ICQ New - <AUTHOR> https://icq.com/desktop/ <comment><USER2> This post made me wonder what happened to ICQ.

"(2010) AOL has sold ICQ to Digital Sky Technologies (DST), Russia's largest Internet company, for US$187.5 million. DST's offer was apparently more attractive than those of Russia's ProfMedia and China's Tencent. ICQ, originally released in 1996 and bought by AOL in 1998 for US$407 million, was one of the world's first major instant messaging systems. Although largely forgotten in English-speaking countries, it remains widely popular in Central Europe, Russia, and Israel. Moscow News has additional coverage of the deal."

([https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/05/01/1516234/russian- com...](https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/05/01/1516234/russian-company-buys- icq))

<comment><USER3> Note: "remains widely popular" was already arguable when that story was written in 2010 and is definitely not true in 2020.

<comment><USER4> At least in Israel no one was using it after ~2005 or so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "ICQ New does not encrypt your communications. In addition, your communications may be routed through different countries - that is the nature of the Internet. ICQ New cannot accept any responsibility for any unauthorized access or loss of Data."

LOL

<comment><USER6> This is such a real shame. I miss ICQ; the original had features I really liked which I haven't found in dumbed-down, modern chat software. Examples:

\- status and visibility could be controlled for each contact at a granular level

\- locally-stored, fully searchable chat history that gave results in a sensible manner and which you could migrate to new computers

\- notification intrusiveness (ding, flash, etc) could be adjusted with one or two clicks

\- dense UI (less whitespace meant more information packed into a smaller window that took up less of my screen)

\- hitting X actually exited the program

<comment><USER7> > \- dense UI (less whitespace meant more information packed into a smaller > window that took up less of my screen)

Yesterday's thread about DECUS and HP's OpenVMS hobbyist program opened a can of nostalgia worms so I remembered that my first laptop was a late-Digital era 11"-screen laptop with a pretty low-res screen (800x600, I think?).

I used ICQ on it and its interface was about as awkward as Skype's is today -- except _today_ I'm running Skype on a laptop with about twice the screen estate. It's a little silly that all that research work in the industry -- and all that money I've paid -- went into screens that I now use just to display more whitespace.

I know it's supposed to help with touch screens but a) my laptop -- like most laptops currently in use -- doesn't have one and b) this isn't 1997 anymore, UI toolkits today make it trivial to adjust element sizes and paddings so that they're appropriate to whatever pointing device is currently in use.

<comment><USER8> Which version of ICQ are you referring to? I was running ICQ on a 640x480 monitor back then and i remember it having a very compact window[0] which i always had it visible.

[0] [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjOHmkFVAAUPzx6.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjOHmkFVAAUPzx6.jpg)

<comment><USER7> It's been so long I really can't recall anymore. (Edit: but just like you, I do remember that I had the ICQ window visible at pretty much all times, and I could comfortably fit an Emacs window, the contact window a chat window on my desktop's 1024x768 screen.)

That being said, the window in that screenshot is about 200 x 320 px. It would have taken about a third of the horizontal space of the screen, and about 2/3rds of the vertical space of a 640x480 screen. It was certainly usable -- way, way more usable than Skype on a full HD monitor today -- but lots of stuff was claustrophobic in 640x480.

(Then again, most modern apps are practically unusable if you resize their window to 640x480...)

<comment><USER8> Sadly Skype and similar programs tend to take more physical space on my monitor than ICQ (and MSN Messenger, especially the original versions like the one included in Windows XP) ever did :-/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would like to hear this sound [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iCPIUGnHQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iCPIUGnHQ8)] on the landing page.

<comment><USER10> In 1999, my future wife and I, after an initial in person meeting, chatted incessantly over ICQ. It's how we really got to know each other.

To this day, this 'uh-oh!' sound makes me tingle all over.

<comment><USER9> I think you can thank Mirabilis founders! So much people have good memories thanks to ICQ.

<comment><USER11> Yup. It also had random chat feature which i enjoyed quite a lot. Made my first online friends (whom i ended up meeting in real life, and are still friends with to date).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> ICQ was cool, but at the time it was just another chat service that I used through Trillian. I really miss Trillian these days

<comment><USER13> Remember about 20 years ago, when it was about protocols and not about brand names? You could have all the chat services in one client, complete with merging contacts from different services.

Nowadays, you have to jump through hoops to get even a few of the messaging services in one program, it's clunky and barely works, and you'd be breaking terms of service of half of them. Also, it would break anyway in a week or two, because the service owner changed something in the proprietary protocol.

Fortunately, with Matrix and a few other pioneers, it's getting better again, but in the meantime, there is an entire generation used to having their communication hamstrung by american corporations.

<comment><USER14> It was all about brand names 20 years ago too. None of the big IM services of the time were interoperable. The only reason Trillian worked was because its developers put enormous amounts of work into reverse-engineering proprietary, undocumented chat protocols. Periodically a protocol would change, and then Trillian would stop working with that service until the developers could crack it again. At one point AOL got serious enough about blocking Trillian access to AIM that they were changing the protocol every couple of days.

I guess what I'm saying is, things sucked just as much then as they do now. Maybe more! Sigh.

<comment><USER15> That's not necessarily true. Jabber was a huge protocol already and IRC was big too and those were not about brand names. Jabber was even so ubiquitous that Google Chat/Talk both used it as a backend. You could add Google Chat to any client that supported Jabber. It wasn't until AOL got wind of AIM being a way to grab more ads and cash that things changed.

<comment><USER14> Twenty years ago was the year 2000. Trillian first shipped as freeware that year, and shipped its for-pay "Pro" version in 2002. Jabber/XMPP development only started in 1999, and didn't reach RFC status until 2004. Google Talk didn't ship until 2005, and didn't support federation until 2006. The heyday of "XMPP all the things" was from 2008-2012 or so, with the high water mark being the adoption of XMPP by Facebook Chat circa 2010. (A decision they eventually reversed a few years later.)

IRC was of course always open, but that's kind of orthogonal to this discussion as it never really had any traction with the general public the way AIM, ICQ, Yahoo! Messenger, etc. did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I still remember my ICQ number. A few people used AOL/AIM, but ICQ was very popular for some time, I had more contacts on ICQ then I ever had on Facebook. Then Microsoft shipped their own Messenger pre-installed on Windows, and people started using Messenger instead. Then came Skype, which replaced the desktop phone. And more and more moved over to Skype. Then there was clients that allowed you to use both AIM, ICQ, Messenger and Skype) finally you could have all your contacts in one place. But Google also wanted to join the game, launched their own G-talk, then bought and shutdown one of the most popular multi-clients... So what should I use at this point? Lets go with Skype. Then Microsoft bough Skype. And kinda crippled it... So people started to use the chat on Facebook... And then the Smartphone market become really huge. So the big players turned their focus on mobile. Opening a void on desktop, which was later filled by Slack...

</comment><comment><USER17> Strange that there is no mention of encryption... which is the very first thing I want to see mentioned. I am happy to see a new app because I _do_ feel like there's still no chat app that checks all the boxes (not owned by an advertising-funded/creepy company, E2E, great UI, no weird home-grown ciphers, not funded by the US gov't, cross-platform). But E2E is an absolute must.

<comment><USER18> How do you feel about it being under the control of the Russian government?

<comment><USER17> (As a Russian) I feel worse about the Russian gov't -- Signal's American gov't funding is a red flag, but afaik Signal has not been compromised by this (Signal's awful UI is why I don't use it).

On the other hand, if Yandex or VK had an E2E chat (maybe they do), I would not trust it at all.

<comment><USER19> What is awful about the UI? I have found it to be pretty simple and easy to use. Mind you I've been using it for < 1 year so maybe it used to be different.

<comment><USER17> Honestly, for me, the lack of a web app is a show-stopper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I hadn't used ICQ since the 90s and maybe early 2000s. The screenshots of ICQ New on the site certainly look quite similar to Whatsapp Web. I'm kind of surprised that there's active development in ICQ all these years even though I don't know of anyone personally who still uses it. Maybe ICQ is active in other parts of the world?

<comment><USER21> >I don't know of anyone personally who still uses it.

I always liked ICQ, but there was always a tad bit of friction remembering huge strings of numbers as practical IDs, and the naming schemes came way later.

11984431 or whatever doesn't roll off the tongue very well.

<comment><USER22> I have no idea how, but my 8 digit ICQ user id immediately springs to mind, 20 years later. The mind works in mysterious ways.

<comment><USER23> "591007" does that make me and ICQ OG?

<comment><USER24> 344838

But Mail.ru deleted old accounts. So...

<comment><USER25> Might want to check, I logged into mine (272605) recently

<comment><USER24> I did. I wouldn't write it without checking. I was able to log in half a year ago or so. But now - [https://icq.im/344838](https://icq.im/344838) [Deleted]

They even tell you that you can't restore in anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Open source? Open protocols?

If not, not interested. We have plenty of proprietary instant messages already.

</comment><comment><USER27> Maybe it's just a matter of what I'm familiar with, but this feels eerily similar to Telegram. Both the feature set and the UI are extremely similar.

I wonder how much of this is intentional, or if it's just a case of convergent evolution? The adversarial relationship between ICQ (with connections to Russian oligarchs) and Telegram (with connections to Russian dissidents) makes this feel unlikely to be coincidence.

<comment><USER28> Icq definitely stole a lot from telegram.

<comment><USER29> Haha. The entire Russian tech scene is about copying western products. Pavel copied VKontakte back when Facebook was starting. When he released Telegram it was the spitting image of WhatsApp. You might be right but Telegram's not on a high horse here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> What the heck is going on with its mobile site?

I have to scroll right to see the other ~60%+ of its content, and there's no way to zoom out to fit it all in, even at a smaller scale.

<comment><USER31> What's the excuse for this now days? You didn't test this on a standard phone resolution with dev tools at a bare minimum?

<comment><USER32> Pretty funny considering it's an old product trying to be relevant again.

"Why test the website on phones? Who uses messaging apps on their phone anyway?"

<comment><USER33> It's even weirder because 80% of the screenshots are of the mobile app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> It ticks a lot of boxes looking at the landing page. However, I'm surprised by the lack of a really important keyword: privacy.

<comment><USER35> Read the privacy policy.

tl;dr - they don't encrypt anything, are owned by a russian company, and take no responsibility for the leaking of your data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Oh my god. So much memories..

Year - 2004. Place - Moscow Russia. Before Facebook(or Russian VK).

High school. Everyone I know using mIRC chats in my city supported by local ISP and using ICQ.

I had Nokia 6280 phone with S40 OS and using ICQ on it with J2ME app 'JIMM' that looked like this[0][1]

At that time in 2004 it was like magic, it was so cheap to chat with status messages and Emojis, not paying for SMS.

And desktop clients of that era like QIP or Miranda IM[1] were so minimalistic and extensible.

And yeah I remember purchasing good looking ICQ number 94444911 on some shady auction, fun time

[0] [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/b/b5/Jimm_screen.p...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/b/b5/Jimm_screen.png) [1] [https://cs7.pikabu.ru/post_img/2014/08/04/12/1407181990_1167...](https://cs7.pikabu.ru/post_img/2014/08/04/12/1407181990_1167753841.png) [1] [https://www.miranda-ng.org/en/](https://www.miranda-ng.org/en/)

</comment><comment><USER37> I don't trust new products anymore, especially anything like a new chat app. I don't install new apps. I'm more willing to try something if they have a website that works in incognito mode and doesn't require a phone number to create an account.

<comment><USER38> ICQ came out around 1997!

<comment><USER39> This doesn't appear to have anything to do with 1997 ICQ besides the name.

<comment><USER38> I just logged in with my 23-year-old account, pretty sure it's the same. Kind of unsettling to see all the contacts still there!

<comment><USER40> wild... I haven't been able to use my old account for a very long time... created a new one a few years back, tried that one... neither seem to work...

I don't want to make a new one tied to my phone number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Haven't used it in years but still remember my number: 1315980 and that godforsaken "uh-oh" sound.

Way to ruin the nostalgia with such a poor reboot. it's a shame so many of the old internet 1.0 brands are rotting away.

</comment><comment><USER42> What's the differentiating factor? Cursory look at it - I don't see strong E2E encryption or anything besides a bog standard messaging app. We have many - whatsapp, facebook messenger, imessage, hangouts, telegram, signal, wechat, etc.

> Convert audio messages to text, use smart replies, stay online even with bad > internet connection

That doesn't cut it, IMO. In fact it is repulsing me (offline apps are great) but I don't want to convert audio messages to text unless that happens locally. Fuck smart replies, no thanks.

<comment><USER43> Yeah, that's weird. If you're going to announce a new instant messaging system, you will of course provide some reason why people should go through the effort to switch. The front page should be brimming with the pitch. "Unlike WhatsApp, with New ICQ, you can _____." What goes in the blank? Why haven't you told me?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Back in the day, ICQ's most unique feature that it offered was the "Live Chat" feature with split panes, where you could see what people were typing literally as they typed it (including when they pressed backspace to correct mistakes).

I don't understand why no other popular chat app has ever brought that feature back. It really gave the chats a sense of humanity and conversational connectedness. You could even rewind and play back the conversations!

</comment><comment><USER45> A product of Mail.ru? _closes browser tab_

</comment><comment><USER40> Can't seem to create an account without a phone number... what happens if my phone number changes?

</comment><comment><USER46> Hi everyone! Wow. We are impressed with so many comments regarding ICQ New.

We've found a lot of nostalgic mentions here, and we want to say that we have the same feelings. But it's similar to looking through the school photo album. It's nice to remember but now you are another person who live in the next decade.

Sooo...welcome to ICQ New with group-calls up to 30 people, smart replies and conversion of voice messages into text!

We'll be appreciate for any feedback, feature requests and opinions. Share it with us here or right in ICQ: side menu — report an error.

See you!

</comment><comment><USER47> Oh my god why do people make websites with scrolling like this? It's such a weird and frustrating experience, and it seems like people are doing it _more_ as time goes on.

<comment><USER48> just try resizing the window and you'll cry!

</comment></comment><comment> 1-6 I can't resurrect my old ICQ number? It was short too.

<comment><USER49> Apart from my old phone number, my old ICQ number (and GeoCities address) is something I still know by heart. I would love it if I could get it back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Are 6-digit ICQ numbers still considered cool?

<comment><USER51> idk, but mine no longer works -- they deleted old numbers before releasing this new icq.

<comment><USER52> I just logged in with mine, 134xxxxx

<comment><USER53> 8 digits?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> This makes me sad. I honestly thought ICQ will make a come back one day as retro. Not any more.

Interesting read about the old one: [https://medium.com/@Dimitryophoto/icq-20-years-is-no- limit-8...](https://medium.com/@Dimitryophoto/icq-20-years-is-no- limit-8734e1eea8ea)

</comment><comment><USER55> I would use ICQ like it was back in the day, but the privacy violations of today's ICQ makes it impossible for me.

</comment><comment><USER56> This post made me install the ICQ "uh oh!" new message sound as notification sound on my phone. It is higher pitched than I remember it.

I still remember my UIN, but I don't think 'new ICQ' uses those? I tried logging in on the web site, but I am unable to recover my password using my UIN.

</comment><comment><USER57> uh oh!

</comment><comment><USER58> If it wasn't owned by Russian corporation Mail.ru--which is under full control of FSB and Russian government--my nostalgia would give it a try. But no way I'd install anything on my devices that Russian security service has direct access to.

</comment><comment><USER59> it's incredible to me that ICQ still going. Obviously it died down in worldwide/western popularity early 2000s but I do know it continued to be used in Russia and some other places. Kinda amazing and I'll always respect the original development coming out of Israel. Fond memories of those late 90s days when it was the standard.

With the random chance of any app with the right timing/reach and features to gain some traction (see whatsapp) etc, guess they figure why not put ourselves out there again hehe

</comment><comment><USER60> Good ol ICQ. Back in the day when devs/general population thought identifying yourselves with a 10 digit number is easier than an email address...good ol days...

</comment><comment><USER61> Please, be aware that ICQ was bought by Mail.ru - russian company owned by oligarch Alisher Usmanov, who's very connected to russian crooked elite. It's the company which was used for a hostile takevoer of VK.com from it's founder after it wouldn't censor it's content. It's voluntarily provided private data about it's users to the state (far outside of what's required by law) and was involved in a number of similar breach of privacy cases.

Basically, it's company in the pocket of russian government, and you should use any of it's product if you completely disregard your privacy.

<comment><USER29> To add, never rely on products that require you to trust the company respects your privacy. E.g. Telegram lacks ubiquitous end-to-end encryption (E2EE) so even if the company chooses not to abuse the insane amounts of valuable data, nation state hackers are most interested in hacking these centralized troves of data. Not even opt-in E2EE is good because that leaks metadata about desire to use proper encryption. Always use apps that are E2EE by default (e.g. Signal) to ensure you're not leaking content or metadata about wanting to keep discussion hidden.

<comment><USER62> _> To add, never rely on products that require you to trust the company respects your privacy. _

_> Always use apps that are E2EE by default (e.g. Signal)_

You are contradicting yourself here. You are required to trust Signal the company to respect your privacy, to trust that it's actually doing end-to-end encryption, doing it properly and doesn't issue an update breaking it because of some secret US government order. Because Signal controls software distribution, it's pretty much just a binary blob that some guy from Signal can update any time.

A proper end-to-end encryption at minimum requires an open source implementations and distribution to avoid trusting the company to respect your privacy, since this is the primary reason for end-to-end encryption to exist. Otherwise incentives are misaligned and it will be broken by the same company it is supposed to protect from as soon as they need your messages for something.

<comment><USER29> You aren't required to trust Signal.

You can read the source, you can compile it yourself, and you can use it.

You can also do a reproducible build and check that it matches the hash of the APK served by the play store.

"Open source distribution?" What is that? If you can't trust the vendor, no F-Droid is going to help there. If you need to verify the source, you need to do it yourself.

>some secret US government order

Explain how that would work on legal level when compelled speech violates the constitution.

Your reasoning isn't exactly solid.

<comment><USER62> _> You can read the source, you can compile it yourself, and you can use it._

I can read some source code they provide, not necessarily what everyone has installed at any given moment. Even if I could review it and compile it and run it the other ends of end-to-end won't, so I still have to trust Signal the company to not violate the other ends.

Open source distribution means packages in various open source repositories, not controlled by software vendors.

 _> If you can't trust the vendor, no F-Droid is going to help there._

F-Droid model is exactly what's going to help with not having to trust the vendor. It's sort of an infrastructure to reduce trust in software vendors. Independent parties maintaining forks and packages are more likely to notice if vendor does something stupid, more likely to have people and tools to verify claims and implementations, provide a way for independent implementations.

 _> Explain how that would work on legal level when compelled speech violates the constitution._

It doesn't matter, they can come up with plenty of bullshit excuses claiming child porn or whatever. The important thing is you have to trust Signal the company, the US government, the legal system, etc.

<comment><USER29> >not necessarily what everyone has installed at any given moment

That applies to any distribution mechanism.

>I still have to trust Signal the company to not violate the other ends.

99% of people are going to download the app from Play store, even if F-Droid was available. You're screwed.

>It's sort of an infrastructure to reduce trust in software vendors.

Oh dear god. No. It's just more steps into distribution chain the user needs to trust.

>Independent parties maintaining forks and packages are more likely to notice if vendor does something stupid,

The same people might look at Signal's main repository for the same concern, and notice the same things. Furthermore, Signal is the entity innovating on secure messaging protocols, so I wouldn't say the chances are they're doing stupid things.

>more likely to have people and tools to verify claims and implementations

No. Nobody's looking at some John Smith's Signal fork. Besides, using such fork is an incredibly dangerous weak point, from the maintainer's improper singing key storage and signing process, to just having to trust random maintainers. Absolutely no.

>It doesn't matter, they can come up with plenty of bullshit excuses claiming child porn or whatever.

So I take it you're not just clueless, you're also not following the news [https://signal.org/blog/earn-it/](https://signal.org/blog/earn-it/)

>The important thing is you have to trust Signal the company

The literal point of the ubiquitous E2EE, FOSS codebase with reproducible builds is to eliminate the need to trust them. The FUD you're spreading is incredibly damaging.

<comment><USER62> Again, that whole point of end-to-end encryption that allows it to eliminate the need to trust the vendor only works if the vendor isn't the one supplying said end-to-end encryption. Please don't make arguments that "Signal does this or that you can trust them", you do not eliminate the need to trust them this way at all. If you do have to trust them not to spy on you, it's not a proper "end-to-end" encryption, simple as that, it's effectively the same thing as a regular TLS encryption to the servers, where you have to trust them not to spy on you on the servers. And in either case that trust will be eventually violated, because there is no incentive not to, but plenty of pressure and incentives to violate it.

I don't know what's so confusing about it. You like Signal and trust them, that's fine, but I don't trust them or anything coming from the US, I really would like to eliminate such trust. Claiming that I don't have to trust them is unproductive and a lie.

<comment><USER29> >Again, that whole point of end-to-end encryption that allows it to eliminate the need to trust the vendor only works if the vendor isn't the one supplying said end-to-end encryption.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Vendor supplies the E2EE, users and experts review it, and then if it changes, review changes. Third parties can trivially make edits to their forks and that's the easiest backdoor possible. How can you not see that.

>Please don't make arguments that "Signal does this or that you can trust them", you do not eliminate the need to trust them this way at all.

I already explained there are technical measures in place that allow you to verify the build you're using yourself. You're clearly not a subject matter expert here so I suggest you move on.

> If you do have to trust them not to spy on you, it's not a proper "end-to- > end" encryption, simple as that

You're arguing from the wrong premise. You don't have to trust them.

>it's effectively the same thing as a regular TLS encryption to the servers, where you have to trust them not to spy on you on the servers.

if Signal was doing an active MITM attack against their own encryption, that would be eavesdropping which is a felony in the US.

>And in either case that trust will be eventually violated, because there is no incentive not to, but plenty of pressure and incentives to violate it.

And somehow random repository maintainers are immune to pressure and incentives. I get it, you're trolling.

>I don't know what's so confusing about it.

If you really stretch those brain cells of yours you might understand it one day.

>You like Signal and trust them, that's fine, but I don't trust them or anything coming from the US, I really would like to eliminate such trust.

Again, you don't have to trust Signal.

>Claiming that I don't have to trust them is unproductive and a lie.

So you ignore the concept of reproducible builds and just establish an opinion with average-joe level reasoning.

I won't waste my time further.

<comment><USER62> _> there are technical measures in place that allow you to verify the build you're using yourself. _

There are no technical measures for Signal in place that allow anyone to verify the build all ends of said end-to-end encryption are running nor any technical measures to ensure the software they are running won't be updated with compromised end-to-end encryption by the vendor in the future. The measures I talk about address both points by removing trust from the vendor and distributing it across many independent entities.

 _> if Signal was doing an active MITM attack against their own encryption, that would be eavesdropping which is a felony in the US._

It's not just legal anywhere in the world, it's what a lot of software already does.

Anyway, if end-to-end encryption requires the exact same level of trust as TLS, there is no point in it. It's only useful in truly open source messengers, not Signal, Whatsapp or other binary blob centralizedly controlled messengers.

<comment><USER29> >There are no technical measures for Signal in place that allow anyone to verify the build all ends of said end-to-end encryption

There is no technical measure in existence that allows that for any application. This is called a nirvana fallacy.

> nor any technical measures to ensure the software they are running won't be > updated with compromised end-to-end encryption by the vendor in the future.

That applies to all software that requires automatic software updates, i.e. networked TCBs. You want something that doesn't require updating, you use stronger model like TFC.

>The measures I talk about address both points by removing trust from the vendor and distributing it across many independent entities.

And users are going to compare diffs of multiple vendors for every update to see nothing malicious was added? Give me a break.

>It's not just legal anywhere in the world, it's what a lot of software already does.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

>Anyway, if end-to-end encryption requires the exact same level of trust as TLS, there is no point in it.

And this is the general whataboutism propaganda I run into all the time. "There is no perfect E2EE model, therefore using it doesn't matter".

Forward secrecy and risk of legal trouble are two perfectly valid reasons to use just opportunistic E2EE, even if you don't authenticate the keys.

May the rest of the community credit your "ideas" with the silence they deserve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> The killer feature for me would be sending photos in original quality cross platform, but not sure if it's enough to warrant installing yet another IM app.

<comment><USER64> ? LINE (what I use in Singapore) sends original photos. Don't know about what's app. But I thought this was normal.

<comment><USER63> WhatsApp and Telegram (widely used in HK) compress down to around 500kb.

<comment><USER65> Telegram offers to send photo "as a file", unaltered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Everybody's scrambling to find their own credentials.

</comment><comment><USER67> Tencent started its business from QICQ which became QQ. In a sense ICQ was part of the reason it becomes a multi-billion business. Respect

</comment><comment><USER68> Uhh, what even is ICQ and what is it for? Some sort of chat app? The website is super fancy but fails to answer this simple question.

<comment><USER10> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICQ)

It's one of the earliest fairly widely used instant messaging apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> There is absolutely no good reason to use this.

</comment><comment><USER70> I wanted that domain for "ingeniería civil quimica" (chemical engineering), before it was from a gym

</comment><comment><USER71> I had a 6-digit account number. I can't remember the whole thing, but it started 153... good memories.

</comment><comment><USER72> Why someone would need another messenger? Especially without E2EE?

I think tomorrow I'll bring back myspace.

</comment><comment><USER73> It seems to be yet another messaging app to compete with Signal, iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, maybe there's some google product too (formerly Allo)? Unlike iMessage and Signal, no requirement for a phone number. Maybe owned by big brother? Seems to be a product of mail.ru.

Still a centralized messaging service though. I'm sticking with Signal I think.

</comment><comment><USER74> ... i wish i could remember my ICQ number. And the password. And what my username was. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER75> Dammit, until a few years ago I remembered my id, which was only 6 digits long.

<comment><USER76> It looks like you need to provide a phone number to use this new service, so I guess it's just another WhatsApp clone, with nostalgic branding.

It would be awesome to be able to use your old icq number and hear the "uh oh" notification sound - nostalgia is about the whole experience not just brands.

<comment><USER75> Indeed it would. I would actually love to read those conversations again. It was '96? '97?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> [https://privacy.icq.com/legal/privacypolicy/en](https://privacy.icq.com/legal/privacypolicy/en)

Please take a moment to review this privacy policy before signing up; for example, it does not indicate any intention to comply with EU, GDPR, CCPA, etc. privacy laws or guarantees in any respect whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER78> It is surprising to see a service launching in 2020 with no IPv6 support.

</comment><comment><USER79> The screenshot: "Dark theme" "Battery saving". lol

</comment><comment><USER80> Should be called ICQ Old.

App is extremely aggressive asking for location and contact access.

Net!

</comment><comment><USER81> But they deleted all ICQ numbers a short while ago

<comment><USER82> I just logged into my ICQ # registered in 1997.

<comment><USER81> Well that's strangs.. now it works..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I miss ICQ's numeric UINs so much.

</comment><comment><USER84> A bad Telegram ripoff, basically.

<comment><USER29> And Telegram is a ripoff of WhatsApp.

<comment><USER85> I would say the contrary, WhatsApp is Telegram with 1 year lag.

<comment><USER29> No, when Telegram was published, it had identical UI to that of WhatsApp, although people seem to have conveniently forgotten this fact. Also, Telegram is still lacking basic E2EE for group chats, and you also can't have E2EE on desktop, so any "feature" they might implement is not an actual feature because it's not secure.

<comment><USER85> WhatsApp is closed source tho, so, how anybody would trust it?

<comment><USER29> You're right of course. We we should have a preferred order. Let's define conditions as something common like group chat. Let's also define backdoor as something that allows any non-group member to read the messages.

1\. Signal: Open source with E2EE group chats. Best choice, let's use that.

2\. WhatsApp, Proprietary with E2EE group chats. E2EE implementation might have a backdoor with some probability. Let's avoid it if we can.

3\. Telegram: Open source client with no E2EE group chats. The implementation leaks all group chats to server and anyone who hacks the server, and there's nothing we can do. It's backdoored by design. Let's avoid it at all costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Holy shit! what year is this?

<comment><USER87> I'd say we are roughly in the era of milking old franchises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Sometimes They Come Back

</comment><comment><USER89> Memories... (⊙o⊙)

</comment><comment><USER90> 46.8 megs xz compressed for linux, no thanks -2386684

</comment><comment><USER91> The real reason why Mirabilis ICQ become unpopular.

On the height of their popularity, they started naming their products appending either "devil" and "demon" to their products.

Of course, most people who are conservatives back then like parents, aunts, 99% of the their users, basically other than "you" the power users didn't like the new naming.

So they move-on to Yahoo Messenger and never looked back.

Moral: Don't name your popular product like how Mirabilis ICQ does it back in the late 90s.

</comment><comment><USER92> For those not aware, ICQ is owned by Mail.Ru Group controlled by Alisher Usmanov, one of Putin's oligarch friends

<comment><USER93> Do you also avoid chinese companies like Riot Games, Epic Games, Tik Tok and others? What about chinese backed movies?

<comment><USER94> That person might ...

But I could see not avoiding games, but very much wanting to avoid communications software.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> It's owned by Russians.

<comment><USER96> And the original was owned by Israelis

<comment><USER29> So do we agree it was never good, or that it doesn't matter it's as insecure now as it was back then? Do we see reason or succumb to whataboutism?

<comment><USER96> I agree with both your arguments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> say hi: 644282

</comment><comment><USER97> hmm

</comment><comment><USER98> ICQ means _I seek you_. Just in case you wondered.

<comment><USER99> Xkcd 10,000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> Yes, yes yes yes yes!</comment>


Kill the Blockbuster - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kylemeyer.com/post/20139494197/kill-the-blockbuster <comment><USER2> "the bottom line is that it's never been more difficult for filmmakers to get an original story made"

On the contrary. With affordable HD gear and computer editing, it's never been easier for a filmmaker to make their movie themselves. Compare to 20 years ago, where Kevin Smith could barely afford to buy and develop grainy black- and-white film on a $30 grand budget.

<comment><USER3> I think it's more accurate to say it's never been more difficult for filmmakers to get an original story made that requires 10s of millions of dollars to bring to life.

Studios have definitely gotten more conservative on the upper end, and the middle is nearly non-existent compared to the past.

<comment><USER4> What stories require 10s of millions of dollars to bring to life?

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance of the film industry. But, what stories _require_ 10s of millions to make?

<comment><USER5> This says Toy Story had a budget of 30 million dollars.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Story>

<comment><USER6> > This says Toy Story had a budget of 30 million dollars.

How much would it cost today?

Yes, animation has gotten better, but is state of the art animation always necessary? How much less does it cost to be a generation (or two) behind?

Suppose that Toy Story was first-released today, with its ancient animation. Who would care, and how does that affect box-office?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is a serious flaw in this analogy. It costs tens of millions of dollars to make a Hollywood blockbuster, and you don't find out if it was money well spent until opening weekend. But a couple of unemployed software developers can test out a startup idea for a few thousand dollars, and very plausibly get to millions of users or ramen profitability in a few months if the idea is good.

The incentives are totally different. So even if we agree that consumer media internet startups are becoming formulaic (I sure don't), this isn't the reason why.

<comment><USER8> Maybe they're not, but man was the SXSW show floor depressing.

<comment><USER9> For someone who wasn't there, can you elaborate?

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I just wasn't very inspired. They were all companies I've known, or undifferentiating copies of companies I've know.

On the plus side, I was encouraged about the odds of getting funding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "It's too risky. It doesn't test well in focus groups. It's not made for everyone."

Oh how I want to see movies that are not made for everyone.

<comment><USER11> How many good 'Hacker' movies have there been?

Better yet, has there been any good hacker movies, ever?

The only movie I liked wasn't remotely "hacking" was the first Matrix. It was mostly some pop terminology sprinkled through it. Much like all Hollywood interpretations of what hackers actually do.

It's hilariously actually.... Spinning 3D cubes to hack into some database, while the actor looks like he's playing an awesome game of minesweeper on flaming tits that emit crummy (inappropriate) pop music.

*enhances image resolution above what it's original source res is... Badazz >.>

<comment><USER12> Pirates of Silicon Valley was okay, and I liked _The Social Network_ , even if it bears the same resemblance to Facebook's actual history that _Lord of the Rings_ does to the actual Middle Ages.

But your overall point is well-taken.

<comment><USER3> I thought Anti-Trust was ok. It's pretty Hollywood, but the core ideas were pretty good.

<comment><USER13> Miguel de Icaza had a cameo in Antitrust. The computers are all running Gnome on Linux. A few decisions are made by characters that wouldn't be made by an actual engineer for the sake of dramatic tension, but overall, it is highly realistic as far as Hollywood goes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Well said. Silicon Valley has created this perception that everyone should be trying to go for the next big blockbuster... of course, that what the VC community would like everyone to do. Because they can only make money on blockbusters - they can't make money on the scale or time horizons of a more modest growth business.

Don't believe the hype.

</comment><comment><USER15> Silicon Valley to Hollywood is a good analogy.

Can non-blockbusters in Hollywood make money like they can in the valley?

<comment><USER16> Yes, they can. There are a lot of examples in this quora post: [http://www.quora.com/What-movies-cost-the-least-to-make- but-...](http://www.quora.com/What-movies-cost-the-least-to-make-but- generated-the-most-at-the-box-office)

<comment><USER17> That quora post is virtually worthless. Comparing "production costs" between films is effectively meaningless.

For example, _Paranormal Activity_ had a "production cost" of only "$15,000", and did "$190 million" at the box office. Sounds great, right?

Wrong. First, every low budget production involves calling in a huge number of favors (read: free work) that is not done on normal, funded films. So even the $15K number is ridiculously low if you are trying to compare the issue at stake: money spent on production value.

But let's ignore that. Next up is the cost of prints. A print on a wide release averages about $1200/print. Suppose we order 3000 prints on the _Paranormal_ release. How much did we just spend? $3.6 million. (Without doing a wide release, there's no way to hit $190 million at the box office.)

Wait, that doesn't sound right! The Quora post makes it sound like some heroic filmmaker got their film made for $15K and it "made" $190 million! And now you're telling me they couldn't have even _sold_ tickets without spending another $3.6 million? Yup. The $15K bit is a lie, part of the publicity of the film.

Of course, they don't keep the whole $190 million. Roughly, they'll end up with around 50% of that after the theaters take their cut. So we're really talking $95 million on a $15K production budget, and a $3.6 million print budget.

But wait, there's more: making the _correct_ payments to the production staff, actors, director, etc. and the cost of marketing.

You see, a film that's shot under budget will have to make up those numbers if it does well. There is no free lunch. For our purposes, the amount is likely to increase a $15K budget by 10-100x (not a typo). In many cases, substantially more as top-line talent takes a percentage of that $95 million gross.

And then we hit the advertising. In a nutshell, Hollywood (and in this case, Paramount did the marketing) has a tough time marketing _anything_ in the usual way for under $20 million. So let's go with that, even though I suspect the numbers for Paranormal were higher.

So...with all that, was Paranourmal a hit? Absolutely. Was it an example of a $15K movie that made $190 million. No, not even close: you're a few orders of magnitude off.

 _The same is true of every other film on that list._

\-----

The real reason Hollywood does not make "low budget" films like the OP seems to want is because even spending zero, nothing, nada on the production budget still incurs $20-30 million in costs to distribute that film.

So ask yourself: if you were going to spend $20-30 million manufacturing and promoting something, wouldn't you want to spend some serious money on the production itself? Wouldn't you want to make sure the story/actors/direction had a high likelihood that people would watch the resulting film?

You would, which brings us to the real problem: actual films cost more.

Suppose you were really frugal, you tailored your story to easy locations, few setups, just a couple of actors, etc. Even then, $200K is pretty low to do a film that would actually be watchable (the "found footage" genere is basically the only kind of film that can be reasonably shot for the under $50K budgets in the Quora article).

So okay, $200K – and you don't have distribution yet, and likely won't get it.

That's a lot of money to "invest" in a film that won't make even it's production costs back. The vast majority of independent filmmakers don't have that kind of money to blow on a film and get zero return. (Raising money there is just as hard as Silicon Valley, if not harder.)

It can be done. _Like Crazy_ is a recent example, made with a $250K production budget and shot on HDSLRs. It's done well enough that the production team will get to have another go on a presumably bigger film.

But it won't be done often, and bitching about the 120 films the Hollywood studios make each year (yes, it really is that low) isn't going to change what they make.

<comment><USER18> Is this info about prints still valid now that a number of theaters use digital projectors?

<comment><USER17> Yes, because the cost of buying the digital projectors was offset by an agreement with the studios to pay the same amount for "digital" prints as they currently do for film prints, with the extra cost going towards the cost of the digital projectors themselves.

At some point in the future, when everything is all digital and the projectors have been paid for, I do expect the costs of digital prints to go down, but probably not to actual cost, since (a) the precedent was established, and (b) filmmakers are constantly pressuring for better equipment.

For example, _The Hobbit_ is being shot at 48 fps. Not all digital projectors in use in theaters today can play back 3D material at that frame rate. The ability of the theaters to upgrade their projectors is made possible, in part, because the digital "prints" cost well above their actual cost.

A very good question though, and the answer frustrates pretty much all low budget filmmakers. :)

<comment><USER18> Ha, thanks for the info! That's some interesting financial trickery that I wouldn't have assumed, but in light of the other financial engineering that goes on surrounding films, I can't say I'm surprised. With rapid improvements in digital inevitable (I could see the pixels at a recent "IMAX Experience" viewing), I'm guessing that Hollywood will be on the hook for a while as they try to reach parity with film...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Strang's Highlights of Calculus Lectures - <AUTHOR> http://www-math.mit.edu/~gs/highlightsofcalculus.html

<comment><USER2> Honestly, I'm not sure I get why this guy is considered one of the all-time great lecturers. He never seems to explain something in 5 minutes when he could do it in 15.

<comment><USER3> I'm currently refreshing myself on linear algebra by going through his book and video lectures. It's making a lot more sense to me this time around. I think watching him go through his thought process on the board cements the reasoning in my head, rather than just memorizing the shortcuts leading to an answer.</comment></comment>


Teaching Bipedal Robots to Step Across Discrete Terrain - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/robotics-hardware/dynamic-walking-on-stepping-stones <comment><USER2> I did some work on this problem years ago, when I was working on running across rough terrain.[1] Running on hills involves managing contact forces, which forces you to look at this problem in force space, rather than position space. Running forces you to get completely out of the stable posture space and start thinking dynamically.

Fast stops and starts seem to be a unsolved problem in legged robotics. The Boston Dynamics machines mostly start trotting in place, and then extend the stride. Running ought to start by falling down and forward, which places the CG ahead of the foot. You start with a controlled fall, then launch. This is traction-limited; try to push off too hard and you slip. Ground angle matters; that limits traction.

Stopping is a similar situation. You need to land with the CG behind the foot, so that you get to dump the energy into the ground and into lifting the CG. Again, this is traction-limited and ground angle matters. Handling this is essential to fast starts, stops, and changes of direction.

I got some insights on this from watching horses. Horses weigh over half a ton yet are quite agile. A common horse stopping strategy is to make a very tight turn and lean way into the turn, which dumps forward momentum into the ground. Much of the kinetic energy is spent bringing the horse back upright, trading it for potential energy. (Horses can be taught a slide stop, but usually do a turn stop on their own.)

You're going to have to consider at least two landings ahead. You'd like at the first landing ahead to have two plans - one for continuing the run, and one for stopping at the next footfall. As long as you have a plan to stop in two footfalls, you can keep running without excessive risk. This starts to look like a two-point boundary value problem in dynamics - you want an end state with certain position and velocity values, and you get to tweak forces and torques over time to get there. It's classic rocket science, trajectory dynamics. Much work has gone into that, so there are known solutions.

I was trying to approach this using model-based feedforward adaptive control. You have a predictive model of how the system is expected to behave, and you run tests to tune it to match what happens. If a predictor is tracking well, you invert its model and use it as a controller. You start with a dumb predictor, and, in parallel, you run other predictors which have added features. Those are evaluated, and you pick the winners and use them for control, while trying for better predictors which work in a larger portion of the input space. Predictor generation is semi-manual; you guess at what's going to affect what, and let the system figure out how much coupling there is.

This is similar to some forms of machine learning, but machine learning didn't do much yet back in the 1990s. This could probably be made to work today. No market, though.

[1] [http://www.animats.com/](http://www.animats.com/)

<comment><USER3> > working on running across rough terrain

I was wondering whether you did this for computer graphics or robotics applications, and your site says the answer is both!

How transferrable do you think techniques are between these two fields in practice?

<comment><USER2> Less than I expected at the time. While you can build a game where the characters have full physical models driven by a control system, it's much more common to just play motion-captured animations.

<comment><USER4> Sometimes they do inverse kinematics to place footfalls. That's the most advanced thing I've seen in any game, though.

<comment><USER2> Check out Endorphin, which goes beyond that. But I know of no game where the feet actually support the character. Usually, the character is just a capsule (cylinder with hemisphere ends) to the physics engine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is challenging terrain for most humans. It took me months to get decent at walking across loose talus. You really have to learn to trust your boots and listen to your proprioception and be very aware of where your center of gravity is. And you have to have a fairly strong core.

One trick that I've seen used is to carry a trekking pole and use it as a probe. It gives you three points of contact and also lets you check pieces around you before entrusting those pieces with your weight.

<comment><USER6> What is loose talus? Is it like scree?

<comment><USER7> [https://pmags.com/talus-vs-scree-what-is-the- difference](https://pmags.com/talus-vs-scree-what-is-the-difference)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They forgot the other reason, for creating tomorrow's T1000's!</comment>


Haskell for Mac - <AUTHOR> http://haskellformac.com <comment><USER2> This looks like it's by Manuel Chakravarty. He's a long time Haskell contributor / researcher. His research lab is responsible for a huge chunk of array fusion related research that's happened using Haskell over the years.

Given the baked in support for sprite kit, I presume that this is an evolution of the tools he used to teach his young ones how to write games.

<comment><USER3> I really enjoyed reading about that learning / teaching process as it unfolded. I think the discussion is at the GitHub repository [https://github.com/mchakravarty/lets- program](https://github.com/mchakravarty/lets-program) , though a glance doesn't reveal how up-to-date it is (it refers to 3 coding sessions, then numbers them 1 through 7).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _As required by the Mac App Store, Haskell for Mac is sandboxed. Consequently, Haskell code executed in a Haskell for Mac playground cannot access any data except for Haskell for Mac documents, the app container, and those system files white-listed by the operating system. Any attempt to access other files or to initiate a network connection will be rejected by the operating system._

This seems unnecessarily crippling. Is this really required of desktop App Store apps?

<comment><USER5> Exhibit A for how questionable this Sandboxing is when it comes to things like programming languages. And exhibit A for how Mac is becoming a household appliance instead of a general-purpose computer that YOU own and do with what YOU want. If you want to own your Mac you need to stay away from the AppStore at the very least, and ideally build all your shit yourself.

<comment><USER6> I'd bet that fewer than 5% of Apple customers want a general-purpose computer, and it hasn't deviated much from that over time. Apple has always locked down their hardware and software relative to their competitors. The "it just works" philosophy isn't free, and if it seems like it's getting more locked down, it might have something to do with Apple trying to maintain its profits in the face of increasing competition.

The "household-appliance" moniker is a red herring though. Just because they supply an App Store doesn't mean you have to use it, and it doesn't mean you can't do amazing things with it. Are we really comparing something that can help educate, research, run a business, entertain, etc. with a dishwasher or TV?

<comment><USER7> As I sit here in my building with 400 others sitting around me writing code on Macbook Pros. Knowing that in this industrial park alone there are other startups with hundreds of employees doing the same thing. (And this is in Utah - not San Francisco) I'd venture to say that 5% may be extremely off base. I'd say, you take every coffee-shop college student and match them against thousands who are writing code as we speak.

<comment><USER6> So "people writing code" == "people who want a general purpose Mac"? And I didn't say Apple customers who buy/own Macs. Keep in mind that a lot of people get an iPhone or iPad first, then want to be more productive with a keyboard and larger screen, or just want to keep buying App Store-enabled Apple devices in general. These are not professional coders and are the overwhelming demographic that Apple is selling to.

Do you think they don't know who their customers are?

<comment><USER7> As opposed to a sandboxed device? Yes. Someone who wants the freedom to write code, install VMs, test browsers, compile C, you name it, no, they do _not_ want a little sandboxed device. The college student at Starbucks typing a term paper? sure.

<comment><USER8> You can do all of those things with OSX. This whole discussion doesn't make sense because you can do pretty much whatever you want outside of the app store ecosystem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I bought it. If someone (cough)Jetbrains were to offer a full blown IDE with code-navigation, refactoring tools, smart autocomplete etc etc. I would pay them 10 times as much.

<comment><USER10> Is a full blown IDE (ala IntelliJ) really necessary for Haskell?

<comment><USER11> All that static typing shoud lead to an awesome IDE experience. Given that this hasn't happened, I wonder if there isn't something wrong with Haskell's design that works against it?

<comment><USER12> This sort of assumes that the objective of a language should be to create "an awesome IDE experience", while there's a good chunk of people who think having to have an IDE is simply a flaw in a language.

<comment><USER13> Coming from the other side, it seems like "because you should be able to do it manually" seems like a poor reason to not provide the option to have things automated.

The computer is more accurate and faster at determining the type of an expression than humans are. That seems like a big part of the value proposition of static languages. So why not let it tell you the type in the editor instead of having to stop what you are doing to compile it (which may require fiddling with the code to get a meaningful type error)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Reading this page, it sounds very cool. It also sounds like it's heavily inspired by Swift Playgrounds, including using SpriteKit as an example.

I am a bit baffled as to why it says the Haskell code can't initiate network connections. Yeah the app is sandboxed, but sandboxed apps can easily request network access. And it seems like that's a common-enough thing to want that it should support it.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, that one stuck to me as well. I don't know if they mean anything specific with "network connections" here, cause I see a lot of apps that talk to the outside world on the MAS.

<comment><USER14> I think it just means the app didn't request the ability to make network requests. I just don't understand why not.

<comment><USER16> Here's a cynical comment:

Long term monetization will only work if he can ship version 2 at some point to pull in some more money from the same people who bought version 1 (and the same thing with version 3). The choice of not shipping obvious features of an IDE is in order to have better differentiation between versions.

Though, maybe there is really a good reason for that involving some of Apple's policies. I heard they teach the developers all kinds of lessons when it comes to how a program should be made... who knows...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would like to see some demo version, as 20€ is a bit too much to drop.

Looks cool, lots of inspiration from swift playgrounds. Though, aren't there any open source alternatives (I have never tried haskell), probably similar to ipython (jupyter) stack?

<comment><USER18> I know this is a statement of where the market is going, but boy is it depressing to see people saying that 20 Euros is too much to drop on a piece of software.

<comment><USER17> <rant> Sorry, but we are not living in US or well developed European country (Austria, Switzerland, Norway..). In one workday I make ~40€ after taxes and it's almost twice the average and almost thrice the minimum salary were I live. I would've not said a word if I would've been making >50,000 € a year, like in mentioned countries.

Dropping half of my days work on a software, which has limited capabilities, unknown reviews, is closed source (even though is basically bundled open source tools in, I suppose, comfortable package), and can cause some extra bugs from it self. Give me ol' good 14 day trial, or I will not pay blindly. </rant>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I imagine that this is a naïve question, but it's sincere: what does this app offer for its $20 cost that the Haskell platform doesn't? Of their five big selling points, three don't seem really convincing: it mentions that it includes 200 libraries—more than HP, but not the sort of thing one needs to pay for; there is SpriteKit support, of which they say:

> We will release the SpriteKit binding under a permissive open source license > for general use as soon as possible.

; and "Let the type system help you", which, of course, is just a feature of Haskell, not of this environment.

A drag'n'drop project manager is nice, but doesn't seem like _that_ big a deal; so I guess that the real selling point is the "Immediate feedback". Indeed, that seems to be a _huge_ selling point, and it's something for which I've often wished while coding Haskell. However, their blurb on it is very brief:

> Haskell playgrounds provide instant feedback, displaying types and results > of computations, both textual and graphical.

Is there any way to read more about this, and, in particular, to evaluate how much value it adds before buying?

<comment><USER19> Quoting /u/kamatsu (from reddit): "Some context. This is a very early version released by /u/chak in time for ICFP. There are lots more features planned, so don't view this as the final product."

Comparing it to HP doesn't really make sense; it's a very early stage IDE with some yet-unreleased libraries and Xcode-like features/interaction (see Playgrounds) by a known GHC/Haskell developer.

<comment><USER3> > Comparing it to HP doesn't really make sense

Indeed, I should have made it clear that I was _looking_ for an appropriate comparison, not meaning to suggest that HP (which was just the first thing that came to mind) _was_ an appropriate comparison. Thanks for the insight!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> When I've read the title I thought it was about leksah [1]. I've not used it since some time but according to recent reviews is getting quite good.

[1]: [http://leksah.org](http://leksah.org)

</comment><comment><USER21> Looks amazing, I really want to try it. Maybe a trial version? Because with current exchange rates in Russia, $24.99 is a shitload of rubles :)

<comment><AUTHOR> From what I see, it's actually selling for USD$19.99. The $24.99 is in Australian Dollars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm just glad there's a nice binary of GHC available to download from somewhere. I'm running 10.11, and I had to compile GHC from source (homebrew) on my MacBook air in order to install youtube-dl with rtmpdump support. It took literally all night to compile. Hours and hours and hours.

<comment><USER23> Another way to get binaries is to install with stack. See here: [http://seanhess.github.io/2015/08/04/practical-haskell- getti...](http://seanhess.github.io/2015/08/04/practical-haskell-getting- started.html). At our first Utah Haskell meetup we had around 30 people manage to get GHC and some libraries installed, then complete a tutorial in less than a couple hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I would buy it if it were not sold through the Mac App Store and not sandboxed... There are applications that make sense to sell in the Mac App Store, a programing environment isn't one of them.

</comment><comment><USER25> Any plans for Linux support?

<comment><USER16> Somehow I seriously doubt it. But I keep hoping such things as well :)

<comment><USER25> I feel the same. I guess I'm mostly just asking so it is known that there is at least some demand for such a product. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> For something similar that is free (as in beer, but also just a wrapper around free-as-in-speech software), see [http://www.kronosnotebook.com/haskell](http://www.kronosnotebook.com/haskell)

</comment><comment><USER27> This looks really cool! I tried learning Haskell on the Mac a year or two ago. It was painful having to use command-line tools and text editors. I eventually hacked Xcode to do the syntax highlighting and to run the build commands for Haskell. But that breaks every time Xcode updates, etc. This looks like it solves that problem! Can't wait to try it out.

One thing I'd like to see is how well it works for calling into the OS, or at least calling into or being called from C/C++/Objective-C (and eventually Swift).

</comment><comment><USER28> Was a bit disappointed when I found out they don't have any education/academic discount beyond education bulk purchasing.

Looks pretty cool though.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's sold through the Mac App Store only right now, so it's limited to what the Mac App Store allows, unfortunately.

Maybe in the future, if it goes well, the developer might consider selling outside the Mac App Store, and this have more flexibility. I have no knowledge of his plans on that matte,r though.

<comment><USER28> Been a while since I looked at App Store policies, but couldn't they charge a discounted price outside the store and then give a promo code to the app?

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe that it's not intended to be used like that (promo codes are also limited to 100 per application version now).

Also, this would require the developer to find a way to charge people outside of the store. In that case, it's almost half way to setting up a full direct store with a direct version.

There is benefit to having a direct version (all our applications do) but many developers today don't want to set this all up. It's quite a lot of work and perhaps the developer is not interesting in spending time on that. Moreover, he might not even be sure if the app is successful enough to invest time into this work.

<comment><USER28> True, that makes plenty of sense. There would definitely wind up being more overhead in that case.

Regardless, I hope things go well for the developers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Can someone who knows more about Haskell explain to me what the hell I'm getting for 25 bucks here? Cant I replicate all of the features it has with off the shelf tools/editors that are free? Wouldn't that path be less limited than this "sandboxed" app with "access other files or to initiate a network connection will be rejected by the operating system" restrictions?

<comment><USER30> > _Cant I replicate all of the features it has with off the shelf tools > /editors that are free?_

You obviously get the convenience of NOT having to replicate all these, and the guaranteed experience of those parts working together as soon as you install it, and with a nice GUI at that.

<comment><USER31> Sounds good but still not convincing. For example, R can do the same thing, too, or even better. And it can be integrated with other programming languages. I would never buy it either until somebody really shows it's worth the money.

<comment><USER32> It's only $25.

I've been interested in playing with Haskell for a while but I've been put off by the need to setup existing tools. Having an all-in-one package with neat presentation, packaged libraries, and immediate feedback sounds like a great deal for $25.

<comment><USER33> The problem is having to use a Mac. I guess that I could spin up my Yosemite virtual machine...

<comment><USER32> I think having to run a VM you don't often use is kind of defeating the purpose of the app.

If you're willing to run a VM for a single app you are probably the type of person who is willing to spend the time to set up a Haskell tool chain and libraries for free.

Although I am most definitely not that type of person, all I care about is playing with the language. Anything detrimental to that is just noise and not worth the time. So I consider the $25 quite a cheap price to not have to think about the extraneous actions required to get a Haskell environment up and running.

<comment><USER33> I already have the Haskell toolchain and libraries. It merely required the command "apt-get install haskell-platform". However, the Haskell Playgrounds feature that Chakravarty offers sounds interesting enough to spin up a Mac VM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I will buy this as soon as it can initiate network connections.

<comment><USER35> That feature will come.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Paid App to do Haskell? pfft.

</comment><comment><USER5> A programming language implementation that is subject to sandboxing? Mac has become the parody of a computer.

<comment><USER37> It's a restriction of the Mac App Store, not the actual Mac computer itself. Mac is just Unix with a pretty UI and lots of features.

<comment><USER5> Technically, that's true of course. I myself use the "computer" part only and shun the "AppStore" part as much as at all possible, but Apple is renowned for the deep integration of all kinds of components and there comes a point where you just don't have a choice any more. I seem to see the area of free choice getting smaller with every OS release.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Why do we still have platform-specific applications in 2015? Any good software engineering environment should set an example and show that we do not need to live by such artificial restrictions.

<comment><USER39> Because there's no environment that would give you native-like experience on multiple platforms without extra work. And developers have limited resources, even in 2015.

<comment><USER40> Although it is possible to write everything, right up to the view model (but not the view) in something cross platform and performant, keeping the GUI/view using only those languages/frameworks which result in native feel (both in terms of look and performance).

Sure, writing the GUI properly for each platform still requires more work, but far far less if all but the front end is cross platform.

However, it very rarely seems to be done, even with modern additions and improvements in C++.

<comment><USER39> I like that approach, but there's no abundance of such cross-platform stacks either. And then you have to convert parts of the model to fit the views, and sometimes you want to use non-view technologies only available on a certain platform (Keychain, …). While it makes sense and the results are very good, it's still a very non-trivial work, especially compared to a simple native app.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Nigerian artist, age 11, creates incredible hyperreal portraits - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2018/07/16/nigerian-artist-age-11-creat.html <comment><USER2> I hate to be all jaded about things, but this is the second story I've seen on this boy, and I feel like he falls under the "extraordinary claims require extraordinarily evidence" umbrella.

These are charcoal-based sketches, and for that style of art a majority of the artistry lies in image choice and finishing detail of the sketch (and a little bit in the presketch, though that's trainable if he's using a reference image.)

I would like to have better evidence that these parts weren't just done by an adult, because without it, this boy is arguably a once-in-generation genius, and that is an extraordinary claim.

<comment><USER3> Mozart was writing symphonies by this age. Prodigies exist in every field.

Is there a geographical bias in your skepticism? Would you be as skeptical if this kid was from Norway or Sweden or Austria?

<comment><USER4> > "Is there a geographical bias in your skepticism? Would you be as skeptical > if this kid was from Norway or Sweden or Austria?"

Nothing in the parent comment implies a so-called "geographical bias", yet there you are accusing them of being racist.

<comment><USER5> "Implies" means it doesn't have to be spelt out -- it can linger below the surface.

And whether implied or not, it's a legitimate question to ask. E.g. if the kid was asian would as many have the same suspicion given the same evidence (or lack thereof)?

<comment><USER3> Look at everyone in these replies pretending to be race blind. If this kid was Asian, you'd just go "eh, Asian prodigies" and not give it any further attention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Comments seen here are the worst knee jerk reactions. Massive skepticism without doing any research whatsoever. You can easily go to google and find out he was with Macron. Why would a French President seek to be part of a ploy to deceive anyone about a young artist drawing him live would be beyond belief.

Second is the reactions downplaying what he can do. Seriously, it doesn't matter what you think another person could do. "Have any kid at age 6 and they could achieve this." It is hard enough to get motivation from failing many times to do something. How many of your personal or even business projects have panned out?

And some of you wonder why another commenter pointed out geographic bias as the source of the negativity? Whatever your negativity, it is disgusting.

<comment><USER2> > Massive skepticism without doing any research whatsoever

That's what the comments section on HN is for, we're having a conversation here to learn about the story at greater depth.

<comment><USER6> Yes and I threw skepticism on your and other's skepticism. This is what the comments section is on HN for no? Generally a comment without research is ignorant. You would expect this kind of skepticism if you cannot find anything, but here we are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hackernews refuses to disappoint.

I bet the comments would have be less sceptical if it was about an 11 year old Nigerian cyber fraudster.

Sorry lads, positive stuff comes out from my country from time to time. Just don't get too upset when it makes Hackernews.

Personally, I'd like to see comments on how such a young and extraordinary talent from a very humble background (even by Nigerian standards) can develop to become a much more rounded artist.

I'm not interested in prejudiced minds questioning the legitimacy of my young and talented compatriot.

</comment><comment><USER8> I feel that a disproportionate attention goes towards the chronological age of young achievers. Suppose he's had 3 years of intensive practice. I'd like to live in a world where a 50 year old, who has spent 3 years practising, get the same amount of praise.

IMO, this whole 'Look at what this 15 year old can do!' needs to change to 'Look at what 4 years of practice can get you'.

<comment><USER9> On a related note, I'm a bit annoyed by the attention people pay to rather boring realistic art. I'm actually conflicted about it, because on the other hand, a teenager investing his time and effert into a skill like this is awesome, and I do hope that he pursuits art later in life. But the pictures themselves...

<comment><USER10> To the untrained eye, this looks much more challenging than something more abstract. I am untrained myself, and I'd appreciate an explanation of why this isn't technically interesting. It's not like every art school grad can do this.

<comment><USER11> It appears Kareem Waris Olamilekan is working freehand. Very impressive. Drawing (drafting) with charcoal is challenging. Even when you're "just" copying.

The mind reels at what this young artist would do with better tools, materials, mentorship.

Even the master's had their tricks to achieve realism.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Vermeer#Theories_of_m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Vermeer#Theories_of_mechanical_aid)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> You can achieve similarly striking paintings by projecting a very cool photograph into paper and then painting it over the projection. I remember as a kid when my father brought a projector for the weekend, and my sister and me spend the time copying photographs this way. It helps to project the image upside down, so you can focus better in the colors than in the 3d structures.

<comment><USER13> Before electronic (or even electric) projectors were around, professional artists were using device called a camera obscura[1] with similar results (though obviously dependent on natural illumination).

There is much debate over whether great painters such as Vermeer used a camera obscura as early as the 17th century.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura#1650_to_1800:_I...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura#1650_to_1800:_Introduction_of_the_magic_lantern,_popular_portable_box- type_drawing_aid,_painting_aid)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> He has videos on his Instagram that show him starting from scratch, live painting President Macron (no idea when that happened) and more.

</comment><comment><USER15> Given enough time, any person can create a wonderful work of art -- or even software. I learned this while working for a college art department and seeing the faculty evaluate portfolios for scholarships. Looking at a beautiful pencil sketch, they would point out telltale strokes that revealed the time spent on the piece but not mastered skill. That's OK, it was a beautiful accomplishment, and the college could give them the skills.

I think of this when I dream of software projects that I want to accomplish. If I just start now, and steadily work toward the goal, learning as I go, eventually it will come to be.</comment>


Thank God for Cancer - <AUTHOR> http://blog.gerv.net/2006/04/thank_god_for_cancer/

<comment><USER2> Everyone's going to die of something, if it takes 1 day or a billion years.</comment>


The Healthiest People in the World Don't Go to the Gym - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/s/story/the-healthiest-people-in-the-world-dont-go-to-the-gym-d3eb6bb1e7d0 <comment><USER2> For years, I've told people that the best way to get into cardiovascular shape was to make it an unavoidable part of their life, not whatever motivation hack or special workout they seem interested in. For me, a bike commute does the trick.

Unfortunately, in the US riding a bike on the streets quickly shows you how little many people value the lives of cyclists. But the safety statistics improve almost every year, showing that the tide is turning.

Just like people choose where to live to have a good driving commute, you might need to change where you live to have a good cycling commute. This seems to disappoint many people who are basically locked in to a location that's bad for cycling (too long a commute, poor safety, etc.), but it's necessary to give cycling a fair chance.

Many people are incredulous that I buy groceries with a bike as well. This is completely possible for an individual if you have storage on your bike and go weekly. Plus, as an added bonus I don't buy much junk food because I don't have the space.

<comment><USER3> I've been cycling to work for the last ~5years, and the practicality of a commute is a key factor in where I decide to accept a job.

I live in Amsterdam and the commute is ~6km each way. It might not seem very much, but I ride whatever the weather and whatever time of day/night. It helps enormously having the dedicated cycle path infrastructure.

I'm a cyclist at heart and did wonder if the oversaturation of daily biking would alter my view from "enjoyable pastime" to "necessary evil". It's almost done the opposite. Not only has my fitness improved (so I can enjoy longer rides with less effort), but the fresh air and independence (leave and arrive by my own steam, not waiting for a bus or stuck in a traffic jam) really does make each day start better. It's also changed my perception of what can be achieved - even if it's chucking down with rain and a howling wind.... I still have to get on two wheels and pedal to work.

If only the government would understand all the benefits having a proper safe cycling infrastructure can bring to the people...

<comment><USER4> But if you're cycling, you're not paying fuel-based taxes...

<comment><USER2> And? Cyclists also can't use many of the most expensive infrastructure projects (e.g., highways) either. They also don't cause anywhere near as much damage to the roads as motor vehicles.

Plus, in the US at least, roads are usually paid for through general taxation. The value of the gas tax is small and has only been decreasing.

(All of this ignores the massive parking subsidies cyclists have to pay for but can't use too.)

<comment><USER4> I should have added sarcasm in my post: I think cycling is a great way to do your commute, I have done for years and I have the chance of living in a country with very good infrasctructure, but also where fuel tax is 60% of price and the parent post is about Holland, where the fuel tax is even higher (but I don't know where it is allocated).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The body of the article has some great suggestions, but the headline is clickbait. Lots of low-intensity activity is great for health of course. But if you only have 3 hours per week to exercise, spending those 3 hours at the gym doing high-intensity exercise, is far better than just taking a leisurely stroll. For people with busy lives, going to the gym provides the best ROI for your time. For an obvious illustration of this, you can see the research done on HIIT vs low-intensity exercises:

[http://time.com/4893161/hiit-high-intensity-interval- trainin...](http://time.com/4893161/hiit-high-intensity-interval-training- exercise/)

<comment><USER6> > But if you only have 3 hours per week to exercise

I think the point is that you don't have only 3 hours in a week. You can bring physical activity in many other things you're already doing. One minor example that I'm trying to focus on: I go for a walk when I take any phone calls.

<comment><USER2> Great suggestion. I often make calls if I am walking to get dinner. It's also a better use of time than just walking alone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There was a TED talk about regions with unusually high life expectancy. They identified 3 common themes amoung them:

1) Their lifestyle encouraged lots of low-key, continuous activity. You want a plate? Go get the footstool because grandma keeps her plates on a high shelf.

2) Their cultures encourage small meals and not eating more than you really need. Instilling your kids with "Finish your plate" guilt is a bad idea.

3) Their cultures encourage lots of socialization with lifelong groups of friends hanging out and doing things together daily forever.

<comment><USER8> Completely agree about the low-key continuous activity. I go to the gym partly because I feel like I need to balance out my otherwise sedentary day with an hour of intense workout. However I can see why someone who walks or bikes to work and is constantly on their feet might feel different.

<comment><USER9> It is worth noting that prolonged activities mostly burn fats, whereas short (90 minutes or less) high intensity mostly burn carbs. If you only burn carbs, it is hard to get rid of excess fat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This "bluezones.com" website is some sort of service that charges for meal planning. I'm not sure how reliable a source that is.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm one of the people from one of the blue zones (Sardinia), on one side what he said is true, you don't need to go to the gym to be healthy, but by just merely walking a little bit more you will not achieve such a great benefit.

All the elderly people I know have a lifestyle that can be considered weird, for example: \- My grandfather goes every single day to farm his land, he spent 3-4 hours every day doing all kind of farm jobs, mostly potting plants and digging the land. Even if he is after his 70 he is stronger than me (and I don't consider myself weak). \- My neighbour (an old lady around 110 years old, that lives alone and sometimes you say around 4 generations of daughters at her house (I usually see her in company of her daughter, her granddaughter, her grand-granddaughter and her grand-grand-granddaughter) wakes up every morning before the sun can raise and goes to the fields to cut wood and then she carries it on her back. \- My other old neighbour wakes up every morning very early to, and goes to farm, he his nearly never at home and hangs out with the gang of old people (it's not a gangster, they simply walk around the village and they sit in every bench in every square)

To summarise, I think the difference is the mentality, the people I know, old or young have all in common their absurd stubbornness, all these people loves their work, and even after going to pension they want to continue working (many says they will work until death), many of the elderlies weren't farmer before pension, but they choose to start doing it instead of doing nothing, essentially is people that don't like to lay on the couch and watch the TV, but instead going on the nature and pass their time there. Also many of these people have some unhealthy habits, like drinking insane doses of wine, beer, limoncello and mirto.

There's a ton of other differences, but I don't want to write an article in this comment

<comment><USER12> > essentially is people that don't like to lay on the couch and watch the TV, > but instead going on the nature and pass their time there

Have there been studies on what kind of percentage of the population exhibits a stubbornness against doing nothing? Is it inherent/genetic, or is it cultural (or how much is contributed by those factors). Those that oppose measures like a universal basic income often point to a tendency to do nothing and while I can agree that certainly there exists some portion of the population that that would describe, I don't know just how prevalent it is, or if it can be "fixed" socially.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nothing is quantified in this article. Define healthiest? The framing of this is a nonsense way of saying get some daily exercise. Maybe "the healthiest people in the world" would be even helathier if they went to the gym too?

There's a fad of prematurely optimizing for what's best (in diet too) when actually what would help most is getting more people to do something active more often. I would be much more supportive of this article if it didn't try to discourage some types of exercise as not being perfect but just explained that walking and biking to work is good for you too.

Just do the exercise you enjoy and can keep doing regularly. Don't worry if it's not going to make you the healthiest person in the world. Just start with doing something regularly be it in the gym, HIT, walking or riding your bike to work.

</comment><comment><USER14> I agree with the article but the given recommendation is not practical for most people. Yes, there are so many things fundamentally wrong with our lives but people need to be practical.

There is nothing wrong with gyms and high intensity exercise. They are indeed worse than the recommended form of exercise but implying that they are unnecessary is a bad advice for many.

I think before giving this kind of general advice one needs to remember that not everybody has the luxury of adopting a lifestyle like the world's centenarians. "Quit your gyms!" advice won't be helpful at all for many.

This somehow reminds me of the "the right thing" vs "worse is better" duality in software development.

Note: I'm a health geek and hate gyms myself but for other reasons.

</comment><comment><USER15> > Go ahead and cancel your membership

The upside to the _Daily Mail_ style is that, like a scammer intentionally aiming for the credulous, its total confidence and lack of misgivings helps weed out unintended audiences.

</comment><comment><USER16> Got pay walled. Any other link ?</comment>