Classy: Expressive, flexible, and powerful stylesheets for native iOS apps - <AUTHOR> http://classy.as/

<comment><USER2> This seems like one of those things that should've existed from the very start.

<comment><USER3> It's certainly cool, but it is kind of opposite to the whole idea of having Interface Builder in the first place.

<comment><USER4> Not really. It would be awesome if iOS had a system like this (or similar to Android's style engine) and it were reflected within IB.

As it is I setup all my UIAppearance proxies in code and things look weird in IB (which confuses my designers until I actually show them the running application).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It would be great to have a comparison with Pixate.

</comment><comment><USER6> It would be nice to have a demo or screenshots.</comment>


Firefox flaws account for 44% of all browser bugs - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140582/Firefox_flaws_account_for_44_of_all_browser_bugs

<comment><USER2> I think a better measure of this would be to count the total number of days exploits are 'open'.

So, if there are three exploits, one is patched after 48 hours, the second in 24 and one in a week that should count as 10 bug days.

Then do the same for all browsers.

<comment><USER3> While I agree that that's probably a good measure, I don't think it's feasible. Many exploits are reported privately to the company first, so they have time to fix them. After the fact reporting by the company would create an incentive to underestimate the amount of time it took. Finding the reporters may be hard, and even if they are inclined to comment on when they found it, you can't really trust them, since their incentives aren't clear either. They may love the browser, or hate it...

<comment><USER2> The person that discovered the bug originally would be the authority, not the company.

<comment><USER3> Yes, but that has problems too, as I pointed out in my previous post:

 _> Finding the reporters may be hard, and even if they are inclined to comment on when they found it, you can't really trust them, since their incentives aren't clear either. They may love the browser, or hate it..._

<comment><USER2> That's a technical problem, nothing more. At the moment of sending off the message to the company you could post your message digest to a secure server somewhere.

<comment><USER3> Only if the reporter wants to go through hoops like that. The more work it is, the less likely they are to want to do that. That's especially so since there's no advantage for them in doing so...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is this an article from The Onion? I am trying to come up with a cute little one-liner that equals the "roll-eyes" level of this article, but nothing compares.

</comment><comment><USER5> There's really not much information either in the article, or in the PDF it's summarizing. I mean yes, the count is higher, but why? They also say that the number of 'safari' bugs has skyrocketed because of vulnerabilities found in the iPhone version- does this mean they're double counting webkit problems, or are there actually unique vulnerabilities in the iPhone specific libraries?

In any case, that's not a security report so much as it is a long form advertisement for Cenzic, whoever they are.

</comment><comment><USER6> [http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/news/sec/blog/fir...](http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/news/sec/blog/firefox- tops-cenzics-vulnerability-list/?cs=37341)

</comment><comment><USER7> >Firefox accounted for 44% of all browser bugs _reported_ in the first half of the year.

And what about the ones that closed source IE and Opera didn't report?

</comment><comment><USER8> It's not unexpected: \- more releases \- open source code

exploits and bugs are easier to find. It doesn't really say much about the safety of FireFox (provided your up to date :))

With all that said it _does_ raise a few questions about Mozilla's code auditing and security procedures. Surely this is something they should take note of to increase the amount of time spent testing new and old code in releases.

</comment><comment><USER9> Hey, wait! Where's the "Market Share" argument when you need it (and it works against IE)?

Doesn't Doctrine and Dogma inform us that a larger share of the flaws just mean a larger market share? I mean, I hear that all the time about Windows incarnations.

</comment><comment><USER10> I like using _two_ browsers - one of them with just HTML (and CSS, no plugins, no javascript and cookies turned off), for general reading, search and scouting.

A good portion of the web is still readable, usually the better part, and works much faster. Make image loading optional for extra speed. It's amusing how some sites fire volleys of 6 or 7 cookies at you (if you choose notifications about that). And some even manage to be annoying with just CSS and images.

</comment><comment><USER11> well you want "release early, release often", then you live with bugs

clearly ff should pay more attention to quality, but i don't want to go to an IE-like model of only updating the browser every 2.5 years...its likely this lagged release model coupled with microsoft's closed source that also results in fewer bug reports

opera in last is no shock, no one uses it

no one should be surprised that the two browsers with the most releases, access to source and the shortest development cycles have the most bugs...they also have the most features

<comment><USER12> >opera in last is no shock, no one uses it

Ahem, _I_ use it. I'm actually surprised the count's so low, since I have minor but consistent issues with sites such as Facebook. Or perhaps those sorts of bugs aren't included (and I suppose it might be Facebook's fault, since O10 does pass Acid3).

<comment><USER13> They only counted security problems, not bugs in the implementation of html, css and so on. Otherwise IE would be the worst offender by a wide margin.

p.s.: I use Opera too and the browser market is an amusing market. It is a market where you can have about 3% of 1.7 billion internet users and people still say "no one" is using your software.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> You can also read directly at microsoft.com to get a fair and unbiased information about web browsers.

Is there aren't Google Chrome around?

</comment><comment><USER15> Who reads ComputerWorld, seriously?</comment>


Stacks of Urns in Wuhan Prompt New Questions of Virus's Toll - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-27/stacks-of-urns-in-wuhan-prompt-new-questions-of-virus-s-toll <comment><USER2> A lot of the modelling was and still is based around Wuhan. If China has lied it has cost us lives.

It's important to know what happened, using funeral homes for data is not uncommon. It's how the 2003 European heat wave was uncovered.

<comment><USER3> Ah no from what I have read the information and warnings were given by the intelligence community but were ignored. A country ruthlessly quarantined a city of 20 million. At the same time it stopped movement of people inside the whole country. Western countries ignored it Asian countries did not and were faster to put restrictions. Now politicians in the west are trying to use China to deflect from the fact that they were caught with their pants down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was accidentally following coronavirus from its absolute infancy because of some strange subreddits I follow (r/n_n_n). I became f r e a k e d out about this thing and how it destroyed the way of life in Wuhan.

I tried to warn my friends and family to prepare and take this seriously by writing:

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TOQezig4-wV6Hhl5e5Ub_D01...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TOQezig4-wV6Hhl5e5Ub_D01w5MXQHgt9gllph- DwKI/edit?usp=sharing)

In it I had a section on why I thought the numbers emerging from Wuhan were not accurate, which read:

...

On top of this have been the extremely grim videos coming out of China showing bodies piling up. It is not easy for people to get damaging information about China out beyond its 'Firewall', so it is my personal view that these videos are the tip of the iceberg.

You will not enjoy clicking on these links, but you can if you want to see some of the reality where there has been outbreaks:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/N_N_N/comments/ezjpcc/more_video_of...](https://www.reddit.com/r/N_N_N/comments/ezjpcc/more_video_of_bodies_being_tak) en_from_private/ \- 20 days [this was written on 27th Feb, so 20 days ago means 7th Feb]

[https://www.reddit.com/r/N_N_N/comments/eyuz5z/lots_of_bodie...](https://www.reddit.com/r/N_N_N/comments/eyuz5z/lots_of_bodies_here_2_kill_perce) ntage_is_bs/ \- 22 days

[https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/04/whistleblower-arrested- reveal...](https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/04/whistleblower-arrested-revealing- many-bodies-wuhan) -12179637/?ito=newsnow-feed - 22 days

[https://www.reddit.com/r/N_N_N/comments/exph1z/two_at_the_sa...](https://www.reddit.com/r/N_N_N/comments/exph1z/two_at_the_same_time_unknow) n_locationtime/ \- 24 days ago

[https://www.reddit.com/r/N_N_N/comments/ex3k7p/what_exactly_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/N_N_N/comments/ex3k7p/what_exactly_is_going_on_here_) unknown_location/ \- 25 days

In these videos there are probably a total of 15-25 bodies, and there are a lot more of these videos doing the rounds. As you can see these videos are from between 20 and 25 days ago. At that time there were 400 and 900 registered deaths associated with the disease. It is unlikely beyond the extreme that ~ (20/900) 2.2% of all deaths were being recorded on camera and making it beyond the great firewall. To me this is a big indicator that the real figures are much higher.

<comment><USER5> given the fact there were 400 to 900, I wouldn't be surprised at any of those videos. have I missed something?

<comment><USER4> That the likelihood of seeing a minimum of 2% of deaths surface on the internet at once from one of the most secretive regimes out there with a lock on the internet is low. It implies that there were >>>> 400-900 deaths at the time and the 'escape rate' of images/videos was lower (which is more in line with a secretive regime)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can explain some of the discrepancy without China actually lying. They always said the official numbers were for people diagnosed of COVID who then died but it was no secret that the testing services couldn't keep up and many people died at home without official testing.

<comment><USER7> If China stayed on the curve the USA is currently on, they would now need about 1.5M urns. The article mentions stacks of 3,500.

To put 3,500 into perspective, article says there are 56,000 cremations per year in Wuhan alone. That's 4,700 a month. Every normal year 9M people die in China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm I the only one who notices a strong pattern of "China is failing, based on this sketchy evidence we got" type articles in American media.

I say this as someone who is neither Chinese or American. But I just notice the eagerness of western media to portray chinas doom and incompetence.

Don't get me wrong, China's attacks on free speech and persecution of muslims is a terrible terrible thing, but I get the feeling that they are managing the outbreak and the economy far more effectively than their western counterparts.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure western media is eager to portray China's doom, but i do think they tend to blow stories out of proportion.

On this topic: when a city of 10 million people has been locked down for 2 months, even with no coronavirus at all they'd be backed up with 10000+ bodies, so it's not surprising to see a bunch of urns.

On a more general note, i think western media does tend to run with not particularly well-sourced China stories. That includes both stories like this one that could be interpreted negatively, but it also includes reprinting unvetted party propaganda.

The problem is that the CPC does not allow very many western journalists into China, and the ones it does allow it doesn't give the same kind of freedom of movement and freedom to report on things that we have come to expect in the west. So, as a result, the news that makes it out is often fairly flimsy and suggestive rather than heavily researched. This is deliberate - it's how the CPC can keep control of the narrative. As someone who lives here, it's extremely frustrating, because it's impossible to really know what's going on anywhere except right outside my front door.

No urns outside my front door, btw.

<comment><USER9> > I'm not sure western media is eager to portray China's doom

Then you definitely don't know how the world functions. There are allocated funds exactly with this purposes. There are the whole groups of people whose main agenda and work description is doing exactly that. But it will be often wrapped in some different wording like "responding to the propaganda" or something, even if the "response" is actual new propaganda being created and then published in the most media.

<comment><USER10> Could you elaborate on who some of these groups are?

<comment><USER9> There are many aspects of this, and what can be presently proven is always an extremely small tip of the iceberg. I've read a lot of different historical accounts and it is practically a given that all these mechanisms or even institutions and practices which existed up to recently aren't magically dismantled in the present moment. For the start, read about the practice of "embedding" journalists or about:

[https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals- propaganda-...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda- ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/)

Then consider (if you are old enough) about what the public perception of such coverage was, at the given point of time. Basically, with enough distance in time, we can easily read about the huge distortions, and just shrug and say "yes it was so" but somehow too many people assume that the present moment is somehow, by some magic, "clean."

My favorite example is the

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

"a 2003 briefing document for the British prime minister Tony Blair's Labour Party government. It was issued to journalists on 3 February 2003 by Alastair Campbell, Blair's Director of Communications and Strategy, and concerned Iraq and weapons of mass destruction."

An apparent "proof" turned out to be "plagiarised from various unattributed sources including a 13-year-old thesis produced by a student at California State University."

If something that obvious (after the fact) was used as a proof for many nations to go to war, and readily repeated by all the media, what do you expect from the rest of the coverage? I personally remember the coverage from that times, it was considered "patriotic" to not even try to point to the better verified facts.

Being surprised about the fact that the direct agendas are behind most of the "news" production is just like being surprised that "there are exactly that much important news in the world per day to fit the front page of the newspaper."

Regarding "embedding" I remember reading different articles about the journalists and editors being directly enlisted by some agencies to "independently" provide "patriotic" coverage, even while operating in the mainland, not in some foreign war zones. Maybe somebody saved some such link, I haven't, and Google is not helping me.

The current state is not different, to paraphrase James Mickens, even now these players could without problem claim "we are not doing this" while at the same time wearing the t-shirts "we are totally doing this" and... only the first part will be in the titles.

<comment><USER8> Certainly there are plenty of institutions hoping to influence the media to report stories in a particular way. However, that fact doesn't address the suggestion of the original poster, which was that the media as a whole is deliberately trying to find stories of Chinese doom and gloom. I don't think that's true.

Putting aside the fact that in countries with a free press it's hard to ascribe any one outlook to the media as a whole, my feeling is that most media organizations do honestly hope to inform their readers. But there is lots of information out there, and there are editorial decisions to be made around what makes the cut or how deep to dig on a story. There is no objective way to make those decisions, although presumably the interests of the readers are considered.

Of course, it's no big secret that editors and reporters are biased, or that they can be influenced. Fortunately in countries where there is freedom of speech, people have the freedom to report on that too.

The thing about China specifically is that people in other countries are hungry for information on China because it is a rising global superpower. So it makes sense that the media wants to jump on any China story they can get. Unfortunately, due to the circumstances i mentioned before, good stories on China are thin on the ground. As a result i think there is probably too much hearsay and propaganda (from whatever side) seeping into the reporting. I don't think that's deliberate on the media's behalf, i think it's more just a result of them being hobbled by a regime that is actively hostile to press freedom.

<comment><USER9> > I don't think that's deliberate on the media's behalf

And I'm sure it is deliberate. Like I've said, not only the editors deliberately select the news, what will be covered and how it will be covered, there are agencies producing the news that the media "just covers" but having established preferences of how the coverage is supposed to be.

I was also ignorant about the phenomenon until I was directly in the location being covered. Then I've discovered that it is known that "the news are correct, except about the stuff I'm being directly involved with."

I'm just reading the front page of one local newspaper of one European country which spends almost no ink on coronavirus topic (and I know more than one president or prime minister was also doing the same until only a few days ago). Even avoiding to mention some facts is an editorial policy. In the cases of misinformation about China, repeating unproven information or even giving it any attention at all, and especially using that for titles is as a deliberate act as any other is.

There's nothing "accidental" there.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


VGA has 5 years, long live digital - <AUTHOR> http://www.technewsworld.com/story/VGA-Given-5-Years-to-Live-71420.html?wlc=1292225167

<comment><USER2> "The chip makers favor DisplayPort 1.2 for PC monitors and HDMI 1.4a for connectivity to TV screens."

Why is this explicit distinction between monitors and TV sets?

</comment><comment><USER3> I didn't notice any mention of DRM in the article. I know that HDMI can be more DRM-friendly than VGA. Ditto DisplayPort.</comment>


A note on our lawsuit against Otto and Uber - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-and-uber-86f4f98902a1 <comment><USER2> Another note on the Lawsuit: Levandowski isn't a layman when it comes to Lidar. Between Darpa and beginning his tenure at Google he founded 510 systems, a little known lidar company that was fundamental to Google's mapping and autonomy efforts, which was quietly acquired by Google in 2011. I'm not sure how this might affect the outcome of the case, or if it will grant Levandowski any leverage in court.

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial- intelligence/th...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial- intelligence/the-unknown-startup-that-built-googles-first-selfdriving-car)</comment>


Why I Taught Myself to Procrastinate - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/why-i-taught-myself-to-procrastinate.html <comment><USER2> Very interesting. Especially regarding the starting a task, e.g. writing a sentence, and stopping midway only to return a day later. It resonates with me.

I think an important distinction in procrastination, that was not explored in this article, is that a task has to be started or at least prepared in order to successfully procrastinate upon it. For example, it won't help to put off finishing a university assignment until the last minute if you haven't read the task description. In that case, the thought processes that were mentioned in the article would never have a chance to start. On the other hand, if you have read a task description, even if you are procrastinating while binge- watching Netflix, a background process is still running and working on the task. The author of this article describes it as "Our first ideas, after all, are usually our most conventional" vs "When you procrastinate, you're more likely to let your mind wander."

This ties in with a work methodology that works for me very well. Instead of working on a project non-stop as soon as it starts, I prefer to work in small chunks that give me enough time to "background-process" the task at hand while I'm not working on the given task. It is similar to practicing or physical exercise, in that the time that you spend on the activity is as important as the time that you are not spending on the activity. Your brain and muscles need time to regenerate and help strengthen the abilities that you are trying to nurture.

<comment><USER3> Glad you called that out. It was alluded to when the author mentioned the minesweeper example. People were more creative when they were given time to play the game but only after task was assigned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Procrastination and creativity, cause or effect though? Are people who are creative more likely to procrastinate? Does procrastinating make you more creative?

I don't find when I procrastinate I all more likely to let my mind wander AT ALL. The thing is, my brain is trying to ignore what i'm trying to do by often absorbing in something else. I feel, my mind wandering reduces. Positive mind wandering, for me, happens when i'm relaxed, chilled out on the way home on the bus, bored, many other conditions. Not when i'm chronically anxious trying to hide away from the world and the tasks at hand.

Purposely waiting...is not really procrastinating...it's purposely waiting...it's thinking...

But it's nice to see a different outlook on procrastination. And to hear about precrastination.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you're able to structure your "procrastination" time, it's not procrastination, it's just enforced breaks.

<comment><USER6> I would say that this is better thangaving no breaks at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I so wish I had this "problem".

"But if you're a procrastinator, next time you're wallowing in the dark playground of guilt and self-hatred over your failure to start a task, remember that the right kind of procrastination might make you more creative."

On the other hand, if you're not procrastinating you might end up being a professor, a published author and writing articles for The New York Times... I'll just stick to the guilt and self-hatred, for now.

<comment><USER8> I read an article once with a professor who claimed that all his interesting and good work was done as procrastination from his proper duties.

<comment><USER7> I think you might be referring to John Perry :)

[http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/](http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/) [0]

I really liked his book "The Art of Procrastination: A Guide to Effective Dawdling, Lollygagging and Postponing". I read a lot about procrastination, as a form of procrastination.

It's not all bad, of course. But it can be a problem. These professors writing about it clearly has managed to make it work for them somehow. I guess the grass seems greener on the other side of the procrastination spectrum.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10151481](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10151481)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> "So I woke up one morning and wrote a to-do list for procrastinating more. "

This guy had some good punchlines. Lol

</comment><comment><USER9> I am definitely guilty of being a pre-crastinator. It's really hard to turn off anything when you're like this. You just go at something 100% every day until it's done, otherwise you can't enjoy anything.

On the flip side, I've been the total opposite for the last 6 weeks. Maybe it's the definition of burn-out having had just shipped multiple things that took a lot of mental effort.

I found progress to be the 1 thing that helps me balance both. Work for an hour or 2, meet some short term goal and take an hour break (reading, walking, video games, whatever you want).

Also the best thing I've done recently is to start taking full days off rather than work every day. Being able to flip the switch off and actually enjoy yourself is a big deal.

</comment><comment><USER10> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test- driven_development](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development) can fix procrastination

<comment><USER11> But YAGNI.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Too much contradicting stuff on the internet, it's hard to know what to assimilate and what to filter out.

-To procrastinate, or not to procrastinate. That should not be a question

<comment><USER13> Sounds like you've got a severe acute case of Epistemic Learned Helplessness.[1] Previous discussion on HN.[2]

1\. [http://squid314.livejournal.com/350090.html](http://squid314.livejournal.com/350090.html) 2\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10279864](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10279864)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Shameless self promotion: I just wrote a blog post about it yesterday [1] and while this method have been effective for me, I try to stay away from procsatination and do some non-mental activities that make part of my routine, and thus give my brain the opportunity to subconsciously organize its ideas an thoughts to make it a one piece that fits together.

[1][http://blog.kiloreux.info/my-approach-to- problems/](http://blog.kiloreux.info/my-approach-to-problems/)</comment>


Exercises in Programming Style - <AUTHOR> https://henrikwarne.com/2018/03/13/exercises-in-programming-style/ <comment><USER2> The author of this book launched a new open access journal called _The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming_ last year. Professor Lopes serves as editor-in-chief. Much like the book, the journal focuses on the practice of programming and its styles.

[http://programming-journal.org/](http://programming-journal.org/)

</comment><comment><USER3> > There is also an example with types, but this becomes very awkward to show > in Python.

With the book having been published in 2014, and type hints [1] being introduced with Python 3.5 released in 2015 [2], without knowing how the book did it I guess this is one part of the book that could have been made better in 2018.

[1]: [https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html](https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html)

[2]: [https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-350/](https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-350/)

<comment><USER4> I am planning on adding this book to my wishlist, but I agree with the reviewer's note at the end:

> My only criticism of the book is the naming of the styles...In many cases, > there are already establish names for the styles, but instead of using them, > the author came up with her own. For example: Trinity instead of MVC, Things > instead of Objects, Hollywood instead of Callbacks, Bulletin Board instead > of Pub/Sub and Kick Forward instead of Continuation-passing. Those names are > OK, but it is much better to stick to the industry standard ones.

I'd definitely include this change in a 2018 edition, too.

<comment><USER5> MVC = Model View Presenter? Objects = Structs or Workers? Callbacks = Continuations? Pub/Sub = Observer pattern?

Depending on what programming language background you come from, you may not use the "established" names either.

<comment><USER6> Generally speaking, solution to a terminology problem isn't to create terminology n+1.

<comment><USER5> That depends what the terminology problem is. If the problem is that you're going to be criticized by a bunch of pedantic linguistic prescriptivists who want you to use their terms in the way they want, creating new terms avoids that criticism.

<comment><USER7> > avoids that criticism

is that really important to avoid? and one is just gaining new criticisms in trade, no?

and of course, going bespoke and inventing everything yet again has it's perks. maybe you'll get to be the person who "invented" a term, should it catch on. great for the resume. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just one short note of appreciation for this book: Chapter 24 (Quarentine) helped Haskell IO and monads "click" to me. Now I understand what they mean when they say, for example, that "`IO String` represents not a string but a computation that will return a String. You can store this computation (and chain them), but they won't produce a value until you run them".

</comment><comment><USER9> The code associated with the book is all on Github: [http://github.com/crista/exercises-in-programming- style](http://github.com/crista/exercises-in-programming-style)

</comment><comment><USER10> This is very interesting. Not completely unrelated, a friend once told me he can tell a lot about the personality of a person by looking at their code. Years later I actually understood what he meant. Style does have some correlation with personality. Psychology of code...

<comment><USER11> Rubbish. Style has to do with habits picked up along the way. Nothing more nothing else. Stop with the psuedo science. When programming in the large (Enterprise). My style is Javaish very long names reactivateSuspendedUser().

When coding for myself, I prefer snake case to camel case and shorter variable names.

Likewise in code, For work, I abstract and decouple to keep the code open for future updates. For personal code, I write throwaway code. Given 2 classes that I have developed for work or play. You will not be able to tell it's from the same person.

<comment><USER12> I think you're too quick to dismiss. All that your examples prove is that your personal preferences are different to business style code. The fact that you prefer snake case, shorter variable names and throwaway code is quite telling; I enjoy programming puzzles like Advent of Code, and I always use long names in camel case and try to never repeat code. I find that it reduces the mental load and allows me to confidently code faster.

Also it's not pseudo-science. There are real, live techniques for identifying programmers based on binaries:

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.08546.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.08546.pdf)

<comment><USER13> Identifying programmers based on their style is different than assuming people with a certain style exhibit certain personality traits. Programmer A and Programmer B could have almost identical styles, but that doesn't mean they have similar personalities.

<comment><USER12> Fair point, but I still think the comment I replied to was too quick to dismiss. Especially the last sentence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I had this book as a student of Prof Lopes' class at UCI. One of the best classes I had. Programming patterns/styles that senior programmers got through experience were covered, which I liked a lot. As students we had to compulsorily buy the book though.

</comment><comment><USER15> This sounds like a very interesting book. The one small concern I might have (I have only read the review) is that the sample problem might not be a good case for some of the more complex techniques, such as introspection and metaprogramming. I think we have all seen code that seems to have been designed primarily to showcase all of its author's knowledge regardless of whether it helps, and I would not want the book to be misunderstood as an endorsement of that practice.

</comment><comment><USER16> Note: its available on Safari Books Online. I would guess that a fair number of people here have SBO subscriptions.

</comment><comment><USER17> I like the review author's approach of writing his own version of the task before reading, then looking for its closest match among the presented styles.

</comment><comment><USER18> Thanks for this! Added to my reading list ...

</comment><comment><USER19> Amazing stuff!</comment>


Asynchronous Podcast Recording - <AUTHOR> https://app.rumble.studio/quickstart <comment><AUTHOR> Original way of recording a podcast: instead of meeting in a place, just send questions to participants and they record when they have time to do it. Then download the result or share it on podcast directories. Landing page here: [https://rumble.studio](https://rumble.studio)

</comment><comment><USER2> unique concept with many possible applications</comment>


Big Banks Don't Want California's IOUs - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692354575702881.html <comment><USER2> Under normal circumstances I'd be applauding the banks for refusing these IOUs but the banks took bailout money and they do owe something to the people of California morally if not legally. People in California helped bail them out and if they're asking for your help it seems only fair to give it to them. I seriously doubt that Obama would allow these IOUs to actually be worthless so what's the risk exactly?

I didn't think the banks could get less popular but apparently they're trying to surprise us all on that front. California is a mess and this latest development certainly hasn't helped.

<comment><USER3> > but the banks took bailout money

"took" suggests that they all wanted it. We know that some of them were "encouraged". The feds basically destroyed BofA with the forced merger.

> People in California helped bail them out

Actually, most of the bail out money came from outside CA. Do you really think that those folks want their "investment" pissed away in CA?

> if they're asking for your help it seems only fair to give it to them.

Actually, "the people of CA" aren't doing any such thing. The state govt is passing out script while it flails around, hoping that the money unicorn will poop some golden bricks.

> I seriously doubt that Obama would allow these IOUs to actually be worthless > so what's the risk exactly?

I'm sure that folks outside CA are happy to read that.

<comment><USER2> Most of it did come from outside of CA but a decent amount of it did come from CA. I'm not saying this is a great idea under normal circumstances-just these circumstances.

<comment><USER3> > I'm not saying this is a great idea under normal circumstances-just these > circumstances.

What, exactly, is this "great idea", what are the circumstances that make that idea "great", and "great" for whom?

I think that loaning money to the state of CA is like giving booze to a drunk. That would be bad (for the drunk) if Bill Gates did it, but taking money from folks who are hard pressed (general taxpayers and folks dependent on govt) is even worse.

However, you clearly disagree, so let's see the details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Schwarzenegger should follow Palin's lead. He's had any number of chances to fix this and has failed. He doesn't want to raise taxes, but the state is in such dire straits that we need revenue. I don't like higher auto registration fees, but I'm willing to pitch in. His latest objection is that the budget doesn't address welfare fraud. Good grief!

<comment><USER5> A fair point but the problem is multi-dimensional - 40%+ in spending increases during the past four years or so plus severely reduced revenues owing to the recession = lethal mix for fiscal responsibility.

The thing is a horrible mess right now. I don't blame banks for not wanting to be paid in funny money, though.

<comment><USER3> > severely reduced revenues owing to the recession

They're only "severely reduced" from a spike in 07. They're well ahead of just a couple of years ago.

CA Govt behaves like a stupid lottery winner. When it has a great year, it acts as if all years will be better.

You know how this story ends. "Ex-millionare now homeless, bankrupt, sued by three ex-wives, collecting cans and dodging bill collectors."</comment></comment></comment>


Recommended security books from Thomas Ptacek - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/lm/R2EN4JTQOCHNBA/ref=cm_lm_pthnk_view?ie=UTF8&lm_bb= <comment><USER2> For those who don't know: <http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tptacek>

A list from tptacek is worth a look.

Hmm. Although this is listed in his profile (link-shortened). I never noticed it, though, so seems worth the mention.</comment>


App Store Sales Reporter for Slack - <AUTHOR> https://launchkit.io/sales/

<comment><USER2> thanks ryan. happy to answer any questions on here. Just tap the orange button to access the tool.</comment>


What is Microsoft smoking? - <AUTHOR> http://www.irrlicht3d.org/pivot/entry.php?id=1379

<comment><USER3> Im probably going to lose what little karma I have for saying this, but the XBox One's licensing model is more attractive to me than the PS4's model.

I'm getting all of my information from here: [http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license](http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license)

These are the points I find interesting:

\- Access your entire games library from any Xbox One ... while you are logged in at your friend's house, you can play your games.

From this, i can see that I will not have to carry around discs at all when I go to a friend's house. I can play any game that I own from any console.

\- Share access to your games with everyone inside your home .. Anyone can play your games on your console--regardless of whether you are logged in or their relationship to you.

On my console, anyone can play my games, whether I take the disc to a friend's house or not. This is hugely beneficial for me and my brothers who, until this point, have been sharing a single console.

\- Give your family access to your entire games library anytime ... Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One.

The key word there for me is that people can play my games, once I've shared then, from _any_ console. So I can be in another city to my friends, buy a game, and immediately say to them "This game is awesome, check it out in my shared library." and immediately they can download it and start playing. This will be even more impressive if they can play online with me. Consider the case that I buy a game that has co-op play. This means that I can coop with my friends (almost) anywhere in the world even if they havent bought the game! I think this will be a huge feature.

Ofcourse, there is the limitation on reselling games. But honestly, I have had an xbox 360 and ps3 for years, and I have never sold a game, and only bought one or two pre-owned games. This limitation also hasnt stopped me from pouring many hundreds of dollars into Steam-distributed content.

So, from my perspective, I admit that I am giving up a few advantages of the traditional game disc distribution method, but what I get in return is an amazingly powerful licencing model, and I cant wait to see how it works in the real world.

edit: i have no idea how to format comments

<comment><USER4> I think that idea probably works well...

...until you have to drag an entire BluRay disc over the Internet before Halo 14 will start.

<comment><USER3> I agree, but that that is a problem with the distribution method, not the licencing model. The most reasonable answer to this would be that the game disc can be used to install on any console, but only allow that disc to confer a licence once.

I do not know how it will actually work, but I am actually excited to see what happens.

edit: actually, thinking about it now - I think this is where the always online requirement comes from. If i was implementing this feature, I would allow the console to install the game content and have it associated with a unique ID for that disc. But I would have to check with the servers to see if that specific disc ID was already used elsewhere. If this is correct, then I think the always-onlne "feature" could be relaxed in the case where there are no unchecked games installed. This is just pure speculation, however.

<comment><USER5> It's gonna be a lot of fun when the master keys leak and someone writes a fake server that just authorises every game. Surely microsoft know that this is 100% going to happen?

<comment><USER6> I'm sure there will eventually be some form of jailbreak for the console that allows the execution of pirate games.

However the number of people who are willing to jailbreak will probably be small enough that they don't really care.

The beauty of online activation is that the console doesn't need to store the activation key, so you can't leak it by hacking the console as was done on the PS3.

You just sign game activations with a hardware encryption module in a high security datacenter. The console then only has to know the corresponding public key which is not enough to authorize a game for a console that has not been jailbroken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interestingly enough there is a point at which I thought Microsoft was really going to hit some home runs not all that long ago. Since then though the trifecta of Windows Phone 8, Windows 8, and Xbox One has turned me away from their entire product line. Combined with my own movements over the years towards open source desktop software and web applications (Google Docs, etc.) and Microsoft barely rates a mention in my world on a day to day basis.

In short there is nothing Microsoft is doing now that is of interest to me.

<comment><USER8> Microsoft had all the cards to win the device war. But they forgot what made them win the PC war.

They tried to emulate apple while forgetting that people that bought into apple ideology already had apple.

If the W8 arm was unlocked it would have been a big winner. WP7 just needed fast moving instead of stagnation and they almost got everything right with the original xbox and X360 in the beginning.

But I am moving away from microsoft right now even as a desktop. Arch with KDE is almost as good. There is surprising gaming support and the only real show stopper is the terrible fonts in JetBrains products.

<comment><USER9> > They tried to emulate apple while forgetting that people that bought into > apple ideology already had apple.

Agreed. Their enterprise offering is strong. And one day they will realize it is IBM that is their destiny, and drop out of consumer market.

<comment><USER10> I see Microsoft in a position similar to RIM 5 - 8 years back. They have tons of revenue from big business that are kinda locked in to their stack. There is no need for large innovation in those very mature markets and they innovate by pushing more of the same. I may not be an office power use, but I see very little significant changes in Office since 2003, only small features tweaked.

<comment><USER4> It's even worse than that. If you are a power user and turn off the toolbars etc, excel 97 isn't that much different to excel 2013.

<comment><USER11> If you can say this then you are not a power user. If only by one MASSIVE measure and that is the row limit increase between these two versions, but there are plenty others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't think that Sony "won" E3, or that Microsoft lost. Instead, Sony called Microsoft's bluff.

Stay with me here. All of the restrictions that Microsoft has put forth are enforced by software - they can all be pretty easily reverted. I'm willing to bet that Microsoft was really hoping that Sony would see this as the future of console gaming, and would follow their lead at E3. This way consumers would have been given two relatively equal choices, and both Microsoft and Sony would have higher revenue streams and control over their products.

Sony, though, decided to appeal to consumers instead of their own pocketbooks, and now I feel that in order to be successful, Microsoft will have to follow suit, and slowly back out all of these restrictions "after further consideration".

It was a good gamble, (let's face it, there was a time not so long ago that betting on Sony opting for more control over their devices was a sure thing) and Microsoft lost this time. But in a year, when the new consoles are out, and if Microsoft dials back the restrictions, nobody will care what was announced this year. They'll be playing Halo4, MGS (RDR style), and COD: Ghosts, and couldn't care less about where Microsoft's stance started.

<comment><USER13> > _" they can all be pretty easily reverted"_

Can they though? Sure, it's pretty trivial to remove the code that enforces these restrictions, but I don't think it's Microsoft enforcing it.

Think about it - used games (mostly) go through authorized retailers, can only be sold once, where said retailers collect a cut, and Microsoft collects none. This isn't about _Microsoft 's_ bottom line, this is about the bottom line of GameStop, EA, Activision, etc.

There's no way MS would enforce this kind of DRM scheme on their own - <USER2> don't stand to benefit at all. If this was promised to retailers/publishers, they cannot just unilaterally walk away from it. Knowing no secret information, it strikes me that they may have legally painted themselves into a corner.

<comment><USER14> _This isn 't about Microsoft's bottom line, this is about the bottom line of GameStop, EA, Activision, etc._

And it's them that will make or break this choice. If they deprioritise the Playstation platform because it allows customers to sell used games, MS could still win out. If they back down and support the Playstation just fine, MS loses. So it's not even in Microsoft's hands.

<comment><USER15> In the end, the publishers will go where the consumers are. And if we judge by the titles available on the PS4, I'd say that Sony has a pretty good hand right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Microsoft Is Spread Too Thin.

That's it. That _is_ the reason most of their products are half-assed. They have database systems. Server, desktop, and tablet/phone operating systems. Web, desktop, mobile development environments, all in multiple languages. They have their IaaS and PaaS offerings. They have end user services like Skydrive and Outlook. Then there is everything Office. And games, both PC and Xbox. Also, Bing. And Skype. Edit: And hardware: Xbox, peripherals and the surface.

...

This is probably an incredibly incomplete list. Try making this list for Apple, and you'll get my point.

<comment><USER17> > _This is probably an incredibly incomplete list._

You've actually hit Microsoft's five business units. In order of revenue:

Business Division (ie, Office): $24B

Windows & Windows Live: $18.8B

Server & Tools: $18.7B

Entertainment & Devices: $9.5B

Online Services: $3B.

With the exception of Online Services, each of these business units _alone_ is doing enough revenue to qualify for inclusion on the Fortune 500 list.

Entertainment & Devices makes more revenue than Yahoo does in total. More than Hertz and Barnes & Noble.

I would love -- love! -- to be spread so thin.

<comment><USER8> The speed with which one technological company can fall is amazing as history has shown time and time again. According to joel spolsky Excel 4 made lotus 1-2-3 obsolete virtually overnight and that was the beginning of the end for them.

The fact that MS is strong now means nothing in the long and even midterm.

The total share of world computing that Microsoft controls now is lower than in the 90s. They have trouble getting good products out except in Server and Azure divisions. They are bleeding developer loyalty and they are turning into Apple style control freaks without having the charm of Apple.

<comment><USER18> Actually, their substantial diversification beyond Windows means that it's very, very unlikely Microsoft is going to fall (easily or quickly). Microsoft could lose the entire consumer Windows business and be just fine (despite the hit their stock would take), particularly as they keep growing in other sectors while Windows becomes less important by the day (and is clearly done growing as a business). Consumer Windows is about 1/3 of Microsoft's profit these days.

Apple by comparison gets about 3/4 of its profit from the iPhone. Google is even worse, 95% of their profit comes directly from search.

<comment><USER19> The vast majority of Microsoft's profits come from Office. Windows makes a little bit, and everything else loses money.

<comment><USER20> This is fundamentally incorrect. Only Online Services Division (Bing) loses money. Everything else makes money, and Windows definitely makes more than "a little bit."

Operating Income by Division FY13 Q3: Windows: $3.46 B Server and Tools: $1.98 B Online Services: -$262 M (loss) Business: $4.1 B Entertainment and Devices: $342 M

It is interesting that people perceive so many businesses at Microsoft as "failing" even when they have healthy income and growth year after year.

Source: [http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earn...](http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY13/Q3/default.aspx)

<comment><USER19> Even though Xbox (Entertainment) is now making a small profit, they've got a long, long way to go before it recoups the vast investment/losses of the early days:

[http://www.neowin.net/news/report-microsofts-xbox- division-h...](http://www.neowin.net/news/report-microsofts-xbox-division-has- lost-nearly-3-billion-in-10-years)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm going to rant big time, and I expect downvotes, but this is my true opinion, has always been and will always be, so I see no reason to not write it down here.

I don't think Microsoft ever cared at all about customers or products. Microsoft has been making money out of patents and white-gloved mobbing for ever, not out of customer happiness. Probably around 90% percent of what they earn in OS licenses comes from preinstalled laptops and desktops, where the user doesn't even have the choice to reject paying for them because they gently mobbed all manufacturers into shipping with their crapware installed, so they don't even need to care about making a great product, just one that's good enough and works most of the times.

I've paid for at least 5 Windows licenses that I never, not even for a split second, have used. First thing I do when I get a laptop is install Debian on it. I have NEVER even seen the Windows logo come up in any of my PCs, yet I've still had to pay their mob tax. No matter how much you fight with the clerk or how many emails you send to the manufacturer. They can't do anything. It all comes from above. The hardware and the software are a unit. It's a bundle, you can't separate it.

Xbox one sucks, alright. So did all Windowses from 1.0 till 3.1, Windows 95, Windows Me (especially), Windows Vista, and uncountable other terrible decisions that, somehow, didn't manage to sink the company. I don't think yet another awful product will even manage to make a notch to their massive fortune.

<comment><USER18> Ok, interesting claim. So, how much money has Microsoft been making from patents exactly? Since you've made a very dramatic statement, I'd like to see a specific figure.

And then I'd like to see that compared to Office, Windows, Server & Tools, etc.

Why would anybody buy hardware with Windows on it, only to install Debian? Build your own systems, that's the really obvious and really simple answer. You're blaming Microsoft for your bad choices. You don't have to pay any fake tax that you're making up - simply stop buying the products that you are. You have no right to any particularly configured product to begin with; you're not entitled to any such thing. Create your own laptops if you're so bent about it. Sounds like you're taxing yourself. You can rant like a champ, but you can't custom build a Debian laptop? Whose fault is that exactly? I fail to see how that's Microsoft's fault, or how they owe you or Debian anything.

<comment><USER22> So while we are here, why the entitlement to use Intel CPUs, right? They should go and and make their own silicon ingots and then their own CPUs in their own fab, right?

There is a reason why the world is organized around this 'division of labor' concept. Excluding someone from it and then calling the complains about it an entitlement is not a good way forward.

<comment><USER23> Reminds of the days when Compaq etc built their own chipsets. Of course I am not expecting them to do it now, but I do wish they were still as willing to fix BIOS bugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What's wrong with the name 'XBox One'? Makes as much sense as 'xbox' or 'xbox 360.' Considerably more sense than Atari or Wii... And a focus on TV makes a good deal of business sense as more and more people are dropping cable in favor of streaming shows and movies. Something is going to replace that, for the most part people don't drop a service without replacing it. As far as where the games are...the XBox had 17 games on Nov. 14th (public release date). When it was retired it had 967 games. (See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_games](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_games)). It has always been Microsoft's strategy to encourage outside development of games.

The announced pricing _is_ indeed high compared to previous releases. I don't worry that it won't come down though. The XBox and 360 did. Furthermore, since the release isn't until November I wouldn't worry about it until we have reality. There's a million reasons to announce a price early knowing you might change it.

DRM and region locking are your strongest points yet, and yet I'm inclined not to worry about DRM until the product is out and irate would-be-sellers have been emailing microsoft for a few weeks. As for region locking being a reason not to buy it at all that doesn't hold up: if you're in the US, Europe, or any of the 21 countries they've enabled you've got no reason _not_ to buy it because of region locking. Do you seriously take your XBOX with you abroad!?

It's a bold move calling the Windows 8 experiment (yes; that's what it is) a failure given the number of copy cat interfaces we've seen. (iOS7 anyone?). Their implementation had kinks to work out, and yet we're already seeing other people improving on it. If someone as big as Microsoft can't afford to experiment with UIs we're in trouble. Forward motion! App development depends on platform adoption, and it doesn't look like W8 tablets have much adoption yet. No sense wasting development hours on something no one will pay for or through. I really don't understand your problem with this: "... the Apps sold in the Windows Store are fullscreen apps ..." Tablets are designed for fullscreen. If they weren't fullscreen would you complain the opposite? Right now all I'm hearing is that you don't like windows changing...not a coherent argument.

In your last paragraph you finally get to what I _think_ is the main point: Windows is your 'home' operating system. And it's changing. And you don't like those changes. You liked Windows development on XP through W7. (Although I'm willing to bet you ignored Vista: changes are hard to get right, and from what I can observe Microsoft usually just goes for it and then adapts in the next version). Experiments aren't always successful, but let's give Microsoft some credit for doing them.

Thank you for sharing your frustrations, but let's be a bit more positive here: we're making leaps and bounds forward, and experiments are the quanta of those leaps and bounds.

<comment><USER25> It'll pass in time I'm sure, but everytime I hear 'Xbox One' i think 'Xbox 1'. Some people are going to think they get some pretty good deals on ebay..

I don't know why they just couldnt have gone with 'Xbox'. Not like there is one coming out every year (let alone every decade) , like the iPad people will just say 'the new xbox'.

"Xbox One" just seems like some marketing guys idea of a good thing to patronise people and make them think it's 'the only one', 'the single device to do it all' etc.

<comment><USER24> Ok. I can see that. Thanks for explaining.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been wondering the same thing. I actually bought an Xbox 360 last month for the kids at Christmas this year (while it was cheap). I'm slightly regretting throwing more money at them at the moment.

I sit in front of Windows 7 all day, have a Windows Phone and mostly use Visual Studio but I genuinely get the feeling that they are tailing off when it comes to common sense. Despite the vast wads of cash they are still earning, they have lost direction and have reverted to predatory tactics again.

I won't be staying around this time.

</comment><comment><USER26> Back when Windows 8 was announced I used to wonder why didn't they choose the path of Apple, thus making one operating system for the desktop and a different one for mobile devices (smartphones and tablets). I think that they invested too much on the Surface tablet, hoping to produce a tablet that will have comparable capabilities with a desktop PC. In such a device the traditional Windows OS is not enough because we need gestures and a mobile OS is also not enough cause you need the file-system support and all of the facilities you've come to think as fundamental in a desktop OS. That's where Win8 fits. If Surface had succeed I think Windows 8 would have justified its existence. But now it looks like a product without a context.

Why did they chose a path of an enhanced tablet? Probably because they didn't want to compete with Apple in the $500 price tag. Or because they thought that there is market in the high end of tablets.

The thing is that their tablet strategy has failed and along goes a line of products designed for it, namely Metro, Win RT and Windows 8. Add their inability to penetrate the smartphone market and you begin to realize why Microsoft is considered irrelevant these days.

The only aspect where I read interesting news from MS is their development platform. Perhaps they should stop jerking around and return to their core, aka make software for the enterprise.

<comment><USER27> I think that they still did something too Apple-y.

Not a totally different operating system, but a totally different runtime called RT for new apps.

What I do think is the right approach? I recommend you to see the Ubuntu Phone videos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> He is exaggerating about the "big Windows 8 and Windows RT user interface failure". As a Windows user since version 3.1, I can say that Windows 8 is IMHO the best Windows version overall; they just made an arguably wrong decision to remove Start button from the Desktop mode. That will now be fixed in 8.1.

I also happen to like the monochrome icons in the newest Visual Studio (where there are a lot of other improvements as well, comparing to 2010).

Microsoft should be criticized, but for something else - that they brought Win8 about 2 years too late.

<comment><USER29> No, start button is just the very beginning. Whoever thought a full-screen calculator app was going to be a good idea was an idiot.

<comment><USER4> This. Times a million.

I actually knocked up an image of my calculator (HP 50g) against my TFT screen both scaled accordingly as an illustration of this shit crock:

[http://s16.postimg.org/qu05lh5r9/wtf.png](http://s16.postimg.org/qu05lh5r9/wtf.png)

<comment><USER30> Fortunately I've managed to somehow miss out on the Metro calculator app. It looks to suffer from the problems described here, only worse yet than existing calculator apps, on account of the size of all the Metro widgets compared to the size of the 21+" (non-touchable!) monitor sported by your average desktop PC: [http://prog21.dadgum.com/107.html](http://prog21.dadgum.com/107.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > Developer registration renewal every 30 days? Mandatory internet connection > while programming Windows Store apps? really?)

Hah. This has to be the most ridiculous thing ever. I always despised the windows platform for development (except maybe for DirectX), but damn, this is going to affect the number of native apps, making their platform obsolete _much_ quicker.

</comment><comment><USER32> Xbox One: designed by executives, for executives

<comment><USER33> So it will run Java? And Office?

<comment><USER34> Seems weird for you, but executives are now moving to iphones and ipads too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Whoa, I dind't know about the 21 countries thing. What are they smoking, indeed.

<comment><USER36> Region locking is one of the most evil things in our industry. Nothing more to say..

<comment><USER37> It's a great idea from the point of view of the seller. If you have people who have money and frequently travel internationally, you can force them to buy two (or more!) copies of every one of your products they use.

You can also do price discrimination. Those rich guys in the US and Japan can afford $100, so you'll charge them that much. The up-and-comers in China might be able to do $50, so that's the price for them. Africa? Since $20 is like a month's wages for a whole village or something, that's probably all you can get out of them, and with those prices you're only making three fiddy after you cover the per-unit support costs for that always-online thingy. But you really need that so you can do geolocation, and can keep all the annoying entrepreneurs on HN from buying a million African copies when they're on safari, then eating your lunch by reselling them to the US and China for $30.

This is assuming customers want the product badly enough that they're willing to put up with this garbage. Which they generally do -- most people don't travel internationally and aren't affected; furthermore, software is not a commodity and there may not be completely interchangeable alternatives so their only choices are to put up with it or make do without.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Working in a .NET corporate dev shop, I'm shocked how many .NET devs now run MacOS at home as their primary OS. It starts out as a mac for some iPhone dev and then they just use MacOS by default and Windows in a VM when they need to.

<comment><USER39> Some of us run Linux as the host.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Everyone on reddit seems to be up in arms about used game sales, as in the ability to trade in a box + disk.

But really, this will likely be the last generation of consoles to support a physical disk.

I imagine that by the end of this "round" of consoles 60%+ of game sales for these consoles will be digital downloads.

What do use game sales look like in a digital marketplace? If you allow gamers to freely transfer licenses then what is to stop me selling my game to someone in singapore at 1AM when I have finished playing and then coming back the next day and buying the same game back at a reduced rate from someone in australia who has just gone to bed and picking up where I left off?

The only sensible way to allow this would be via DRM which makes /r/gaming shit the bed.

<comment><USER40> One of the guy introducing "The Crew" at the E3 told one journalist : "you have an iPad? How does it feel whan you don't have WIFI or 3G for it? It feels empty and dead right? I believe consoles are becoming about online now and in a few years you'll understand what I meant here".

<comment><USER41> When I still had an iPad, I spent many long flights playing games or watching films with it offline.

But poor comparison in that iPad is a mobile device you're supposed to carry around with you, while the consoles are stationary.

<comment><USER40> I didn't say it wasn't working when offline. It's like taking your laptop in the airplane/train without WIFI. You just feel like you're very limited.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The worst thing that could happen to Microsoft in the next 10 years is that they become the next IBM. MS is in danger of becoming irrelevant in the consumer electronics space, but they are deeply entrenched in enterprise IT, where they can make lots of money for years to come.

I don't think the Xbox One is that bad. No one has figured out the formula of owning the living room yet (or taking it away from cable providers) and MS is giving it a shot. I applaud them for that.

Microsoft's strategy is to own the living room.

Sony's strategy is to take the enthusiast gamers back from MS.

Nintendo's strategy is to...well frankly I don't know what the hell Nintendo is trying to do.

</comment><comment><USER43> #fireballmer???

Microsoft is so out of touch with what people want and how to respect their current users. They're like old people trying to mix in with hip adolescents.

They remind me more of a bank than an IT industry leader.

Seriously, how can a collective group of people decide that enabling publishers/developers to manipulate the users of the their platform a GOOD IDEA?

I have no use for MSFT anymore except Windows/Office. Hope the day comes that MSFT wakes up, or someone actually competes against those products.

</comment><comment><USER44> They smoke pay checks and bonuses for an army of bone-headed managers, doing paper-pushing and finger-pointing to keep one's position, while the bulk of money comes from licensing to those idiots, who are too stupid to unhook themselves from MS in 2013 and would pay for any "new" even bigger (in terms of man-hours and LOCs) bloatware MS would "manage" to create..)

</comment><comment><USER45> _Mandatory internet connection while programming Windows Store apps?_

This one beggars belief. What happened to 'developers developers developers'? At least with the online requirement for gamers, there's a certain interal logic to it (however crazy and wrong) but there seems to be no sense in making it harder for developers to create content for you.

<comment><USER46> This one is certainly not true as a developer who spends his day job building Windows Store apps.

You will need an internet connection to acquire a developer license once every thirty days but that takes about two minutes and that's about it.

<comment><USER47> This misfeature causes me more heartburn than the others. I have to manually touch all of my build slaves once a month to keep them compiling.

Furthermore, you can't run unit tests without an interactive session, so the build slaves would have to auto-login on boot; we chose instead to not run the unit tests automatically on checkins.

<comment><USER46> Agreed it's still frustrating, but it's no where near the clusterfuck the OP implies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I thought the mindless Microsoft/Xbox bashing was Reddit's job. The XBox One will sell and it will sell well - it has loads of blockbuster titles and is pretty powerful, and I personally love the idea of integrating my Sky box with my XBox.

<comment><USER49> I don't think thats how it works, at least not at the moment. I'm pretty sure its designed specifically or cable, so only supports a limited subset of networks. Unless of course there is a branded adaptor for each network. Since we know the TV tuner is another separate purchase it may end up as another PlayTV, cool, slick, but not very useful and limited to freeview.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Seems like Microsoft has repeatedly hit their developers (developers, developers) recently.

\- They're beginning to lock down their platform

\- They effectively killed the once hailed .NET for desktop development

\- They're killing other popular technology, like XNA

It appears as if they're in the process of migrating away from their island of proprietary technology, adopting stuff that has become popular in the rest of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if they killed off DirectX in favour of OpenGL at this point.

And that'd be good, of course. But I'm wondering if alienating all those MS- only developers is a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER51> If I get anything, it'd probably be an XBOX One. I have little kids who suck at using a controller to do anything. But they had a blast at a friend's house jumping around doing the little Kinect games (e.g. popping bubbles). The new Kinect is supposed to be even better. That's pretty much the selling point for me. The PS4 has a similar device, but you have to buy it separately, which puts the price on part with the XBOX One.

</comment><comment><USER52> If you don't want to depend on the arbitrary decisions of Microsoft anymore, the Linux ecosystem welcomes you and your developments :)

You won't find Visual Studio, but I think everybody agrees Linux is a fine dev environment. And if someone makes a controversial change, a fork almost always happens, which is simply impossible in the Microsoft world.

<comment><USER50> I'm pretty sure the author of Irrlicht 3D is aware of Linux being a viable alternative.

I guess the thing is, Visual Studio is actually quite a good C++ IDE. The best one out there, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a big fan of IDEs, but if you're into that stuff...

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Let's wait until both consoles arrive. It really seems that Sony is going to implement the same game lending restrictions what Microsoft - except they haven't told us explicitly. Recent news say that Sony will give the same opportunity for publishers to block lending.

<comment><USER54> You might have missed this release from Sony putting the boot in on the topic [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA)

<comment><USER55> For people who don't tend to click video links (like me, but I happened to already see this), it is a sarcastic and clever dig at MS.

The introduction is the start of an "instructional video" for how to lend games to your friends, complete with "Step One" and dramatic PS4 music, and then the guy just hands a game to his friend who says, "Thanks."

I think it is a clever ad, and a good position to take. I'm not much of a gamer so I am not their core demographic, but I tend to buy something from each generation of consoles and "less-obnoxious DRM and no region-locking" would be a no-brainer for me in terms of choosing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> The £429 price in the UK looks like a mistake to me - I know the launch price of the 360 was ~£280 and a Kinect is ~£100 but I still think that in these times of austerity it is a bit steep.

Mind you, I will buy one once Halo 5 (for me) or FIFA 14 (teenage son) comes out...

<comment><USER6> I think you may have answered your own complaint there.

IIRC the PS3 was even more expensive when it came out.

One advantage of a console is that it is an "investment" in that you know buying one will give you at least 5 years worth of supported gaming. Compare that to buying an iPad, the first gen iPad was released in 2010 and it basically obsolete now.

<comment><USER56> I wasn't thinking of my own situation. Whether it is £300 or £429 doesn't make much difference to me - but there will a _lot_ of households where it does.

[Even my teenage son, who thinks that money magically grows in the Bank of Mum & Dad thought that £429 was a lot - if he noticed then MS probably have a pricing problem].

<comment><USER6> That's true enough, I guess those households will wait for a price drop or find one on the back of a lorry.

I remember when I was a lad, the "posh" kids would get the new gaming systems when they came out. Everyone went over to their houses to marvel at them, so when the price drop came next xmas they went on everyone's list.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> The average consumer will care much more about the platform exclusive games than any DRM systems. You can't sell used games on Steam either, and they receieve very little flak for it nowadays.

</comment><comment><USER58> Even though I would rather like to see them invest more in C++11 than C++/CX, Microsoft is not alone in this as all compiler vendors have their own set of extensions.

</comment><comment><USER59> What would you rather have? Ownership over the living-room / home entertainment center, or ownership of the waning console game market that's being swallowed up by mobile games? I think Microsoft is making a calculated choice that they'd rather widen their audience to market themselves to users looking to control their TV/movie experience more-so than they're hoping to sell their console just to gamers. It's why their console (and Playstation's for that matter) look like they'll blend in with more-traditional home- entertainment components.

</comment><comment><USER40> IMO people are badly predicting the future of the Xbox One. They already have a huge market of players who will buy it no matter how hard the DRM are. And they had a big "pirating" problem before. This only means they can now focus on making the Xbox One safe from hacking and also something more than a console. They did it. Some people are unhappy but they will sell and they will make a lot of profit from it.

As for Windows 8. It's not a failure, they launched their tablet product, windows phones, they're in two markets they weren't before.

<comment><USER60> > they launched their tablet product

For the PC as well, if you recall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> "For me as developer, Windows is my "home" operating system"

This is your big problem. Liberate yourself - you won't look back.

</comment><comment><USER62> I think .NET is pretty amazing (to have emerged out of Redmond, at least).

</comment><comment><USER18> Microsoft has a long history of putting out terrible products, improving them with the subsequent version or two, finally putting out a good product, and then promptly turning around and screwing everything up.

I think they have an amplified version of the 'need to be the underdog to do good work' syndrome. Once they finally climb that hill, they become their own worst enemy every time.

</comment><comment><USER63> Ballmer = Being Always Late + Letting My Ego Roar

</comment><comment><USER64> Whatever it is they are smoking, where and how can I get some?</comment>


Diagnosing Network Issues with MTR - <AUTHOR> https://www.linode.com/docs/networking/diagnosing-network-issues-with-mtr

<comment><USER2> A few remarks. This article downplays the seriousness of packet loss. 10% is mentioned as acceptable, 'because the application layer will compensate'. Maybe true for tcp traffic, but this kind of packet loss is completely unacceptable in case of voice or video traffic. In fact most backbone providers guarantee a packet loss of < 0.2% on their links. So 10% _is_ something to worry about.

Another point is icmp rate-limiting. Can someone more knowledgable enlighten me why this is beneficial in any way? It confuses the hell out of everybody, and icmp traffic is only a minute percentage of actual traffic anyway. I have experienced network support people reporting packet loss many, many times to ISPs, who in turn were not capable of explaining why this happened and was of no concern. I think there is no reason to continue rate-limiting icmp.</comment>


Death Of The Mouse? - <AUTHOR> http://appdeveloper.intel.com/en-us/blog/2011/01/10/death-mouse <comment><USER3> Since our eyes are built into the front plate of our head and our head is mounted upright on our torso, displays are bound to stand vertically in front of our eyes. Hands are pretty bad at interacting with vertical surfaces as this requires us to lift both hands and arms for prolonged periods of time.

Hence, there has to be a horizontal, desktop-surface that we manually interact with and a vertical surface that we look at. This seems to require some kind of virtual agent that represents the hand on the screen. I don't think mouses and keyboards are going away any time soon (even though they might get enhanced with other technologies)

<comment><USER4> That is not entirely true. Our head isn't mounted on our torso, it's mounted on our neck which can swivel! That's why you don't have to hold a book or your mobile phone or tablet at eye level.

Also, many marvelous masterpieces have been created by painters working with an easel, where the requirement of having to lift their arms doesn't seem to have been too much of a distraction.

If you really want to interact with a horizontal input device and a vertical output device, mice are not the only option. Pen tablets like those made by Wacom come to mind.

EDIT: Also check out the BendDesk which tries to address the horizontal/vertical issue: <http://hci.rwth-aachen.de/benddesk>

<comment><USER3> True indeed. But painting involves steady motion of the hand whereas interaction with computers requires much less motion and thus is far more straining for our arms.

Basically, it all revolves around strain: We don't want to strain our arms by holding something up in the air for a long time and we don't want to strain out neck by holding the head in an imbalanced position for a long time. As long as the head can sit more or less balanced on the neck, we are fine. Hence, if we sit back, the comfortable position for the head is to look slightly downwards compared to the rest of the body. However, the head actually is still upright, only the body is at an angle. Of course, we can still move our eyes without straining the neck muscles. We are fine with looking something like 45° downwards. (Actually, we are most comfortable with looking at the ground a few dozen meters/feet away. That is the natural looking angle.)

Hence, monitors should sit slightly below eye level (for practical reasons, they usually extend from there to desktop level). Manual input devices should be located slightly below elbow level one forearm-length in front of the belly.

It will be interesting, _which_ manual input devices will sit there in the future. But I would guess that they will always sit there, and not on the display.

<comment><USER4> Point taken, but I think there's a difference between casual and professional, extended use. For casual use I can see touch taking over more and more, and for professional use - such as for graphic designers or compositors - <USER2> mouse isn't always the best input device to begin with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh great, another "Death of .." article. When will we see the death of them.

But seriously .. As an avid gamer I can't see the mouse going any place for a long time. Eye tracking or a USB port into the back of the head are the only viable-ish alternatives I can imagine due to the extremely precise and fast interaction needed.

<comment><USER6> Tell that to the console gamers...

P.S: I can't help but think the "death of.." articles are just to get page views with sensational titles and articles, mind you thats been the standard for newspapers since before the net.

<comment><USER7> Well... there's a reason Quake-like fast-paced games are not popular on consoles. Sure - I have no problems playing slower games like Deus Ex on a controller, but for typical multiplayer FPSes that wouldn't work. Essentially you just learn now much you move the mouse to do a 180 turn and you have it in muscule memory. The moment you move the mouse, you start turning. With controllers where you actually control the acceleration of the movement, that experience is much worse. You simply cannot make a precise turn around on the spot without a lot of training. On top of that you're usually limited to the specific number of buttons unfortunately.

Of course you won't notice most of those issues on the console games... because they're designed so that you don't need more than N buttons, they're not as fast as promode quake, they add other elements to shift the idea from the raw fps (multiplayer q1/q3-pm being prime examples probably) to a goal based game, team play, etc.

<comment><USER8> I agree that mouse/keyboard is better for first-person shooters, but FPS games are still wildly popular on consoles. Halo and Call of Duty are the biggest examples.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Touch killing the mouse makes about as much sense as helicopters killing airplanes.

<comment><USER10> Yes, even in 2011 i still don't see anything that could really substitute the mouse on desktops or laptops. Every alternative is a pain to use (e.g. touchpads).

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually work faster using a [touchpad + keyboard] vs [mouse + keyboard]. The trick is placement. The touchpad needs to be right below the keyboard (like a macbook layout) so you can switch faster between typing and moving the cursor as opposed to using a mouse. If your OS / trackpad supports gestures, that increases speed of use as well.

For comfort, imo the whole thing needs to be lower, closer to your legs. If you're using a standing position instead of sitting, just change the position to closer to your thighs.

<comment><USER11> My wireless mouse is usually in front of my keyboard, ending up between my arms while I'm typing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Personal computing has left the realm of the desk and the office. Surely, we can use a mouse and keyboard while being mobile, but we wouldn't trade the accuracy and ergonomics of a mouse and keyboard for something else when at home or at work. Many new devices, like the iPad, are consumption devices. You use it to watch videos, to play games, to listen to music, to read books, or to surf the web. Creation on these devices is limited. Surely, you can type an email or take notes in a meeting, but what you gain in mobility you lose in accuracy and ergonomics. The mouse has been around for fifty years and its design has been iterated upon again and again, from a simple block of wood to well formed plastic molds to fit various hand shapes and sizes. Touches and gestures may be the new hot thing, but for real work the mouse isn't going anywhere.

<comment><USER13> Ehmmm, the ergonomics of mice is horrid. Just read a bit about mouse damages.

Touch might not be the saviour, but dont holdt the mouse as a good example of ergonomics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Microsoft presented their new touch mouse at CES. Yeah, mice are definitely not new and exciting at this point, but until 'touch' becomes ubiquitous they are still quite necessary.

Since I still have to live with mice for the foreseeable future, I'm frustrated at the lack of decent wired mice on the market. Wireless mice always give me tracking issues and I don't like the inconvenience of replacing batteries. But every new mouse on the market is wireless now.

I'd love to try the Apple Magic Mouse or even the new Microsoft touch mouse, but I'm not willing to deal with wireless. Therefore, I'm using an IntelliMouse Explorer 3.0, a mouse first released in 2001, because new mouse innovations don't come with USB models anymore.

I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

<comment><USER15> What are your concerns with using a wireless mouse?

<comment><USER14> On gaming mice: I don't need anymore DPI. I'm not a gamer, so buying a gaming mouse is just spending money on features that I won't use.

On the latest wireless mice: I have tried new wireless mice. It's not the efficiency of the mouse it self thats the problem. It's the fact that they all use AA or AAA cells. Therefore, I have to eventually remove them, charge them, and replace them in the mouse. Plus the NiCad batteries eventually loose capacity after a few cycles (even the nice kind like Eneloop).

The biggest problem is wireless interference and tracking latency that I experience with all wireless mice.

There still is innovation in the mouse field. Placing a touch interface on a mouse is great. From my short experience with one, I've found it to be the biggest innovation since 'scroll wheels' and 'optical tracking'.

Right now, it seems like seems like the mouse market is divided between gamers (people who want the maximum DPI and lots of programmable buttons) and casual users (people who want a simple, lightweight and wireless mouse for there laptop). Someone like myself (a computer professional, who wants something sturdy, comfortable and reliable) is no longer considered a market.

I really would like to use a mouse with a touch surface, but without a wired USB connection, the inconvenience outweighs the benefits.

<comment><USER16> Just get a gaming mouse. They're exactly what you want (sturdy, comfortable and reliable) so don't be put off by a high DPI - you can always reduce the sensitivity. I like the Logitech G9 or MX518. The latter is $35 at Newegg and you can regularly get them cheaper with rebates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> By mouse I understand the ability to move the mouse pointer and left/right click.

At a conference it's better to go light, just with your laptop/netbook, carrying a real mouse around doesn't make sense, but when standing in front of a computer at work or home for several hours a real mouse is still more comfortable/ergonomic than a touchpad, although I do find the touchpad more comfortable in situations where I do lots of typing, since it's closer to the keyboard.

I get the trend of smaller / lighter / more portable ... I haven't used a desktop in 2 years. But I still use a good keyboard and mouse when I'm at my desk; anything less is just for superficial usage.

</comment><comment><USER18> I would absolutely expect the death of the mouse. In its current form that is. In my opinion the mouse interface introduced with the MBP and now purchasable as an external component is a sign of the future. It has the same precision as a regular mouse so you don't have the iPad's touch problem of lack of precision, but you move your finger on the device instead of moving the device.

That alone wouldn't be enough to unseat the vulnerable mouse but the advantage the touchpad is that it can track multiple fingers. I envision a future where the keyboard is extended with a kind of flat space that can take precise input from all 10 fingers.

I've seen a demo somewhere that had exactly that, but I don't know what's come of it.

<comment><USER19> That 'touchpad plate' of Apple's (can't recall the official name) isn't as precise as a mouse. Our web developer gets a new box from Foxconn about once a week as he pretty much buys one of everything Apple makes. A true afficionado of the touchscreen/pad, he just couldn't use that plate for the specific reason that it's just not accurate enough for serious work. Touch and mouse focus on different things - and the mouse is venerable, not vulnerable :)

<comment><USER18> >isn't as precise as a mouse.

I'll have to take your word for it, but I haven't noticed anything in my minor gaming [1]. But even if it isn't today I don't see why it couldn't be and a mouse will never be able to keep up with multiple inputs a touch interface can. As more and more applications start making use of this feature mice will become less and less usable.

>and the mouse is venerable, not vulnerable

It was indeed a typo, but I would claim it's both at this point. :)

[1] Certain types of games I have, like "flying around shooting stuff" ones require finer control than what I was able to get from a $250 joystick. I had to use the mouse for finer control. I haven't noticed a problem using the touch pad for these.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'd normally say a resounding "no" for the reasons everyone else is stating: fat finger problem, pixel-perfect precision, arm strain of pointing at a screen, etc.

However, for the last year or so I've exclusively used the Trackpoint on my Thinkpad. Amazing little gizmo. Almost the same precision as a mouse, three buttons to click with, and it keeps your hands in the touch-typing position at all times. I was experiencing pretty bad mouse-button-clicking RSI, and hitting the Trackpoint buttons with my thumbs instead saves me.

Any other fans here?

<comment><USER21> I prefer to use the "trackpoint" or a trackball as much as possible. For certain activities like gaming or detailed photoshop work a mouse is preferable due to increased precision, but for ordinary GUI interaction the better ergonomics of the trackball pay off immensely.

I think multi-touch is interesting, and I think it's dominant right now in electronics shows precisely because it is new, interesting, and innovative. But I don't think it will be the one and only pointing device to ever exist in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Darn, I was hoping the article would be about trackballs. :-)

<comment><USER14> I know! Why can't I get a trackball on a laptop anymore! :-P

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've recently started using a tablet/pen, and for most purposes it's a good mouse replacement, and it's also better for sketching. Using buttons on the pen is a bit fiddly, but tapping the pen is an equivalent in most situations. For playing traditional kinds of PC games I notice that the mouse is still by far the best option though.

</comment><comment><USER24> I would always buy a good mouse till i bought my macbook pro.

After each 2-3 day hacking session, i would resurface with paining dry eyes and aching wrist and elbow.

Now, after similar sessions, i am only left with dry eyes.

I haven't really read up about the ergonomics of multi-touch track pads, but i think they inflict either lesser RSI or are attacking a different set of muscles.</comment>


Boeing reports a $410M charge in case NASA decides Starliner needs another test - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/29/boeing-reports-a-410m-charge-in-case-nasa-decides-starliner-needs-another-uncrewed-launch/ <comment><USER2> From today's Orbital Index ([https://orbitalindex.com/archive/2020-01-30-Issue-49/](https://orbitalindex.com/archive/2020-01-30-Issue-49/)):

The Best Way to Make a Profit as an Aerospace Company is to Fail ([https://qz.com/1784335/the-space-military-industrial- complex...](https://qz.com/1784335/the-space-military-industrial-complex- profits-off-us-failure/)), a compelling piece about how massive corporations like Northrop Grumman have little incentive to hit their contract budgets and are arguably incentivized not to. "Northrop Grumman […] won the James Webb Space Telescope contract in 1996 with a promise that the project would cost $500 million and be flight-ready in 2007. The telescope is now likely to launch in 2021 and is expected to cost nearly $10 billion. [...] [W]ith every delay and snafu, Northrop Grumman rakes in more money as missed deadlines extend the timeline and require more funding from the government. One delay in 2018 brought Northrop Grumman close to a billion dollars alone—twice the price the firm originally quoted to the government for the entire project." According to this document (pdf) released on Jan. 28 by the Government Accountability Office, the JWST has only a 12% chance of launching in March 2021. The massive overruns by Boeing on SLS are a similar example.

<comment><USER3> I never understood why there aren't performance requirements in government contracts. Same thing with infrastructure construction here in DC... new offices go up in a year, but changes to the intersection in front of said office take 5 years and cost multiple of the office itself. [hyperbole, but only just]

<comment><USER4> I'm starting to believe it'd be cheaper to just start out the same project with 2 or 3 companies, and then just keep the be st performing one and dump the other two as soon as its clear that one will be finishing the project in time and within budget. That would only double the cost (if you dump early enough) of a govt project, and since most projects seem to have a budget overrun much larger than that, it'd actually end up cheaper.

Companies with no competition and a guaranteed contract will never deliver the goods.

<comment><USER5> That is exactly what NASA did for Commercial Crew. The started out awarding 5 contracts, then at each stage down-selected to 4,3, and finally 2 suppliers, Boeing and SpaceX. Also commercial crew contracts are fixed-price, pay-for- performance, not the standard cost-plus contracts. So Boeing won't get a dollar to repeat this test; they have to pay for it out of their own pocket.

<comment><USER6> > Also commercial crew contracts are fixed-price, pay-for-performance, not the > standard cost-plus contracts. So Boeing won't get a dollar to repeat this > test; they have to pay for it out of their own pocket.

LOL. Boeing knows how to handle minor obstacles like that.

[https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-criticizes- addi...](https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-criticizes-additional- boeing-commercial-crew-payments/)

"NASA paid Boeing nearly $300 million more than originally planned in its commercial crew contract in part because of agency concerns that the company might drop out of the program, a new report claims."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 'Charge' here is a confusing term. The way I take it they have set aside this money in case they need to do another test. The title makes it seem as if they have charged (or are preparing to charge) Nasa for this amount. That wouldn't be too surprising given Boeing's history, but does not appear to be the case here (yet).

Directly from the financial report from Boeing:

> Fourth-quarter operating margin decreased to 0.5 percent due to a $410 > million pre-tax Commercial Crew charge primarily to provision for an > additional uncrewed mission for the Commercial Crew program, performance and > mix. NASA is evaluating the data received during the December 2019 mission > to determine if another uncrewed mission is required.

[https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2020-01-29-Boeing-Reports- Fourt...](https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2020-01-29-Boeing-Reports-Fourth- Quarter-Results)

<comment><USER8> This is standard jargon for investors. The charge is to the company and a hit directly to their earnings.

Similar wording can also be used with respect to debt that will never be collected.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge- off](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-off)

<comment><USER7> Thanks for info on the jargon. I assumed it was, however I also assume there are many like me initially confused by the term without knowledge of how that term is used in that space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Boeing just posted it's first full-year loss since 1997. If you have to tell your investors bad-news, better to throw in all of the potential bad news that you were on the fence about than to have to make follow-up announcements. (Honey I totaled the car, and the other car may be out of gas, and all our toilets might be backed up.) [https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/boeing-posts- annua...](https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/boeing-posts-annual- loss-1997-max-costs-rise-68608773)

<comment><USER10> Correct - See "big bath" accounting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why do we even have this program?

<comment><USER12> Commercial crew program is going to be a way, _way_ cheaper method of putting astronauts in low-Earth orbit than the Space Shuttle. And most of the capabilities that the Shuttle had but Starliner/Dragon lack are either obsolete or are being handled more efficiently by the dedicated X-37 spacecraft.

<comment><USER13> If you take the dollar per weight price the Space Shuttle wasn't that expensive, right? Assuming a full cargo bay. Source: everyday astronaut.

I don't understand why (as far a I know) the weak points of the space shuttle weren't addressed, like the heat tiles which were supposedly fragile. Instead, they aborted the entire program.

<comment><USER14> Dollar per kg to orbit of the Space Shuttle was pretty respectable - _if you count the mass of the orbiter as part of the payload_. If you don't, it's absolutely ruinous. (~$5,000/kg with orbiter, $20,000/kg for what it could carry in the payload bay, 2020ish dollars - yes the orbiter outweighed its payload 3:1)

Look, the Saturn 1B - the man-rated, 20,000kg-class, _safe_ predecessor to the Saturn 5 - cost ~$330m 2020 dollars per launch. The Space Shuttle could carry 24,000kg to orbit at a marginal cost per launch of somewhere between 500 and 700 million dollars. (This ignores all the costs attributed to the Space Shuttle program that were incurred even if a launch never occurred)

The Saturn V, of course, could put 140,000kg into LEO for ~1,250 million 2020 dollars.

So for half the price of a shuttle launch, you can put the 80% the mass into orbit on a Saturn 1B. Or for double the price of a shuttle launch, you can put 5.8 times as much mass into orbit on a Saturn V. Or double the shuttle's orbital payload mass - but on a trans-lunar injection trajectory instead.

And this is all comparing the shuttle to the technology of a decade and a half _earlier_.

Yes, a Shuttle Two - get rid of the reinforced carbon-carbon (hell, maybe even move to an ablative heatshield), ditch the SRBs, ditch the wings, lose the cross-range capability and maybe even move the fuel tank internal - might have been viable. But the closest thing to that (the X-33 program/VentureStar) never got the funding it needed, and even then might have been a bit too ambitious. Time will tell if an affordable SSTO ends up ever happening, but I'd bet on things like SpaceX's Falcon SuperHeavy/Starship (fully reusable TSTO craft) being the real successes.</comment></comment></comment></comment>