Why movies look weird at 48fps, and games are better at 60fps - <AUTHOR> http://accidentalscientist.com/2014/12/why-movies-look-weird-at-48fps-and-games-are-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny-valley.html? <comment><USER2> I liked the article, but, as a game developer who does not specialize in graphics, I really liked one of the comments:

 _Joe Kilner - One extra issue with games is that you are outputting an image sampled from a single point in time, whereas a frame of film / TV footage is typically an integration of a set of images over some non-infinitesimal time._

This is something that, once stated, is blatantly obvious to me, but it's something I simply never thought deeply about. What it's saying is that when you render a frame in a game, say the frame at t=1.0 in a game running at 60 FPS, what you're doing is capturing and displaying the visual state of the world at a discrete point in time (i.e. t=1.0). Doing the analogous operation with an analogous physical video camera means you are capturing and compositing the "set of images" between t=1.0 and t=1.016667, because the physical camera doesn't capture a discrete point in time, but rather opens its shutter for 1/60th of a second (0.16667 seconds) and captures for that entire interval. This is why physical cameras have motion blur, but virtual cameras do not (without additional processing, anyway).

This is obvious to anyone with knowledge of 3D graphics or real-world cameras, but it was a cool little revelation for me. In fact, it's sparked my interest enough to start getting more familiar with the subject. I love it when that happens!

<comment><USER3> I always use this fact as a kind of analogue to explain position-momentum uncertainty in physics. From a blurry photo of an object, you can easily measure the speed, but the position is uncertain due to the blur. From a very crisp photo, you can tell exactly where it is, but you can't tell how fast it is moving because it is a still photo.

It's a good way to start building an intuition about state dependencies.

<comment><USER4> Welcome to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle[0] in the macroscopic world!

[0] [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)

<comment><USER5> Would it not be the observer effect instead?

<comment><USER6> True that pointing a camera to someone can change their behavior.

<comment><USER3> I hear it can even add ten pounds...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article is detailed and scientific.

However, anecdotally speaking, the concern I have with evaluating high-frame rate in film is that we have very little context—most of us have only ever seen Peter Jackson's Hobbit films in HFR. In other words, I have never seen how other directors' work would be affected by HFR.

Speaking exclusively about the Hobbit series in HFR, I too observed an uncanny valley that traditional films intrinsically avoid with their low frame rate. The Hobbit films felt more like a _play_ than a film. A play with elaborate stage effects, but a play nonetheless.

In fact, my chief criticism of Jackson's directing with HFR is that the feeling of watching a play is amplified by how he mixes the sound and directs his extras. The extras routinely just mumble nonsense in the background, leaving only the character you're intended to be focused on speaking clearly. It's the same thing you see in a play when there is background dialog, and it's completely unnatural. You find yourself sometimes distracted by the characters in the background and realizing they're not actually doing anything meaningful or having real conversations. For example, in the most recent film, I found myself more distracted by the unnatural audio in early scenes (such as the beach scene) than the HFR video.

Combine that with the poor acting by the minor characters in the first 45 minutes of the recent film and I think HFR gets a bad rap in large part because the Hobbit films alone are our point of reference.

<comment><USER8> Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I thought HFR dramatically improved the Hobbit films. The first 5 minutes of each movie felt very odd, as if everyone was moving in fast motion without actually moving any faster (sorry, that's the best way I can describe it), but after those first 5 minutes, the movie looked completely natural and amazing. Especially the 3D, it looked so good that I want every single 3D movie to be produced in HFR now, and I lament the fact that there's no way to get HFR at home.

As for feeling like a play, I guess I didn't pay attention to the background characters much because I never noticed any of this nonsense mumbling that you're talking about.

<comment><USER9> Well if you have a PC setup to play videos, there's a system that'll interpolate any video to a higher frame rate : [http://www.svp- team.com/](http://www.svp-team.com/)

I watched ST TNG using that and it certainly made it feel a bit more realistic.

<comment><USER8> Most modern TVs tend to have motion smoothing available as an option as well (that page says higher-end TVs but I've seen it on plenty of cheaper TVs as well, though I don't know when that was written). But it's nowhere near as good as HFR, especially in scenes with a lot of motion it tends to make things blurrier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > At 48Hz, you're going to pull out more details at 48Hz from the scene than > at 24Hz, both in terms of motion and spatial detail. It's going to be more > than 2x the information than you'd expect just from doubling the spatial > frequency, because you're also going to get motion-information integrated > into the signal alongside the spatial information.

I had a conversation with a friend at Pixar about exactly this topic.

The issue goes beyond just pulling more spacial information out of a shorter timeframe, it's also that all the current techniques for filmmaking assume 24fps.

Everything has a budget of time and money, and when you say, make 1000 extra costumes for a shot, you cut corners in certain ways based on your training as a costume designer. Your training is based on trade techniques, which are based on the assumption that the director of photography (DOP) and director are viewing the work at 24fps with a certain amount of spacial detail. Doubling the frame rate means some of those techniques need to be more detailed, whereas others might be completely useless.

Given everything that goes into a shot (hair/makeup, set design, lighting, costume design, props, pyrotechnics, etc), it's unlikely everyone working on a high-fps film is going to be aware of exactly which techniques do and do not work. As a result, you get lots of subtle flaws exposed that don't work with twice the detail. The sum of these flaws contribute heavily to making the shot look 'videoish'.

<comment><USER11> Did your friend say what frame rate Pixar uses for its animated films?

<comment><USER12> Last year, I was told by one of the technical managers for animation at Pixar that they're all in 24 fps. They've used all the increased processing power since their founding in the 90's to increase detail, so the result is that the time it takes to render each frame has barely changed since Toy Story. Each frame of Monsters University took an average of 29 hours to render.

This article has some good info: [http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/24/the- making-of-pixars-lates...](http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/24/the-making-of- pixars-latest-technological-marvel-monsters-university/)

They seem to choose being film-like over being realistic when they have a choice. In one of their most recent short films, they actually lowered the framerate for a slow-motion effect to simulate a classic film technique.

<comment><USER13> > Monsters University took an average of 29 hours to render

Wow, when I was doing CGI work in the mid-90s our budget was generally 20 minutes per frame. The highest quality work we did was around 1 hour per frame, and this was for TV adverts and idents -- still, we didn't have Pixar's budgets to play with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The most interesting point made in the article (for me) is that the presence of noise/grain - which effectively reduces real detail in an individual image - can actually _improve_ the perceived detail across time with high frame rates.

At first, I thought this extra "detail" could be explained as an illusion (since noise/grain can mask a lack of resolution), but then I read the abstract quoted near the end of the article:

"...visual cortical cell responses to moving stimuli with very small amplitudes can be enhanced by adding a small amount of noise to the motion pattern of the stimulus. This situation mimics the micro-movements of the eye during fixation and shows that these movements could enhance the performance of the cells"[1]

So if I understand right, since the biological systems are tuned to extract extra detail via supersampling across time, and a small amount of noise/grain can enhance that ability (mimicking natural movement of the eye), it actually helps our visual system extract more _real_ detail.

It seems counterintuitive to add noise for more detail, but the explanation is fascinating.

[1] Stochastic resonance in visual cortical neurons: does the eye-tremor actually improve visual acuity? – Hennig, Kerscher, Funke, Wörgötter; Neurocomputing Vol 44-46, June 2002, p.115-120

<comment><USER15> I wonder how is that related to the dithering algorithms in music production -- that add noise when downsampling an audio track.

<comment><USER16> Actually, these are two completely distinct phenomena.

Dithering exists in both the visual and the audio realms, as corysama pointed out in their linked article [1]. The term's use is identical in both realms, but neither is really related to stochastic resonance.

Dithering is a technique of adding noise to disguise sampling boundaries. It hides unrealistic artifacts from digital downsampling of analog signals, but it does not add more realistic detail. Critically, it does not increase the signal-to-noise ratio.

The phenomenon being described here occurs on a biological level. As described above, the additional noise improves your visual acuity. That is, you can extract /additional/ details with the noise added which could not be resolved before. This is due to a nonlinear change invoked in the system receiving the signal, not from the change to the signal itself. So, while adding the noise initially decreased the signal-to-noise ratio, the overall effect on the entire system is a increase in signal-to-noise ratio.

Here the mechanism, explained in the Henrig paper, appears to be purely biological, but stochastic resonance is not strictly a biological phenomenon; it can also be seen in the electrical domain [2].

[1] [http://loopit.dk/banding_in_games.pdf](http://loopit.dk/banding_in_games.pdf) [2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I personally love HFR and have went out of my ways to watch the three The Hobbits in HFR (I traveled to Paris, the only place in France where they have it in HFR).

When people complain about 48fps being weird I just feel like they're just not used to it. It does look weird but after 20 minutes it looks amazing. I'm personally tired of not understanding anything in action movies that uses 24fps. It is kind of a luxury for the eyes to have 48 fps and I predict that in a few years we'll have the same debate we have with console now (60 fps is better than 30 fps).

We got used to 24 fps and so we're making justifications on why it looks better when it clearly doesn't if you take a step back.

<comment><USER18> You're trying make an opinion a fact. "Better" has always been subjective when it comes to the senses, and I suspect it always will be. See the whole ridiculous audiophile cottage industry that can sell people $900 wooden volume knobs for their hi-if systems.

<comment><USER19> That's fair. 'Better' is complex.

Perhaps 'closer to reality' is a better statement. Reality doesn't render at 24fps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So, basically, at 24FPS things are blurry enough that you can't see the fine details, which means that special effects and costumes look realistic.

Increase the frequency to 48FPS and the blur goes away, meaning that we can see the fine detail, and suddenly sets look like sets, costumes look like costumes, and CGI looks like a computer game.

<comment><USER21> To be fair, CGI creatures look like a computer game regardless. A very pretty computer game, but still.

Sometimes it seems like people _want_ to believe that CGI is a whole lot better than it actually is. People raved about Gollum in the LOTR films, but go back and look at it. Even at 24fps, it's not great. It certainly doesn't look real.

<comment><USER22> CGI backgrounds are very good though. Most people are not aware of just how much of Fight Club is CGI.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlpr6CnKDFM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlpr6CnKDFM)

<comment><USER23> Incidentally, have you re-watched Fight Club recently? I remember when I watched it in 1999 I was completely blown away by the "impossible" cuts. I watched again a couple of months ago, and all I could think was that it looked like a Half Life 2 cut-scene. The standard for CGI rendering has gotten a lot higher. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Seems to be down. Cached version: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Hu955ZD...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Hu955ZDoOSQJ:accidentalscientist.com/2014/12/why- movies-look-weird-at-48fps-and-games-are-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny- valley.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

</comment><comment><USER25> I disagree on both explanations:

1/ The "soap opera effect" explains the 48 fps issue.

2/ The lack of motion blur in games is the reason why higher fps are better (see [https://www.shadertoy.com/view/XdXXz4](https://www.shadertoy.com/view/XdXXz4) for a great visualisation).

</comment><comment><USER26> There's also a high-level processing aspect. The brain excels at extracting relevant information, which includes discordant information. Back in the days, a solo violin was tuned slightly off to allow the audience to hear it over the orchestra. Barthes also came up with the "punctum" idea, whereby an odd detail in a picture will generate an impression. What I'm saying is that higher-level processing is probably responsible for a number of "impressions" that might have little to do with fps.

</comment><comment><USER27> Most serious FPS gamers swear by screens that have a higher update rate than 60hz.

In the past this was achieved by setting your CRT to a low resolution and upping the refresh rate. More recently you can get TN LCD panels that offer 120 or 144hz update rates.

Moving the mouse in small quick circles on a 144hz screen compared to a 60hz screen is a very different experience. On a 60hz screen you can see distinct points in the circle where the cursor gets drawn. With 144hz you can still see the same effect if you go fast enough, but it is way smoother.

This makes a huge difference for being able to perceive fast paced movements in twitch style games and is the reason there has been a shift to these monitors across every competitive shooter.

My thoughts on this is that this behavior is similar to signal sampling theorems. Specifically the Nyquist theorem talks about how you have to sample at at least 2x the max frequency of a signal to accurately represent the frequency. For signal generation this means that you have to generate a signal at at least twice the rate of the max frequency you want to display. If you want to accurately reconstruct the shape of that signal you need 10x the max frequency (for example two samples in one period of a sine wave makes it look like a sawtooth wave, ten samples makes it look like a sine wave).

So, if you're moving your mouse cursor quickly on a screen or playing a game with fast paced model movement even if your eyes can only really sample at something like 50-100hz the ideal monitor frequency might be 1000hz. There's a lot of complexity throughout the system before we can get anything close to this (game engines being able to run at that high of a framerate, video interfaces with enough bandwidth to drive that high of a framerate, monitor technology being able to switch the crystals that fast, etc.).

Yes, 48fps movies typically look less cinematic, but I think this is a flaw in movie making technology and not of the framerate. The fight scenes in the hobbit sometimes look fake because you can start to tell how they aren't actually beating up the other person. This detail is lost at 24fps and is why they have been able to use these techniques.

<comment><USER28> Wait a second.. can you explain the 10x the max frequency part to accurately reconstruct the shape of the signal?

It's my understanding that you just need 2x (two points in a sine wave) to construct a unique wave. If you're getting a sawtooth, it means that you're sampling a wave that is composed of very high frequencies, and you're accurately sampling it, so a DAC can reconstruct it uniquely.

<comment><USER27> There's some discussion of it at the beginning of this article: [http://www.ni.com/white-paper/10669/en/](http://www.ni.com/white- paper/10669/en/)

<comment><USER29> What that whitepaper is saying is that "if you only sample 2xMaxFreq and then connect the dots with straight lines it doesn't really look like a sine wave so buy 5x as much instrument from us". That's a total cheat as that sawtooth graph they show is only possible if you allow higher frequencies. If the signal is bandwidth limited at the frequency of the sinewave the points you sample at 2xFreq only have one possible solution for the graph (the sinewave again). There are some great videos about this recently by xiph's monty:

[https://www.xiph.org/video/](https://www.xiph.org/video/)

So if you sample 2xMaxFreq you have samples that describe the full signal and can reconstruct it exactly. So if our eyes really are 100Hz we can't see anything above 50Hz. That seems to align well with the ~50/60Hz threshold for flicker free viewing. Apparently higher framerates are only useful for when we have fast movement across the field of view which would be the case for FPS:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold#Visua...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold#Visual_phenomena)

<comment><USER30> I just finished going through a Fourier Transform course. The technical answer is that you don't interpolate the samples with lines, but with the sinc function. The sinc function is sinusoidal and so it more naturally approximates waves. In this case 2xMaxFreq is enough to reproduce it exactly. Using linear interpolation in the whitepaper is a blatant lie.

>So if our eyes really are 100Hz we can't see anything above 50Hz.

I'm not sure this follows as we're not perceiving waveforms when light hits our eyes, but we're perceiving intensity of energy hitting our receptors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I see the same arguments arise about HFR as I do with stereoscopy and the rhetoric follows the same as the switch from vinyl to digital music formats: it is no longer art. It feels like you lose the artistic effect when you add a multiple of information to your brain. The reality is artists need to learn how to be mindful of the new medium and the old tricks they used to overcome older medium defects need to be removed from the process. (Ex. Over use of makeup) I am excited because we have a bright future with better media technology and pioneers like James Cameron are leading the way.

<comment><USER32> Film is art, it's important people remember that, HFR is just another tool - it shouldn't be forced upon people.

You won't see people claiming 3D is an inherently superior format to film in, we shouldn't see the same for HFR.

Conversely if a director feels it's best for their film to use HFR, in full or in parts, people shouldn't be jumping on their back about it until they've seen the end product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> James Cameron (Titanic, Avatar, etc.) wants to get frame rates up to at least 48FPS. He considers that more important than resolution, pointing out that higher resolution only benefits the first three rows in a theater.

With the low 24FPS frame rate, pans over detailed backgrounds look awful. This is a serious constraint on filmmaking. Cameron's films tend to have beautifully detailed backgrounds, and he has to be careful with pan rates to avoid "judder". "The rule of thumb is to pan no faster than a full image width every seven seconds, otherwise judder will become too detrimental."([http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/camera-panning- speed](http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/camera-panning-speed))

There are some movies from the 1950 and 1960s where this is seriously annoying. That was when good color and wide screen came in, and films contained gorgeous outdoor shots of beautiful locations. With, of course, pans. Some of the better Westerns of the period have serious judder problems. Directors then discovered the seven-second rule. Or defocused the background slightly, if there was action in the foreground. Some TVs and DVD/BD players now have interpolation hardware to deal with this.

The author's analysis of the human visual system is irrelevant for pans. For pans, the viewer's eyes track the moving background, so the image is not moving with respect to the retina.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Site isn't loading. Google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Hu955ZD...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Hu955ZDoOSQJ:accidentalscientist.com/2014/12/why- movies-look-weird-at-48fps-and-games-are-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny- valley.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

</comment><comment><USER34> > Add temporal antialiasing, jitter or noise/film grain to mask over things > and allow for more detail extraction. As long as you're actually changing > your sampling pattern per pixel, and simulating real noise – not just > applying white noise – you should get better results.

This could be a viable alternative to supersampling for antialiasing. Rather than averaging multiple subsamples for each pixel fragment, this suggests that if a _single_ subsample were taken stochastically, the results could be as good, or even better, so long as the frame rate stays high enough.

Antialiasing doesn't quite have the same impact on rendering performance in modern games that it used to, mainly due to new algorithms such as SMAA and the increased cost of postprocessing relative to rasterisation, but this could nonetheless lead to tangible performance improvements.

</comment><comment><USER35> Does anyone know of a good demo of different frame rates that I can view on a laptop? Is this even possible with LCDs?

</comment><comment><USER36> Can it be that description of 24 fps as "dreamy" is subjective? Because usually my dreams don't have such effect. I like plays and 48 fps Hobbit.

May be it's like in the days of monochrome media black-and-white dreams were a norm, but today they are exception.

</comment><comment><USER19> I dug into high FPS film when I read that 24 fps were designed to be viewed in a dark theatre, when human eyes blur images due to switching between rods and cones.

Most of us no longer watch content in darkness. James Cameron is of the opinion that improving FPS is more significant than moving up from HD. I figured I should trust the professional who devotes his life to this.

To truly evaluate high FPS movies and video content, you have to watch it for a while.

The SmoothVideo Project (SVP) is pretty awesome. Needs some good hardware, made by volunteers, and needs some work to get set up well.

It struggles in scenes with lots of detail, but panning scenes are incredibly beautiful.

Going back is a bit difficult.

<comment><USER37> >>>To truly evaluate high FPS movies and video content, you have to watch it for a while.

Simply doubling the framerate of existing film is the wrong approach. To truly evaluate high FPS the director must take the framerate into account during filming.

I'll use SVP/InterFrame with low FPS sports, homemade video and occasionally anime but NEVER live action film. It cheapens the whole experience and undoes everything the director intended.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I don't quite understand. If a video is playing at 41fps, then your eye can sample each frame twice, with a difference of one microtremor to increase resolution. But if a video is playing at 83fps, you only get one sample per frame with no added benefit from the microtremor. The article states the opposite: that the latter framerate allows for a higher perceived resolution. Can anyone explain?

</comment><comment><USER39> Duplicate. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8791721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8791721)

</comment><comment><USER40> Is anyone else redirected to a 403 error on a completely different site (broadbandtvnews) when following the link?

</comment><comment><USER41> But... UbiSoft said some games are better and more "cinematic" at 30fps. Derp!</comment>


Curious Oil Filled Watch - <AUTHOR> https://ressencewatches.com/watches/type-1 <comment><USER2> Neither 'digital' nor 'standard analog', both of which allow one to almost mindlessly ascertain what time it is.

I see this item as basically very expensive and 'exclusive' jewelry; OK if you feel you can afford 'something different'.

</comment><comment><USER3> $20K

[https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=ressence+watc...](https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=ressence+watch&_sacat=0&_sop=16)</comment>


Ask HN: Best Developer Linux Laptop in 2012 - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking to buy a new machine for work. I've found some old threads discussing laptops for Ubuntu, but now it's 2012, the world has changed, there are even Macbooks with retina display... I really don't want to use OS X, I've been using it for about two years, but since I've installed Ubuntu on my MacBook Air I'm happier than ever.<p>So I'm looking for a powerful laptop around 13" and fully Ubuntu compatible. And the most important thing is that it shouldn't be heavy brick; I used to work with a MBA and really liked the ease of it. <comment><USER2> May I ask what's wrong with using Ubuntu on the Air that doesn't fit your criteria. It appears it does.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's getting too slow, since it's one of the earliest MBAs and I'm doing a lot of developing work which requires running virtual machines. I had a look at the latest MBAs, but I don't know if they are as Ubuntu compatible as my current MBA.

<comment><USER2> If you're running VM, it should be perfectly fine. I read about some dual boot issues but I think that can be resolved.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not running Ubuntu inside a VM, I'm running Ubuntu currently as dual boot. Just keeping a ~10GB OS X partition for eventually firmware updates. I want to do the same with the new MBA (if I buy one).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Upgrade to a 13" MBP. I love my 13". I let my wife use it since I have a 15" quad core i7 and the 13" is only a core2duo.

It should be plenty compatible with Ubuntu. Put a solid state in there and 16gb of ram and you'll be a happy developer.

</comment><comment><USER4> Lenovo Thinkpad X220.</comment>


Design: How close is too close? Bing Travel vs. Kayak - <AUTHOR> http://douglassims.org/bing-kayak/

<comment><USER2> Bing Travel's design is almost exactly what Farecast -- acquired by MS in early 2008, and part of Live Search -- has had for at least the past year (maybe more, I first visited Farecast about a year ago).

Farecast and Kayak have had a very similar design for quite a while. I'm not sure whose design came first. But to suggest that Bing Travel copied Kayak right now is simply wrong.

<comment><USER3> kayak was first with some version that resembles their current design, which farecast eventually kind of emulated, and the two have been slowly converging ever since.

iirc, of course. i'm an early-ish user of both sites.

<comment><USER4> Wikipedia confirms this, dating Kayak.com as founded in 2004 and Farecast as 2006.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Speaking of how close is too close, I've never understood why anyone uses sites like Farecast or Kayak or Expedia at all. I've been using ITA's QPX directly for years — it's at <http://matrix.itasoftware.com>. As another commenter mentioned, ITA supplies the backend for a number of these sites. QPX had a month-long search way before any of the other sites, which is useful for me since I rarely have to travel on specific dates. And it doesn't try to sell you hotels or rental cars. In fact, all of the so-called "value adds" that distinguish the sites relying on the backend data are things that I find incredibly distracting and useless. QPX also doesn't have a habit of showing fares that don't actually exist, which happens on every other airfare search site I've ever used. Note that I have nothing to do with ITA Software, although from my love for them it sounds like I do.

<comment><USER6> I just priced a major trip I'm taking later this summer. Expedia's lowest price beats ITA's (on the exact same itinerary - same flight numbers and times) by $462 ($1,849 vs $1,387)

<comment><USER5> Well, exactly my point was that other sites tend to show lower prices that sound great but that don't actually exist. Did you actually purchase the fares at that lower price, or just price them out? Every time one of those other sites has shown me a lower price than ITA, actually trying to purchase the airfare at that price always results in the same sort of bait and switch message, 'We're sorry, but that fare is no longer available — displaying the next lowest fare.' And the next fare is always the fare originally found by ITA or higher. From my experience the other sites are highly deceptive, but your mileage may vary.

<comment><USER6> Yes, I actually purchased it from Expedia for $462 less. Somehow I doubt that ITA would have done the opposite, and says "hey, we found a lower price!" right before purchase. By the way, both Kayak and Orbitz had the price which was $462 higher as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is mostly settled law in the US. "Look and Feel" of an interface is not itself subject to copyright. Apple v. Microsoft and Lotus v. Borland were both decided back in the 80's, with the now-standard interpretation that only the implementation of a software work is copyrightable, not its interface.

So unless Bing is copying javascript, logos, or graphics from Kayak, I can't see what the issue here would be. Mere page layout and behavior should be a problem.

</comment><comment><USER8> > Thanks to Glenn, Hayes, Yazan, Peter, Mark, Jeff, Hemant, and others for > reviewing drafts of this.

That's asking a lot of people to review 3 paragraphs.

<comment><USER9> Only the best for HN!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder what Owen's (ojbyrne) thoughts on this are? The new TripAdvisor meta- search looks quite similar too.

Personally I'm all for cribbing the best parts of other people's design.

<comment><USER11> We take a little pride in that our design was developed independently from (but informed by) kayak (we think it's better in some ways). Personally I spent an inordinate amount of time on various cues around our slider handles just because user testing revealed that a lot of people didn't know what to do with them.

If you want to see really close copies go try fly.com or the recently launched trax.com. They're blatant ripoffs of the kayak design.

Products with the same function are often going to converge to similar appearances. Just look at spreadsheets, word processors, etc.

<comment><USER10> I completely agree. I actually quite like what you've done with the TripAdvisor meta-search, it's certainly close to what I would've done. :)

<comment><USER11> Correcting a minor oversight by saying... Thank you. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've heard that before with other airfare search sites. The funny thing is, when I worked for Yahoo Real Estate back in 2007, they looked very similar to this too. The ideas used here are not new, especially not to the Travel industry. In fact, refinements with drag bars for time and price are available on many sites.

I feel like this is saying that IE and FF are too close. No one calls foul on it (at least not too often) because there are some paradigms for how browsers work, just as there are for "best deal" price aggregators.

The real money-makers will be the ones who can ignore these paradigms and find a more innovative way to do things.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is off the deep end. I personally find the premise a little silly but the least you could've done is shown the two screenshots without injecting your own commentary.

And to answer the question posed in your last paragraph: Yes, you can do all of that. Kayak didn't _invent_ that interface, that is, it's not patentable. Nor is most of what was done by Amazon, Ebay, etc. You can indeed create an identical copy of Amazon, as long as you leave off 1-click :)

</comment><comment><USER14> How is this different from saying BestBuy and Fry's are copying one or each other.

When two businesses sell the same stuff there is bound to be some similarity between how they lay out their shops.

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't know if anyone is copying anyone here. Its possible the engines are being licensed from a third party company which would explain the similar look.

<comment><USER4> Bing's engine was previously a site called Farecast which Microsoft bought. Kayak.com is another startup altogether which developed their application as well. They're definitely different back ends :)

<comment><USER16> Kayak is ITA's QPX engine on the back end - Lisp :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What bugs me is that these questions are framed differently when it's people copying MSFT. EG - Google spreadsheet's interface. EG - Writely. etc.

Good UI's are copied relentlessly.

<comment><USER18> I don't even know where to start.

Google spreadsheets does not look like Excel that much. The only thing in common between them is the button bar and a fake menu bar, but all of that was present in Mac applications well before Multiplan took the shape that inspired Excel on Windows 2. I would even risk that a lot of that was taken from the Xerox Star series.

<comment><USER17> We agree - everything copies everything. It's continual movement forward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not as close as Fly.com.</comment>


How Many Decimals of Pi Do We Need? - <AUTHOR> https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2016/3/16/how-many-decimals-of-pi-do-we-really-need/?platform=hootsuite <comment><USER2> Maybe we should be using rational trigonometry instead: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3C58498718451C47](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3C58498718451C47)</comment>


Ask HN: Which One Is Better? Bootstrap or Material Design Lite? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Some components aren't present in MDL such as dialogs/modals.

The scaffolding grid system looks very similar, but just from browsing around MDL, I prefer Bootstraps implementation. All of MDL's classes are prefixed, so you could use both frameworks.</comment>


Surc Turns Your iPhone Into The Ultimate Controller - <AUTHOR> http://techcocktail.com/surc-turns-your-iphone-into-the-ultimate-controller-2011-02 <comment><USER2> Neat, but it's too slow to use in RL.

I have one of the RedEye units: <http://thinkflood.com/>

The process of waking up my iPhone (or the dedicated iPod touch in each A/V room), loading the app (if it's not already open) then locating the button you want to push (touchscreens suck for TV remotes, there is no tactile feel) takes WAY to long when you just want to hit Mute, or turn the volume up a little bit, or change the channel.

The Redeye is actually better than this (IMO), because it's Wifi based, it has more value in being able to control devices from another room.</comment>


Show HN: Rush Hour – A Wordpress SEO Course – Feedback Please - <AUTHOR> Hey all, I'm currently trying to validate a new side project.
It's called Rush Hour.
Rush Hour is a do it yourself WordPress SEO course.
I'm aiming the course at people who have a small to medium business who want more customers via search.
They may have tried other marketing techniques but have never really gotten into SEO.
My main questions are do people want this?
And will they pay $99 for it?
Please check out my landing page to learn more:
https://tryrushhour.com
Any and all feedback much appreciated! Don't hold back.
Craig <comment><USER2> Small typo on your CTA button, not Enrol Now but Enroll Now

Wish you success on the rest.</comment>


Weird metal anomaly found beneath the moon's south pole - <AUTHOR> https://www.space.com/moon-south-pole-anomaly-metal-asteroid-impact.html <comment><USER2> It's the Mother Ship

<comment><USER3> Monolith.

Arthur Clarke has a lot of explaining to do.</comment></comment>


It's time to make sourcing manufacturing partners free and easy - <AUTHOR> http://blog.tindie.com/2015/02/announcing-tindie-biz/

<comment><USER2> This is really cool.

There is a community around DIY electronics. It is easy to buy prototyping boards, chips, 3D print, laser cut, and fab PCBs.

And presumably, large companies have a pipeline for manufacturing goods.

But for someone who wants to go from "small scale assembling products by hand" to "doing a run of 1000 pieces", it's hard to even know what one's options are for productionizing hardware.

We talk about the fact doing hardware is becoming just as easy as doing software, and making it easy to run a "production deployment" is a natural next step in this trend.

I'm interested to see what kind of data you all collect!</comment>


Female engineers at Facebook are allegedly less likely to have code approved - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/02/facebook-gender-bias-engineering/ <comment><USER2> From the article, Facebook's rebuttal is: "Any meaningful discrepancy based on the complete data is clearly attributable not to gender but to seniority of the employee."

To play devil's advocate, this result is exactly what you'd expect if in the recent past, it was noticed there was a big shortage of women coming out of university with CompSci degrees, and companies had since been moving to fix that by recruiting junior devs that had since been trained in tech boot camps or other programs (e.g. [https://girlswhocode.com/](https://girlswhocode.com/)).

To play devil's advocate against my devil's advocate, it's well documented that the wage gap is not primarily caused by women being paid less than men for the same work (the gap is around 4% less for the same job, so this is still a factor), it's by women not being promoted into higher paying jobs. So under that narrative Facebook's rebuttal doesn't address the root cause of the imbalance, and just kicks the can one hop down the causal chain.

As with most news stories on this subject, we really need more data to be able to form an opinion; nobody should be updating their priors based on this article.</comment>


Driverless, Electric Shuttles Now Operating in Lyon, France - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/driverless-electric-shuttles-now-operating-in-lyon-france/ <comment><USER2> Navya found a buyer! They've been showing off their technology since CES 2014. Here's their demo video.[1]

There are a lot of these little things available. There's Easymile.[2] Theirs is so slow they have to show double-speed video. There's Olli, from Local Motors.[3] It's 3D printed and has a hipster website, but there are no installations. Even Ycombinator has one, Auro.[4]

Most of these things underperform a golf cart. They're all in the "when in doubt, slam on the brakes" speed range for non-belted passengers. This is in some ways a harder problem than driverless cars, where the passengers are belted in and can survive at least a 35MPH collision.

Maybe the solution to this is to provide seat belts, and limit speed to 5-6MPH until everyone is belted in. This will encourage people to buckle up, especially with a bit of nagging.

[1] [http://navya.tech/?lang=en](http://navya.tech/?lang=en) [2] [https://vimeo.com/137217228](https://vimeo.com/137217228) [3] [http://meetolli.auto](http://meetolli.auto) [4] [http://www.aurobots.com/](http://www.aurobots.com/)

<comment><USER3> These seem to be a good fit for collage campus, remote parking, or around large airports. Basically anywhere the trips are fairly short and people are normally carrying 10+ lb of stuff or through areas you don't want people walking around.

They might also work for retirement communities, hilly areas, or where weather is often terrible, basically when walking is unpleasant. Possibly even transit within amusement parks or other places where navigation can confuse people.

But, well slow speed, and high cost per passenger mile is a clear reason they are not in widespread use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The same vehicles are actually being tested in Switzerland by the Post:

[https://www.postauto.ch/smartshuttle](https://www.postauto.ch/smartshuttle)

[https://www.post.ch/en/about-us/company/media/press- releases...](https://www.post.ch/en/about-us/company/media/press- releases/2016/start-of-public-testing-of-autonomous-shuttles)

[https://www.post.ch/en/about-us/company/media/press- releases...](https://www.post.ch/en/about-us/company/media/press- releases/2016/start-of-public-testing-of-autonomous- shuttles#3E6F400CE78A4C8886C50AFC8351D490_collapsible)

Unfortunately, it seems they just shut them down after a minor incident.

</comment><comment><USER5> > They also carry a human operator at all times.

Despite this, these are still pretty neat. It's like a tram line without having to build the tracks. You don't need to steer, just not hit anything in front of you. In this case, the sensors can probably do most of that, too.

<comment><USER6> No steering wheel or pedals must mean the operator operates the door? "Quelqu'un doit sauter!". (This may not be funny in two languages.)

<comment><USER7> As a French, reading this I immediately understood this as "Somebody must blowup!", which I think wasn't the intended joke...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In the Netherlands a test is underway using Ez10 self driving busses making use of bicycle lane: [http://www.rtvdrenthe.nl/nieuws/113024/Eerste- zelfrijdende-b...](http://www.rtvdrenthe.nl/nieuws/113024/Eerste-zelfrijdende- bussen-rijden-vanaf-vanmiddag-in-Appelscha) (Dutch language)

<comment><USER9> Also being trialed in Perth, Australia.

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-09/driverless-electric- bu...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-09/driverless-electric-bus-to-be- trialled-wa-rac/7152650)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's one of these in Perth Australia. Reportedly has a wireless keyboard for manual control...

<comment><USER11> Yup, there's a short article about the Perth one here. It was briefly taken offline after problems with the GPS, but I understand it's operational again now.

[http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/wa-test- dr...](http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/wa-test-drives- australias-first-driverless-bus/news-story/67414213fe56139bd2aa06c4a23e8ed3)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> We had this in the Netherlands in 1999. I think its still in operation today. I used to work in Rivium business park at the time and used to ride it every morning (when it worked).

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW7XUs_0yU8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW7XUs_0yU8)

[https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParkShuttle](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParkShuttle)

(Sorry, WikiPedia page in Dutch).

<comment><USER13> But that one is low-tech, like the automatic robots in factories. It uses magnets under the road surface and RFID tags, see FROG link on the wiki page.

The OP article mentions high-tech sensors like stero cameras and LIDAR -technology that requires state-of-the-art computers and is used in Google self-driven cars, etc.

<comment><USER14> And?... if the end result is the same? :)

<comment><USER15> One requires expensive road infrastructure, the other doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Some more information:

The shuttles are doing a 1 mile "L" path circle around a park and a commercial center. Then they turn back.

There isn't any traffic whatsoever. It's a wide road for pedestrians only, circling the area.

I've been saying forever that we should have golf cars to move around that place. Now it's getting real :D

</comment><comment><USER17> They operate in the south of Confluence: It's a straight line without intersections. Granted there are pedestrians in this area, but I don't even think there are cyclists around. I was a bit disappointed when I learnt about the path: They're barely more than a tram.

<comment><USER18> Makes sense for a first test, they're just a smaller and more reactive tram, with no infrastructural requirements. That provides a well-controlled and safe baseline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The human operator sure has a crazy job. You don't really do anything but are responsible if something goes wrong so you can't zone out.</comment>


If Mac OS X has a secret shame, it's the Finder (2003) - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2003/04/finder/ <comment><USER2> Finder is such a bad file manager that you sometimes start doubting your intelligence, thinking that something so trivial it should be possible, and you are the one not being able to figure out it.

For example, it is the only file manager I have ever used which doesn't show a consistent view of files in a directory. The view sometimes seems to be cached. Let's say I downloaded a file. I can do ls for it from a terminal window. However, finder doesn't see the file. Cp or mv to another folder and boom, finder can see it now.

Also, the search in finder is pathetically bad and totally unintuitive. I sometimes think apple might be internally using something different, that's why they don't realise or care how bad it is.

Off course, all this is valid if you have used other file explorers. If you come from a walled garden without any file system, anything can seem to be a boon, even Finder.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'd encourage everyone to read at least the first few pages of this article before reacting to the title. It was written at a time when OS X was super new, and some of the features requested by the author, like Smart Folders, have been implemented almost verbatim.

He makes a good case for the importance of a "Spacial Finder", but I'm not convinced it would be worth the trade-offs. I like having the same folder open in two windows.

Some parts of the article were a bit hard to follow because I've never used classic Mac OS (discounting some _very_ brief experiences). If anyone would be willing to help put some of his descriptions in context, I'd appreciate it.

<comment><USER3> I've never really understood the seemingly widespread dissatisfaction with the Finder in macOS 10.5 and newer. Over the years I've used it alongside WinXP, Win7, Win10 and various Linux environments and while the Finder isn't perfect, I find myself bothered by it much less frequently than with Explorer/Nautilus/Dolphin/etc.

It's a must to enable the status bar and pathbar (both under the View menu) but after that it's fine.

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you use the status bar for?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Have you tried to use Windows Explorer recently? It's maddening! Just dragging files to the "Quick Access" bar will have you pining for Finder.

<comment><USER5> It has always bothered me that I can't simply click on finder in the dock to bring up a window for the first time (as it'll only toggle what windows are already open).

I have to either right-click on it and select new window, click on file in the menu and drag my mouse to new window, or hide/move what's on my screen to double click on Macintosh HD on the desktop. At least on windows I can simply just click on explorer on the taskbar to bring up a first window.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can also click the Finder icon in the Dock and then ⌘N.

I understand why this bothers you but I do think the current behavior is better than the alternative. I often click the Finder icon to bring my existing Finder windows to the front.

The alternative is to risk creating extra Finder windows the user didn't want, and that's a bad outcome. Too many windows get hard to manage, especially when you're not sure where some of them came from.

<comment><USER5> Don't see why it would risk creating extra finder windows the user didn't want. If I click safari, and safari is not open, it opens a safari window. If I click it again it doesn't open another safari window, it just activates my current window. If I want more than 1 safari window, then I right click and click new window. I don't see any reason finder shouldn't behave the same.

<comment><AUTHOR> > If I click safari, and safari is not open, it opens a safari window. If I > click it again it doesn't open another safari window, it just activates my > current window. If I want more than 1 safari window, then I right click and > click new window.

...I believe that's exactly how Finder works? If there are zero open Finder windows, clicking the Finder dock icon does create a new one.

It's just, if you have Finder windows open already, it focuses the existing ones rather than opening another new window.

I just tested this in both High Sierra and Mavericks, was it different in very old versions of OS X? Under what scenario would you like Finder to behave differently?

<comment><USER5> >...I'm believe that's exactly how Finder works? If there are zero open Finder windows, clicking the Finder dock icon does create a new one.

It's not, or if it is then there's a bug somewhere that breaks this behavior after doing something, as it's been a problem I've had on multiple macs I've owned for almost a decade now, and it just annoyed me yesterday.

<comment><USER6> I don't understand, you seem to contradict yourself: > It has always bothered me that I can't simply click on finder in the dock to bring up a window for the first time (as it'll only toggle what windows are already open).

I've never encountered any issues similar to what you're mentioning. It opens a new window if none are open, and shows the currently existing windows if some are already open.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Finder is so bad that I had to buy a license of ForkLift 3. Finder is easily the worst default program included in OS X.

Windows Explorer isn't perfect, but at least with that you can ALWAYS see where you are (and open the location of chosen file). You can cut/copy/paste easily with mouse right click. You can create new files with right click.

<comment><AUTHOR> > at least with that you can ALWAYS see where you are

Have you tried enabling the path bar in Finder? View → Show Path Bar.

> You can cut/copy/paste easily with mouse right click.

Finder lets you copy and paste with a right mouse click. You can't cut, which is occasionally annoying, although I understand why.

> You can create new files with right click.

Ah, but you can add that to Finder! Make an automator service that will run the touch command in the front Finder window. It will appear in the right click menu. Or download the one I already made: [https://github.com/Wowfunhappy/Automator-Quick- Actions/blob/...](https://github.com/Wowfunhappy/Automator-Quick- Actions/blob/master/New%20Text%20Document.workflow.zip)

I _love_ Automator services! They provide a built-in, native way to add your own functionality to existing Mac apps.

<comment><USER3> While you can't cut, you CAN move via keyboard shortcuts. Just copy the file in question (⌘C), navigate to your desired destination, and move-paste (⌘-Option-V). You can see this shortcut by opening the Edit menu with something on the clipboard while holding down Option.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've used the omnipresent Spotlight as my primary means of navigating macOS for years, greatly reducing my time in Finder.

(Same on iOS / iPadOS and SpringBoard.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Worth noting, Spotlight as we know it today didn't exist when this article was written!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think nowadays it's iCloud Photos that are disaster

\- When your family shared photos getting compressed - fucking mint

\- When you can't edit photo on your device, because of indescript error - fucking mint

\- When you can't get iCloud link for large videos because it won't "upload" it even it's already on iCloud - fucking mint

\- When you can't share iCloud storage with family members that lives abroad - fucking mint

\- When "export unmodified originals" does nothing - fucking mint

</comment><comment><USER10> Finder is bad, no argument, but modern macOS (vs OS X) has way more to be ashamed of.

I'm not going to rattle off some list grievances, but sometimes I really am floored by how much of my mac workflow is simply working around macOS because some xyz is either a pain in the youknowwhat to correct or is just plain broken without recourse.</comment>


Ask HN: Will Work For Equity? - <AUTHOR>

I've had the opportunity to work for a few startups over the years in a variety of capacities given that my expertise spans both project management and enterprise software development.  I've worked in both an advisory role for management or technical operations, and also as a contracted software engineer or even once as an interim CTO.
That being said, I've picked up a little equity from some small companies here an there (not much, but a good amount) and was wondering how many of you had done something like this - worked on the side for a startup in exchange for equity only.  Any success stories?
I do what I do mainly for the love of it, and being able to learn new things.  I'm starting my own company now and having worked with these people over the years I have learned a ton.  Money was secondary in my ambitions while I was doing this work.  I was fortunate enough, as an independent contractor, to always have enough work to pay the bills while I did these projects on the side for startups in exchange for equity only.
What are everyone's feelings good or bad about something like this? I see it as sort of like an investment of human capital for a startup in lieu of a pile of cash. <comment><USER2> I've worked in an advisory role for a number of startups on a pure equity basis. It hasn't made me rich :-) But its always enjoyable and satisfying (which are my definitions of 'success' so yes its been successful).

That said there are two kinds of "equity" you can work for, one is to create a restricted stock grant which vests preferred shares during your tenure (that is paying you 'real' money as it were) and then there is an option grant for common stock which has a specific strike price. That is paying you in lottery tickets. If you get the former then even in an 'acquihire' sort of exit you have a shot at some compensation, whereas with the latter the common stock gets wiped out and you don't end up with anything but memories.

Which way you choose to be compensated should probably be based on how much time you expect to invest. If its coffee and cakes once a quarter before the board meeting to review strategies and messages, the latter is appropriate. If its put together an engineering team and set up the processes for building this company, I lean toward the preferred shares. Your mileage will vary of course.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome advice.</comment></comment>


The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D - <AUTHOR> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/60544/why-do-game-developers-prefer-windows/88055#88055

<comment><USER3> Though well written, I think the article misses an important point. Microsoft designed Direct3D with games in mind and the culture surrounding OpenGL gave priority to productivity applications for engineering and design as is appropriate for something that was developed by Silicon Graphics.

The characterization of Microsoft being disorganized because they were working on OpenGL at the same time as Direct3D is a direct result of misunderstanding this difference. Microsoft had to address to entirely different markets: gamers for whom high frame rates were much more important than fidelity and engineers for whom accurate rendering was important (Even today, high end graphics cards for Windows workstations run OpenGL.)

[<http://www.nvidia.com/object/autocad_pd_perf_drivers.html>] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_engine#Reducing_3D_comple...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_engine#Reducing_3D_complexity_to_increase_speed)]

3dLabs involvement with the development of improvements to OpenGL is symptomatic of OpenGL's emphasis on fidelity in rendering and the legacy of SGI from whence it evolved. The slow pace was perfectly acceptable to a group of serious people who care about standards and don't care about games.

3dLabs is also an example of the distinct segmentation of the consumer and engineering market for graphic cards in the PC market. The second PC I inherited in my first CAD job had was a 386 with an Nth Engine B752 - <USER2> could have built a kickass gaming system for the price of the card alone but it wouldn't put much of a dent in the price of an Iris.

[[http://www.thecomputerarchive.com/archive/Displays/Video%20C...](http://www.thecomputerarchive.com/archive/Displays/Video%20Cards/Nth%20Graphics%20-%20Nth%20Engine%20video%20card.pdf)

Keep in mind that back in the 1990's all sorts of consumer grade graphic card craziness was going on in Windows boxes - e.g. VESA local bus [<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VESA_Local_Bus>] and the volume of new Windows machines was exploding and many of them were running graphically intensive games.

<comment><USER4> This is a really good point. OpenGL favored precision, which could slow things down significantly. D3D favored speed at the expense of pixel-level precision. I remember my ATI driver having a slider that I could turn up and down the D3D precision.

Also missing in the article was the incredibly strong marketing efforts Microsoft made towards game developers. I was in the industry at the time (first at a game company, then a 3D modeling package company, then a 3D modeling company) and you couldn't turn around without getting hit in the face with something about D3D.

My undergraduate degree in CS came from the place that developed the tea pot that sat on the cover of the original OpenGL developer books. I really wanted to see OpenGL win, but between Microsoft exerting its unstoppable mid-90's force in that space and SGI drying up, I think everything could have gone right with the ARB and D3D still would have won.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The moderate experience I have with OpenGL confirms this explanation. However, it sort of misses the point. The author may be a bit too close to OpenGL to judge the relative significance of the all the historical details he knows.

Take a step back:

A) There's no way in hell Microsoft would allow OpenGL to take the lead from Direct3D on Windows and Xbox. They would wield the carrots and the sticks to prop up Direct3D (and perhaps even disadvantage OpenGL) if it ever came down to it.

B) OpenGL is a success by any objective measure. Nearly every platform _except_ Windows and Xbox uses it exclusively. E.g. mobiles. Game consoles may have dedicated APIs but I'm sure there's a better OpenGL compat layer than a Direct3D.

Recently I've developed some code on Linux for OpenGL 3.3 with GLSL and it is awesome.

<comment><USER6> _OpenGL is a success by any objective measure_

OpenGL is a success. D3D is a success. Two competing products/APIs/services can both be successes. The game is about providing solutions. Both D3D and OpenGL did that for a large customer base. It's not about winning/losing, but does it help solve your problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is probably the most accurate view of the history of OpenGL vs. Direct3D I've seen on the internet. It goes into the actual implementation details of why OpenGL or D3D have been more or less popular for games\graphics programming over the years. Also follows my personal adoption of the APIs for projects pretty closely. Most other comparisons are too political or anti-MS, and are often written by people that have limited (if any) experience with Direct3D.

<comment><USER8> I don't know. If a historical account gives the details it knows correctly but leaves a bunch of details out is it still accurate?

There's actually a great book written about the creation of Direct3D called Renegades of the Empire (<http://tinyurl.com/3n4jnru>).

Having read that book I can tell you this account, while accurate in its technical details, misses a lot of other issues that were going on. For Instance...

1\. The team pursuing OpenGL was part of the Windows NT group (back when NT and '95 were two different products). The Direct3D team was part of the consumer Windows group. So Microsoft's support (or lack thereof) for OpenGL games was largely based on an internal issue. With Microsoft dragging its feet on implementation in consumer Windows it forced a lot of developers to move.

2\. On that note Microsoft's Consumer Windows group was all about moving developers to Windows and making Windows the defacto game standard (and as a result killing off other platforms like Mac, OS/2, etc...). Both the Mac and OS/2 supported OpenGL while they couldn't support Direct3D

3\. Direct3D benefited from other parts of the DirectX API. DirectSound, for example, made it very easy for developers to support Aureal's 3d sound technology while still being backwards compatible. DirectInput made it easy to support things like ForceFeedback joysticks. And so on...

4\. Microsoft bribed Developers (They did, read the book)

So while the technical analysis is correct here OpenGL's fall was due more to a powerful company doing everything it could to kill the technology off.

<comment><USER7> Oh I don't doubt that Microsoft politics and their "own the API" policy helped hurt adoption of OpenGL on Windows, but blaming the state of OpenGL on non- Windows platforms on Microsoft is giving them a little too much credit. The ARB was just as much at fault. Apple has had a lot invested in OpenGL, both on the desktop and OpenGL ES and in theory has just as much pull (if not more) as MS, and hasn't done much to improve the state of OpenGL either. Things have been better post ARB, Khronos does a pretty good job, especially with OpenGL ES (which still has its faults... [http://aras-p.info/blog/2011/03/04/mobile- graphics-api-wishl...](http://aras-p.info/blog/2011/03/04/mobile-graphics-api- wishlist-performance/)).

In an alternate reality where Windows is still the #1 desktop PC gaming platform, and MS adopted OpenGL instead of developing Direct3D, we'd end up with Microsoft specific extensions and vendor specific extensions to keep OpenGL up to speed with current hardware.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As if Glide never existed

In all seriousness, I did 1 graphics programming course back in the day, and it was pretty insane. This was all in OpenGL. The amount of code required to draw the simplest scene was massive. I seem to remember there's a built-in teapot primitive, and I ended up just using that to construct everything (yes, there are simpler built-in primitives, but none nearly as cool as a teapot). I didn't do very well in that course.

<comment><USER10> The space of OpenGL programs that fail to produce anything visible onscreen is surprisingly vast.

<comment><USER11> This was my experience during my brief foray into graphics programming at uni. I remember failing a lot, thinking "this can't be me, somebody else somewhere is doing it wrong" and abandoning it in lieu of something more productive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wikipedia also has an extensive page on this topic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct3D)

</comment><comment><USER13> Another thing that isn't exactly helping OpenGL is Apple's slow creeping adoption of recent versions. I'm running the latest Snow Leopard and my code is reporting OpenGL 2.1.

I'm not really blaming Apple. I mean, on top of the core version they've implemented about 100 extensions with names like GL_ATI_separate_stencil, GL_NV_fragment_program2, GL_ARB_instanced_arrays, etc.. But the OpenGL 4.1 specs were released a year ago and I've got 3D code that runs significantly faster when I boot into Windows. Exact same hardware, but it's OpenGL 2.1 (+ extensions) vs. Direct3D 9.

<comment><USER3> I would suggest that Apple's historic attitude toward the Mac as a gaming platform is reflected in the effort your graphic engine provider invested in creating drivers for each OS and in the case of OSX perhaps a driver specification which may stifle flexibility - for example NVIDIA's latest Snow Leopard driver is designed so that it runs on everything from chipset to worksation graphics engine. [[http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro- macosx-256.02.25f01-driv...](http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro- macosx-256.02.25f01-driver.html)]

<comment><USER13> I didn't have games in mind, really. I am not developing one.

I would suggest Apple could do a better job of keeping up to date with more recent OpenGL specifications. In fact, I am suggesting it.

<comment><USER3> The ability to support a particular OpenGL standard is dependent on the hardware (software implementation aside). It is not something that Apple can choose to implement on less capable hardware. That's almost certainly why both Windows and Mac are running OpenGL 2.1 - OpenGL 2.1 is all the hardware will support.

On the other hand, based on your report it appears that NVIDIA has invested more effort in the performance of their Windows driver than in the performance of their Mac driver. Given their economic interests and the fact that many people using their hardware under Windows are NVIDIA customers whereas the vast majority of people using their hardware are Apple customers, it is hardly surprising that they would do so.

I will point out that for people who give a high priority to 3d graphic performance, there is little reason to select an Apple product - a meaningful range of hardware options simply does not exist and the drivers simply receive less attention. Keep in mind that one of the major differences between workstation class graphics cards such as NVIDIA's Quadro and gaming cards is the quality of the drivers - the same GPU's are often used in both segments with driver performance justifying much of the cost premium workstation cards command.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Also worth reading: [http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use- OpenGL-an...](http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and- not-DirectX)

<comment><USER15> Not particularly worth reading, no. It's a pretty poor mistelling of the story, and inaccurate and foolishly partisan throughout to boot. It comes off as fanboyism and flamebait.

From reading the comments, it seems like the blog's audience is people who spell the name of that big company in Redmond as "Micro$oft". They are definitely an appreciative audience for Wolfire's silliness, but it in no way has any sort of step on the post linked at the top of this HN thread.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> As a complement, Chris Hecker has kept some of his notes regarding OpenGL vs. Direct3D around:

<http://chrishecker.com/OpenGL>

It seemed quite important at the time that he- who begat WinG, which begat DirectX, some of which is covered in Renegades of the Empire, which someone else mentioned, which is certainly worth reading- went on to agitate for OpenGL over Direct3D. Now there's kind of a scrapheap of history vibe off of the whole thing.

</comment><comment><USER17> I feel a lot less ignorant of all that was going on behind the scenes whilst I was rocket-jumping, exploring black mesa, destroying diablo's soulstone, driving around liberty city etc

</comment><comment><USER18> The article misses one of the more interesting recent developments - that via OpenGL ES, GL is effectively doing an end-run around the whole Direct3D roadblock. As several posters have mentioned, GL ES is the standard in all the major mobile platforms. Now WebGL is threatening, not without some MS pushback, to become the standard for native 3D on the web.

Almost by default - simply because DX is a Windows/Xbox technology, and these platforms (particularly Windows, but also the traditional consoles) are fading - and GL is ruling the new world of games - online games, Facebook games, web and so on.

It's rare indeed on HN to see much talk of Microsoft's continuing dominance, because in the web/tech world, that dominance doesn't exist. Games are changing too. And it's games we're talking about here - OpenGL has always run the show in serious applications of 3D, and that shows no signs of abating.

</comment><comment><USER19> As a gamer all I knew was that Quake ran fast and Monster Truck Madness was framey as hell on my box. Thus I knew that OpenGL was good and Carmack was god and D3D was terrible.

<comment><USER20> Carmack recently changed his opinion on D3D: [http://www.bit- tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-direc...](http://www.bit- tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-directx-better-opengl/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I just wrote about this recently, although with more focus on Microsoft's mistakes post DirectX 9.0:

<http://altdevblogaday.com/author/gavan-woolery/>

:)

</comment><comment><USER22> _slow clap_</comment>


CommonCrawl: an open repository of web crawl data that is universally accessible - <AUTHOR> http://www.commoncrawl.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> Just a pointer, the code for CommonCrawl Project is available on Github <https://github.com/commoncrawl/commoncrawl>

</comment><comment><USER2> thread on HN from when common crawl was announced, interesting info there: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3209690>

</comment><comment><USER3> If you into said things then maybe <http://yacy.net/> (p2p crawler and search) will be useful to you as well.

</comment><comment><USER4> The latest data available is from 2010-09-25, which seems to be too old to be useful for most things.

</comment><comment><USER5> It would be great to hear more about the tools they are using to crawl and potentially open it up to more people who want to contribute computing resources.

</comment><comment><USER6> This one may be also interesting for open data devs: <http://scraperwiki.com/>

</comment><comment><USER7> I hear a lot of people are crunching on CommonCrawl's data. It'll be interesting the type of stuff people come up with!

</comment><comment><USER8> This looks really nice!</comment>


The Bones of HTML5 - <AUTHOR> http://www.aniketpant.com/article/the-bones-of-html5

<comment><USER2> Great read. I am interested in finding about more of the Framework development Bones.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a great framework to build upon!

You should try it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nicely written !

</comment><comment><USER4> Great Job! :)</comment>


Navy prefers open systems - <AUTHOR> http://www.fcw.com/online/news/151858-1.html <comment><USER2> Years ago, I toured an active Navy ship of some kind of other (pretty big ship). When we got to the command center area, I noticed that all of the individual computers were running Windows 9x (the ones they used to check email), but that the one hooked up to the projector with the location of all ships in the Navy on a map was running some form of Redhat 5 and GNOME. When I pointed this out to them, they turned off the project in a hurry :) (someone had forgotten to turn it off before we came in)

<comment><USER3> did that include nuclear subs?

<comment><USER2> i'm sure it did... it was a world map of the entire fleet. i was touring as part of a boyscout troop at the time, and someone dropped the ball and forgot to turn it off... and they were very, very nervous when i pointed out the screen that was turned on :)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would completely disabling SSH be a good idea to make a server secure? - <AUTHOR> As a backstop, in case hackers find some vulnerability via some other software on the system.<p>Maybe if there was no ssh running then they still couldn't access the machine? <comment><USER2> You could although honestly you'd have to do it inside of a non-user- modifiable environment. If you were using FreeBSD, you'd setup an SSLVPN to the parent host IP and have SSH enabled over that. Then you'd put in a firewall rule on the parent host that denied ssh out from the jail. Then you'd run your app/etc under a Jail. You could do some of this with securelevels too but if they ever popped the kernel you've got a bit more "gameover".

</comment><comment><USER3> If they can get root access (which they'd need to modify SSH) via a hole in some other package, it's game over whether you have SSH turned on or not; they could turn it on themselves, or install it if it isn't installed, or install a backdoor running over some other protocol instead.</comment>


Looking for cofouner in the UK. - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for a UK based co founder, preferably one swaying towards design as opposed to hacking.
I've already incorporated as a Delaware corporation and have seed funding on board.
I'm exploring all options and anyone who thinks they can fit the bill hit me up on email. <comment><USER2> > anyone who thinks they can fit the bill hit me up on email.

You didn't describe much of a bill.

"Needed warm body who's more of a designer than a hacker."

My mom matches that description.

<comment><AUTHOR> haha! Valid point.

However, I don't think one email will make me think hey this is the guy. I mean I've spent countless hours in Starbucks and still have no co founder.

This will be just the start...

That make a bit more sense then my appalling initial post!

<comment><USER3> You might not mind spending time exchanging emails with lots of people to find a good fit for you but you simply haven't provided enough information for "candidates" to to think it's worth investing their time on the off-chance that you're a good fit for their own aspirations.</comment></comment></comment>


Defeating Disposable Email Addresses - <AUTHOR> https://firstname.lastname@example.com/defeating-disposable-email-addresses-26c697b2722d <comment> tony-allan "If you choose to block Gmail suffixes for the purpose of email uniqueness, then remove the suffix before storing it in your emails table above." \-- I often use this feature to detect misuse of my email address. If a service strips this out I will stop using that service.

</comment><comment><USER2> If someone is motivated, blacklisting domains and sanitizing Gmail emails won't accomplish anything.</comment>


Effective textbook for migrating to Objective-C from C++ - <AUTHOR> http://ktd.club.fr/programmation/fichiers/cpp-objc-en.pdf Effective textbook for people migrating to Objective-C from C++ <comment><USER2> this idea that one can 'migrate' from a language to another is really dumb IMHO :) If you are a competent programmer in any kind of OO programming language you should have no problems learning Objective-C reading a book or a tutorial and so on.

<comment><USER3> Right, and this is the one to read if you are coming from C++. No acres of verbiage explaining things you already know, just some quick 1:1 mappings and then explanations of things that are not 1:1.

e.g. 1:1: bool(C++) -> BOOL(Objective C) { domain is YES and NO }.

not 1:1: _Every object is of type id. This is a tool for weak-typing_ – that gives you the aerial view of difference in type systems in one sentence right up front.

(I have to confess that despite writing quite a lot of Objective C, the part about "nil", "Nil", and "NULL" had escaped me, so I learned something in the first page of meat. I don't think I've ever used "Nil".)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> in my opinion, the worst thing about learning objective-c is memory management. autorelease pools and retain/release/autorelease is a compromise, somewhere between C-style manual memory allocation and garbage collection. i think it's far and away the worst scheme out of the three. it's even worse with the new property syntax, which disguises a lot of retains and releases.

objective c 2.0 provides garbage collection, which is probably better. but it's not available on the iphone, so it might as well not exist for me.

<comment><USER5> While I readily agree that the property syntactic sugar is ambitious and troublesome, I think it's overreaching to claim that reference counting is 'worse' than C-style manual memory allocation.

Reference counting combined with autorelease pools allows for simple shared ownership of shared references, without requiring domain knowledge regarding the ownership state of referenced objects.

Autorelease pools allow for returning objects to callers without "passing ownership" -- the caller is free to ignore the return value, and ownership is held by the autorelease pool.

I can't fathom how this can be claimed to be worse than API-defined single- owner object references.

<comment><USER4> C-style memory management might be _tedious_ , but it's not _hard_. It's rare for me to make a mistake. I tend to structure my code so that a malloc() and its eventual free() are both in the same function, most of the time. C++-style RAII object lifetime management is even easier.

Meanwhile, I've been coding in Objective-C since 2001, off and on, and I _still_ get releases and retains in the wrong place sometimes. objc 2.0 property syntax means I can't even eyeball them to make sure they're balanced anymore.

And I don't think I'm the only one. Go find a forum with newbie objc programmers, and I'll bet you a buck that most of the mistakes they're making are too many releases, not enough retains, making use of objects that have been freed, and so on.

<comment><USER5> Your original argument failed to define "worst-ness", but your followup implies a definition: Your opinion of the relative difficulty of comprehension.

The C methodology you have presented ("... malloc() and its eventual free() are both in the same function") constrains ownership knowledge to a single function by simply disallowing more complex constructs (such as shared references held by container classes). This results in your C methodology providing significantly less functionality as compared to reference counting.

Moreover, Objective-C's reference counting rules are logical, consistent, and short.

\- All objects are allocated with a reference count of 1.

\- All objects will be deallocated when their reference count reaches 0.

\- If you receive an object reference that you did not allocate, and you wish to maintain a reference to that object beyond the current scope, you must increment the reference count. Doing so will ensure that should the object's reference count be decremented elsewhere, the object will remain valid.

\- If you allocate an object or increment an object's reference count, it will not be deallocated until you decrement the reference count.

Those rules -- coupled with utilities such as NSAutoreleasePool -- permit simple, language-wide ownership invariants. This is something that can not be achieved with "malloc/free".

Lastly, most "newbie" programmers of any persuasion will necessarily have difficulty with basic language constructs, and will be considerably worse off if they have not have spent sufficient time studying the basic language documentation:

[http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Me...](http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/MemoryMgmt/Articles/mmObjectOwnership.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20000043-SW1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I bought a whole book to tell me the same information as in the PDF. I like this PDF better.

The book was odd, though: Not one mention of exceptions or error handling in a whole book.

Sigh

<comment><USER7> Out of curiosity, which book was this?

And on a sidenote, Apple has some extensive documentation on that available in the docs.

<comment><AUTHOR> not really sure. I found it through an arbitrary google search.

<comment><USER7> ah, sorry if it wasn't clear, i meant to ask jorgem about the book that didn't mention exceptions :)

although, i have seen this particular pdf floating around before, and i keep forgetting to bookmark it and this time i did, so thank you :)

<comment><USER6> Learn Objective–C on the Mac (Learn Series)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nicely done. Apple-centric, but then most people going to objective C are going for Apple.</comment>


Helicopter pilot's view of laser pen - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/38872170 <comment><USER2> An interesting comment from Reddit user /u/Viperdriver69:

I had a similar situation happen in Surprise, AZ a couple years ago. I was turning base to ILS final at Luke AFB after a night sortie in an F-16, when my canopy turned in to a green orb. I immediately called approach and asked if I could terminate the approach, and have a block of altitude from 6-8k 5 miles North of the field. As they were coordinating it, i unstowed the targeting pod, turned on my IR pointer, and slaved the beam right back at the source. I found a group of people in a backyard around a pool. It crossed my mind to switch to laser and give them a little taste of combat mode but didn't want to blind 6 yo timmy's bday party, so instead I grabbed the coordinates, passed them to approach, set back up on final and landed. After debrief I called approach who gave me the number to maricopa county sheriff who confirmed they had a suspect in custody! Such satisfaction...</comment>


I went to Nigeria and saw the future of consumer tech - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@apompliano/i-went-to-nigeria-and-saw-the-future-of-consumer-technology-e8d69a14684b#.e1bwvn1u3 <comment><USER2> _One out of every two Nigerians have access to the internet._

The few Nigerian friends I have disagree with that statement.</comment>