Oil plunges below zero for first time with May contract ending - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/oil-drops-to-18-year-low-on-global-demand-crunch-storage-woes <comment><USER3> Note that this is for the May contract, which closes tomorrow, and anyone left with a contract then will have to actually take delivery of the physical product. Since we are in supercontango (oil storage is full, causing spot prices to be significantly lower than forward prices), I am guessing that traders who are still holding on to contracts and don't have available storage have to unload contracts pretty quickly.

The June contract, where most of the trading is happening, is at around $22, and the July contract is $28.

<comment><USER4> What I don't understand is why the sudden move today? Did the longs _think_ they had a place to put the oil on Friday but found out over the weekend they had no place to put it? Just seems like you would know what to do with the oil on Friday. Note this is not a rhetorical question, I would sincerely like an answer.

<comment><USER5> > What I don't understand is why the sudden move today? Did the longs think > they had a place to put the oil on Friday but found out over the weekend > they had no place to put it? Just seems like you would know what to do with > the oil on Friday. Note this is not a rhetorical question, I would sincerely > like an answer.

Guys like myself, an ex fund manager, could be tourists in the oil market. I know I was, speculating occasionally on oil without knowing a whole lot about the details. Plenty of macro guys are similar, they bet on the large movements as the opportunites present themselves and don't worry about the details.

So what has probably happened is some of these tourists have had a few contracts left over that they forgot about or didn't discover in their position keeping until their prime brokers phoned them, and they had to dump into a market under very special conditions. Hopefully not very many contracts.

In normal times if you screwed up and had to do delivery, it stil wouldn't be a big problem, because the storage is available and you essentially just buy it (by trading with a guy who actually knows how to organize it), costing relatively little.

<comment><USER6> This reminds me of Brian Hunter [0] of Amaranth fame. He was on the wrong side of a huge (multi billion USD) long trade on Natural Gas. When faced with losing it all, he doubled down. Blew up Amaranth. $9B USD hedge fund blew up basically overnight. Margin calls, etc, etc.

Disclaimer: I worked for the hedge fund at the time that bought Amaranth's holdings for pennies on the dollar. Was supposed to be a joint buyout with JP Morgan Chase, but Chase couldn't calculate the risk in time before closing and left us with all of the eggs in the basket. We ended up making a killing on the deal as we had the assets to weather the margin calls. I still can't believe anyone gave B.H. any money to trade with after that, but someone did...

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Hunter_(trader)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Hunter_\(trader\))

<comment><USER7> One thing is clear to me - _somebody_ is getting fired this week. Not sure if it's a hedge fund or producer, or a trader or a team, but _someone_ is getting fired.

<comment><USER8> Everyone is getting fired.

<comment><USER7> Not likely. This could actually be one person/team who was out of balance on their book.

Back in 2008 when oil hit $150, it was due to a single trader. Needless to say, everyone in the industry was pissed at him afterwards.

<comment><USER8> Everyone in the economy is getting fired.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If the pandemic lasts longer than 6 months, which is quite likely, many high- cost oil producers might not survive. Some would argue this could lead to shortage and a much higher price later on, but long-term oil demand could also be affected.

There might be some semi-permanent change in people's behaviors if the epidemic continues for many months. Many people will form a habit of doing more things at home/online: more takeouts, more online shopping, live/recorded video classes, virtual meetings, telehealth, etc. Better online services will also spring up to support the habits/practices.

Since online activities often save time, the new habits could become a new _equilibrium_ : people/companies who adopt them will often have an economic advantage, influencing others to do the same. Thus, oil demand could be significantly diminished long-term as well.

<comment><USER10> If this comes to pass, I'm all for it. If we could take the demand we saw for oil, and put it into demand for high-speed Internet, we could see completely new, blue ocean markets.

Imagine a surgeon being able to control a robotic surgery tool from the comforts of his/her home, where you have to have extremely low-latency or guaranteed low-latency networks. Or imagine mecheng offices running simulation jobs in the cloud or an on-premises instead of each having a workstation, and being able to cluster that compute together. All these have been possible to some degree with existing technology, but now we have a paradigm shift and market acceptance that unlocks new business possibilities.

<comment><USER11> Nice to imagine, but the speed of light is too slow for a lot of low latency applications. After you allow the infrastructure some latency. A dedicated line might work, but without the network that is expensive.

<comment><USER12> > _Nice to imagine, but the speed of light is too slow for a lot of low > latency applications._

Is it? Looking around, it seems average visual reaction times (VRTs) are on the order of 250 ms, and even the fastest VRTs are well over 100 ms. A study looking specifically at medical students for auditory and visual reaction times ( _" A comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical first year students"_ [1]) also seems to support those numbers in the medical context, and while experienced surgeons could be expected to be somewhat faster that paper also links to research indicating hard biological minimums:

> _" Researches by Kemp show that an auditory stimulus takes only 8–10 ms to > reach the brain, but on the other hand, a visual stimulus takes 20-40 ms."_

If we want to be quite conservative and aim to keep latency to single digit ms, so sub-10ms, then the speed of light in standard fiber gives us an RTT limit of around 1300 miles. Going more conservative and assuming actual route having to essentially follow the legs of a right triangle, that still gives a radius of around 460 miles, with a set of reasonably conservative assumptions. That seems plenty good enough to cover an enormous amount of work-from-home (or at least work-from-different-location) when it comes to actual existing medical practices, where I doubt most doctors at hospitals live >460 miles away.

I would agree that there are real issues with the idea, but more in terms of the risks events like network disruptions than the speed of light.

\----

1: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/)

<comment><USER13> I think you've mixed up your logic a bit. A slow visual reaction time means that surgeons are already reacting slower in the real world. Any latency added (!!) by a network further adds to the delay between surgeon reaction and real world stimulus.

You argued that when we compare the average VRT additional latency is not large. But you should have argued that there was enough buffer between average VRTs and the time needed for a surgeon to react to allow adding to average VRT.

i.e. If we imagine driving a car with a video camera, we don't really care about latency vs reaction time. We care whether latency + reaction < accident threshold.

<comment><USER12> > _You argued that when we compare the average VRT additional latency is not > large. But you should have argued that there was enough buffer between > average VRTs and the time needed for a surgeon to react to allow adding to > average VRT._

If you look at the paper I linked, it includes not just the mean but the standard deviation, which is on the order of 10-20ms. That means we are already by definition accepting that kind of variability regardless does it not? If +/\- 10ms was critical, it'd imply we should be filtering for that already but it doesn't appear that's the case at all. Furthermore, hunting around for other research on the subject indicates far higher variability than that is also introduced by standard stress factors (lack of sleep, overload, distractions, etc). All of which are strongly present in existing medical practice as well. To the extent working remotely might reduce some of those it could in principle even effectively cancel out a 10ms penalty.

I stand by saying it's not at all clear that sub-10ms (or potentially even higher) would at all be the critical factor preventing remote work. Speed of light seems to be far less important then factors like total network disruption, robotics reliability, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Western Canadian oil was -$0.15 today, i.e. you can be paid to take oil from the producers!

[https://twitter.com/zeroshorts/status/1252108066843054097](https://twitter.com/zeroshorts/status/1252108066843054097)

n.b. you'll still have to also pay the cost of piping the oil to somewhere that might want it...

<comment><USER15> Now trading at -$37.00.

That's right. _Negative_ thirty seven dollars. Today: -54.67, -299.23%.

[https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/future/crude%20oil%20-...](https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/future/crude%20oil%20-%20electronic)

<comment><USER16> I wonder if that negative int broke a bunch of code in software around the world

<comment><USER17> Son I sure hope thats not an Int. Its double, float or something else

<comment><USER18> To be doubly pedantic, it probably is an int in many places, to avoid rounding errors.

<comment><USER19> Correct. In finance it is the norm to store all currency amounts as int.

<comment><USER20> Let's hope it's a signed int, then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> " The upcoming May contract's expiry means traders are shifting their positions to June as they try to avoid taking deliveries of cargoes because of the lack of space to store them. That has opened up an unprecedented discount of more than $10 between the two nearest contracts.

This situation—in which the price of the June contract is far above that of the May one—apparently delights in the name "super contango." People put a price on oil—they think it has value and want to own it at that value—but they also put a price on not having it now, and the latter price is quite high relative to the former. Conceivably, in theory, the latter price (what you'd pay to not have oil now) could exceed the former (what you'd pay to have oil eventually), leading to negative spot prices. We're getting there:

There are signs of weakness everywhere. Buyers in Texas are offering as little as $2 a barrel for some oil streams, raising the possibility that producers may soon have to pay to have crude taken off their hands.

In ordinary economics, things do not have negative prices: If nobody wants a thing, if you'd have to pay them to take the thing, you just don't make it. Oil is a little weird—it is hard to shut in and then restart an oil well, and there are all sorts of weird cartels and game theory involved in oil pricing and production—but the other thing going on here is that a global pandemic is pretty weird for commodity prices. The price of oil is not approaching zero because nobody needs oil; you can look into the future—or at futures prices—and see that, in fact, there is demand for oil. But right now, with the world economy closed, people need much less oil than they've got. If you have a thing that lots of people want, but that no one wants right now, it is hard to put a normal price on it." today's money stuff newsletter by Matt Levine

[https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2020-04-20/th...](https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2020-04-20/there- s-nowhere-to-put-the-oil)?

<comment><USER22> > In ordinary economics, things do not have negative prices: If nobody wants a > thing, if you'd have to pay them to take the thing, you just don't make it. > Oil is a little weird—it is hard to shut in and then restart an oil well

They could always just burn the oil.

<comment><USER23> How would they do that? Power plants and generators need a load, cars and other transport needs somewhere to go and something to carry, and other infrastructure to burn fuel at any sort of scale just doesn't really exist except at the wells themselves. Flaring infrastructure was designed to burn large amounts of unprofitable gasses coming up with the oil and to prevent dangerous pressure build up, not waste tons of unrefined petroleum. Beyond the added pollution it's a huge safety risk that could destroy a bunch of wells.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What happens when Saudi Arabia collapses? Does the royalty get the fuck out of town on their private jets with as many gold bars as they can carry?

<comment><USER25> UAE and Saudi Arabia imo will be ok. They are trying to build themselves into big entertainment and tourism hubs with their ventures into sports and investment in tourism etc I think though they will definitely suffer they may be able to weather the storm. Kuwait and Qatar on the other hand I'm not so sure about

<comment><USER26> _Saudi Arabia_ is trying to build tourism? From where?

<comment><USER27> Dubai is definitely a tourist destination for a small number of hyper-wealthy people. The tourists get to be in the part of the bubble that serves alcohol.

<comment><USER28> Dubai is definitely a tourist destination, and it's not just for hyper-wealthy people. They get a huge amount of middle class tourism from South Asia and China. There's a wide variety of hotels, from 2* to 7* and you can stay in a superb 5* hotel for $150/night.

It feels like a destination for the hyper-wealthy to Americans because our tourist offerings here are so much better - but not everyone can come here. My best analogy for Dubai is that it's like Vegas without the gambling - <USER2> while that may suck for some people, it can definitely be done. Vegas is also done at every price point!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Also the per day price of a supertanker (~2mm barrels capacity) has been skyrocketing to well above 100k$ so speculatively buying and storing is getting riskier. My favorite quote about the storage play comes from the WSJ:

'One of the great trades in modern history involved steep contango and a lot of oil tankers. In 1990, Phibro, the oil-trading arm of Salomon Brothers, loaded tankers with cheap crude just before Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait and crude prices surged. The trade's architect, Andy Hall, became known for a $100 million payday and bought a century-old castle in Germany.'

</comment><comment><USER30> It's at $0.28 right now [https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CLK20.NYM?p=CLK20.NYM](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CLK20.NYM?p=CLK20.NYM)

Update: -$35.53 now

<comment><USER31> it hit 0 for a bit

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Crude spot at $10.80 right now. 40 percent crash in an day.

<comment><USER10> I pay more for a Chipotle burrito (with guac of course, can't live without guac). This is incredible.

<comment><USER33> A barrel of crude has always cost less than a barrel of burritos.

<comment><USER10> I can't drink crude without dying

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22719949](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22719949)

This is a big deal.

I think EURN might hit 40% divyield which would be nuts.

I'm a gambling lunatic, this is not investment advice.

Floating storage thesis.

<comment><USER35> Yeah, this is a good speculation.

If Tankers are $150K+ vs. usual $20-40K for any prolonged period of time...

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> [edited for typos/grammar] The US was going to top up the strategic reserves, but that was stopped in congress. Seems like an ideal time to make that happen with such low prices. Irregardless of environmental concerns, nobody is at a point where they are not dependent on oil and a supply disruption that this is designed to address currently would have dire consequences without it. IE: food shortages etc..

<comment><USER37> There is no reason for the US government to pay to take oil out of the ground to put it into the ground elsewhere.

Fracking has made the US an oil exporter. As others mentioned, fracking has made the US the world's lowest cost producer.

<comment><USER38> If top US leadership was less demented, they could secretly "buy" up all of these $-35 May contracts and get paid 35 dollars a barrel to put it in the strategic reserve.

But if such an agreement had been made in Congress and the US was obligated to buy at a certain (positive) price, you can bet the price wouldn't be $-35 right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve full yet? If it isn't the Federal Government should buy up these negative contracts and take delivery.

</comment><comment><USER40> [https://archive.md/zzq4m](https://archive.md/zzq4m)

[https://archive.md/YoedN](https://archive.md/YoedN)

</comment><comment><USER41> People talk about this going away in June, but I don't understand why that would possibly happen unless producers decide to slow down.

Otherwise, the supply is just going to continue to accumulate.

</comment><comment><USER42> Which groups are most likely to lose from this crazy development. A few weeks ago there was a story about plunging oil prices exposing Capital One to scrutiny for its surprising exposure to futures.

What others are out there?

</comment><comment><USER43> As "nice" as this is, it's realllllly gonna suck on the other side when the price snaps back up and keeps going up because some oil producers have gone out of business.

<comment><USER44> seems like a good time to invest in electric cars

<comment><USER45> Tesla Semi isn't even a thing yet. EVs won't be looking so hot when they can't get parts delivered to their factories.

<comment><USER44> Buy low, sell high.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Usually by the time you see commodities activity hitting the front page of HN the bets are in and the market is about to take a wild swing in the other direction.

It is very easy to side with the news on oil right now that there is a historical over supply (so much so we have no place to store it any longer, and even considering paying producers to leave it in the ground) and we have a historical drop in demand...so any guesses on what the "news" will be to push oil prices wildly upwards?

<comment><USER47> WTI was at -36.25$ just now. I hope you didn't put your money where your mouth is.

<comment><USER46> >Usually by the time you see commodities activity hitting the front page of HN the bets are in...

My bet was already in...however, I do think once we start seeing the news like this proliferate we will see an odd swing by Wednesday or Friday. Still my question was sincere, if we see a swing, I don't know what the markets rationale would be...that said where can it go from negative but up

<comment><USER47> Well, I don't want to presume what your bet is, if it was literally buying this contract and hoping to re-sell it than sorry for your loss I guess.

But yeah it seems like a short-term storage problem and it should bounce back, if your bet was something else it may yet pay off.

<comment><USER46> I had some puts on UCO. Last night there was a 25:1 reverse split...I just sold for >500% return (very small position).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Completely naive question, but I'm curious: all of the negatively priced oil is coming from Saudi Arabia and Russia. What keeps the US from applying large tariffs to oil imports from those countries (or on all imports)?

If it's in our best interest to keep US oil companies alive (I understand that it is), wouldn't this be an effective way to accomplish this goal, with the side benefit of receiving additional tax revenue?

<comment><USER49> Oil companies may benefit from keeping oil expensive, but other parts of the economy that depend on oil do not. For them, tariffs are an extra tax on them and ultimately consumers.

<comment><USER48> Aren't Russia and Saudi Arabia playing a short term game to try and run US shale companies out of business? In that case, wouldn't it be logical for the government to step in and protect these companies via tariffs rather than bailing them out in a few months when they go bankrupt? It would presumably be cheaper.

<comment><USER49> I think it's inconclusive if Russia and Saudia Arabia are actually working together to drive US shale out of business or whether that's just a convenient side-effect of their own dispute.

But yes, what you describe is known as dumping and governments have enforced tariffs or quotas to prevent them. I'm not sure if it's ever been done for oil, possibly because in most cases it'd be political suicide in the US to argue for higher gas prices for consumers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I understand that it's hard to stop oil production, leading to pileups. But even after 2 months it's still unstoppable?

<comment><USER50> Nobody _wants_ to cut production, unless everyone else does so too. Otherwise they're just giving up a chunk of their revenue stream for a negligible rise in prices. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma game.

Anyway, OPEC+ did cut production, a little bit. The market is saying it's not enough, at least in the near term.

<comment><USER33> Surely when storage is full you do start to want to stop production?

<comment> kube-system That's what producers would do in a competitive and rational market, but oil is not that. Oil is notoriously anti-competitive and political.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Russia%E2%80%93Saudi_Arab...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Russia%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_oil_price_war)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Trading at negative $1.43. Incredible stuff.

<comment><USER51> -$37 now

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I don't understand why this makes the stock indexes drop though. Shouldn't this be a boost to everyone but oil companies in the S&P 500? Or is dropping oil prices considered a good leading indicator for a slowing economy?

<comment><USER53> It's good for some companies, bad for others. Even some companies where it _seems_ like it'd be a good thing (say, airlines) might be fully hedged against the price of oil.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Basically, people pay to prevent this from happening: [http://thedailywtf.com/articles/Special- Delivery](http://thedailywtf.com/articles/Special-Delivery)

</comment><comment><USER55> I'm a software developer, which translates to being somehow smart, but I'm not that into economics: Will this have a rubber band effect? E.g., the price will skyrocket in the next 2 - 5 years, because of this?

<comment><USER56> I have my doubts. TX and ND can reopen wells pretty quickly, so there is a max limit on the price going up. Plus, fracking efficiency is going to go up with better techniques.

<comment><USER57> Eh, not really.

I live in Texas and had worked for a company that developed a software product for management of things like oil leases. The big issue is not the inability to re-open oil wells, it's not that hard. It's the people.

When you shut in production you lay people off. Eventually they go elsewhere. This is a big problem in oil boom/bust cycles. Getting trained operators that don't mess up the equipment or cause environmental disasters is one of the bigger problems.

Also, once shut in, the operators that survive the downturn will want to open later, than earlier. They can profit more by waiting.

<comment><USER56> Talking to friends in the west, they are keeping a lot of operators on pay still. I guess it is a how long thing. I'm hoping all the folks with one of the tribes that made a lot of cash on oil put some away for a rainy day.

<comment><USER11> The oil companies have learned and try to keep some staff around. However they can only keep so many and for so long. If this is a fast recovery as some expect then the people will be needed next summer and it was a smart decision. If not...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Do we know what percentage of futures participants are speculators just at the casino? It seems like the percent of players actually making/taking physical delivery is like 0.0000001%

<comment><USER59> Currently, speculators make up roughly 2/3rds of the outstanding WTI contracts [1].

In most commodities contracts taking/making physical delivery by physical players is rare. The physical delivery option is there to make sure that the underlying commodity market and the futures market converge; and you don't need someone to actually deliver to make that happen. The threat of delivery/taking delivery is usually enough.

[1]You can get that info from the CFTC here: [https://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/CommitmentsofTraders/inde...](https://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/CommitmentsofTraders/index.htm), namely in this report: [https://www.cftc.gov/dea/options/deanymelof.htm](https://www.cftc.gov/dea/options/deanymelof.htm) . Look for "CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET".

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Would this slow down the move to electric cars? If gas is so cheap, it takes away one of the major advantages.

</comment><comment><USER15> Anyone still talking about peak oil? :)

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

<comment><USER61> I have to imagine you are being facetious. "good oil" peaked a long time ago, and while it is still being produced, the only reason we have oil at all is because of all the dirty fracking, shale and sand oil out there.

<comment><USER15> The comment was to lightheartedly point out the incorrect doom and gloom predictions over the last 100 years, where people have been predicting that we're going to run out of oil "soon." Now we have so much we can't get rid of it.

For example:

[https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/weve-been-incorrectly- predic...](https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/weve-been-incorrectly-predicting- peak-oil-for-over-a-ce-1668986354)

<comment><USER15> Really not sure why both of my comments are getting down-voted into oblivion, but case and point, oil is now trading at -$37.00 ( _negative_ thirty seven dollars)

[https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/future/crude%20oil%20-...](https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/future/crude%20oil%20-%20electronic)

Can someone explain the down-votes?

<comment><USER61> "Running out of oil" and "peak oil" would be two completely different things. Lightheartedly pointing out something as if it didn't happen when in fact it did happen, will get you downvoted.

It is easy to agree that "running out of oil" sometimes was conflated with "peak oil", but alas, that's just ignorance.

<comment><USER53> Except it hasn't happened yet.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_liquids_and_US_tig...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_liquids_and_US_tight_oil.png)

<comment><USER61> Perhaps I was not clear. This graph you are sharing is shale oil, not the pure stuff found in oil shales. Regular oil production reached peak in 1970. We invented new sources that were considered untappable because of the expense of extracting it at one point. I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just saying that peak oil, as it was originally defined, is very much a real thing.

On the plus side for oil enthusiasts, we will probably not run out of the more dirty variety for quite some time.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#/media/File:Hubbert_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#/media/File:Hubbert_Upper- Bound_Peak_1956.png)

(also see article refered to by this)

<comment><USER53> Did the original definition specifically refer to non-shale oil? That doesn't seem too likely. It was just about total production.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY)

The fact that we've made new sources viable means we haven't hit the peak yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Isn't each contract 1,000 barrels? If so, that's about $40k per contract. There something wrong here. I can see $0, or -$1-2. But almost -$40 is illogical. Something's wrong with the system.

<comment><USER63> Price is per barel. Although o e contract consists of 1000 barells. So the price is $1 for the future but you would have to pay $1000 to buy one contract. It is similar with options, alyhogh 100 pcs is standard there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Why wasn't the oils producers reducing their production fast enough to prevent the price from crashing. This to me looks like a lag and inelasticity in how the oil producers are responding to demand.

<comment><USER65> I was listening to some a podcast when oil first dropped and they were saying the issue is that a lot of the small producers are on leases and then may have to pump at a loss just to keep it and try to make it up later. Or burn everything they already spent. A lot went all in and levered up and are now stuck.

Additionally, if SA stops pumping, then Russia gets all their revenue (even if it is lower per barrel). It is a great big game of chicken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> All I'm interested in knowing about the near future and long term implications. Any articles/blogs/podcasts to quench my inquisitive mind?

</comment><comment><USER67> It's a great time to own a supertanker. You can get a 300% return on investment by buying a May contract and selling a contract for August.

<comment><USER68> You'd be a bad speculator. What if contracts in august are worse near the end ?

<comment><USER69> That doesn't matter. If you sell a contract for August now, the buyer of the contract is the person who has to worry about the price of the contract going down. As the seller, you just have to deliver the goods as specified by the contract. You've already been paid.

The relevant missing fact here is that the 300% ROI ignores the cost to operate a supertanker.

<comment><USER68> Indeed. Thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Anyone with insight what we will see tomorrow when the May contract issue isn't in play?

<comment><USER71> Here's June: [https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CLM20.NYM?p=CLM20.NYM](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CLM20.NYM?p=CLM20.NYM)

<comment><USER70> So tomorrow the price on say Yahoo Finance page will just show the June price of $22 or whatever it will be at opening? So it's not really a continuous price.

<comment><USER72> You can choose the see the price of the front month, or a specified month.

The former: [https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CL=F?p=CL=F](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CL=F?p=CL=F) That indeed wouldn't really be continuous because the object being priced is different.

Also I may be wrong but tomorrow on the day of expiration these contracts can still be traded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Article title changed to "below $10".

Edit: now "below $5".

</comment><comment><USER74> Great time to fill up the US strategic oil reserve. Congress didn't fund Trump's plan to have the Government buy up excess oil to prop up the price. But with prices negative, the Department of Energy can go ahead and fill up the underground storage anyway. Might need it someday.

</comment><comment> 1-6 Time to make more tar and repave the roads.

</comment><comment><USER75> Does this not make the case for investing in renewables over shale extraction and fracking that has a price floor below which it's not economical?

<comment><USER76> Generally an increase in oil prices is considered an argument for more renewable investment. You're saying that a decrease in price is too. Is there _any_ oil price movement that doesn't argue for more renewables to you? How about no change, is that a case for more renewable investment?

<comment><USER77> Renewables aren't subject to huge price swings.

<comment><USER78> Is that actually true? You'd think solar would swing dramatically between day and night..

<comment><USER79> Renewalable prices I am sure is what he meant .

Sun is always shining somewhere , solar is very predictable and cyclical.

Volatility is not caused by change but lack of predictability of changes . Oil production is controlled by few dictators with no transparency into their decision making . Most other markets including solar are far more distributed and rational

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Someone's going to find a creative way to store large amounts of oil and make a lot of money in a few years.

<comment><USER81> Maybe we can store it in large underground caverns (or maybe porous basins) and then pump it up to the surface only when we need it. We would probably want to coordinate with other people also doing pumping in their region, as not to end up with too much on the surface that we can't use and then have nowhere to put it.

<comment><USER82> I assume you're making a sarcastic reference to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_\(United_States\))

<comment><USER83> I believe (s)he's making a sarcastic reference to oil in the ground.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> someone can explain me why they just don't stop pumping?

<comment><USER85> It's a bit like asking why a train can't simply stop when there's a car parked on the tracks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> Paywall</comment>


1 in 4 admit to driving while texting - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/1-in-4-admit-to-driving-while-texting-20090520/

<comment><USER2> I almost got hit by a girl in a Beetle texting. I couldn't believe my life almost ended due to a 140 character message.

<comment><USER3> She almost twilled you.. Or you got twinjured.. Or she could have been sent to penetweetuary.

Ugh I am not a fan of tw* terms.</comment></comment>


Google acquires Owlchemy Labs - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/10/15614274/google-daydream-vr-owlchemy-labs-acquisition-job-simulator <comment><USER2> Having known Alex in college, it's crazy to me to see how far he's come. I just remember him as the chill guy who smoked me in Halo worse than I ever had been ever. All I have to say is what a great guy he is and that if anyone is deserving of this, he is. He is a hard worker and has a vision - they are very important attributes to have to achieve at that level.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just last month, Google also (acqui)hired the Soundstage VR developer: [https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/7/15216720/soundstage-vr- dev...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/7/15216720/soundstage-vr-developer- logan-olson-joins-google)

<comment><USER4> Just wondering what kind of programming/designing skills you need for this kind of project?

<comment><USER3> Unity3D. There are tons of amazing resources on the web and on YouTube.

<comment><USER4> Anything specific other than Unity3D?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Having met Alex (founder/CEO @ Owlchemy) a year ago, this strikes me as a no- brainer. Owlchemy has put in the time and work to start to develop a new language for the new medium that is VR. They are not just porting over old tropes to a new platform. When I met Alex, he explained his vision as wanting to continue to create this new language, and to sell devtools that would help other folks build VR-first experiences. Congrats, folks!

</comment><comment><USER6> The Owlchemy Labs blog post about the acquisition is pretty informative about the history of Owlchemy. The parts referencing the acquisition are pretty standard.

[http://owlchemylabs.com/owlchemy-labs-and-google-join- forces...](http://owlchemylabs.com/owlchemy-labs-and-google-join-forces/)

</comment><comment><USER7> The company knows how to make great VR experiences but this is a bizarre move by Google. Historically, they've not been great in the game space (look at Ingress, or does anybody remember Lively.com)? I suppose you could argue this is their response to that but its not clear what their end goal is here (more exclusive content)?

<comment><USER8> I loved Ingress! Of course after spinning off Niantic (the team behind Ingress), that spinoff went on to develop the highly successful Pokemon Go. Pokemon Go contains many of the gameplay elements of Ingress, but the packaging is a lot better. It seems like Google spun off Niantic because under Google they did not have the opportunity to make licensing deals with companies like Nintendo. Some of the motivation behind selling Niantic can be found here: [https://www.recode.net/2016/7/12/12153722/google-niantic- pok...](https://www.recode.net/2016/7/12/12153722/google-niantic-pokemon-go- spin-out)

<comment><USER9> The thing is, Niantic learnt one bad thing from Google: The habit of near-zero community interaction and support.

The player base for Pokemon Go felt very frustrated at multiple times (especially anyone who had a rooted phone, completely disallowed to play, but that didn't stop cheaters!)

They only very recently added PR members to the probably largest PokemonGo forum around, [https://redd.it/68nxzx](https://redd.it/68nxzx)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hopeful about having more Daydream content, as well as content for other VR setups.

(Though what I'd really like is a Tilt-Brush, even a "lite" version, on a next gen Pixel or PSVR,

<comment><USER11> Hrm....the Daydream remote is great for pointing at stuff and clicking, but it's probably not going to be good enough at careful 3D positioning for a 3D drawing app. I wonder if someone's manufacturing a third party Oculus Touch type thingy that could work with phones.

<comment><USER12> It's a huge technological problem to solve, and I doubt it will be solved by a third party, rather than Oculus/Google. Positional tracking relies on external devices at the moment - Infrared Constellation Tracking with the Rift, and Lighthouse tracking with the Vive (and other SteamVR based devices).

Without an external tracking device to rectify motion against, using gyros/accelerometers is only enough to reliably get 3DOF. A potential halfway solution would be to use some impressive CV techniques on the phone camera to track hands, but only where you're looking - mix that with the tilt data of the controllers - and some inverse kinematics. The more signals, the better the tracking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting to see this as Oculus is _dumping_ their content generators (defunding Oculus Story Studio)

<comment><USER14> I dunno. Historically, the console makers all went it themselves. Tried to get others to do AAA titles, etc.

I expect they found they never could get the results they wanted because they all later went and acquired content generators.

<comment><USER15> I don't think Nintendo ever stopped creating content for their consoles.

<comment><USER16> Nintendo is (and Sega was) a software company that makes hardware. I mean, Nintendo is a toy/games company at heart. Their hardware only exists to support it and pay for it.

Sony and Microsoft are hardware companies that invest in software to help sell their hardware. Sony was trying to help Nintendo with software and after getting stabbed in the back decided to go out on their own. Microsoft saw how big the segment was and wanted to get in on it.

<comment><USER17> I would definitely not characterize Microsoft as a Hardware company that makes software.

It's a software company that sometimes makes hardware, which is also evident with xbox in their attempts to consolidate their os.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> On the upside, this is great news for them - congratulations!

On the downside, I fear it means that their Mixed Reality plugin for Unity (which looks awesome, and I've been waiting impatiently for) will be a long time coming now :(

<comment><USER19> As someone who's also chomping at the bit for their plugin, I hope this accelerates getting it into our hands. Being so focused on their releases up til now, they probably just didn't have the resources needed to get it polished up and out the door.

<comment><USER18> I _really_ hope so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> We changed the URL from [https://blog.google/products/google-vr/welcoming- owlchemy-la...](https://blog.google/products/google-vr/welcoming-owlchemy- labs-google/) to one with a little more information.</comment>


Anti-Apple Anger - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2013/01/21/anti-apple-anger <comment><USER2> >"Our technology choices reflect our values. People willing to yield some control to Apple for their needs are more likely to enjoy the benefits that Apple's products bring by exerting that control. But people who don't like being told what to do — people who believe they know what's best for them, want full control over everything, and are willing to accept the resulting responsibilities — will be more comfortable with the alternatives."

This. A thousand times this.

Most people who know me consider me a rational guy. I'm the type that reads LessWrong, understands cognitive biases and knows who Kahneman & Tversky are.

But I find myself with a deep...dislike of Apple. I fully admit that their products are superb. I admire, and respect the fanaticism and detail that goes into their products. As someone who loves money, I respect a company that rose from the ashes to having 100+ billion dollars in the bank.

But the notion that some guy deep in the bowels of Cupertino knows what I want more than I do makes me recoil violently. I think it's the libertarian in me. I have an inherent distrust of, and contempt for institutions, particularly when they want to decide what's 'right' for me. And the, dare I say _cultish_ (ate least to me) behaviour of many Macolytes only makes me more wary. It's like the recent article proclaiming Apples 'genius' in acquiring Bill Nguyen's team after the Color acquisition. It reminds me of the North Korea articles I've been reading today.

Note that you'll never see any posts on HN from me engaging in any flamewars about Apple, because as an individualist, I believe that my preferences are exactly that: _my_ preferences. Others are allowed to have theirs. I do find the sycophancy by the usual suspects distasteful, though.

Kudos to Marco for a very insightful piece.

</comment><comment><USER3> A lot of the elitism (or at least what I consider elitism) from Gruber, Arment, Siegler et all is incredibly off-putting to me -- and I own a MacBook Air, iPad, and iPhone.

That being said, I think this is an incredibly well-reasoned and well-crafted explanation of the massive chasm between Apple 'fanboys' and Apple 'haters' -- and explains to me why, as a current zealot of the iOS ecosystem, I nonetheless find so much Apple commentary off-putting. Really great job by Marco and makes me much more inclined to subscribe to the Magazine.

Nothing's perfect for everyone. Some things are perfect for some people.

<comment><USER4> >Apple's products are opinionated. They say, "We know what's best for you. Here it is. Oh, that thing you want to do? We won't let you do that because it would suck. Trust us. If you don't like it, there's the door."

Problem is, Apple's acolytes won't leave you alone to go through the door - they'll follow you and keep telling you you're a _wrong_ for wanting something different or thinking different (the irony is always lost). Some of them will even write long and detailed blog posts about how 3.5" is the perfect screen size, and and if you think differently, you're wrong. (<http://dcurt.is/3-point-5-inches>), or maintain popular blogs which a little more than a large collection of stupid, snide remarks (Gruber).

<comment><USER5> In all fairness, he did call out Apple on the 4" screen being less-than-ideal:

<http://dcurt.is/4-inches/>

<comment><USER6> He's still completely ignoring the fact that Apple in their infinite wisdom decided that you absolutely must use two hands to zoom (pinch).

That sort of defeats any argument that they designed the phone for one-handed use.

<comment><USER7> This isn't true. You can double tap to zoom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "But I never see Microsoft fans attacking Android fans, or vice versa. And the rise of anti-Apple anger has risen dramatically as Apple has been so successful in recent years."

Seriously? Is he completely blind. The amount anger aimed at Google/Android from the Microsoft camp over the past year has been deafening. For me it's the other way around. I no longer see Microsoft fans attacking Apple (like they used to). Now, they almost always attack Android/Google.

One more thing. If Apple didn't start the fanboy culture, they certainly took it up a notch. Apple fanboys/girls have been filling the internet with crap for years. Now that Android has become so popular, a lot of people that used to feel marginalized have decided to jump on the bandwagon and they are taking every opportunity to vent.

Overall I find this all quite disturbing but not for the same reasons as the original author who quite honestly, comes across as a bit of an elitist. He does make some good points when he explains that these are different platforms with different pros/cons and everyone will never agree to use the same platform. However, it is evident that he just doesn't know anything about anything other than Apple. The new Microsoft products (Windows Phone 8, Windows RT, Windows 8 App Store) are not open platforms. They are indeed just as closed as iOS (and much more so than OSX).

In fact I wish that all of the fanboys/girls online would spend their time discussing the real differences between these companies and what the net effect is on users. Maybe then we could get some things fixed. For example I am an Android user and, though I REALLY LIKE Apple products, I will not purchase and use a device that I cannot gain root access to. The way I see it, if it's Apple's device to control, than I am merely renting it. On the other hand, one thing that Apple has impressed me with is how they have taken away control from the phone companies. This is where I wish Google would fight harder. I want to see a real Nexus device on every carrier. Anyway, I feel these are things that merit real discussion, consensus building, online petitions, etc....

...fanboy bickering is pointless and deconstructive. In the end we, as users, need to forget about being fanboys and learn to be activists.

<comment><USER9> Yes, this is the exact same feeling I got from reading the article.

He can't scold people for making Anti-Apple comments while he is making an extremely pro-Apple standpoint. It just does not come off as genuine. Instead of more partisan arguments (to use his analogy) we need actual discussions about each platforms respective shortcomings.

But many people are not qualified to have an objective discussion about these platforms because in many cases naysayers have only used the platform they prefer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Did a horse with blinkers write the article?

> _"I've noticed a very clear trend among tech sites I read: Android fans are > unusually quick to fill the comment box with rage on articles that mention > anything positive about Apple or its products. The reverse — Apple fans > leaving angry comments on pro-Android articles — is almost completely absent > from the sites I've seen"_

<comment><USER11> I've observed (non scientifically I concede) the same thing than Marco. Also another thing he wrote I find particularly true is the need for Android users to try to convince others people to switch to Android as if there was no good reason to own an iPhone. That's strange.

<comment><USER12> I expect it has a lot to do with which blogs/forums you're reading.

In my experience, the number of Apple fanboi comments _vastly_ exceeds the number of Android fanboi comments, pretty much everywhere I've noticed.

Given that the iphone is very, very, popular, especially in English-speaking countries (and I mostly read blogs in English), this isn't entirely surprising: popularity, especially mass-market popularity, almost always comes with an associated fanboi/mouth-breather contingent...

[Actually, I'm not sure I've ever actually _seen_ a real Android fanboi; most comments I see criticizing Apple seem to be pretty purely anti-Apple, not pro- Android per-se. AFAICT, Android is thought of as "the practical alternative," and doesn't tend to engender passion (including the sort of degenerate passion fanbois represent) the way Apple does...]

<comment><USER13> That's not even true _here_ I'm afraid...

<comment><USER12> What's not even true here?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Much of the reaction to Apple can be attributed to the culture of contempt Apple fosters among its customers and communicated through its corporate actions. People respond negatively to being held in contempt. Film at 11.

From, "They have no taste" embodied in "I'm a Mac" to lawsuits against...well name a competitor they haven't sued...Apple has encouraged the disparagement of users of competing products. "Blue Screen" is most frequently used by Apple customers on the internet.

(hyperbole)

People get angry over Apple for the same reasons they get angry at Fox News - intellectual dishonesty for the sake of ideology. Only Gruber could attribute the rise of flat design aesthetics to some app few people own while ignoring Metro. PG accuses Microsoft of malfeasance in his essays on the Good.

It's never enough to love Apple. That love requires someone else be put down.

(/hyperbole)

</comment><comment><USER15> The explanation for anti-Apple anger is far simpler, and doesn't need a reference to the actual products at all.

Anger comes from insecurity. People get angry when they feel threatened. People feel threats come from the top dog (this assessment is usually not very accurate, but it is human psychology). People who feel (whether rightly or wrongly) that their side is securely on top, don't bother getting angry.

Thus, in the nineties the Internet was full of shouting about 'micro$oft' whereas nobody ever bothered criticizing Apple, because everyone perceived that Microsoft was winning an Apple was losing. Today, Apple is perceived as the top dog and therefore a threat. I don't know who's going to be the top dog ten years from now, but I do know whoever it is, that's where the anger is going to be directed.

<comment><USER16> Maybe, but no. Anti-Apple anger can also come from people like me who prefer open protocols, open markets, open ecosystems, and are saddened to see people naming themselves "hackers" using tools that are obviously handcuffing them.

<comment><USER15> I certainly agree those are valid reasons. I'm just pointing out why nobody gets mad at Nintendo, though the Wii is even considerably more closed than the iPhone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ah my favorite topic, ok here we go:

I disagree.

Apple fans are the absolute worst. Not want to offend anyone here, but there's a certain type of delusional Apple fans, also known as members of the Apple Cult. The member strongly believes, that Apple products are perfect, flawless, and that every other competing product is inferior and can't comprehend why some people prefer other products. He/She will also _always_ defend everything Apple does, spinning and twisting every news story to make Apple appear in a positive light and often directly contradict their previous stance, when Apple does something unexpected. These types also collect old Apple computers, like they're trophys, and pay for a cinema ticket to watch a Steve Jobs interview.

They glorify Apples quarterly earning report and don't seem to notice that it's actually them paying a $500 profit margin on an iPhone - or maybe they're just happy to do so.

I know, because I've met a few in real life, and the worst thing it's completely pointless to discuss anything related to Apples decisions with them - it's like talking against a wall. That's why they get called Sheeple, mindless worse ship of a corporation.

Disclaimer: I don't hate Apple, I'm happy we have 2 ecosystems, strictly talking about the fans here.

<comment><USER13> Nah. Android fans are worse. Take a look at sites like The Verge, Gizmodo, Engadget and the Register. I see the behaviour that you describe from Google fans far more of late.

<comment><USER13> Nicely exhibited by the down vote. Stay classy HN.

<comment><USER18> Everything that you've posted in this thread has been either missing the point or obvious partisan shilling for Apple. I'm not surprised that you're getting downvoted.

<comment><USER13> So I speak out against the herd, and in your words "shill" for Apple and my "punishment' is a downvote? This is what Arment is alluding too. The over entitled open-sourcer, who feels that they have a right to everything, so long as it is on _their_ terms. You are hardly by-partisan yourself, everything that you post is either pro-Google or Anti-Apple. What is your point?

<comment><USER18> Perhaps this'll fall on deaf ears - we'll see.

To date I've found that HN is one of the easier places to speak out against "the herd"... _but_ your comment has to follow logically from the parent, and you have to back it up with some sort of evidence or reason for people to believe you.

For example, your most recent comment, <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5096081>. The parent comment talks about Raspberry Pi, and how hackable and open it is, and how the iPhone is the opposite of this, which is why it's unpopular with hacker types.

Your response doesn't make sense for a number of reasons:

a) What bubble? Nobody is talking about bubbles. And who's "we"?

b) you said _"Products like the iPhone are for consumers. That's everybody."_ Er, then who is Android for? There are lots of people who buy Android, and lots of them are consumers too. So this statement is obvious nonsense.

c) here you're arguing against a straw man. The "hackers" aren't pissed because lots of people are using iPhones, they're pissed because Apple lock their phone down and then play games trying to lock in more market share, and squeeze out more revenue from their developers and users. It's wise to remember that there's a long history of companies locking people into platforms or applications and then screwing them.

You're ignoring _that_ part of the argument in favor of a different one, which is that some mythical "hackers" hate "normal" people (which is completely untrue - they just hate "stupid" people).

d) "Using iPhones" is not anywhere near "computing". Not even on the same continent, much less ballpark.

So - what would I have done differently in your position? Well, the obvious one is just to gracefully concede the point - the iPhone _is_ a lot more locked down than a Raspberry Pi.

Assuming that you want to defend the iPhone on that front, you need to find ways in which the iPhone is also open. Hell, most people would settle for "ways in which the iPhone is more open than you thought". If you can find links to some of those, I'll upvote you :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Marco got lost in diagnosis wonderland here. Anti-platform anger is like anything else in the adversarial world of online commenting. People from Michigan hate on Ohio State. People from Alabama hate on Obama. People with PCs hate on Macs. People with Xbox 360s hate on Playstations. People with Android hate on Apple.

If he doesn't see people with Apple hating on Android he isn't looking hard enough. True there are more people that hate on Apple but they are the biggest target now and that's to be expected just as there were more people hating on MS when they were the biggest target.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think one phenomenon is that Android users have more experience with iOS than vice versa. I've been pretty much iOS/OS X-only since 2005/2006, I honestly don't know what's up in Android land these days. And, aside from an ill-fated tryst with Windows Phone 8, I'm not super interested in what's happening in Android land.

I don't feel compelled to comment on Android threads because I don't really care. But I feel like Android users have an idea of why they chose Android over iOS and feel compelled to educate people in these threads.

<comment><USER21> Good call.

I live in the bay area, and originally got on board with an Android phone because AT&T's service in this area was terrible (and, at the time, iPhone meant AT&T). I did this knowing, at the time, that Android was an inferior product, carrier aside.

So I spent a good deal of time watching the iPhone, watching my Android, and watching Android catch up with the iPhone. When I recently bought another Android phone, it was a considered opinion that, for my needs, Android was now a superior product to iOS.

And, with that background, it's almost irresistible to tell people who've been living in iOS land and seem to think that the state of Android today is the same as the state of Android three-four years ago, about all the things that I've been watching happen in that time.

<comment><USER13> I switched for iOS to Android (a Nexus S) based on a lot of what the tech press and users were saying on forums and I have to say that it has been an awful experience for me. With Google dropping support for this model late last year, I will never buy a product that they or Samsung are involved with again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Oldie but i still laugh every time I read it. <http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant>

<comment><USER23> That. was. awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think Apple has positioned itself well in the day-to-day life of the average consumer, and they will likely hold that spot for some time to come.

Apple almost sold more iphones in the last 3 months than they did in the whole year of 2010. Yet to most people Apple is also doomed and everything they're doing is wrong.

Outside the circle of tech journalists and gadget aficionados, people want Apple products. I hear great things about the jellybean and samsung phones and I read anti-apple writings on the web all the time.

On the other hand, almost everyone I know with a smartphone has an iPhone. I don't think of myself as being in a bubble, I'm a student at a big college in a big city, and most of the people I come across have iPhones/ipods/even iPads. Families buy eachother apple products. When I see a non-iPhone user, they are more often not even using a smartphone, but waiting for the iPhone5 or 5S, in transition to getting an iPhone..

I don't doubt google created an amazing mobile OS, but I certainly don't see those phones on a day to day basis.

<comment><USER12> > _I don't doubt google created an amazing mobile OS, but I certainly don't > see those phones on a day to day basis._

The iphone is certainly a very good product, and deservedly very popular, but keep in mind, that Android phones actually out-number it overall.

Maybe in your circle and/or location that's not the case, but around here a huge proportion of smartphones I see people using on the train or in cafes are not iphones.

It depends very much on where you are and the state of the local cellphone market. I'm in Japan, and the iphone somewhat took the local makers by surprise, but they've come back with a vengeance. The iphone still has a lot of cachet (as do other Apple products), and probably sells more than any other single smartphone—but there are a huge number of other smartphones available, and the iphone doesn't dominate the market to the same extent it seems to in the U.S.

[Over time I'd actually expect the iphone's market share to lessen here, as other makers hone their products for the market (something they're very good at), and the iphone's place as a status symbol slips.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> _Most people don't care about technology choices as much as we do._

And this is where he lost me.

<comment><USER3> I took _we_ to mean his blog readership, not Apple users.

Maybe I was incorrect, but I hope I wasn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Let's be honest here... Nearly everyone who is passionate about one platform or another lives in some kind of glass house. Why does Arment feel it's necessary to throw stones like this? I realize some are reading this as a more "balanced" post, but I have to side with those considering this to be yet more elitism as I've come to expect.

Just as anecdotally, but no less data-driven, there is an obvious counter argument to his claim. I will concede his notion that Apple people don't spew anti-Android on pro-Android posts. That is because, from my own informal observations, Apple fans are too busy defending their own gates on the Apple support forums. It is unequivocally the most combative and abrasive "help forum" I've ever experienced.

As a person who owns and really enjoy Apple products (the MacBook Air, for my needs, is hands-down the best computer I've ever owned... and what I'm typing on at this moment), they're still far from perfect. Numerous times I've tried searching for resolutions to issues, and naturally, discussions.apple.com is typically a top result on Google. Even when finding an OP that precisely describes the issue I'm experiencing, more often than not, responses are along the exact lines of how Arment describes Apple's response:

 _"You don't need that. Here, try this partial workaround or alternative solution instead."_

Except, they usually don't "just work." And yes, I really do _need_ what Apple broke. It took until 10.8.2 for Remote Desktop to work reliably again after Mountain Lion's initial release. I spent hours researching and found no reasonable workaround to get an piece of software written by Apple to work with Apple's OS. But yet, there were plenty of people asking why that was needed. I merely had to setup this convoluted alternative and I would be back in business... oh, wait. That still didn't work.

In my mind, this is worse than Arment's claim, as it's Apple people getting attacked by other Apple people for the heresy of wanting something to work. He's railing against the anger from Microsoft and Android, but he is okay with the cannibalism in the Apple camp?

I could go on, but I feel like I've already written a disproportionate amount more than I actually care about this guy's hypocritical, fact-less editorials. I guess my opinion finally got dragged low enough with this post to finally speak up. I would suggest he looks a little closer to the mothership before trying to paint this kind of picture. However, I can't fool myself into thinking he'd be the slightest bit open to the feedback.

</comment><comment><USER16> Disagree. Anti-Apple crowd has at least partly a very solid and rational ground to stand upon.

Apple's much admired and followed direction is pointing exactly to the opposite way that most hackers should prefer and push towards.

Look at an iPhone 5 and a Raspberry Pi: one goes North and the other goes South. One had a heavy marketing and costs a lot, and cannot be opened without breaking it. The other the opposite: it isn't even sold in a "box"!

So, now, objectively, all things being equal, tell me frankly which one in an iPhone 5 and a Raspberry Pi should have the preference of hackers (in the wide sense)?

And don't tell me a Pi can't be used as a phone: I am well aware of that. My question is general, which device is more akin of hacker culture, and why?

<comment><USER13> THis is the bubble that we talk about. Products like the iPhone are for _consumers_. That's everybody. When it comes down to it, it seems that "hackers" are pissed that "normal" people are "getting" computing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Its important to note that Apple, being a hardware+software, solution receives hate from 2 sides.

Some people don't like OS X

Some people don't like paying 2x for the same hardware

I suspect that this alone contributes to a 2x increase in vitriol.

</comment><comment><USER28> My issue is fundamentally similar to my issue with Google or Facebook. Information and money are power. Apple is the richest company on the planet. I'm uncomfortable with Apple gaining more money and, therefore, more power.

Their actions have often been highly disconcerting. I'm surprised that I don't see more people who consider Apple to be dangerous.

I don't really have issues with Apple products. In my experience, they've been of fine quality.

</comment><comment><USER29> > No, you can't have that hardware keyboard or removable battery. No, you > can't install that app. No, you can't have that feature."

"And yes, you can sit still in this drawer while I upgrade my custom rom on the other device. But don't worry, you are _so_ elite. See you later."

</comment><comment><USER30> >Apple's products say "no" a lot.

Which is why it's so depressing that so many wallets say "yes" to apple.

<comment><USER31> here take an upvote :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> You can't blame the artist for their fans.</comment>


Codefront: The Best Front-end Developer Conference in Europe  - <AUTHOR> http://codefront.io/#

<comment> Dorian-Marie This photo where everybody is looking at their photo is really weird. But I'm sure it's because it was a pause in the event.

<comment><USER2> Do you mean the page on header?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Gorgeous event! Hope to be there.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'll be there, who else is coming?

</comment><comment><USER5> Epic event is epic!

</comment><comment><USER6> really cool event, hope to be there</comment>


Brackets: The Open Source Code Editor for the Web - <AUTHOR> http://blog.brackets.io/2012/06/25/brackets-open-source-code-editor/

<comment><USER3> This looks pretty awesome, I was about to suggest you put it on kickstarter but then realized it's already backed by adobe which is pretty cool. Could you tell us how involved Adobe is in this project and what their goals are? Do you plan to make it usable directly from the browser using the file system API? Do you plan to support other languages such as ruby and python? Also you kind of sound like Abed from Community :)

<comment><USER4> The only browser to implement the File System API right now is Chrome, and it obfuscates the actual files it saves on your hard drive. I don't know that we yet have a browser-based API that lets you arbitrarily access the user's disk.

<comment><USER5> > _I don't know that we yet have a browser-based API that lets you arbitrarily > access the user's disk._

I'd say that's a good thing.

<comment><USER6> Well, if there is a proper permission system to go with it I don't think that's a bad thing. We want web apps to become as powerful as desktop apps, don't we?

<comment><USER7> When it comes down to end users permission systems never work. Let's take Android as example. It allows you to view fine-grained permission list for each application which you are going to install -- that's good, right? For end users -- not so much. They click "OK" just to remove all this useless information and install their application right away.

<comment><USER8> I think it's true that the Android permission system is not very good; an application with zero permissions can read everything on the SD card. However, I'd like to think this is just a weakness in Android, rather than proof that permissioning system for end-users don't work.

Are there any other recent examples of poor permissioning?

Maybe the fact that programmers are typically more considerate about this, but it has no "real" benefit to end users, leads to the whole design/workflow not getting much attention.

<comment><USER9> The problem is that no matter what the app and what permissions it asks for, 99% of users will consent without thinking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looks great, game changing in fact. It seems to be quite inline with Brent Victor's vision (<http://vimeo.com/36579366>). One thing I'd like to see stolen from his demo: Once you have direct visual feedback on what you're doing, it makes a lot of sense to have widgets for your style definitions, e.g. scales with handlebars and color pickers popping up when the cursor is over values with corresponding type. It's a great thing that this project is both funded and open source. Quite unexpected from Adobe tbh.

</comment><comment><USER11> I just wanted to give this a try, but the "single" part not written in HTML, CSS and Javascript (the native shell it runs from) has not been ported to Linux yet.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, when I saw "Built with HTML ...", I thought "Cool, it's cross-platform".

Well, maybe not really, since I can't use it on Linux...

<comment><USER13> There's 2 ways we can get to a Brackets running on Linux. The first option is to add a linux target to the new CEF3 based brackets-shell app. We still need the shell app to get native file system access. We've also experimented with running nodejs on the client side and getting file access over WebSockets. Brackets is then hosted on a nodejs HTTP server and run inside of Chrome instead of CEF3. This solution works, but we haven't pushed this much further than a prototype yet.

<comment><USER14> Do you have a repo with this prototype? I would really like to see this possibility pan out. I think using node to interface with file system is the most feasible and portable at this point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Looks useful for static pages, but a lot of the shiny features wouldn't work for any site designed using a template library (which is any dynamic site).

<comment><USER16> Spot on. Any sufficiently complex website won't benefit from this. How would your code editor know which CSS (or even beter, Sass) files apply to which pages? No way.

<comment><USER17> I'm hoping sourcemaps come to the rescue. We already have this for JS, but the support isn't deep enough. We need support for sourcemaps for templates and css (and even sprites!).

There's some thought been given to multi-level sourcemaps, which are needed for template->js->minified->concatenated... type mappings - <USER2> [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U1RGAehQwRypUTovF1KRlpiO...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U1RGAehQwRypUTovF1KRlpiOFze0b-_2gc6fAH0KY0k/edit)

Also there's something on the feature roadmap for firefox to cover css sourcemaps. Not much info, but its a start: <https://wiki.mozilla.org/DevTools/Features/CSSSourceMap>

If you tried to apply the same thinking to everything in the UI, you'd hit sprites soon enough. It'd be interesting to have enough info that given an (x,y) in an image we can say what the source files were. This is the kind of thing where the http header in that sourcemaps v3 proposal would apply.

<comment><USER13> +1. We (the core team) have discussed using sourcemaps to support the same "live" browser workflows with preprocessors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Hey, this is pretty cool!" ... "Wait... Adobe!?!" - The Internet

<comment><USER19> I thought exactly the same thing.. I was totally on board and excited until I saw, duhnduhnduhnn... "github.com/adobe/brackets"

Then I fled. And a lot of other people probably will, too -- Adobe has a lot of things to make up for with the kind of people who could actually make a meaningful contribution.

<comment><USER20> I'd say that launching an MIT-licensed project hosted in an environment that trivializes forking should go a long way to allay the fears of the majority of those kinds of people. On top of all of that, this is a line-of-business application for them -- it seems fair to assume that a web IDE is something in which Adobe will plan to maintain its investment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Looks good but this wouldn't fit into the modern-day front-end developer workflow. I'm talking about companies who use pre-processors like SASS, LESS, Stylus, CoffeeScript, Jade, HAML, etc.

As for live code-editing feature, you can already do a lot of these stuff in Chrome's developer tool.

Note: I'm a Vim user. Which I personally think is still the best text/code editor in the world.

</comment><comment><USER22> I suppose we'll be seeing more Codemirror based editors wrapped in Webkit in the future. Well at least one more I'm sure, because I've been implementing one too. You couldn't believe how fast one can actually churn a cross platform mediocrish editor given all the great quality tooling (QTWebkit, Bootstrap, Codemirror).

</comment><comment><USER23> The kinetic typography is too jumpy. Its hard to follow and becomes distracting.

<comment><USER24> The just listen, it's paraphrasing the guy word for word so I stopped reading after a couple of seconds and focussed on the actualy live screencast parts :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Where have you been all my life? Oh right, it still doesn't fully exist yet, but I'm excited to contribute because being a purely JS dev I could see this saving me loads of time and frustration.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is amazing - The best HTML5 editor I've ever seen - I just forked this and surely gonna send pull requests. Kudos for adobe and the team :)

</comment><comment><USER25> Opening the app's codebase by default is brilliant, really lowers the barrier to entry for anyone on the fence about contributing.

</comment><comment><USER27> Great!

Quote from The Brackets blog post "There are a lot of text editors out there, but not too many care exclusively about web developers" -- This is exactly why I'm building LIVEditor (<http://liveditor.com>)

</comment><comment><USER28> If you find the CSS live preview stuff cool, check out <http://cssrefresh.frebsite.nl/> It's awesome. Even with complicated, nested templates and CSS stuff.

</comment><comment><USER29> Very cool app. I've been looking for a web-compatible code editor/pseudo-IDE for a long time. This one looks like it may actually go places.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've tried Brackets on Windows but changing HTML doesn't reflect on the page. Have they implemented that yet or is it for CSS only?

<comment><USER13> Yes, CSS only for now. HTML is coming. Here's the story on our backlog <https://trello.com/c/ZAlXxZue>

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> There is also Eclipse Orion to look at for an open source web-based code editor. It's in beta, still, but it has definite promise.

</comment><comment><USER32> a js scriptable modern editor is a project I wanted to build myself, if only I already had nuff time and money ;) no someone did it for me - how cool is that!

Now we only need to figure out one thing - way to make it _properly_ support vim bindings ;)

</comment><comment><USER33> looks cool, i suppose it could work for some stuff. but not for dyanamic octopus web code.

</comment><comment><USER34> "We can also apply the same ideas to JavaScript development. Smash the Quick Edit key on a function call and Brackets opens an inline editor with the JavaScript function body ready for edit. Instead of managing documents, developers can dive in and out of their code with ease."

What, not a single mention of Light Table?

<comment><USER35> What, not a single mention of Code Bubbles?

<comment><USER35> What, not a single mention of Smalltalk?

<comment><USER35> What, not a single mention of the real world? You know, where if you hit something with a hammer, it's hit with a hammer, and it applies the hammer hit to the _real thing_ instead of you having to close the browser window to hit the real thing again after simulating the hammer hit?

</oft-repeated comment thread>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> +! for them having 'starter bugs'. searched to see its not new, but first i've seen it.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is a great effort, but it really seems like a ripoff of SublimeText, design-wise.

</comment><comment><USER37> I do have to say, though, that after seeing the video I'm pretty sold

</comment><comment><USER38> blah, another web IDE thingy.

</comment><comment><USER39> "Because it's built in JavaScript, HTML and CSS, if you use Brackets, you have the skills necessary to customize, extend and contribute to it. Easy to fork and with a flexible and open license, it truly is your editor. In fact, when you first open Brackets you'll be looking right at the Brackets source code. On the team, we use Brackets to develop Brackets in this weird inception- style-yin-and-yang type of thing."

My thing is like that too, especially the inception thing, but its better for a lot of reasons because its more than just an editor and is designed to be easily extended with plugins/components.

<https://github.com/ithkuil/cureblog>

<https://vimeo.com/43784316>

Anyway so good try Adobe, but if Adobe really wants to do the right thing, support the open web, and build a really useful tool, they should scrap Brackets, fork my project, and start promoting that. LOL sorry dickish thing for me to say but true.

<comment><USER40> Judging by the git repo, brackets has been in development significantly longer than your project. It also seems much more complete already.

And your project doesn't seem to be designed as an IDE, but rather a blogging engine with a strange focus on code editing. How exactly are the projects similar?

<comment><USER41> After looking at the video on Vimeo it reminds more of Dave Winer's OPML Editor (<http://home.opml.org/>)

<comment><USER39> Thanks for looking at the video. One thing I should mention is that I have spent a day or so on the UI since then so it looks a lot more modern at the moment.

Anyway, I don't see how my project is related to OPML Editor really.. then again its not really easy to see the details of what that does from the web site.

But anyway my thing is about GUI controls that include the front and back end code and plugins to install them. GUI controls/widgets are an old and obvious and proven concept. The separation between front and back end coding, CSS and some other things that have happened with web development were practical approaches for awhile, but now with the web as platform, they are obviously a bit of a regression. There is just a very strong tradition now, a whole generation of CSSers and RESTers that just can't think any other way and unfortunately sometimes don't even talk to each other.

Widgets and plugins are a no-brainer.

So basically what we have confirmed is that I have more useful software development knowledge than the entire web team at Adobe.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is the discussion of Lerna and ICE being censored? - <AUTHOR> This morning there has been discussion of a very interesting case of attempted open source activism, but the article is now flagged on HN. Why?? <comment><USER2> i believe it is the flame potential and the disregard for freedom of association that are unsanguine...</comment>


Bitfinex fails to perform promised audits - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/bitfinex-fails-to-perform-promised-audits-instead-they-have-a-shareholder-tell-everyone-its-all-965ae7037b5d <comment><USER2> USDT/USD dipping below $1.00 for the first time in awhile: [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/#charts](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/#charts)

<comment><USER3> Not first time, click all-time chart or check max timeline here [https://www.coingecko.com/en/price_charts/tether/usd](https://www.coingecko.com/en/price_charts/tether/usd) and you will see occasional dips. Its been +/\- from $1

<comment><USER4> The last time seems to have been in May 2017, when there were 'only' $60 million tethers floating around, compared to the $2.2 billion in existence now...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If there really is such a strong need for this 1:1 USD type service why not create a legit, fully transparent, US based company to compete. Use the float to generate income. Even 1 or 2% on 100s of millions adds up.

<comment><USER6> Because you need a bank that would agree to something like that. And that's what Tether has a problem with - all the banks dropped them.

<comment><USER7> > _Because you need a bank that would agree to something like that_

And since the pitch is "we want anonymous international depositors to open and close accounts with you," with extra steps added, no bank will agree.

<comment><USER8> Does it even need that? ETFs can keep their price stable with as few as five or ten entities being allowed to trade the underlying basket of assets for the ETF. Those who aren't allowed to directly exchange the assets for the ETF can instead trade with those who are allowed, or trade with someone who can trade with them. There's no need for everyone to be able to deal directly with the ETF issuer, and the same should apply to USDT.

<comment><USER7> > _There 's no need for everyone to be able to deal directly with the ETF > issuer_

But there is the need for everyone to trust the ETF manager. Authorised participants (APs) must trust they can redeem ETF units for a basket of the underlying shares and vice versa. Other market participants, in turn, must trust that process to manage tracking risk.

ETF managers earn that trust by contractually guaranteeing APs' creation/redemption rights, being regularly audited like normal companies, being regulated like securities companies, and having their holdings vouched for by other market participants, _e.g._ banks, clearing and settlement services, _et cetera_. Literally none of the preceding apply to Bitfinex nor Tether.

More broadly, a structure like Tether is inherently incompatible with anti- money laundering. No jurisdiction will let a bank say "these $2 billion are held by unknown beneficial owners." If we wanted that, we'd just re-authorise numbered, _i.e._ anonymous, bank accounts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If Bitfinex was publicly held, they'd have to file an "auditor changed" statement with the SEC, and the auditor also has to file a statement about what happened. That's to prevent companies from switching auditors when they don't like the audit findings. But Bitfinex is private, and the SEC is about protecting shareholders, which Tether holders are not.

Tether will probably collapse in the next big downturn. That's when Bitfinex has to spend real money to buy Tether units back to prop up the price. Tether, like a Ponzi scheme, seems to work as long as net inflow of money exceeds net outflow. When it doesn't...

<comment><USER10> The point of Tether, afaict, is to make a bunch of people bagholders while the folks running it walk away with both the cryptocurrencies and whatever bank account balances they managed to acquire.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Never ever keep coins at an exchange. You have been warned. It's insane to let them hold it.

<comment><USER12> What is the best practice then? Mind sharing?

<comment><USER13> I am not sure about the "best". One way is getting a hardware wallet like Leger Nano S[0]. It doesn't support "all" coins but popular coins like BTC, ETH, BCH, XLM, LTC, NEO etc are supported.[1]. I use it and it's convenient, so far.

[0]: [https://www.ledgerwallet.com/products/ledger- nano-s](https://www.ledgerwallet.com/products/ledger-nano-s)

[1]: [https://www.ledgerwallet.com/cryptocurrencies](https://www.ledgerwallet.com/cryptocurrencies)

<comment><USER14> Or a Trezor [1].

Funny how the price of both products has gone up. I purchased a Ledger Nano S (unused as of now) for about 70 EUR. Now its 95 EUR, with "Shipping is scheduled from March 26". This chart on Amazon (regarding Trezor) is also telling [2]. I guess people wanna join the hype bandwagon. On the official website the Trezor is 89 EUR "without VAT". Which is illegal to advertise in NL unless you're specifically targeting businesses (who prefer to not have VAT mentioned).

A disadvantage of the Ledger Nano S is that in order to use it, it requires Chrome [3]. I'm not sure that's true for Trezor. It also has a Chrome extension but iI seems it can function with just the "bridge" [4]

[1] [https://trezor.io](https://trezor.io)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Trezor-bitcoin-wallet- Black/dp/B00R6M...](https://www.amazon.com/Trezor-bitcoin-wallet- Black/dp/B00R6MKDDE)

[3] [https://www.ledgerwallet.com/apps/manager](https://www.ledgerwallet.com/apps/manager)

[4] [https://wallet.trezor.io/#/](https://wallet.trezor.io/#/)

<comment><USER15> I was a bit put off by the Chrome Apps too, but it hasn't been a problem in my actual use. Also they're writing non-Chrome apps now because of Google end of life-ing Chrome Apps. I'd love to get a Trezor as well but they want me to pay an extra 20 EUR to get one or wait until after February.

Also for the hardware hackers there is the Coldcard being developed by these guys with a pre-order now: [http://blog.opendime.com/coldcard- annoucement/](http://blog.opendime.com/coldcard-annoucement/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Considering the reactionary nature of most casual traders, how much of this dip is caused due to panic based on blogposts such as these? There is no reliable source of truth here and just random blog posts which mostly read as opinion pieces.

</comment><comment><USER17> Really unsure about bitfinex, I feel like it's got no real value, just piggybacking of the tech of ether - its like creating value out of thin air, something like these - [https://www.starregister.org](https://www.starregister.org) (not real obviously)

</comment><comment><USER12> What do people think of Binance? More likely to stand the test of time?

<comment><USER11> Once a huge exchanger like Bitfinex fails, there will be a run on exchangers. Nowhere is safe. Never keep coins with an exchange, even if your uncle is the CEO.

<comment><USER18> Serious question (I wasn't paying attention at the time): What happened to other exchanges after MtGox collapsed? Did they also see "bank runs"?

<comment><USER19> Depends on your perspective. Prices dropped significantly because people started to prefer dollars to some extent. Several of the large exchanges that existed back then are still around, however, and others were acquired. Examples of those still around: Coinbase, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Kraken. Sure I'm missing others.

I mention the above only to say it didn't feel like a true bank run to me at the time. People were still able to get in and out, but prices were certainly depressed. And several of the exchanges survived.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Which is a safe and friendly exchange according you people?

<comment><USER21> The only exchange I've been able to get verified on successfully (and I've tried Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, Bitstamp and probably others that I am forgetting) was Luno[1].

While it was relatively easy to get verified on Luno, their "instant sale" prices are quite high and I see no way to place bid/ask orders directly.

I'm also interested in other recommendations.

1 - [https://www.luno.com/invite/XHBQ6](https://www.luno.com/invite/XHBQ6) (Note, there is an invite code in this URL, feel free to remove).

<comment><USER22> At the moment you can only trade (place bids/asks) on Luno with the following currency pairs: BTC/IDR, BTC/MYR, BTC/NGN, BTC/ZAR (largest volume) and ETH/BTC.

I think they started out as a South African only exchange a few years back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If bitfinex doesn't have dollars to give for usdt, all they have to do is give an equivalent amount of bitcoin based on a bitcoin index like the one cme, cboe, and bitmex use. I just wish binance, kraken, poloniex would support bitusd also. Two of them support bitshares already, so atleast there is a path to bitusd. unfortunately bitusd float is nowhere as big as usdt.

Edit: disclaimer: own some bitshares.

Edit2: would be interesting if bitmex converted or pegged some of their swap products into decentralized currencies that you could trade on other exchanges.

<comment><USER24> That is beyond silly. They used the fake tethers (USDT) to buy up bitcoins increasing the price. And you think that it is okay for them to pay their debts in the very currency they manipulated?

<comment><USER23> Silly maybe, but its reality on bitmex.

[https://www.bitmex.com/app/perpetualContractsGuideExamples](https://www.bitmex.com/app/perpetualContractsGuideExamples)

<comment><USER24> Ah, the lovely world of yesteryear, reminiscent of 2008s synthetic instruments. At least this time these people are actually greedy POS looking for money in a zero sum game. With 2008 ordinary people got hurt badly for just having 401ks. Here you simply have greed overpowering logic. Oh my.

<comment><USER23> > greed overpowering logic

Isn't that the best kind of greed ? Greedy logical people make more money than illogical non greedy people.

<comment><USER24> Greed is anticorrelated with logic as it is usually a vice that causes poor decisions made by overweighing possible gains and minimizing possible losses. It is a non rational mode of human weakness, and can even be correlated with evil ie. Nestle and formula / water fiasco, Microchip companies hushing fab workers with birth abnormalities/ health issues

<comment><USER23> There are greedy algorithms in computing that make sense sometimes.

<comment><USER24> We are referring to monetary greed here. Depending on what the resource's value is (cheap CPU cycles), yes, greed can make sense.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can software patents protect large companies from anti-trust lawsuits? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Not likely, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa></comment>


A history of MIT pranks - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/gallery/100308_mit_hacks/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed1 <comment><USER2> Those zany MIT geeks! :) Sure they have their own website that details all the pranks:

<http://hacks.mit.edu/>

I think the cop car, complete with donuts, on the dome is still one of the best:

<http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/1994/cp_car/></comment>


Google Docs: What Happened Wednesday - <AUTHOR> http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-happened-wednesday.html

<comment><USER2> Let me be the first one to say that this is one of the reasons why complete offline mode for Google Docs will be a big thing. For companies, Google Docs does not currently solve all the needed requirements.

Good writeup though.

<comment><USER3> Seems like Google and Offline are like Oil and Water.

<comment><USER4> That is a bit offhand. Google has added an offline feature to Gmail, and are rolling out access to Calendar and Docs, as they outlined when they announced the Chromebooks at I/O earlier this year.[0]

All this replaces the previous work they did for online/offline through Google Gears -- which they're continuing to support until they've migrated data into HTML5 features.

[0] [http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/using-gmail- calendar-a...](http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/using-gmail-calendar-and- docs-without.html)

<comment><USER3> How do you launch Gmail in offline mode if you just booted you machine without any connection? It's not offhand, HTML5 offline support is limited.

Also, please update your info: Adios, offline Gmail on Chrome for now:<http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20066170-264.html>

<comment><USER3> Someone just downvoted the post without any fruitful comment.

<comment><USER4> I assure you it wasn't me.

The Offline feature for Gmail I was referring to was the new Chrome app. It's mentioned in the Google Blog post I linked to and can be found here on the Chrome Webstore: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejidjjhkpiempkbhmp...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejidjjhkpiempkbhmpbfngldlkglhimk)

When you wrote "Google and Offline are like Oil and Water", I took you to mean (1) that the two don't mix, and (2) you think this is a deliberate strategy or approach by Google, and that it's wrong.

I think (1) is correct, but I accept that I may have inferred too much with (2).

If so, please accept my apologies: newish user here finding my feet.

I just felt it necessary to point out that Google has not abandoned offline capability, and understands its importance. I believe employees use a version of Google Docs internally that has offline functionality, as they have beta- tested new Google products / features before.

In the HN thread from last week for the new app announcement, one of the Gmail offline team members contributes with comments about why offline is proving tricky to implement:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2946150> (user's name is nex3)

There's also further comments about how other Google employees have contributed on HN about how offline access to Gmail, Docs and Calendar is understood to be fundamental for ChromeOS.

<comment><USER3> My opinion is based on the current state of Google products, If Google doesn't have real offline offerings on 2011 it's because this was far from their interest. They need to complement their products with offline products, but very late.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That is a very nice detailed write up. I do think this illustrates the need for offline access though.

</comment><comment><USER6> Detailed Incident Report at [http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...](http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/appsstatus/ir/m7pn4wl54lnco9h.pdf)</comment>