I'm a Heart Doctor and Wary of the New Apple Watch - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/s/story/im-a-heart-doctor-heres-why-im-wary-of-the-new-apple-watch-2b1999f2d942?mbid=social_fb <comment><USER2> "Since all medical interventions come with risks, many people will suffer harm from unnecessary tests and procedures."

I agree with this statement generally, but in this specific case it seems tenuous. If the iWatch's 1-lead EKG detected a-fib, the next course of action would be a more reliable diagnostic, specifically a proper 12-lead EKG interpreted by a qualified medical professional, perhaps followed by a Holter monitor to record 5 or more leads over a 48+ hour period.

A 12-lead involves attaching ten electrode stickers to a patient which are then wired up to a backpack-sized monitor which passively reads the difference in electrical activity between specific electrodes. It's a simple non-invasive procedure that's performed a hundred thousand times a day in the US. In fact, it's so simple and low-risk that I as a lowly EMT am allowed to perform it. (To drive this point home, the state of California does not allow me to prick a patient's finger to get the drop of blood required to ascertain blood sugar. I need a paramedic to do that for me.)

It's absurd for this doctor to suggest an asymptomatic young person could be prescribed anticoagulants for a-fib "diagnosed" by an iWatch. I can understand doctors expressing opposition to "self-diagnostic medicine" but to make these arguments about a 1-lead makes as much sense as arguing that people shouldn't be able to buy and operate a blood pressure machine without a prescription.

<comment><USER3> Not so "absurd" - you may be missing some context.

A 12-lead ecg can diagnose whether you have a-fib _at the time of the ecg_. The question for the doctor is whether you may have "paroxysmal" ie intermittent a-fib. So what if the Apple Watch said 'a-fib', but the 12-lead is negative. Most doctors are probably going to end up ordering a holter- monitor, to monitor the patient's rhythm over 24-72 hours. Some proportion of those patients may have very short runs of a-fib, and would likely have remained blissfully ignorant (and well) without the Apple Watch. Instead, they may well end up anti-coagulated, because if that patient is not anticoagulated and gets a stroke later ( which may or may not be due to a-fib), the doctor is going to get sued. Whereas if the doc starts the patient on anticoagulants, and tells the patient that, " there's a risk of bleeding, but...", that is much less likely to end up in a lawsuit.

<comment><USER4> Wait, so the argument against having more data is that sometimes that data is misinterpreted or misunderstood? That does not seem like a good argument.

<comment><USER5> it's a very reasonable argument if the outcomes of this are overtreatment or serious health scares and increased cost with little payoff as a result.

More data is useless if your data is mostly noise and if as a result error rate in treatment and costs rise. Add to this the strong incentive for doctors, especially in a profit-driven healthcare system to suggest action, this could easily lead to the rise of unnecessary treatment of benign abnormalities in otherwise healthy people.

This is also not speculation. Ever since the rise of diagnostics in medicine overtreatment has become more and more common. This study[1] estimates that almost a fifth of all procedures in the US are not necessary.

[1][https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5587107/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5587107/)

<comment><USER4> Interesting standpoint, one which I disagree with.

You are making a causal connection of rise in diagnostic tools => overtreatment. What is your evidence for that, apart from overtreatment increasing? I think sea levels have risen since then too, are they also an effect of too much diagnostics?

Clearly, if the data was just noise, people would eventually stop caring. But you'd have to be pretty cynical to think one of the major tech companies of the world releases a diagnostic device that has an S:N ratio that high.

A more likely explanation for the overtreatment is simply that people are getting richer, and society is providing more care -- to a fault. I know this first hand, I have had invasive surgery done that I would've been better without -- because the doctor thought it maybe might be a good thing for the future. Spoiler: it worsened the problem.

I think if it were the case that we all suffer from a bit of a-fib every now and then, and that these diagnostic tools will give false positives for this reason, then that would be news to the medical community and thus progressing our understanding. People would be told, "your watch is telling you this but we know better now." Apple might update their detection algorithm. It's such a small price to pay for the obvious advantage of preventing loss of life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It really sounds like a software issue to me. If the watch is causing atrial fibrillation to be detected too often, then you can either make the software meet some greater threshold before alerting the user.. or, even better, determine more fully formed diagnostic criteria to be applied.

The fact that medicine hasn't studied whether or not healthy hearts are regularly doing this because sensors were inconvenient previously, doesn't mean we need to get rid of the sensors. It means that both the presentation of the software should have some sort of feedback loop from clinical research that should emerge as a consequence of that data now... existing.

<comment><USER7> > _you can either make the software meet some greater threshold_

That will, on the other hand, increase false negatives. I think that will defeat the whole purpose of putting the sensor in the watch.

> _medicine hasn 't studied whether or not healthy hearts are regularly doing > this because sensors were inconvenient previously_

Medicine has studied this. It is just that this specific kind of diagnosis is subjective and there are a lot of debate.

The main point, from what I understood, the author is arguing is that the one- lead EEG of the Apple watch is prone to higher false positives, and users should take it with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER8> The way I read it, applying something with a nonnegligible false positive rate to a much larger population (that is, screening everyone without indications) will lead to many incorrect diagnoses because your error rate is multiplied by a large healthy population. Whereas applying diagnostic tests only to people with suspected a-fib gives you a smaller group with a higher base rate of what you're looking for, so false positives are not as much of a problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Utter hogwash. The author's mistake, often made by physicians when presented with technology that gives consumers more information, is that consumer knowledge and attitudes remain static.

In fact, while this may at first lead to a bunch of hypochondriac-like behaviors, people's fascination with themselves will quickly teach them to not be alarmed.

<comment><USER10> I agree. I was immediately suspicious when the author identified himself as a "heart doctor". The correct term is cardiologist, as everyone knows. He should be communicating directly with the FDA, not blogging about his concerns to raise alarms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > _I worry that the Apple Watch will discover lots of short-duration AF or AF > occurring in younger people with fewer risk factors. Given their lower risk > of stroke, it's unlikely that anticoagulant drugs will deliver similar > benefits. But anticoagulants do increase the risk of bleeding._

This is completely grounded in science. And we should be weary of going to the doctor too often:

> _Medical Errors Are Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S._

1\. [https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/medical- erro...](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/medical-errors-are- third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us)

<comment><USER12> The vast majority of these fatal medical errors happen in the hospital, and healthy people don't often end up hospitalized. Much of the time, the alternative to hospitalization is going to be fatal anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So I started having premature ventricular contractions a couple of years ago, and had a lot of anxiety around it — I made multiple emergency room visits and trips to the cardiologists because I was convinced that when they were giving me ecgs, they weren't getting it when I was having a severe problem and were missing a-fib(which runs in my family)

They eventually told me to get a Kardia so I could check it whenever I wanted to.

After a few weeks of checking every time I thought something was going on and periodically sending the worst examples to their analysts, I realized it was only ever pvcs, and it dramatically lowered my stress levels and made the episodes much less severe and shorter lasting. It also helped me figure out my triggers (caffeine) and helped me realize that going on a brisk walk for 15 minutes pretty much always stops them.

I wouldn't say the Kardia saved my life or made me healthier, but it absolutely helped me get a handle emotionally on what was going on with my heart and improved my quality of life. I don't carry it around any more, but I definitely think it's worth getting (or the new watch) if you have palpitations and want to get a better idea of what's going on.

<comment><USER14> The issue is not whether it would be of benefit to someone like you. The issue is if having that feature as well as the downside risk to people who are in the general public and don't have a particular risk factor or need. Also it's not an option it's built in the core product. As such it will alarm people that have no reason to be using it in the first place even if it ends up alerting and saving some people in the process.

Is it worth it to give 1000 people anxiety, tests, medication in order to provide benefit to 10 people or even 100? (those numbers are made up to illustrate and are fictitious).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This article needs more analysis. How many people who didn't know about af will be detected by the device, compared to the 100k estimated false positives. And do these pan out the same way for other heart ailments.

</comment><comment> swingline-747 In my experience, doctors have widely-varying, fact-free opinions that are often wrong on wearables' personal quant and consumer medical devices' precision & accuracy. Heck, some are even wrong on home-medical equipment. The reasons are medical school drills into them two things 1) only doctors and specialists can be "right" 2) everything else is wrong. This creates an opinion based on narcissism and elitism, rather than data.

Take a FitBit Charge HR 2. The one I have is consistently within 2-5% of hospital & doctor office pulse readings. That doesn't mean it's perfect in all circumstances, but that it's observations haven't been discredited with evidence and there's little/no counterexamples to show that a device I wear is somehow "inaccurate."

Another doctor claimed home blood pressure cuffs, products strictly-regulated by the FDA, are "widely inaccurate." This also seems binary-thinking FUD and wrong, because, anecdotally, I checked repeatedly and have an accurate consumer blood-pressure meter.

This is what happens when a profession encourages people to invest their egos in a preordained outcome.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't know about the ECG part, but buying an Apple Watch has definitely made me exercise more

<comment><USER17> How so?

<comment><USER18> Apple Watch 'gameifies' fitness. You set a goal of burning a certain amount of calories, "moving" a certain distance, etc. -- and it tracks these things, and gives you little "awards" for when you successfully meet your goals per week or per month, and tries to encourage you in smart ways if you're not making your goals ("Hey if you do a brisk walk in the next few minutes, you'll have met your goal!!"). I find that these reminders work pretty well for me.

As well, if you have peers who have Apple Watch/fitbit, there are tons of apps you can use to "compete" with them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not a fan of the dumb it down title of heart doctor, cardiologist I feel is fairly widely known, and dumbing it down makes me think that they are dumbing or glossing over other points

</comment><comment><USER20> I must agree with the potential harm of increased false positives but I am not sure if this is the real issue here. In a short period of time, it is impossible to accurately analyze heart trends to find AFib. I mean, people might feel that everything is okay when it's not (false negatives ARE problematic), which can be only determined in full 24h+ / 12-lead ECG scan. However, 20-30s ECG monitoring is still adequate to gather information about some of the disabilities of the user's heart (for example, if any ventricle is damaged).

When we were bootstrapping with a similar idea as Apple Watch at Aidlab, all cardiologist were looking at us like we were crazy. Well, seems we were talking with wrong doctors, and we should go straight to Dr. Ivor Benjamin.

</comment><comment><USER21> So the argument of the article is that widespread screening may cause net harm. The issue is with the imprecision of the test, as well as the followup procedures necessary to be precise, and the probability of mistreatment.

<comment><USER22> No. We know that widespread screening does cause harm, even if the tests are 100% accurate.

<comment><USER23> Could you show me the evidence for this so I can be educated.

<comment><USER3> Some info regarding possible harms of prostate cancer screening: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5485506/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5485506/)

Relevant snippet: 'The potential gains of screening are opposed by reduced QoL related to diagnostic biopsies, burdensome cancer treatment, including radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT), and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and the frequent long-term treatment-related adverse events, including erectile dysfunction (ED), urinary incontinence (UI) and bowel dysfunction (BD) [12–14]. In addition, RP has a small risk of peri-operative death [12, 13].

Finally, since a substantial fraction of PCas shows late onset and slow progression, overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common consequences of screening, especially when it is performed repeatedly or in men with relatively short remaining life expectancy due to age or life-shortening co- morbidity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are difficult to assess in empirical studies, because it would require a lifelong follow-up of men randomized to no screening and various screening options in a study without migration bias."

<comment><USER24> Those sound like consequences of improper reactions to screening results, not consequences of screening. The solution should be to make better decisions with the results.

<comment><USER3> As long as we are dealing with humans, "improper reactions" to screening results _are_ a consequence of screening :)

<comment><USER24> Ok, but we should still separate our improper screening due to inevitable mistakes from improper screening due to not having good procedures in place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The doctor says buy it if you think its 'nifty' but do bit buy it for health since it will not make you healthier. That's crazy, it will certainly not make every person healthy still like a personal trainer it cant make you do anything but it can certainly encourage much healthier habits as it does for millions of people like myself with real world tangible results. He dilutes his more valid concern about his belief of saving lives from AFIB may or may not outweigh the inconvenience false postives could cause.

<comment><USER22> Do we have any evidence that these devices lead to long lasting changes? We know that fitbit doesn't.

Or, better, that they lead to reduction in all cause mortality or reduction in days lost to disability?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What's the source for 10% specificity? I couldn't find any article that said this was the case. In fact the only article that mentions any numbers is written by Quartz and says this: "Cardiologists were able to read 90% of the total readings, although about 10% of them were unreadable." That's not false positive.

<comment><USER27> He did not source it directly, but looking at some ROC curves from AF detection publications the numbers seem completely reasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I suppose this doctor will prescribe you to not use all new medical tools available in case they might find something. I don't understand the logic. Having mass adoption tools to check your health is the future. This will never be 100% accurate, but like medicine and doctors will never be.

<comment><USER29> Yes, doctors and health organizations routinely advise patients not to get more tests than they need. A PSA test is cheap and easy to administer but the consensus is that risk of false positives (among other reasons) outweighs the benefits of finding prostate cancer among young men at low risk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> For reference, FDA clearance of Apple watch as class II over-the-counter ECG device [https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf18/DEN180044.pdf](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf18/DEN180044.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm still not clear on this, perhaps someone can enlighten me: does the watch attempt to do an ECG whenever it can? Or is it something you have to explicitly trigger?

I feel like it must be the first one otherwise people wouldn't be arguing against it.

<comment><USER31> The watch monitors heart rate all the time. If it detects some symptoms of a-fib (i.e.: irregular heartbeat) it will prompt the user to use the ECG feature.

<comment><USER30> Ah, that's the trick. It prompts for the ECG if it thinks something is wrong based on the regularity of the heartbeat sensor.

Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> As consumers we should be demanding to know the sensitivity and specificity of such health products. Doesn't seem responsible of Apple to market such products without that information.

</comment><comment><USER33> I understand his argument but better have a false positive than a false negative in my opinion.

<comment><USER34> This is manifestly not the case, and there are a large number of studies showing why this is true (many linked elsewhere in this thread). Most people do not have a good understanding of the risks associated with ongoing medical testing/medical visits.

A hopefully not-too-inaccurate analogy might be if you heard a strange sound while driving your car, and took it into your mechanic, whose shop gets paid more the more tests they do and the more labor they put into fixing your potential non-problem, and they're potentially liable if anything later goes wrong that could be traced to that sound. Think about where the systemic incentives lie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> To gain some free publicity by stating the obvious which was already accounted for?

</comment><comment><USER36> Paywalled, and not in the .is archive.

<comment><USER37> You can easily get around Medium's paywall by opening in incognito window

<comment><USER38> You can also use a script blocker. Medium's site is annoying enough I've disabled all of their JS with uMatrix. Most journalism paywalls are half-assed JS-dependent paper tigers, and I don't know why they befuddle so many "hackers" here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'm not a heart doctor. Here's why I am not wary of the Apple Watch:

1.

At a societal level, perhaps false positives during screening put undue load on the medical system. But as an individual, it makes sense for me to screen for anything that does not take too high of an effort. If there is a false positive, it will be snuffed out in the next test.

2.

Here is a little thought experiment. Lets say the false positive rate is 1%, and you screen 100 people. Then, your total number of tests including repeated tests on false positive subjects will be ~101 on average (the chance of 2 or more false positives is low enough to ignore).

As long as the screening itself is not too much of an effort, then in fact false positives don't add that much load to the system.

So, we should be seeking additional methods for widespread screening rather than worrying about false positive rates.

\---

I also find the doctors assumption of 10% false positive rates to be a little self serving in his argument. 1 in 10 people with an apple watch are going to be have atrial fibrillation detection? Doubt it.

<comment><USER40> That would make some sense if we were talking about tests for long-term state, but from what I understand, the test in question detects a potentially rare and irregular _event_ happening. Which means, you can test yourself 100 times, get one indication of a problem, and still not have enough information to be confident that it was a false positive.</comment></comment>


Is There a CS Self-Study Curriculum with Only Projects? - <AUTHOR> I am looking for a good and rigorous CS curriculum similar to the one here: https://teachyourselfcs.com/, but it would only involve different projects. Like each project would  give you rigorous knowledge/skills of different subjects in CS (Algorithms, data structures, computer architecture, OS, networking, databases, cryptography, OO programming, languages, ML etc. etc.) Can you recommend any projects or a curriculum with such projects? <comment><USER2> I think you'd find this list useful: [https://github.com/danistefanovic/build- your-own-x](https://github.com/danistefanovic/build-your-own-x)</comment>


Ask HN: Do you have business advisers? - <AUTHOR>

I'm writing an article on why every startup (and startup founder) should have a set of business advisers -- whether it be for product, design or business advice. While conceptually this seems like an obvious thing to me, I'm curious to know how you think about it. Do you have a set of advisers? How do you typically communicate with them? Do you pay them? How do you go about finding advisers? Please share your thoughts... <comment><USER2> My company went through several iterations of advisors before we found a group that worked for us.

First group was SCORE, who didn't work out (they would've been more helpful if we wanted to start a restaurant, rather than a tech startup). Then we tried a pay-to-play group that would help us with our b-plan, and put us in front of investors. Waste of money.

Finally, we found a group of volunteers who meet with us every 2 weeks. We do a presentation every 2 weeks, usually on refining our b-plan and slide deck. Just hit the point where they're happy with our deck, and now they're putting us in touch with some PR and marketing connections to build out that part of our business.

So, we don't pay them, although I expect 1-2 of them to be on our board. Can't speak to how we found them -- just beating the bushes and trying out groups until one seemed really professional, I guess.

And I would seriously look elsewhere as soon as your advisers start asking to be paid. Your funds are limited, use them to build your market and product!</comment>


TensorFlow as a Service - <AUTHOR> https://cloud.google.com/ml/ <comment><USER2> I could not click the sign up button until I removed this [https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts) from my hosts file.

I guess some advertising infrastructure is used on google's page.

(Not that I want to sign up for this, I was just curious what questions they would ask.)</comment>


Show HN: An independent news reader, mobile app replacement - <AUTHOR> https://feedial.com/

<comment><USER2> Feedback on landing and signup: Slick. Streamlined. Looks good. You've got talent. Keep going. Hope you can market it and find a fit and business model. Something special here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Especially in need of feedback from mobile users and anyone with an interest in accessibility.

</comment><comment><USER3> Feels very fast. Good job!</comment>


Ask HN:  Advice for interviewing/first time hiring - <AUTHOR>

We finally reached a stage where we can start bringing on developers.  Anyone got some awesome advice or cautions for hiring? <comment><USER2> Some thoughts:

1) In addition to technical skills, look for values and fit. Is this someone you want representing your firm? Is this someone you want to share 2000+ hours a year with for the next few years?

2) Do your best to have each hire bring something unique that nobody (especially you!) else is good at.

3) Look for trajectory in addition to location. For example: If there are two people of the same ability, and it took one person 7 years to get there, and the other 3, the junior person is learning faster. You don't want to hire people who have already peaked, as your organization and it's needs will grow.

4) No matter how busy you are, it's always ok to wait if you haven't found the right person. The cost of a bad hire is enormous, and it's a large market. It's ok missing three good hires if the process allows you to miss one bad hire.

5) For more tips, go to www.joelonsoftware.com and page down to the section listing his posts for recruiters. You don't have to follow 100% of what he says, but investing a few hours will help a lot.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1) Make sure your personalities meld - I hired people multiple times for their coding chops when we didn't necessarily 'jive' and it made working with them over a long period pretty painful, especially when brainstorming or doing stuff like critique

2) Make a test with problems unique to your space - aka if you write scheduling software, have the test use some date/time functions or if you write a search engine have them write a simple DOM tree parser. Nothing crazy complicated, but enough to give you an idea of what they are made of. Let them take the test home to complete, then give them feedback about their answers after they return it and see if/what changes they make in response to your feedback. This gives you a good idea if they are willing to adapt and learn in your problem space, and if they can take constructive feedback.

</comment><comment><USER4> In addition to the good advice elsewhere on this thread you might find the following links to be of use.

[http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/01/lean-hiring- tip...](http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/01/lean-hiring-tips.html) [http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/FindingGreatDevelopers.ht...](http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/FindingGreatDevelopers.html) [http://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/five-essential- phon...](http://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/five-essential-phone-screen- questions)

You might also find this link to be useful, but I wrote it myself so ymmv [http://fragile.org.uk/2010/03/anatomy-of-a-technical- intervi...](http://fragile.org.uk/2010/03/anatomy-of-a-technical-interview/)

</comment><comment><USER5> My 2 cents:

1.Do not hire devs without taking a test.

2.Hire developers for their "skills" and not for your affiliations with them.

3.Hire someone who is self learning and knows type of product/platform you are working on.

Why you may ask:

1\. Test measures the work speed and efficiency

2\. Respect people for their skills not for your relationship with them (eg. friend, relative etc..)

3\. So that you won't waste time giving them keywords to Google.

<comment><USER6> In regards to #2, you can't simply just take the people with the best skills. You have to be able to get along with them at the same time. Otherwise, you may have a rockstar developer that's an absolute nightmare to work with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hire as a contractor, then make an offer in 3 months or so based on performance.</comment>


Call centres created millions of jobs. Technology threatens to take them away - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/international/21690041-call-centres-have-created-millions-good-jobs-emerging-world-technology-threatens <comment><USER2> _Call centres have created millions of good jobs in the emerging world._

There's no doubt that working in a call centre is better than subsistence farming, but that doesn't mean those call centre jobs are necessarily "good". They're just better than the alternative. The ideal should be to raise the bar _even further_ so that everyone, globally, can take advantage of technology to have interesting, creative work to do and leave all the work that can be done by a machine to be done by machines.</comment>


I don't understand the Go versus C++ debate. - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/102544587809281756591/posts/GupMN1qtfqb

<comment><USER2> The reason you don't hear people saying they're using the right tool for the right problem is that those people are out solving problems. People engaging in language wars are wasting their time, probably because they're incapable of solving real problems.</comment>


Home Alone: Here's how they filmed its bonkers finale. (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/11/16/home_alone_hit_theaters_25_years_ago_here_s_how_they_filmed_its_bonkers.html <comment><USER2> The idea of that movie empowering kids is not something I would have thought of, but it's true. Being a kid in the 90s was so amazing.</comment>


Scientists discover how to 'upload knowledge to your brain' - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/01/scientists-discover-how-to-download-knowledge-to-your-brain/ <comment><USER2> TLDR; not exactly.. they didn't figure out how to upload knowledge, they figured out that if you stimulate certain parts of the brain associated with learning certain tasks while you are trying to actually learn how to do that thing then you learn 33% faster than placebo.

In this case they were not able to just have you stare at a wall and suddenly you learn how to do something from electrical stim.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for actually reading the article (I assume) and letting the rest of us know what it's about.

Really you could have said anything here and nobody would be the wiser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Maybe we can start with a broadcast of how to use our turn signals while driving.

<comment><USER4> I just raged about this 10 minutes ago while on my way to the office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I know Kong-Fu.</comment>


Announcing the release of Fedora 15 (Lovelock) - <AUTHOR> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2011-May/002964.html <comment><USER2> First distro release with Gnome3. Worth checking out.</comment>


Pixel 4 XL teardown reveals remarkably tiny Soli chip - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2019/10/24/pixel-4-xl-teardown-tiny-soli-chip/ <comment><USER2> (off topic)

"Engadget is now part of the Verizon Media family. We (Verizon Media) and our partners need your consent to access your device, set cookies, and use your data, including your location, to understand your interests, provide relevant ads and measure their effectiveness. Verizon Media will also provide relevant ads to you on our partners' products."

There isn't seem to be a way to opt out of most of this. The list of mandatory "partners" is scary enough.

<comment> m-p-3 If they want to track people so aggressively, it makes Mozilla even more important to our privacy than ever.

The only response is to fight back technologically with all means necessary (blocking third-party cookies, using adblockers, DNS-blackholing, etc).

<comment><USER3> uMatrix won't even let me open the link, which I don't consider a loss.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As well as being remarkably small, it's remarkably effective - they weren't exaggerating in those videos where they talk about how well it distinguishes movements. I was prepared for a slightly disconnected interaction with false positives but it's very accurate distinguishing unintentional moves from distinct swipes. It's also able to deal with the screen in both orientations. There's also a very subtle UI hint in the form of a glow along the top of the screen when the radar has seen your hand, which zips off to the right when it senses a proper swipe.

Whether they get enough engagement to take it out of gimmick territory is what interests me. They need to keep pushing it. Alarm snoozing is a particularly handy use but that, track skipping and face unlock need to be the start rather than the zenith.

<comment><USER4> There's a load more detail on it here: [https://venturebeat.com/2019/10/21/googles-motion-sense- hand...](https://venturebeat.com/2019/10/21/googles-motion-sense-hands-on- controlling-games-and-apps-with-gestures/)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's Your Experience With Flippa? - <AUTHOR>

I'd like to build a website, cultivate it a bit, and then ultimately sell it so I decided to poke around on www.flippa.com today to see what people were actually buying.  For the fun of it, I sorted by price and was looking through some of the sites that sold for around $10K (USD) and I was shocked to see that:
- a lot of them didn't seem to be much more than a hastily thrown together Wordpress blog
- a lot of the sites claimed high Google page ranks but the only way I could find them was by
  Googling their actual URL (They didn't specify the keywords they had high ranks for)
- a lot of them didn't even claim traffic numbers
What do you think is going on with that?  Are there people out there that'll really buy a website no matter what and try to make it big?  Have you ever bought or sold anything on Flippa?  Any tips?
Thanks in advance HN! <comment><USER3> I sold 2 legitimate sites on Flippa earlier this year. One was a Wordpress blog that jus published RSS feeds of deals from commission junction and linkshare. It cost $50 to build and sold for $850, largely because it ranked well for a few long tail keywords and made a few bucks per month. The other was an ebook site that cost $250 to make (including the cost to have the ebook and a dozen blog posts written). I operated the site long enough to break even, then sold it on Flippa for $300.

From my limited experience, I would say that the lower priced auctions (under $2000) seem to be legit, but I have a feeling that the big ticket sites ($5000+) that either don't have verifiable histories (traffic, keywords, revenue) that sell are being sold back and forth between scammers. You can sell a fake site between 2 or 3 scam accounts for $3000, $5000, $7000 at a cost of a few hundred $, then sell it to an unsuspecting person for $10000, pointing to a history of being sold on Flippa as proof that the site is "legit"

For a legitimate site to sell on Flippa for a decent amount, it should have healthy organic traffic, preferably a high page rank, and verifiable revenue. But then the question would be, why would you sell it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the insight. It seemed like something fishy was going on and I'm glad that you think so too - that means I'm not (that) crazy :)

When you sold your websites was it fairly straightforward with how you had to transfer all of the materials over to the buyer, or is that something you just arrange behind the scenes with the buyer?

Also, I'm curious as to how you transferred the commission junction site - <USER2> you make it in such a way that the buyer could just substitute their affiliate id in for the deals?

<comment><USER3> Of course I can't prove any of my theory, but there is something wrong when a 3 month old site with no traffic or revenue sells for $50,000.

For the sites I sold, the transfer was super easy. For the wordpress site, I ran a script to swap out the affiliate codes to the buyer's codes. The domain transfer was a GoDaddy push which took 3 minutes. I exported the database and used a login the client gave me to upload it to his hosting.

For the ebook site, I again logged in using credentials given to me by the client on his hosting and I uploaded the files, created the databases, and the site was online in 15 mintues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would say there's not a lot of real, valuable sites on Flippa but they do come through. Sites of lower prices do have a better chance being legit but there's also a lot of worthless sites created just to sell. If you have a website with real, verifiable income, you can get $10,000 for it, you just need to prove it.

If you sell it within the first year, you probably can't get more than 4-6 times monthly revenue (not enough history). If you've got 12 months of revenue history, the prices start going up and solid sites get 10-12 months revenue etc.

<comment><USER3> Good points...the sites I sold were 1 and 2 years old, with a solid record of revenue (however small). I recently tried to sell a brand new site (I built it in a weekend to test out a Php framework I wrote) but it was unsuccessful. It got a bid at $500, but I figured I'd keep it since it is making $50 a month already. I'll sell it again in a year and see how much I get then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I sold 5 sites on Sitepoint (name before it changed to flippa) same format, essentially the same site.

I provided complete transparency, with regards to reports, traffic, what I used for Adwords campaigns, monthly revenues and exact expenses. I also provided information on how I built/got content for all the sites. I answered all questions as they came in and even created secondary admin accounts so users could see statistics etc. in real time. (only if they requested by DM)

My lowest selling site was $800 and my most was $18,500 the user that bought that site re-skinned it and flipped it 6 months later for $72k, with less traffic and sales then what I had .. clearly I didn't know what I was selling, these were "fun" projects for me, that I got bored quickly, i find the fun in coming up and executing and once it get's to maintenance, I find I lose some interested. There are perfectly legit sites out there, you just have to dig and do your research.

for buying, I bought 3 sites, 2 of which were under $500. one site I bought for $2k was a total scam! The user falsified all the data and I fell for it. I was able to get my money back through google payments though.

one of the users on here recommended using Escrow, I'd agree.

If your selling a legitimate site and can document all the elements of the business for users, you should be able to get good value for it. Just be careful! There are a lot of scammers on the site.

</comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone have any experience selling wepapps? Something that sits on a database, memcache, solr, etc? I've got a few sites that use various frameworks/technologies that were fun projects that I no longer maintain. I've always thought about selling them, but have always hesitated due to the fear of having to spend time supporting them.

Are buyers generally technical? Could I just say, you get a huge performance boost when you turn on memcache, and they'll know what I mean?

Do they expect me to host the application, or do they want the code/database/domain all transfered over to them? If transfer, do they expect help setting it up?

Flippa has always perked my interest, but every time I look at it I just see a bunch of wordpress blogs that auto generate content. I'd love to hear some stories that involve apps more sophisticated than content blogs.

<comment><USER7> Web Apps do sell, but typically they can end up being undervalued because people fail to understand the purpose or how they work.

If you do sell your App, remember that whilst buyers may be technical, they still appreciate clear English. Here's an example of an app listing gone slightly wrong

<https://flippa.com/auctions/115892/>

The guys seems like an incredible developer, but certainly not one to be let loose on marketing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd be careful. I sold jquerylist.com through Flippa for about $1700, but that was the second time around. The first time I tried to sell it the bids went higher and sold for $2500 except for the person didn't pay me. So I had to do it all over again (the first auction was a month long).

Flippa works, but be extremely careful who you accept bids from. There are so many sellers on there with fake accounts who just want to derail other sellers because they are mad haters. Also, go through escrow.com. Don't accept any other form of payment. You will need a third party to ensure you get your money (same goes for buyers from the other point of view).

</comment><comment><USER9> Do the buyers care about the technological aspects of the website? What i mean by this is, do they buy websites that aren't written in PHP?

<comment><USER5> You should disclose everything you can about the site, including the tecnological aspects.

That said there may be items that you feel are your "secret sauce" then let users know that if they want that information, they need to DM you or you will tell them what you do generally and then tell them you will provide all the details/contacts etc. post sale.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can meetings at companies be made more efficient? If so, how? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> I ask because I'm working on a side project at the moment, and the idea is to automate follow-ups for outcome deliverables from meetings, help with general note taking and set a priority before the meeting to help keep things on track.

What do you think?</comment>


Dear NSA, It's Not Just About the Spying - <AUTHOR> http://xato.net/privacy/dear-nsa-its-not-the-spying/

<comment><USER2> But the spying's a big part of it, too.</comment>


Trimming the FAT: Linux and Patents - <AUTHOR> http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7325

<comment><USER2> Interesting, to circumvent the VFAT patent, they're just disabling the _creation_ of files with long names, which is all the patent apparently covers. I wonder if there's actually a way to avoid the patent without limiting functionality. Unfortunately, I have no idea how different your implementation needs to be to be safe from the patent, though.

<comment><USER3> _I have no idea how different your implementation needs to be to be safe from the patent, though._

Neither does anyone else until you put it before a jury. That's a large part of the problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Doesn't the inclusion of this VFAT long filename creation config flag in the mainline kernel constitute an implicit acceptance of the validity of the Microsoft patent? Perhaps you could argue that using the flag will guarantee legal security against this patent claim and not using the flag is no different from the past. Is it really in the best interests of "Linux" to implicitly acknowledge a patent for something as trivial as _a hack to support long filenames in a poorly designed filesystem_? Really?

<comment><USER5> Absolutely. That's what Linux tends to not get: the last little details that piss off new users to no end because the last inch of the journey isn't properly implemented.

Powerpoint presentations that load in OOo but don't look quite the same. Web pages that look like shit because the fonts used are the wrong size and don't render right. Files on FAT USB sticks that are in all CAPS appear as all small case. The list goes on and on and on..</comment></comment>


A Better Firefox Sync - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/services/2014/02/07/a-better-firefox-sync/ <comment><USER2> Just today I reinstalled Ubuntu on a laptop and the sync completely borked.

What I don't understand is why does it first ask you for a pair code from another device? My only other device was a desktop far away. After I logged in and clicked "reset sync key" it apparently lost all of the synced data!

I seriously hope this solves the currently heinous sync process. Just let me log in an authorize myself for goodness sake.

<comment><USER3> Aside from the fact that yes, pair codes are annoying - it sounds like you didn't understand Sync at all and were upset that it wouldn't compromise basic security guarantees for ease of use?

In the old system, the pair code was effectively a password. It's obvious that resetting the sync key wiped out your synced data; the synced data was encrypted with the old key and generating a new one obviously wouldn't let you decrypt it. (It's possible the old key can still be used to recover the data, but I'm not sure).

Complaining that it demanded a pair code is like complaining that gmail asks you for a 2fa code after you've turned on 2fa. Of _course_ it does, that's how the security works.

Of course, the pair code system is kind of a pain, so they introduced passwords. But the pair code system _does_ work if you use it correctly. I don't think it's fair to call it 'completely borked' when your problems are entirely down to user error.

Keep in mind that Firefox Sync always protects all your profile data; Mozilla can't access it because _your_ machines encrypt it. This is unlike Chrome's profile sync where all the data lives on Google's servers and is accessible to them. As a result the authentication can't be as simple as 'sign in with your gmail account' or something like that.

<comment><USER2> This is a ridiculous and rather arrogant response. First off, if the user doesn't understand something, you can't just always blame the user. It in fact did completely bork my synced data. I don't care what you want to call it, if user's lose data there's a problem somewhere in the design of the sync system.

No where in the user-flow did it say anything about losing data if you reset the recovery key. These confusions are why they're changing the FF sync system!

<comment><USER4> there is no recovery key in old sync AFAIK. you delete the single, only mail key. (also, that's why old sync is "not a backup system")

the new sync actually seems to have plans for a recovery key and be a "backup system", which seems more inline with users expectations

<comment><USER2> Ah I see. I'm looking forward to the new system. Chrome's sync was easy and worked well and it's the one thing I really miss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Sync protocol document is (linked in the article) has a lot of interesting details about the new system: [https://github.com/mozilla/fxa-auth- server/wiki/onepw-protoc...](https://github.com/mozilla/fxa-auth- server/wiki/onepw-protocol)

</comment><comment><USER6> On Password reuse - Implementing a one factor, password based auth puts the accounts security in the users hands. There are lots of email, password lists from hacked web services (Linkedin,Yahoo Voices, Gawker, etc.) in the wild and users all too commonly reuse their weak passwords across multiple services.

If a user couldn't figure out how to set up Firefox Sync previously by following the instructions and taking a set of digits from one device and entering them into another, what hope have they of picking a strong and unique password?

</comment><comment><USER7> I enjoyed the extremly minimal cost of entry in terms of UX. But it's just a little bit too ~naked. I don't know when or if the sync has been done (maybe my system lacks some DE notification) and I have no other way to see what has been synced, I can' t find a browser based interface for the account. account.mozilla.... restricts itself as a login form.

</comment><comment><USER8> Finally! The tedious way Firefox Sync used to work is the main reason I use Google Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER9> good news. I hope that new sync feature will work seamlessly and efficiently - I disabled sync about a year ago because browser became sluggish with large number of bookmarks.

<comment><USER10> Interesting, I've been using Firefox sync since it was released on Iceweasel (Debian Firefox) and had absolutely 0 problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wish they'd port some form of the sync to iOS. Syncing between my phone and my laptop is the only reason I'm still on Chrome

<comment><USER12> Mozilla would love to have Firefox on iOS. You just need to convince Apple to change their terms of service to allow real 3rd party browsers (as opposed to UI skins atop the slower version of Safari).

<comment><USER11> What chrome did is fine for me. I don't need a super snappy web browser for mobile sites. I'd be fine with a UI that syncs with Firefox on top of WebKit

<comment><USER12> I don't think Firefox would be keen on (1) having a webkit-based browser with the name Firefox and (2) having it be an intentionally-hobbled browser compared to Safari so Apple can ensure its browser is the 'fastest' on iOS. Google made the decision with Chrome, since it is also webkit, but it will likely bite them in the ass later as blink continues to be improved and webkit begins to stagnate more. And as they begin to have differing rendering bugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can you sync add-on settings?

<comment><USER14> In theory - yes. I checked option "Use Weave/Firefox to sync white list" in Flash Block. Recently I was playing with VM and I synced Iceweasel on Debian (remembering about marking option to remove local data and use synced data). It got everything except white list. Sadly, white list from original Firefox has been also lost :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Doesn't seem to be working very well on Nightly for me

<comment><USER16> Works ok on nightly for me. I'm just waiting for this to be implemented on Firefox Mobile so I can continue to actually sync between all my machines again.</comment></comment>


Can anyone estimate the total number of doors in the world? How? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Why? :-)

Assuming it's a question asked by a doorknob manufacturer, we actually want to count the "real" doors that have doorknobs, not the moral doors that you may conceptually have at the entrance of some shack. We could also evaluate entrances and such.

Let's take the population per continent:

[http://www.ecology.com/world-population- continent/](http://www.ecology.com/world-population-continent/)

        Current World Population by Continent
        Population estimates as of 2010.
        Source: Population Reference Bureau
        Asia             4157300000
        Africa           1030400000
        Europe            738600000
        North America*    461114000
        South America     390700000
        Australia**        36700000
        Antarctica***             0

Now, we'll estimate the number of houses per person, for each continent (related to family size, existence of work office and administration buildings), along with the number of doors per house/office.

      #| Asia           |# (+ (* 4157300000 (+ 1/4 1/12) 4)
      #| Africa         |#    (* 1030400000 (+ 1/6 1/30) 4)
      #| Europe         |#    (*  738600000 (+ 1/3 1/2)  6)
      #| North America* |#    (*  461114000 (+ 1/3 1/2)  6)
      #| South America  |#    (*  390700000 (+ 1/4 1/12) 4)
      #| Australia**    |#    (*   36700000 (+ 1/3 1/2)  6)
      #| Antarctica***  |#    (*          0 (+ 1/6 1)    8))

Which gives an estimated total of 13,070,390,000 doors, about 1.9 door per person. (The number of doors in Antartica is grossly underestimated, sorry).

PS: If you want to know if I'm right, you'll have to pay USD 2200.00 ;-) : [http://www.chinamarketresearchreports.org/report/global- and-...](http://www.chinamarketresearchreports.org/report/global-and-china- door-knob-industry-2014-market-research-report.htm) (don't forget to divide the number of doorknobs by two to get the number of doors (ignoring revolving doors)).

<comment><USER3> This is also assuming that the doorknob manufacturer manufactures doorknobs for house doors. What about cabinet doors, curio cabinet doors, and trap doors. Also, would car doors count?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This sounds like a (bad) case interview question. Which are, of course, more about the approach and rigor of thinking than a "correct" numerical answer.

Quickly, my approach would be something like:

1\. Let's agree on a definition of "door". For the sake of estimation, let's assume these are human-sized hinged openings. E.g., cabinet doors, garage doors, doggie doors, and other definitions don't count. Since this is a total swag, let's ignore things like double-hung doors. This still leaves open the idea of things like transportation (bus doors, car doors, train doors, elevator doors, etc.) that we could estimate by a similar method, but let's ignore that, too.

2\. To get to a total number of doors, let's estimate the average number of unique doors an individual could interact with. We could probably draw a graph that resembles a reverse exponential curve: e.g., there are a large number of people who interact with zero or one doors per day (e.g., people in rural areas of developing countries) and a very small number of people who interact with a lot of doors.

3\. To get to an average number of doors, we can thinking about residences and work locations. We can probably ignore other door locations, as a retail location you would go, for example, is someone else's work location. So thinking about my own experiences:

3A. I have 22 doors at home, which I share with my wife. So 11 attributable to me. ( _Aside:_ count the number of doors in your house, apartment, etc.: it's higher than you probably think. Even a studio apartment might have 4+.)

3B. Work is harder because no doors are "mine" (no office). I could go through and think about what percentage of a door is "mine", but I don't think it would be more than 0.5. Let's round up to 1. It might be more like 2-3 for some people at the end of the curve.

4\. Let's say I'm at, effectively, the far right on the curve with 12 doors. (After all, if we compare to global wealth distributions, a salary of $50k puts you in the top 1% worldwide.) The interesting thing about exponential curves is that the median is going to be in the first quintile, but the mean is going to be around the 50% mark. So we can assume the global average is 6 doors / person. ( _Note:_ this is the step you would nitpick, because it's a giant assumption. Not to mention that my 50% comment isn't accurate: totally depends on the shape of the curve. :) )

5\. With a global population of about 7 billion people, the total number of doors is 42 billion.

Now we can argue about my assumptions and definition of "door".

</comment><comment><USER5> Yes! But as inputs for the estimate we would need the purpose, and, closely related to it, the definition of door in that context. Do the doors of my Lego car count? What about doors in the painting on my wall, or the one on the microwave?

<comment><USER6> what about a doggy door on a real door?</comment></comment>


LinkedIn just sent me this - <AUTHOR> Hi X,
To make sure you continue having the best experience possible on LinkedIn, we're regularly monitoring our site and the Internet to keep your account information safe.
We've recently noticed a potential risk to your LinkedIn account coming from outside LinkedIn. Just to be safe, you'll need to reset your password the next time you log in.
Here's how:
1. Go to the LinkedIn website.
2. Next to the password field, click the "Forgot your password" link, and enter your email address.
3. You'll get an email from LinkedIn asking you to click a link that will help you reset your password.
4. Once you've reset your password, a confirmation email will be sent to the confirmed email addresses on your account.
Thanks for helping us keep your account safe,
The LinkedIn Team <comment><USER2> Not sure if it is related or not, but yesterday there was an article about credentials that were stolen in 2012 being sold now.

[http://www.engadget.com/2016/05/19/linkedin-hack- password/](http://www.engadget.com/2016/05/19/linkedin-hack-password/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Account breaches are so god damn annoying. That coupled with the stupid rules for coming up with passwords (only 6-8 characters, a-z,A-Z,0-9 allowed!) makes it really frustrating to keep track of and manage passwords for sites like this.

Hurry up and solve the user identification problem, HN.

<comment><USER4> It's astounding to me that some sites _still_ limit passwords to such a small number of characters. "Security? We're not even trying."

<comment><USER5> Even stupider are sites that require _exactly_ N characters. Also, they usually pick small N for that as well.

<comment><USER6> I know a local bank that limits password lengths to exactly 7, and the contents of the passwords to ONLY DIGITS. I can't imagine how many users are going to just use their phone number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I got the same email a few weeks ago and a few days later a similar one from twitter.

</comment><comment><USER8> Even I got same :(</comment>


Apple's Map app could raise antitrust concerns - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/business/apples-map-app-could-raise-antitrust-concerns.html?hp&pagewanted=all&_r=0

<comment><USER2> "Apple customers who want Google maps can readily switch to an Android phone."

Does the author not realize that this is patently false? Most people are on 2-year contracts, no?</comment>


RGS4 maintains chronic pain symptoms in rodent models - <AUTHOR> https://www.jneurosci.org/content/early/2019/07/12/JNEUROSCI.3154-18.2019 <comment><USER2> From the paper: 'Spared nerve injury (SNI) was performed in the left sciatic nerve (in mice)', ' Left hind paw inflammation was induced by intraplantar injection of etc.'.

Interesting question: if it's for the alleviation of pain in humans, how far should we go in inflicting pain on animals?

<comment><USER3> I don't know how you'd even begin to answer that question, unless the answer is either a complete dismissal of animal pain, or a total ban on animal testing.

Otherwise, I suppose you'd have to somehow quantify the total pain experienced and figure out how to minimize it. Which, frankly, seems impossible to do.</comment></comment>


Why the Luddites Matter - <AUTHOR> https://librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/why-the-luddites-matter/ <comment><USER2> Thoughtful, well-researched post.

People reading this may be interested in Lord Byron's first speech to the House of Lords as well, which was a full-throated defense of the Luddites. As you might guess, it's beautifully written. It also nicely magnifies the historical irony of Byron fathering Ada Lovelace.

[http://www.luddites200.org.uk/LordByronspeech.html](http://www.luddites200.org.uk/LordByronspeech.html)

"Considerable injury has been done to the proprietors of the improved frames. These machines were to them an advantage, inasmuch as they superseded the necessity of employing a number of workmen, who were left in consequence to starve. By the adoption of one species of frame in particular, one man performed the work of many, and the superfluous labourers were thrown out of employment. Yet it is to be observed, that the work thus executed was inferior in quality, not marketable at home, and merely hurried over with a view to exportation. It was called, in the cant of the trade, by the name of Spider- work. The rejected workmen, in the blindness of their ignorance, instead of rejoicing at these improvements in arts so beneficial to mankind, conceived themselves to be sacrificed to improvements in mechanism. In the foolishness of their hearts, they imagined that the maintenance and well doing of the industrious poor, were objects of greater consequence than the enrichment of a few individuals by any improvement in the implements of trade which threw the workmen out of employment, and rendered the labourer unworthy of his hire. And, it must be confessed, that although the adoption of the enlarged machinery, in that state of our commerce which the country once boasted, might have been beneficial to the master without being detrimental to the servant; yet, in the present situation of our manufactures, rotting in warehouses without a prospect of exportation, with the demand for work and workmen equally diminished, frames of this construction tend materially to aggravate the distresses and discontents of the disappointed sufferers. But the real cause of these distresses, and consequent disturbances, lies deeper."

<comment><USER3> I think this fragment clearly spells out what the Luddites were back then and what they are remembered for today.

No, the Luddites where not against technology, and those using the term properly are not saying that. Luddites rebelled against workplace automation, with the explicit view that it renders skilled human labor unable to compete and has disastrous social consequences. To call someone a modern Luddite has a very specific meaning, it denotes opposition based on employment circumstances.

We aren't talking about Google Glass, mass surveillance, social credits or any ethically troubling technology that is yet to be accepted by society. We are talking about technology designed to increase productivity of regular, already accepted goods that has no nefarious effects other than unemployment, and that, during the last 300 years, increased productivity, lower prices and released humanity from industrial slavery.

The question is: can this process go on forever, aren't we hitting a hard ceiling of human adaptability where the thinking machines will make us totally unable to compete in the workplace? The Luddites matter, but not in the way the author surmises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _you do not have to let a tech company screaming "technological progress" in > your face turn you into a paragon of passivity_

This was the article's highlight for me. As a senior programmer I found myself saying "no" to more and more tech nowadays -- smart speakers are and will always be not welcome in my house, I carefully study mobile app permissions and deny everything but the absolutely necessary minimum (on my mother's phone as well), I am unplugging microphones and webcams when not using them, I refuse to buy washing machines and any kind of kitchen tech with touch screens (they are awfully non-durable, big surprise right?) and prefer tech with real, physical buttons.

I am never gonna give WiFi access to my TV. I am even considering making my home WiFi network hidden (not advertised). If you manually specify SSID and password you will connect alright but you can never see the SSID. I feel this might be a necessary default before too long. We'll see.

I did give WiFi access to my printer because accessing it through the router's USB port turned into a nightmare of problems and inconsistency. I disallowed it to make outgoing connections (through the router) anywhere but in the local network however -- I don't want it going to the internet.

Point is, new tech is marketed as "progress" for mercantile reasons by the big corps and me and many others aren't just taking their word for it when they say it's for the best of all of us.

My rather depressing observation has been that historically, ever since the 90s, technology and especially computers / phones aren't used to improve people's lives; they only complicate them and increase people's time, energy and money expenses. To actually improve your life with tech you have to go a lot of extra miles.

The marketed "progress" technologies don't deserve the benefit of the doubt lately. It's all but a historical fact that most "progress" is mostly "guys, here's a new market we just invented, please buy because we want the money".

<comment><USER5> Depending on who you are concerned about with regards to protecting your wifi, hiding your SSID will mostly only annoy legitimate users. The most basic script kiddie tools for breaking your wifi encryption will easily detect hidden SSIDs. Even Windows informs you that a hidden wifi network is available, it calls it "Other Network."

<comment><USER6> I just checked this on Windows 10. It even calls it a "Hidden Network". How entertaining! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yes, it is unfortunate that the term "Luddite" has become shorthand for irrational dislike of technology while the historical Luddites had a very rational (if self-interested) reason to dislike mechanization.

<comment><USER8> They didn't even intrinsically dislike mechanisation. They just viewed machine sabotage as an effective tactic.

The straw man of them being anti technology crusaders was entirely a stereotype created and perpetuated by capitalists.

<comment><USER9> The captialists had a very rational (if self-interested) reason to dislike the luddites. They just viewed straw men as an effective tactic.

<comment><USER10> >> rational

when it's about people, "rational" is the last thing we need. Empathy, sympathy, compassion is what you need.

<comment><USER11> Why are those superior attributes to rationality?

<comment><USER12> because "rationally" i should kill you and take your money and food

but "empathetically" i don't want the same thing to happen to me, so i tolerate your existence in hopes that you tolerate mine

<comment><USER13> There isn't a moment in recorded history where one human acting alone has outperformed a group of humans working in tandem. It just doesn't happen.

You sometimes get scenarios where one human has disproportionate social control over a group, but even then experiments with democracy have shown it overwhelmingly outperforms the competition. So far on both an absolute and a per capita basis. Many (most?) of our morals also happen to be game-theory optimums that you would raitionally see value in even as a true sociopath.

What you describe isn't rational, it is some combination of desperation and short term thinking. The rational approach has always been to organise and cooperate. If you actually tried to behave that way you would discover that what you call 'behaving rationally' will involve you having no material goods, comfort or prospect for obtaining them.

<comment><USER12> ok, i have a better one:

"rationally", i shouldn't care about global warming because it's inconvenient to alter my lifestyle and because global warming will not affect me as much in my lifetime

but "empathetically" i care about the future environment i'm leaving for future humans

<comment><USER14> You're using 'rational' as something devoid from worldview - which it can't be.

Rationally I should have multiple children, as my only legacy is my name.

Still rational, differing worldview.

Part of the worldview your thoughts on rationallity betray is that only the 'here and now' matter. Which only fits a very small philosophy even within the subset of humanity that have no belief in anything supernatural.

A worldview guides not just our view on our relationship to others, and ourselves, and not just moral conduct, but the end goals being targeted. Our rationallity cannot be divorced from our motivations.

Some worldviews are just 'to live another day', others are more nuanced, measuring impact against criteria.

For example, frugality is a worldview, where you don't have any rational compulsion to kill, steal and hoarde, as you don't need it anyway.

<comment><USER15> > Rationally I should have multiple children, as my only legacy is my name.

I would say that any view that includes a concept such as "legacy" is already highly irrational... there's nothing rational about having a world view that you do not call into doubt.

At the end of the day, you'll just gravitate towards a worldview that's the easiest to support. That's what tends to happen to people since cognitive dissonance hurts. There's nothing rational whatsoever in this entire process and it is the very start of the problem, you can't ignore it.

The whole problem with "rational" is that it's a poor term that got appropriated to describe behaviors that are not actually rational.

"Rational" is mostly a shorthand for "logically derived", which is only one rather shallow facet of processing, and, not all that surprisingly, can lead to rather irrational behaviors, like the ones the person you're responding to is referencing. It often leads to nihilism, amoral philosophies, and other things that play right into the worst parts of game theory. Because this is what we naturally do if we turn off other processing. We have all the other processing for a reason.

Emotions, intuition, and experience are all very important. Pure logic cannot replace them, it is simply too slow, and there's simply not enough information. The reason a lot of us are really annoyed with rationalists is because they're walking around saying all those things don't matter.

<comment><USER13> It sounds like you've had a bad experience with rationalists. I can sympathise :P. Loudly claiming to be 'logical' and 'a rationalist' is rarely a logical or rational act, so the people who do it ironically tend not be either (the exception in my book is if they really enjoy arguing with or annoying other people).

But rationalism isn't short-termism. Rationalists can execute long term plans, potentially even multi-generational beneficial schemes, just as well as everyone else. And just as badly. As the comment you replied to succinctly argues, there is no causation between rationalism and values.

As an aside, logic isn't related to rationality any more deeply than logic is tied in to anything else. I suppose the opposite of a rationalist is a religious fundamentalist? Religious fundamentalists can be extremely logical too (as in, their actions can be completely consistent with their assumptions). Logic is just a technique to tell if some of your beliefs are inconsistent, it isn't monopolised by any given world view. And it certainly can't create new beliefs out of nothing, only evidence can do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> My takeaway : "You probably want to be able to feed your children (if you have any), you probably don't want to be driven into poverty, and you probably feel that your economic security is at least as important as your boss's ability to buy a new vacation home"

</comment><comment><USER17> The Amish are another group whose name is synonymous with rejecting all technology, but whose story is much more nuanced. They carefully consider each technology and try it out on selected individuals to see what effect it has on them, their family, and their community. They're not afraid to reject a technology or to set limits on its use; they're also not afraid to adopt a technology if it's useful to them.

Howard Rheingold's 1999 article ([https://www.wired.com/1999/01/amish/](https://www.wired.com/1999/01/amish/)) is a classic. Kevin Kelly has also written a lot about the Amish and their relation to technology.

</comment><comment><USER18> Luddites are just people disempowered by automation and capitalism: if its cheaper to use machines than people, automation makes people effectively jobless - and if automation touches multiple sectors of economy it multiplies the effect by squeezing out people from multiple sides, reducing the labor demand significantly.

If there are no alternative sources of income(welfare, UBI) that correct this, expect many more "Neo-Luddites" to emerge; specifically in areas targeted for automation.

Its not that these people would be "against progress", they would be against more concrete things(such as the article describes) like automated trucks/delivery and start attacking/robbing/sabotaging the machines to discourage their use instead of people. Just like some abuse automated cashiers(cash registers) to steal products and earlier trends of vending machine abuse: it doesn't register to people they are criminals because the target of crime isn't human, therefore justifying their impulse and intention. That means NeoLuddites don't lose their own 'moral high ground' and will be able to easily spread their ideologies as automation carries bigger and bigger chunk of the economy.

<comment><USER19> _more "Neo-Luddites" to emerge; specifically in areas targeted for automation_

The difference being that the automation you want to smash is actually thousands of miles away in China; there are no local factories anymore for the neo-Luddites to target.

<comment><USER20> The automated trucks and cash registers his post refers to cannot be "thousands of miles away in China" and serve their intended purpose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The term is overused, yes. But sometimes it's correct.

The taxi industry (especially black cabs in London) fits everything in this article, in my opinion. People who "just want to feed their children" trying to force democracy and capitalism to purchase a product (their skill, called "the knowledge") that has become obsolete, a product nobody needs anymore.

You have a skill. I'm sorry, that skill is no longer required in the world of 2018 for many years. Your job can now actually be done by anyone, and that is why you're getting competition. It's as if everyone with a liberal art's degree would demand to become a famous artist.

(a difference being of course that London black cabs are hugely corrupt, as seen by blatant disregard for payment rules, tax law, traffic rules and the fact that they fairly successfully make TFL act against the interests of everyone-who-is-not-a-black-cab-driver, which is most people)

rant over

</comment><comment><USER22> The author perceives an unjust smear against historical Luddites, and protests the way that this cuts off critical thinking about the issue of technology in our lives. They highlight that historical Luddites had noble and relatable motives, like wanting better wages to feed their families. They entreat us to think with nuance on the issue. A good and fair point.

But then, just paragraphs later, the same author casually throws out two of the most charged smears in modern discourse: "In the midst of recent years that have shown the sorts of racist and misogynistic biases that are often endemic in the tech world...". There is no explanation or justification of what is meant by this. There is certainly no nuance.

This seems endemic to modern discourse. We want a fair hearing of our own beliefs. We feel persecuted when others smear us. But we see no problem tossing around harsh judgments of others, with no nuance or recognition of other people's potentially noble goals.

I wonder if this author would be willing to give a fair and nuanced hearing towards people who are conservative on immigration (for example). Worry about immigrants taking jobs is one of the top reasons people give for opposing immigration. So the original Luddites and people who are conservative on immigration have something in common.

I think this paragraph from the article takes on new meaning if you substitute "immigration" and "xenophobia" for "technology" and "technophobia". I wonder if the author would still support the argument:

> And I must report that it seems quite obvious that terms like "anti- > technology" and even "technophobia" are just signs of lazy thinking, they > say far more about the person using those terms than the people being > accused of being "anti-technology." In the vast majority of cases when you > actually consider what these so-called "anti-technology" folks believe you > realize that they don't oppose "all" technology but (brace yourself) > particular technologies, being used in particular ways, in a particular > context. This is not to pretend that genuinely "extreme" cases don't exist, > but to claim that someone who thinks Facebook has become too big wants us > all to go back to living in the woods is patently absurd. Yet it is the type > of absurdity that becomes common in a society that has lost the ability to > think critically about technology.

My goal overall isn't to shame the author though. I want to argue that we should apply this charity towards _everyone_ making arguments, not just the people who align with us.

<comment><USER23> I think one of those points is the historical context the argument considers and the consequences that surround it and who is making the argument. For example, if an accused white supremacist in a position of power makes an argument for immigration, should we apply this charity?

<comment><USER22> The author is arguing for critical thinking. If a person makes an argument and we write it off because of that person's identity, that is the opposite of critical thinking. We could as easily write off the Luddites for being violent lawbreakers.

Like "racist", "white supremacist" is tossed around ever more liberally in modern discourse. At Evergreen this year, people left graffiti saying that science without intersectionality is white supremacy. We need to engage ideas critically precisely to determine whether charges like "accused white supremacist" are even accurate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Frankly, the Luddites wanted to be able to feed their children, they didn't > want to be driven into poverty, and they thought those things were more > important than the factory owners becoming wealthier and more powerful

The effect of industrial revolution was not just factory owners being wealthier or more powerful. It raised the workers wages and increased living standards for everyone

<comment><USER25> Yes, but that is not something the Luddites could see from where they were standing and plenty of them did end up hungry. The problem with progress is that it does nothing whatsoever for those that are being displaced, and to tell them to 'have the long view' does not solve their immediate problems.

<comment><USER26> Across time the vast majority of crime seems to originate with hunger and other desperate situations.

<comment><USER27> As the saying goes: revolutions happen when the price of bread goes too high.

<comment><USER26> And something we witnessed during the Arab Spring.

<comment><USER28> He's right: [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/17/bread-f...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/17/bread- food-arab-spring)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Try explaining to people that you're a programmer who doesn't own a cell phone, and count the seconds till this term gets raised. It's disheartening to watch our society practically force others through attempted shaming to follow the acceptable path. I admit feebly that I bought a cell phone because the infotainment system in my car is garbage, and that seems to silence the worst of it, but I feel it's going against my own values to even bring up that glorified internet radio as roughly equivalent to their pocket leash just so I don't have to defend my pride yet again.

<comment><USER30> Have you written about your motivations or experience without a cell phone?

I've been considering getting rid of mine (and a local friend switched to a dumb phone[0]) but RMS is the first person that comes to mind when I think of a programmer without a cell phone.

[0]: [http://jordancrane.me/2018/04/16/the-dumbphone- chronicles/](http://jordancrane.me/2018/04/16/the-dumbphone-chronicles/)

<comment><USER31> I'm also a programmar without a phone or cell. No TV either. I beat people to the punch & laugh about being a technoluddite. Goes along with my at-home development environment being a linux tty & staying off Facebook. Have a nice century old home. My boss is thinking of buying me a cell. I tend towards a lot of seemingly contradictory behavior: philosophically I'm somewhat of a stoic/hedonist hybrid

I think programmers are more likely to opt out of things like cell phones. More likely to be technically competent enough to be work around challenges of going with simplicity & more likely to want that simplicity. Also more likely to see behind the curtain of this post privacy world

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think a google glass type product will be back eventually

</comment><comment><USER33> Class wanted to maintain status quo, and resorted to violence as part of that campaign... it has nothing to do with technology itself. Why does it matter? It may matter like any other labour movement matters.

</comment><comment><USER34> The problem I have with the Luddites was their assumption that they were entitled to their way of life. It's a similar refrain heard today... coal miners want more protection so they can continue to live and work in cole mining towns. They just want to feed their children... something we can all related to. But if times change, then you have to change with then. You don't get to hold the rest of society hostage... either thru slowing tech progress via violence.. or continuing to support an industry that is destroying the planet.

<comment><USER35> To some extent the miner is the vanguard of your ability to discuss this on the internet. We can't run the grid on lumber or "energy crops," and all the other options (solar, wind, fracking, hydroelectric, geothermal) have very similar environmental impacts to coal energy.

There's an advanced energy ecosystem that keeps a lot of really subtle and important things running as the human ecosystem evolves. Maybe at some point coal mining does get phased out in favor of less energy and cleaner energy, but you're gambling on that miner's tonnage not being necessary to clear that gap.

A society could also say, "No, coal stops tomorrow," but a lot of places tried "Everyone's a farmer tomorrow" in the 20th century for very similar reasons and hundreds of millions of people starved to death.

That coal miner isn't only feeding his family, that miner feeds and warms probably thousands of people. To phase out his job, you need a willful change in the infrastructure of the places he serves: you would need everyone to live somewhere without heating, to give up some amount of electricity use, and to begin food production independent of energy (which is a lark, if you've ever tried to grow a crop it is not easy, especially without Haber process or crop defense agents).

<comment><USER36> _...all the other options (solar, wind, fracking, hydroelectric, geothermal) have very similar environmental impacts to coal energy._

You're going to have to back up that claim with some very strong evidence.

<comment><USER35> Follow the process chains for manufacturing all of these technologies from their constituent ores, transporting them to a suitable location, and constructing the end product of a power plant connected to a durable energy infrastructure. It cannot be done without ore tailings, a preexisting grid (which will decay and will need periodic regeneration), though maybe it can be done without fossil fuels. I still think the coal phase-out is going to take another 50 years. I'd be surprised if burning stopped completely in my lifetime.

Generally speaking, we eat stuff to gain energy and stay alive, and process it into byproducts. Since we need heat and cooking and transit, we end up eating uranium and coal as much as food.

As far as the environmental impacts of the energy economy are concerned, I'd like to think that the worst of it was noticed and mitigated when the EPA was formed. Lots of the numbers about one form of energy versus another and the cost-benefit analyses are (as my argument was for you) way too much conjecture than I can be comfortable with.

<comment><USER37> Arguing that things use resources does not support your claim that they use the same resources.

<comment><USER35> That may be true, but due to a number of scientific conclusions in the 20th century (the uncertainty principle & the incompleteness theorems), I've concluded that all knowledge is at best heuristic, and that claims to the contrary are a form of violence. I'm prepared to claim "all these use resources" but am not prepared to claim "some technologies use certain resources in a way that offer environmental benefit over other technologies, which use different resources." That seems unfair and/or dangerous.

<comment><USER37> Are you for real? That is the most /r/iamverysmart thing I've ever read.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> _> Of course, we know that today the Luddites are not viewed particularly kindly_

On the contrary, it is technology and progress that are viewed with scepticism -- watch almost any recent sci-fi movie.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX-K63pVPTM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX-K63pVPTM)

</comment><comment><USER39> As a UI/UX Designer I design with this audience in mind.

Though working with one is a bit annoying. Hey let's design it this way it's simpler umm no I don't know how to code it that new way let's do it the way I know. Sigh.

</comment><comment><USER40> The author's premise is that Luddites are a misunderstood group with a misunderstood agenda but then goes on to immediately say:

"The historic Luddites were skilled craft workers laboring in England in the early 19th century, and they were amongst the first groups to see their jobs and lifestyles fall victim to mechanization; their opposition to 'obnoxious' machinery was in keeping with their view that the imposition of these machines would bring 'a sad end to an honourable craft.'"

...which is exactly why myself and others generally ignore ludditism. To me this seems perfectly in line with the general understanding of the term: people that are being displaced by progress and become generally opposed to said progress as a result, often violently so.

I'm sorry if new technologies are hurting your lifestyle, but if the only way to become heard is to literally destroy that tech, then perhaps no one wants to listen.

Adapt or die. This is the way of evolution.

<comment><USER41> Yeah, this article actually confused me a bit, too. I always thought the common understanding of Luddite was "doesn't understand / doesn't care about" technology. Did nothing to dissuade that notion, either.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I convince my boss that we don't need to support Chrome 14? - <AUTHOR>

I work for a small, early stage startup. Our main product is a consumer-facing website targeted at US consumers only.
I'm a web developer there. Our director of engineering is a C++ guy with 0 web dev experience. However, he is in charge of all the developers and setting our engineering roadmap.
Anyway, he is very stubborn about supporting as old versions of browsers as possible. He is of the opinion that all old or poor people use old browsers and by not supporting them we will be losing customers. No amount of browser statistics will change his mind. He keeps saying things to the gist of "real software should be cross-platform", etc.
I proposed we only support IE9+, Chrome 36+ and Firefox 30+ because those were the only versions we found to still have marginal usage in the US..and I can maybe understand IE8 for people with old computers, but Chrome and Firefox self-update now adays..
He completely rejected my proposal and insists on supporting Chrome 14, Firefox 17, etc.
I think he's smart enough to change his mind if presented with the right arguments, but right now Idk what those would be..
So HN, what arguments or data can I present to our director of engineering to get him to change his mind? <comment><USER2> Send him this link and ask him how many releases back from stable he wants to spend resources on?

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

</comment><comment><USER3> If you collect analytics you should be able to see the volume of usage by browser version. We make rational decisions where I work based on the analytics only.

</comment><comment><USER4> Are you going to support Chrome 14 only, or Chrome 14, 15, 16...?

Maybe if you tell him that we should support 30 different versions his opinion will change.

<comment><AUTHOR> as far back as Chrome 14..so he expects anything in between current and 14 to work..he doesn't seem to care that that's some 30 versions, he has 0 web dev experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Explain how much extra work it is, tell him about the auto-update process in Chrome and that practicly no one uses it...

<comment><AUTHOR> I already have, he keeps insisting that there are people out there that turn that off..he's willing to push back the development of new features until everything works in the older browsers..

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me of the olden days where it was actually true.

</comment><comment><USER7> Because you telemetry that supports your stance?</comment>


$99 iPhone Coming This Summer - <AUTHOR> http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/2/99-iphone-coming-this-summer

<comment><USER2> Better title: "Market analyst speculates $99 iPhone Coming This Summer"</comment>


Official Wikileaks statement on DDOS attacks. - <AUTHOR> http://wikileaks.ch/articles/2010/Statement-on-DDOS-attacks.html

<comment><USER2> Which side is Anonymous on? Were they really to blame for the attacks ON Wikileaks?</comment>


Google to beef up Places, Street View with interior business photos - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/05/google-offers-businesses-free-pro-photos-for-use-with-google-maps.ars

<comment><USER2> This is good for everyone. Businesses will realize that more and more people are doing initial research online, which will cause them to 1) improve overall service 2) make more information available online 3) keep their business as tidy as possible!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's interesting if you check the link for where they're offering the service; there are only five US cities, but nine areas (some prefectures) in Japan. I wonder why the coverage is so large in Japan?

It also seems a bit haphazard. Why Hyogo?

<comment> guard-of-terra They probably want to use this service to try streighten their position in areas where Google is comparatively weaker. Therefore, Korea, Japan.

If I'm right, we shouldn't expect Europe to be their priority (for example), because Google is already very strong there, no real competition. Expect to be closer to the bottom of the list.</comment></comment>


Beyond HTML5: Database APIs and the Road to IndexedDB - <AUTHOR> http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis-and-the-road-to-indexeddb/ <comment><USER2> Mostly, I like new technology. In fact, I had to hand re-compile CouchDB today for a production server, and I didn't complain at all. Really.

But, this seems silly. Why are the developers creating their own new way of storing and retrieving large, structured datasets? Don't we already have a reasonably good way of doing that? One that's taught around the world?

Complaining, as they do in their doc, that SQLite doesn't implement all of SQL92 is totally silly. I think they'd be better off implementing a custom JSON <-> SQL binding CRUD package than creating a totally new object- interactive layer on top of SQLite. (Yes, from the article, they use SQLite as the underlying engine.)

To me, the arguments for this just don't make sense.

Also, priceless quote from the article: "IndexedDB does not currently have an API specified for doing a join between different object stores. As a result, the example opens a cursor to the kids object store and an object cursor on the kidId index on the candySales object store and performs the join manually."

I know I'm sniping. But, for this, we are supposed to be happy to give up SQL?

<comment><USER3> Really, this is just "NoSQL for the web". And I have the same problem with it that I have with all NoSQL APIs, which is that it's not noticeably simpler or more performant, it just looks a bit more "object-y". As you note, it doesn't even have a way of doing joins. (There's no reason you couldn't support SQL in the browser that allowed you to create tables with indexes)

The reason the SQL standard exists is not because it's the absolute best way of accessing structured data, but because a _standard_ way of accessing structured data is useful in and of itself. It has economies of training and learning and allows for some limited amount of portability between DB engines.

In 5 years, somebody is going to invent some kind of meta-API that allows you to use a single common API to access all of cassandra, couchdb, mongodb, and the rest, and I'm just going to laugh and laugh.

<comment><USER4> And while SQL is not the absolute best way of accessing structured data, the theory which it's almost-but-not-quite based on, the relational model, DOES have demonstrable and very well-researched advantages over hierarchical database models when it comes to working with structured data at a high level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why can't we just have SQL92 on the client side along with some nice API that accepts keyed JSON objects and performs the standard CRUD operations with them.

I get that people want simple Key-Value and Object storage APIs because they provide nice abstractions for a particular set of use-cases, but that doesn't warrant throwing out relational databases & SQL.

The correct fix for this is to require full SQL92 compliance in the HTML spec, patch up SQLite to plug its areas of noncompliance, and then let framework designers address data access APIs (that all persist to relational data) at the JavaScript leve.

<comment><USER4> Indeed.

It's absolutely trivial to write an reasonably-performing key-value store on top of even the most minimal subset of SQL.

The reverse is most certainly not true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sigh. Looking at this and the walk-through you would think Mozilla would have a little more vision. SQL queries on the client? Guess I was secretly hoping Mozilla would adopt something more along the lines of CouchDB.

<comment><USER7> What? Mozilla is explicitly _not_ implementing SQL on the client. Instead they're implementing some kind of indexed object database.

<comment><USER6> Wow. Sorry serious case of not reading the code closely enough because of work. You're totally right. In fact they mention how easy it would be to write a CouchDB layer on top! Sheesh.</comment></comment></comment>