Is economics education failing? - <AUTHOR> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/is-economics-education-failing?utm_content=buffer1e6ba&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> Economic education sucks. Economics is a tiny part of sociology, one that deals with exchange of goods. Actually, not even that, lots of ways of exchange of goods are out of scope of economics and studied by anthropologists.

Now look at how the education structure looks like. In my home town the university has the entire self-standing economics college. Then there is smaller philosophy college, which has a small department of sociology.

It makes it pretty hard for students of economics to look beyond the confines of their little world.

<comment><USER3> As an economist I take extreme issue with your absolute statement that economics is a component of sociology. It might be _partly_ that, but it is also partly a great many other things (including an annex of applied mathematics).

<comment><USER2> Isn't mathematics just a modeling tool, like in other sciences?

<comment><USER3> Since the work of Morgenstern and Von Neumann (Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour) onwards, mathematics has assumed a very active (normative) role.

<comment><USER2> I guess we are just splitting hairs here, but that's like saying that quantum physics is not physics because it also deals with complex-number-based probability theory.

Behavioral economics is a different matter though. It explicitly acknowledges the relation between economics and psychology/sociology. That being said, when I was studying at economics college (I've dropped out quite quickly) nobody have even mentioned behavioral economics. If things have changed since it's a step in the right direction.

<comment><USER3> Behavioural economics isn't very interesting really because it limits itself with describing the sub-optimal behaviour of humans and not approaching optimality. It's analogous to a hypothetical branch of engineering that disregards physics and mechanics and concentrates on folk wisdom (of the "heavier stuff falls faster" variety). Why bother if it just leads to no betterment whatsoever?

That said, economics (as opposed to physics) suffers from a dearth of conserved quantities, and thus few useful symmetries to build laws upon.

<comment><USER2> Isn't it because economy studies systems composed of human beings rather than idealized homines economici? What's the point of describing a system that doesn't exist in the real world?

To give a concrete example, being from the Ostblock, I've lived through the "voucher privatization" that was very much based on the idealized homo economicus model and failed to account for sociological factors. The result was a decade of Mafia-run state. Shrug.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Staples says security breach may have affected 1.6M credit cards - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/19/staples-cybersecurity-idUSL3N0U35PD20141219

<comment><USER2> I haven't heard of Staples in years and surprised they're still around.</comment>


Google is Building an Email List Instead of Asking People to Call Congress - <AUTHOR> http://mill-industries.com/post/google-builds-an-email-list-rather-than-fight-pipa

<comment><USER2> SOPA and PIPA are just one form of legislation involving the censorship of the Internet. Even if they are struck down, new legislation backed by any number of industries will eventually reappear.

Creating a mailing list means that Google forever has an army of people they can contact to spread the word.

</comment><comment><USER3> I do wonder what form Google's "online petition" will take.

Speaking optimistically, they do have both credibility and the power to publicize, so if they say e.g. "1 million Google users are against SOPA" perhaps it will be hard for the MSM not to pick it up and repeat the news. And the number could be very large.

<comment><USER4> In addition to contacting my congress persons, I signed the Google petition. The Google petition appears to be a blackhole as I can't view what I'm actually signing before or after signing it.

My preference would have been for Google to have an obvious Call to Action to e-mail/call your Senator / House members.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The message from individual constituents matters much less than the media attention this is getting. CNN is what changes politicians' minds, not phone calls.

Still, this would have been a great opportunity for Google's "click to call" widget.

</comment><comment><USER6> If Google put up congressional phone numbers, they could melt the congressional phone lines.

<comment><USER7> That's actually a valid goal of civil activism. Similarly, physical protest marches in Washington are hell on the commuters there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was a bit worried that Google might have visitors call congress directly. That would surely shut down phone service in areas and result in less calls.

</comment><comment><USER9> And so what? The most visited website is putting out a SOPA protest. This thing has gone from a protest to a greedy contest it seems. I want more, I want more - not every huge company can do it without losing profit, you know.

</comment><comment><USER10> Yay, let's use more useless emails that won't get read.</comment>


Clocks - <AUTHOR> http://procyonic.org/clocks/index.html

<comment><USER2> _some clocks work in recent Firefox or Safari_

Wish it would indicate which ones. Too many clocks to go thru testing each, clicking then waiting several minutes to see if anything happens.

</comment><comment><USER3> Neat how the Clock 23 descrip goes right along with hexagram 23 of the I Ching.</comment>


Proprietary Software Is Often Malware - <AUTHOR> https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/ <comment><USER2> I also am reminded about FTDI's (edit: Windows Update - pushed ) malicious driver/firmware update that bricked the VID/PID of what the driver detected as "counterfeit" FTDI serial to usb transceivers. The resulting change made was to set the VID=0000, PID=0000 thus unbinding the associated drivers from being able to identify the hardware.

Torvalds, within a few days, allowed a kernel patch of usbserial.ko to allow usage from 0000:0000 to rewrite the firmware to fix the devices.

This was an example of a chip company destroying hardware arbitrarily, thus showing another treacherous computing in proprietary software.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well sure. If you basically redefine Malware to be "Anything other than GPL software", then you're going to consider most software malware. That doesn't mean it's the definition of Malware that most (i.e. all) other people will use, and it doesn't really advance the discussion. It mostly continues to make GNU look like fringe lunatics.

Moreover, whilst I don't really object to hyperbole in pursuit of a crusade, I don't greatly appreciate this type of cross-talk. It's hard enough to keep family members free of actual malware without confusing them with comments like "iOS itself is malware".

<comment><USER4> GNU seems to define anything that works against the interests of the user as malware. That's a broad but by no means crazy definition, and it it interesting that a lot of "legitimate" proprietary software is malware by that definition.

And, in this case, they seem to be using an even narrower definition than that. The things listed on this page are considerably worse than just using the wrong license.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it's very important to note the source of this document, as well as any biases that source may have.

For example, this piece was written by GNU, which is by and large a proponent of free software.

<comment><USER6> I contribute to the FSF and agree with the sentiment, but the text has a very opinionated tone and I would prefer to see the author's name and title with the text.

<comment><USER7> I'm gonna guess rms.

I think proprietary software certainly has much potential for harm, particularly when it's unmaintained or defective by design, but that's kind of a jump to get to outright malicious. I think most people would define malware in that sense.

<comment><USER8> My general impression is that RMS' definition of malware is anything that is bad, by any measure, for the user.

Mal, bad, in the latin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "A proprietary program puts its developer or owner in a position of power over its users. This power is in itself an injustice."

This seems to be slightly ideologically loaded.

Absolutely, there's some shady stuff going on in a lot of places, and they do post some good examples, but I'm not sure that their argument for free software is supported by their evidence.

I'm not sure what the alternative is - 100% free, non-monetized software? Is every piece of software to be developed gratis, and for every developer to rely on the generosity of strangers to make a living?

<comment><USER2> >>"A proprietary program puts its developer or owner in a position of power over its users. This power is in itself an injustice."

>This seems to be slightly ideologically loaded.

It is, until it happens to you. Then the recourse is HN/Twitter/Reddit. If you let yourself have your data exfiltrated, then your final answer is primarily bad PR and/or begging.

One example that sticks out in my mind is the Firebase debacle as [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14356409](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14356409) where costs went from $25/mo to $1700/mo . Because of the extraordinary bad reporting across tech media, their C*O positions responded in kind. This could have ended in a multitude of much worse outcomes, since this is software as a service (aka: data ransom)

[https://startupsventurecapital.com/firebase-costs- increased-...](https://startupsventurecapital.com/firebase-costs-increased- by-7-000-81dc0a27271d)

<comment><USER9> > software as a service (aka: data ransom)

Isn't it understood that that's what that potentially could be? I have my photos in the Google Cloud knowing that they'll stay there only as long as I can pay for the service. I trust they won't raise their prices like that, but I have no control over it, and if they do, yeah, that's something unethical going on. What is the alternative to SaaS though? SaaS is not only the software, it's also the cloud, and I have a real hard time arguing that charging someone to use the hardware is some sort of physical malware.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The entire argument rests on the understanding of malware ("Malware has a malicious intent, acting against the interest of the computer user" \- Wikipedia). Most of the arguments against Microsoft, Apple, etc. point to features of the software that make certain processes possible (e.g. control over an app after it has been installed)

</comment><comment><USER11> How often?

</comment><comment><USER12> In what way? Format lock in?

<comment><USER8> TFA is a list of examples.

GNU/FSF has a perhaps broader-than-average definition of malware, but the lists are thought-provoking to peruse.</comment></comment>


How to enable OS X Lion "natural" scrolling on Windows - ryan-allen http://www.redmondpie.com/get-mac-os-x-lion-style-reverse-scrolling-on-windows-7-how-to-tutorial/

<comment> ryan-allen This was driving me batty at home (where I have a PC), after adjusting to OS X Lion's new scrolling (I figure it's not worth fighting, just roll with it).

I'd come home, jump on the PC and start scrolling up to move content down. It's not a help at all to rewiring this muscle memory!</comment>


Paint16b: A 16 byte paint program written in 12 lines - <AUTHOR> http://www.sizecoding.org/wiki/Paint16b <comment><USER2> And if you liked that [http://www.hugi.scene.org/compo/compoold.htm](http://www.hugi.scene.org/compo/compoold.htm)

And something I found useful [https://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.ht...](https://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html)

It really is quite amazing how small you can make things when you try. Then you realise you're wasting most of a disc sector, and the thing you have is unportable and unmaintainable. But still, being able to look at a binary and know what every byte does, being unconstrained by the rules of a language is liberating.

<comment><USER3> Thanks ! Is there anything about Tetris like game ?

I found this : [https://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/02/19/1351213/tetri...](https://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/02/19/1351213/tetris- in-140-bytes) but it's in Javascript.

A long time ago I wrote this : [https://github.com/dalf/stetris/blob/master/STETRIS- UTF8.ASM](https://github.com/dalf/stetris/blob/master/STETRIS-UTF8.ASM)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> All the program has to do is repeatedly get the current mouse position and set the pixel there, and that's all it does. These two links should help make sense of it:

[http://stanislavs.org/helppc/int_33.html](http://stanislavs.org/helppc/int_33.html)

[http://stanislavs.org/helppc/int_10.html](http://stanislavs.org/helppc/int_10.html)

The main loop contains an implicit state-machine that does multiple things on different iterations, which is partly responsible for the small size.

Another thing that you can clearly see is how efficient it is at using the registers; this is one area where compiler-generated code is consistently behind, and something I wish compilers would get better at --- an HLL could take as many bytes as this entire program just to put the parameters onto the stack and call a function.

Finally, one small correction:

        ret             ; assume [[FFEE]] = [0] = CD20 = int 20

...should be "assume [ _FFFE_ ] = 0", because that's where the stack pointer is initially, and this program does not use the stack itself for its entirety --- it doesn't need to!

<comment><USER5> Why is the ret necessary? Is this not an infinite loop?

<comment><USER4> The loop instruction decrements CX, and then jumps if it is nonzero. Otherwise it "falls through". At that point CX contains the X coordinate of the cursor. Hence the comment:

        ; allows exit if the mouse is leftmost

<comment><USER5> Ah, I had zoomed in to see the code and completely disregarded the comments; in hindsight, I see that was a mistake. Although, I guess I should have guessed that cx could contain 0 in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not to poo-poo this (I think this is very impressive) but the reason why it is so small is that it just calls a bunch of bios and mouse driver routines. If those items didn't already exist the program would surely be larger.

<comment><USER7> Exactly. Every language has its impressive one-liners and terse programs thanks to the underlying layers of abstraction, even asm.

<comment><USER8> "even ASM" \- I read that twice to feel good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> [https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=63826](https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=63826) has download links. In theory if someone were to put this onto archive.org you could use the JS version of DosBox to try it out.

</comment><comment><USER10> pretty cool, but why not have it a tiny tiny bit longer code and not strt with 2 flat out assumptions? I mean im not familiar with dos deeply and if these will be true 100% of the time, but as it reads, it reads like silly code which might crash or work unexpectedly in certain situations.

either way cool! :D

<comment><USER5> Apparently these are a valid assumption to make in DOS.

<comment><USER10> cool :) learning more about low level codes, and everyone tells me never to assume anything about a booting system ,but i suppose DOS will offer a more stable environment for programs to start then 'any x86_^64 hardware' :D thanks for clearing that up! it's a simple program but it sure shows that you can already do a lot with just a few bytes =]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sure, it's 12 lines of function calls to advanced DOS APIs and no actually useful functionality.

</comment><comment><USER12> Right, but can it read email? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Zawinski#Principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Zawinski#Principles)

</comment><comment><USER13> > assume ah=0; assume bx=0

Hmm. So the _second_ time this program is run, it will fail?

<comment><USER14> No, AFAIK MS-DOS always initialises it to zero before starting the program. I'm trying to find a better reference, but I think this[0] effectively explains what state the registers are in on entry to your program.

Edit: I take that back. According to [1]:

      .COM-format executables begin running with the following register values:
      AL = 00h if first FCB has valid drive letter, FFh if not
      AH = 00h if second FCB has valid drive letter, FFh if not

[0] [https://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/debug/debug.htm#INIT](https://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/debug/debug.htm#INIT)

[1] [http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/rbinter/id/51/29.html](http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/rbinter/id/51/29.html)

<comment><USER15> The value of BX is however strictly undefined, but practically always 0. Potentially some DOS will load this register with a different value, but probably no version of MS-DOS.

<comment><USER16> But why not explicitly set the register to 1 rather than assume its 0 and increment it by 1?

<comment><USER17> On x86, some instructions are longer than others. Incrementing is a single byte. Setting the value 1 if you don't assume anything is going to be 2 bytes (al, ah, bl, etc.) or 4 bytes for (ax, bx, etc.)

This online x86/x64 assembler is great: [https://defuse.ca/online-x86-assembler.htm](https://defuse.ca/online-x86-assembler.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Be helpful if the page mentioned what language the program was written in.

<comment><USER19> Is assembly not common knowledge anymore?

<comment><USER2> In the parents defense 'assembly' isn't one thing. Every assembler has a different syntax, as does every chip family. The parent might be a master of 6502 ASM. And as that XKCD comic says. Everyone has to learn even the most obvious thing for the first time at some point.

<comment><USER20> Hm... If you know one assembly you can easily recognize when it is assembly, even if you don't know the specific architecture.

<comment><USER21> Not if it is your first time seeing assembly.

<comment><USER22> Doesn't that then imply that you don't know assembly?

<comment><USER21> Blargh, I somehow read that as _" if you don't know assembly"_ instead of _" if you know one assembly"_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> can I run this on linux? (wine?)

<comment><USER24> I guess you can in Dosbox? [https://www.dosbox.com/](https://www.dosbox.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> _SHPaint_ \-- ANSI Art editor programmed in bash, written in 179 lines.[0,1]

      #!/bin/bash
      #
      #  Author: Martin "BruXy" Bruchanov, bruxy at regnet.cz
      #

      # Check input first
      if [ ! $# -eq 1 ] || [ "$1" == "-h"] || [ "$1" == "--help" ] ; then
      	printf "Usage:\n"
      	printf "\t$0 saved_image\n"
      	printf "\n\tImage data will be saved into given filename, if file exist\n"
      	printf "\tit will be displayed and ready to edit!\n"
          printf "\tHit <Ctrl-C> any time to quit the program.\n"
      	exit 1
      fi

      ##################
      # Initialization #
      ##################

      IMAGE_FILE=$1
      _STTY=$(stty -g)    # Save current terminal setup
      printf   "\e[2J"    # clear screen, set cursos at beginning
      stty -echo -icanon  # Turn off line buffering
      printf "\e[?9h"     # Enable terminal mouse reading
      printf "\e[?25l"    # Turn of cursor
      printf "\e]0;-=[ ShPaint ]=-\007"

      # Hash array with image data,
      # ... key is "$Y;$X",
      # ... value ANSI colors and brush "b;F;Bm"
      declare -A IMAGE

      # Defaults
      BRUSHES=(       )
      FG=( {30..37} )
      BG=( {40..47} ) # 49 ... default background
      X=0
      Y=0
      ERASE=0
      BRUSH=${BRUSHES[3]}
      FG_COLOR="1;${FG[7]}"
      BG_COLOR=49

      #############
      # Functions #
      #############

      function save_image() {
      	printf "\e[2J" > $IMAGE_FILE
      	for i in ${!IMAGE[@]}
      	do
      		printf "\e[${i}f\e[${IMAGE[$i]}\e[0m"
      	done >> $IMAGE_FILE
      	# set cursor under the image
      	printf "\e[$(tput lines);1f" >> $IMAGE_FILE
      }

      function at_exit() {
      	printf "\e[?9l"          # Turn off mouse reading
      	printf "\e[?12l\e[?25h"  # Turn on cursor
      	stty "$_STTY"            # reinitialize terminal settings
      	clear
      	echo "Thank for using ansipaint!"
      	if [ ! -z "$IMAGE_FILE" ] ; then
      		echo "Your image is saved as '$IMAGE_FILE'."
      		save_image
      	fi
      	exit
      }

      # X = $1, Y = $2
      function set_pos() {
       	echo -en  "\e[$2;$1f"
      }

      function show_pos() {
      	set_pos 65 1
      	printf "x,y = %3d,%3d" $X $Y
      }

      function show_brush() {
      	set_pos 70 2
      	printf "[ \e[${FG_COLOR};${BG_COLOR}m$BRUSH\e[0m ]"
      }

      function process_click() {
      #	X=$1 Y=$2
      	# set foreground color
      	if [ $Y -eq 1 ] || [ $Y -eq 2 ] ; then
      		if [ $X -gt 2 ] && [ $X -lt 28 ] ; then
      			FG_COLOR="$[Y-1];${FG[$[(X-4)/3]]}"
      			ERASE=0
      		fi
      	fi

      	# set background color
      	if [ $Y -eq 1 ] && [ $X -gt 34 ] ; then
      		if [ $X -gt 34 ] && [ $X -lt 59 ] ; then
      			BG_COLOR="${BG[$[X-35]/3]}"
      			ERASE=0
      		else
      			BG_COLOR="49"
      			ERASE=0
      		fi
      	fi

      	# set brush
      	if [ $Y -eq 2 ] && [ $X -gt 36 ] && [ $X -le 51 ] ; then
      		BRUSH=${BRUSHES[$[(X-37)/2]]}
      		ERASE=0
      	fi

      	# set erase
      	if [ $Y -eq 2 ] && [ $X -ge 54 ] && [ $X -le 62 ] ; then
      		BRUSH=" "
      		BG_COLOR="49"
      		ERASE=1
      	fi

      	# DEBUG
      	# set_pos 0 25
      	# printf "$FG_COLOR $BG_COLOR $BRUSH"
      }

      function draw_menu() {
      	set_pos 1 1; echo "FG: "
      	for i in ${FG[*]}
      	do
      		set_pos $[(i-30)*3+4] 1
      		echo -en "\e[${i}m\e[0m"
      		set_pos $[(i-30)*3+4] 2
      		echo -en "\e[1;${i}m\e[0m"
      	done

      	set_pos 30 1; echo "BG: "
      	for i in ${BG[*]}
      	do
      		set_pos $[(i-40)*3+35] 1
      		echo -en "\e[${i}m   \e[0m"
      	done
      	echo "   |" # default background (49)

      	set_pos 30 2; echo -en "Brush: ${BRUSHES[*]}"
      	printf "  [ Erase ]"
      	show_brush
      }

      function load_image() {
      	if [ -f $IMAGE_FILE ] ; then
      		data=$(sed -e 's/\x1b/E/g;s/E\[0m/\n/g;s/E\[2J//' $IMAGE_FILE | \
      			sed -n -e 's/E\[\(.*\)fE\[\(.*m.\)/IMAGE["\1"]="\2"/ p')
      		eval $data
      		cat < $IMAGE_FILE
      	fi
      }

      ##########
      #  MAIN  #
      ##########
      trap at_exit ERR EXIT
      load_image
      draw_menu
      while :
      do
      	read -N 6 click
      	mouse=( `echo -en ${click#???} | hexdump -v  -e'1/1 " %u"'` )
      	X=$[ ${mouse[0]} - 32]	Y=$[ ${mouse[1]} - 32]
      	process_click
      	show_pos
      	show_brush
      	if [ $Y -gt 2 ] ; then
      		echo -en  "\e[${Y};${X}f\e[${FG_COLOR};${BG_COLOR}m$BRUSH\e[0m"
      		if [ $ERASE -eq 0 ] ; then
      			IMAGE["${Y};${X}"]="${FG_COLOR};${BG_COLOR}m$BRUSH"
      		else
      			unset IMAGE["${Y};${X}"]
      		fi
      	fi
      done

[0] [http://bruxy.regnet.cz/web/linux/EN/ansi-art-sh- paint](http://bruxy.regnet.cz/web/linux/EN/ansi-art-sh-paint)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoAMxMukgPY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoAMxMukgPY)</comment>


We didn't lose control of the Web – it was stolen - <AUTHOR> https://ar.al/notes/we-didnt-lose-control-it-was-stolen/ <comment><USER2> I agree with the sentiment of this article, but only to a degree.

I recommend anyone interested in this to read Open Standards and the Digital Age, by Andrew Russel. The book is a partial refutation of the idea of an 'open web' using historical examples, the most shocking being the failure of open and democratic methods to build an open Internet standard versus the success of Serf and Kahn inventing TCP/IP in a closed and corporate environment, funded by the military. The reality is that some systems critical to the operation of the Internet, such as DNS, are highly centralized, un- open, un-private and un-free, or at least when compared with cyberlibertarian expectations of how the Internet should be. It also addresses other perversions of 'open', such as the irony that some of FLOSS's biggest customers are megacorps like Apple and Microsoft, who up until recently contributed way less back than what they took.

I don't think the web was 'stolen' from 'us', I think people just don't realize how controlling it was before. They're mistaking an epiphany for an actual loss of freedom that may or may not have been there in the first place. We need to fight for a free and open Internet, but let's not kid ourselves with inaccurate and misleading language.

<comment><USER3> You agree with the sentiment of the article but then you're muddying the waters and shifting the discussion from Big Data companies like Google and Facebook to some abstract ideal of freedom and openness. The only "misleading language" that I see here belongs to you. The author is very clear about what disease has infected software development and the internet.

I don't remember many spyware as a service and data collection software platforms ~10 ago. The freedom to not have your information collected, analyzed, stored forever sold off and used against your interests WAS there.

<comment><USER4> I remember extended discussions on Usenet etc about commercialization of the Internet. Not long after Eternal September, as I recall. The rest, as they say, is history.

The Internet of Tim's dreams still exists. Several of them, really. But they're tiny, with relatively few users. What people now call the Internet is a horrorshow of predators and prey. So it goes. Natural selection rules.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps Ethereum is the way to an open internet?

<comment><USER4> That's one way, sure. But there is no _the way_ , I think.

What we have is just what's won in the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> FB _did_ steal the web and your social network. Remember how FB grew? If not, let me remind you: "See which of your friends are also on FB! Just give us your Google and Yahoo contacts". Yes, you gave FB permission to check your contacts, but FB omitted to tell us that they would be HOLDING ON to your contacts forever and ever. FB then sent those contacts, without your permission and not per your request, an email saying YOU were on FB or and email that YOU had asked them to join. Initially there was a little quid-pro- quo, you could also export contacts from FB to Goole and/or Yahoo. This was closed down soon after they gobbled up the contact lists of the world[1][2].

Of course, LinkedIn later did a similar thing, and grew in a similar fashion, but at least there you could, and can, REMOVE the contacts you've handed over without full disclosure.

I willingly GAVE my contacts to Google/Yahoo, and they provided a service for me, GMAIL/YMAIL. Facebook STOLE what I gave to google/yahoo, and they used dark patterns.

The cat is out of the bag, but let's not forget our history.

PS Articles have even claimed that shadow-profiles were created for those who had not signed up yet, which could be matched with actual sign-ups at a later date.

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2010/11/04/facebook-google- contacts/](https://techcrunch.com/2010/11/04/facebook-google-contacts/)

[2] [http://searchengineland.com/facebook-you-have-no-right-to- ex...](http://searchengineland.com/facebook-you-have-no-right-to-export-email- addresses-55247)

<comment><USER7> They asked for them, and you gave them, and annoyed all of them.

<comment><USER6> At the time it was implied they would be matched to existing members (a one- time check, as other services did). The "we're holding on to them in perpetuity" bit was definitely not clear. The spammy part happened a little later.

Relevant (2009): ("facebook sent invites to my entire contact list!") [https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/SvvOuSDUF...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/SvvOuSDUFuA/O6kCMGF9SfMJ)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It all went wrong at the firewall. As soon as peer-to-peer was over and NAT became a security layer as well as a technological construct to put more than one host behind one public IP it was essentially game-over.

If you want to reboot the web then you need to reboot the internet first, solve the insecurity of privately hosted servers first and convince ISPs that symmetric connectivity should be the rule.

After that you have a fighting chance.

<comment><USER9> An Internet connection is 40-50$ a digital ocean vps is $5.00. This is not the problem you are looking to solve.

<comment><USER8> The consequences of that asymmetry go _much_ further than just a price difference. It's about a whole raft of applications that are simply impossible or at best extremely hard.

The internet was meant to be peer-to-peer not server-to-consumer.

Adding more servers, even at $5 won't change that.

<comment><USER10> But it can never be truly peer-to-peer or decentralized due to the economics of last-mile connectivity. Connecting machines in a neighborhood is more expensive and difficult from an infrastructure perspective than hooking up a computer in a server farm.

This in of itself changes the costs and expectations of the parties involved which means things will likely slump back to a permutation of this status quo even with a different standard.

<comment><USER11> Only if you assume high bandwidth cost. If it's more convenient to do something at home, it is cost-dependent whether people opt for the more cumbersome but cheaper centralised solution.

The current last-mile problem is that there is not enough demand for high- bandwidth applications to justify rapid improvement (we'd all have 10 gig connections by now if the 2000's trend had continued).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> While I agree with the gist of the article, I have a problem conflating Google and Facebook in the same evil bag.

Facebook is the evilest of evil, not only for the reasons stated, but also because information entered into Facebook never comes out. You have to have an account on FB to see anything on the platform. That is contrary to everything the Web ever stood for.

Since I don't have a Facebook account, most of my friends don't either, and I will prevent my kids from having one for as long as humanely possible, I'm not sure what kind of benefit it provides. (I'm aware that 25% of all of humanity is on Facebook so they must find something in it. I just don't know what it is, and would rather not find out.)

But, to me, Google is quite different. Not only is Google Search is unparalleled, it's also quite open. Yes, Google constantly tries to have you "login" and turn on search history, etc., but one can still use Google Search completely anonymously. That's not a detail, that is a very important feature of Google Search.

* * *

Now about fighting back, what about starving the beast with adblock? Everyone concerned by any of this should not only use adblock but heavily promote it to everyone. That's probably not the complete solution but it's obviously part of it.

<comment><USER13> > But, to me, Google is quite different.

I think they lost that argument when they started Google+, going into direct competition with Facebook with a comparable product, albeit unsuccessfully.

If anything Google is more sinister to me, with a much broader reach than Facebook into areas like mapping and navigation, personalized ad tech, personalized search, mobile OS, PC OS, web analytics, etc. etc., all at least partially geared towards data mining.

Not defending Facebook by any stretch, but "my dictator is not as evil as your dictator" does not hold up for me.

<comment><USER14> Google+ is not as closed as Facebook though. You don't need a G+ account to view what people are talking about in there.

<comment><USER15> I don't see much difference.

The information that should be public without an account -- public events, businesses and so on -- is visible on Facebook without an account, including comments people have made on these pages. (Admittedly, the "Sign up to Facebook" banner is pretty large.)

The private stuff on Facebook -- personal posts, friends lists and so on -- is also private on Google+, where it exists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is just unnecessarily divisive. Look, this is the way commerce works. Checks on corporate behavior come in two realms, legal and ethical. Companies will violate ethics if everybody else is doing it. Companies violate the law if they are the proverbial bad eggs.

If unethical practices become normal, the thing to do is to get a law passed. It's the way this has _always_ worked. Laws change the entire landscape of commerce. They shake things up enough to where a new status quo is found. Law isn't perfect but it can shift the ethical regime more in the direction of the people.

The author's recommendation of a world without kings is a fantasy. If you eliminate hierarchy that means everybody must become an institution. Being an institution is not fun. It's fun to fantasize about building your own house but only the really motivated actually do it. Kings do us a favor by creating structure where there once was none. Silicon Valley is ultimately a force for good.

<comment><USER17> > Companies violate the law if they are the proverbial bad eggs

I would suggest that in general companies violate the law if the benefits of doing so exceed the costs (risk of penalties, imprisonment of officers and so on)

<comment><USER16> I would say there's certain _segments_ of markets that will violate the law. I think this fits within the "bad egg" characterization I made before. New laws are often targeted directly at these segments, it changes the fabric of the market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There seems to be a lot of antagonism directed at Google and Facebook in this piece, making it sound as if those companies knowingly stole or forced people to fork over data.

I know sometimes it's easy to play the evil mega-corp card, but we need to ask ourselves the question: what is the goal here, to take down Google and Facebook? 'Cause if you're worried about an internet with extra surveillance and restrictions, taking down Google and Facebook doesn't really solve things.

Plus, even in a world with Google and Facebook out of the picture, there will still be political trolls hired by other companies and nation-states. There are also alternate-Googles that can just swoop in and fill the void you create if say you do take down Google. They are not necessarily better than Google today.

<comment><USER19> > making it sound as if those companies knowingly stole or forced people to > fork over data

Both Google and Facebook are engaged in exactly those practices. Stolen and forced are apt adjectives to describe their behavior. Stolen like Whatsapp data after acquisition by Facebook, like contact lists, location history, voice recordings from your Android phone. Forced like Facebook constantly demanding you provide them your phone number, and making it clear to you that it's not an option by removing the 'no' button and replacing it with my favorite dark pattern 'i will provide it later'.

The problem with both is they're so much more than just a web service. They're pervasive in all facets of life in the developed world. You can't get away from then no matter how much you want to, because they're using your friends to effectively spy on you. And to an extent, both now hold most of the population hostage. I can only begin to imagine how I would need to change my entire lifestyle if I wanted to stop either of these companies from pervasively tracking me. Give up my smartphone, browse the web only with NoScript, only on sites that still work with it, never let my friends take photos of me and upload them, never use any of the popular chat apps to stay in touch with them, etc. Basically the only way to unplug from these monsters is to live like Stallman.

<comment><USER20> Given the amount of people deeply involved in the tech industry who read hn probably my opinion will not be very popular. But I feel obliged to add a few lines about WhatsApp.

In a worrying technological landscape, it has been for a long time an application with a good tradeoff between privacy and convenience.

I have always respected and praised this application, due to its philosophy: Acton and Koum made millions of dollars without the need of advertising.

> Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can > buy shit we don't need. > These days companies know literally everything > about you, your friends, your interests, and they use it all to sell ads. > > Remember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product. > When > people ask us why we charge for WhatsApp, we say "Have you considered the > alternative?"

Like me, many people I know do not use social media (I'm 25 and not all of us use them, it's real), but virtually all of us use WhatsApp to keep in touch, share photos, locations, media, and even to create groups to discuss, meet, organize events.

We use the application in a so pervasive manner that we started considering it as a part of our daily routine: phrases such as "How long do you need to get there? Send me your position." are now regulars.

The reason we use wa, is because wa is not a social media.

Because "At WhatsApp, our engineers spend all their time fixing bugs, adding new features and ironing out all the little intricacies in our task of bringing rich, affordable, reliable messaging to every phone in the world. That's our product, and that's our passion. Your data isn't even in the picture. We are simply not interested in any of it."

Because when my mobile connection exceeds the data limit and my ISP applies a bandwidth throttling (32KBps) it is the only application that is able to send messages without making me worry about additional costs.

Because when loading an image, this is compressed in an automatic way. Because it allows me to call my relatives and friends easily and simply when I'm abroad.

The problem is not only the integration of wa data without prior permission, but also the recent decisions taken, aka "status".

Status is a social media thing, and nobody wants another useless social media.

All my friends are asking me \- They do not know what to invent to know everything about us, right ? \- Why this after end2end encryption ? \- Do you see how little this is used ? \- The reviews on the store are the worst of all the time ! Why did they do this ? \- Not here ! Can I get the old version ? \- I hope in many are gonna leave, which are the alternatives ?

When I see certain things I ask myself: `who made this decision and why`. I don't know if I have the answer to this, but I do not like the attitude. If things are going to get worse, I will uninstall without looking back. But it's a real shame.

This pattern has been emerging since the FaceBook acquisition, so I would bet this is intentional, it's an attitude, it's a vision.

The intent is not to "play the evil mega-corp card", I don't want to take them down, it's that I would prefer to pay a decent annual fee to a great service rather than being used as a product.

<comment><USER21> Good response.

It's fascinating that people find it so pointless to change platforms for the sake of their own privacy. Generally when I suggest to my peers we start chatting via Signal, they think I'm a conspiracy nut or something, it's fascinating and a little disappointing. Strangely, this "why bother" not only seems to apply to passive family users who don't understand what's behind these systems, but people who do.

I assume this why you're still using WA?

<comment><USER20> Funny thing is that I've been introduced to Signal by my peers. No paranoid lunatic glare.

The app has some rogue edges and needs to be refined in order to be as usable as wa, specifically: data usage & media compression.

The service has a high potential indeed.

<comment><USER21> I believe you might be an exception to the rule here, simply because you're a HN reader :)

Try getting your Spouse, Accountant, Mom, Uncle etc to make the move.

<comment><USER20> Signal is too difficult to be used by my relatives, but do not underestimate the issue. Dad uses the app to work and has not uninstalled, while mom, did the upgrade, came to ask "why the gardener of the nearby sends me pictures while he's kissing his girlfriend?", and then uninstalled the whole, she's now using sms again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The web wasn't stolen we gave it to them. You didn't have to sign up for Facebook. You don't have to sign up for googles services. Look how people like RMS use the web .

<comment><USER23> If everyone "browsed" the web RMS way there would be no web.

<comment><USER24> If everyone "browsed" the web the RMS way, there would be an actual market for RMS-browsing products and services.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've been thinking of closing my Facebook account, but I'd lose contact with so many friends and family. They don't use email or any kind of instant messenger any more, and nobody makes phone calls any more. If you're not on Facebook you might as well not exist.

<comment><USER26> I'm in college right now and oscillate between having one and not having one, but most of the social life is organized through Facebook and I end up looking very odd for ritualistically avoiding it (well and Google Docs but that's a different kettle of fish).

<comment><USER27> Could you elaborate on avoiding Google Docs?

<comment><USER28> Easy one: actively avoid anything and everything google is the basics of having some chances at online privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Just like the Newton and the Palm Pilot -- the solutions to this problem came too soon. Diaspora, GNU social, Ello (?) probably others. Perhaps in ten or twenty years a breaking point will come along.

That said, I think there's a real market for closed content like FB's. And even though I find a decentralized system more appealing, I can imagine a new, closed/centralized system taking FB's place in the future.

</comment><comment><USER30> The original, open, non-privacy-invading web is still there. There are many sites sharing and hyperlinking academic research and relevant practitioner information that do not have advertising and do not track you.

We are the ones who voted with our clicks to use the likes of LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google.

<comment><USER31> Is there some kind of search engine that limits itself to the "ancient"-style web, as it existed from its beginning to ~10-12 years ago, though not necessarily confined to older sites when newer ones fit the style and content of that period?

I'd use the _hell_ out of something like that. I'd take enthusiastic amateurs with their web-rings and guest books, and academic sites over the modern advertising-centric web _any_ day. Very little of that bubbles to the top of searches as it is (Wikipedia being easily the most prominent).

<comment><USER28> If this exists let me know, I want in. A couple days ago I reminisced of web rings and thought that this was actually not that bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Really like this piece: [https://ar.al/notes/the-nature-of-the-self-in-the- digital-ag...](https://ar.al/notes/the-nature-of-the-self-in-the-digital-age/)

</comment><comment><USER33> I really like the comment at the bottom which mentions the structural flaws in attempting to democratise the web while client-server architecture is still king.

</comment><comment><USER34> Have any visionaries written what an alternative web looks like I.e we still need the services of Google and Facebook but done in a privacy conscious way.

<comment><USER35> You might be interested ssb [https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/](https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/)

I've been using the older patchwork client for a while an love it.

some nice peeps have started a thread where they document annoying parts of the old-web they've noticed since using ssb: [http://viewer.scuttlebot.io/%25TapY6%2F6ghLYlTdn0pjm7rDLK5kc...](http://viewer.scuttlebot.io/%25TapY6%2F6ghLYlTdn0pjm7rDLK5kcAhcqJarp9cWrwAvc%3D.sha256)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Isn't the problem that that you need money/time to make good, easy to use platforms?

How many people here still use usenet vs reddit/HN ?

<comment><USER37> I would still use Usenet if my ISP hadn't shut down their NNTP server around 2005. I can't bring myself to pay extra for a third-party NNTP server, mainly because it was something I had gotten used to having as part of my internet service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> It wasn't stolen, we're giving it away. And not just the web, but our freedom.

If you're using services that support surveillance capitalism or you are working on such products, please stop. Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't think we really need more regulations in this area. There is already a bunch of privacy related laws on the books.

Plus using data to improve the user experience, recommendations(YouTube, Netflix), targeted ads seems pretty neat(I prefer ads about tech products, my interests compared to makeup or pads). The products get better and improve. Facebook doesn't sell your information, they let advertisers use it to target you. Probably more profitable to let companies use the data instead of selling it.

Companies like LexisNexis and Acxiom are the ones I'd be really worried about. Some states DMV's even sell databases. I'd be more worried about them, Google and Facebook are way better corporate citizens than these mega databroker companies would be. At least Google and Facebook you can opt-out of. LexisNexis, good luck opting-out. Last time I checked only law enforcement who fear they are in danger can opt-out.

Regulations are what kills innovation. Probably since the government has mainly left the internet alone is probably why it's one of the most innovative industries. Imagine having to read a 300 page 2 column paged document and wait on a lengthly process before you are even allowed to put up even a blog.

Then all of this talk lately about "fake news" just seems like censorship. I am worried that some day the internet will be over regulated and censored it will be just like cable television at some point.

</comment><comment> d--b The argument is an angry version of "if it's free, you're the product," which at this stage is very uncontroversial, and only comments on the "we've lost control of our data" point made in the original post. The link between what author calls "people farming" and "surveillance" is not compelling.

That said, I personally agree with the author in identifying the main problem of the web as people tracking. In my opinion, Tim Bernes-Lee points about misinformation and political advertising are not specific to the medium, but rather to the times we live in. People are pissed, people are scared, they need something to blame, they need some fantasy to believe in, they make up scary news, they vote for the guy that gives them a dream.

What's specific to the web though, (and that is starting to spread out of the web) is the data tracking. Whether for advertising ends or for surveillance purposes, data tracking creates a power imbalance between people and systems that is unbearable.

That power imbalance is the weirdness you felt the first time you saw a gmail ad related to the email you were reading. It's the anger that heats up your cheeks when the sales guy asks for your email address when you just want to buy shoes. It's the 2-hour phone call to the customer service that ends in "I'm sorry there is nothing I can do for you". It's the "late fee" mails you automatically receive for a service that you cancelled. It's realizing that the app your employer installed on your phone can tell them your location at all times. It's the swatting that reminds you not to shop for pressure cookers online. It's the cameras. It's the cars. It's the lightbulbs.

We as people are weak. I don't think Silicon Valley intended it that way. I think they genuinely wanted to improve the world. And in order to keep it cheap, they found money where they could, and in the process, they undermined people's privacy in a way that is making the world a lot worse than it was.

I personally feel hopeful. Countries are made of people. And I think that people are starting to get it. We need rules to prevent this. Laws that force companies to automatically give you the option not to track you. The same laws that forced mailing list senders to have the unsubscribe button (thank god for the unsubscribe button!). For this to happen, we need lobbying, we need awareness. We need a "this website is not tracking you" label. We need privacy checks.

<comment><USER40> > What's specific to the web though, (and that is starting to spread out of > the web) is the data tracking.

No it's not. Tracking is as old as marketing. And Taylorism comes to mind in the workplace for even older form a of systematic tracking.

The scale is vaguely novel, but this is becquse meatspace is catching up with the number of data points that get tracked (IoT) and tools to analyze all of this data.

Take something as innocuous-looking as video surveillance in a grocery store. The next thing you know, it'll use face recognition to systematically profile shoppers based on other data sources and send you a text message with a custom promo automatically, all while giving store owner the aggregated analytics they need to test store layouts that might increase profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> At least Google cares for the web because of the revenue it gets from the Google search engine. Google wants everything to be a web app, while Facebook wants everything to be a Facebook app, and Microsoft wants everything to be a dot.net app.

</comment><comment><USER42> When TV was the main mass communication system you needed a single antenna or a single satellite to project to unlimited people in the projected area. While that was one-way and the internet is two-way, the internet introduced the requirement for the projector to have the infrastructure to support millions of users individually. That means the main technological reason Google and Facebook took over was that you need money to take over the internet, you can't just do it for free, and those like Wikipedia that did it in a less profitable way had to be very proficient in collecting donations.

</comment><comment><USER43> The older Web wasn't much harder to use, but it was overrun with spam and content farms and the threats of anonymous communication were far more visible.

<comment><USER4> Sure, we can argue about spam and content farms, then and now.

But what do you mean "the threats of anonymous communication were far more visible"? Threats to, or threats from?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Richard Stallman and Hideo Kojima were right.

</comment><comment><USER45> Web becoming much like the economy where there are big players who control the web and others who are shouting for equality. There is another group, largest amongst these three, almost 90% of general population, who don't bother/understand and go with the wind. With big data come into the scene, things get out of hands as these "big guns" are on a spree to collect more and more of our personal details. IOT is another thing that will surely make situation much worse, as they are meant to be our personal assistance, we are allowing them to learn our behavior and act accordingly. When we see an advertisement related to our 3days earlier search, it's not the ad that is get promoted instead we are getting sold.

</comment><comment><USER46> What about porn ? He forgot to mention the "free" porn industry.

</comment><comment><USER47> Could it be that US antitrust regulation policies and authorities, or lack thereof, are part of the problem?

Edit: not saying it is, but what about the WA deal?

</comment><comment><USER48> Google doesn't exist. There are only people who work under an umbrella termed "Google". Those people do not agree with each others on everything. So, Yes, we _can_ work with some of them. After all, wasn't Snowden 'The NSA' !?

</comment><comment><USER49> The worst part is that if you're employed, it's probably a job requirement to use at least one of these surveillance capitalism platforms.

Most people I know in tech _have to_ be on Slack. Most people I know in advertising and PR _have to_ be on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. For some jobs, like journalism, even the "troops on the ground" are required to post and tweet. Even for jobs without the social media taint, a lot of companies use corporate gmail, so now Google is way up in your business.

In 2007, you could probably just chalk it all up to poor personal choices. In 2017, I don't know if that's entirely true. We're in a situation that cries out for regulation, although that will probably not happen in the US until _after_ a calamity, since regulation is seen as one of the heads of the beast in our money religion.

edit: Slightly off-topic, but both mainstream mobile platforms have chilling surveillance and control aspects that make most of the web seem benign in comparison.

<comment><USER50> I like Slack, our team communication has never been better,

I like Facebook (messenger) because it's a common platform for all my acquaintances.

Are we forced to share anything (really) personal though?

<comment><USER51> Air conditioners using Freon cooled far more quickly than air conditioners using modern hydrofluorocarbons.

Leaded gas burns better than unleaded (this is why aviation gasoline is still leaded).

In both of those cases, we recognized that it was okay to accept a modest loss in efficiency in order to eliminate some pretty massive externalities. I think the same principle applies here. Yes, your team communication may have never been better prior to Slack. But is the marginal improvement in communication for you worth the externality of Slack, Facebook, Google, etc. harvesting all of our personal data and making it available to those who do not have our best interests in mind? I maintain that it is not. The world, as a whole, would be better off without Slack, Facebook and Google, even if some individual users would be worse off.

EDIT: changed "aviation fuel" to read "aviation gasoline"

<comment><USER52> > this is why aviation fuel is still leaded

Just in case anyone is alarmed, only Avgas is leaded. That's used in ICE / piston engines, generally installed on private aircraft and small regional airliners up to 10 seats or so. It is hoped that alternatives to leaded Avgas will be approved in 2018 or soon thereafter.

The vast, vast majority of passenger-kilometres flown each day use Avtur ( kerosene ) which is not leaded.

<comment><USER51> That's a very good point, and I've updated my comment to clarify that aviation _gasoline_ is leaded, instead aviation fuel.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Gut bacteria effect on autism disappears after re-analysis - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/metascience/can-gut-bacteria-cause-autism-in-mice-582306fd7235 <comment> xkcd-sucks Finding no effect is how you end up publishing in Medium (or Frontiers in Neuro) instead of in Nature

</comment><comment><USER2> And the pattern of "desperately searching everything except genetics for a scapegoat" continues.</comment>


Shootings will go on - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/american-exceptionalism-the-shootings-will-go-on/266293/

<comment><USER2> The article is misleading in that it only focuses on the Chinese knife attack that happened today in which no one was killed. This was a fortunate outcome because mass killings with knives have been an endemic problem in China in recent years. It usually is not reported in the US news, but the regular episodes of insane people going on murder sprees in China often cause surprisingly high death tolls given the use of knives.

The point being, the problem probably has more to do with a society in which very little is done to deal with violently insane people until they act out than the implements used in that acting out. Even in the US, the school killing with the largest death toll in the last century did not use guns.

Until the root causes are addressed, little will change.

<comment><USER3> Here are a bunch of examples of non-gun attacks on schoolkids in China that did kill people: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_\(2010%E2%80%932011\))</comment></comment>


Sonos' frantic flailing illustrates the stupidity of smart tech - <AUTHOR> https://www.extremetech.com/electronics/305263-sonos-frantic-flailing-illustrates-the-stupidity-of-smart-tech <comment><USER2> Because most "smart tech" isn't actually smart, it's regular tech that offshores processing to a networked super-computer.

The Star Trek tricorder, that can do with a handheld device what would take an entire lab, is smart tech. But that requires lots of research and wouldn't lend itself to a subscription-based or planned-obsolescence business model even if we could build it. :P

<comment><USER3> Of course it's not to Tricorder standards yet, but Apple does all fancy AI work directly on the phone/computer.

It also has downsides; for example, every new device synced to a photo library has to process the whole library from scratch (to identify photo content for searching).

<comment><USER4> Does Apple store the processing output as part of the image meta data so each device doesn't have to redo previously performed ML work? Or a shared index only accessible to client devices?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a Sonos user, it seems Sonos's key innovation has been its software and ease of use. Multi-room audio was HARD before Sonos- it could easily involve paying thousands of dollars to install low voltage wires over a house, along with installing extra controls in each room. Setting up a decent fidelity streaming audio solution was easier, but nowhere near the "plug it in and it works" capabilities of Sonos.

And that is what is getting them in trouble currently- Sonos is really a software product that is masquerading as a hardware product. People bought it expecting it be like, well, a speaker, but what they really bought was an experience more like buying a copy of Windows.

pwthornton mentioned that Sonos could becoem a SaaS company and start leasing hardware instead. I see that being a hard sell for customers, but going fully the route of being a SaaS subscription service for their coordination and streaming management services seems possible. That being said, I think they are terrified of becoming just and audio source- they currently charge $450 for the Sonos port, which basically just acts as an audio source for an existing stereo system.

<comment><USER6> Transitioning to SaaS would be difficult, but they'll probably need to figure something out. Their current situation isn't tenable. People expect them to continue updating their software for free forever.

The software they provide that makes their speakers work is the magic as you say, and it really does work better than anything else. It's certainly way better than AirPlay 2. But keeping that software working requires updates.

I don't know the best path forward, but they should at least consider the Eero+ route of selling a subscription service that provides real value that also helps them support devices long term. Eero is incentivized to continue to support my 1st-generation Eeros because I pay them $99 a year.

There is a lot of interesting stuff that they could do with a subscription service that would add value, and would also help them continue to pay for updates on older devices.

<comment><USER5> I can see a world where this ends with Spotify buying Sonos and it eventually getting called Spotify Home Audio, costing an extra $5/month.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Smart tech isn't the issue.

It's the walled garden "trust us it'll be fine & powered by magic" spiel that's the issue.

I'm flexible on the whole open source issue - not my crusade, but I do want some semblance of understanding how it works so that I know a corporate decision isn't going to take the magic blue smoke out of my devices for me.

</comment><comment><USER8> It should be mandatory by law to open-source APIs at discontinuation.

<comment><USER9> Strongly agree, and I would add that if the object in question has _any_ networking capability even the firmware should be open sourced - otherwise the first serious security vulnerability immediately makes said object unfit for purpose and - therefore - obsolete.

The stifling innovation argument is faulty anyway. If you are really innovating, then there should be no reason to fear releasing the code for something the company considers obsolete. Unless, that is, such innovation is a red herring and the new product is a mere repackaging of the same, old technology, done exclusively for the sake of artificially sustaining cash flow.

<comment><USER10> "The stifling innovation argument is faulty anyway. If you are really innovating, then there should be no reason to fear releasing the code for something the company considers obsolete."

Many products contain proprietary elements that are licensed by third-parties who have no reason to agree to their software being open-sourced. The company I work at constantly gets calls to open-source product X that they discontinued, but they can't because of the reliance on code that doesn't belong to them. And predictably enough, they're not willing to go back and renegotiate a new license for a product that they're discontinuing.

<comment><USER11> Many companies don't want to open source their code because then they have to accept liability for the provenance of the code. It's not that they are aware of improprieties in the provenance, it's just that they don't have proof there are none.

And since open sourcing it does not result in revenue, they cannot justify the cost of vetting the provenance.

A way to fix this would be to shorten patent and copyright terms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I go by a simple rule: if I can't run it open-source or at least on my own server, it better be cheap enough for me to throw away. I have plenty of closed source smart outlets but they didn't cost more than ten dollars each. I have an Amazon Echo Dot I got for eighteen dollars on prime day. There's no way I would spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on equipment I don't really control.

<comment><USER13> This. If I'm renting tech then charge me the rental rate. But don't try and ask me to buy something and then tack on a subscription at the end. I've never paid retail for Android phones. I have a drawer full of them that have reached the end life far too soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I used to be a Sonos fan. I have 7 speakers. Now I am worried when my speakers will become obsolete. I tell everyone I know to stay away and religiously post reviews saying the same thing.

After spending several thousands of dollars, I shouldn't have to feel worried that my investment will become artificially obsolete. Already I can't directly play music from my iPhone to my speakers like before, I have to use airplay which is clunky at best.

<comment><USER15> _IF_ you have a Sonos model that even supports airplay. To their defense, I think they blamed the dropping of the feature on Apple's own changes to how they could access data on the phone. Can not confirm though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The conspiracy theorist in me says there's something funky going on here.

Sonos has been in the news for the last few months, but before that I had hardly heard of them. I don't own any of their stuff and I don't have any bone in this. I just noticed that their name keeps popping up on reddit, in the news, and here on HN. Mostly it's for negative reasons.

I feel like this is part of some marketing campaign, but almost all of the news has been negative.

First I remember some articles about Sonos going to war with Amazon over something or another last October.

Then there was the controversy regarding "Recycle Mode" thing that bricks their speakers.

Then Sonos sues Google for patent infringement.

Most recently Sonos announced it would not provide software updates for legacy products, CEO apologizes, bla bla bla.

And then this article.

<comment><USER16> Just look at the amount of replies this post has. It's nuts. Today I'm seeing more shit about it on reddit. There's 500-point reply on a 30-point post meme'ing Sonos.

This is not normal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sonos was great but the more they've dicked with it over the years, the more cumbersome the interface feels, not helped by the visibility of the all-too- frequent update notifications (occasionally modal). I know some portion of those updates are for features my speakers won't even support, but at the end of the day the system seems like a less "transparent" utility in my house and now like another server that's constantly crying that it needs me to 'think' about it. "Smart tech" is best when it's transparent, not needy.

</comment><comment><USER17> We need a time synced network based audio protocol that is standard and cheaply implemented. 192.168.1.2, yeah you play rear left channel in the theater. 192.168.1.3 you're the kitchen.

<comment><USER18> [https://github.com/badaix/snapcast](https://github.com/badaix/snapcast)

Not simple enough for all consumers yet, but works flawlessly for me every day in my house.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I feel like there's potential for a DIY movement around these "smart" things that is focused around the total package, not just the software, but also the design and aesthetic of the end product. With 3D printers and off the shelf parts, that could be achievable.

</comment><comment><USER20> Advent speakers were built in an era when society valued well-built products that lasted a long time. Then Moore's law made it cheap to add software to every product. This was seen as good because it meant you could customize, upgrade, and differentiate products simply by changing software. Where things went off the rails was when MBA types realized that software (together with the Internet) could also be used to force the customer to accept a rental model rather than a purchase model for hardware, thus extracting a recurring revenue stream from him/her.

The solution is of course for customers to fight back against this bullshit. But that requires competitors who don't play this game, and _that_ requires VCs who will tolerate a healthy, slowly-growing business rather than one that grows exponentially and flames out. I hope we can return to that world someday.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'll save everybody the trouble:

Curmudgeon likes his 50 year old speaker more than that new fangled tech stuff. Then rants about tech being in our lives too much. (I could only skim it as so boring and repetitive - already read this story too 1000 times).

Smart tech has issues around support, but it is so damn useful. I thought little of it until I started moving everything to it. It also has a network effect - the more you add the more useful it gets.

When I walk away from my building my the thermostat goes down, door deadbolts, lights go down, music and TV all go off etc. Pry it from my cold dead hands.

<comment><USER22> I think the take-away is that speaker technology is largely unchanged from the 70s. Sure, magnets are better, digital processing is better, and for sure, online services are better. But don't try to stuff all that into one box, for one fixed price. I've got 90s speakers, with a $100 hifi-berry, and Roon, and they sound way better than Sonos.

Microservices vs Monoliths. Don't put speaker, amplifiers, processor and wifi all in one box.

Put the slow-changing stuff (speakers, amplifier) over here and pay once for it. Put the fast-changing stuff (pandora! spotify! Tidal!) over here, and pay a subscription for it. I pay for Tidal and Roon. Tidal for content, Roon for updating software as iOS updates, linux updates, and SPDIF drivers need updating. As long as Roon supports SPDIF, I'm good.

<comment><USER23> Spot on take. Having a completely self-contained smart device has advantages in narrow cases, like portability. Otherwise, if you're doing home audio, there's no good reason to have in all in one box. Make the system modular and thus flexibily upgradable.

<comment><USER6> This is just false.

Any solution that requires receiver/amp/combo and wires is going to be limited where you can deploy it.

Before wireless audio like Sonos, most people have a stereo in one room in the house. Now many people have speakers in almost every room in the house.

I got rid of my Onkyo receiver and JBL studio series to go with Sonos because it is a better listening experience in the real-world. Audio being synced across your house is the real deal.

<comment><USER24> Having scattered several of the ikea sonos-compatible speakers around my house, I appreciate that perspective.

But I _am_ a little concerned that when I move to the new iDroid Megapixel XXXL 3000 in late 2025, I'll have to replace them all if I want to be able to send audio from my phone to the speakers.

When having the sync across the whole house is the main reason you like the setup, it's even more galling to need to replace them all. I wish (and will be watching to see if they do, before I add any more speakers to their system) they'd come up with an upgrade path.

It'd seem like a smart thing for them to do. Surely they could come up with some kind of bridge gadget you could connect to your network between the old and new for the cost of about one speaker. That'd spare them having people angrily leave their ecosystem because, if you need to do 5 rooms at once anyway, you might as well shop around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wrote an impassioned plea to them as a user with a pretty major investment in Sonos (say why you like, we love the system) and as a shareholder, expressing my disappointment with recent moves.

This is the response I got from them. Note: I did not accuse them of bricking my devices. Also note: they are promising the gradual degradation of my experience. There is no commitment to support, nor willingness to open source or find other remedies (or even pay them for continued support, which I offered in my letter).

Of last note: we have decided to dump Sonos permanently and will actively avoid doing business with the company again. It's a fairly tone-deaf response unfortunately.

Curious if others are as unhappy as we are? We are just disappointed.

Anyways, the response:

Thank you for contacting Sonos Customer Care. I understand your frustration with the end of software updates announcement. Please know that we in no way mean to render your system inoperable or brick the devices. The trade-up program you mentioned bricking units is entirely voluntary and a multi-step process to ensure it is not mistakenly activated on the system.

Your devices are not being end-of-lifed by any means; they are simply not receiving new update information beyond a certain version. This is due to the available memory and processing power available in our legacy line of devices. This is specifically what separates them from modern and legacy. The Legacy devices have hit a point where in order to keep allowing new features; we would have to remove old features because there is simply no room left to store the new data for newer technologies or changes in outdated technologies no longer used by our partners. It is similar to having all seats on a plane full and telling someone already boarded that they need to get off. To keep your system functioning as it stands; we need to halt the progression of the software.

Once the change is made, your Sonos system will no longer receive regular updates, so your experience will initially remain the same. However, the functionality of features and services will be impacted as technology evolves over time. The thing to worry about once this takes place is the third party services and partners offered through our platform. Using Spotify as an example; if they change something in the way Sonos accesses their service then your System not receiving new updates will not be able to accommodate this.

However, since this won't be in effect until May of 2020; we are still working on figuring out workarounds and things of that nature for all of our customers who will possibly be affected by this change. Just keep an eye out on alerts from us. Once we do have that information, we will gladly share that with you.

More information here: [https://support.sonos.com/s/article/4786](https://support.sonos.com/s/article/4786) [https://support.sonos.com/s/article/4798](https://support.sonos.com/s/article/4798)

Our commitment is to support products with software updates for a minimum of five years after we stop selling them, and we have a track record of supporting for longer.

The Trade-Up eligible devices all have newer counterparts that allow the old connection types while also integrating new features. The best example of this is the Sonos Connect:AMP and AMP devices; the Connect:AMP was not designed with Home Theater in mind where the AMP has an input for a TV source without removing any of the existing connection options that the Connect:AMP had; while also integrating the airplay functionality into the device and system.

<comment><USER6> If you are really upset, contact their CEO. I find that he responds and is much more thoughtful than your typical customer service rep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Technological limits my fucking ass. Sonos is lying through their teeth and the author believes them. And who cares about updates? I bought sonos because they can play the music collection on my nas, are wireless, and sound great. I could shut off their internet access and they'd still work just fine. As far as what features sonos is adding that would require updates... none. No useful ones anyway. The eq is still two band. It still plays music. Maybe a new service here or there that no one cares about. I'm only talking about speakers of course. Their surveillance devices I have no interest in.

<comment><USER6> Every Sonos speaker is a networked device. They need continuous security updates at a minimum.

<comment><USER26> If they're not Internet connected, they don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Glad I didn't buy into the Sonos ecosystem a few years back when I was looking for multi-room audio solutions. I've found that it's much more fun and rewarding building systems for each room than rolling out the same generic solution everywhere.

There's a lot to play with in a HiFi that you just don't get exposed to with an off-the-shelf system like Sonos.

</comment><comment><USER28> Planned obsolescence when technological progress comes in large leaps seems more forgivable, than when the technology improvements are quite small.

Also integrating parts that have widely different reasonable life spans into inseparable, non-repairable, non-upgradeable units is not responsible waste management.

And that's what's turning some of us into cranky luddites.

</comment><comment><USER6> There are a few issues here, and people are overly harsh on Sonos. They have just about the best update support in tech. Some of these devices have been around since 2005. They have been providing longer-term support than Apple has for their iPhones, for instance, which in turn is much better than you get from Android.

Updates cost money, and Niley Patel speculates that Sonos is losing money on older devices with all of the updates they have been providing. But the devices still work, which is a testament to their build quality. Sonos needs to figure out a solution.

There are some solutions:

1) I don't know how separated and abstracted their development process is, but, ideally, they would be able to continue to provide security updates, even if older devices don't get anything beyond that. But how many years should they do? 10? 20?

2) Sonos could sell extended support for devices that people have owned after X amount of years. Even charging $19.99 a year for a household would probably put this back in the black. If people are going to use Sonos products for 10-20 years and often have expensive and complicated setups, they should figure out some long-term support.

3) Sonos could start to become a SaaS company and largely lease their speakers. Microsoft is starting to do this with the Xbox, and it is a way around this issue. As hardware gets too old, Sonos would replace it with newer hardware. There is a reason that more and more software is subscription-based.

3) Sonos could come up with a premium subscription offering that bundles in long-term support. Eero has Eero+, which I find to be a good product, and it's how they get into the black on hardware sales.

I'm working on a longer write up about this for Medium, but this isn't as easy of an issue to solve as many make it out to be. Providing infinite support for networked-based devices will eventually put you out of business. Sonos is the one dealing with this because they have been selling these speakers the longest, and they have people who are able to use their devices for a long time.

One issue I think they are running into is that they used to update products pretty infrequently. They didn't even do small step updates to keep the CPU and networking equipment updated. This is particularly an issue with the 1st gen Play 5 that they sold for about a decade.

People who bought a Play 5 15 years ago should not continue to expect support. People who bought one five years ago should. They have the same exact internals.

That was a mistake, and they should make sure they are upgrading the internals in every device every three years or so. Had Sonos been doing this, they would be talking about far fewer products.

Sonos has devices that range from 32 GBs of ram to 1024 GBs. The delta in their older stuff and their newer stuff in terms of tech is huge. This strategy is on their old CEO, and their new CEO believes Sonos has to update their stuff more often. It's probably going to take a few years for the update cadence to sort itself out, but in the meantime, they are kind of in a quagmire.

<comment><USER29> No. I don't expect my Sonos system from 2006 to ever do any more than it does now. It works fine. There's no "technological limit" involved. It's just stereo audio, not 4K 3D VR — how much power do you need?

(edit) So the (new) Sonos position of basically "OK, we'll keep the hackers out, just don't expect us to support the new streaming service released in 2022" seems fine for both sides.

<comment><USER6> Do you expect security updates and updates to keep 3rd party services working to happen in perpetuity?

<comment><USER29> Well, certainly more than five years (see below) — that's nuts for a device that costs several hundred dollars. And I would distinguish between security updates, keeping existing functions working, and adding new functions (in increasing order of length of "support").

<comment><USER6> My opinion is that they should provide 10 years of security and other similar updates for free.

They largely have been doing this, but their decision to keep the original Play 5 on sale for so long means that some people may have bought it within the last five years, despite being a really old device.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985) - <AUTHOR> http://reprints.longform.org/playboy-interview-steve-jobs <comment><USER2> > Jobs: Computers are actually pretty simple. We're sitting here on a bench in > this café [for this part of the Interview]. Let's assume that you understood > only the most rudimentary of directions and you asked how to find the rest > room. I would have to describe it to you in very specific and precise > instructions. I might say, "Scoot sideways two meters off the bench. Stand > erect. Lift left foot. Bend left knee until it is horizontal. Extend left > foot and shift weight 300 centimeters forward…" and on and on. If you could > interpret all those instructions 100 times faster than any other person in > this café, you would appear to be a magician: You could run over and grab a > milk shake and bring it back and set it on the table and snap your fingers, > and I'd think you made the milk shake appear, because it was so fast > relative to my perception. That's exactly what a computer does. It takes > these very, very simple-minded instructions—"Go fetch a number, add it to > this number, put the result there, perceive if it's greater than this other > number"—but executes them at a rate of, let's say, 1,000,000 per second. At > 1,000,000 per second, the results appear to be magic.

Wow, I don't know why but this explanation blows me away. So simple and yet so accurate.

<comment><USER3> I don't know, should it be special to be able to explain things? I think it should actually be normal

<comment><USER4> Most people are actually pretty bad at explaining things in a clear, concise, helpful way, very often especially people well-versed in the field they are trying to explain. Communicating complex concepts to non-experts is indeed a fairly rare skill.

<comment><USER5> > pretty bad at explaining things

I find this difficult to believe. An innate ability of humans is to teach others - evolution has selected for it, because humans need to be taught, as their living skills are not innate.

<comment><USER6> I don't see how the ability to teach others would be an evolved ability. Learning from others, yes. But teaching others is a different skill than learning.

<comment><USER5> For an obvious, everyday example, parents teach their children a heluva lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 1984, pre-internet! Or at least pre WWW and big internet

>Playboy: Those are arguments for computers in business and in schools, but what about the home?

...

This will change: Computers will be essential in most homes.

Playboy: What will change?

Jobs: The most compelling reason for most people to buy a computer for the home will be to link it into a nationwide communications network. We're just in the beginning stages of what will be a truly remarkable breakthrough for most people—as remarkable as the telephone . Playboy: Specifically, what kind of breakthrough are you talking about?

Jobs: I can only begin to speculate. We see that a lot in our industry: You don't know exactly what's going to result, but you know it's something very big and very good.

<comment><USER8> > reason for most people to buy a computer for the home will be to link it > into a nationwide communications network.

It's difficult to avoid the comparison with Bill Gate's book "the road ahead" published a decade later, that first neglected and then had to be revised in hardback edition to include the internet.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead_(Bill_Gates_boo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead_\(Bill_Gates_book\))

<comment><USER9> Microsoft was utilizing the Internet for business by the mid 1980s, they weren't oblivious to it. Gates viewed there as being two approaches that might win, one he preferred to call the Information Superhighway (basically closed platforms over high-speed cable), and the other being the Internet. He thought the Internet would lose because of how slow it was in the early days, and it was very mediocre at video and interaction initially. Gates and Microsoft were fully aware of the coming value in networking up systems, the only debate was what form that would take, not whether it would be a big deal.

<comment><USER8> I remember when the tcp stack for Windows 3x was a third party application. [https://thanksfortrumpetwinsock.com/](https://thanksfortrumpetwinsock.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Beautiful interview. Love him or hate him, you have to respect him.

I loved this passage:

Playboy: Do you know what you want to do with the rest of this lifetime?

Jobs: There's an old Hindu saying that comes into my mind occasionally: "For the first 30 years of your life, you make your habits. For the last 30 years of your life, your habits make you." As I'm going to be 30 in February, the thought has crossed my mind.

Playboy: And?

Jobs:

And I'm not sure. I'll always stay connected with Apple. I hope that throughout my life I'll sort of have the thread of my life and the thread of Apple weave in and out of each other, like a tapestry. There may be a few years when I'm not there, but I'll always come back. And that's what I may try to do. The key thing to remember about me is that I'm still a student. I'm still in boot camp. If anyone is reading any of my thoughts, I'd keep that in mind. Don't take it all too seriously. If you want to live your life in a creative way, as an artist, you have to not look back too much. You have to be willing to take whatever you've done and whoever you were and throw them away. What are we, anyway? Most of what we think we are is just a collection of likes and dislikes, habits, patterns. At the core of what we are is our values, and what decisions and actions we make reflect those values. That is why it's hard doing interviews and being visible: As you are growing and changing, the more the outside world tries to reinforce an image of you that it thinks you are, the harder it is to continue to be an artist, which is why a lot of times, artists have to go, "Bye. I have to go. I'm going crazy and I'm getting out of here." And they go and hibernate somewhere. Maybe later they re-emerge a little differently.

<comment><USER11> > For the first 30 years of your life, you make your habits. For the last 30 > years of your life, your habits make you.

So if you live longer than 60, I wonder that means of those years in-between, after age 30.

<comment><USER12> Trying to undo the damage of the first 30 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >Playboy: And in the meantime?

>Jobs: The developments will be in making the products more and more portable... maybe the merging of the telephone and the personal computer.

Hard to believe this was 1984, it almost sounded like the original iPhone was 20+ years in baking

<comment><USER14> Depends on how much one read into the whole "merging" thing.

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say...

<comment><USER15> Especially since not "telephone" and "computer" implied non-portability at the time. A pretty prescient statement even so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> My first computer science lecture in 1979 was on digital convergence and my lecturer said there, it was actually to all intents and purposes already over, we were just living through a long tail transition. He put it back to 1962 and telstar, although doubtless you could push back further.

So if you want to say Jobs was 'visionary' in '85, remember he had 6 years of lead time, if all he did was pay attention to what was being said in academia about ubiquitous networks.

The mouse was demo'd in 1968 at the mother by Engelbart. So Again, Jobs was really just doing a good sell job on something we had pretty deep long insight into.

Respect is due, but lets temper it. Standing on the shoulders of giants is for physics. In computer science we stand on each others toes..

<comment><AUTHOR> Except that no one was building the future the way Jobs did. Having the idea for something is only part of the battle, actually implementing it in a usable fashion is the most important part of it.

If you look at the Xerox Alto, and the Macintosh, it's amazing how much more advanced the Macintosh was at UI and how much easier to use it was, and how much less expensive it was (Jobs actually supposedly helped design the Mac mouse, which was really good and super cheap).

<comment><USER16> I think this is true. He was a master at removing things to get the essential core, but sometimes it felt over-remorselessly. the one-button thing. A good example of cheap and works: I'm told the floppy disk controller on the apple II or III was a finite state machine implemented by gate logic and two PROM memories. I used a lisa in its year of release and the difference between a lisa and what emerged as that generation of mac was pretty high, but the core? much the same. Appletalk on twisted pair? no addresses but zeroconf: every device named itself. That was smart.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm amazed at how mature he sounds in this interview at age 29, like far more direct, honest, confident and smart than say, Zuckerberg. He was very prescient and when wrong (he didn't anticipate the clone makers, saying there wouldn't be another $200M+ PC company) it was an area he really didn't care to be involved in.

<comment><USER17> Compared to Zuckerberg, sure. But 29 is hardly that young to be this articulate and wise. I feel like sentiments like this is much more about hero worship than a statement about how unusually well spoken he his compared to most people his age.

<comment><USER18> Well, it's not meaningful to compare Jobs to Zuck in any way than that they were founders of large, powerful companies.

I think the more interesting things is that Jobs embodies what Apple did best: being able to explain/present technology in a very understandable way. I felt that he didn't make you come to him, he brought it to you.

He was very intelligent, confident and opinionated. But what made him great was his salesmanship combined with the above. I have yet to see/hear another tech CEO/founder that made as much sense as Jobs for the things he cared about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > [the information] revolution will dwarf the petrochemical revolution.

I remember people thinking this was a crazy idea, but his forecast was largely correct:

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?source=frontpage- immediat...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?source=frontpage-immediate- access&i=appl+vs+xom+market+cap)

<comment><USER20> The petrochemical revolution is more than the market cap of an oil company. The petrochemical revolution guides the way we've built our cities for the past 100+ years, how we ship our goods and how we travel the world. The entire transport system - cars, trucks, ships, planes - almost all petrochemical. And the negative side too. Vast fields of tarmac (petrochemical) parking lots (petrochemical) for strip malls. Urban sprawl. Well over a million people killed on roads every year. Millions more affected by chemical byproducts. Acid rain. Global warming.

Computers are only getting started. They'll get there eventually though; computers are to the brain what engines are to the body.

<comment><USER21> > The petrochemical revolution guides the way we've

 _conducted foreign policy_ should have received top billing. Unless you were intentionally excluding items not in both sets.

<comment><USER20> Petrochemicals also enabled mechanized warfare. That's a bigger impact on killing power than any squabbles in the Middle East. I expect deaths in Levantine squabbles are also dwarfed by road accidents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've seen this a bunch of times on hn.

Each time I read a little more and notice/learn something new.

I'll be the first to point out his flaws, but goddam Steve Jobs was a smart guy. It amazes how much he knew exactly what he was doing.

</comment><comment><USER23> 2014 comment thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8316559](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8316559)

(Also, previous postings from 2010 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4619869](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4619869) and 2012 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4619869](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4619869) with a single comment each.)

</comment><comment><USER24> Beautiful interview. I forgot how young, bombastic and intellectual Jobs was when he started Apple.

> _The most compelling reason for most people to buy a computer for the home > will be to link it into a nationwide communications network. We're just in > the beginning stages of what will be a truly remarkable breakthrough for > most people—as remarkable as the telephone._

The last bit made me laugh out loud. It's technically true (!) and probably the iPhone was far more disruptive than personal computers.

</comment><comment><USER25> > You know, Dr. Edwin Land was a troublemaker. He dropped out of Harvard and > founded Polaroid. Not only was he one of the great inventors of our time > but, more important, he saw the intersection of art and science and business > and built an organization to reflect that. Polaroid did that for some years, > but eventually Dr. Land, one of those brilliant troublemakers, was asked to > leave his own company—which is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. > So Land, at 75, went off to spend the remainder of his life doing pure > science, trying to crack the code of color vision. The man is a national > treasure. I don't understand why people like that can't be held up as > models: This is the most incredible thing to be—not an astronaut, not a > football player—but this.

Wow. Little did he know it would happen to himself not long after.

</comment><comment><USER26> "People talked about putting a telegraph on every desk in America to improve productivity. But it wouldn't have worked. It required that people learn this whole sequence of strange incantations, Morse code, dots and dashes, to use the telegraph. It took about 40 hours to learn. The majority of people would never learn how to use it." He is probably right. And yet, how tragic. Forty hours is not that long. Imagine that the telephone hadn't been invented. Would we still today be living in a society where people went to the telegraph office to send telegraphs but basically no one could telegraph themselves?

</comment><comment><USER27> > Jobs: [...] there's been virtually zero innovation since IBM got dominant > control of that market place 15 years ago. They are going to do the same > thing in every other sector of the computer market place if they can get > away with it. The IBM PC fundamentally brought no new technology to the > industry at all. It was just repackaging and slight extension of Apple II > technology, and they want it all. They absolutely want it all.

> This market place is coming down to the two of us, whether we like it or > not. I don't particularly like it, but it's coming down to Apple and IBM.

> [...]

> Playboy: It's not all competition [...]: You buy your disk drives from Sony, > for instance.

> Jobs: We buy many of our components from [...]. We save a ton of energy not > having to make and design floppy-disk drives or microprocessors that we can > spend on software.

So, nowadays Apple is the new IBM and "needs" serious competition...

</comment><comment><USER28> >Playboy: One of the experts in the field says that for this industry to really flourish, and for it to benefit the consumer, one standard has to prevail.

>Jobs: That's simply untrue.

This is a little funny given the walled garden he oversaw the creation of (It seemed like it was intended to improve chances of success by implementing a single standard for an ecosystem), but I'm excluding some context and just poking some fun. Overall it was a good read - he had some excellent foresight about computing and the culture around it. Very cool.

<comment><USER24> It's interesting that the Japanese never really did their own personal computers, as Jobs supposed. He was probably right though, computers are a different beast to things like the stereo, because it's always changing a la Moore's Law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Jobs definitely saw the bigger picture: computers must be tools for everybody, not just technical people. The work that was done by Xerox PARC, Apple, Microsoft, Google and countless others over the years to make complex tools usable by everybody is simply phenomenal.

I don't think this would have been possible elsewhere on Earth. There was a unique combination of people, places, events and things that allowed all of these innovations to flourish.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've always thought the Steve Jobs Playboy Interview was a PR coup for Apple (and, in retrospect, Playboy). I suspect Regis McKenna had a hand in both the questions and the answers. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regis_McKenna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regis_McKenna))

</comment><comment><USER31> As someone who grew up in the era of PC clones, it's interesting to me to see so much of the interview focus on the IBM vs. Apple angle. Apple was a non- factor in the 90s and IBM didn't have a very strong presence in the consumer market, at least not more than Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc.

<comment><USER32> Other than the Commodore 64 that was entry level and about to crash, the winners of the first half of the 80s were IBM then Apple: [https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total- share/4/](https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/4/) (Scroll to bottom for graph.)

The Amiga should have been a factor by '85, if there was parental supervision over there. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Dude is 29 years old and already this timeless bullshit that in my day kids were idealistic and now they just care about money. (Although, maybe there are fluctuations about the mean and 1985 was an extreme.)

</comment><comment><USER33> Prior discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8316559](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8316559)

</comment><comment><USER34> Anyone knows why the "The Playboy Interview: Moguls" (kindle) ebook seems to be no longer available at amazon?

</comment><comment><USER35> Someone has to say it: So, there are really people reading the interviews!

</comment><comment><USER36> Without the influence of LSD I don't think you would have gotten the Mac. You would have gotten Guis inspired by Xerox park but the whole vision of the computer as a work of art and a device to make art that was tied into Jobs inspirations from his psychedelic experiences.</comment>