging devices are a common product. Yet apple will have none of it. It's clearly an anti- competitive measure aimed at making sure they're your only supplier.

Furthermore, apple's chargers suck. They deliberately have a weaker rubber sleeve around the end of laptop charger cables because it looks aesthetically nice. It's been proven that it's weaker than the conventional rubber joints on most laptop chargers, but they don't change it, because they value aesthetics over functionality.

Avoid if possible.

/me realizes he's using an ipod shuffle. oh well.

<comment><USER3> _This is why I don't understand why so many hackers these days like to use apple products._

 _Avoid if possible._

That's the thing. I can't. Because I want a computer I don't hate. There's nobody else who makes a machine I want to spend 8+ hours a day working and playing on.

There are some PC manufacturers where I can get some of what I want, but I've yet to see one where I can get all of it--I like Lenovo's build quality and aesthetic, for example, but their laptops are universally underspecced for what I want (if your only GPU is Intel, you are not getting my money) and I can't get a Retina display, which I now consider _mandatory_ , anywhere else. And, while we're at it, if you're significantly heavier than my rMBP and don't provide at least competitive battery life, you're out too. I carry around enough crap as it is.

Worse, there are _no_ operating systems other than OS X that fulfill my needs of a pleasant-to-use Unix/Linux system--certainly no Linux distribution comes close on the "pleasant-to-use" part; I'd rather use Windows 7 and Cygwin than any Linux desktop I've been subjected to in the last five years.

For me it's the same as it was with iOS--until Android 4.0 there was simply no worthy competition to iOS as far as I was concerned, but 4.x is fantastic and I switched over because it gave me the environment I don't hate _plus_ the ability to mess around and customize it to my liking. But the first part is more important. If there was a Linux distribution with Apple levels of attention to detail and a modicum of taste--and that doesn't mean "looks like OS X", something different could be fine so long as it was designed for human beings instead of neckbeards and was uncompromising in its attention to detail --I'd probably be there. There isn't (and very well may never be), so I'm not.

<comment><USER4> > Worse, there are no operating systems other than OS X that fulfill my needs > of a pleasant-to-use Unix/Linux system--certainly no Linux distribution > comes close on the "pleasant-to-use" part; I'd rather use Windows 7 and > Cygwin than any Linux desktop I've been subjected to in the last five years.

Sounds to me like this is just a matter of what you're used to. From my experience, OS X's UI is the last thing anyone would _want_ if they weren't used to it. The window management is pretty damn horrible. OTOH, Linux has a variety of window managers with many innovative paradigms.

> I like Lenovo's build quality and aesthetic, for example, but their laptops > are universally underspecced for what I want (if your only GPU is Intel, you > are not getting my money) and I can't get a Retina display, which I now > consider mandatory, anywhere else.

I don't know what you're doing with your machine that makes Lenovo machines underspecced, but for web and Android development, the ThinkPad X1 Carbon fits the bill. I wrote about it here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4848375>

If you want discrete graphics, that is available in other models, such as the T series, IIRC. However, for anything other than gaming or video editing, integrated graphics really is enough. I personally prefer not having discrete graphics, as it keeps me from playing games.

The only thing missing is retina support, but you have the advantage of a lighter and thinner laptop than the MBP. It's no different from the MBA in that respect, with the added advantage of a 14" screen in the same body size as the 13" Air.

<comment><USER3> _Sounds to me like this is just a matter of what you're used to. From my experience, OS X's UI is the last thing anyone would want if they weren't used to it. The window management is pretty damn horrible. OTOH, Linux has a variety of window managers with many innovative paradigms._

Your experience does not match mine but thank you for trivializing mine by assuming that it's just _what I'm used to_. Never mind that I come from a Windows and Linux background, to OS X about three years ago, right?

I find the OS X window model appealing (though not without its warts) and its gesture support fantastic. Mission Control maps far better to the way that I think about multiple desktops than GNOME's or KDE's--and I compare to those and not your "innovative window managers" because I've been there, I've done that, and I have determined that they're not for me. I have been down the tiling window manager road and I find it demanding of micromanagement; it does not map to how I think or work and I have no interest in contorting to fit it. Likewise, I have no interest in putting up with sharp bits and pointy edges in Unity or GNOME 3 or KDE 4 (I've been there, too, and reject the T-shirt).

 _If you want discrete graphics, that is available in other models, such as the T series, IIRC. However, for anything other than gaming or video editing, integrated graphics really is enough._

The rMBP is not my only computer, but, yes, I want to be able to play games on it when I'm traveling. The rMBP is really good at it (I generally just play through Parallels, I don't bother to reboot). The T-series Lenovos are massive, heavy, lack Retina displays, and aren't nearly as aesthetically pleasing as the Carbon X1 is. Would never buy.

 _The only thing missing is retina support, but you have the advantage of a lighter and thinner laptop than the MBP._

"Except for the most important thing, you get some of the things." Sure, I'm being flip there, but it's not unserious: for my money, retina support is just not optional anymore. People say they can't go back after using a retina display because it's true. For me, the difference is _that_ stark. The 3x 21" 1080p panels on my desktop feel distractingly blurry and they make me irritable to work on for long periods of time. (Most disappointing thing to me is that the DisplayPort outputs on the rMBP can't output 4K, but 2560x1600 displays look okay when put far enough back on my desk.)

<comment><USER4> > Never mind that I come from a Windows and Linux background, to OS X about > three years ago, right?

I think that a lot of people are willing to put up with the transition _to_ OS X because of the RDF and the iPod/iPhone halo effect, but the transition away has no such phenomenon to motivate people to use a platform long enough to get used to the differences. However, this is just a general observation.

> I have no interest in putting up with sharp bits and pointy edges in Unity > or GNOME 3 or KDE 4

Meh, I find that the "sharp bits" are no more sharp than those in OS X. No platform can be perfect for any given user, since we all have different preferences. The closest you can get is with a highly-customizable tiling window manager, but anything like OS X, Windows or KDE wouldn't work like this.

> The T-series Lenovos are massive, heavy, lack Retina displays, and aren't > nearly as aesthetically pleasing as the Carbon X1 is. Would never buy.

You clearly are not up-to-date on this. Have you seen the T430u? It weighs less than the rMBP 15", has discrete graphics, and has similar aesthetic stylings to the X1 Carbon. The optical drive has been omitted, for example.

> for my money, retina support is just not optional anymore

FWIW, I've found it to be half-baked when a lot of software and most websites don't support it yet. Browsing the web on a retina display is rather jarring. Moreover, when I regularly use external displays at my desk, switching back and forth would be quite jarring as well.

<comment><USER5> > Browsing the web on a retina display is rather jarring.

I would like to preface this by saying that I couldn't give a rat's ass about the rest of the arguments but in this case I just have to chime in since the quoted bit is just bullshit. The only difference between browsing the web on a retina display and browsing it on a normal screen is that, on a retina display, the font rendering is a million times better. That's it. But that is enough to make me not want to look at any other type of display again.

It is true that some applications do not have retina support (I'm looking at you, Firefox) but that support will come with time and all of the applications that I use on a daily basis look great.

<comment><USER6> Firefox 18 beta supports retina finally. Think its January release date or so.

Also 1000% this, high dpi, retina, whatever you want to call it rendering is so much better than non I've asked my bosses if I can buy a macbook pro to use for work. I work with text all day, this screen is so markedly better for text its not funny. Jarring? Not in the least, Jarring is using other displays after this.

Call me a fanboy if you want, but when my eyes don't fatigue from extended reading sessions, I think I'll take the fanboy label.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why didn't they didn't just include a female usb port?

Edit: I'm skeptical about their motive. It seems they are using this as a press event to announce their KickStarter competitor ChristieStreet.

<comment><USER8> I thought you can't charge apple devices with different usb devices? I have an apple tablet at my work and my pc does not charge it, I have to use my friend's mac.

<comment><USER9> Per spec USB2 output max 500mA per port. This is enough to charge an iPad when it's asleep, but as soon as the screen is on it will stop charging to power itself.

The wall charger and Macs include a non-standard trick (a resistor on the data pins in the wall charger, probably some active negotiation on Macs) to output up to two full amps.

Higher charge rates are part of the USB3 spec, but this would require both devices to implement it, and I don't know if it's even a mandatory part of the spec.

So, plug your iPad on a PC and it will charge, just slower, and only when sleeping.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just want to add some points to this thread as I am the inventor of POP.

For those who question our motives, your reasoning is fair but let me clarify some things.

We started Christie Street because of our our experiences with POP. We have been getting closer and closer to this decision since Apple announced Lightning and began its new rules on the adapter. While we were going back and forth and waiting to see if we could still build POP we realized that we did not have a good way of refunding to our customers. That is why on Christie Street we built a automated refund system for our inventors. So when we finally realized that POP just could not be made to what we promised, we wanted to use our platform to do the refunds as it would be easier for us to manage. Also it would allow us to test and tweak the system with real customers. We are all trying to build better companies/products and looking at a loss on POP this seemed like a good way to at least salvage something out of it while delivering a above average experience to our customers, I would call that a win-win.

Lots of people also seem to want POP even without Lightning and our upset that we did not poll our customers to see if a USB only version. But they are missing the point, we said in our campaign that we would support the iPhone 5 and at the time had no reason to believe that would be impossible. Why would we have thought that they would sell the new adapter any different then the old 30 pin?

We are not willing to compromise on the product or deliver something that was not as promised. If that brings skeptics, so be it but at the end of the day today I know that we are doing the right thing, not the easy thing but the right thing.

<comment><USER11> > Why would we have thought that they would sell the new adapter any different > then the old 30 pin?

Before the new connector was announced there were rumours that licensing for it would be more restrictive. Also notice how you can't license MagSafe at all.

I'm not saying Apple's decision is the right one, but IMHO it was clear there was a risk regarding licensing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This would've been a better product if it just had a general-purpose retraction mechanism and let you bring your own cables. Apple may have been jerks, but they could've designed around it and made a better product instead of just throwing up their hands.

</comment><comment><USER13> Wasn't there an EU ruling a few years ago saying that cell phones needed to start using micro-usb connectors? How is Apple getting around that, and still selling phones in the EU with proprietary plugs?

<comment><USER14> They released an adapter:

[http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MD099ZM/A/apple-iphone- mic...](http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MD099ZM/A/apple-iphone-micro-usb- adapter?mco=MjU5MjAwODM)

Apparently these are quite difficult to buy in the United States.

Edit: Lightning to Micro-USB is only $20, though: [http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD820ZM/A/lightning-to- mic...](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD820ZM/A/lightning-to-micro-usb- adapter)

<comment><USER15> Only $20? Are there even any voltage modifiers in it, or is it just a pin to pin mapper?

<comment><USER16> They are active devices.

<comment><USER17> Because Apple added DRM to the interface. They are active because Apple made that a requirement.

People should stop being apologetic about the _bullshit_ like this which Apple is doing all the time, in small dosages here and there.

If you keep taking this, there soon wont be any open, general purpose computing-platforms left.

<comment><USER16> You are misinformed. There may or may not be DRM according to the teardowns. There is certainly a bit of silicon which has a minimal DRM capability, but it may have come along for the ride. If there is DRM, it is not enforced. There are knockoff connectors out there.

The connector electronics are there to allow higher current charging by allocating more pins to power transfer when they are not needed for data and to allow as yet undeveloped higher speed protocols to operate on the same connector.

If there is DRM I can see Apple's point. When you destroy an iPhone with a cheap charger that fails, it costs Apple money to replace it. If you attempt to reverse engineer the connector, you will be wrong. The future capabilities are not present for observation. You will probably create a device that behaves improperly for future protocols. Will you destroy that future device by pulling -5V on a low voltage differential data line?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I really fail to see how opening the options to which plugs would be supported by just offering a USB Type-A adapter and providing some cables or having the user supply their own is "compromising" their product, unless it makes them too similar to products that are already on the market and have been for a while. I think this is more a failure of execution than it is Apple "killing" the project.

<comment><USER19> It is an issue of not being able to provide the product that people have given their money for.

If I were in their position, and my priority was operating ethically not successfully, I would refund all the money as they have done, then start again, pitching an only USB product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Not quite convinced by the argument that 'Apple killed' it. IMHO it's always dangerous to go for one plug design; given how those plugs evolved over time (Think USB, micro USB, mini USB for Android, etc.). I quickly amassed in my drawer a plethora of unusable chargers. Only the Apple port had the longest lifetime across multiple devices. I would say, the kickstarter idea could use it as an opportunity to redesign an initial flaw of - an otherwise nice charging station ?

<comment><USER21> They can't. The point of it was to be a charging station that could charge everything. Apple's updated more-anti-competitive license changes make this impossible by forbidding anything from having a lightning connector in conjunction with any other connector. It's basically Apple forcing 3rd parties to make docks, speakers, etc that ONLY work with new Apple products and won't support anything else.

<comment><USER22> They could have simply provided a standard USB-A port. Trying to put all possible connectors on the thing sounds like a fools errand, regardless of Apple's stance.

<comment><USER23> If you look on their kickstarter page, they actually did provide USB-A ports on the bottom of the unit. They just weren't able to 'compromise their product', which makes me believe that perhaps they had other underlying issues, unrelated to Apple's licensing.

<comment><USER21> They said the product was going to do lightning and they found out they couldn't actually do that. I think that would qualify as false advertising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Regardless of this particular issue, can anybody explain Apple's stance on this? Why are they forbidding Lightning connectors on products alongside other types of connectors?

<comment><USER25> Although the simple explanation is "Apple is greedy and wants to milk their users with overpriced charging cords" I think the real explanation is more complex.

Apple wants to control every aspect of how its users experience the products that they think of as "Apple". When Apple sells a charger and charging cord, they want it to be a charging experience worthy of the Apple name. I know it sounds ridiculous, but this is how they think.

Every consumer eventually ends up with a big tangle of chargers and adapters. The kind of thing where you unplug it and tug on the cord and the FCC-mandated RF balun is a big lump and the cord gets stuck and you have to crawl under your desk to retrieve it. Most of us live with that kind of thing every day and most normal people _hate_ it.

In short, Apple wants its users to experience its products as a refreshingly simple and clean salvation from modern electronic hell. The existence of a single cable that mixes the new connector with the old connector is seen to tarnish that user experience.

<comment><USER26> All the other things except iPhones almost universally charge via MicroUSB now. It's hard to end upwith a "big tangle of chargers and adapters" when all you need is a MicroUSB cable.

<comment><USER25> I'm not defending Apple's position here, just trying to imagine how they think.

I love MicroUSB. (In fact, I got a tip that Santa Claus will be bringing everyone in my family MicroUSB cables for Christmas! Shh!) But somehow I still have a big tangle of cables (USB and others) on my desk. Admittedly, none of them are Apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm speculating here. But other than the ChristieStreet motives people are throwing around, it might also have been prohibitively expensive to get a 26,000Mha battery into the device at that price point.

<comment><USER28> 26,000mAh

Please, those letters have meaning. You can't just replace them at will.

<comment><USER25> 26 Ah

Edit: Note that this figure is meaningless for discussing energy storage capacity without also specifying a voltage.

<comment><USER29> I think voltage is assumed to be 3.7v, the voltage practically all phones use in their batteries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Sucks for them, but can't they make the thing a USB hub? BYOC. Who do I need their cable? USB-A ports are more practical. If I have an Android, why would I want iPhone chargers?

<comment><USER31> Maybe you have friends, family or loved ones that use iphones that may be at your home that want to charge their phones? No. Then this product isn't for you. I personally am in love with a woman that comes from a family of mac users, perhaps you can understand my dismay when I stayed at her brother's house for two days and he didn't have a single MicroUSB cable and he's a tech geek/developer with 3 computers (MBP, Mac Pro and Mac Air), 2 tablets (Ipad 1 & 2) and 2 (i)phones. I've never expected that someone could have so many tech devices and not have a billion usb cables like most of my tech friends do.

Then there is the fact that I'm competing with my old lady for plugins for our phone cables. We live in an extremely old house and the amount of plugins are limited as is the amount they can be extended.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> It was a good idea I think, just apple being apple.

Daring Fireball will spin it so that Apple looks great or write a poetic post on how Lightening connectors will solve world hunger.

<comment><USER33> It's not a bad idea, I can see how it would be very useful for some people.

The thing I'm having a problem with is they must have seen this coming. Everyone knows Apple is a control freak. This was entirely foreseeable, and getting the requirements from Apple shouldn't have been due diligence. At a minimum, they should have planned for this possibility from the get-go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I found this quote from the project's letter about the situation impressive:

"Providing full refunds means we will have to absorb a hit for both credit card (3%) and Kickstarter fees (5%) totaling over $11,000. Today we asked Kickstarter for the 5% fee they collected based on the circumstances, however regardless of their decision YOU WILL RECEIVE 100% OF YOUR MONEY BACK."

I'm sure plenty of people wouldn't have had a problem if they'd passed along the various fees. After all, Kickstarters are still speculative projects that can fail even after funding. Eating whatever fees they can't get refunded is seriously going above and beyond to make things right for their backers in a difficult situation.

</comment><comment><USER35> What does it even mean for Apple to license this connector? Do they have a patent on it? It's just a fucking plug. Or are they just refusing to let these folks use some trademark to mark their product?

<comment><USER17> _What does it even mean for Apple to license this connector?_

Apple built DRM into it. You cannot work with it without Apple giving you the keys first.

Yes. Apple managed to sell the iFanboys a proprietary, DRMed USB-connector and make them believe they were getting something better than everyone else.

If that make Apple geniuses or Apple's customers retardec is your call.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Interestingly, the idapt dock I use seems to be have a lightning compatible tip.[1] Wonder how they pulled it off.

[1] [http://www.idaptweb.com/interchangeable_tips/charger/tp/ligh...](http://www.idaptweb.com/interchangeable_tips/charger/tp/lightning/)

<comment><USER29> Apple has a program called MFi, usually you're supposed to get a MFi license if you make hardware for the ipod/iphone family. Since idapt doesn't list MFi anywhere, I'm guessing that they don't license it, and they aren't popular enough for Apple to sue yet. You don't have to ask Apple if you're just going to violate the license anyway... as long as you're small, Apple probably won't care. I think these guys tried to do the "right" thing.

I'm sure there are a few dozen chinese companies that violate all kinds of licenses that nobody really cares about. There's this chinese company that makes an iPhone knockoff that is actually called "iPhone" -- saw on the streets of Hong Kong. How do you think they do it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> When life gives you lemons make lemonade.

        1. Apple rejected the cable. To those who say "just go USB", it was
           supposed to be a seamless product and that destroys aesthetics.
           Image is everything in product design.

        2. In parallel they were working on Christie Street, to solve the
           issue of non-refunds on Kickstarter.

        3. So why not turn something bad into something good? Get some press
           for their new site, and also issue refunds for everyone. How else
           would they issue refunds? And how does anyone lose in this situation?

If anything, this seems like a great and fair way to deal with the issues at hand.

</comment><comment><USER38> Why not just continue the project with a few other connector types, and separately make an adapter for Apple's connector (authorized or otherwise), or recommend an existing something-to-Apple-connector cable?

</comment><comment><USER39> Something seems off about this whole thing.

</comment><comment><USER40> So I'm looking at my monoprice external battery pack. It says specifically that it works for iPod,iPhone, and iPad. Is the problem that they built in the cables into the device instead of just outputting to a usb hub with specifically defined output rates?

</comment><comment><USER41> I applaud Jamie and the POP team for going for it -- everyone who develops on a proprietary platform like Apple's (apps, hardware, whatever) faces this risk. It's a risk you have to take if you want a shot at success.

Sometimes it doesn't work out.

</comment><comment><USER42> > "Apple would not approve"

To think that in 2012 we still have to worry about things like this...

</comment><comment><USER43> Nothing like calling Apple a bunch of a-holes in the press to make you look super professional. Siminoff sounds like a whiny baby who got mad and flipped the risk board. At least all the backers are getting their money back.

<comment><USER44> I don't blame him for dealing with his grief. He has a right to be completely "pissed", and he has to be very emotional because he cared so much for this project, he worked so hard...and he probably had some passion for Apple...and then this life changing opportunity is denied by the "totalitarian" Apple.

Edit: It's like salt in a would...made of salt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> all the way on the bottom:

 _Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software. [...]_

oh, irony!</comment>


A Hacker's Story: Let me tell you just how easily I can steal your personal data - <AUTHOR> http://www.techvibes.com/blog/a-hackers-story-let-me-tell-you-just-how-easily-i-can-steal-your-personal-data <comment><USER2> Someone is eventually going to go to prison after stupidly uploading evidence of themselves wiretapping a wireless network they don't own.

There's also an interesting double standard here: would it be quite so acceptable to casually listen in on people's GSM calls or wireless house phone calls?

<comment><USER3> Does there exist legal precedent for this? It would seem hard to argue for expectation of privacy on an unsecured wireless network on a protocol without TLS.

<comment><USER4> Why is that so?

A landline phone is also trivial to tap into. Should you not expect some degree of privacy on the phone?

<comment><USER5> Phones, like mail, are a special case in a whole bunch of ways, legally, is my (Not A Lawyer) understanding. Using them as a basis for comparison is probably not going to reveal a lot.

<comment><USER4> Well we were talking about expectations here, were we not? I certainly expect my IM, email, VoIP and other forms of communication to be no less private than phone or post. So does, I believe, nearly everyone else. Just because one stumbles (stumble is not the right word though for what article described - the malicious intent was clear) into an unsecured segment does not make it right to eavesdrop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So, what exactly is the point of this article? "If you're on an insecure network, people can steal your data." ?? Not such a big surprise...

<comment><USER7> Not to people who read HN, certainly, but just judging from behavior, it's something that's totally lost on a lot of people (even people who ought to know better). There's a weird assumption of nonexistent privacy when people use their computers; a fair number of users seem not to grasp that using the Internet at Starbucks (or at a hotel, or in an airport) is very different and much less secure than using it at home.

Trespassing into an apartment building seemed a bit gratuitous and creepy, though, and might distract from the lesson (by making people think they can really improve their security by being on the lookout for nerds tailgating them in the door). I think the point could have been made just as well by sitting in a coffee shop, or checking into a hotel with free Internet access for an evening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> should be renamed 'A Script Kiddie's Story'

<comment><USER9> Wow, had no idea the article would become so popular.

I wrote the article and would just like to make a few points.

I am NOT a hacker. I don't claim to be. I'm just a geek that's curious about network security. They called it "A hacker story" because this is what hacking is to the general populace.

I understand that REAL hacking is completely different.

The point of the article is this:

It's REALLY easy for even a non-hacker to get all this information. I'm not saying to stop using open netqworks, just be careful what you do on them. That's all.

Thanks everyone for reading it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> >Also, don't browse hardcore porn on a public network.

OMG people will know someone likes porn!! People do FAP. Get over it.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm sorry but looking at packets on an unsecured network is in no way "hacking". Even cracking a WPA network and using a MITM attack is trivial with all the tools and tutorials available.

<comment><USER12> What is your point? The fact that it is trivial was the point of the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Reports of the death of wired Ethernet are greatly exaggerated.

</comment><comment><USER14> physical intrusion? lame.. get a parabolic or yagi antenna

</comment><comment><USER15> Let me tell you an even easier way hack - download Firesheep

<comment><USER16> Firesheep is just an automated GUI for what we've been doing all along. Ettercap, wireshark, etc are far more flexible and can be used to execute a wider variety of attacks. Firesheep, for example, won't ARP poison on a wired network.

<comment><USER17> Try Cain Able, its it probably the best ARP spoofing tool around for pc.

<comment><USER18> You don't need to ARP spoof on an open wireless network.

But Cain is in my standard pentest toolset for various reasons, not just ARP spoofing.

<comment><USER16> _You don't need to ARP spoof on an open wireless network._

Right... which is why he didn't mention wireless networks...

That's like saying, yes SQL injection is powerful, but it doesn't work on CSRF vulnerabilities -- complete non sequitur.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Easypost's unique way for applying at jobs - <AUTHOR> https://www.easypost.com/jobs <comment><USER2> What API call is needed to see what salaries they're offering?

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands So if I'm an account manager and have no idea how to use an API, what are the odds I'm going to apply at your company?

<comment><USER3> >> You have a strong and broad technical background ...

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> What I like about this is how effective filter it is. Whilst it is easy enough to do with any online service, addon or even the web browser, it bars the clueless trolls who claim themselves to be programmers but don't have a clue about even the basics of REST.

<comment><USER4> Web equivalent of fizzbuzz?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I used their API to apply for a Frontend Engineer position a couple months ago. It works! They got back to me via email but never responded past that initial contact... perhaps they got busy and forgot. I'll send them another message!

<comment><USER5> FYI, I sent them another message and they got back to me quite promptly!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cool idea. Even cooler if there would be different assignments for each job :D</comment>


Please, Take My Ideas - <AUTHOR> http://benbloch.posterous.com/please-take-my-ideas

<comment><USER2> "Actually, startup ideas are not million dollar ideas, and here's an experiment you can try to prove it: just try to sell one. Nothing evolves faster than markets. The fact that there's no market for startup ideas suggests there's no demand. Which means, in the narrow sense of the word, that startup ideas are worthless"

No, this is flawed logic. If you try to sell an idea, the act of selling it means it's not worth anything, because the worth of an idea depends on peoples' willingness to keep it secret.

Articles saying ideas are worthless are a dime a dozen, because great ideas are so scarce. Most decent ideas need great execution, and a lot of great ideas need good execution since they are easily copyable (so if they don't gain a ridiculous amount of traction, someone else can come win the new space).

<comment><AUTHOR> The ideas are worthless argument has been made more than enough, that's not the purpose of this post. I think your argument that "Most decent ideas need great execution, and a lot of great ideas need good execution since they are easily copyable" makes sense. My goal, and the purpose of this post, is to share my ideas, for the motivations explained in the post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So, post your huge list of ideas :)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's the idea! I posted one of them here <http://benbloch.posterous.com/idea-1-better-beta-testing>.

<comment><USER3> The idea is to post a single idea at a time? Not such a good idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> This particular idea really consists of many sub-ideas. I'd rather explain the problems and motivations behind the ideas rather than just dump a list on you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My general opinion on the matter is that ideas and execution _together_ are valuable. A good idea (validated market?) with poor execution is likely to produce a poor product. Conversely a bad idea (no market?) with outstanding execution is also likely to produce a poor product. Pitting them against each other doesn't make sense. They're two sides of the same coin. One thing is for certain that we can all agree on: a great idea with great execution produces a great product.

As far as sharing ideas go, I tend to only share with people I know. I violently agree that collecting feedback on an idea is immensely valuable, but there are many ways to go about doing so. Posting them into Hacker News is probably the last thing I'd do, for two reasons:

1) Unless I'm building a super niche product targeted at developers/entrepreneurs/designers, then Hacker News is not the place I should be collecting feedback.

2) If anywhere there exists a capable group of "idea executers", it's here. Paranoid? Maybe, but unless I am going to gain extremely relevant/targeting feedback from my core audience (see #1), why take the risk?

</beatingdeadhorse></comment>


C# to take a breaking change in version 5 - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8898925/is-there-a-reason-for-cs-reuse-of-the-variable-in-a-foreach <comment><USER2> Very interesting, I've been bitten by the same problem with Python once (capturing the iteration variable in a closure). To make things even worse, in Python the behaviour is inconsistent between list comprehensions and generator comprehensions:

      In [10]: lambdas = [(lambda: i) for i in xrange(10)]
      In [11]: [f() for f in lambdas]
      Out[11]: [9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9]

      In [12]: lambdas_gen = ((lambda: i) for i in xrange(10))
      In [13]: [f() for f in lambdas_gen]
      Out[13]: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

The problem was not fixed even in Python 3. I don't know if there has been any discussion about it.

<comment><USER3> This is because the following is simply _not_ a closure in Python:

        lambdas = [(lambda: i) for i in xrange(10)]

This works, because it is a proper closure:

        def build_closure(i):
            return (lambda: i)

        lambdas = [build_closure(i) for i in range(10)]
        print("%s" % [f() for f in lambdas])

See [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/233673/lexical- closures-i...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/233673/lexical-closures-in- python)

You can write something close only with _lambda_ this way:

        lambdas = [(lambda j=i: j) for i in range(10)]

The behavior is actually consistent between generators and list comprehensions, but it's giving the same result as a closure because generators are lazily evaluated (so f() is evaluated right on time, but i is still _not_ enclosed), and work only once: running it twice will have the generator exhausted:

      In [12]: lambdas_gen = ((lambda: i) for i in xrange(10))
      In [13]: [f() for f in lambdas_gen]
      Out[13]: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
      In [14]: [f() for f in lambdas_gen]
      Out[14]: []

That's why forcing the generation with list() causes evaluation of the generator, and only then do you evaluate the f()s, hence the same result as the list comprehension case.

Again, changing it to the following properly encloses i:

        lambdas_genlist = list((lambda j=i: j) for i in range(10))

<comment><USER4> > This is because the following is simply not a closure in Python

Well, they should be closures, or they shouldn't be there.

This isn't a question of not understanding Python's semantic rules, it's a question of those rules being screwed. I understand why it's not consistent with generators (as you say - i isn't generated yet). I don't understand why it's not consistent with what you'd expect, namely lambdas not being closures.

It's an even weirder gotcha than:

        def f(x = []):
            x.append(1)
            return x

and we know how many people get hit with that one ;)

<comment><USER3> Actually, you know, I lied (for the sake of simplicity). They are closures, else how would the lambda evaluate 'i'? The difference is in the binding.

How closures work depend wildly on the language. With lexical closures it all comes down to how scopes are handled [0] and how and when variable binding is done [1] (notably §8). The fact that 'i' can be either bound late (giving the 'outer scope' effect) or bound early (giving the 'inner scope closure' you expect) is actually a quite useful feature (and I assure you both cases are equally useful), although admittedly a bit surprising when coming from other languages.

Default argument value evaluation is a nice gotcha, but it's a trade-off I'm more than willing to accept [2].

Anyway I would definitely not qualify this as 'screwed'.

[0] <http://stackoverflow.com/a/292502/368409>

[1] <http://docs.python.org/reference/executionmodel.html>

[2] <http://stackoverflow.com/a/1651284/368409>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is encouraging to see the C# team learn from real-world scenarios and improve the language.

<comment><USER6> It is discouraging to see them make the same mistake that early Lisps did, the solution to which was well understood in the Scheme community since 1975.

<comment><USER7> Well, they are human after all.

Overall, I feel that C# team has definitely achieved their goal of being a 'Pit of Success'. [http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/08/falling-into-the- pi...](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/08/falling-into-the-pit-of- success.html)

E.g. Order of evaluation is strictly defined as left to right in C#.

[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/05/23/prece...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/05/23/precedence- vs-associativity-vs-order.aspx)

Disallowing use of uninitialized local variable.

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7797424/why-arent- unassig...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7797424/why-arent-unassigned- local-variables-automatically-initialized)

C# warns you if you do

if (i = 1) //notice the '=' instead of '==' {

}

warning CS0665: Assignment in conditional expression is always constant; did you mean to use == instead of = ?

Obviously, they failed in the case of 'foreach' but I feel great knowing that they will be fixing it in the next release.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's really only a breaking change if you designed your program to have the closure from inside the loop purposely use the last element of the collection outside the loop. Who would do this? I've hit this issue lots of times as have others, and it's a bug that is fixed by copying the iterator inside the loop. It's nice I won't need to worry about that anymore.

<comment><USER9> The bigger issue will be the confusion when people who are used to the C# 5 semantics work on a C# 4 project.

<comment><USER10> Yep, that's why it's a breaking change (or why breaking changes are bad). On the other hand, if they're using the C# 5 compiler to output C# 4 projects then maybe there will be a new warning (which, of course, is another breaking change if you treat warnings as errors).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've mentioned this elsewhere but I think the following needs to be emphasised: "The "for" loop will not be changed."[1]

I would argue it's a terrible idea to break consistency between how this is handled by the for and the foreach loop. The for loop can't be changed because the initialiser expression is general and not restricted to variables. I expect the result will be many bemused developers surprised closures behave one way in a for and another way in a foreach.

The end result is that the problem hasn't really been eliminated, just made even more obscure. My personal preference would be for consistency; one can still achieve the desired effect simply by explicitly defining a variable inside the loop scope for the closure to close over.

[1] [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2009/11/12/closi...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2009/11/12/closing- over-the-loop-variable-considered-harmful.aspx)

<comment><USER9> Closures behave the same way in either case. The closure semantics in C#5 will be unchanged.

The difference is that the for loop's variable is scoped to the entire loop, whereas the foreach loop's variable is only scoped to the embedded statement (i.e., an iteration through the loop). That difference is perfectly justifiable.

In the semantics of a for loop, the loop variable is very clearly (and necessarily) a persistent value which can be changed according to rules described in the loop statement, by code within its embedded statement, or both.

In the semantics of a foreach loop, on the other hand, the implication is that you're successively retrieving otherwise independent values from a collection and operating on each one in succession. There is no reason to need or expect that the variable will have a scope that extends outside the embedded statement. It is simply replaced on each iteration through the loop. The loop statement doesn't offer any opportunity to perform any logic on the variable in between iterations, since all you can do between the parentheses is bind a variable. You cannot use a varaible from the outer scope as the loop variable, and the loop variable goes out of scope as soon as the loop exits.

In fact, there is really only one place where this scoping difference is visible: When the loop contains a closure. In that case, the semantics that C#5 will use are indisputably superior. Even in cases where that sort of behavior is desired (which is exceedingly rare), it is much better to require that the behavior be accomplished by using a variable from the outer scope, for the sake of readability. Being a language in which it is easy to write obfuscated code was never high in C#'s priority list.

If the cost of doing it this way is that there is a(nother) difference between the semantics of the for-loop and the foreach-loop, I have no problem with that. I can see no demonstrable need for consistency there; it is a foolish consistency.

<comment><USER11> I never implied closure behaviour would change, only the variable scoping is inconsistent. I agree it makes sense, but it's still going to cause surprises.</comment></comment></comment>


China-Japan Conflict Could Lead To War - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/china-japan-conflict-could-lead-to-war-2014-1 <comment><USER2> Wow that was dumb</comment>


Thunk - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunk <comment><USER2> > _In computer programming, a thunk is a subroutine that is created, often > automatically, to assist a call to another subroutine. Thunks are primarily > used to represent an additional calculation that a subroutine needs to > execute, or to call a routine that does not support the usual calling > mechanism. They have a variety of other applications to compiler code > generation and in modular programming.

The term originated as a jocular derivative of "think"_</comment>


NFL Play-by-Play Data—Analyzed, Visualized, and Quizzified - <AUTHOR> http://blog.statwing.com/nfl-play-by-play-data-analyzed-visualized-and-quizzified/

<comment><USER2> Fun little quiz but thought some of the questions got more confusing by trying to keep them as simple as possible. For instance, when it's third and short, selecting pass would allow you to rollout and look for a pass and keep the option for the QB to run for the first down if none of the receivers were open. But a run on a pass call isn't accounted for.

I am going to have fun playing with the data visualizations, thanks for putting that together

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. The simplicity vs. thoroughness tradeoff was tricky.

To respond to that specific comment, a quarterback scramble was counted as a pass play for the purpose of that analysis. That's not clear from our post, and does nicely highlight your point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A related, but different project is my own nflgame [1]. Related in that it provides play-by-play data, but different in that it can be used to get it in real time. Also different in that the data only goes back to 2009, so it can't really be used to do the cool kinds of statistical analysis being done in the OP.

The source is JSON data from NFL's GameCenter pages. It contains its fair share of errors, but it is at least structured.

[1] - <https://github.com/BurntSushi/nflgame>

</comment><comment><USER4> It's worth noting that Statwing is a YC grad (Summer of '12).

</comment><comment><USER5> This is fun! Great job.</comment>