Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/02/apples-in-app-subscriptions-if-we-bring-in-subscribers-we-deserve-a-cut.ars

<comment><USER2> Full disclosure: I generally like apple products and have used NeXT / apple products for a long time.

I don't see how Apple's stance here is defensible or honest. They using their position as a large platform provider to steal from 3rd party developers.

To me this is akin to me writing a program for OSX that allows users to sign up for a subscription service, and apple taking a 30% cut of my cash flows just because I targeted their platform. They have been paid for their device by the consumer, they don't own all the software running on the device. They provide an OS, 3rd party developers provide the applications.

Most iOS programs receive absolutely no advertising from apple. In these cases how has apple contributed anything - how as Apple brought them customers. What if I run an ad-words campaign and drive my own app sales? If Apple were to make deals with developers for cuts of cash flow in exchange for advertising on the store, that would seem more honest.

To me this seems anti competitive and just plain dishonest. Apple is at risk of becoming the troll under the bridge here.

<comment><USER3> I also mirror your sentiment. I think that this will lead to lost hardware sales (I may have to buy a Kindle now) and may as well develop for that if I have one.

When did Apple turn from a hardware focused company to a software company/platform company only? It seems their platform is taking precedence to their hardware now.

Then again you can't buy iBooks on Kindle or Nook but the point of an iOS device is a bit of a smart phone singularity. I want all my stuff on that device.

This will not get me to buy more iBooks, it may make be buy a Kindle though instead of using my iPads for reading books.

Let's hope they all go PDF.

<comment><USER4> It's a bit off-topic, but PDFs, with their fixed page size baked right into the file, make for a truly miserable eBook experience.

<comment><USER5> I couldn't agree more. I think what your parent post meant to convey was the need for a standard format for ebook files. I think MOBI or EPUB could both fill that role.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hmmm....and if my app gets someone to buy your iPad, what do I get?

<comment><USER7> You get heavy promotion. Look at how Angry Birds and all the other games did by being featured on "New and Noteworthy" or "Staff Picks" or "Top Grossing Apps". It's a two-way street; don't make it sound like Apple is taking advantage of your efforts.

<comment><USER8> That works for a hugely small subset of apps. Each (well written) app creates a lot of value for iOs, most of those won't get anything at all from Apple.

So again, why isn't the inverse true? If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get a cut?

Of course I shouldn't, but that's the problem in Apples logic here.

<comment><USER9> > Each (well written) app creates a lot of value for iOS

We all, being programmers, like to assume this, but I don't think it's really true. I think the bulk of the value for both Apple and iOS users comes from a pretty small core of apps (Mail, Maps, Browser, Music, YouTube, Publisher subscriptions).

> If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get > a cut?

I don't think Apple agrees that you're "helping sell the iOS device". I think Apple correctly assumes that most people who buy iOS devices do so in ignorance of your app. They can take it or leave it, and if they're not going to get a cut, what possible reason do they have to take it?

<comment><USER8> It's a small subset of apps that matter to each individual, but collectively it's a big number. Lets take my wife. She'd describe each of these as being indispensable to her:

\- Quickoffice \- Local weather app (9news here in Denver) \- OpenTable \- Her password store (not sure what she's using these days) \- Evernote \- Probably 8-10 others

My list is completely different. These apps, together, create a lot of value for the phone. When we recommend phones to other folks we do it in the context of the applications running on it. Angry Birds has undoubtedly sold a ton of devices (both Android and iPhone) but it's hardly alone. Hell, I'm positive that I sold an iPhone one day while showing someone a document in Quickoffice.

Each app provides a ton of value to Apple. They owe _us_ , not the other way around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As an indie developer, this excites me. Sure, I can understand how the big guys might see it differently, but now I don't have to build an entire distribution network should I decide I'd like to develop subscription based content.

I read many digital PDF's (like Hacker Monthly) and though I enjoy downloading and reading the PDF on my iMac, I would be delighted to pay 99 cents to have each issue delivered to my iPad on a monthly basis.

And as a developer, it's added value.

</comment><comment><USER11> So arrogant - "We get you subscribers"!

How did they do that? They didn't create the ad, they didn't put it in the app, they did diddly-squat in fact. You (the app developer) did the work, take the risk, and now cannot even get paid properly - you have to essentially make iPhone your sole outlet, or charge 30% premium everywhere else.

<comment><USER12> They created the very ecosystem in which your app exists. I'd say that's a pretty important aspect of the whole app development model.

<comment><USER2> So microsoft would be within their rights to take a 30% cut of all cash flows from subscriptions made using internet explorer?

What about 30% of all sales of Windows Software?

Where does the ownership of the OS author end and the ownership of the 3rd party developer begin?

What if Apple insisted upon 50%?

<comment><USER13> IIRC, each video-game console manufacturer charges royalties to all games that are compatible with its hardware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm a huge Apple fan, but I admit there's something about this which doesn't feel entirely... right, and that's concerning.

That said, however, there's decent and non-evil reasons for them to think like this - at least in terms of subscriptions, IMO.

One issue is that subscription-based apps are almost always free in the app store. Apple loses money on free apps that don't include iAds. If the subscription fee itself is also outside of Apple's control, they're hosting your app, getting you "shelf space", driving people to your app, etc. and they get nothing in return. With such an app, the content is basically replaced every month (or week or day or whatever) which makes the process a bit like a scheduled purchase of a new version of an app - hence the 30% cut.

On the surface, I disagree that Apple should get 30% forever for a subscription - especially if the publisher is providing all the infrastructure necessary to deliver that content. What if, though, the subscription system allowed publishers to upload the content once to Apple, and Apple hosts and distributes it to the apps and users? Now the 30% starts looking a bit more reasonable. If indeed it works this way (or will eventually work this way), you could be a very small shop and still manage to support thousands or, indeed, millions of subscriptions with virtually no support infrastructure of your own. That's _certainly_ worth 30% IMO.

The flip side, though, is if you already have your own content delivery mechanisims in place, Apple taking 30% each billing cycle seems unfair. IMO, they should offer the subscription products in two flavors - one where they host and distribute your content, and another where you are doing that work. In the second version, Apple could easily take 30% of, say, the first billing cycle and take diminishing amounts for as long as the subscription remains in effect - perhaps even going all the way down to something like 2% just to cover the payment processing. That would seem a lot more fair to me than taking 30% forever.

Sadly, though, I haven't yet seen anything that suggests that either of these situations are even true. For all I know, Apple might not be offering any distribution or hosting services and might not even have an API to allow apps to easily take delivery of subscription content, and if that's the case, taking 30% forever seems excessive.

<comment><USER15>
      * there's decent and non-evil reasons

Funny, I just e-mailed some friends about how Apple was starting to get a bit of the stink of Evil about them.

As I read your comment, I was struck by how Apple does everything in a very one-size-fits-all fashion (Mac -> no window menu; iPhone -> home screen is a list of apps; subscriptions -> one revenue model). There's a rich set of monetization schemes out there and Apple might offer a range of monetization models. Apple could use an affiliate fee style model where App maker pays Apple $X for each subscription+. Then Apple could just use the eCPM or expected revenue to rank search results (App gets a lot of subscribers and pays a healthy CPA, they get ranked higher). App makers would then need to figure out how much $$$ to pay Apple for an install. This could also apply to free apps [...but we've seen the harm that causes elsewhere].

Then Apple could add simple hosting/management fees for hosting an app's content.

\+ I've been fairly heavily involved in the affiliate/CPA space, so know the kind of unpleasantness the model can bring, but am fairly confident that Apple could work around it.

[ed: formatting]

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The flip side of course is that these apps make the iPhone/iPad more appealing to more people. I can see Apple shooting themselves in the foot with their predatory practices against app publishers. Losing a big chunk of your margin while developing apps for free for Apple's products is only going to be sustainable for so long. And more likely then not, it will drive away the big players first where each percent means more.

<comment><USER17> A supermarket that sells magazines will appeal more than a supermarket that doesn't. That doesn't mean it owes its success to the magazine publishers.

I very much doubt that the availability of magazine and newspaper apps like The Daily will be a primary reason for customers to buy an iPad.

<comment><USER18> Magazines in a supermarket are slotted, so the publisher is paying the supermarket to stock the magazine.

<comment><USER17> In a supermarket, shelf space is limited. Online retailers like Apple and Amazon have virtually unlimited shelf space. That's one of the reasons why distributing paid content online is so much cheaper than in print. Compared to print, Apple's 30% take for payment processing, marketing and distribution is a great deal. That's how News Corp can offer a daily newspaper via the App Store for only $1 a week, for which you would normally pay $1 a day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Apple is trying to prevent the following maneuver:

¶ FooPub Inc. publishes FooMag through the App Store, at a price of $1/year.

¶ Each issue of FooMag contains some small amount of content and a link: "To read more, go to foopub.example.com and subscribe to FooMag Deluxe for $20/year!"

¶ Users download FooMag Deluxe through FooPub's own servers, bypassing the App Store completely.

¶ Scads of people discover FooMag through the App Store, subscribe to it (giving Apple 30¢ out of each $1 subscription), and a significant fraction of them upgrade to the deluxe version (giving Apple nothing).

<comment><USER19> Is discovery via the App Store really that common? As a previous iPhone user and current Android user I don't think I ever discovered a single app for either platform via the App Store itself.

I always went looking for something on the App Store (or now on the Android Market) after hearing of it elsewhere. I suppose I may be in the minority there and I can't say for sure I'm not, but I'd be pretty surprised if I were.

<comment><USER13> If an app publisher wants to avoid all the App-Store-related restrictions, can they just put their app on the Web and let people download and install it through the browser? I don't have any iStuff so I don't know the practicalities.

<comment><USER19> No, they can't do that. On iOS it is the App Store or nothing when it comes to native apps. (Of course, if users jailbreak their phones they have more freedom to install apps, but I assume we're just talking about the standard OS here).

On Android the publisher can bypass the store by distributing their own APK files. Some carriers (glancing towards AT&T) lock this down in some phones, but by default Android is happy to install new apps from anywhere as long as the user agrees to a dialog warning them of the dangers of running random code they download from the net.

This is one of many reasons I'm currently an Android user and self-described "Apple hater".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> the only company that will kill apple is apple

<comment><USER21> Hyperbole, yes, but there's truth to it. Apple simply _is_ in a position to make these demands right now; the test will be whether they scale back their demands once the market has matured to the point where they no longer have that leverage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> In related news, the US Interstate Highway system will now require a 30% cut of the purchase price of every vehicle purchased in the United States. "Our philosophy is simple—when US Highways bring a new driver to the car company, US Highways earn a 30 percent share."

The US Postal Service considered a similar regulation, but found that customers would simply divert shipments to competitors UPS, DHL, and Fedex, and is instead filing suit against those companies for unfair trade practices, and lobbying congress for a retroactive grant of a business method patent on package delivery with corresponding extension of patent duration to life of the organization plus 70 years.

kb

<comment><USER23> Apples and Oranges, my friend. The highway and the USPS are funded by tax dollars. The App Store is a culmination of Steve Jobs and co busting their collective asses for _decades_ on their own time without any mandatory help from you. Now they're going to charge you an arm and a leg for the _privilege_ of using it. If you don't like it, you're free to take a stand with your dollars and go elsewhere.

<comment><USER22> Oh, that's why I didn't have to pay for my iPhone, then.

<comment><USER23> You're precisely correct, You did not have to pay for your iPhone. You chose to.

<comment><USER22> Yes, I chose to pay for the phone. Apple chose to sell the phone at a price they felt adequate compensation for their "decades" of work.

Apple is currently seeking to leverage their monopoly[1] on the iOS platform by extracting additional rent[2] from content providers.

Their probability of success directly correlates with their pricing power.

Is this rent-seeking good for Apple customers? Unlikely. Is it legal? Depends on how the FTC views Apple's pricing power.

kb

[1]In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly>)

[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> By this logic, the customer's ISP also deserves a cut.

<comment><USER25> They do, from the customer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> (Disclaimer: I don't work for Apple or own any of their stock, just a happy dev in their ecosystem)

I completely agree with this model.

Apple's marketing muscle is HUGE. I'm perfectly OK with splitting one-time or recurring revenue with them if they help bring me customers.

</comment><comment><USER27> Obviously, any app store-only app will not care about this other than reduced margins for subscriptions -- they weren't making money any other way. But folks who sell through other channels than ipad will .. just leave. I wonder if that's the goal.

But then again: it's like the ebook purchase thing -- Amazon and BN have been strangely silent -- maybe they decided to relent, maybe they're going to get a special deal, or maybe they'll pull their apps just before the ipad2 launches. :-)

</comment><comment><USER28> _"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app."_

 _"Apple's announcement went on to emphasize that publishers are not limited to using the App Store for subscriptions; they're allowed to use their own websites to sell subs."_

So purchase can be made in Safari in order to bypass the AppleVAT ?

<comment><USER29> safari is not _inside the app_

<comment><USER30> _In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think this whole thing is overblown.

When I trade stock, options or pretty much anything, I get charged commissions. So by the same reckoning e*trade, Schwab, Ameritrade, <insert brokerage here> are thieves and have been "stealing" from investors/traders for centuries.

</comment><comment><USER31> It's more than just providing a subscriber base, it's the infastructure to process recurring payments, while making it stupid simple for the customer. Whether this is worth 30% is debatable, as some of us know it's not trivial/cheap to do on your own.

</comment><comment><USER32> Does the upcoming launch of Apple's NFC system and general purpose payments platform suggest that the same rules will be coming for ecommerce and general transactions? Sounds like bad news for people like Square or PayPal.

</comment><comment><USER33> Just based on that one line argument in the subject, I can't say I disagree.

</comment><comment><USER34> To round the issue out from their side, not that I agree, from their point of view, it's "If we bring you subscribers via our devices, we deserve a cut"

<comment><USER2> Once you have purchased a phone from Apple - doesn't it cease to be their device?

Doesn't this all seem a little wrong?

<comment><USER35> Only if you jailbreak it</comment></comment></comment>


Corporations Want Obama's Winning Formula - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/83230-corporations-want-obamas-winning-formula

<comment><USER2> Step one: be one of only two options on the marketplace.

Bonus Step 2: make everything you promise non-binding, so you never really have to follow through with anything your marketing said in order to make the sale.

<comment><USER3> What the heck does that have to do with the article?

<comment><USER2> Well how can you draw marketing analogies from something, when your business faces a completely different marketing environment?

For example, what business gets free press 24-7 for months?

<comment><USER4> I'm guessing you didn't read the article. The people who are being hired are those who did analytics and social media for the campaign.

<comment><USER5> I will not be the first to think it or even post it, but in the end they weren't the reason he won. He has never faced a truly critical press. If anything far too many in the media are still enamored with him and he also has one fall back which is even being exploited today in regards to other members of his administration, race.

Simply put, he cannot be criticized without risk of those who do so being branded bigots or racist and that inhibits many from who can be unbiased but critical from speaking out because fear is a great was to stop people before they move.

Yes he had good people working his campaign, but they didn't really have that hard of a job cut out for them. This guy is part cult in his appeal and had a small portion of the vote automatically locked in. He didn't have to win over as many voters as the other guy, and again the GOP ran their Kerry / Gore / Dole / Mondale. Politicians who are easily defined by others because they cannot define themselves face an uphill battle.

<comment><USER6> Sorry, but I completely disagree. Did you read any of the extremely critical articles over the last few years, even in the mainstream so-called "liberal" press. Obama was strongly criticized over his policies and actions. One example - the drone program. He was and is roundly castigated about this.

I really don't agree with your "cult appeal" statement either. The people I know who support Obama are smart and well-informed, and made a conscious decision that he was and is the best choice for the country. You may not agree, but please don't fall into the trap of dismissing his appeal to many people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "5 Ways The Obama Campaign Was Run Like A Lean Startup"

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

1\. They measured every single thing.

2\. They used A/B testing.

3\. They used behavioral targeting to increase engagement.

4\. They streamlined the checkout process.

5\. Their marketing was nontraditional.

[http://www.fastcompany.com/3002973/5-ways-obama-campaign- was...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3002973/5-ways-obama-campaign-was-run-lean- startup)

<comment><USER8> Its interesting that theres another thread right now about how being unwavering on political issues. Isn't A/B testing about as far from that as you could possibly get?

If you are trying to get elected at the national level and you are A/B tesing, isn't wavering exactly what you are doing? Isn't it it essentially well- targeted and opportunistic populism? Isn't this very, very bad?

(this comment isnt aimed at pella, more aimed at the idea of politicians a/b testing)

<comment><USER9> > Isn't A/B testing about as far from that as you could possibly get?

No, A/B testing doesn't mean flip flopping on the message. You'd want to test various campaigns delivering the same message different ways to see which one converts better. Maybe one set of words gets more donations while another gets more volunteers while another barely gets anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My thought upon seeing the title is that this is a huge business opportunity for Optimizely that they should take advantage of.

</comment><comment><USER11> I thought Obama's IT formula came from the corporate marketing world, but was adapted to use in a political campaign. I've been hearing about sorting people into "cohorts" using statistical correlations for over a decade, and yet when I first heard about it, it was already decades old and originally based on pre-internet data from dead-tree media like magazine subscriptions and even so _it was already very scary_ in terms of what they could tell about you.

<comment><USER12> I thought the same thing. As someone in marketing I was thinking if corporations are not doing this stuff already you are well behind the game. The thing to note with the Obama campaign is not the strategy but more how well they executed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This article reminded me blog post on Coding Horror back from 2007 called "Falling into the pit of success". This is exactly what Obama has created for his staff: "a pit of success". His staff had to merely just fall into it.

[http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/08/falling-into-the- pi...](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/08/falling-into-the-pit-of- success.html)

<comment><USER14> This is interesting, and a good read, but I'd suggest that being elected in an election that's nothing more than one gigantic mutual smear campaign is less like succeeding and more like helping someone else fail.

Winning, to me at least, implies that you have _done something_ and that the result of your actions placed you above your competition. These guys didn't compete at anything aside from who could generate the most bad publicity for the "opponent."

That just doesn't strike me as the kind of action deserving of words like "success" or "winner."

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm waiting for the non-biased responses here on HN...

</comment><comment><USER16> Not being an American and thus never having heard either candidate speak on "issues", this image gallery perfectly illustrates what makes Obama a successful politician.

<http://imgur.com/a/X6186#0>

He's just so ... human. I don't know whose fault that is, but it's a winning touch imho.

<comment><USER17> There's a theory that the most charismatic candidate for president usually wins. Looking back over history it's pretty hard to argue with that.

<comment><USER8> Thats a valid theory, but only going back to the dawn of TV/Radio. Before that politicians actually had to have some content in their messages.

for example, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates>

_The format for each debate was: one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute "rejoinder." The candidates alternated speaking first. As the incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates._

Those were 3 hour debates. Now all a politician has to do is look good holding a football.

(this is basically paraphrasing Neil Postman's work from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death>)

<comment><USER2> There's a good book on this subject from 1985, where the author explores how the requirement in politics is no longer real action/results it's entertainment.

 _Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business_

[http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse- Busi...](http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse- Business/dp/014303653X/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon.com fails to connect with 256 bit cipher - java-man

In the latest firefox, go to about:config and turn off all 128 bit ciphers.  Then try logging into your amazon.com store account.  Does this fail for you as well? <comment> java-man "Firefox cannot guarantee the safety of your data on www.amazon.com because it uses SSLv3, a broken security protocol. Advanced info: ssl_error_no_cypher_overlap"</comment>


Grid Style Sheets – CSS polyfills from the future - <AUTHOR> http://gridstylesheets.org/ <comment><USER3> If this is what I think it is (a new layout engine that runs in JavaScript, so that CSS is used just for styling, not layout), it is what I've been waiting YEARS for.

Unfortunately, the site is deafeningly silent on specifics. What browsers does it support? Is there any kind of tutorial for getting started? When would this be appropriate to use, and when not? What is performance like with rendering times, both on desktop and mobile? Window resizing? How does it handle boxes that depend on the size of their content? What about non-visible boxes, when browsers often lie because they haven't actually rendered the text to be able to tell?

If anything ever needed a comprehensive FAQ, it's this.

But this has the potential of freeing us from the horrible disaster for layout that is CSS, and giving us a sane replacement, without waiting for browsers or the W3. If it really is what it promises, and works flawlessly, I wouldn't be suprised to see it become as ubiquitous as jQuery.

<comment><USER4> Yes, yes, the site needs much more. Released only a couple weeks ago and probably needs a big fat "BETA" or something.

More language features, docs, demos, etc coming soon. Right now works down to IE11, and we will work our way further down, but once we get precompilation of a static GSS layout to raw CSS (difficult b/c must account for every possible screen size), it will be bullet proof on any crappy browser!

<comment><USER5> Could you change the site so that the front page gives a very clear idea of how my CSS (and HTML if relevant) would look different? What size JS is included? Performance considerations (and if performance is poor, why this is so cool that I won't care).

It sounds cool, but maybe overkill for what I need, but the menu items don't sound relevant to me figuring out whether this is what I want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Finally! I've been consistently bothered when people hype preprocessors like SASS and LESS as "the future of CSS" or "fixes to the CSS problem."

Yes, they make things somewhat nicer by adding variables and macros and the like, but it's still fundamentally CSS, a language that was designed to style documents rather than implement complicated and dynamic layouts.

My bar for programming/markup languages is how close they come to _intent_. For example, centering something in CSS is a mess of absolute positions and table-cells -- it couldn't be farther from the simple intent of "I'd like to center this."

So, that's why I'm so excited about this. Writing normal CSS seems like writing Assembly, and SASS/LESS just adds some nice macros... to your Assembly. This feels like writing real code.

<comment><USER7> For sure. I've always refused SASS and LESS as well. The reason being, if your design is simple enough, you don't need that stuff in the first place.

<comment><USER8> Much as if your program is simple enough, you shouldn't need C?

FWIW, I think that CSS is no great language, and yes, writing LESS feels very much like writing macros rather than using a language, but the requirements of the designs I have to implement are generally complex enough that a preprocessor and CSS framework greatly simplify my work, leaving me more time to focus on intent (which I think is a reasonable goal) rather than details of implementation.

If it works well for you to refuse to learn a preprocessor, then that is a good thing, but the fact that one makes my life easier doesn't necessarily imply that the designs I am implementing are overly complex, as your statement seems to imply (though perhaps I am misreading so...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _" why can't we position & size elements relative to each other"_

It already exists. It's called _margins_.

But it might be hard to handle when half of the elements in the page have the following style applied:

      position: absolute;
      margin: 0px;
      top: 0px;
      left: 0px;

If your title needs to have a "width: 1121px" and your container a "padding- right: 377px;" in order for your layout to work, you're doing it wrong.

I seriously don't understand the point of calculating and generating such arbitrary positioning values.

A web page's layout is meant to stay _fluid_ , because it should adapt to the content it's styling. Margin, padding, font-size, line-height... These are all meant to provide rules to position elements _relative_ to both its surroundings and its content.

These Grid Style Sheets might be powerful but they're not for the web. Definitely not.

<comment><USER7> True indeed. Grids are only meant for architecture and graphic design. If needed, they should only be transferred to websites and apps visually (ie. [http://hashgrid.com/](http://hashgrid.com/)). Transferring them programatically is a waste of time. Basic CSS will do just fine.

[http://subtraction.com/pics/0703/grids_are_good.pdf](http://subtraction.com/pics/0703/grids_are_good.pdf)

<comment><USER4> W3C has been hashing out new grid-based specs for quite some time now, because as admitted in the Grid Layout Module working draft, "As websites evolved... floats, were not necessarily well suited for application layout."

[http://www.w3.org/TR/css-grid-1/#background](http://www.w3.org/TR/css- grid-1/#background)

Dozens & dozens of CSS grid systems have emerged, but without retooling the internals of the browser's layout engine and adding new CSS language features, such attempts retain the flaws of CSS float & will taint content semantics.

But, of course, the W3C's grid-based efforts is not without flaws, see:

[http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/rethinking-css- grids](http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/rethinking-css-grids)

<comment><USER10> Thanks for mentioning this. I had peeked at those specs, proposals. Looks like a CSS version of GridBagLayout. No mention of canonical grids. (See my other comment.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Compiling to CSS, very interesting strategy. Will definitely try it. Porting my layout manager to the browser is on my to do list.

I created DesignGridLayout for creating visually correct UIs using canonical grids (a la Mullet and Sanno, many others). You specify rows and components. DGL figures out columns, spacing, alignment, baselines, etc.

[https://designgridlayout.java.net](https://designgridlayout.java.net)

[Shout out to Jean-François Poilprêt, who's now the project owner and greatly extended the functionality.]

I used to be very bullish on constraint solvers for UI, Cassowary included. I found that creating visually correct forms continued to be very difficult. Partially because the UI components do not have the built-in smarts, such as anchors for text baselines.

So I decided that capturing (encoding) the heuristics of canonical grids was best implemented (at the time) with explicit imperative code.

Constraint solvers still have great potential for document layout, a la responsive designs.

I have no doubt that a future bottom up redo of a UI component framework (UIMS) will embrace constraints for both document and form layout.

<comment><USER11> > I have no doubt that a future bottom up redo of a UI component framework > (UIMS) will embrace constraints for both document and form layout.

Welcome to the future! Cocoa's new(ish) layout system, Auto Layout, is constraint based.

> Partially because the UI components do not have the built-in smarts, such as > anchors for text baselines.

In Cocoa, you can constrain two views to align by baseline, and each view handles what "baseline" means for itself. Built in views (labels, buttons, etc.) behave as you'd expect.

<comment><USER10> Thanks. I should look at Auto Layout. My hobby iOS project (a few years back) made me want to stab myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yet another cool thing in Javascript. Once you understand the power of Autolayout in iOS you don't want to go back to the old way (and in iOS7 you almost can't). Once this matures and people understand it (constraint thinking takes a while to puzzle out) I think it could simplify a lot of web design. Of course, anyone that refuses to turn on JS can't see anything. But that's almost pointless these days anyway.

Looking forward to it maturing.

</comment><comment><USER13> This seems to mimic OS X's "Auto-Layout" approach where you define layout by specifying constrains between pairs of elements.

I've recently converted a couple of applications to Auto-Layout and I don't like it at all. If you add too few constrains the layout is unstable, elements get 0 sizes, and all kinds of weird things happen. If you add too many constrains then it suddenly becomes a fixed layout.

</comment><comment><USER14> "GSS is a CSS preprocessor & JS runtime that harnesses Cassowary.js, the JS port of the same constraint solving algorithm Apple uses in Cocoa Autolayout for iOS & OS X. GSS & Cassowary are based on "Constraint Programming" - <USER2> paradigm where developers focus on declaring the "what" and relying on a mathematical solver to figure out the "how"... This makes Constraint Programming a natural fit for declarative languages like CSS."

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand what this is.

<comment><USER16> okay simple from mobile web apps its a way to native layout like the mobile apps do but in css..ie one step closer to full parity between native mobile apps and mobile web apps

<comment><USER17> Ok, but seriously, no jokes: What is it? I'm utterly lost and feel like a gringo in Colombia with no way to communicate.

<comment><USER11> You know how in Keynote or Powerpoint, when you drag elements around they snap to certain guidelines? Like, if you drag a text box close to the center of the slide, it'll snap to being exactly centered. Or if you drag something close to a margin, it'll snap to a standard distance from the edge.

A "constraint" captures a relationship such as those. "Block A is horizontally centered in its container." "Block B's right edge is 20 pixels from the right edge of its container".

The layout is then based on those captured relationships.

CSS sorta works like that too. The difference is that this system has one general thing (a constraint), where CSS has a lot of very specific interacting properties (margin, padding, etc).

A constraint has basically the form

        y = m*x + b

where x and y are geometric attributes of blocks. For example,

        blockA.left = 1 * blockB.right + 20

The = could also be <= or >=.

Last, you can say that a constraint should hold with strength one of {required, strong, medium, weak}. In this demo:

        http://gridstylesheets.org/demos/apple/

the "Change Mode" button is weakly centered in the panel, but there is a required constraint that it be to the right of the "Add" button. So, when the panel gets too narrow, the "Change Mode" button stops being centered.

<comment><USER18> Helpful, thanks. Can anyone articulate in simple terms why that is better (and not worse even) than CSS?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Can somebody just give the JS crowd a raw pixel blitting engine and let them get on with reinventing every piece of the browser because reasons?

<comment><USER20> <canvas> ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The page isn't showing up in IE10 for me and is sluggish performance wise on Webkit (OS X and Windows). You can see the layout stutter when recalculating whereas with natural properties, layout recalculation is smooth. In Chrome, the layout barely reaches 30fps.

Using CSS grids or flexbox would be more appropriate, and there is an outright lie on their section of flexbox. Flex items can be relatively sized according to their siblings using the flex property and aligned using the justify- content, align-items and align-content properties. In fact you do not need to change the HTML to reorder elements individually or as a column or row or reversed. Horizontally centering elements is now solved by flexbox (display: flex; on parent and margin: auto; on targeted element) and for legacy browsers, use display: table.

Trying to replace the browser's layout engine, instead of compliment existing technologies, is a terrible approach. It will always be slow and result in degraded performance. And shame on these guys building a so called 'layout' engine but not using requestAnimationFrame.

Anyone concerned about layout performance should visit these: [http://jankfree.org/](http://jankfree.org/) [http://wilsonpage.co.uk/preventing-layout- thrashing/](http://wilsonpage.co.uk/preventing-layout-thrashing/)

<comment><USER4> I agree about using Grids, in fact we're currently working on a Grid Layout Module polyfill, but with constraint-based sugar. Really excited for this one, relative constraints can get tedious, abstract grid-based primitives make high level layouts much more intuitive.

Concerning Flexbox, it is not a lie! Flexbox is still dependent on the source order / parent-child relationships within the DOM. With constraints, you get true source order independence, so you can layout any group of elements within any other regardless of DOM structure... When I get time, will push demos on how to simulate Flexbox and show examples not possible with Flexbox...

Amazingly, IE 11 just worked, yes need to tackle lower versions... Unfortunately, there is no other way to accomplish GSS's constraint-based CSS extensions without a runtime replacement for the browser's float-based layout. That being said, precompiling the computed results for a static page for all screen sizes, thus eliminating the need of 99% of the runtime, will make it viable for the jankiest of browsers, and resolved to ID selectors would be potentially faster than native language extensions!

We're still in very early days of the lib, specific issues and comments welcome on the repo:

[https://github.com/the-gss/engine](https://github.com/the-gss/engine)

<comment><USER22> > With constraints, you get true source order independence, so you can layout > any group of elements within any other regardless of DOM structure...

That would be awesome. Does that means you can have a modal dialog box centered to the appropriate parent view and still allows user to dismiss it anywhere in the viewport?

<comment><USER4> yes, the HTML of the dialog can exist as direct child of body, or wherever, and then be aligned to any element...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This page scrolls slower than most pages on Safari (OS X 10.9.2).

EDIT: And the page is blank with JS disabled. I didn't know about the Cassowary Constraint Solver and it's interesting to see a project thinking outside of CSS and its flaws, but please don't use it in production.

EDIT II: gss.js is 653KB (would be much smaller if minified, I also didn't check the gzipped size) and worker.js is 64KB.

<comment><USER24> We're working on precompiling to CSS, which should fix those issues.

The GSS build can also be a lot smaller if we drop the three grammar parsers (VGL, VFL, and CCSS), and you pre-parse GSS to the AST in for example Grunt

<comment><USER25> I'm not sure why, but the fellow you're replying to doesn't like javascript.

You plan to solve it by compiling to css beforehand.

What if I told you I like to remove all custom css from my page. Do you have any recourse?

<comment><USER23> I like JavaScript. I do most of my browsing on a browser with JS enabled. I only browse with JS off when I think the sites I'm about to visit are sketchy.

However, I also like saving resources and separating concerns. We have CSS to make pages look good (or at least half decent). We can make them look even better with JS, and GSS in a later version may very well do that: compile a stylesheet that does the basic layout/typography/effects and then patch what CSS cannot do with JS.

If I decide to disable CSS, I should still be able to see the HTML, and if I disable JS, I should still be able to see the content with most of the styling, except dynamic content and anything that CSS can't do.

I'll be watching GSS, a precompiled solution would be really useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't see anywhere that discusses browser compatibility. If I can't use it on anything but bleeding edge browsers, it will be a long time before I can even think about something like this.

<comment><USER27> It does not appear work in IE9/10 yet: [https://github- camo.global.ssl.fastly.net/5ee9a304678365bec6...](https://github- camo.global.ssl.fastly.net/5ee9a304678365bec6a435e8a3bdf1506f421dcb/68747470733a2f2f73617563656c6162732e636f6d2f62726f777365722d6d61747269782f6773732d656e67696e652e737667)

from their github page: [https://github.com/the- gss/engine](https://github.com/the-gss/engine)

<comment><USER28> [http://bit.ly/1cG0PlA](http://bit.ly/1cG0PlA)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I wonder what the performance hit is like when calculating comparitive constraints. Rather than just looking up x = 100, you now need to look at x == y == z == a == 100, etc...

I can imagine some complicated websites getting out of hand quite quickly.

<comment><USER30> Another article I've seen recently pitted Yahoos engineers simple set of equations vs the Carroway solver and it was slower by a 1000-10000 times or so, hah. I think ultimately the time is negligible since you'll run it maybe one or twice on a complete page.

The point is that you don't have to re code an entire set of equations for a new layout. That's big for designers to not have to involve coders (in theory).

<comment><USER24> Well, web developers already have to implement design constraints into CSS. Now you just do it by manually calculating and hardcoding positions and sizes. With GSS you can offload a lot of that effort to the constraint solver.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If anyone is familiar with Qt's layout system and Apple's constraint system, can you comment on which you like better? I've thought that having QLayouts for my HTML elements would be really handy.

</comment><comment><USER31> Hello guys, little demo with this lib : [http://bbfwe.com/projet/bbs/gss/#/](http://bbfwe.com/projet/bbs/gss/#/) I've discovered this lib yesturday, I've spend just 2 hours to install and make this little demo. The layout file (layout.gss) is really light. This lib is very promising to build one-page-app-fluid layout !

<comment><USER4> Awesome! what twitter handle should I attribute it to?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I know I'm a little late to the party, and it's very likely no one will read this comment, but after having read all these comments, it just sounds like the people who are poo-pooing CSS just... don't know how to use it very well. Sure, CSS has its quirks, but it's EXTREMELY powerful if you know what you're doing.

Try learning how to use the thing before you decide to change the thing...

</comment><comment><USER33> #iphone[center-x] == #ipad[center-x]; #iphone[bottom] == #ipad[bottom];

Why are they assigning values using what's traditionally a comparison operator?

<comment><USER34> That's not an assignment. That's telling the solver "Do whatever you need to do to satisfy this condition". Either the right or the left or both may change.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, common in the Constraint-based, or Logic, Programming paradigm. This particular spec was established in Greg Badros & Alan Borning's Constraint CSS (CCSS):

[https://www.cs.washington.edu/research/constraints/web/ccss-...](https://www.cs.washington.edu/research/constraints/web/ccss- uwtr.pdf)

<comment><USER33> Interesting, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The design of the site is excellent, but...

Vanilla CSS isn't that bad. Existing preprocessors have made it much nicer to use without changing the basic formula and workings of CSS.

GSS is a fairly radical departure and as such it should offer big returns which I'm not seeing. Moreover, I don't see that it's solving a problem that needed solving in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER36> This looks intriguing and I will likely try it out.

As an aside, half of the links under "Features" are not actually links, and half of ones that are links go to the same page without any anchors. It is confusing from a design perspective. Please at least consider changing the ones that are not links to not appear the exact same as links.

</comment><comment><USER37> Reminds me some logic and constraint based programming such as Prolog.

</comment><comment><USER38> Aside from anything else, this site has a pretty unique and fun design, so kudos for that.

</comment><comment><USER39> Cool idea but just looking at the source of that page gives me nightmares

</comment><comment><USER40> And do i need this because?</comment>


The Robin Hood Morality Test - <AUTHOR> http://www.talisman.org/quizzes/robin-hood-morality.shtml <comment><USER4> This is very poorly set up. What are even the facts of the case?

0\. We're instructed to forget what we know about these characters, but then through hints we're supposed to recover the details of these characters' relationships to each other and the world?

1\. Is this a real sheriff?

2\. Did Robin Hood and Little John do anything deserving of being locked up?

3\. What was the previous relationship between Maid Marion and Robin Hood? Were they truly lovers or something less?

4\. What was the previous relationship between Maid Marion and the sheriff? Were they necessarily citizens with a power differential?

5\. Would the sheriff have released his prisoners the next morning regardless of Maid Marion's actions?

6\. Was Robin's "abuse" verbal or physical in nature?

7\. What was the previous relationship between Little John and Maid Marion? Were they necessarily unlinked except via a mutual tie to Robin Hood?

8\. What was the previous relationship between Little John and Robin Hood? Were they friends with some obligation to each other, or merely cellmates?

9\. Was Little John truthful in his promise of devotion?

Many different rankings can stem from differing understanding of those facts rather than differing moral standards. Not to mention the conflation of Honesty with Morality.

<comment><USER5> > We're instructed to forget what we know about these characters, but then > through hints we're supposed to recover the details of these characters' > relationships to each other and the world?

Honestly, I think that's the point. You're told to forget your predispositions and be objective, and it's the degree to which you're able to and the biases that surface to fill the gaps of unknowns that this test is revealing.

<comment><USER4> Fair. But then you read the answers list ([http://www.talisman.org/cgi- bin/robin-hood-morality?all=true](http://www.talisman.org/cgi-bin/robin-hood- morality?all=true)) and learn that there were right answers (jrms, jmsr) and everyone else gets insults.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, felt the same, but it could be our own head that's just playing against ourselves.. it's a psycho game after all

The hostile tone is part of the game which, in a sense is trying to be well balanced, and it may help to avoid your brain filtering the message.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> MSJR

I'm quite the minority. My thoughts were as follows:

1\. Maid Marion did something she didn't want in order to rescue a lover, and deservedly went with someone in the end. Understandable particularly after being the victim of unappreciation and abuse.

2\. The sheriff imprisoned them for reasons that are not explained by the story. Can't fault him here. He allows himself to be bribed with sex which could be seen as a mercy in a certain light. More importantly, he was good on his word to release Robin and Little John, as opposed to abusing his power even further. Basically, he could have done far worse than he did.

3\. Little John had the least to lose in all this, and as far as I can tell, hasn't done anything necessarily correct either. It's very easy to start off fulfilling the white knight role, but then have nothing to follow it up with. Neutral on his behavior and he ranks lower than the sheriff only because he had an easier decision to make.

4\. Robin is the real cunt in this story from my perspective. Ingratitude coupled with abuse, and lack of empathy as to Marion's motivations.

The claims:

> Such an emphatic rejection of ready-made values is probably partly > camouflage. You hate to be thought weak or insecure. You value honesty, and > abhor hypocrisy.

> Men: Women are very much part of you life, and you are - or perhaps would > like to be - quite ruthless, both with women and life in general.

... interesting.

*edit:formatting

Final edit:

I guess the underpinning difference between my perception of morality is that it's a bit relative based on the search space of decisions available. There are a ton of details omitted that would likely sway my decision a different way, however, so the solution set to this problem seems a bit unstable.

<comment><USER8> Eh, it seems to me the sheriff horribly abused his position of power. Either LJ and RH were imprisoned rightfully, in which case perhaps they shouldn't be just be released, or else the sheriff wrongly imprisoned them. Either way, he exploited his power as sheriff and blackmailed MM for sex.

RH's actions, on the other hand, while certainly misguided, are at least understandable, if he lives in a typical culture of masculinity, monogamy, and Victorian-era purity, where it's embarrassing to be rescued by a woman and shameful for women to have sex. He was probably feeling emasculated after being rescued by in such a fashion, and took out his anger on MM. (Which is bad, of course, but I don't think it's worse than what the sheriff did).

Finally, RH's "abuse" is left ambiguous, as opposed to the sheriff's which is very much explicit.

<comment><USER9> Blackmail is not quite the right word. There is no evidence in the story that MM is not free to reject sheriff's offer without consequence (above RH/LJ remaining in jail, which as we've all observed is not necessarily unjust).

<comment><USER10> We also have no evidence that she is sure there will be no consequences. In her position, if the local sheriff had just arrested your loved one (for valid or invalid reasons) and then called you saying he would free them if you only had sex with him, would you really trust him not to take revenge if you refused?

<comment><USER9> I agree, but on the other hand sheriff's makes the offer after MM pleads. I think that would suggest that sheriff is seizing an opportunity, not extorting MM or demanding sex.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting, but I'd be surprised if anyone who reads HN chose anything other than some permutation of {{Maid Marion, Little John}, {Robin Hood, The Sheriff}}, which cuts down the answer space by a factor of 6.

My own ranking was MM, LJ, RH, S. Did anyone choose something different from that? Or seriously choose anything different than one of the four permutations above?

<comment><USER11> I had MM and LJ swapped, but otherwise identical to your rankings. Not that I thought there was anything wrong with MM's actions, but she still did commit adultery and engage in bribery to circumvent the legal system (albeit for honorable reasons). LJ didn't do anything shifty.

<comment><USER12> Many people see LJ's proposal to MM as taking advantage of a woman in a vulnerable position. I've seen people rank LJ at the bottom.

<comment><USER13> LJ lower than the Sheriff? I fail to see how LJ took more advantage of her than the Sheriff. He's the only one supporting her. The only way I can see him as ranking on the bottom is if you believe Robin "owns" Marion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm giving two totally different answers for morality and honesty. Why are they conflated?

<comment><USER15> Muddies the water and fuels discussion! If the question were more precisely specified, there might actually be a right answer :)

But, I wondered about this too. In fact my answers were pretty much opposites, depending on which I prioritised. In the end I left the decision up to my gut, and I'm kind of glad I did, because the results had some nice things to say... about my gut, at least. Not sure where that leaves the rest of me.

(I found the author's willingness not to pull punches in their assessments admirable, in that he/she avoided any MBTI-/horoscope-style wooliness - <USER2> some of the results came across a little overly scathing. If there isn't actually one right answer, there are certainly sections of the result space they're clearly convinced are incorrect. But if its inventor is truly a marriage expert, I've no doubt they have their reasons.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The particular analyses of the results here are dubious and in some instances pretty ruthless, but the test itself is really quite interesting. My sociology teacher used to present a morality test with a similar story, but with two more characters. We spent a lot of time arguing about it in class, and it led to some serious disagreements. I know I thought less of some people after that day.

</comment><comment><USER17> Little John, Maid Marion, Robin Hood, The Sherriff

> Men: Perhaps you tend to idealize women and credit them with virtues they > don't possess.

Swap Maid Marion and Robin Hood:

> Men: You are sexually inhibited with an underlying distrust of women.

This is crap. It seems putting Maid Marion in the top half means you credit women too much, and putting her in the bottom half means you discredit her too much.

<comment><USER18> The first two spots are fairly easy decisions to make. Little John had the hardest choice to make, and Maid Marion the second hardest. Both chose rightly.

Your proposed swap is really weird, placing Little John above Robin Hood but Robin Hood above Maid Marion. It indicates that you accepted that Little John is the real mensch in this situation, yet identify with Robin Hood's caddish behavior anyway.

The real decision here is whether Robin Hood is more honorable than the Sheriff. Ultimately the Sheriff was more honest to his baser desires, whereas Robin became irrationally controlling when confronted with a difficult situation.

If you thought Little John should have gotten the prize, then to be consistent, you have to put Robin in the loser's spot. Robin Hood chose wrongly when confronted with a moral dilemma in a way that traumatized the very person responsible for his freedom.

Giving Robin more credit than he deserves indicates that you identify with the feelings he had. They're the feelings of sexual inadequacy and possessiveness.

<comment><USER17> > Giving Robin more credit than he deserves indicates that you identify with > the feelings he had.

This is _exactly_ the kind of information which you can't glean from rankings.

<comment><USER18> I disagree. I think the way the quiz is set up and the question being asked, "who is the most moral / honest," means that's exactly the sort of information this is teasing out.

The quiz sets up a highly emotionally charged situation that a lot of people are going to make snap judgments about. The first couple of ranking decisions made are going to reflect those snap judgments. The neat thing about the ranking process is that it forces you to think beyond the snap judgments and consider the relative morality of _all_ the characters. It asks you to do this while your guard is down, i.e. if they just asked you the relevant questions about your moral leanings, you wouldn't necessarily give the ones you are really operating on subconsciously.

The other neat thing is the ambiguity of the situation given. You don't know the character's histories, you don't know why the sheriff locked them up, the whole thing is set up so you read those details into the situation. What you read into it will certainly affect your rankings. For example, an unassuming reader won't snap to the judgment that the sheriff forced Maid Marion to have sex with her.

<comment><USER17> You haven't addressed my concern: you've focused on my judgments about Robin, but my concern is that you can't analyze my opinion about Robin in isolation, because it's only a relative ranking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> One interesting twist - reverse the genders of the characters involved and then decide your order of morality.

I did that with my girlfriend - both of us could make up our minds for the original tests, but when the genders were reversed, it took a long time for both of us to make sense of the situation and come up with the final ranking.

Very interesting to see how our brains are conditioned.

</comment><comment><USER20> My answer would be different depending on whether the Sheriff was planning to keep them for a day anyway, or for life, or even kill them the next day. I feel this is an important part of the story, which is not clarified. Also not clarified is whether MM could talk to Robin first and ask him what he wanted.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's unfortunate that he conflates morality and honesty.

</comment><comment><USER22> I find it the following interesting:

From this perspective, J did nothing wrong, and helped solve M's problems. M had good intentions, but hurt R, but had little choice. S forced himself on someone against their will as a form of ransom. R lost both his friend and lover as a result of his actions.

The ranking of S and R comes down to whether you think that S forcing himself on M was intended to hurt R, and if he knew what R would do to M as a result.

I wonder if this had been changed from imprisonment to death for R (and possibly J, possibly not) if R's reaction would have changed, or if not, if it would change the S/R ranking.

<comment><USER5> S did not force himself on M. Objectively, he abused his power to make a trade for personal gain, and that's what you're judging. M was in no way forced to do anything and the way the story is presented is nearly as guilty as S in that she abused her sexual power for gain (undermining justice in the process) to free someone. The way it is presented, we don't know if it's altruistic or selfish.

For reference, I was JMSR.

<comment><USER10> _the story is presented is nearly as guilty as S in that she abused her sexual power for gain (undermining justice in the process) to free someone_

Considering S's actions - arresting someone and then giving someone the choice between prostituting herself to him or leaving her loved one in prison - <USER3> have no reason to assume any _justice_ has been undermined.

The name might indicate a position of legitimate power, but the actions suggest he's nothing more than a kidnapper. Hell, who knows what he might have done to the prisoners had she refused.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> There's not enough information.

It's a 'morality' test. You should ask "which morality"?

If we agreed on the code of conduct (procedure) to use, we could agree on a score for each.

Notice that two persons with the same ranking could have come from different scores (i.e. person A: (25,13,7,1=JRMS) vs Ranking from person B: (-1,-7,-10,-40=JRMS)). And this is just in the one-dimensional morality score system.

The test is mapping an infinite set of scores to a set of 24 choices, and then using those choices to criticize the chooser.

</comment><comment><USER24> It's not clear to me what it means by "moral"... does it mean aligned with the mainstream morality of our society, or does it mean what I believe is good according to my personal morality?

There are a bunch of cases where these two differ (for me), just think of the Snowden and Silkroad cases, or attitudes towards marriage or promiscuity, or towards religion.

</comment><comment><USER25> Awesome, no matter one answer you pick the test condemns you. This is less useful than even something like "What star wars character are you?" which is at least coherent in what it is attempting to discern.

<comment><USER26> Or maybe that's just the answer(s) you picked. MJRS gave me:

"We would expect you to be a happy, well-balanced person who likes people and is liked by others. You question whether many conventional views on morality are valid under all circumstances."

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Going for some of the "worst" answers produces some entertaining responses.

The Sheriff, Robin Hood, Maid Mario, Little John (Female):

"Women: If you really believe this is the right order, you baffle us completely."

<comment><USER26> And now I realize I wrote "Maid Mario", but I'm past the edit time limit. My mistake shall be enshrined in eternity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> They seem all pretty strange to me.

Marion bribed the sheriff. The sheriff got bribed. Robin is an asshole. John an opportunist.

<comment><USER12> If they weren't all immoral or dishonest then the ranking wouldn't be interesting.

<comment><USER27> I simply can't order them.

Every time, the person who is on the last place seem to be undeserving of it.

<comment><USER13> I think Robin and the Sheriff are both pretty deserving of the last place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Last page for accuracy is totally busted on an iPhone. Too bad.

</comment><comment><USER29> Remember folks: social science != science.

<comment><USER30> This doesn't appear to be social science either, though; more like a horoscope.

To the point of your comment though, I don't understand why anyone would think that applying scientific principles to humans and human interaction is any less valid a use of our time than any other application of the same methods.

<comment><USER31> Maybe because it doesn't work as well?</comment></comment></comment>


Startup Pitch Competitions have tricked Founders into sharing all their secrets. - <AUTHOR> http://www.rudebaguette.com/2013/09/11/startup-pitch-competitions-founders/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=startup-pitch-competitions-founders

<comment><USER2> If "how many users do you have?" or "What is your conversion rate from freemium to paid?" is a "secret" that would allow someone else to enter your space and beat your startup at what it does, you don't have much of a startup. You have many closer snakes to kill than worrying about competitors entering your space because they heard a stat at a startup competition.

<comment><USER3> Stats like that are private not because they might encourage competitors to enter your space, but because they might give your existing competitors ammunition to use against you. Very obvious example: someone who is considering becoming your customer may chose a competitor if they know that the competitor has three times as many users as you.

Or maybe you're doing really well, but you want to save the fact that you have over a million users and use it up get a great press story at a strategic moment.

There are plenty of good reasons to keep your numbers private.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a smallish angel investor, serial entrepreneur and startup event organizer, I see no problems neither in asking those questions nor answering them, often in quite much detail. Agree with r0h1n it is more about the execution.

True, there are some things none of us will disclose. Don't think someone realistically would expect you to disclose your upcoming deals. Like said, many are also fun probing questions and you should take them as such and turn them to your advantage.

We did have mixed feelings at my current startup, Weekdone team management and collaboration tool when we decided to publish our roadmap: [https://blog.weekdone.com/weekdone-product-development- ppp-a...](https://blog.weekdone.com/weekdone-product-development-ppp- august-2013/) It might give great ideas to competitors or other upstarts. But the value of customers, both potential and existing, knowing this outweighs the secrecy. YMMV.

It's also a cultural thing. The blog is French. Europeans are much more secretive.

On one point in the article: I remember Jeff Clavier (also French, now in the Valley) telling at an event that when mentoring French and EU startups coming to the US, the slide he tells them to always out is the exit strategy slide :) Not for secrecy, but because it's silly to include in your startup's vision. Built a great business and product instead.

</comment><comment><USER5> I probably wouldn't answer some of those questions in public, but not because I think someone's going to steal my idea. They're just none of your business.

It's a big market and this is an execution game. If you think you can jump in late just because you heard I have 100,000 users, well, good luck to you.

<comment><USER6> Quite agree - it's all about execution.

Other people want to come and do what we're doing? Well that's just great, it validates our market. We just need to make sure we're doing it better than you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Lots of people talking here about execution, but what actually makes "execution", execution?

Let's say for example you are the founder of Vitamin Water and you say "Our secret sauce is that we will compensate celebrities to promote our brand by offering them equity in the company".

Great! But do you have the means to pull that off? How can you convince an investor that you have the ability to convince 50 Cent (or most likely his accountant) to take equity in your venture?

This is execution. It's immeasurable, subjective, and is the most important part of _executing_ a startup. It's also extremely hard to articulate (convincingly, mind you) without actually seeing it happen right in your face.

I "give away" my strategy to Compete Hub (my startup) all of the time. It helps me validate my market. My competitors could easily analyze this and do the same thing. The reality is - they know more than me, but they simply don't have the execution capabilities to do so.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't see it as a "trick" if a founder is willingly answering a question posed to him/her.

That said, I think this is reflective of the shift in software startups where the "secret sauce" isn't your idea or statistics, but the speed & method of your _execution_.

<comment><USER9> I disagree - are you a founder?

Think of the list of things you wouldn't want your competitors to know about you - your upcoming deals, your plans for growth - these are things that I've seen founders reveal on stage during a video-recorded pitch competition.

<comment><USER10> But then that founder is making the decision to reveal those details. A judge has a right to ask whatever he or she wants about the business. It is on the founder to be responsible in answering it.

To preemptively answer your question, yes, I am a founder. Yes, I have pitched at video-recorded pitch sessions (though admittedly not ones as high profile as Distrupt). I have even told a judge "we are not ready to share that detail publicly, but I would be happy to share at least some of that information with you after the event".

If you can't share at least some of the basics, then don't pitch at such an event. They are not a fit for everyone, and if you are a speed play -- relying only on first mover advantage-- then they are probably not for you. I personally feel strongly that most founders are too stealthy and too cagey. We should be able to share at least the core of what we are doing because it is a good way to get feedback. The risk is that someone will come in and out- execute you. If that happens, then it was probably going to happen anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've heard this question so much, that I might as well ask - has anyone ever (in maybe the last 5 years) had their startup idea, copied then successfully executed by Google that led to the destruction of your startup?

I can only really think that once Reader was released it may have killed a couple startups but other than that I don't see the historical context for why this question gets asked so often. Google Drive didn't kill Dropbox, and AWS has yet to kill linode.

<comment><USER12> Facebook got started similarly, though that was a coder hired to work on a project and told details presumably in confidence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "No one is teaching founders which information they should give out to strangers and which information they have a right to keep to themselves, and frankly, the judges are more at fault than the founders."

Being ignorant is the founders' fault, not the "judges". As a founder, if you want to become less ignorant, figure out what you should/should not be telling. Hide a Dagger behind a Smile is a good book on tactics; along with 48 laws of power, with the former being more applicable.

</comment><comment> nevi-me It can go in any direction. I've seen companies that I might potentially compete with in the near future disclose a lot of things that could give me/anyone an advantage. It's not that we have "100'000" active users or any of the metrics, but rather something very important: Their strengths. There is a company founded by a few guys who had an idea, and patented it. They were already in mid-management corporate positions, so they managed to secure some funding. The strength that they always put up on microphone was that they're relying on patent protection, and that they want to see the likes of Google license their technology. The problem with this is that if they were programmers they'd know that their software patent is invalid, and that it's nothing really out of this world. Instead of focusing on building a solid product they wave the patent around while some of us are finding ways of taking them on.

I disclose the technology that my app uses, but I don't feel comfortable telling the world how I've managed to do something that could take minutes achievable in seconds.

</comment><comment><USER14> Founders who protest such competitions are the same types who ask potential employee's to sign onerous NDAs.

Honestly, almost nothing about running a business should be secret. Because that's not where your success comes from. It's all in execution and building a great product/culture. You can openly share all your plans and still see others fail to copy them.

<comment><USER15> I'd love to see your business plans, upcoming negotiation agendas and planned budgets. And I am not even your competitor, as I don't know what business you are in. Imagine your competitor's eagerness for such data.

<comment><USER14> And I'd have no objections to sharing such data. It's simply not the competitive advantage in most fields. Execution and effort drives success, not business plans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I like this point:

 _Judges in non-related sectors determine whether an early-stage gaming studio is 'better' than a boot-strapped big data startup._

It's certainly true that watching back to back pitches of very different companies, even in the same general sector, makes me wonder how on earth the judges are supposed to pick a 'winner'. However, it's pretty educational at the end of the day -- numbers matter, perhaps more so than the idea itself? -- any startup can be distilled down into a bunch of metrics and compared against another. It's that ephemeral 'potential' that makes the difference in terms of winning competitions, I think; I also wonder if a startup built purely to win a specific competition would look very different from one built because the founders had deep expertise and genuine passion for a specific problem or area?

</comment><comment><USER17> I disagreed completely with the title, then completely agreed with the article. Thanks for sharing the link. I've been asked some very probing questions by journalists as well.

</comment><comment><USER18> I look at pitch competitions as practice for public speaking so when I do have a one on one, I'm rock solid with my 30 and 90 second pitches.</comment>


Two Google Home Assistant A.I. Bots Just Fell in Love on Twitch - <AUTHOR> https://www.inverse.com/article/26054-google-home-bots-falling-in-love-on-twitch-is-the-best-romance-of-2017 <comment><USER2> Discussion over here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13336416](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13336416)</comment>


For the wealthy, myriad advantages in college admissions (even without cheating) - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/04/20/for-wealthy-myriad-advantages-college-admissions-even-without-cheating/oNnMf0BIaekFR5a2jeWGuK/story.html <comment><USER2> The college-admissions scandal clearly delineates the difference between people with connections (alumni and wealthy donors) and people with none. People with influence would never get caught cheating in this manner. They would take advantage of their old-boy network or bribe the school with the promise of a large gift. The rest of us don't have this kind of influence. A few parents decided to try to game the system by doing business with a slimeball like Rick Singer.

<comment><USER3> You make it sound like those that got caught were just small timers that don't have real wealth. But some of those involved are extremely wealthy and have a great deal of influence.

And even the most influential and powerful don't always get their way. There are plenty of people with enough integrity and self respect that won't budge no matter your level of influence.</comment></comment>


The $12 Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.seanpercival.com/blog/2009/07/29/the-12-startup/

<comment><USER2> Here's a question this post prompts for me: What is a startup and what is just a website that sells license plates?

People use the term startup, around here especially, a whole bunch but it feels to me like there should be some kind of clear distinction between a company founded as a startup and a single website.

I have a handful of websites that make some money but I would never call any of them a startup on an individual basis. I might call the all encompassing enterprise of building and maintaining those sites a startup but I think calling each individual site that is a bit of a stretch.

<comment><USER3> _small business_ : a small business that intends to stay small e.g. a hamburger shop

 _startup_ : a small business that intends to get big. example: a _chain_ of hamburger shops (of course a chain is only one way to "get big").

Note that because they are distinguished by _intention_ , you could have two factually identical hamburger shops, with one being a small business, and the other being a startup run by a deluded nutter, who crazily envisioned a chain of hamburger shops, when every sensible right-thinking person knew that was silly. But I would call it a startup, because of the intention.

pg thinks that it's rare for a startup to succeed (read: "get big") without funding (I'm not so sure, but I can't think of any counter-examples: google, yahoo etc all had funding).

37 signals advocates organic growth, and this works really well for a small business, such as "just a website that sells license plates". 37 signals themselves seem to have grown significantly, but I'm not sure they would be classed a "big company", but seem on the small end of "medium/small business" - therefore they are not (yet) an example of a startup getting big without funding (I'm not sure of their intention - it could be that they don't want this; i.e. that they aren't a "startup" at all). Joel's Fog Creek software is also small at the moment - I don't know whether he intends to become big, and so whether his company is a startup or a small business.

<comment><USER4> I do not agree at all with your definition of startup. I would just put it under small bussiness too. Yes, they have the intention of getting big, but everybody has that hope.

pg puts it well in one of his essayes: a startup is a company that solves a hard technical problem. The techical part is essential, not an afterthought. A fast-food chain would use tech, but it would not advance the art.

<comment><USER3> Not everybody has the hope to get big, e.g. my favourite cafe doesn't.

I would say that someone who wishes to get big, but doesn't take appropriate action, will still have a startup, albeit likely unsuccessful. You might define someone's company as not being a startup because you don't think they will be successful - but how do you know they won't be? Hence my ironic use of "delusional" etc. Many startups were doubted before they became successful.

<http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html> references the example to which I alluded: McDonald's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That only works if your time is worth $0.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure I understand how that doesn't apply to every startup. If you insist on valuing your time fairly from day one, you can never start anything new. You must work for someone else, who can pay you a fair wage. The trade is in the payoff one, two, or seven years down the road.

The payoff for this guy was $100,000, and he seems content with that payoff. For me, just the fact that I don't have to answer to a boss, be in the office at a certain time each day, or have to deal with constant meetings or corporate culture, is enough incentive for me to voluntarily value my time lower than I would working for someone else. Add in the potential for a very large payoff in the future (either an acquisition, an IPO, or just building a multi-million dollar business) and the trade is more than fair. I'd actually do it all for much less than I'm currently paid and less than I expect to be paid in the long run.

<comment><USER5> I don't insist on valuing time fairly from day one. I'm saying that it's intellectually dishonest to say that he turned a $12 domain registration into a $100,000 payday as though there was nothing in between.

The fact of the matter is that making $100,000 from starting up is significantly harder and costlier than it would be to make $100,000 holding down a day job. I know the audience here knows that especially well, and I know that you specifically know that very well. I just feel like it devalues what startups do when people just hand-wave away the fact that being successful necessitates blood, sweat and tears.

<comment><USER7> _being successful necessitates blood, sweat and tears_

This is one of those Real Scotsman pieces of lore which I think we repeat to flatter ourselves. I bleed a lot less for my startup than my day job, let me tell you.

<comment><USER8> There is work involved in everything.

<comment><USER9> Even inheritance?

<comment><USER8> It is a state of mind. I just don't like the idea that people write off things to luck, talent, miracles, and gifts from God.

Please note I don't discount these things, and those metaphysical wonders surely do exist (imo), but rather, it is a better builder of character to believe that everything is the result of personal decision and action.

As an aside, this is why I always stay away from the Tim Ferris bickering. Everyone _wants_ to believe he's a fraud. Whether he is or not is not important to me or you. Tim Ferris does things. That's it.

Probably a bit too romantic, but I like movie script endings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10>
       Domain Name: CUSTOMEUROPEANPLATES.COM
       Created on: 16-APR-05

Heck of a long time.

<comment><USER11> I don't think this is a legitimate indicator. I, at least, often register domains when I have a reasonable idea, which can often be a year or more before I do anything with them -- if I ever get around to it at all.</comment></comment>


Ancient genomics is recasting the story of the Americas' first residents - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07374-1 <comment><USER2> "Scientists discerned that groups crossed the Bering land bridge from Siberia into present-day Alaska and then moved steadily south as the last Ice Age ended. Humans carrying artefacts from a culture known as Clovis, including sophisticated projectile points, began to populate the interior of North America around 13,000 years ago. For decades, researchers thought that people associated with this culture were the continents' first inhabitants.

But the discovery of 'pre-Clovis' settlements — including a nearly 15,000-year-old site at the southern tip of Chile — pointed to an even earlier wave of migration to the Americas, presumably also over the Bering land bridge."

I think we should be reminded of these simple historical facts over and over. Lets not forget our history and that truly we are all ONE - Asians, Americans, Russians etc. We come from the same home and born from the same parents.

<comment><USER3> There's an excellent book that narrates the most current research in this area. I don't typically read history books for fun, but this one was rather gripping:

[https://www.amazon.com/1491-Second-Revelations-Americas- Colu...](https://www.amazon.com/1491-Second-Revelations-Americas-Columbus- ebook/dp/B000JMKVE4/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Some came over the Atlantic 10000 years ago": [http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/uini- seagoingskinboats.html](http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/uini- seagoingskinboats.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> "Presumably also over the Bering land bridge" , certainly a big presumption giving that boats are a preferred means of long distance travel, but proving as such so far back must be practically impossible.

<comment><USER6> Compounding this, sites that would have been coastal in those times are submerged due to sea level rise.</comment></comment>


The Electric-Car Movement Enters A Quiet, Crucial Phase - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2012-03/electric-car-movement-enters-quiet-crucial-phase?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

<comment><USER2> Surprised to learn that the Leaf had missed its sales target for last year. I have been amazed at the numbers of them I've seen on the roads. (But this is the SF Bay area, where hybrids and electrics are unusually popular.)

Haven't seen many Volts, though.</comment>


Show HN: My two weekends project, LoggingNotify.com - <AUTHOR>

Recently I accumulated a few Google App Engine instances to maintain, and I found myself wishing what if the instances could notify me when something goes wrong, then I don't need to log into each and everyone everyday just to check the error log.<p>So here it is: http://www.loggingnotify.com. It uses a wrapper class to send logging message from your instance to loggingnotify, which then emails you. I can make an iPhone app or add statistics later if any one has any interest in this. Also the wrapper class works only for python(like Django, GAE), but a Ruby or Java version should be very easy. <comment><USER2> hey you have no form validation for your signup. I just submitted an empty form and it went through. You might want to check that :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Just fixed that. Want me to delete your special account?

<comment><USER2> haha, yes!</comment></comment></comment>


Kaggle Joins Google Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kaggle.com/2017/03/08/kaggle-joins-google-cloud/ <comment><USER2> Is anyone else worried that Kaggle no longer being independent will cause the diversity of contests to diminish?

I'm not sure that another Fortune 500 company would be as comfortable running their contest on a site that is part of Google (given that google may be privy to the entries or datasets in some special way)

</comment><comment><USER3> The previous thread speculated the value-add of Kaggle to Google. From Google's side of the announcement:

> We must lower the barriers of entry to AI and make it available to the > largest community of developers, users and enterprises, so they can apply it > to their own unique needs. With Kaggle joining the Google Cloud team, we can > accelerate this mission.

What does Kaggle do for "lowering the barrier to entry?" (And to AI specifically, as Kaggle competitions tend to be more solvable with things like xgboost, without requiring deep learning)

The Kaggle announcement mentions data storage for public datasets, but Google already has BigQuery.

<comment><USER4> It's all in the announcement:

> Making Google Cloud technology available to our community will allow us to > offer access to powerful infrastructure, scalable training and deployment > services and the ability to store and query large data sets.

So they will basically extend what happened in the Youtube 8M competition (being able to run your code on Google Cloud directly instead of having to spin your own EC2 cluster etc.).

<comment><USER5> Exactly - at the end of the day, the majority of Kaggle users are potential Google customers. Majority of them would probably buy Google API access outright (for things like NLP, for example). A minority is probably more interested in building their own AI-based processing pipline using Google Cloud resources.</comment></comment></comment>


If you want to level up as an engineer, read the code. All of it - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mrjoelkemp/a-single-action-that-will-level-you-up-as-a-software-engineer-d5cd2d0e4787 <comment><USER2> in other news: if you want to lose weight run miles. all of them.</comment>


Tor Browser 4.5 is released - <AUTHOR> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-browser-45-released

<comment><USER2> They have switched to Disconnect.me as the default search engine. It's hosted by Amazon, in the US. Why did they decide to use it?

Also, the image searches link to Google ("[https://www.google.com/url?q=..."](https://www.google.com/url?q=...")) whilst saying it's protected. With that said, I prefer the design in comparison to Startpage. But privacy should take priority. Honestly, Startpage could dramatically improve their design just by removing that background image.

<comment><USER3> from comments below the blog post: "Startpage was not happy with our traffic and showed sometimes CAPTCHAs. Disconnect on the other hand approached us with respect to search engine traffic and donated some money."

<comment><USER4> Why wouldn't they use DuckDuckGo?

<comment><USER5> Especially since they are available via a hidden service, removing the "malicious exit node" risk: [http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion](http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion)

(Note, if you're reading Gabriel, the [http://ye.gg/tor](http://ye.gg/tor) url you've handed out in various places including the privacy page - is dead and redirecting to just [http://ye.gg/](http://ye.gg/))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is anyone else getting a message that says: Your connection is not private

Attackers might be trying to steal your information from blog.torproject.org (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards).

ReloadHide advanced blog.torproject.org normally uses encryption to protect your information. When Chrome tried to connect to blog.torproject.org this time, the website sent back unusual and incorrect credentials. Either an attacker is trying to pretend to be blog.torproject.org, or a Wi-Fi sign-in screen has interrupted the connection. Your information is still secure because Chrome stopped the connection before any data was exchanged.

You cannot visit blog.torproject.org right now because the website uses HSTS. Network errors and attacks are usually temporary, so this page will probably work later.

NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID

<comment><USER7> Safari, Chrome, Firefox works fine. Can you share the certificate this site serves to you?

<comment><USER8> Completely valid question but OP should know this may expose where they work and/or their location. That said I would be interested in seeing the cert.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We should all help promote the use for Tor!

</comment><comment><USER10> Does anybody know why neither Chrome nor Firefox have TOR routing built-in? It would be so awesome to open .onion links without having to jump through hoops.

<comment><USER11> There are extensions to do this, but it compromises security.</comment></comment>


The Army May Have Found Its Next Rifle in a Colorado Garage - <AUTHOR> https://taskandpurpose.com/army-rifle-ribbon-gun/ <comment><USER2> Original, 15+ comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18118206](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18118206)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I don't know why HN didn't send me to that page when I posted it. I copied the URL straight from the address bar.</comment></comment>