Ask HN: How do you know which startup concept to develop? - <AUTHOR>

Ideas for startups are a dime a dozen; what really matters is trying one out and seeing how it does. But given a large number of reasonable ideas - how do you know which one to develop?<p>If you yourself started a company how did YOU know it was "the one?" And how did you quash your doubts? <comment><USER2> You can try and fake a MVP and test it like Buffer - [http://blog.bufferapp.com/idea-to-paying-customers- in-7-week...](http://blog.bufferapp.com/idea-to-paying-customers-in-7-weeks- how-we-did-it) and look at spending on landing page/traffic allowing you to test multiple ideas at the same time and see which one sticks.

</comment><comment><USER3> Basics of Lean Startup. Go through the loop until you find product/market fit. At that point you should be able to develop the product with customers waiting for your launch.

<comment><USER4> I agree with this. I feel much less "confused" after reading The Lean Startup, and start embracing the mentality.</comment></comment>


Coding Gracefully (RE: Beautiful Code) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jaybobzin.com/coding-gracefully

<comment><AUTHOR> Took this down to clean some things up.</comment>


Kim Dotcom accuses Google, Facebook, Twitter of patent infringement - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/22/4357500/kim-dotcom-claims-he-invented-two-step-verification

<comment><USER2> Surprisingly stupid move by someone who has till now had a deft touch with PR.

</comment><comment><USER3> _"I never sued them," Dotcom continues. "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society. But I might sue them now cause of what the U.S. did to me." The faint threat is followed by a plea to the named companies for financial support in Dotcom's ongoing fight against extradition to the US._

What the...

How does his (perhaps rightful) indignation against the US government get redirected towards the listed tech companies?</comment>


Doomsday argument - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

<comment><USER2> Quote: "The step that converts N into an extinction time depends upon a finite human lifespan. If immortality becomes common, and the birth rate drops to zero, then the human race could continue forever even if the total number of humans N is finite."

This is a fatal flaw in the argument, and it only reveals the isolation of philosophers from the realities of everyday life.

If we achieved a basis for biological immortality, that would only mean we would all ultimately fall prey to causes of death besides age and disease, like accidents.

Let's say there's a sum of probabilities that could cause death apart from biological ones, like car and other accidents that annually claims (example) 1% of modern people. According to the Binomial Theorem, such an annual risk probability would claim 55% of people after 80 years of life.

Given that, then assuming removal of any biological limit to life span, that nonbiological factor would produce a death rate of 86% after 200 years and 98% after 400 years.

So even if we achieve immortality, we don't achieve immortality.

I think philosophers should all be forced to take a course in reality.</comment>


Why Can't We Hate Men? - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html <comment><USER2> Because engaging in the same type of misandry you supposedly stand against undermines your point. Because it points you are not interested in a fair world, just one where you have an advantage. Because that advantage seeking alienates those who otherwise might sympathize with you, forcing them to choose a side--which won't be your side by the way. Because sexual misconduct is not the exclusive province of men. And last, because men are individuals, not exemplars of their sex.

<comment><USER3> *misandry

<comment><USER2> Thank you. Correction made.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just last week, I heard a member of a minority say "The idea that minorities can't be racist is itself racist." That is, you're saying that minorities are less than fully human if you don't think they can hate as well as anyone else, and for the same reasons as anyone else.

The same is true of sexism. If you hate people because of their sex, that's sexism, and it's wrong, full stop.

She does have a point that men as a group have too many members who have taken actions that tarnish the reputation of the whole group. But her response, if men responded that way, she would be the first to decry it as sexism.

<comment><USER2> > She does have a point that men as a group have too many members who have > taken actions that tarnish the reputation of the whole group.

Stop grouping people then. I am not responsible for what some psychopath I have never met does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Because this kind of thing turns off countless young men to what is entirely reasonable and worthwhile mainstream feminism, and to accomplish social change you need a lot of people on board.

Because there's a high personal cost to carrying around hatred.

</comment><comment><USER3> The question is rhetorical--it's quite clear that she already _does_ hate us, and enjoys it.

(Next up, "Why Can't We Hate X?", for other values of X.)

</comment><comment><USER6> Doesn't the Washington Post have some sort of policies against 'hate speech'?

I mean.. this kind of qualifies as that.

<comment><USER7> It would be hate speech if s/Men/Women, but as it stands the one class that you can hate all you want is white men, and it's never a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Such a modest proposal. Much less provocative than Jonathon Swift's. So the question is, why do so many of the responses not bother to read the fucking article, not just the headline? She isn't saying that she hates men: she's telling men that they really ought to shape up, and support women, not put them down.

</comment><comment><USER9> Once female stem cells can be made into spermatozoa cells - research that is now underway - men will be physically unnecessary for reproduction as women could in theory use technology to fertilize each other's egg cells. This would not have the cellular problems associated with cloning, as it would be sexual reproduction at the cellular level. All of the offspring would be female, no Y chromosomes needed.

<comment><USER7> This should bring about the utopia that many of the thinkers like the author dream of.</comment></comment>


"The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov - <AUTHOR> http://multivax.com/last_question.html

<comment><USER2> Curious - I wonder what the legality is of distributing Isaac Asimov's copyrighted materials.

There is some subtle meta-insight of the internet being some form of MultiVax, but encumbered by extensive copyright laws, which limit its usefulness, but at the same time containing the story of Multivax regardless.

Further Meta-Meta-Insight:

[http://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+status+%22The+Last+...](http://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+status+%22The+Last+Question)

The first hit seems to have the most insightful analysis:

[http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/01/happy_birthday_isaa...](http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/01/happy_birthday_isaac_asimov_three_l.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> For those of you who missed yesterday's thread: The Last Answer

[http://www.scritube.com/limba/engleza/books/THE-LAST- ANSWER-...](http://www.scritube.com/limba/engleza/books/THE-LAST-ANSWER-by- Isaac-Asimo1625192311.php)

</comment><comment><USER4> This was on HN less than a year ago <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=595419>

<comment><USER5> At this time, there are 47 people who still found it pretty interesting. In my opinion, that merits it appearing on the front page again.

(This is also the entire philosophy behind social news)

<comment><USER4> Sure, but I like reading comments, linking to earlier posts makes those comments available to new readers, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Let's toss a little theology into the mix: <http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Creation>

</comment><comment><USER7> Great ending!</comment>


Ask HN: Can we use Node.JS in banking app? - <AUTHOR>

I have read a lot about Node js and want to use it in a certain portion of a banking app where users can collaborate in a forum like interface. My question is, considering security is node.js is maturated and capable enough to be used in a banking system? With security i mean HACKERS. <comment><USER2> You need to look at your data, you need to look at the sensitivity of that data and check it against current laws at the least and company policy at the best. You then need to ensure that the technology complies with privacy, PCI and any other regulating bodies that may have guidelines or regulations on technology. Then you have to decide whether Node can provide the level of data protection you need. They have a crypto set so a lot of it can be dealt with with crypto but I don't know that there are any PCI modules built so if you have PCI requirements you may have to roll your own token exchange to be compliant should you have PCI concerns. There is not enough information to go on in your post to know if using Node is a good or bad idea.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think the term HACKERS means what you think it means.

In any case, I imagine if you're already working at a bank and the CIO, you can introduce node quite easily to your organization.

If you're building a product to sell to banks, I imagine you're going to have to stick with Java/C# but might be able to get away with Scala (only because of the JVM). Node will just be perceived as too cutting edge for many organizations.

</comment><comment><USER4> It seems if you're building an app that needs lots of security you should be able to discover this answer on your own or find someone who can work with you in discovering this answer?

Products built on even the most bulletproof platforms still need robust security measures.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you guys for your valuable comments and suggestions. We are still gathering requirements and i myself is not aware of the level of security they needed. I am evaluating different solutions for different components of a big architecture. Thanks again!!

</comment><comment><USER5> if you have to ask...</comment>


How Josh Kaufman Does Research - <AUTHOR> https://superorganizers.substack.com/p/how-josh-kaufman-does-research <comment><USER2> Somehow I believe not taking non academic advices from people who have gained knowledge from books. Take it from people who have been on situations rather than someone who has studied them.

<comment><USER3> I believe "it depends". Sometimes you'll be surprised how clueless even holders of PhDs can be; rather than grasping the scientific thought and methodology to a higher degree than most, they have mostly accumulated years of facts and perceived seniority (which in some countries counts for more than it should) — my personal experience in natural science.</comment></comment>


Freefall from the edge of space - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/redbull

<comment><USER2> "Most of the crew - not to mention your fellow jarheads - will be leaving the ship in lifeboats. They'll ride to the surface in air conditioned comfort, sipping wine, and nibbling on appetizers. Not you, however. Oh no, you're going to leave the Pillar of Autumn in a different method. Tell me boys and girls... how will you leave?" — Major Antonio Silva, aboard the UNSC Pillar of Autumn. "We go feet first, sir!" — Shock Trooper's response. "Helljumper, helljumper, where you been? Feet first into hell then back again! When I die please bury me deep! Fix my MA5 down by my feet!" — ODST Slogan.

This is important for Science but I can only imagine the future uses of this application by the Military.</comment>


Can Internet security ever work? (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://cryptome.org/0005/net-sec-ever.htm

<comment><USER2> The article was written by

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Callas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Callas)

He obviously thought a lot about the mentioned issues. A lot of very good points. Note that Google seems to have recently been started to make much more often their own new certificates -- it seems to be in the line of some of his ideas in the article.

</comment><comment><USER3> SSL should never have been taken as the only requirement for making http communications secure. IMHO, once you send off any piece of information (your personal data, files, photos, videos, etc), you can never know where they end up unless you have encrypted them yourself and they always exist in encrypted form outside of your computer. Data security is really an insurance product, you only know how good it is when something goes wrong.

Slightly off-topic of this article but Cloud security is all the rage these days. Either you set up some sort of app/gateway to encrypt all data which goes to the Cloud for archiving and/or processing and decrypt it when it comes back for viewing/updating/consuming etc OR you buy into the illusion of data security on the Cloud.

<comment><USER4> I disagree, we wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't for SSL, faults and all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Loved this part about certificate revocation... again, in 2011;

       It turns SSL into the worlds biggest privacy leak.

       But worse than that, it turns those revocation servers into critical
       Internet infrastructure. What fun Anonymous can have when they turn
       the LOIC not on Mastercard, but on an OCSP server and thus cause commerce
       failures to happen everywhere. Locks create burglars, guys.

Man, Anonymous has been trolling for a long time. Not so much lately?

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm just commenting to say that there's an unfortunate typo in the 5th full paragraph:

         It is *the* problem that is created by pubic key cryptography;

Obviously, it should say public key.

<comment><USER7> Yes, and this article is not alone: [https://www.google.com/search?q=pubic+key+cryptography&oq=pu...](https://www.google.com/search?q=pubic+key+cryptography&oq=pubic+key+cryptography&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8758j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8#q=%22pubic+key+cryptography%22)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Security is a process, not a product ([https://www.schneier.com/essay-062.html](https://www.schneier.com/essay-062.html))

We have to learn on the way and continuously improve all aspects of the Internet security. Whether it is software use, SSL/TLS, DNS, routing...

<comment><USER4> Exactly what I think. Security is a continuous process that requires flexibility and permanent learning!</comment></comment>


Show HN: 500,000 free WiFi hotspots plotted around the world - <AUTHOR> http://getwi.fi <comment><USER2> This is not mapping free WiFi hotspots. This is mapping open Wifi hotspots.

They are not the same.

For example, KPN in the Netherlands is not free, and xfinity wifi in the USA is not free.

For this to have any sort of credibility, there needs to be a discriminant filter mapping truly free vs open hotspots.

For me this current map is too noisy to be of value. Try using it for free internet, and you too may run into disillusionment and frustration.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right. I already removed the xfinity hotspots. We'll be adding a feedback form into our web + mobile app so non-free or low quality APs can be removed.

<comment><USER3> Also 'BTOpenzone/BT WiFi/BT FON' networks in the UK. Absolute rips as well for price.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't Starbucks use BTOpenzone?

<comment><USER5> SSID is `BTWifi-Starbucks`.

<comment><USER4> Oh okay. In Germany they use "BTOpenzone".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks really great - love the web view of WiFi density, and great to see more efforts in this space.

We've built something similar at OpenSignal. Our WifiMapper [1] app on iOS and Android has a database of over 2 million networks, and we're also crowdsourcing a database of passwords and connection speeds.

[1] [https://www.wifimapper.com/](https://www.wifimapper.com/)

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm always glad to see maps using OpenStreetMap data over Google Maps.

I always find it fun to look over the edits I've made, and it helps point out where more detail would be useful for different use cases.

</comment><comment><USER8> In case anyone can't find the Netherlands, I could understand why: [http://i.snag.gy/7vbiZ.jpg](http://i.snag.gy/7vbiZ.jpg)

This also explains why I'm so frustrated with WiFi abroad: I probably got spoiled here. Here we can find WiFi in the most unlikely of places (e.g. supermarkets, buses); in Germany you can find one in a coffee shop if you're lucky, but that one is probably paid as well, just like all the other ones.

<comment><USER9> What also hinders open Wi-Fi adoption in Germany is a law called "Störerhaftung", which basically states that the owner of the Wi-Fi is liable for all damages that users of his Wi-Fi do, for example filesharing, hacking, whatever. Keeping track of all users is not an option that all free Wi-Fi operators have. I'm sure other countries have similar laws. Do The Netherlands not have such a law?

<comment><USER10> I just came across Airfy which apparently gets around this by tunnelling (I assume) all traffic and taking all legal liability and risk. I've also read that this Stoererhaftung law is set to change this year, specifically to allow things like free WiFi in businesses.

<comment><USER4> IIRC there is an exception in the law for ISPs and Airfy registered as an ISP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd love to see this adjusted for population density -- what does a high wifi hotspots/person tell you?

Maybe just that the area is wealthier. So what if you adjust for wealth too?

<comment><USER12> In my area the data set isn't worth doing that with. It misses places that have free wifi and includes what looks like a personal cellular AP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If an WiFi hotspot doesn't have a password doesn't mean it's free.

<comment><USER14> Agreed, in the UK The Cloud isn't free

<comment> jon-wood The Cloud is particularly awkward as sometimes it's free, but not always. I assume in the places it's free the people running the hotspot are paying rather than the end user.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A point of constructive criticism is that there are some inconsistencies in how large-scale public WiFi seems to be handled. For instance, in Ann Arbor, MI every University of Michigan building AFAIK has free public WiFi (as well as a private network for university affiliates). However, I only see a few listings for the "MGuest" network in the area. Is there a better feasible way of handling this?

<comment><USER16> Next door in Ypsi there seems to be only one point for Wireless Ypsi when the town is pretty well covered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice to see a Starbucks hotspot in the middle of Thames river (London)... doesn't show the depth ;)

</comment><comment><USER18> [https://location.services.mozilla.com/](https://location.services.mozilla.com/)

</comment><comment><USER19> I am redirected to [https://meshable.io/map](https://meshable.io/map) which is a blank page. I even disabled uBlock and refreshed the page and still saw nothing.

All I can see if a hand for a cursor, and my right click button is disabled to even check on the source.

<comment><USER20> Is your browser compatible? [http://caniuse.com/#search=gl](http://caniuse.com/#search=gl)

<comment><USER19> Apparently not. I am using the latest Firefox which is only partially compatible with webgl.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> 239,989,522 wifi networks: [https://wigle.net](https://wigle.net)

<comment><USER22> A problem with wigle (and maybe others) it it's showing every portable mobile wifi hotspot which are extremely common in Japan. If you're trying to find all the places someone who owns that hotspot has been maybe that's useful info but usually it's not that useful. Zoomed in to the maximum level there's so many SSIDs it's unreadable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Nice work! This reminds me to something I tried a while ago:

[https://wiffinity.com](https://wiffinity.com)

They basically provide the same thing but as a crowdsourced list of truly free hotspots and you can connect to them through the app. Only available as a native app though...

</comment><comment><USER24> This isn't working for me, after I zoom in past a certain level, all the blue dots just disappear. Clicking a city name search result zooms in so far that the map goes blank (presumably it's past the available tile sets) Tested in Safari and Chrome

<comment><USER20> That shouldn't be the case. Mind sending specifics about your browser/OS and city queries to firstname.lastname@example.com and we can take a look?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is it really free if you're using a hotspot named NETGEAR? Because I'm assuming that one isn't really open on purpose.

EDIT: Removed part about trailer court. I was wrong. That's actually a restaurant next to a trailer court. Nice place, too.

</comment><comment><USER26> What is the source of this data? As I see my tier 3 city also has few free wifi listed here.

<comment><AUTHOR> We aggregated from a bunch of private sources.

<comment><USER27> Like what?

<comment><USER28> I've seen some I added myself with Instabridge (another WiFi sharing app), the location of some of the networks are wrong because the app messed up sometimes (my school network is also located at my house for example).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Bad data set. You are missing most of the free wifi spots in my town, but do show a number of people who just haven't secured their routers.

</comment><comment><USER30> Searching by zip code zooms the map into areas 20-40 miles outside of the actual area code. At least that was my experience with the 2 that I tried.

<comment><AUTHOR> Try by street; We are using Mapbox's geocoding API so it's a bit inaccurate compared to Google's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Hmmm I get the feeling that one of your 'sources' for the db comes from the users who have already installed your app. Just a tin-foil-hat hunch based on the density of nodes in certain areas (read: certain routes). Too bad 60%+ are HP-Printers or vmguests...either way it'd pay to clean all that up if you're promoting that they're free/open hotspots.

</comment><comment><USER32> Not all of these Wifi APs are "Free" and its partial in a lot of spots. Still, good effort.

</comment><comment><USER33> I've had two open ones for years that didn't make the map :(.

</comment><comment><USER34> Any theories on why China has a notably less dense distribution?

</comment><comment><USER35> Are those providing internet access, or just unprotected networks ?

<comment><USER36> Unprotected networks.... the one near me in Singapore requires a local national id card for login

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> _Wrong question._

I don't care where I can find free WiFi. Nowadays, every damn coffee shop, hotel or mall has free Wifi—I care about _fast and free_ WiFi with speedy up- & downloads and low latency. Well executed implementation though.

EDIT: Why the downvote?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, 100% agree. We actually know the speeds of a minority of these APs. We'll be bumping them up in the searches + advertising their speeds soon.

<comment><USER37> Sounds great and looking forward!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> How do I zoom out?

<comment><USER39> Jeah, I found the lack of zoom control also a problem.

shit+rightclick or shift+leftclick works also

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Impressive bit of work but I couldn't help but think the title should be:

Show HN: 500,000 free places to get hacked plotted around the world</comment>


Show HN: Passly.io – A REST API for Access Control - <AUTHOR> https://www.passly.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hi I'm the founder at distelli and we just launched a new service to manage access control and policies.

</comment><comment><USER2> Why would anyone ever outsource something like this?</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best taxonomy / ontology to describe the world of computing? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Well, at a top level, hardware and software (and maybe firmware).

Within software, maybe OSes, databases, graphics, games, embedded, web programming, languages, scientific/numeric, a couple other major areas that I'm forgetting at the moment, and probably a hundred smaller specialties.</comment>


Show HN: An open source website preview generator tool using webkit (live demo) - <AUTHOR> http://previewtool.raphaelcruzeiro.com/

<comment><USER2> I have been getting help from Raphael, since I had no experience with graphics on headless servers.

To save others time, with his help, this got me working so I could start playing with this.

        git clone https://github.com/raphaelcruzeiro/webimage.git
        sudo aptitude install -y xvfb
        sudo aptitude install -y libqtwebkit-dev
        cd webimage
        qmake webimage.pro
        make all Makefile
        xvfb-run --server-args="-screen 0, 1024x768x24" ./webimage http://news.ycombinator.com/ output.jpg 1024

I'm now up and running, taking screen shots. Thanks Raphael.

</comment><comment><USER3> I do this with <http://phantomjs.org>

</comment><comment><USER4> Any insights about how it is different from webkit2png?

<http://www.paulhammond.org/webkit2png/>

<comment><AUTHOR> webkit2png runs only on Mac it seems. Webimage can be compiled for all major platforms. Aside from this, the tools have the same purpose (I must confess that I didn't know webkit2png when I wrote Webimage).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> And how this is different from wkhtmltoimage? <http://code.google.com/p/wkhtmltopdf/>

<comment><AUTHOR> This seems to be a tool for converting a webpage to a PDF file which is n the purpose of my tool. Also my tool is a simple, lightweight command line tool. Also, analyzing wkhtmltoimage's source I can say that my tool's approach to rendering the web page is potentially better than wkhtmltoimage's as I use whatever GUI toolkit is available on the system instead of letting webkit render itself on a pixmap (Something that can cause lots of errors on fonts, anti-aliasing, etc).

I'm not saying that the way I handle the rendering is any better than wkhtmltoimage's so feel free to use both and choose which you find it's better.

<comment><USER6> How is wkhtmltopdf not a "command-line tool"? Both your tool and wkhtmltopdf require a (virtual) framebuffer, so neither are lightweight.

<comment><AUTHOR> I said wkhtmltopdf's purpose is to generate a PDF, mine is to simply generate an image. And both are lightweight since they can run on a EC2 micro instance, generating multiple previews , without increasing the server load significantly. As for the need to a framebuffer, that's just the way it is when you want to render something. You could write an embedded framebuffer (and an embedded GUI kit for that matter) to the tool but that would make it a giant mess. To goal of the tool is to be simple and I believe that was achieved by writing a software with only 5 source files.

<comment><USER6> You seem kind of upset that someone went back in time and beat you to the punch by about five years.

Also, run "make world" for Xorg some time and let me know if you still consider Xvfb lightweight. There's a reason the target is called "world" :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not at all, the tool does everything it was designed to do (at least for my projects) and I had some really nice feedback. I didn't create this to compete with anything out there, I was basically scratching my own itch since I didn't find any readily available tool that produced the result I needed.

And I will again point to you that lightweight is relative, if you know a better way to fake an X Server without xvfb just let me know and I'll use it on my tool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> An unrelated nitpick: make your paragraph line-height at least 25px.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice, the line height is now 25px.</comment></comment>


How to do better in loud, crazy group conversations - <AUTHOR> http://www.succeedsocially.com/groupconversations I saw an article on being likable made the front page recently.<p>I'd be interested to see what Hacker News thinks of this site.  It's the best one I know about the general topic of socializing. <comment><USER2> I just find as a woman with a fairly low voice (not one of those raucous ear- splitting types) the best way to succeed at these sorts of conversations is not to get involved in them in the first place.

<comment><USER3> I'm sorry but I don't understand the rationale behind that statement and I wouldn't voice my oppinion if it wasn't you've been upmodded so much. So I'm curious, if you do not partake how can you possibly succeed?

While I do understand why you'd be reluctant to partake in them, it's not like they hold no value whatsoever or there being an inherent loss in partaking.

Although I do prefer civilized discussions.

<comment><USER2> You're implying that a noisy conversation is the only option and that I might be missing out? That there is no loss to sitting in a room full of people shouting at cross purposes and not being able to make myself heard without major effort? Of course there's an inherent loss: frustration, vocal strain, not having the situation go the way I want, you name it.

But what I more meant was that I construct situations where these cross- purposes conversations aren't present. If I've got six people to discuss a project with, I don't sit in a room and get them all to shout over me. There are other ways to have that discussion.

I probably should have mentioned in my original reply that I'm from the UK, which helps.

<comment><USER3> I wasn't at all implying it's the only option but rather that it's an option. I don't think you can entirely avoid discussions in that format especially if you are discussing non-professional topics like politics, how you should raise children or other highly opinionated things.

You always get to choose the people you are having a discussion with and some people have a hard time taking someone disagreeing with them. Even if the discussion might feel unpleasant in the heat of the moment I find that days or weeks after the fact, I can still have the conversation in my head and feel I've gained some insight into other peoples minds and maybe even agree with them.

So all I was implying was that they aren't entirely pointless, however frustrating they may be. I can see your point of wanting to avoid the frustration, even if I personally have quite a thick skin and don't mind it all that much.

I could mention that I'm from Sweden, but I doubt that helps at all. :) I do like to stress that I don't try start those types of discussions and I do think people who start shouting are silly, but I do argue against someone however loud their voices are. :)

EDIT: I could probably also say that I tend to stay in heated group arguments mainly because of the audience rather than whoever might be disagreeing with me. As people who tend too shout don't tend to change their mind but letting them have the only word might make the audience think that they are right.

<comment><USER2> I totally agree with your final point. If there's an audience things change completely. :-D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I saw an article about being likable is on the front page.

I'd be interested in seeing what Hacker News thinks of this site. It's the best one I know about the general topic of socializing.

No hard feelings if this is deemed off-topic, I never would have even submitted this without the other article appearing.

<comment><USER4> I like this topic because it's a stretch for geeks. Most of the challenges a computer geek thinks about every day can be solved by application of existing, understood principles. Mistakes are almost always logical errors in application.

Socializing is where geeks get into the _other_ kinds of hard thought. Having to work hard to get data. Having a bunch of apparently valid ideas that yield contradictory results. Arriving at valid, logically sufficient ideas, but discovering that they aren't suitable for application in practice. Living, over extended time intervals, with observations and techniques that you empirically know to be valid, but which you can't find satisfying explanations for.

Plus it's universal. We could have similar discussions about painting, music, or gardening, but only a small minority of HN readers could contribute to each of those topics.

(P.S. Difficult engineering problems are discussed here often, but I think people mostly tackle them vicariously. In the real world, solving a hard engineering problem is rarely the most efficient way to deal with it. It's kind of a last resort.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> An alternative form for the last section ("The other side: Scoring points by controlling the madness") is "Derek, what were you going to say?" This would be appropriate when Derek indicated a desire to speak but was interrupted by someone with a bigger ego.

When I find myself in this kind of conversation, though, I'll almost always go for "Start a side conversation if you can". See if the person next to you seems sympathetic to the idea and then start the conversation wherever you want.

<comment><USER6> > Start a side conversation if you can

Divide and conquer is a very powerful group dynamic technique. For example, group of 5. Get one person talking to you (that's 2). Draw another one in (that's 3 - you control the group).

Divide and conquer can be used in darker ways. The Delphi Technique. I have recollections of this being used without my knowledge at the time. It is amazingly effective.

"Using the "divide and conquer" technique, he/she manipulates one group opinion against the other."

<http://www.seanet.com/~barkonwd/school/DELPHI.HTM>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was going to create a poll on Myers-Briggs personality types but found that there already is a poll started by epi0Bauqu. Please consider voting to increase the HN sample size (if you didn't already).

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=204240>

<comment><USER7> I went there to post a link to

<http://skepdic.com/myersb.html>

but Alex3917 has beaten me to it almost a year ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you don't like these kinds of conversation, know that it is within your power to subvert the tone of the conversation, and to bring it to a place where you are comfortable. If you can quickly interject with an objection as to the terms of the debate, you'll be surprised how quickly people will adjust their attitudes and become more 'civil'. Requesting that people focus on a particular point of interest (for the group, not merely yourself) is one way of directing people's attention and serialising the flow of conversation.

You need to be strong about it, though. If you have trouble asserting yourself then you need to work on that part first.

</comment><comment><USER9> The best conversation I ever had of this type converged to people going around in a circle making toasts.

<comment><USER10> Nice! I've always wanted a conversation to spontaneously become less like ethernet and more like token ring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sing the first few words of your opening sentence. It really grabs attention, and usually shuts everyone up in confusion. While it is not overtly offensive, you will piss-off the usual alphas by grabbing focus from them, so expect some backlash.

</comment><comment><USER12> The trick to success in those conversations is to realize that, as long as you're not offensive, no one gives a fuck about the verbal content, most of which is excruciatingly boring. Intellectually, it's like a 6-year-old's soccer game where no one will remember the score tomorrow. Those are the conversations in which 90%+ of how you're perceived is based on body language, tone of voice, etc. If you think for too long about what you're going to say, or get really into what you're talking about and ignore others' lack of interest, or get into debate mode, you'll lose.

<comment><USER4> As in a six-year-old's soccer game, there is some structure to the conversation. There are two sides, and both teams try to kick the ball as hard as they can in the right general direction. Trying to introduce a third opinion to the fray is like a confused child dribbling the ball out of bounds; the ball will be taken away from him and put back into play. The only way for a third possibility to achieve consideration is for the original game to end in defeat for one side, at which point a third opinion may be able to call "next" before the crowd's attention wanders.

 _If you... get into debate mode, you'll lose_

Not to sound like a dick, because I'm not any good at this myself, but a skillful debater always takes the audience into account, whether the audience is the Supreme Court or a crowd of rowdy partygoers.

<comment><USER8> I respectfully disagree with your comments re: third opinions.

Often the best way to 'win' an argument in a group context is to derail the current thread of conversation (in which both sides have their arguments clearly in mind) and change the term of the debate in a way that suit you. This will have the effect of throwing off would-be adversaries (by the time they have their shit together to counter your new argument, the conversation is long gone) and gaining followers of your new idea.</comment></comment></comment>


Minister Noonan Disagrees Profoundly with the Commission on Apple - <AUTHOR> http://www.finance.gov.ie/news-centre/press-releases/minister-noonan-disagrees-profoundly-commission-apple <comment><AUTHOR> "Following discussion with the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance will now seek Cabinet approval to appeal the Commission decision to the European Courts. Ireland has a period of two months and 10 days to bring an appeal. The Government will now study the decision of the European Commission in consultation with its legal advisors to prepare the grounds for an appeal. "</comment>


Reddit's Chris Slowe is leaving to join other founders at Hipmunk - mac-mac http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/01/reddit-chief-takes-flight-to-hipmunk-explains-why-hes-leaving-now/

<comment><AUTHOR> Must be an awesome feeling to be "getting the gang back together". Any good examples of there startup teams having done this?

<comment><USER2> Oh, I'm quite excited. I'm not going to be able to top Paul's reply, though. Perhaps my only hope is to reference this old photo of the 3 of us ([http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c587f3d7f8b9a814a68...](http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c587f3d7f8b9a814a680b00/team- reddit.jpg)) and suggest that we get a semi-professional photographer and haircuts before we take the first hipmunk company photo...

<comment><USER3> How involved are you with Hipmunk? I know you did the logo, but are you working on it on a day to day basis?

<comment><USER2> Since a few days before launch, I've been the brand & community department, so to speak. I'm part-time, about 25hrs a week. But every day (7 days a week ftw!) is a hipmunk day, that's for sure. I'm an acting YC ambassador one day a week, my "office hours" day (wise PG suggestion).

edit: Steve is 100% running the tech and Adam is 100% running the non-tech for this startup. It's an odd feeling, but I kinda like it because I don't lose any sleep at night and just focus on getting hipmunk to the point where people are tattooing it on their bodies :) [like the reddit alien]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Corresponding posts on Reddit ([http://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/dzl1o/and_like_that_po...](http://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/dzl1o/and_like_that_poof_hes_gone/)) and Hipmunk (<http://blog.hipmunk.com/32180170>)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for linking those. I would have posted here as well, but I didn't want to break any shameless self promotion etiquette rules, and honestly I feel like I've hit my quota for that for one day. :)

<comment><USER6> Congrats!

Btw, I just did a random search and it was great. However, to small things: (tried posting them in the live help but it was not working well)

1) It may be nice to have a "tooltip" that explains the acronyms. Eg: I just did a random search and got back EWR, IAH, PTY, TA, etc. .. maybe if I put my mouse over that, it will show the meaning.

ii) The day/night color idea is nice, but reading the results is kinda hard for the eyes (and it contrasts too agresively with the rest of the page).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sucks for Reddit, but it's a great opportunity for Chris. Hipmunk fills a niche in a highly monetizeable market, and getting on early suggests to me that he'll get equity. Things are looking good for the team at Hipmunk.

<comment><USER8> "Hipmunk fills a niche"

what niche? the niche for online ticket purchasers who prefer gantt-style interfaces? the niche describing the set of customers who rely on a single provider (orbitz.com) for their ticket-purchase decisioning data?

"in a highly monetizeable market"

i'd love see your CAC, CR/CRR, AMPU/AMPC, etc breakdown for the online air ticket space.

"Things are looking good for the team at Hipmunk."

when your only competitive advantage is a gantt-style interface, your outlook is not often described as "looking good".

i wouldn't consider a large base of online fanboys to be a significant competitive advantage in an industry where your competitors are 10 years established and have revenues in the billions of dollars.

"it's a great opportunity for Chris"

in the sense that it's probably better than staying at conde? --sure. in the sense that it will likely result in a significant payout down the road? --again, that's debatable.

<comment><USER9> Wow. That is the most mean-spirited thing I've read about a new startup in a long time. I also bet it turns out spectacularly wrong and deserves to be preserved in a glass case somewhere.

Come to think of it, someone should collect the worst comments like this for posterity. It would help immunize new founders to see how the predictive value of these things is zero.

<comment><USER10> This should be a madlib. I'll go first.

When your only competitive advantage is a [feature that lets you poke your friends], your outlook is not often described as "looking good".

<comment><USER11> Fewer features, anarchist phd dropouts, a home page with less stuff

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Well they should just start reddit again, It hink that's the only community that would be willing to go along</comment>


The Entrepreneur's Guide to (not getting kicked out of) Coffee Shops - <AUTHOR> http://dcfounders.com/entrepreneurs-guide-to-coffee-shops/

<comment><USER2> I can't think of many reasons to work out a coffee shop instead of a public library.

Unless the coffee shop is dead, they don't want you there.

The library on the other hand is funded in part by utilization, and very much does want you there.

The library is quiet, is designed to provide work spaces, far larger, and generally very pleasant to be in. And it's _free_.

The coffee shop is loud, is certainly not ergonomic, cramped, and often jarring.

Also, I don't know what the word is for an ostensible who brings their own lunch daily to an establishment that serves any kind of food, but I'm sure there must be a word for it. Sheesh.

<comment><USER3> I agree, but there are a few potential drawbacks.

There are more coffee shops than libraries. Your path to a coffee shop is generally shorter than your path to a library.

This problem gets even worse when you add the dimension of time. Libraries are closed a lot. Philistines keep cutting their funding, and they respond by shortening their hours. Unless your working hours coincide neatly with library opening hours you'll sometimes need an alternative.

Finally, there's the social dimension. It's not easy to start a random conversation in a library, and it's essentially impossible to answer the phone. (Unless you are a big jerk _and_ your local librarians are insufficiently ruthless.) Now, if you're trying to program such an environment is a godsend, but if you're trying to run a business programming is often the least of your problems. You have to do sales and marketing and client management and the occasional round of procurement or insurance shopping or whatnot, any or all of which may require you to talk on the phone occasionally.

That said, whenever I'm near a library during its opening hours I head over there instead of towards the coffee shop. Here in Boston the library situation is good: The public libraries are fairly numerous and popular, and some of the more enlightened universities let civilians into _their_ libraries, which have longer hours and better study spaces.

<comment><USER2> I always just went down to the lobby to do phone calls; how many kinds of calls can you reasonably do from a coffee shop?

Maybe all the coffee shops I like are just way smaller than the ones you all use.

Mostly: I had great success working from libraries, and I know that many coffee shops _do not_ like people working from them all day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can someone explain to me the fascination with working from coffee shops anyway?

You put up without power/internet guarantees and an expectation to spend money for what? The comfort of working hunched over a laptop at a strange table and the convenience of commuting to work even though you don't have an office you have to go to?

Is it a thing where you have better self control at a computer if you're not at home?

<comment><USER5> I'm a telecommuter and I work out of coffeeshops quite often. For me, they offer social interaction and a change of scenery that I don't get at home. Going to a coffeeshop will also force me to get to business if there is some work I've been particularly dreading. There's a cozy little bubble which forms when working amongst strangers in a neutral location, which shoots my productivity up.

It is possible to mitigate most annoyances by bringing along extra supplies: power splitters + long power cords for limited access to plugs, your own data card for the unreliable wifi, laptop locks for when using the bathroom, and noise-isolating/canceling headphones for the occasional bad music, and an spare sweatshirt for when the coffeeshop leaves their door open.

Its not for everyone, but it has its merits.

<comment><USER6> Something else to try is the public library. I've had excellent results there (but don't have the coffee). Plus, I don't feel as guilty.

There are, however, books. And magazines.

<comment><USER5> Yeah libraries are another good candidate. In my experience, libraries aren't as social, and can be a little antiseptic, but I think this varies widely based upon which library you visit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I went through the same experience when I was doing my startup. The biggest problem I found was going to the washroom. I was always afraid someone would highjack my stuff so every time I went to the washroom, I had to pack everything up and bring it with me. This was pretty annoying. Also, if the coffeeshop is busy, good luck finding a clean toilet to sit on.

<comment><USER8> "I was always afraid someone would highjack my stuff so every time I went to the washroom, I had to pack everything up and bring it with me."

If you feel like being social, this is a good excuse for striking up a conversation with someone nearby who seems interesting. Ask if the person can keep an eye on your stuff for a few minutes. Assuming he/she is friendly, after you get back and say thanks the ice will be broken and you can chat if you want to. I suppose it's still a bit riskier than taking your stuff with you, but seems minimal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I work out of a nearby coffee shop in Ottawa in a very small community/neighbourhood.

it's low traffic, and I'm on first name basis with everybody that works there. it's fantastic, and beats working in a real office.

the wifi is unlimited, there's plenty of power outlets, and occasionally on really long days, I'll have two meals there (which makes up for those crunchtime days where I'm doing nothing but drinking coffee).

and they're open till midnight, and serve beer for ballmer peak days.

the real key is to just work out of a coffee shop 2ish times a week and a homeoffice the rest of the time. you split your costs and you're not always there.

<comment><USER10> Used to live in Ottawa, still love the place. Where's this?

<comment><USER9> alpha soul in hintonburg (next door to hintonburger and bonkers)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good advice, although from my experience (in San Francisco), getting to know the staff is the easiest way to ensure a free -> cheap working environment. Local places with a lot of people means you can get away with 1 - 2 cups of coffee for the day, which will run you $4 - $7 depending on how swank the place is.

Also, buy a couple of $5 power strips and leave them at the places you frequent. Give something back to the community that's supporting you (whether they know it or not).

<comment><USER12> Love the powerstrip idea. Sounds like a movement :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> More like "The Entrepreneur's Guide to a Blank Page in Chrome"

<comment><USER14> Works for me in chrome.

<comment><USER15> I get a flash of content and then a blank white screen. There's a bunch of 403 and 500 errors for content on the page and about a dozen javascript errors when I open up the developer tools. It may be that some Chrome versions are more forgiving then others (16.0.981.0 here).

<comment><USER12> Sorry, it just takes an extra second to load. Will fix it in a bit. You should still be able to see it if you just wait for a beat.

<comment><USER16> A minute later and I'm still looking at a white screen.

<comment><USER12> Hey, if you get a chance, let me know if you still have issues. Did a quick fix last night, so hopefully was enough. (May need to go back later and fix underlying issue.) Thx!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've found it helps if you try and go places when they are least busy. Coffee shops seem to have different down times depending on location, customer base, etc. My favorite spot is always crowded from sunrise until about 3pm and then totally dead for the rest of the day. Less noise, distraction, and guilt for taking a table when there is nobody in the place.

I also recently discovered the public library as a great place to work. Of course this will vary from city to city, but mine is clean, quiet, good lighting, comfortable work areas, cheap parking, and free wifi. Also, they have a great music collection to borrow from.

</comment><comment><USER18> For those who don't like the hustle and bustle of coffee shops, may I suggest university libraries?

They're quiet, generally unattended by the local undergrads, and the wifi is generally very consistently available (even if there is a registration process to make sure your machine fits school security standards). Plenty of power, too.

On the downside, there's no cheap coffee nearby and sometimes it isn't allowed at all. The same may go for parking.

Still, if uninterrupted peace and quiet is what you need for productivity, they may be a solid option.

<comment><USER19> University libraries usually require accounts to use the wireless internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Seems like a waste to me, especially since he's in the same city (DC). I am down at Affinity Lab (coworking space) and it only costs $325/month compared to his 1000$/month on coffee. Plus the internet works, you get to know a bunch of people, has more facilities than a coffee shop and it's definitely comfortable enough to leave your stuff. I've left my stuff for hours unattended and never worried about it.

<comment><USER12> (Hey, I'm actually the author) We were actually working out of Affinity Lab for over a year. A great place. That's what you do when you want to upgrade.

But the trick with any coworking space is that it's gotta be convenient. We moved out of the city and it's just a bit too far out. But AL is great.

Also, you don't have to spend $1000/month - that's just what happens if you're not careful. I generally spend about $4-5/day - so it rounds out to about $150.

<comment><USER20> How do you account for wasted time out of curiosity? Do you just find 1 (or a few) places you always go to or how many hours per month do you waste searching for somewhere to work?

The location is definitely a factor, I was driving to a metro and then metroing in - it took between 1-1.5 hours. Then I just started driving at off peak times and it's much faster.

<comment><USER12> When I first got my iPad I put a timer app on it, and at some point I got really frustrated by how much time I perceived was being wasted, so for a few weeks I timed it every time I wasn't able to work when I was trying to (wifi down, no power, going to a new place, etc). It was crazy, actually, but I was losing half my working day (shortly after that we joined Affinity Lab).

Of course, now that I can't get to a co-working space, I had to get way better at planning and finding good places. Now I don't waste much time.

For that matter, I think I am more productive (for now) because I can't chit- chat and get distracted as I would when I'm around people I know. All of our work is offsite and online right now, so no productivity is wasted.

The biggest trick is, if it's a 3hr commute there and back to your office (plus settling in time) you have to weight it each time whether it's worth the trip or not. But I hit the coffee shop every morning, like it's my office, and gain 2.5hrs. You just can't slack off.

I wouldn't suggest doing it forever, but if you're going to do it, that's how.

<comment><USER20> Thanks for your explanation :) I actually don't find that I am wasting the travel time though. I have no anxiety about going personally, I know once I get there, I can sit down and get to work without thinking about any of the potential problems. In fact, it's a great time for me to think about things.

Going in: what do I absolutely need to do today? What would I like to do? How can I get it all done?

Going out: Did I reach my goals? Why/why not? What are some of the bigger issues I need to keep thinking about while working the day to day?

It's not an insignificant amount of time, but I don't find it wasteful, I easily spend that much time thinking about problems anyways, now I just am commuting at the same time!

<comment><USER12> Sorry, am feeling very verbose the last few days. That's a great way to go too :-D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The antidote to coffee shops in Silicon Valley is Mountain View's Hacker Dojo. Drop-ins welcome.

</comment><comment><USER22> I hate working in coffeeshops or shared offices.

Not being able to leave your stuff when you go to the bathroom is a big fail, but even worse, not being able to take phone calls in a low stress environment while sitting at your desk. Being able to look things up. Also, it's not really a great environment for having confidential discussions in general, especially in Silicon Valley -- I've had meetings where the VC picked a coffeeshop to meet, and 2-3 other companies were having meetings in the same space.

A private office in a setting with coworkers is ideal, but failing that, a dedicated home office is the next best alternative.

</comment><comment><USER23> Another option is to just pay for coworking. You still get to work with strangers (but now strangers who are paying to be in a productive environment), can often drink coffee (perhaps included as part of the coworking fees), should have consistent wifi and plenty of power outlets, and don't have to worry about getting kicked out to make room for other customers.

<comment><USER12> Yep, that's the upgrade if you can afford it and there is one nearby. Coworking places can be great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> For any of you Washington DCists - following up on demand, I just published The DC Founders list of Top 10 Coffee Shops for Entrepreneurs in Washington DC - <http://dcfounders.com/top-10-coffee-shops-in-washington-dc/> . Let me know if you have some others. Enjoy!

</comment><comment><USER24> Public library + mifi

</comment><comment><USER25> Love this. I've been known to take an extension cable into starbucks.

</comment><comment><USER26> Why not work at home? :\

</comment><comment><USER27> On a related note, who here lives in NYC and works out of coffee shops?</comment>


Pokemon Go Maker Unity Technologies Raise $181M - <AUTHOR> http://www.technewstoday.com/30501-unity-technologies-raise-181-million-in-latest-funding-round/ <comment><USER2> This title is pretty blatantly wrong and isn't what the article's title is anyways. Unity didn't maker Pokemon Go, unity was used to make Pokemon Go by Niantic.

(For clarity if the title is changed, it said when I posted this "Pokemon Go Maker Unity Technologies Raise $181M")</comment>


Movies Get Chess Wrong - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/s/story/why-movies-get-chess-wrong-a1a84750c2d6 <comment><USER2> Watching chess, like watching "hacking" is kind of boring. The audience understands the high level concepts but not the details. I feel that the actual placement and progress of a game of chess on the big screen follows the same "entertainment logic" that "cracking" passwords one letter at a time does. That is no logic at all.

Chess is a signifier. The players are smart, sometimes ruthlessly willing to sacrifice for the greater good. The opponents are doing battle often a mental proxy that foreshadows a physical battle to come. There is a slow tension to it. People get the high level concept and symbolism without understanding the nuances or in fact without understanding what a fork is or being able see it on the board let alone being able to "see it" coming.

Almost no one in a theater will see HAL's mistake at calling for mate in 2 rather than mate in 4. Sure, people find "easter eggs" and hidden messages like this after the fact and it is fun to debate but during the film this simply goes over people's heads.

Finally, this post suggests that the "average" game is about 79 moves.

[https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2506/what-is- the-a...](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2506/what-is-the-average- length-of-a-game-of-chess)

Any director will be hard pressed not to take liberties regarding play and still keep the audience engaged.

<comment><USER3> The one letter password guessing had some credibility long time ago thanks to unvalidated password length fields: [https://jumpespjump.blogspot.com/2014/02/hacking- windows-95-...](https://jumpespjump.blogspot.com/2014/02/hacking- windows-95-part-1.html)

But nowadays i doubt you often encounter that kind of bugs and the speed would probably be unappealing to audience.

<comment><USER4> The one letter password guessing still has relevance today in systems vulnerable to a timing attack. If the timing of password validation is affected by the valid-prefix length (which it would be if the password validation is a simple strcmp()) then you can use that to brute-force the password character-by-character.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Meh. For reference, I'm an expert level (~2000 ELO) chess player.

I'd say only very casual players or nitpickers watch the movies and say...

> "Ah ha! That is against the rules/wrong/a clear mistake! I'm so smart! Silly > filmmakers for not knowing such things!".

It's the same as watching a Doctor or Lawyer show. Many of these 'mistakes' are made for dramatic effect, for better storylines, or to make the situation in some way or another.

In classical time controls, chess games can easily take upwards of 4 hours, and periods of 10, 20, or 30+ minutes with NO MOVES are quite common.

It's not a game that fits easily into the mold of other mass spectator sports.

<comment><USER6> _It 's the same as watching a Doctor or Lawyer show._

Or show involving anything HN readers would be familiar with.

"I wrote a program that reconfigures the warp drive computational algorithms to give us 50% more power."

"In an hour? Last I looked, that whole thing was like 50K LoC. How much did you test this before you deployed it to OUR ONLY PROPULSION OUT OF KLINGON SPACE?! Someone code reviewed it, I take it?"

<Six weeks later...>

No, no one's going to watch that ("goddamn it, Bob, quit mixing formatting commits with functional commits!") So the director takes a few liberties, we shut up, eat our popcorn, and pretend it's perfectly reasonable to knock that out over lunch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Filmmakers' most common blunder may be the sideways board. On a correctly > placed chessboard, the square in either player's bottom right corner will be > light-colored

This is the only one I wouldn't consider a gaffe. Plenty of casual chess players don't know this either. It flips the board layout (queens on the wrong side), and would probably feel wrong to a more experienced player, but it doesn't actually affect the game.

<comment><USER8> This is most definitely wrong, and I think any but the most beginning player would notice. It doesn't affect the theory of the game, of course, but there are good reasons to be consistent about this. It flips the meaning of "light square bishop", for instance.

<comment><USER7> I think it depends on how you learned to play. Personal anecdote: I learned the game from another casual player, and played a few hundred hours without learning any openings (but developing my own crude ones) or even knowing 'en passant.' Only when I actually started studying theory did I learn the orientation rule and understand why that sort of consistency is important. Now a flipped board sticks out like a sore thumb.

<comment><USER9> Back in junior high I remember watching two kids playing an end game and their kings were right next to each other.

They'd only heard that "a king can't take a king.", but didn't know why.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Even behemoths like Captain America: Civil War don't check that their pieces are in the right place, committing mistakes that any patzer would catch._

A minor prop in the background, where all the pieces are in the right starting positions, but the board was rotated wrong so the queens aren't on their colors.

It _totally_ took me out of the comic book movie, man!

<comment><USER10> That's how you can tell it's an alternate universe, the kings are on their colors. That, and the goatees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Movies get _everything_ wrong. And that's OK. There's a word for movies that focus on factual accuracy. They're called documentaries, and most movies are (for good or ill) not documnentaries. Most movies are trying to _tell a story_. They need to provide _just enough_ realism and familiarity to engage the audience's attention, but no more. It's called "suspension of disbelief" and it's everywhere. Hobbits aren't real. Superpowers aren't real. Incredible combat or hacking skills as shown in movies aren't real. The movie White House bears little resemblance to the real version. Romance doesn't work the same way in real life as it does in movies. And _all of that_ is OK because the story's the thing.

What an article like this illustrates is not that movie-makers are stupid, but that some people are _so unbelievably egocentric_ that they believe what matters to them should matter to everyone else. That what seems obvious to them should be obvious to everyone, and if it's not then that's sufficient justification to look down one's nose at them. Never mind that they themselves are ignorant of many things others might consider important. It's a narcissistic behavior, not among movie makers but among movie critics.

</comment><comment><USER12> Some of Hollywood, such as Stanley Kubrick, did know how to play chess. It is a pity that that no longer seems to be the case.

I didn't ever look at the HAL chess board in depth enough to realize HAL made a mistake/bluff but in hindsight I feel there is no way that wasn't foreshadowing.

<comment><USER13> Directors and writers don't have to have to know how to do stuff the characters do or how things work in the world, but they should do research, study and consult people to find out.

It's just laziness not to do hat. Many films are just collections of outsider impressions. Stanley Kubrick didn't know much about space but he had work ethics.

<comment><USER14> It's not just laziness. These projects have limited time and money, and more research, study and consultation than necessary is a waste of both.

Unless the actual, correct mechanics of a chess game are important to the plot, then it doesn't matter and almost no one will notice, much less care. Better ROI to spend that money on hair dye for Scarlett Johannsson.

>Stanley Kubrick didn't know much about space but he had work ethics

No one would put up with Stanley Kubrick nowadays.

<comment><USER13> > then it doesn't matter and almost no one will notice,

It matters. You don't notice it consciously but all the small details add up to the movie feeling special.

> No one would put up with Stanley Kubrick nowadays.

And that's why we end up with action movies with boring action and special effect blockbusters with mediocre but expensive CGI, and drama without good characters.

Good movies with good details can be made with little money if the people who do it have passion to do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Also, the 1998 movie "Pi", about intelligence, insanity, chaos, and the game "Go", the game he's having with the head professor guy looks entirely one sided winning by one of the colors, and has no room for as many missing pieces to have been captured.

Either the game has an illegal board, or one player really wanted to lose and passed ~30 times while apparently still being worth discussing between the two characters.

</comment><comment><USER16> Movies get almost everything wrong. It's story telling, if you're pretty well informed and you focus on the details, you won't enjoy it. chess, computers, health care, murder, law, driving, explosion, romance, communication, it's mostly all garbage. If they matched up and looked like the real world, it would make for a very boring movie

</comment><comment><USER17> Not sure how much Hollywood or real football the author has watched. "But the home team was wearing their away uniforms! How can the director not know which color goes on which side?"

</comment><comment><USER18> Scooby Doo physics: as long as the ending state is valid, the intermediate states don't really matter.

Or, as long as the plot and characterization are good, the actual details don't matter.

</comment><comment><USER19> Waiting for chess boxing to make it to the big screen. Combine flawed boxing with flawed chess, maybe they cancel each other out. (Yes, chess boxing is a real thing)

<comment><USER20> _Mystery of Chessboxing_ came out in the 70s, although might not be quite what you're looking for. It was an inspiration for the Wu Tang Clan, who have done a lot to promote chess and even chessboxing. I always thought it'd be fun to give it a shot but I'm bad at chess _and_ boxing</comment></comment>


10,000 hours - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/12/10000-hours.html

<comment><USER2> There isn't a magical threshold of hours one must reach to be a "superstar" or "extremely good". There also isn't much substance in the claim of people bailing even before 5,000 hours. It seems like the crux of this argument is just throwing 'numbers' and 'hours' out there with disregard to other factors that come into play when someone makes a time commitment this large. Things like efficiency, pre-disposition, and teaching others are all factors.

So, even if someone invests 3750 hours they can be just as good. This all seems besides the point though, when you are investing thousands of hours into something your not keeping track of 'hours put in' or 'exactly how good you are', its a passion and you're just into it. If success follows then great, if not then that wouldn't stop someone from continuing on.

<comment><USER3> There is actually some good research behind the number, which is just given as a rule of thumb. The other rule of thumb figure is 10 years, which is much easier to conceptualize. 1000 of productive hours per year.

Basically it encompasses a jumble of things that includes passion, patience, practice, and persistence. The 4 Ps is a coincidence.

Of course it's not a magical threshold, but when you can do something (in a focused and conscious manner) for 10 years, it's not hard to imagine that you have reached mastery.

The crime of fluffy writing (dunno about Gladwell's new book; didn't read it) is taking rule of thumb numbers and citing them as precision numbers as a way to seem exacting and scientific.

<comment><USER4> _or_ , we could all just continue to say "Practice makes perfect" to each other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Godin, or maybe Gladwell (haven't read the book), is missing the point of the "10,000 hours" theory. It is about being "good" at a subject, not being famous for it.

Tiger Woods has spent thousands of hours practicing and is one of the best in his field (and is famous for that). Miley Cyrus is (afaik) not considered among the best actors in the world - she's just famous for landing a disney role.

<comment><USER6> "Miley Cyrus is (afaik) not considered among the best actors in the world - she's just famous for landing a disney role."

I have to call you out on this point. Miley Cyrus isn't famous because she acted for Disney. There are plenty of child actors who did the same and went nowhere. Miley Cyrus is famous because she is the face of the Hannah Montana brand run by the Disney marketing machine. A brand that has net Disney revenues in the tens of millions of dollars.

<comment><USER4> You can't deny she is a talented actress, has a great voice, and is generally 'star quality'. A lot of it's just in the breeding and growing up around it all. She's probably done 10,000 hours of watching other people acting + singing while she grew up.

Disclaimer: Sure, I'm a Miley Cirus fan. Admission is first step to recovery + all that.

<comment><USER7> I don't think she's particularly talented. She's decent in a field where everybody else is worse, but I've seen young actors that blow her away.

Her voice, too, is good but not great. Again: there are young singers who are incredibly better than her.

She's not terrible. But she isn't exactly good, either.

<comment><USER4> What about the song writing that's sold millions of albums? For a 16 year old that's reasonably impressive no?

<comment><USER8> But then does the impressiveness rest with the Disney Marketing Machine for Hannah Montana. In part it seems like she would be replaceable (or at least - another could havew been picked) with probably no detriment to the result.

The same doesn't work for Tiger Woods or Bill Gates.

<comment><USER9> > In part it seems like she would be replaceable (or at least - another could > havew been picked) with probably no detriment to the result.

Disney doesn't think so - she turned the role down and Disney put the show on hold for over a year while they tried to convince her to do it.

While there's no doubt that that show wouldn't have been nearly as popular without Disney pushing it, it doesn't follow that any cute kid would have been as successful given the Disney push. Disney is constantly pushing kids and only a few make it big.

If you're better than Disney at picking child stars, big bucks await.

<comment><USER7> Are you kidding? Disney very frequently makes kids this huge. When the kid's a singer/actress, especially so: they've done a good job of marketing her in both directions.

If you write a show entirely around one person, then yeah. You'll put the show on hold to wait for them. That doesn't mean she's particularly brilliant. Just that she's not entirely awful.

<comment><USER9> > Are you kidding? Disney very frequently makes kids this huge.

"Very frequently"? I don't see enough "kids this huge" to justify "frequently".

And they didn't write the show for Cyrus. They created the show and she auditioned. They offered. She declined. They waited.

If Disney can create hits at will, why don't they?

Instead, they ride the hits that they have. They try a lot of things. When something works small, they go bigger. If it still works, they hit the gas.

Like I said, if you can do better, big bucks await.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The Ericsson's research was aimed at fields that were not changing a lot: athletic performance, chess, classical music instruments. I think what it's documenting is how much deliberate practice is required to re-wire your brain to allow for unconsciously expert perceptions and performance. That's the inference I make reading <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=409696> and these two sentences from the concluding paragraph in [http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.ht...](http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html)

"...the difference between experts and less skilled subjects is not merely a matter of the amount and complexity of the accumulated knowledge; it also reflects qualitative differences in the organization of knowledge and its representation (Chi, Glaser & Rees, 1982). Experts' knowledge is encoded around key domain-related concepts and solution procedures that allow rapid and reliable retrieval whenever stored information is relevant."

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't see this as a repudiation of the 10K hours theory. Hannah Montana's fame is due to the Disney machine as teej mentioned. I'm sure the brand managers, agents, marketers and other pros responsible for her success have logged that kind of time individually and she is the product rather than the producer. I'm not a Doors fan, but maybe they had a stellar agent who spent countless hours developing relationships and promotional skills. Godin's better point is that it may take far less time to become successful in emerging media rather than mature businesses since there are no established benchmarks.

<comment><USER4> Sorry, but I disagree. Of course it helps to be under the Disney name/brand. But to say she's a "product rather than the producer" is plain wrong.

"She wrote eight of the ten songs, credited by her birth name Destiny Hope Cyrus." (wikipedia)

People generally don't blindly buy music that sounds rubbish just because it has the Disney name on it. Give her some credit at least... Perhaps you dislike the particular genre of music, but that doesn't mean there isn't a large amount of talent there. Especially for a 16 year old.

<comment><USER11> Axod, I agree the Disney name alone isn't going to ensure success, but I also don't think she rose to the top because of native talent. She has 1) famous father in the business 2) the backing of the most impressive youth marketing organization in the world. Can she sing and write music? absolutely, but I find it hard to believe her success is due to her song writing rather than the push of the amazing organization around her. Again no judgment on her I just think she has the benefit of superior promotion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> "In some ways, this is a restatement of the Dip. Being the best in the world brings extraordinary benefits, but it's not easy to get there."

Not The Dip... ... the devil's in the details, which The Dip has nothing to do with. If you cast a wide and fuzzy net you can claim you said a lot by saying a little.

/I read that book and am not entirely unabashed about it. If anybody wants that book, just to find out why, let me know. Geographic constraints apply. But don't shell out howevermany dollars it is at the bookstore. _-_-_

</comment><comment><USER12> He makes the mistake of assuming quality and success are directly related. Miley Cyrus may have been popular before 10,000 hours, but that doesn't mean she was good at whatever it was she succeeded at, which I don't even know. Same with The Bee Gees.

Not that I buy the 10k hours thing anyway, but just wanted to point out that skill and success are not the same thing. There are a million musicians more skilled than Britney Spears or 'N Sync, there are very, very few who've been more successful.

</comment><comment><USER13> I like the 10,000 hours concept as a motivating factor. It shows that practice pays off. Even the most gifted people still need to put in those hours to get to that high level of achievement. So rather than see it as "I need to put in X hours this year to succeed", I see it as an exaltation of hard work.

</comment><comment><USER14> > Bill Gates, the Beatles

Bill Gates didn't get rich as a programmer. He got rich as a business man and negotiator (QDOS, IBM). He got stinking rich as a monopolist. (Interesting note: Bill G's father was an anti-trust defense attorney.)

The Beatles did not get rich as live musicians and were never considered a great live act. They made it big as a studio band. I fail to see how cranking out the same songs over and over again for 10,000 hours in Hamburg builds your studio composition chops. Especially when it didn't even seem to lead to great live performance ability.

Haven't read gladwell's book, but it smells like a sloppy pile of misleading anecdotes from here.

<comment><USER15> What original arguments Gladwell makes are clearly speculative, but it's inherently sloppier to attempt to refute an argument whose reasoning you can only speculate about.

Your arguments about Bill Gates and The Beatles are themselves flawed and classically oversimplistic. Bill Gates didn't get rich as a business man / negotiator / monopolist: he got rich as a _programmer_ business man / negotiator / monopolist. Hard to believe a regular on HN could fail to see how Gates' having serious technical chops was essential to his success.

As for The Beatles, I'll leave it to you to actually read the book.</comment></comment>


Everything you need to know about cryptography in 1 hour [slides/audio] - <AUTHOR> http://www.fosslc.org/drupal/content/everything-you-need-know-about-cryptography-1-hour

<comment><AUTHOR> This was discussed earlier (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1346711>), but the audio was not available at the time.</comment>


Windows 8 for $39.99 --- Are You In? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/geekmom/2012/07/windows-8/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not. [Even though I will probably have access to a discounted copy through work]

I'm completely happy to stay with Windows 7. (Although I am currently running Mint 13 as my main OS and 7 as my Alternate).

While Windows 8 does look are spiffy looking, only time will tell if its a success or another Windows Vista in the making.

Especially with the new features; hidden start button, ribbonizing everything, etc etc. I can see it being difficult for many people to switch over (look at how many people are still refusing to upgrade from XP; I know my Dad still does).

</comment><comment><USER2> As someone who would consider himself a windows expert, I will not buy or use windows 8. I tried the consumer preview, and was extremely confused and felt betrayed more than anything else. They tried to fix something that wasnt broken, and it really makes me question their priorities.</comment>


Alibaba's UC Browser is dominating in markets with lower-end smartphones (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-browser-youve-never-heard-of-is-dethroning-google-in-asia-1514808002 <comment><USER2> According to statcounter, not really.

Global mobile browsers: [http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market- share/mobile/worldw...](http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market- share/mobile/worldwide/#monthly-201704-201904)

Asia region: [http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market- share/mobile/asia/#...](http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market- share/mobile/asia/#monthly-201704-201904)

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting graphs! The graph for Asia shows that UC Browser market share decreased to half since this article published. Just to be clear, I am not implying causality!

<comment><USER3> The trouble with raw statcounter hit data is that it's hard to know what it's tracking. Even statcounter itself cautions that the stats should not be considered representative samples.

You'd need some in-depth analysis to distinguish any real effect from, for example, those that are an artefact of the sites that use it (and don't use it).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Its 'Mini' incarnation—or something like that—also dominated on my e-ink Nook Simple Touch by the virtue of working the best on a weak machine with a screen of limited capabilities (grayscale, infrared touchscreen aka no multitouch), under Android 2.1. And I was using it until about three years ago.

IIRC Opera Mini also worked on that, but not much else.

Guess it's time for me to mourn again that there are no e-ink devices with normal modern Android—the screen is noticeably easier on the eyes, even with the optional 'ambient' backlight (emitted from the sides, diffused through the glass). And the screen consumes little power, so the battery can be way smaller: Nook is lighter than my current phone despite having a bigger screen.

As for the refresh rate, Nook's screen can be coerced into doing some surprising stuff: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbD753xE-U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbD753xE-U)

<comment><USER5> I _loved_ using my Kindle DX to browse various sites and even check email over 3G back in the day. No https support, though, and as that was increasingly required (quite correctly) and as the JS-all-the-things philosophy infected the web world (less correctly) it became broadly unusable.

I'd love to have an e-ink device with similar (or better) capability again.

<comment><USER4> On Nook, I also installed an old version of Pocket (from when it was 'Read It Later'), which still synchronized with the service quite alright. So in addition to books, I also had my hoarding nest of Wikipedia and blog articles whenever I was waiting in a line.

With the 6" screen, it was pretty much the web in a paperback format.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It should be noted that UC browser has a lot of security flaws, and is notorious for not bothering to fix them.

</comment><comment> m-p-3 Maybe Google will release a lightweight version of Chrome Go at some point? Anyway I'm hopeful Firefox Preview (Fenix) will be a nice improvement on mobile.

</comment><comment><USER7> Do their users know that Alibaba is MIITM'ing their browsing activity? UC Browser downloads and renders all web content on their servers, then sends a lite representation to the mobile client.

I'm personally fine with it but I think that this WSJ article would be breathless article about how Alibaba WIRETAPS YOUR WEB BROWSING if it was an American company offering the same service.

<comment><USER4> More than a few mobile and even desktop browsers work that way. E.g. Opera's mobile browsers had such function for many years. I think even Firefox's little bro worked the same (dunno what became of that project).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> And do you think this browser is dethroning Chrome because "it's just so good," or much more likely, because Google's services are officially _and unofficially_ being blocked/given the cold shoulder by many local businesses/local governments in China, while Alibaba's browsers gets to be put into everything else?

The "huge Chinese market" is just a mirage created to lure greedy American companies into giving away their tech so that the local companies can be propped up/improve.

<comment><USER9> I mean Google and China's various state run tech corps is basically choosing whether to get punched by Lucifer's left or right hand. It's a matter of preference between two organizations whose stated goals are mass surveillance, one to sell you crap you don't need, the other to reinforce their social hierarchy. I don't get people who are on the Google train but anti-China, there's so much overlap between the two it's genuinely amusing to see people so hard up on one and so opposed to the other.

Frankly the whole thing reeks of misdirected racism or possibly red scare? Like you're okay with a multibillion dollar corporation stalking you but not a Government? Seems like an odd line to draw but okay.

<comment><USER10> Does this _really_ seem like an odd line to draw?

Like, even a multibillion dollar corporation like google, if it wanted to arrest me, it would seek the help of a government. Governments have the police and guns and stuff.

I understand corporations can influence and share information with governments, but, obviously they are different. Obviously tons of people feel considerably more unconformable with their or another government knowing things than Google.

And to be clear - I don't personally trust either of them at all. Google has shown themselves to be willing to help attempt to erase history in China and I'm sure would be all the more willing to do the same in my USA.

<comment><USER9> > Like, even a multibillion dollar corporation like google, if it wanted to > arrest me, it would seek the help of a government. Governments have the > police and guns and stuff.

Remember when 2K Games had that group of hackers who were creating cheats for GTA Online arrested and ruined their lives?

> I understand corporations can influence and share information with > governments, but, obviously they are different. Obviously tons of people > feel considerably more unconformable with their or another government > knowing things than Google.

I know that, and I'm saying it's wrong, both of them are, and I find it strange that people are so ok with Google doing this stuff. Both of them are to be highly suspected, both of them do tons of unethical shit with tons of data they have no right to possess, and I just find it strange how everyone is largely ok with Google doing it, while hating China for it.

> And to be clear - I don't personally trust either of them at all.

Good. I'm not saying China's Government should be trusted, hell no, if that's how it came across I apologize. I'm saying they're both monsters that share a shocking number of characteristics.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft says Windows Phones have had Siri-like functionality for over a year - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/11/23/microsoft_says_windows_phones_have_had_siri_like_functionality_for_over_a_year.html

<comment><USER2> I don't what the problem is here, if you watch the interview he was asked about Siri and he explains that Tellme allows you do very similar features, ie you can say 'send text to bob' and it guides you through that process, or you can query things with Bing. He even concedes that Apple has far better marketing around these features, but makes the point that it was the only real new feature of the phone.

All of this is true, and it is hardly newsworthy. What else was he to say when asked about Siri?

PS, interview is here: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/11/23/microsofts...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/11/23/microsofts- craig-mundie-on-siri-been-there-done-that-video/) skip to 1.50

<comment><USER3> The problem is that he is either being intentionally deceptive, or hasn't used Siri.

Dishonesty and/or ignorance from someone of his stature merits a public pillorying, don't you think?

Edit: third possibility: he doesn't actually see the difference between voice control functionality (a la Microsoft's or Apple's prior products) and Siri. That's when his senior staff start looking for new jobs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Gassee says it best: <https://twitter.com/#!/gassee/status/139458990731046914>

That tweet also seems to link to the original article: [http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/11/23/mundie.insists...](http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/11/23/mundie.insists.windows.phone.had.siri.early/)

<comment><USER5> > If true: We're imbeciles If false: We're imbeciles.

What does that mean?

<comment><USER6> It means: either they had equivalent technology and failed to market it (imbecilic), or else they don't actually have equivalent technology and either don't understand the difference (imbecilic) or hope you won't notice the difference (imbecilic).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is hardly an apples for apples comparison. The quality and implementation of these features are more important that ticking the box labelled "voice recognition".

Tellme is very similar to the original iPhone voice commands, requiring certain key words and syntax to be adhered to. Siri on the other hand allows for quite a bit of flexibility in how instructions are given, or in many cases instructions aren't given but a situation is stated. e.g. "I'm drunk" will prompt siri to bring up the number for taxi services in the area.

Despite that difference the voice recognition in siri is also (in my opinion) far better, a culmination between it being very fast and in my experience suitably accurate.

You won't see microsoft comparing them side by side, because it's a dismal race, but someone else did, read it here: [http://www.istartedsomething.com/20111124/tellme-on- windows-...](http://www.istartedsomething.com/20111124/tellme-on-windows- phone-vs-siri-on-iphone/)

</comment><comment><USER8> This is laughable. I tried voice commands on a Windows Phone 7 device and it could not even make out the simplest of commands, whereas an old iPhone with the pre-siri "voice commands" was at least able to call people and control music playback. Microsoft has plenty of budget to get some decent voice recognition technology; it was just never a priority for them.

</comment><comment><USER9> apple have had Siri-like functionality since the release of the iphone 3gs.

<comment><USER10> Yep. They (and everybody else) did not have Siri-like functionality, they had/have basic voice command: serviceable, but pretty inflexible. The point of Siri is to make the machine work harder to understand the human, not to make the human work harder to be understood by the machine (it's not quite there yet, but multi-step contextual commands are pretty nice for instance)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As with Android, it's not about how well something works, it's about having a big long bulleted list of features.

Look, I want to like the iXXX alternatives. But I can't get behind half-baked alternatives. "We have voice recognition (that's barely adequate)" "We have USB PORTS!!! (that don't support anything but USB disks") "We have wireless support (that's STILL only 802.11g)"

I would like to see an honest competitor to Apple's products, not products that a geek or fanboy will drool over and blindly think are better.

Windows phone is a really good start. But I still think there's a lot of work to do there before the average person will pick one up.

</comment><comment><USER12> What's more surprising is that Windows Phones still exist. Would be interesting to do a poll to see if anyone on HN has one. I'm skeptical.

<comment><USER13> I have one and I think that the out-of-the-box experience is better than on Android. Facebook, Gmail, Twitter, Maps and Office are integrated in the system. Everything is also pretty fast and fluid even on a year old phone.

Plus you get the most recent OS version pretty fast compared to Android

<comment><USER14> This infographic was posted on HN a while back, but I think it is very telling regarding the Android/Manufacturer relationship in terms of updates:

[http://c27718.r18.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/10...](http://c27718.r18.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/10/016a_android_orphans.png)</comment></comment></comment>


Namecheap hosting vulnerability let crooks create subdomains on other accounts - <AUTHOR> https://www.kirkville.com/namecheap-name-server-vulnerability-allows-unauthorized-users-to-create-sub-domains/ <comment><USER2> The issue affected less than 200 domains and only domains using our shared hosting product via a special set of circumstances. Tt was addressed fairly quickly on Feb. 5th when this was originally reported.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best piece of relationship advice you got? - <AUTHOR> In general when it comes to a relationship of any kind <comment><USER2> I don't have an answer, but I'll observe that there are many more relationship books targeted to women than men. Are there are any books for men that people suggest?</comment>