Google studying ways to deal with offensive search suggestions and results - <AUTHOR> http://searchengineland.com/google-studying-ways-deal-offensive-search-suggestions-results-265654 <comment><USER2> Good.

We often forget that machine recommendation algorithms do not operate in a vacuum. Strange and offensive suggestions in Google search results often appear _because_ curious users notice an odd suggestion and click on it, causing it to rank higher -- not because the suggestion is inherently good or useful.

The problem is only worse on some other sites, incidentally. The prominence of suggested videos on YouTube has some really strange effects on the popularity of certain videos. Similar effects exist with some Amazon products too (as "customers also shopped for…"), as well as with many other recommendation algorithms.

</comment><comment><USER3> To me part of the problem is that they suggest an entire search phrase based on a few words. It's ludicrous that typing "how to" suggests "make money" and "make love". I feel like it would be better if they only provided suggestions when there was a smaller spectrum of possibilities available. Sometimes it feels like someone is trying to put ideas into your head. At best, the line between helpful and harmful is very blurred.

</comment><comment><USER4> I switched to duckduckgo after google started putting up political messages on their homepage in 2015. I don't need google to tell me what's fake and what isn't, and what's offensive and what isn't.

<comment><USER5> ...and what simply _is_. If you go to wolfram alpha the number of google users / total internet is 42%. No idea why people dont consider this dangerous

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I built www.thehivemind.online using the google suggestion apis, for a bit of fun.

Only works in chrome, was trying to get around to finishing it for showHN, but now I might never get a chance it seems.

</comment><comment><USER7> Not photoshopped: [http://i.imgur.com/GbQ4CSf.png](http://i.imgur.com/GbQ4CSf.png)

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't get the problem. Google suggests what people are looking for. If people wonders whether the holocaust happened, maybe the question should be answered?

</comment><comment><USER9> More Orwellian censorship perhaps.

I mean how are you going to find "offensive" stuff in the first place unless you were looking for it and want to read about it?

This reminds me of the time Google manipulated their SERP to hide holocaust revisionist information.

<comment><USER10> > This reminds me of the time Google manipulated their SERP to hide holocaust > revisionist information.

It reminds you of .. the article you are commenting on, today?

<comment><USER9> Their vanguard stance on antisemitism in general.

[https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2065217/google-in- con...](https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2065217/google-in-controversy- over-top-ranking-for-anti-jewish-site)

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/05/google- al...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/05/google-alters- search-autocomplete-remove-are-jews-evil-suggestion)</comment></comment></comment>


What does Britain know about coronavirus that the rest of Europe doesn't? - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/13/uk/uk-coronavirus-response-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html <comment><USER2> The annoying thing is not being able to get tested.

I'm in self-isolation, have a bunch of symptoms that might be coranavirus, or just the usual cold/flu.

If I could get tested then I could get back on with stuff once it's cleared, help cover for people who haven't got it yet etc

</comment><comment><USER3> They are predicting that the outbreak will not peak before 14 weeks because they are not taking many measures to contain it and say that they are not taking drastic measures now because the peak will be in 14 weeks...

This sounds like circular reasoning... Or bad faith.

<comment><USER4> Or pragmatism?

<comment><USER3> They've taken the decision to perhaps limit peak economical impact at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, but of people who are less productive and cost society while alive.

That is pragmatic, yes...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm very much not a supporter of the current government, but I have to say that I'm impressed by their measured response. It's infectious, we are all going to get it (even those that hide) so let's get on with life, try to slow the spread to keep pressure off the NHS at the peak for sure, but enough already with the flapping. Seems to be a fairly common view in London at least, still hard to get a seat in the pubs on a Saturday night.

<comment><USER6> Good luck in two weeks.

<comment><USER5> Thanks, and yourself ...

<comment><USER6> One week so far, 56 dead yesterday alone [https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/)

<comment><USER5> And there was me thinking your good wishes were sincere, instead they were sarcastic and nasty. Oh well ...

<comment><USER6> I was realistic. We are at two weeks now and 260 new deaths yesterday. Its unimaginable how stupid UK "plan" was.

Btw I read an interesting conspiracy theory today. Dominic Cummings [https://news.sky.com/video/prime-ministers-chief-adviser- in-...](https://news.sky.com/video/prime-ministers-chief-adviser-in-a-hurry- after-his-boss-reveals-he-has-coronavirus-11964540) , author of herd immunity aka >500K dead at minimum plan spend 10 years in Russia in the nineties. Russia isnt all that fond of UK.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Viacom v. Google: A Decision at Last, and It's Mostly Good - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/viacom-v-google-decision <comment><USER2> So, it sounds like safe harbor was upheld all around, but the case got tossed back to district so Viacom could fish for evidence that YouTube was "willfully blind" to infringement (that is, "a deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge") despite having no obligation to police content, only an obligation to respond to DMCA notices.

Also that courts didn't decide how syndication fits into the story. The article doesn't explore it either.

Did I miss anything?

<comment><USER3> Well, not sure how much of a fishing expedition they will be allowed in district court either.</comment></comment>


The Sad State of Diabetes Technology in 2012 - <AUTHOR> http://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheSadStateOfDiabetesTechnologyIn2012.aspx <comment><USER2> The CPAP industry is as bad or worse. Here are the drivers I see:

1\. FDA -> Medicare -> Private Insurance. They set the reimbursement codes and what each code will pay. On the internet, you throw up a website and the _customer_ decides if your approach has value. With a pay per code system, anything outside of the sanctioned approach is either puts you at legal risk ("you aren't allowed to do this, it is not sanctioned") or financial risk ("thanks for the better way, but it disrupts money flow X in the system, so we're not giving you a reimbursement code").

2\. The "Insurance is better" customer bias. The average consumer of healthcare expects to show up, slap their insurance card down and receive treatment. This abstracts them from being the direct payment entity of the services they provide. If you piss off the patient but provide the service to code, then the insurance company will pay. If you please the customer but go outside the payment structure, the insurance will not pay. Businesses get paid.

3\. Regulatory and bureaucratic haze. Go to a CPAP trade show some time, it is a different world. No one is focused on improving technology and services for the CPAP user. They want to get together and lobby to prevent reimbursement cuts. They want to make sure the business they run stays good with the new regulations and can survive the next wave of audits. They do not shop machines to find what works for the patients, they have too many other stakeholders to please: referring physicians, insurance payors, what their front lines people have experience setting up. They are an extension of a giant that has far more control and say about their own business than they do. They fight back or buck the trend, they are literally audited out of business or worse.

4\. Talent Deficit. There are very few places to innovate and if you find a line and do it, you have to fight the system hating you for doing it on top of the normal startup pains. It takes very special people to want to walk that road with you. For the bigs in the industry, mfgs and large insurance based sellers of equipment, their HR departments are hiring for technical positions based on resume check boxes and history with microsoft. The products they put out are heavily windows, heavily compliant, fearful of making waves with any stake holder. You can't build a better one and win because you won't get paid and don't have a network to leverage. People who could come in and really make bold moves get on the ground, see the reality and leave to do something easier.

<comment><USER3> "2. The "Insurance is better" customer bias. The average consumer of healthcare expects to show up, slap their insurance card down and receive treatment. This abstracts them from being the direct payment entity of the services they provide. If you piss off the patient but provide the service to code, then the insurance company will pay. If you please the customer but go outside the payment structure, the insurance will not pay. Businesses get paid."

THIS. Combine this with the fact that most consumers receive insurance through their employer (and expect this too) further abstracts them from being the payment entity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've had Diabetes since I was eleven years old. For the last seventeen years. To be in good health, every day I have to:

* Measure my blood sugar at least six times a day

* Take at least six shots of insulin

* Always think what I eat. How many grams of carbohydrates is in the stuff I put into my mouth.

* I have to be very careful with alcohol. I've once woken up by an emergency crew while having a hangover. Never again. (Weed is much better though.)

* I have lots of small annoyances which require medical care every now and then.

* Influenza is a catastrophe - it will take ages and my blood glucose is not going normal easily.

Try to forget any of these, and _bam_ your general health is at risk. It's not so easy all the time to be fully with your body and take care of yourself.

What I would love is a bloodless way of measuring my glucose, a way to get the results to my iPhone and a way to calculate the amount of carbohydrates I have in front of me. No, a database of different foods is not enough. I have to do it 4-5 times a day, remember.

When you have to do something many times a day for the rest of your life, it should be as easy as possible.

<comment><USER5> Have you thought about a pump (no shots, more accuracy) and a DexCom CGM (only finger stick a few times a day, pretty accurate). I complain in the post but I will say this, of you're serious about staying alive, you MUST get an Insulin Pump.

<comment><USER4> I've always thought the pump is not for me. It seems to be pretty big and you always have to carry around it with you. My life is still pretty fast paced and sometimes that kind of machinery is just an annoyance to get along with. The shots are not the problem, the everyday need of full control of your life is.

<comment><USER5> It's smaller than the phone you already carry around. It's mathmatically and demonstrably superior to shots. They have integrated CGMs now. Ask around, the folks with the fastest paced lives (diabetic Olympians, marathoners, world travelers, etc) ALL have pumps.

Unless you have a 6% HA1C on shots, get a pump and live decades longer.

<comment><USER6> My wife is Type 1, and was on the pump but went off of it after about a year. Says she feels in more control without it, and that it gave her a false sense of "security." And she has had better results since, and more stable sugars.

I don't know, obviously, not being diabetic myself, but I will say she went on the pump really soon after being diagnosed and didn't really have a chance to establish a routine first, and that probably played a large part in her doing better on shots right now. I've been encouraging her to start thinking about using the pump again, as I do feel that, used correctly, as I believe it is a better method, but she has to do what she feels works best for her.

Being a developer myself, the idea that she has to use a custom cable and custom software to manage the data she has in her meter drives me a bit nuts. But the meter industry is, IMO, full of companies that don't really want to help users, they just want to get rich off of diabetics. I know thats a bit cynical, and I'm sure there are companies that sincerely care as well, but it's how I often feel about the meter industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >Now I wait 5 seconds but we still have blood sugar strips with +-20% accuracy

This is the part that still both sickens and baffles me. I had onset at about 20, despite not looking like a typical diabetic (5-foot-8, 140lbs). 11-years ago, my endocrinologist made sure to drill into my head this margin of error, and that the margin of error was highest in situations where I would be hypoglycemic or suffering from an insulin reaction. As a diabetic himself (and for the record, having a diabetic endocrinologist is the best thing you can hope for), he was all too aware and frustrated with the limitations.

Now, a few days ago it was pointed out that the margin of error for test strips in a medical facility is much lower. The one thing I've been waiting for is to get that level of accuracy. If there's one thing I want, it's that. More than anything. I couldn't give a rat's ass about anything else.

Getting that number consistent could've sped up the timeline in which it took to get my blood sugar levels to be consistent. I'm not terribly methodical, but at the end of the day my endocrinologist doesn't complain when my HA1C results are consistently between 6.2 and 6.6, and have been for the past 6 years, despite relying only on subcutaneous injections(1) and continued dietary changes and experimentation. However, I bet I could keep it at 6 on the nose -- while "cheating" a bit more -- if I knew that a reading was nearly dead-nuts on every time.

(1) Not a fan of pumps. My mother was and still is on TPN. After seeing the joys of dealing with infections, I prefer the very rare dermatitis.

<comment><USER8> A major reason why the accuracy on blood sugar strips is +/- 20% is because that is all that the standard (ISO 15197:2003) requires:

* Within ±0.83 mmol/L of lab results at concentrations of under 4.2 mmol/L

* Within ±20% of lab results at 4.2 mmol/L or more

Companies are juggling cost, reliability and performance/accuracy, with the first two generally winning in the marketplace as key selling points.

Some devices offer significantly better accuracy than 20%, depending on the market that you are in (not all are for sale in USA, IIRC).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The industry will never let you get off strips because the strips cost a penny or two to make but sell for $1 each.

So they make millions off insurance for the strips at the expense of society and the people who cannot get insurance.

If they ever invented a $100 device that doesn't need strips they would completely destroy the crazy profit they have.

The article didn't mention the Contour USB which is completely digital but of course still needs strips.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a very well articulated representation of the frustration I feel as a technically minded T1 diabetic. Thank you. I dream of the day when both my meter and insulin pen transmit data in an open format over bluetooth. It is clear that any steps that can make the monitoring and analysis of diabetic care more transparent to users will genuinely save lives.

For anyone who is disinclined to get a pump, I highly recommend the Bayer Contour USB. I've had it for a week and it is _leagues_ better than anything else I've used. I was so thrilled when I discovered that with it I could simply access my readings as an SQLite DB rather than the hell of trying to communicate with and parse the data from anything from Lifescan over a bloody 3.5mm serial port.

<comment><AUTHOR> If sugar level meter and insulin pen start transmitting data in an open format - would non-technical diabetics be able to use it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > _"I've been diabetic for almost two decades"_

I'd say that is more compelling evidence that the state of technology is good. Lack of bluetooth may be somewhat inconvenient, but it is not life threatening...and the lack of bluetooth is less inconvenient than dialysis several times a week.

I'm not unsympathetic toward the author's medical condition, but proprietary interfaces are even part and parcel of devices as successful as the iPhone, and it's hard to see a strong medical case for adding bluetooth to a medical device...sometimes hardwiring is just a better solution for life critical applications.

<comment><USER5> Sure, I hear what you saying but even a crappy diabetic on shots live two decades. The tech hasn't kept me alive, diet and excercise has. Saying the current state of tech must be good because I'm alive doesn't hold, I'm afraid.

I'm concerned with quality of life and convenience. As the other commenter said, if it's something you are doing 10 times a day, thousands of times a year, you want it to be convenient.

Diabetes wears on you. It's the incessant nature of it that hurts.

<comment><USER11> I look at the devices and think of the HP12B calculator or 37 Signals. Sometimes, a piece of hardware is just suitable for its purpose. Sometimes, less features is better design. Its a small step down a slippery slope between adding Bluetooth and requiring it to access device features.

There's a legitimate philosophy behind not treating medical devices as electronic gadgets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Fair point: If you want to disrupt an industry which is entrenched by the legal/regulatory system - you have to find ways around it.

Think education, health, law ...

Any more?

In fact from the list of the oldest professions only the "oldest" is free from regulation (only, for the most part, suffering from prohibition).

<comment><USER13> There's no really good way around it other than by changing the attitudes of the culture. At present, people generally like their nanny state and want more of it, not less. So we'll all suffer the consequences in the meantime.

<comment><USER14> You would also have to change the culture of business. As long as companies are out to make money instead of contribute value the force of the state will be employed to keep snake oil off the market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As an entrepreneur (and engineer) who has built two healthcare companies, I believe we'll get to a point where the speed at which innovation moves in other sectors will start to take foot in healthcare. But like everything in the space, it takes time. Sometimes too much time.

<comment><USER16> What changes you think will happen to make healthcare innovation go faster? And how can we help push those changes ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> My doctor visit routine goes like this: Nurse asks for my password to login into mymedtronic.com to "download my data" this costs me 20 dollars. Nurse gets access to special healthcare only charts, you know ones that are actually somewhat useful and prints them. My doctor looks at the prints and stuffs them into my file, rubs my feet and tells me to keep up the exercise. That was a 50 dollar foot massage. I don't want to think what that would cost without insurance.

<comment><USER18> Your doctor is looking for lesions - diabetic foot kills a large number of people. The ones that don't die have a leg amputated.

<comment><USER17> I know that is what he is doing, what I don't know is if that was worth my time or money. I am nimble enough to see lesions for myself and smart enough to see a doc if I get one.

But that was not my main concern...

The worst thing is that instead of using the the data in combination with all their patients to form some sort of massive dataset that could help everyone... they print a chart for my file.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Keep an eye on the guys at mySugr. I've had a few interesting chats where they've told me about the issues you come up against in the medical industry. They're diabetics, they get it and they're working around (and through!) it to make a really usable and useful diabetes app. It's German only at the moment, but check it out at <http://www.mysugr.com/>.

</comment><comment><USER20> I can't believe that no one has suggested the use of RFIDs to measure blood- sugar levels! These guys already have a product that's under testing: <http://www.positiveidcorp.com/products_glucochip.html>

The only trouble with things going inside the body is the need to get FDA approval and the vigorous testing that goes along with that.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'd like to see the Pebble watch serve as a way to view blood sugar levels and send commands to an insulin pump ... at one point I thought about setting up a kick starter project for this, but all the issues with bluetooth seemed daunting. Thank you to Scott for making these issues heard.

<comment><USER22> there are almost no issues with Bluetooth LE. Pebble supports it, the new MetaWatch supports it, iPhone 4S and many new Android phones support it...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I would have hoped that we would have a gene therapy to treat diabetes at this point in time. But alas, the medical industry has stagnated under the weight of bureaucracy and an overall decline of investment as investors demand the same kinds of ROIs as those seen in the dot-com sector.

</comment><comment><USER24> <http://www.echotx.com/symphony-tcgm-system.shtml> Wireless cgm and non- invasive. Passing every clinical trial with excellent accuracy too. "Coming soon" though.

</comment><comment><USER25> The industry will never come up with a cure because there's more money in chronic treatments.

At the same time, why do we even need diabetes technology? Just go on a low- carb diet. My grandma was borderline diabetic a year ago. She was getting very worried, so I was finally able to convince her to try it and now her test results are great.

Even if you're a type I diabetic, this will manage your symptoms although it won't cure you. Check out "Good Calories Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes.

<comment><USER26> I'm not sure low-carb is necessarily effective for people with serious insulin dysregulation. I'm pretty sure for Type 1 in particular, avoiding carbs is insufficient (you also require insulin injections). Personal bias: Dad has diabetes, caused by pancreatitis, and although minimising carbs led to some weight loss (not that he is/was overweight), it has no impact on his blood sugar.

<comment><USER27> Yes, type 1 is a different beast.

The latests theories point to gluten to cause a leaky gut, that causes complex foreign molecules to enter the bloodstream, and as some molecules are similar to our own, this causes the immune system to attack some cells in our body. The cells in the pancreas that make insulin are one of these.

The bad news is that if you have Type 1, you can't be cured, and need insulin for life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Treatment = profit while cure stops all income.</comment>


Ask HN: Whats more important? Size of the target market or Passion for an idea. - <AUTHOR>

I was wondering which of the following do you feel is more of an incentive to work on founding a startup:
A) The target market. Ie you only really care about making money. The bigger the market the more attractive it is to you. The idea is a means to an end.
B) Passion for the field/area which would be affected by your startup.
C) The very idea of starting something successful "from scratch". Ie independence from a boss etc.
D) The lifestyle that can be had from running your own successful company.
edit: Changed A). I think target market is kind of saying that you really only care about how much money/value you can make as soon as possible. <comment><USER2> C) is two very different things. As previous articles/threads (try google search) have suggested, quitting because you hate your job is not the right place to start but maybe good motivation to take the final leap. The satisfaction of seeing something you built from the ground up can be satisfactory and keep you motivated.

I don't know about D). I don't know what you are imaging about the lifestyle but all of it is hard (and hopefully enjoyable) work. If you are looking for less or easier work, look elsewhere.

I think you need both A) and B) to the extent they feed off each other and when your not hitting on cylinder A) for motivation, you are hitting cylinder B) and vice versa.

I didn't see anything on target market, but from a business perspective... Investors are going to ask you about this.

<comment><AUTHOR> A) is really about target market. I had written "target market" first but I edited it out. I think if your only worried about target market then your essentially doing it for the sake of selling it off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Try using this if you can: <http://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll>

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure if one specific reason would be more important than others.

For instance, I wouldn't want to work on something that I'm not passionate about (incentive B). However, over the long-term, I also wouldn't want to work on something that doesn't have a reasonable market (incentive A).

imo your description of incentive A is mistaken.Thinking about the target market doesn't mean that "you only really care about making money".

For example, many entrepreneurs would rather work on their startups than on something else that may think of as more lucrative. However, for the business to survive, the business needs to make money and so it a good entrepreneur would also try to understand the target market and think about whether it can sustain the business (and give up the business if it isn't able to make money).

</comment><comment><USER5> This really depends. Is the purpose of your startup to make you financially independent for the rest of your life? Are you already set and are now wanting to try changing the world? Can you live in your parents' basement for a few years while your great idea 'changes the world'?

If you don't love what you're doing, it will ultimately be difficult to stick with it for any extended period of time (2+ years). However, many startups can be sold off in that sort of shorter timeframe, making it mostly irrelevant if you care much for the work.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Passion for the field/area which would be affected by your startup.

</comment><comment><USER6> Changing the world. I can make money in far less risky ways, and I can pursue my passions in my free time. I am actually somewhat surprised that you managed to fit the word "lifestyle" and "running your own successful company" into the same sentence.

Having said that, I seriously doubt I will ever found a startup - I plan to make a chunk of money and have a life first.

</comment><comment><USER7> It has been said that a large part of what commonly makes a startup successful in the end is the persistence and determination of the founders. If you can generate more persistence in yourself by being passionate about what you are doing, then I think you are more likely to find a way to be successful.

</comment><comment><USER7> Another incentive for starting a startup is because you have some cool hack you want to try out.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The lifestyle that can be had from running your own successful company.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The possibility of riches.

</comment><comment><USER8> The order for me would be CDBA. If I were to to it, that is.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The idea of starting something successful "from scratch".

</comment><comment><USER9> Lifestyle.

</comment><comment><USER10> A, but its not about the money. If you don't have a value proposition you don't have a business. Is there a pain point that you solve? How painful is it? Where there is a real need will yield success. And I mean success in the interpretation that correlates to your business's or NPO's goal.</comment>


Physics's pangolin - <AUTHOR> http://aeon.co/magazine/science/margaret-wertheim-the-limits-of-physics/

<comment><USER2> Some interesting stuff, such as

> You do not need to be a hard-core dualist to imagine that subjective > experience might not be amenable to mathematical law

(difficult to argue but worth considering, from my POV)

The presentation of the argument (that the increasingly counterintuitive implications of mathematical theories of physical reality represent some kind of progressive societal neurosis in the face of fundamental incommensurability) seems a little confused, in that it conflates things like the string theory Landscape and the many-worlds interpretation with perfectly testable theories like QM. I think it's reasonable to have a physical theory that seems like nonsense, so long as the theory passes experimental tests and there's no better theory that does. Why should we expect tiny tiny bits of the universe to be unsurprising to relatively gigantic inhabitants, etc? Whereas my lay impression of The Landscape, the Anthropic Principle, and so on, is that they seem like so much flailing around in the dark, and can support the author's case a lot better - the accusation of neurotic ritual behaviour seems to find more fertile ground with proponents of untestable theories than with those espousing well-tested but absurd-seeming ones.

Though Platonism is a common enough accusation, I wonder if the author is really objecting to Pythagoreanism, whose adherents profess: "all things that are, are numbers" \- a narrower claim than Plato's ideal realm, perhaps, and so maybe an easier target. After all, at least one Pythagorean was neurotically (if apocryphally) murdered for revealing the embarrassing incommensurability of the square root of two, which goes well with the article's thesis.</comment>


"Lock yourself in a room doing 5 beats a day for 3 summers" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/kanyewset/status/605061309067988992

<comment><USER2> "Hone your craft"</comment>


Check if JavaScript objects has only specific properties - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/khubo/hasonlykeys <comment><USER2> Why not just use a proper Map object?

<comment><AUTHOR> My intention was to quickly validate the response of a ReST API by making sure only desired properties are present in the response (avoiding exposure of not required properties). using validators like joi, ajs etc is one way, but in some cases thats a bit extra work for the node</comment></comment>


Reaching and re-engaging users on the mobile web - <AUTHOR> http://blog.chromium.org/2015/04/reaching-and-re-engaging-users-on.html

<comment><USER2> This is pretty interesting. I remember some time ago Vox Media (who make The Verge and Polygon along with Vox itself) declared that they were going web- only:

[http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/2/6096609/welcome-to- verge-2-...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/2/6096609/welcome-to-verge-2-0)

It doesn't seem to have hurt them - but push notifications are probably the #1 feature that differentiates between webapps and native apps in a context like this. I wonder if they'll take advantage.

(as with all things mobile web, this comes with the huge caveat that Apple have no intention of doing this (despite having similar functionality on desktop), and want to force everyone to use native apps, so it's unlikely to be a complete solution any time soon)

<comment><USER3> Personally I can't think of anything I want less than push notifications from websites.

<comment><USER2> Why, though? Or, put another way, why are push notifications from apps fine when push notifications from web sites are not?

<comment><USER3> Honestly the only notifications I care about are email, text messages and phone calls. The rest can all go to hell. Again, this is just my personal taste.

<comment><USER4> I think that is fine. You can disable notifications and push completely, and you can not accept the prompt if you don't want to go that far. We are trying to be careful and make this opt-in only and clear to the user about the value that they can get from it (if they choose it)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is cool to see. The other day a client with about zero technical expertise told me she had won a grant to develop an app, then went on to explain "it has to be a web app that can be used offline; it can't be a regular app." I was pretty blown away and immediately offered to code it for her, just because I'd much rather build and promote this kind of app. These new Chromium features give me hope that it might be even easier to enhance web apps across the board, in the future.

The downside (or frustrating side) with this project is that 1/4 of the grant money is set aside for coding the web app, and while it's not a teeny sum, I'm wondering just how much "app planning expertise" is being brought into the game by whoever's getting the other 3/4.

<comment><USER6> You are part of that 3/4.

A proof of concept or mockup to verify that you've correctly captured requirements? Sounds like planning to me.

Determining which technology stack is best, including building (to be clear, I mean coding) some basic systems to test out if your assumptions about performance and writing the pieces are correct? That's planning.

And so on.

Hours spent writing code are not mutually exclusive to hours spent planning for the success of a software project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's kind of interesting to see Android, Chrome, and FirefoxOS all rushing towards the same point, though from different directions.

Chrome is trying to "nativify" the browser, and making the browser a more seamless part of navigating Android[0].

With FirefoxOS, the webapp is already native, and the goal is to browserify the native OS (in other words, to make the operating system itself inside the browser).

[0] I say Android specifically because this integration already goes much deeper on Android than on iOS, simply because it can.

</comment><comment><USER8> It would be a significant step towards "reaching and re-engaging users" if Google would make it possible to actually build a functional Chromium browser for Android. Since they've completely abandoned the default AOSP browser in favor of Chrome, there is no longer an up to date browser in AOSP.

<comment><USER4> My understanding is that there is a up to date Browser. The browser app has always been built with a WebView and the latest WebView is pointing to almost the tip of the development tree of Chromium.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> interesting , wonder how quickly will sites like HN, reddit jump on the bandwagon. Will be interesting to compare the experience to native push notifications

<comment><USER4> If you know people at HN, then I am happy to work with them to get a test implemented.</comment></comment>


Privacy Policy Changes at Plex - <AUTHOR> https://www.plex.tv/about/privacy-policy-changes/ <comment><USER2> Previous version: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050275](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050275)

TL;DR: Many pitchforks resulted in some change in a) policy, and b) language to better explain and justify it all.

Ultimately, it's all a lot more acceptable and understandable what the motivations are, but most people wont see this because people don't put enough emphasis on when there's a positive end result, and only focus on when negatives happen.

"Oh but the negative shouldn't have happened in the first place" is often the argument in response to that, but I believe that's only valid if the human element in decision making is completely removed.

If anyone from Plex GmbH and/or Plex Inc see this, well done for the update!</comment>


Show HN: Alert Notes - natural language reminders app for iPhone - meat-eater

Our app just went live on the iOS App Store yesterday. No App Store reviews yet, so was wondering if I can get some feedback here. We've had previous feedback from beta testers and app review sites and it's been mostly positive so far. The app's website is http://alertnotesapp.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> The app looks neat... few questions:

Did you roll your own natural language parser?

Have you thought of doing a freemium version? $2.99 might be a game killer for a lot of people.

</comment><comment><USER2> Clickable: <http://alertnotesapp.com/></comment>


Google's File on You Is 10 Times Bigger Than Facebook's - <AUTHOR> https://themindunleashed.com/2019/08/google-10-times-data-facebook.html <comment><USER2> It also isn't the amount of data but the value.

On the value spectrum (high to low): \- Equifax - very little but very high value data \- Google - Search, Gmail, location, browsing, apps and time spent on them \- Facebook/Twitter - my posts from high school and photos of me trying to look cool

Interestingly, I think Reddit could build a much scarier profile on me based on what I read and what I upvote.

<comment><USER3> I'm kinda thinking it's time for hard and strict regulations on collecting mass personalized data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Google is not only constantly tracking our online movements but may also be > monitoring our physical locations.

our locations? no way, we had no idea :O

> report contained an incredible amount documentation on his web activity, > going back over a decade.

another dude who doesn't know how to turn off google's history

> the amount of time he spent there, and even the path he took to get there > and back

jesus christ, did a footbal mum write this article?

> discovered the company had been archiving his data even when he browsed in > Incognito mode, a setting that advertises itself as one that does not save > browsing history.

yeah.. history vs IP/browser fingerprinting

Overall nothing new in this article and the title is obviously a false statement.

The file is bigger because he's been using the service longer and my take is that Google is tracking the location almost continuosly (more data), whereas Facebook has way way more sensitive data, like... chat messages and images with all your friends for the past 10 years..

<comment><USER5> You could basically find out which days someone has diarrhea and what medicine they used based on search history, whilst the friends know only that was shared.

Google is the scariest company out there.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Most effective practice towards remembering and recalling tech details - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Flashcards

In a less specific way, I have a coworker who keeps a personal wiki.</comment>


Show HN: Non-grid-based path finder - <AUTHOR> https://scleox.github.io/non-grid-path-finder/ <comment><USER2> Any writeup / explanation available? This is really great!

<comment><AUTHOR> I just finished writing the code a couple hours ago, so I don't have any detailed explanation at the moment. However, it is open source, so you can always check the code: [https://github.com/SCLeoX/non-grid-path- finder](https://github.com/SCLeoX/non-grid-path-finder).

I will admit though, it is not super readable, because it really lacks a lot of comments/documentation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How do I finish drawing an obstacle?

<comment><USER4> Press O (capital o), then click and draw the corners of a closed polygon. You have to click on the original corner to close it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is great. Lovely little demo!</comment>


Waymo Will Test Self-Driving Cars in Snowy Detroit - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-26/alphabet-s-waymo-will-test-self-driving-cars-in-wintry-detroit <comment><USER2> This is pretty damn amazing.

HN is a pretty critical place most of the time but sometimes it's valuable to take a step back. The challenges associated with building a car that can drive itself are pretty insanely difficult (even something as straightforward as "how do we get the training data?") and the fact that we're now at a point where there's a possibility of self-driving cars working in snowy conditions is pretty awesome.

<comment><USER3> I would be hesitant to consider it a self driving car if it can't drive in adverse conditions.

<comment><USER4> I would gladly take it if it only worked on one of the 300 days of clear skies I get a year.

90% of the way to true "self driving" is plenty to revolutionize things.

<comment><USER5> Do you intend to drive on those other days, without any fair weather routine? Automation unlearning is a problem with airline pilots, despite all efforts like continuous flight reviews that drivers don't have.

<comment><USER6> That is a reasonable question, though we already have the situation where people are driving in snow with little current, or even previous, experience of those conditions. The biggest problem is going to be with people who have never driven.

<comment><USER7> > The biggest problem is going to be with people who have never driven.

Isn't that basically what @usrusr was refering to? People who rely on the autonomous driving so much that they basically forgot how to drive themselves?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> About time.

I build autonomous/ADAS testbed cars in Detroit and it's astonishing the stuff that the California cars get flustered by. LIDAR is baffled by snow, RADAR sensors get packed with slush if they're mounted too low, etc.

<comment><USER9> IMO if you solve for inclement weather and snow you've brought the capabilities of autonomous vehicles to a nationally viable level.

<comment><USER10> I wouldn't be that optimistic.. I grew up in Duluth, MN. A city that in 2 miles goes from 600' ASL to 1400' ASL, there are some roads with a greater than 10% grade to them. It snows there, and not just any snow, lake-effect snow. You really do need a special set of skills and roadway awareness to navigate inclement weather in cities like this.

Detroit is a great step, but I'd really like to see some more challenging areas handled before I'm convinced.

<comment><USER9> I think a good question that follows from that is: how unsafe is too unsafe for autonomous vehicles? Can we evaluate roads in some generalized way that will not only prevent autonomous vehicle activity, but inform local governments about when they should institute driving bans?

In an ideal world, I trust autonomous cars over human-operated cars. So if the conditions are too dire for autonomous cars, I really don't want to be out there with humans driving.

<comment><USER10> > but inform local governments about when they should institute driving bans?

In the U.S. I'm not even sure what such a mechanism would look like? How could you enforce this?

> In an ideal world, I trust autonomous cars over human-operated cars.

I don't understand this mentality out-of-hand, especially because I've been in cars that have had mechanical failures. There is no mechanical system that is perfectly reliable, and I'm not sure we're considering the emergent effects of this properly.

Finally, unless you outright _force_ all drivers to use the autonomous mode, then users can still take control of their cars as they see fit and we're really not improving anything. Case in point, the video says that driving deaths disproportionately affects young _people_. Which is garbage.. it affects young _men_ who are 8 times more likely to die in a vehicle that they're driving than a female of the same age. I don't know how autonomous modes being available are really going to help this group.

<comment><USER11> If it is possible to get around in a car without driving, the standards for licensing can be increased.

So all those young men can still do all the things they need a car for, they just don't get to legally operate one until they have demonstrated a higher level of proficiency.

And all the ones that aren't just total assholes can let the car drive when they have been drinking.

<comment><USER12> Do things like speed and drive dangerously? I'm sure they'll pass a higher level as well. Unless you'd implement a psychological test that'd reject too temperament people.

<comment><USER11> You don't necessarily need psychological testing. For instance, just make it easier to lose a license. Minor speeding could come with a license suspension if such a penalty were less consequential.

<comment><USER13> >Minor speeding could come with a license suspension if such a penalty were less consequential.

You realize that most states already do this, right?

<comment><USER11> Yes of course, but I'm talking about a 6 month license suspension if you get a ticket for going 7 over, not a suspension after repeated severe tickets.

<comment><USER13> Many states automatically revoke your license if you get convicted of any moving violation under the age of 18.

IMO it's a dumb, inefficient drag net because being black and driving 5-over is not a strong predictor of whether or not someone will drunkenly drive off a cliff on their way to prom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Could the camera use the clear view screen [1] instead of counting on windshield and wipers? Maybe it does already, I don't know.

Clear view screen is a round window that is usually located on a normal window. This window rotates at ~1500 RPM, thanks to that it will not be covered by snow or rain. It is used on ships and in locomotives.

It looks like this: [https://youtu.be/uIwWnWvikkQ?t=24s](https://youtu.be/uIwWnWvikkQ?t=24s)

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

<comment><USER15> One of the biggest challenges with self-driving cars in snow is the snow in the environment -- for example, how do you see the lane markers so that you stay in your lane?

<comment><USER16> This is also a human challenge. You follow the tire tracks. If there are no tire tracks, guess. You can have a margin of error of half a lane and be within human parameters.

<comment><USER17> How do you guess? Oh, you need another set of hundred million miles of testdata for this case?

The thing is that it is vastly different from any other scenario a self- driving car will ever experience or train for. Humans on the other hand grow up with snow and know how it behaves, how it covers the environment and what features are prevalent despite of it (and consequently, people not used to snow that suddenly finds themselves in a snow-covered landscape often fail _miserably_ ).

Falling snow can significantly cover both video and disrupt LIDAR immensely. Just as our vision, thing is we already know how to cope with it, it is a greatly different problem than driving in good/ok conditions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Detroit still seems like an easier environment than Uber/CMU's Pittsburgh, home of barely-maintained brick roadways with blind corners on 20%+ grades and icy winters.

<comment><USER19> Not to mention its six radio stations, all of which are country. A brutal environment for anyone to drive through.

<comment><USER20> I believe there are a few companies working on piping music through the internet.

<comment><USER21> An inter-networked series of computers? Sounds like a fad.

<comment><USER22> computertubes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm not an expert in perception or autonomy, but I've always had a loose sense that winter driving would be an order of magnitude more complicated for autonomous vehicles. It had me worried: what if technology presents a future where the world is split up into industry regions based on climate? You have some serious costs associated with doing business in a region that has winter.

"Available in Canada (summer only)"

"Shipping to winter regions is far more expensive because we need to use human drivers half the year. So we generally avoid focusing on them."

Not a new problem. Geography has always strongly impacted industry. But interesting to think of it from this perspective.

I'm excited to see attempts to tackle the truly difficult form of autonomous driving.

<comment><USER24> The rules for driving in snow are pretty simple. Go slow, pump the brakes, give a bigger safety cushion for obstacles.

The problem is likely around vision. A lot of winter driving is done at an unsafe level of visibility.

It is probably better having non static rules for roads. Snow should reduce speed limits, and white out conditions should be used for emergency travel only.

Unless you can utilize radar to obtain better visibility than human drivers, in which case you could probably drastically reduce the number of winter accidents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Hopefully, at night and where there are no street lights as well. The more corner cases, the better.

I still would like to see more races. In the snow too.

[https://electrek.co/2017/02/18/self-driving-car-race- crash-b...](https://electrek.co/2017/02/18/self-driving-car-race-crash-buenos- aires-formula-e-eprix/)

<comment><USER26> Have no fear, there aren't any working street lights in Detroit.

<comment><USER27> Detroit is the largest city in the US fully lit by LED streetlights with over 65,000 installed since 2014.

Its easily recognizable from space:

[https://twitter.com/astro_kimbrough/status/82136198923045683...](https://twitter.com/astro_kimbrough/status/821361989230456832)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Personally, I prefer to see Google/Waymo start deport 1-2 thousand self driving cars/minivans in Silicon Valley near Google and FB's headquarters.

The near team (in 1-2 years) goal should be getting 20, 50, 95% of their own employees off the personal cars for the daily commute.

Their parking lot should be empty after 2 years.

<comment><USER15> Getting tech employees off cars doesn't need self-driving cars. Google is perfectly happy to have shuttle buses, and pay for them, provided that housing is sufficiently dense, and there is a place where the buses can legally pick up and drop off employees.

<comment><USER29> Probably the biggest problem with using mass transit is latency; having to wait around doing nothing until your transport arrives. It's a constraint on your schedule and adds a certain amount of stress to your day. And if your desired departure or arrival time don't coincide closely with the schedule, you're going to waste a bunch of time even if the transport is quick.

Subways solve this problem by running every couple of minutes. Buses generally don't solve this problem well because traffic and alighting / loading delays cause them to bunch up. But on-demand self-driving cars can solve this problem, as long as there are enough of them close enough.

(It's also the problem Uber solved.)

<comment><USER30> Bay Area buses don't solve this problem but many bus systems do. Compared to an effective bus network, Bay Area buses suffer from:

* Short distance between stops (due to low housing density).

* Traffic due to lack of bus lanes.

* Long time spent at stops due to cash payments and/or single door entry, rather than proof of payment or tap on stations at every door, no cash allowed.

* Inaccurate/nonexistent realtime updates.

A bus every 30 minutes isn't a big deal compared to SF/Bay Area travel times, but only if I can rely on a timetable/GPS to arrive at the stop 2 minutes before departure and be confident with a scheduled arrival 2 minutes before my appointment.

<comment><USER31> > * Short distance between stops (due to low housing density).

Wait, this doesn't make sense. Lower density means shorter distances between stops?

No, lower density should mean longer distances between stops, because you will go for longer distances before another person wants to get on or off.

Higher density would mean shorter distances between stops because there will be more frequently people wanting to get on and off.

<comment><USER32> Low density means that there are less people per km within walking distance of a bus stop which means you pick up less people. So it's less efficient in that way. High density means at each stop there is much higher amount of people who live near the stop.

<comment><USER31> How do you think that means shorter distances between stops for lower density? You pick up less people per stop, but it's less also people over a given distance, so it doesn't imply stopping more frequently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Time to find out how well autonomous cars will deal with potholes

<comment><USER34> I was just thinking how they'll need to make use of gyroscopes.

* Car has detected only 3 wheels touching road * Car is on Woodward * Proceed as normal

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> As a society, are we ready for self driving cars? It seems to signal the start of the next industrial Revolution, with truckers and taxi drivers going extinct, with more industries to follow. Machine learning has so far been kind of in the background, with this it's very front and center and will directly impact millions of people.

Also, I've always wondered, if self driving car crashes who is legally liable? Is it the programmer or the occupant?

</comment><comment><USER19> So you're saying we should keep an eye on Craigslist in Detroit for rare gift opportunities this Christmas.

</comment><comment><USER36> The problem with self driving cars is that you can never rely on a human to take over at a moments notice. Google perfected the self driving car over a decade ago but found that once on the motorway (Freeway for my transatlantic cousins) they literally switched of, rummaged around in the back did everything other than be able to take over the wheel at a moments notice. So google had to go back to the drawing board and design a car that could drive literally everywhere! We covered the topic in part of our recent podcast. If you'd like to listen debate or disagree! Skip ahead to 23.03 minutes.

[http://www.venturi-group.com/podcast/tech-teams- productivity...](http://www.venturi-group.com/podcast/tech-teams- productivity/)

</comment><comment><USER37> Is Waymo still planning to launch soon in Phoenix? They were going to start offering rides to the public this fall without the employee in the car. Or did they change their mind? If anyone has ridden in those vans I am curious to know how well their early rider program is performing in terms of not needing the human driver to intervene. I check the news for a Waymo launch every day, because it will be one of the most significant events in the history of self driving cars.

<comment><USER38> From the article:

> Starting in April, Waymo began testing a free service with select passengers > in Phoenix, using some of its 600 minivans from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles > NV.

<comment><USER37> Yeah that's old news. I am referring to recent articles from a few weeks ago where someone suggested that there was at least a rumor that they might launch without any actual driver to the general public in Phoenix this fall sometime.

<comment><USER39> The rumour traces back to a single anonymous source reported on by the Information. I hope it turns out to be true, because in 2012 I made a 5 year prediction for it and it's always nice to be correct about things, but we'll have to see. From the outside looking in, they look to be pretty close, but only the people at Waymo really know how close they are to doing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm curious to see if we'll see the Dubai style autonomous drone taxi service thing come to the US at some point. At least in major cities. Personally I'm in favour of less cars and more walkable/bikeable urban spaces. [https://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/2017/10/03/flying-taxis- du...](https://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/2017/10/03/flying-taxis-dubai/)

<comment><USER41> It would need to actually exist first. A hovering drone is not exactly a taxi service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> > "Having lived through fourteen Michigan winters, I'm confident that there > are few better places that will prepare our self-driving cars for winter > conditions"

Lived in Michigan for 30+ years myself, on the West side of the state. We get a lot of lake effect, and it's only 3 hours from Detroit. It's also 6 hours from the middle of the U.P., where they get _real_ snow. And if they really want to, they can go into Canada.

Should be a good set of real-world tests.

</comment><comment><USER43> Michigan is a great location to test self driving cars, because the lake effect makes the temperature fluctuate around freezing. This means we go from icy to wet frequently. It also helps that we get a decent amount of snow, giving us a much wider range of driving conditions than the Bay Area.

<comment><USER44> There's also the benefit of roads in every state of repair, from pristine to essentially abandoned by the government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Context is a major part of driving it worries me when you see these videos of self-driving cars slamming on brakes a metre or two from a pedestrian. A human driver would see the person at the side of the road whether it's a marked crosswalk or not. There are visual cues we humans know which mean "I'm going to cross the street now" such as a pedestrian turning their head towards the driver to make eye contact first, holding out one arm while looking both ways. Slamming on the brakes at the very last moment isn't what I'd call a success.

As a Canadian who lives in the very snowy Maritimes I have a lot of experience with driving in the winter. I started driving at age 14 and my job as a teen, 20s and 30s required me to drive in all conditions. Winter driving has to be instinctive there is no time to think and as noted above also depends on context.

If a pedestrian walks out from the side of the road and that road has a curve maybe even a downhill curve what now? Slamming on the brakes even ABS may not help. The inertia and being on an angle may (my guess is will) cause the vehicle to slip towards the outside part of the curve. If the vehicle is in the right lane it would slide into oncoming traffic.

Counter-steering at the very instant your vehicle starts to fishtail is a learned skill that has to be instinctive. And when to use that technique or when not to use it.

Slush is I think one of the most dangerous things a winter driver will face. A driver who drives into a line of slush that may be left on the center line can easily have their vehicle jerk violently to the left. It can be a situation where you have less than half a second to react.

Brakes on a curve has to be one of the most common problems with inexperienced winter drivers. I see it all the time even with drivers who I know have been living here all their lives.

Who will scrape off all the optical sensors in the morning? I've had ice so thick and so hard to get off you'd swear it was concrete glued to your windshield. Not to mention the slush, snow, dirt-salt-water mix constantly splashing up. Anyone with a backup camera knows it's a constant battle to keep it clean or it's useless.

It will be interesting to see the results but I think there is far more to self-driving in the winter than on clear, dry roads in warmer climates.

</comment><comment><USER46> I lived in Downtown Detroit for a two years. Unless things have changed since 2011, there aren't many streets outside of a narrow strip of Mid Town where the city actually plows the streets. I'm curious how examples of government mismanagement like this get highlighted. I can see the headline in the Detroit Free Press now "Snow No-Go Zone: Waymo won't drive East Jefferson until the city plows it."

<comment><USER47> Uhh yeah, things have changed since 2011.

[http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/02/07/detroit-mayor- announc...](http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/02/07/detroit-mayor-announces- new-way-to-report-snow-covered-streets/amp/)

<comment><USER46> That's pretty nice!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Lived in Detroit for several years and spun my car many times even as an experienced snow driver. Should be fun.

</comment><comment><USER49> Exciting. Test it in rainy Seattle and freezing Alaska, too. If this works, this would show real, tangible leadership in the field. No one can do this yet, and autonomous driving tech is not to useful if it craps out in inclement weather.

<comment><USER50> Seattle can have "grey-out" conditions, where spray from other cars combines with the rainfall to dramatically limit visibility. It's rather terrifying to drive through, where you can only see for about 20 feet in any direction. Autonomous driving that entirely relies on computer vision will fail just as poorly as human eyes - multiple sensor types are necessary. How many types of sensor does this car have? I wish the article would have gone into that detail.

<comment><USER51> And maybe some kind of communication/message passing between vehicles maybe useful. For example, if a vehicle senses black ice in a certain part of the road, it can pass that information to other cars so they know to slow down when going over the same part of the road. So something like Waze but for road conditions.

<comment><USER50> > _And maybe some kind of communication /message passing between vehicles > maybe useful._

I've made this suggestion before, but all commenters remarked about the risks of trusting another car, trusting another signal, hackers, script kiddies, and other malicious agents. The safest inter-car communication was determined to be adaptive cruise control.

<comment><USER52> We trust traffic lights without much issue. What's the difference?

<comment><USER53> A central entity controls the traffic lights; anyone with a few grand can go buy a car.

<comment><USER54> The same central entity also heavily regulates and monitors the roads. It's a soluble problem IMO. Very difficult, but the benefits are significant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> its impressive to see this coming full circle back to Detroit

</comment><comment><USER56> The singularity is near.

</comment><comment><USER57> I feel like this is a nice start, but Canada and more mountainous regions of the PNW will be the real proving ground. North Dakota, Minnesota and so on. At least in terms of generalized technical achievement, not in serving the most people in most situations. Winnipeg is a hellscape for driving in the best of times. Driving through the prairies in a snowstorm was one of the scariest experiences of my life, as well as the rockies with a thin layer of ice, intense grades, little to no road markings.

As a recognized tangent to that tangent, there's a big problem up here in the real North ( where basic necessities of life are ludicrously expensive. In part, at least possibly, due to transport costs. Would be amazing if self- driving vehicles could regularly deliver goods up there with no human risk on ice-roads. May be a pipe dream though.

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm curious if we'll see the Detroit economy take off as a result of more self-driving car work in the area. It seems like Metro Detroit hasn't seen many of the tech gains that the coastal tech hubs have seen.

</comment><comment><USER13> Here's my bet. Their software designed to drive conservatively and likewise it will be way too hair trigger with the brakes for use in the snow without bringing a lot of changes of pants.

That's assuming they can deal reasonably well with the reduced visibility and change in behavior of other drivers.

They'll probably also slide on a few right turns before they get the settings fully dialed in.

</comment><comment><USER59> I get a chuckle out of these threads. Humans are _unbelievably_ bad at driving in the snow. If the only thing a self-driving car does in a whiteout snow storm is come to a halt, it will already be dramatically safer than human drivers. You can just hard-wire the car to not do stupid things. Taking human judgement out of the loop has many wonderful outcomes.

[https://youtu.be/rhZCyQ3emQg?t=121](https://youtu.be/rhZCyQ3emQg?t=121)

<comment><USER60> This is a bit aside from your main point, but stopping on a road in a whiteout snow storm is _incredibly_ dangerous due to the cars behind you being unable to see you until it is much too late to stop. I grew up driving two-lane highways in Alaska with frequent semi traffic, several times in blizzard conditions (to the point where the only way to follow the road was to drive on the flat part of the just-fallen snow). You could pull over to the side of the road, but you may not be able to get back on the road depending on your vehicle and the snow level (and in remote, cold areas this may be deadly itself).

You could say "just don't drive in blizzards", but on a long drive you may often end up in a blizzard when you started in clear weather. Frequently this happens in areas where there are no safe places to stop for miles.

I'm not an expert on self-driving car sensors, but it's not hard to imagine that they could be made much less weather-dependent than the human eye. Driving through blizzard conditions is incredibly disorienting and terrifying, so the potential of better-than-vision detection of roads and traffic is IMO the most promising way for self-driving cars to handle snowy conditions.

<comment><USER61> Potentially, a self-driving car (or even Google Maps nav and a regular driver) would not have this problem - it would simply not drive itself into a situation where it's both in heavy snow and a place that's not safe to stop. I've had a few times in California where I started a long drive in sun and warm weather and ended up stuck in a snow-storm mid-drive (hello Sierra passes)... it would have been nice if either my car or my map software warned me this was likely before we set off.

<comment><USER62>
      it would simply not drive itself into a situation

Autonomous cars would be coming from a _variety_ of vendors each with its _own_ algorithms. It's not even guaranteed that they would communicate with each other to arbitrate strategy under adverse conditions.

<comment><USER61> It's not as if human drivers do, either. The closest we've come is Waze, which would a trivial data set for an autonomous car to both utilize and supplement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Self-driving cars feel like they are still in the early Alpha stage, while self-driving robots are already in production in Amazon's warehouses.

Why are companies going through the great expense of constructing full-size mock-ups if the domain problems haven't been solved on smaller mock-ups? Is there a fundamental difference between a 400 lb self-driving robot and a 2-ton self-driving robot - beyond the advertising novelty of being inside the car? Edit: If both robots are outside on a driving track, not in the Amazon warehouse.

And if "snow-vision" and other problems have been solved with smaller robots, or in other domains, why do news articles like this treat the topic as though it's entirely foreign and to be feared, instead of helping readers associate these concepts with existing concepts to drive acceptance?

<comment><USER63> I'm confused. What kind of smaller mock-up are you imagining? I bet that Waymo considers lots of cases of driving solved (controlled environment parking lot) and we are seeing just another step up in terms of the scale of the problem.

<comment><USER50> If you're just working on computer vision and world mapping, why do you need something bigger than an RC car? I started with a sonar sensor and an arduino on an RC car in 2012, and had a working prototype, but never secured funding (and eventually became homeless).

<comment><USER64> Because an RC car with a sonar sensor and an arduino relates to a self driving car roughly the way a bicycle lock compares to a bank vault.

Orders of magnitude in complexity difference and a much more hostile environment to survive in.

I am not really comfortable writing this but seriously, if you have to ask this question I am actually happy you did not receive funding (but I am obviously not happy that you ended up homeless), that was not a prototype, it was not even a proof of concept. It was maybe a small step up from a toy. Sonar as a sensor may give you a little bit of input data but your arduino does not have the processing power to extract meaningful information about its environment from that data nor does that sensor give you sufficient information that you would use to pilot a couple of tons of steel through an environment inhabited by fragile humans.

<comment><USER65> OP sounds like that semi-autistic guy who asked Elon Musk if they could work together at the shareholder meeting. In his mind he's exaggerating his work/abilities while dragging down what Waymo and self-driving researchers are doing.

It's sort of sad to see.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Trump: Republicans would 'never' be elected again if it was easier to vote - <AUTHOR> https://www.cake.co/conversations/mr5j7cK/trump-says-republicans-would-never-be-elected-again-if-it-was-easier-to-vote <comment><USER2> >Yesterday, the President admitted on Fox & Friends that voter suppression benefits Republicans.

That's somewhat of a generalization but the saying goes the other way too. Republicans only want to make more rich people and democrats only want to make more poor people. Only poor people vote democrat, hence they have to pander to that crowd. The irony being, no poor person is ever made rich under a democrat's rule. If there were no poor people or immigrants, there'd be no democratic party.

</comment><comment><USER3> Partisanship is so 1990.

 _There is only one party, the Property party, with two wings: Democrat and Republican._ \- Gore Vidal

Tribal bikeshedding about flavors of lying, corrupt sociopaths and their particular brands of chicanery is the surest way to remain divided-and- conquered and ignore the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room: calcified, entrenched corruption that has ubiquitously surrounded and infiltrated the political, economic, judicial and mainstream media systems such that idealistic reforms from within are tilting at windmills while waiting for Godot. It doesn't matter which flavor of party does what, they serve the same masters; the only differences are the theatrical renditions of pseudo-democracy. Voting, petitions, "antiestablishment" candidates, and other ostensible but weak measures are futile to restore power and public administration to work for the people. It is imperative that any actual, successful revolution separate church and state and wealth corruption as a prime directive to prevent a painful relapse.</comment>


From NeXTSTEP to Cocoa: Erik Buck on the Development of Cocoa and Objective-C - <AUTHOR> http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1353402 <comment><USER2> Funny this is posted, I just bought a copy of Cocoa Design Patterns yesterday. Hopefully it's still useful for modern iOS development.

<comment><USER3> Lol, swift.

<comment><USER2> Patterns are patterns, regardless of what language that uses them. Cocoa SDK shouldn't have changed much between Obj-C and Swift.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> David Chisnall is a master too, and a pity that GNUStep and etoileos.com didn't spread more. NEXTStep could have been Mono, long ago.

</comment><comment><USER5> I had the pleasure of taking two iOS courses led by Erik Buck at Wright State University ~2012. His background and knowledge of Cocoa and everything underlying the iOS SDK was so insightful. If you don't happen to be here in Ohio, then I highly recommend taking a look at his book.

</comment><comment><USER6> Weird submission on two levels. I know and have worked with Erik Buck, but the article is seven years old. Not sure why it would be posted now.

<comment><USER7> Sometimes older articles that are interesting are submitted. Granted, that may not seem like "News", but can be of interest to the community. As sibling noted, the title should include an indication of its vintage in these cases.

What was the second level?

<comment><USER6> That it's an article about a guy I know and have worked with :) (Cue "It's a Small World"...)

<comment><USER7> Ah! Gotcha. All a matter of perspective :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > I expect the forthcoming Mac OS X Snow Leopard to set a new high standard > for performance on multi-core computers.

Well, that serves as a reminder of (a) the high water mark and (b) the date of the article. :)

</comment><comment><USER9> "I ported a lot of assembly language software originally written for the Atari ST computer"

<3

</comment><comment><USER10> [2009]

</comment><comment><USER11> I was looking forward to reading this interview, but I lost interest after he made this dubious claim: "For $7500 with a student discount, I got a much more capable NeXT system at a fraction of the price of a Mac II...".

<comment><USER12> A /color/ Mac II went for upwards of $10k at launch, and it would be hard to argue that the NeXT system wasn't significantly more capable. It's a Unix machine vs a cooperatively multitasking box whose OS you could crash with a bug in your user-space code. That's _not_ a fun environment to be learning C in, as a student. Trust me.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps, but the entry-level Mac II with a 20 MB drive and monitor cost about $5500. Which system was more capable is open to debate, but that wasn't my concern. I was hoping for an objective presentation of facts and observations about the evolution of what we now call the Cocoa framework, but the interview started off with a statement about the NeXT system that wasn't quite true.

<comment><USER13> > _but the interview started off with a statement about the NeXT system that > wasn 't quite true_

People don't remember any odd detail 20+ years on. But he probably remembered $7500 NeXT being much more value for money than the $5500 Mac II, and his mind translated it as "was a fraction of the price", even if it wasn't.

<comment><USER11> I guess I was being a little harsh. Forgive me, I've been cranky ever since the election.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


OpSci: Against close-source publishing - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/delinquentme/OpSci

<comment><AUTHOR> This seems like a timely subject. I've not the guts to take this as far as other individuals, however this code base will get you as close to these locked down papers as is legal without a subscription, including the referrer links to the paywall routing. And Proof: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtOqyz8P_fJ0dHN...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtOqyz8P_fJ0dHNKUmh4UGxsa1hVdXBKVmd3Zy0yc3c#gid=0)</comment>


Chrome continues surge as IE drops below 60% market share - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/05/chrome-continues-surge-as-ie-drops-below-60-market-share.ars

<comment><USER2> Waiting for the day IE goes down to single digit. Even if IE8/9 is the most compliant browser in their history, you can never trust them when it comes to embracing open standards. For the longest time they held the whole web back from innovation.

I still remember countless hours of IE hacks. DIE, DIE!

<comment><USER3> I've cursed IE every bit as the next guy, but your hatred is astonishingly misguided. ActiveX aside, during '96 through '00, Microsoft innovated web properties more than any browser since. It wasn't until standards zealots and the DOJ were breathing down Microsofts back that MS fell into a rut.

And how are those standards working for us today? Still stuck in '99 with 4.01. HTML innovation stalled time and again. ECMAScript innovation stalled time and again. CSS innovation stalled time and again. Staggered feature support everywhere -- not just IE.

Let's face it, every "standard" at the front of web browsing has, for the better part, failed. I'm no proponent for Flash -- in particular, how some people use it, but Macromedia/Adobe got it right -- moving extraordinarily fast compared to the glacial pace at which the Microsoft, Mozilla, or the W3C have moved.

<comment><USER4> How have those standards worked out for us today?

Now I can develop for Firefox, and know it is going to work in Safari, Opera, Chrome, etc... I know it is going to work on most mobile devices, TVs, and iPads.

We can do amazing things like Google Mail, which is still faster and better than Outlook. All these without having to worry about ActiveX crashing the browser.

I am not sure what you are looking at, maybe you are only interested in Flash games and vector animation.

<comment><USER3> Let's talk about "standards" _clear (working drafts) throat_...

I seriously doubt one can innovate on the web, without using cross-browser hacks to only support the non-IE crowd. Even "standards" as simple as the DOM would have you jumping through hoops, but don't believe me... <http://ejohn.org/blog/the-dom-is-a-mess/>.

Or something as simple as .nodeName from the HTML 5 spec? <http://ejohn.org/blog/nodename-case-sensitivity/>

How about something as "simple" as border-radius? That's right, I can easily make a mess of every browser.

Google Mail, as a browser front-end, is only amazing by virtue of innovations made by Microsoft and very little to do with anything since. Little to do with "standards" of today. Faster than Outlook? No; how? Better? Sure, but only because it is more accessible to me. Nothing to do with ActiveX, or shall I pontificate how GMail sucks because Firefox is a hungry beast and crashes under its own weight? No, that would make zero sense.

I am looking to create good and fun websites and not sitting around to complain about how my job isn't made easy, because every browser has different levels of support. And believe me, I've been waiting a long time -- longer than you seem to grok -- for the W3C to "standardize" vector animation. Still waiting. Can't wait for the web to be free of these working groups and zealots.

<comment><USER4> OK, so your point is that it is not perfect? Well what API is?

Things are a lot better than they have been, things are getting better every year.

<comment><USER3> Correct, and all I am presenting is that it is very shortsighted to suggest IE hasn't, doesn't, or won't innovate. And frankly, and again, the IE4 through IE6 era saw more innovation (and speed of innovation) than we have seen since. It's hardly Microsoft's fault they were asked to stop innovating, after IE6, and it is much less their fault no one has been "innovating" until just recently.

Flash filled -- fills -- a lot of gaps.

ECMA tried to make a splash with CLI.

Me? I stopped support of IE6, outside of what is easily hidden in libraries / wrappers, which means I can support almost everything still. As well, I use, support, and contribute to Chromium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Good news IE continues to lose market share. Bad news IE6 continues NOT losing market share. _cry_

Though it really depends on your market as their final pie chart shows. I know our stats show that IE6 barely gets a look in so we have dumped supporting it as the hassle was too great.

<comment><USER6> The more people that dump supporting it the better. Once enough sites break and pop up a "Your browser is too old!" message, it will eventually piss off the right executives to get IE6 dumped out of corporate environment.

An anecdote that you can extrapolate at will. I remember a while back my dad (an EVP at a large chemical company, not exactly bleeding edge IT considering they had Windows 2000 after Vista was out) was astounded to find out YouTube was blocked for _most_ of the employees, but not for him. They started posting instructional videos on YouTube and he only found out because his marketing guys couldn't open the videos they had created. The ban was gone within an hour, after it had been in place for who knows how long.

Enough websites break and you get the executives calling their IT guys saying "why doesn't this work for me, I need a new computer" and eventually things will get changed. In the meantime, a lot of IT departments hunker down and don't want to change anything because people ALWAYS complain when there is change.

Simple truism of office politics - if it is the executives idea it is "great", if it is the IT department's idea, it "sucks", regardless of technical merit.

<comment><USER7> A more relavant truism to the IE6 in business debacle is that upgrading a platform is costly and enhancing users' web-browsing experience is rarely a top priority.

<comment><USER8> Actually it's probably an anti-priority more often than a priority. I would not be particularly interested in making surfing the web a more enjoyable experience for my employees. The one thing that will end IE 6 is when Microsoft stops supporting it with security updates. Until then, I expect it to be a significant player in the browser market.

<comment><USER5> The enforced restriction (your suggestion is more of a passive aggressive one I know) of browsing is an oft cited reason for discontent among my more corporate, non-startup friends.

It seems to me a both an admission of defeat by management and a statement of distrust of employees when it is done.

<comment><USER8> True. And, I don't really have any employees, nor would I, I hope, work in a field where keeping people on old browsers makes business sense. But there may be such fields, and in those fields I don't see a likely cause of a big investment in technology updates until the old tech is truly untenable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I remember when people saying nobody needed another browser and Chrome would never get adoption.

<comment><USER9> Chrome is only worthwhile because of the speed not only of its JavaScript VM but also the speed (and to a lesser extent, design) of its UI.

It's a night and day difference from Firefox on my machine. It's been _years_ since Chrome made it on the scene and the response from Mozilla is still abysmal; Firefox is still at least twice as slow than Chrom(e|ium) for me. Firefox's UI is still clunky and huge and slow; dragging tabs takes forever and breaking them out forces a page refresh (bad when watching videos etc).

If Mozilla doesn't want to get crushed by Chrome they need to put together a serious response and fix their issues. The only thing keeping users on Fx would be extensions, but equivalents are quickly showing up for Chrome. Mozilla is going to completely lose its relevance if they don't get real about fixing things.

I started up Ubuntu 10.04 and was disappointed to see Firefox as the default browser. I think Linux distros should use Chromium as the default.

<comment><USER10> There's still the issue of Chrome's addons not being as powerful as Firefox's. I dearly want to switch to Chrome (or ium), but I've grown quite attached to the Tree Style Tabs addon, and I've found the attempts to replicate that functionality in Chrome somewhat lacking. The speed difference is absolutely huge though. It's like opening MS Word vs Notepad: Chrome is just there, but Firefox takes at least a few seconds to open up, even without (m)any addons

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Pretty close to what we're seeing:

       1. Internet Explorer  5,493,047    64.03%
       2. Firefox            1,796,239    20.94%
       3. Safari             742,371       8.65%
       4. Chrome             489,051       5.70%
       5. Opera               38,441       0.45%
       6. Mozilla              6,603       0.08%
       7. Mozilla Compatible   5,320       0.06%
       8. Playstation 3        1,710       0.02%
       9. Camino               1,142       0.01%
      10. Opera Mini             890       0.01%

For mobile, Safari is 86.88% and IE: 1.02% :)

<comment><USER12> Who said Apple doesn't have a de-facto monopoly in smartphones? For some definition of smartphone, they seem to own the market.

<comment><USER13> A very large market share isn't the same as a monopoly. People are very free to buy android phones or windows mobile or whatever they like.

<comment><USER12> Similarly, people are free to buy Mac OS, Ubuntu...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > During April, only Internet Explorer and Opera failed to show positive > growth.

It would have been quite a feat for them all to show positive growth :)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Does HN ever publish their browser stats? Would be interesting to see the breakdown.

</comment><comment><USER15> It would be an interesting investigation into why Chrome and Firefox have done so well in growth and Opera (a quite nice browser) never seems to have done well.

<comment><USER16> Google pushes Chrome on the front page of Google.com. And they pushed Firefox for a few years before Chrome.

Also, Opera has a terrible name in comparison to the competition. Makes word of mouth less effective. That's also my theory on MySQL vs Postgres.

<comment><USER17> I'd kind of agree with you on the names. I can't even pronounce Postgres so I tend to sit quietly instead of recommending it when the topic comes up.

I'll be sure to run my next product name by you.

<comment><USER18> Just listen to this: <http://twit.tv/floss18>

TL;DL: It's Post-Grez-Que-Ell

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The latest beta of Chrome for Mac (5.0.342.9 beta) has been crashing (or rather, freezing a few tabs and then not working right until I kill it) pretty often, but other than that, I'm very satisfied with the browser in general and all the past versions have been rock solid.

<comment><USER19> Could the person who down-voted me explain why? What's the problem with sharing my experience with Chrome?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> 60% is still huge.

<comment><USER21> What is important is that IE is no longer the de facto standard. 60% is much better than 90%. I remember 6-7 years ago when developers thought they were done when it worked in IE6. They didn't feel the need to support other browsers. Browsing in Linux was difficult because things never looked (or worked) right.

Now with so many options, developers need to target standards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> IE must have spell check!!!

</comment><comment><USER23> netmarketshare has biased stats (very US centric). I prefer the wikipedia stats which is a generalist and international site. There, IE is already at 50% [http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2010-02/Squ...](http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2010-02/SquidReportClients.htm) yay!

</comment><comment><USER24> Where is mobile in this? Is mobile safari a safari? Is it in all others? Something seems missing. (sent from my iPod)

<comment><USER25> The data seems to come from here: [http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser- market-share.aspx?qpri...](http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market- share.aspx?qprid=0) , which requires a subscription to see mobile statistics.</comment></comment>


Roused by Trump, Two NASA Engineers Try Out Politics - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/two-nasa-engineers-try-out-politics <comment><USER2> "Van Houten and Sanchez have both turned for information and advice to 314 Action, a nonprofit that supports Democratic candidates from the STEM fields"

"A majority of scientists identify as Democrats, yet, according to the Pew Research Center, sixty-four per cent of Americans currently perceive them as non-ideological."

I've got news for them, the problem is that both parties are corrupt, top down, inside out, and attempts to reform from within the party, while laudible, are doomed to failure due to entrenchment.

This is why after much deliberation I can think of no better solution than to remove both parties majorities via election of indepednents and third parties as a first step in taking back our country.

If we can get enough third parties/independents elected in 2018/2022, I think when we keep both parties nominees from the required 270 electoral votes and the decision goes to the house, that's how we get an independent into the white house.</comment>


UK pound at 31 year low as referendum favours EU exit - <AUTHOR> https://www.fnewstoday.com/business/uk-pound-31-year-low-referendum-favours-eu-exit-12071372/ <comment><USER2> Did I just lose 10% of my saving ?

<comment><USER3> More than 10% wait for the market to open.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Makes my clearnet drug purchases that much easier, thank you brexiters.

</comment><comment><USER5> So does this mean it's a good time to take a vacation in the UK?

</comment><comment><USER6> Strangely, FTSE is less down than the major EU exchanges.</comment>


Feedback on my idea would be greatly appreciated - <AUTHOR> http://libraryapp.co <comment><AUTHOR> Hello,

I would love feedback for my idea called Library, a new writing/publishing platform with a social structure built around the content to enhance the readers and writers experience. I know there are writing/publishing platforms there but I feel like they're lacking a social structure around the content that is written to enhance the reading and writing experience. Medium is attempting to create their platform into more of a social network but it is not there yet. There's a theme surrounded around the app. I want to give users the illusion that they are actually attending a library as they would in person.

1) What do you like/dislike about Medium or other writing/publishing platforms?

2) What's the biggest problem you're facing using the current writing/publishing platforms?

3) What new features would you like to see in a writing/publishing platform?

Looking forward to reading your comments.

Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER2> From the website I can't make out what it is, why I would be involved, what makes it different from anything it's similar to, and why I should sign up.

Looks lovely - glanced over it and closed the tab.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your reply. Library is a new writing/publishing platform with a social structure built around the content to enhance the readers and writers experience. There are a lot of great and creative writers out there but it's hard for them to have their work seen/read if they don't have a strong social following and readers can't discover these great amateur writers if they don't know where to find them. That is why I thought of Library. Medium is attempting in going in the social networking direction but it's not there yet. I think that's where I can come in with Library. The app is based around the Library theme. I want to give users the illusion that they are attending a library as they would in person. So every user will have a library (aka profile) a real looking library card with the barcode and library number (aka about me section, bookcase (aka all of the content you have written) members who become members of your library (aka followers), memberships of the different library's you're interested in (aka following), and "checking out" content to read at a later time. Then there's a most checked out section to give writers an incentive to write more quality work. So as you can see all this is kind of what you see and experience in going to a library in person.

As far as the landing page as to why you should sign up I'm trying to use an "exclusivity" tactic in hopes to make it go viral which is why I stated you need a library card to attend the grand opening of library and that there are only 500 library cards to give out but will be guaranteed a library card if cards run out by inviting 3 friends.

<comment><USER2> Nice of you to answer but:

* What if 600 people each invite 3 friends - how is that consistent with your promises?

* It's not that you explain it here, but the landing page is still opaque as to it's purpose, or why I should bother.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right. I don't want to come off as a liar. I think maybe I should do something like first 500 people to register will be guaranteed early access and everyone after will be put on a waiting list unless they invite 3 friends. Something along those lines.

Do you have any suggestions on how to make the landing page better? From the explanation how would I go about wording what the purpose does without it sounding too wordy on the landing page?

<comment><USER2> This will sound very negative, but it's a summary of my reactions. If you can address these issues, it might make the site better. It's intended to be helpful.

You don't even have "About" or "Learn more" tabs - there appears to be no way to engage with the site to find out why I should be interested.

        "A new and fun place to read and
         write stories created by you"

How? When I arrive as a reading, how will the "stories" be presented to me? Will these be articles? Novelettes? Short stories? Will there be recommendations? Will I follow people? Will there be the opportunity to comment and reply? Do I "like" stories? What effect will that have?

Will it be different enough from Medium to be worth the effort to have yet another source of "stories" to compete with Facebook, Twitter, Medium, and more?

These are a few questions, there is effectively _no_ information, so I close the tab, and have no inclination or motivation to return.

<comment><AUTHOR> That didn't sound negative at all. I really appreciate all the feedback and suggestions. Just one more question if you don't mind. From the description I gave you about the app what do you think of it? Do you see potential? I've been asking around for feedback and thoughts on it and just trying to get an idea of whether it is worth pursuing.

<comment><USER2> From what you've said - it's not for me. I find myself at the end of everything I read or watch thinking - Was that worth the XXX minutes?

The answer is almost invariably: No.

Random stuff that random people have written? Never worth it. Recommended by people whose opinion I trust? Almost never worth it. I'm pretty much never the target audience. I either already know about the subject, or I'm not really interested.

Get people to write in depth and they have no audience to speak of. Them them to write for a general audience, and there's no depth.

I'm old, for which read "rich in experience," and I don't need entertaining. I like learning stuff, but a general "library" won't have the material I want unless you specifically put in mechanisms to make sure it gets written, contributed, curated, and discussed.

I'm probably not your target audience.

<comment><AUTHOR> I see. Well thank you. I do appreciate all of your feedback.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>