Don't ask venture capitalists for referrals if they say they're not interested. - <AUTHOR> http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2010/april/205524.html

<comment><USER2> If his reason for turning you down is "it's not my thing," that implies it may be someone else's "thing." Perhaps that someone else is known to him. Not sure why he'd be bent out of shape for an entrepreneur following up with the obvious question: who?

He'd get a lot fewer people asking for referrals if he flat out said "I don't think the idea/team/market/whatever is any good," in which case it would be illogical for an entrepreneur to ask for a referral (or for him to give one, since doing so would cost him credibility).

</comment><comment><USER3> I like Brad, but sometimes he comes off as a narcissistic princess. If the VC already said 'no', it doesn't hurt at all to ask for a referral, the worst that can happen is they'll again say 'no' or ignore you.

<comment><USER4> It seemed ok, up until the point where he said "this has never worked for me when dating"!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article explains why the VC doesn't want to give the referral, but it doesn't explain how it can hurt me to ask. If you have ever sold something, you know, you have to ask a lot of unlikely people for help before you get any.

<comment><USER6> Well, it'll hurt your future relationship (should there be one) with the VC, which could be detrimental further down the line if they remember you. Plus, if every VC behaves like this, it'll hurt you because nobody will ever refer you and therefore you waste the few seconds you spent typing out the question.

I can see this from both sides. We are trained as entrepreneurs to ask, ask, ask. If they say no, ask them who might say yes. But if they say no because they're a biotech late-stage VC, and you're after social-web angel funding, so they read your first two sentences and then turned off - what value does a referral really have?

It all comes down to doing your homework, IMO. If someone who _should_ be interested declines, they can probably help you. If you're mass mailing every VC in Silicon Valley and asking for introductions from those who bother to reply to your poorly-targeted pitch, well, you've got a bigger problem than a VC writing a blog post about you.

<comment><USER7> _Well, it'll hurt your future relationship (should there be one) with the VC, which could be detrimental further down the line if they remember you._

Rejection's just a matter of business, but if he refuses to refer you and doesn't have a good reason (e.g. "everyone in my network is interested in biotech, and you're a web startup") he already thinks you're a loser and beneath consideration. At this point, getting his panties in a jam by asking a question he'll find annoying is a (small) benefit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think asking for a referral is an extremely delicate thing in sales as well as raising capital. While you have little to lose from asking for a referral after a rejection, you also have much to gain from pitching this very carefully.

You don't want to come off as implying the VC is wrong to turn you down, consider acknowledging the possibility that your idea isn't ready in the VC's mind before asking for a referral.

"Hey Brad, thanks for your polite note... I get that it isn't right for you to move forward with our team right now. Quite honestly, I value your advice. Is there someone you know who might be able to help us move forward a little more, if not by investing at least by helping us understand where we need to get to and how to proceed? Someone who is perhaps specializing in ventures like ours?

"While we would love to raise money from someone like you right now, if we aren't ready we would appreciate steering us to someone who is in a position to help us sharpen our focus.

"Thanks in advance,

"Reginald S. Braithwaite, Esq."

</comment><comment><USER9> This is true, but not for the reasons given in the article. VCs largely follow each other's lead - they're interested in deals that others are interested in.

If one VC refers you to another, but that first one isn't investing, you're automatically damaged goods. You can and should be getting better referrals into investors than that. Entrepreneurs who have made the investor money in the past or are doing well for the investor in the present are the best.

</comment><comment><USER10> I look at this as a game theory problem. If the number of VC's out there is very large, they are not well-connected, and the number of funding interactions you're going to have over your career is small, then ask away. Who cares if you upset that person? You're never going to deal with them (or their network) again.

If, on the other hand, the number of VC's is limited, they are well-connected to each other, and you plan to ask for funding repeatedly, then how you handle each individual interaction becomes VERY important, because it has a high chance of affecting all of your future interactions.

I find that much of the advice out there on sales and networking is focused on the former case, where the goal is to maximize the chance of a win in the first contact, even at the risk of making an enemy.

<comment><USER7> _I find that much of the advice out there on sales and networking is focused on the former case, where the goal is to maximize the chance of a win in the first contact, even at the risk of making an enemy._

What kind of asshole is going to become an enemy because you asked for an introduction?

<comment><USER8> > What kind of asshole is...

[http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/04/venture-capitalist- passe...](http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/04/venture-capitalist-passes- away.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's not quite true that investors don't respond to emails over the transom. In my experience they just have to be very targeted.

</comment><comment><USER7> _In networking seminars, classes and sales conferences around the world, people are told some version of "if you get rejected by someone, ask them for a referral." This has never worked for me when dating. (After being rejected, I don't recall saying, "I know you aren't interested in me, but do you have any friends that are?") I've never really understood why people think this works in a business context._

It doesn't happen explicitly, but a lot of the time, a person who's already in a relationship (i.e. who will reject the suitor for non-personal reasons) will refer attractive singles to friends.

If a VC rejects me, I'm going to assume that I'm not offering what he's looking to invest in, because the "VCs invest in people, not projects" line is wrong and it's legitimate and expected that a VC will reject people who aren't in his domain. If he refuses to _refer_ me, on the other hand, to someone who might be looking to invest in my project, I'm going to recognize that his ability to judge talent is nil.

<comment><USER12> _" If he refuses to refer me, on the other hand, to someone who might be looking to invest in my project, I'm going to recognize that his ability to judge talent is nil."_

Hypothetical: What if your idea and your business plan is a flaming dog pile? Choosing to recognize that it is _his_ ability that is lacking at this point is called arrogance.

<comment><USER7> Very unlikely, but then he should tell me why the idea is unlikely to work.

<comment><USER12> I disagree. A VC's job is to determine if he should give you money, not be a personal founder business coach. Isn't that why we would go to him in the first place?

Any information or feedback he gives should be considered a favor and is purely optional on his part.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What was the relationship between Outlook and Outlook Express? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2015/03/31/10603954.aspx

<comment><USER2> both have same dad</comment>


Bill Gates calls failure to fight Android his "greatest mistake" - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/bill-gates-calls-failure-to-fight-android-his-greatest-mistake/ <comment><USER2> Mistake or missed opportunity? I think deciding not to get into the eBook market in 1997 when Microsoft employees had created the first eReader tablet "because I don't want to compete with Amazon" which only sold dead-tree books at the time was a gigantic missed opportunity. Had they seized that opportunity they would have been in the platform space of the Kindle and iPad about a decade before Amazon and Apple. Google the blog posts and videos with former Microsoft employee Bill Hill, the inventor of ClearType.</comment>


Netanyahu government knew teens were dead as it whipped up racist frenzy - <AUTHOR> http://electronicintifada.net/content/netanyahu-government-knew-teens-were-dead-it-whipped-racist-frenzy/13533

<comment><USER2> Please let's have less of the Islamist propaganda on HN. The article describes hostilities between Palestine and Israel as "entirely avoidable" while silently ignoring the fact that Palestinian groups have the liquidation of the state of Israel as their goal.

This is the private face of Palestinian Islam, courtesy Memri TV:

[http://www.memri.org/palestinian- media.html](http://www.memri.org/palestinian-media.html)

Read the translated text books, watch the subtitled TV, and see for yourselves what the Intifada is really about.

<comment><USER3> come on, the only propaganda here is your link, totally unrelated to the article. Is any critique of Netanyahu's methods antisemitism?

<comment><USER2> No - criticism of Israeli policies is entirely valid, and there are many valid criticisms that could be made, including over this issue. In addition, to clarify my own position, I don't think taxpayers money should be spent on aid to Israel (or any other country for that matter, but that's a different story).

My objection is to the "electronic Intifada" source. I don't think we need to give Jew-haters and would-be ethnic cleaners any publicity on HN. Or, alternatively, we should publicize resources like Memri equally, so that readers can get a clear view of the ideology behind the Intifada.

Also, re my link bring propaganda: it contains translations of Palestinian media into English. If you think that constitutes anti-Palestinian or anti- Islamic propaganda, perhaps you should take the matter up with the Palestinian Muslims who produced the material in the first place.

<comment><AUTHOR> Written by Max Blumenthal though, who I don't think you can correctly describe as a "Jew-hater".

I submitted it because it was interesting, but also referenced the role technology had played in the manipulation of the story.

<comment><USER2> No the name is a bit of a giveaway :-) I found the story interesting, and was definitely on topic for HN - hence an up vote and comment from me. I just wanted to make sure that the nature of the Intifada was made clear, lest justifiable criticism of Israel be used as a smokescreen for the far worse behavior of the Mujahideen.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: When,if ever, is a "flight tested" booster more valuable than "untested" - <AUTHOR> Not my field, I just thought it was an interesting question. Obviously mechanical systems have fatigue, stress, wear and tear. But new they can have undetected manufacturing faults, or assembly errors.<p>Given that stress and fatigue are generally well understood, at some point, will insurance on a new rocket cost more than insurance on a used rocket? And will SpaceX start charging more to use one of their "flight tested" boosters? <comment><USER2> To be clear, SpaceX's brand new boosters are tested before they are launched so they should not be called untested.

If the BFR plan happens, customers won't really have a choice because a new BFR will be very expensive and a launch on a used BFR will be very cheap.

</comment><comment><USER3> HN says what?</comment>


BiteLabs – Eat Celebrity Meat - <AUTHOR> http://www.bitelabs.org/ <comment><USER2> I never heard of Thunderclap before, maybe this is a viral campaign to advertise a viral campaigning tool.

Anyhow, Antiviral is a pretty good movie.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiviral_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiviral_\(film\))</comment>


The Eat of Battle: How the World's Armies Get Fed - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/18/eat-of-battle-worlds-armies-fed/#

<comment><USER2> "[...] but the «flameless heater» shows off American tech skills – just add water to the powder in a plastic bag and it heats up enough to warm the plastic meal pouch."

Wasn't this kind of tech (that involved heating double-deck cans, by pouring water in the lower deck) used by the German army in the battle fields of WW2?</comment>


Why a Judge Made Uber Create an Email Address - <AUTHOR> https://jalopnik.com/why-a-judge-made-uber-create-an-email-address-1840342381 <comment><USER2> When will a judge just strike down this binding arbitration scheme in general? The setup of binding arbitration goes against the fundamental idea of a _contract_ by handing the power of interpretation to an agent of one of the parties.

The groups pushing this nonsense seem to have regrouped at "you agree to arbitration unless you send us a notice to opt out in this small timeframe", adding complexity in an attempt to create something legally defensible. But there is still no consideration for accepting that specific provision besides "ha-ha got you", so it clearly won't last either. We just have to put up with it until the right test case and judge comes along.

With what we know about computational complexity, there really needs to be an explicit disincentive for drafters to contracts, contracts of adhesion especially, to not attempt these types of hostile terms in the first place.

<comment><USER3> It should probably be made null in non-negotiated contracts like EULAs.

If two parties of equal power and status want to agree to resolve their issues trough arbitration rather than litigation, that's a great thing.

Traditionally that what binding arbitration was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I still don't understand why arbitration is a thing. Like what's the point of the law if you can just put some BS in an obscure part of the terms of service and become completely immune to it?

<comment><USER5> The argument is that you didn't just agree to the terms by signing up, you checked a box saying you did.

<comment><USER4> I thought the point of the law was that you can't just opt-out of it if you find it inconvenient.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple doesn't allow Chaos Computer Club tvOS application - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/zT1n0RPV <comment><USER2> The specific reasons for rejection:

        > The following content was criticized by Apple in its review:
        >
        > Hardware attacks: hacking chips on the (very) cheap (https://media.ccc.de/v/camp2015-6711-hardware_attacks_hacking_chips_on_the_very_cheap)
        > Bluetooth Hacking – The State of The Art (https://media.ccc.de/v/22C3-536-en-bluetooth_hacking)
        > Hacking Medical Devices (https://media.ccc.de/v/MRMCD2013_-_5209_-_de_-_gate_104_-_201309081123_-_hacking_medical_devices_-_flo)
        > Gamehacking & Reverse Engineering (https://media.ccc.de/v/gpn15-6940-gamehacking_reverse_engineering)
        > Crypto-Hacking Export restrictions (https://media.ccc.de/v/1114)
        > Jailbreak: eine Einführung (https://media.ccc.de/v/hackover14_-_6494_-_en_-_raum_1_7_-_201410251615_-_jailbreak_eine_einfuhrung_-_erik_e)
        > Social Engineering und Industriespionage (https://media.ccc.de/v/MRMCD15-7034-social_engineering_und_industriespionage)
        > $kernel->infect(): Creating a cryptovirus for Symfony2 apps (https://media.ccc.de/v/froscon2014_-_1436_-_en_-_hs6_php_-_201408231115_-_kernel-_infect_creating_a_cryptovirus_for_symfony2_apps_-_raul_fraile)

<comment><USER3> To be fair, CCC does have hacking content so its quite possible an automated filtering process would flag it.

That said, its sad how much cenorship we have on the Internet vs. 20 years ago.

<comment><USER4> The thing is, this isn't censorship "on the internet" but on their private, closed platform that people choose to be a part of.

<comment><USER5> Yes, that is how censorship works nowadays: you can put it online, but simply won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might see it.

<comment><USER6> Freedom of speech isn't really the right to say what you want to a large group of people, it's the right to say what you want _period_ regardless of who's listening. It's your job to find an audience.

<comment><USER7> That's an easy stance to take - I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech": You may say whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it.

Of course there is no right to an audience. But if the success or failue of finding an audience starts to depend on the goodwill of a few powerful gatekeepers (media/TV companies before and now apparently "platform" operators) then the right to free speech stops to really be worth very much.

<comment><USER8> You have the right to say anything you want, you do not have the right to say it in my home. I don't understand how there are so many people that don't understand FOS.

<comment><USER9> They understand it perfectly - you're conflating the law (the government isn't allowed to prevent you from speaking) with the principle it's based on (restricting people's ability to speak is a backwards, repressive thing to do).

Freedom of speech != the first amendment.

<comment><USER5> The story talks about an European group trying to reach a global audience. I was making a more general point about how over-reliance on private platforms makes censorship much easier for governments and corporations everywhere. Why do you guys keep assuming that "the law" equals "US law as I understand it"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ugh. This is the nightmare scenario for walled gardens. Don't like the content? Don't let it into the ecosystem.

I hope the open web continues to exist and we move past the app era, but I think this is a pipe dream. It's Compuserve and AOL 2.0.

<comment><USER11> Not all platforms aggressively censor content to benefit the owner of the platform.

I can easily use Google search and YouTube to find out how to block Google's own ads[1] and to root Android phones. Google doesn't censor information that hurts Google's interests.

Microsoft's Bing has information on how to replace Windows Media Player with free and open alternatives like VLC.

Bing even suggests searches to prevent Windows 10 from spying[2].

It is possible to run an ethical platform that doesn't tilt the playing field to the provider of the platform. Apple most definitely does not provide an ethical platform.

(By the way, YouTube has a CCC channel[3].)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=block+google+ad...](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=block+google+ads)

[2] [http://imgur.com/K1fGwFt](http://imgur.com/K1fGwFt)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/user/CCCdeVideos](https://www.youtube.com/user/CCCdeVideos)

<comment><USER12> Google banned disconnect.me -- a popular privacy app that blocks various tracking mechanisms (without blocking advertising itself) -- from Android[0]. Apple had no problem with the iOS version.

It seems that each big centralized walled garden has their targets.

[0] [http://www.businessinsider.com/why-google-banned-connect- mob...](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-google-banned-connect- mobile-2014-8)

<comment><USER11> > It seems that each big centralized walled garden has their targets.

This is false equivalence. Just because you can find an example where Google banned an app does not mean that all platforms are equally unethical.

Google Play simply doesn't allow apps that interfere with other apps. That's the reason the disconnect.me app was removed.

It's telling that other apps from Disconnect are still available on Google Play. Disconnect Search[1], for example, is contrary to Google's interests, but Google does not ban it because it doesn't interfere with other apps.

[1] [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.disconnect....](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.disconnect.search)

<comment><USER12> > does not mean that all platforms are equally unethical.

I would agree that Google is more ethical than Apple, _for now_. But they still do bad things, and they could easily get worse in the future. We need to move away from this kind of centralization, so that no one has the power to unilaterally gag legitimate content.

> Google Play doesn't allow apps that interfere with other apps.

Almost every app "interferes" with others in some way. The "no interference" clause seems clearly intended to target interference which was _unwanted_ by the user, but that is not how Google applied it here.

If the user expressly intends that the app interfere with other apps, then I think that it is unethical to prohibit them from doing so on their own device. Disconnect is not malware; users install it for exactly the purpose it implements.

<comment><USER13> Interference here is targeted functional manipulation. Not fifth degree unintended side effects. The user's wish is not considered. There's a reason not a lot Xposed modules are on Google Play.

Don't like it? Enable 3rd party sources (a function added by Google!) and install those apps from elsewhere.

<comment><USER12> > 3rd party sources (a function added by Google!)

It's great that Google allows this. That's one thing that makes them better than Apple (in my opinion).

However, it is still the case that being banned from the Play store can kill an app. Few users know how to sideload things.

In a world where there are several competing app markets that users can easily switch between, it would not be a big deal for Google to refuse to carry apps they don't like on their market, but when 99% of the users realistically can't get apps anywhere else than Google Play, then it becomes problematic.

<comment><USER13> And then developers who get their apps handicapped by apps promoted next to them takes their apps down. I understand your reasoning, but Google's focus is the ecosystem. If it was trivial for everybody to disable all adds and in-app purchase functions in all free apps with just a few taps, there'd be far fewer of exactly those apps you want to use.

So the rest of us simply have to get Xposed from outside Google Play and root with unofficial methods to make all apps, including proprietary ones, behave exactly as we want on our devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have a feeling that when someone at Apple who knows what CCC is wakes up on Monday morning, this rejection will be reversed.

Remember that these rejections are not the Official Word Of Apple From The Ghost Of Steve Jobs. It's just some random employee that has to get through a million of these in a day or something. The thought process is probably something like "hacking, jailbreaking, industrial espionage... nope" and they click a button to reject. Or it could even be a mistake.

<comment><USER15> They put a very specific list of talks that they do not approve - it does seem that they spent some time going through the content that CCC wanted to share through this app before finally rejecting it.

<comment><USER16> > it does seem that they spent some time going through the content

Or .. the automated filter noticed the words "Jailbreak", "espionage", "attacks", and "Hacking" in the title of the videos and flagged them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Headline is misleading. "Its platform" implies that Apple is somehow excluding CCC's content generally, across Apple's entire product line. Which is absurd. Apple has denied them a dedicated tvOS channel for broadcasting their content about industrial espionage, etc. The content is still viewable by many other means, across all of Apple's devices.

My cat also does not have a dedicated tvOS channel.

To be fair, I do support CCC's position here, overall, but this headline is still hysterical.

<comment><USER10> > My cat also does not have a dedicated tvOS channel.

Your cat _could_ have a channel and would not be rejected, however. That's the key difference.

<comment><USER18> > Your cat could have a channel and would not be rejected

That would depend on what the cat is doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Don't buy walled platform devices if you're opposed to the walled garden strategy. Vote with your wallets.

<comment><USER20> Is there a quality laptop not bound to an ecosystem that doesn't come loaded with shitware? Of course I would just install over it, but I don't want to support those kinds of models either.

In mobile I suppose there is cyanogen. Anyone tried them recently?

<comment><USER21> "Is there a quality laptop not bound to an ecosystem that doesn't come loaded with shitware?"

Yes - it's called a macbook (pro/air/whatever) running OSX. It is still (thank god) a general purpose computer and you can do whatever you'd like with it.

<comment><USER22> For now, but ultimately Apple are in charge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> c-rack Direct link to the CCC-TV GitHub repo:

[https://github.com/aus-der-Technik/CCC-TV](https://github.com/aus-der- Technik/CCC-TV)

</comment><comment><USER23> Friendly reminder to not use pastebin.com as they block all Tor users.

<comment><USER24> Good to know. I've personally been using write.as for the past few months for stuff like this, as they're more Tor friendly [0]. What do you use instead?

[0] [http://writeas7pm7rcdqg.onion](http://writeas7pm7rcdqg.onion)

<comment><USER23> paste.lisp.org usually since I mostly post Scheme source code snippets, but there's good general purpose ones like [http://pamrel.lu](http://pamrel.lu)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Most of the arguments I read here are: it's OK for Apple to do this because they're a closed app, and the same content is on Youtube anyway.

Tomorrow Google says: "We remove this content from Youtube, Apple did it anyway and many of you thought it was OK. We're a company making money too, we're not the Government".

Now what's the argument? The first one to censor is OK, the second one is not?

A few people will still say: they can still use their own player and servers!

Then the UK govt will block them, if one does not ask explicitely their ISP to have a access to it. Then Comcast will throttle them through bad peering.

Then nobody will care anymore if it gets blocked further or not, they're out of most people's reach already.

Welcome to the new 21st century.

<comment><USER26> It's an outrage. I recently submitted an incoherent, hate-filled diatribe to the New York Times, and they refused to publish it on the front page! Where is my freedom of speech? I recently submitted a video of my parrot to NBC, and they refused to play it on the nightly news! Where does the censorship end? We're clearly witnessing the erosion of our constitutional rights.

<comment><USER27> Your comparison is so far off anything, that I have a hard time answering.

Nobody asked Apple to publish the videos on their front page. There is an app that let's people access CCC content in a more friendly/more easy way then say Safari or YouTube.

Apple blocks said app, but does not do so for all the other apps that can show this content. And the reason they give is, that this app shows content, that does show how "secure" some Apple products are. Content mostly from renown security hackers?

So why is CCC-TV banned, but not Safari? Not any other browser? Not YouTube?

Why does Apple get to selectively punish smaller organisations and all the fanboys run to their defences?

btw.: Written on a Macbook Pro, but not from an iOS user.

<comment><USER26> The point of the comparison is not about placement on a front page (I could complain the NYTimes won't publish my article anywhere on their server), but rather that Apple created and operates a private distribution channel, and it has a right to exercise editorial judgement over that channel.

I don't necessarily agree with their decision to omit CCC-TV, and I think it's a bit silly that they did so. But it doesn't matter: it's their right to do so, and I don't get to force my will on them just because I disagree or think they're being irrational.

I'm glad people are critical of Apple's decision, but not when they claim it's a violation of freedom of speech, or when they falsely equate it to government censorship. I can't support a gross misunderstanding of law, government, or the Constitution that's being invoked, even if we want the same end result.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Here's the text of the referenced section 3.2(e) of the developer program license agreement:

(e) You will not, through use of the Apple Software, services or otherwise, create any Application or other program that would disable, hack or otherwise interfere with the Security Solution, or any security, digital signing, digital rights management, verification or authentication mechanisms implemented in or by the iPhone OS, this Apple Software, any services or other Apple software or technology, or enable others to do so;

It looks like the reviewer thought this was a jailbreaking app.

<comment><USER29> Or, more charitably, the reviewer thinks knowledge is power! ("or enable others to do so")

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> That's a little bit ironic, considering the hijinks Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak got up to before they started selling computers: [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/the- de...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/the-definitive- story-of-steve-wozniak-steve-jobs-and-phone-phreaking/273331/)

</comment><comment><USER31> I wonder what Apple tries to accomplish by blocking a specific way of accessing freely available content - besides annoying security researchers. People who understand the talks are able to watch them anyway, even without the app. How inclined they now are to follow "responsible disclosure" procedures when it comes to Apple, remains to be seen...

</comment><comment><USER32> I see no sign in here that they have even initiated the appeals process, much less gotten a response from that.

Spurious rejections happen. Whether or not it's meaningful and indicative of Apple's policy can't be determined until you appeal it. Maybe the reviewer thought this app was intended to aid in jailbreaking as suggested in [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483860](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483860). Maybe the reviewer is just zealous. Or maybe it really is Apple's official policy to disallow this. We can't know that until it's appealed.

</comment><comment><USER33> Does this really matter? Think of the App Store like Apple's physical retail stores. They are only going to put products in there that show their best, that they curate, and products that they like.

This is exactly the sort of app that anyone interested in using could pull from Github and install on their own device.

</comment><comment><USER34> Isn't this kind of the same as on TV. I don't find this to be offensive at all to be honest.

It is like you can't have over sexual content during certain time or 18+ ( porn ) on a publicly viewed TV.

Do you want to watch those exotic content? Do you want to watch porn? Then you move to other site specifically for these content. Now someone will point out porn is a different sort of thing. How about a video making a bomb for teaching the science behind it? I am not sure about US but many other counties in the world would simply not allow to be aired.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt for now that it was a automated layer or a ignorant reviewer. I'm hoping for a reversal of the decision here.

Regardless, I really lament the dilemma of the open web vs. walled-off apps. Hopefully Apple shares that perspective. My regrets to the FLOSS community, but years of using substandard laptops, lagging user experiences, and dealing with low-level Linux problems has gotten to me.

Please save the "you should try this or that" \-- I'm just tired of the whole hassle. I want to spend my time focusing on building things and focusing on higher level problems. For me, that means using a Mac.

It's possible that companies like Apple will push folks like me to see how far they can extend their walled garden. I'll admit, at some point, it would cause me to jump ship. I guess I'll just hope that reason will win out here.

</comment><comment><USER36> Well, good to see which smart tv box I don't need to buy then. I usually like and prefer Apple's products but if they ban content that is highly interesting to me then no thanks.

<comment><USER37> Is Apple filtering YouTube?

<comment><USER38> Is actively making ideas and information harder to access better than censoring it completely?

<comment><USER39> Yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Zero surprise. Why is this even a story? Why would CCC even waste time developing for a closed platform. Focus on the free web, available on all devices... for now.

</comment><comment><USER41> Does CCC have an app on Fire TV? On Chromecast (Android)? It bothers me that Apple has this power but is there even another choice in this specific example?

</comment><comment><USER42> Banning content on your site that discusses how to bypass security in apps from said company is not bad behavior of company but something any sane company should do. I happen to hate apple, but i'm honest enough to know banning this app is a non-story.

</comment><comment><USER43> so, if they upload to youtube, causing youtube to now have the exact same content, and apple do not take down YouTube app, can they sue for discrimination?

</comment><comment><USER44> That's crazy. This is censorship plain and simple.

</comment><comment><USER45> Apple doesn't allow hackers to have fun on their platform. Water is wet.

Anything I'm missing?

</comment><comment><USER46> Surprise?

</comment><comment><USER47> Why would any self-respecting hacker use Apple products? Truly baffling.

<comment><USER48> They aren't necessarily using Apple products though - they're trying to make their content available to those who aren't hackers and are being denied.

<comment><USER49> You will see very very many Apple devices at every CCC event, used by the hackers themselves.

<comment><USER50> As someone that used to hate Apple and still does, I use apple products (don't buy them myself). There are many reasons people use Apple products. From the support to the high quality of their products. There's also the fact that a macbook can run all 3 main operating systems at the same time, whereas no other hardware can easily and legally do so. Macbooks are also pretty much the lightest and smallest laptops you can get.

Some people also get them because of loyalty to Apple from the past, or because OSX is unix-compatible.

The point I'm trying to make is, you can disagree with Apple and still use their products. I hate Apple but my work provided me with a mac mini and a macbook, which I use every work day. I also have developed iOS apps even though I've never owned an iPhone.

Also, if you are talking about iPhones, you are going to see a lot of those everywhere because you really only have 2 viable choices anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Apple is a company. Apple is not your friend. Apple doesn't care about you. Apple just wants to make money.

This is okay and this should be expected.

That people are upset about this kind of behaviour is disconcerting.

<comment><USER52> This should be definitely expected, but the fact you think it's ok is what's disconcerting.

<comment><USER53> It's ok to me for Apple to do this, too. Regulating is what governments and laws are for. Apple can exclude stuff from its ecosystem simply because it competes with its own offerings; excluding it for 'moral' reasons is relatively charitable.

<comment><USER51> There is simply no disincentive. Yes, it's upsetting, but is it upsetting enough to impact their bottom line, now or in the near future? Not likely.

It's okay because this is the kind of behaviour we have come to expect from large, for-profit corporations. It's how they're expected to behave, it's textbook behaviour. If you're outraged that a company would do this, you've simply not been paying attention to the business world for decades.

Whether it's morally okay or not is a different question. Companies are amoral. They can't be expected to act on conscience because they have none. If you want them to act on morals, you need to codify these morals in regulations -- or you need to make sure your moral outrage is big enough to directly create a disincentive for that kind of behaviour (e.g. be in a position of power where that outrage directly translates to a significant change of their bottom line).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Web vs. Desktop Applications: The Neverending Debate - <AUTHOR> http://return42.blogspot.com/2009/08/web-vs-desktop-applications-neverending.html

<comment><USER3> Previously I have been quite heavily invested in the The Desktop App Will Never Die camp. Based on my experiences in the last month from selling, essentially, the same application on the desktop and on the web... I think I owe PG an apology for doubting him.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=503959>

There is still a space for _users_ of desktop apps. I know many of my users love the permanence/physicality/"realness" of it. (So much so, in fact, that a third of the ones who use it online pay extra to get a backup of the desktop application on a CD.)

I just am having a hard time making the numbers work for being a _developer_ of them.

I'm in a sort of unique position where I can split test very similar people into the desktop or online versions of my software. I get more clicks on ads for the online version. It is easier to get them to sign up for the online version than it is to download. It is easier to contact them about the online version. It is even fractionally easier to get them to pay for it (!).

I'm sort of obsessive compulsive about tracking support emails. They're running 30:2 in favor of the desktop app since I launched the online version. Sales run 50-50... and that number is starting to heavily favor the online version as I see the higher ROI it gets and promote accordingly.

I was a skeptic. Reality is making me a believer.

<comment><USER4> There will always be some desktop applications which doesn't make a ton of sense (either logically or financially) to port them to the web.

For most other type of applications, we already have web equivalents (so coyly termed as "the lite version" in some cases).

Javascript may be the most awful language to write code in. But, if there are users (and a way to make money), you'll always find developers willing to write code in JS.

<comment><USER5> Javascript is actually a quite good language: it has a dynamic object model and real closures. It has its deficencies, of course (like scoping rules).

It's really bad if you prefer statically typed languages, though, because on the client side on the web you have no other choice for the moment. Probably in the future we will see language implementations that use js as a target language become more mature and widespread.

<comment><USER6> GWT already offers static typing.

I recently added a runtime type checker (for method args/return values) to Objective-J, and intend on adding optional static typing at some point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hadn't read the original diatribe, but in this article I finally read it:

 _The reason most people want to program for the web is that they're not smart enough to do anything else. They don't understand compilers, concurrency, 3D or class inheritance. They haven't got a clue why I'd use an interface or an abstract class. They don't understand: virtual methods, pointers, references, garbage collection, finalizers, pass-by-reference vs. pass-by-value, virtual C++ destructors, or the differences between C# structs and classes. They also know nothing about process. Waterfall? Spiral? Agile? Forget it. They've never seen a requirements document, they've never written a design document, they've never drawn a UML diagram, and they haven't even heard of a sequence diagram._

Now I know I can dismiss this "Michael" fellow as an imbecile. Whatever point he may have, will no doubt be made more cogently some other day, if it's worthy of debate. I'll think about it then.

<comment><USER8> Well put. And the UML at the end is the cherry on top. But the striking thing about the post, which I had to go read [~], is how insular it is. He's saying obviously false things, not out of stupidity per se, but out of a false worldview. He's embedded in an environment that confirms this worldview back to him, so it doesn't seem false. (There's a dim awareness of reality in one comment, though: "where are all those awesome WPF applications I've been waiting for?")

Viewed this way, the rant is fascinating. It's the Microsoft equivalent of an IBM mainframe guy in the 1980s ranting against PCs. Of course Microsoft are doing things on the web today, but IBM was a leading PC vendor then too.

The post is the best thing I've seen shedding light on MS _culture_ vis-à-vis the web. Culture is a hard thing to change. If the post is representative, MS are in big trouble. Perhaps they will reinvent themselves. They did it in the past, as we know. But they had quite different leadership then.

[~] [http://michaelbraude.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-ill-never- be-w...](http://michaelbraude.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-ill-never-be-web- guy.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The author underestimates the value of APIs to provide cloud services, and over-estimate the value of client-server architecture for driving user interface.

If anything, the iPhone demonstrates the value of native software, safely run within a jail, delivered and billed immediately, connecting to broader network-based services to provide extensive functionality.

It's short-sighted to approach the future of web applications with such hubris. The web is currently a horrendous application platform, and there's clearly value in client-side state as well as rapid, safe deployment and 'cloud' state.

The future is very likely a merger of web, desktop, and api, but not necessarily using the JavaScript+HTML+CSS or Flash that web developers have come to expect. Perhaps we'll see application architectures like 280 North's Cappuccino take hold, or perhaps not.

Either way, I seriously doubt that today's web application architecture is the final evolution of the client-server model -- we've been engaged in this client/server evolutionary dance for nearly 50 years.

<comment><USER10> Agreed. The iPhone is a good demonstration of combining a powerful development environment with always on connectivity (one of the more powerful reasons for being on the web in the first place).

It's also a shining example of many of the things that are wrong with downloadable software, though some of that is this particular incarnation (the app store) more than the whole idea.

There's no argument to be made that all computation should be done on the server and just rendered on the client. That model is on the way out for web applications (not to be confused with web sites). I happen to think Cappuccino is going in a great direction ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The difference should not exist in theory. Both are programs running inside a computer, with the difference that the web application is a doomed version of the full runtime environment that the Operating System is able to really provide, for a reason: compatibility.

Imagine something like POSIX but much more extended, covering APIs for GUI, database access and so forth (basically what the Java VM provides), the "Application Browser" can just be an url in the form app://foobar.com/email.app that will run as native application. Still it can be a server-side application where all your data is saved server-side, and of course the environment can be smart enough to automatically download and install a new version of the program when available (actually the local copy can be just a caching business).

The web is going to offer all this in the end, but currently it's ridiculous stupid compared to a real environment. You can't do free networking, for instance, things like opening a socket and sending/receiving data using a non- HTTP protocol. In the end the web will provide all the stuff that now are trivially done in the desktop side, but my feeling is that this was the wrong path since everything is already here, the technology and decades of desktop applications capable of doing very smart things.

We are reinventing the wheel using the wrong foundation (HTML+CSS for GUIs, GET requests for all the kind of networking, ...).

</comment><comment><USER12> This is a stupid debate at this point.

For most applications the line has become darn near invisible at this point. Think about it. In the abstract, what really is the difference between a desktop app running off a database and an Adobe AIR app running off a web service? A seamless install process on the web. A couple of extra APIs on the desktop perhaps. But overall they're exactly the same.

Moreover, the only reason for any difference at all is that the platform manufacturers haven't caught up yet. There's no reason, for example, that an AIR app couldn't do everything a desktop app could (access hardware devices, run in the background, etc…). Adobe just hasn't put it all in yet.

So at this point Desktop apps are just a specialized programming environment for those rare situations (utilities, games, hardware centric programs) where web apps don't work. Otherwise there's not much difference. So developers should do what they've always done, evaluate their requirements and pick the tool that is best for the job.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's not a war, and they will live side-by-side.

Desktop applications will still be necessary for the foreseeable future. Developers will want to do what the web is bad at - whether they need speed, high resource size, high complexity, access to local resources, or background access. I'm sure there's other examples of what the web is bad. These problems all have no solutions in sight.

Web applications are better for most other situations, since they're cross- platform, instant-on, simple to deploy, available from many places, and allow for seamless integration of the social aspect, which is often compelling for end-users.

</comment><comment><USER14> Here is a good / bad list I made of attributes of desktop sw:

Good:

-Drag and drop eg: Easier to attach a photo to an email

-OS integration eg: iPhoto => set as desktop, Excel => uses outlook contacts

-Access to hardware eg: GPU, usb, accelerometers, camera

-GUI responsiveness

-Fully customizable flow eg: Not forced into the "back" button paradigm.

-Control over version eg: If there is a bug, you can wait to upgrade.

-Control over data eg: I can't get my FB contacts

-No need to upload data to another app to edit it. eg: photos etc

-SPEED

-Works w/o connection

-Keyboard shortcuts

-Richness of GUI

-file assoc - mailto link etc. You determine what app uses what extension.

Bad:

-Installer eg: no "insta-play"

-Spyware

-Manual updates

-no HUGE data sets eg: youtube / wikipedia

-Uninstaller eg: doesn't uninstall potentially corrupt prefs

-expensive for developers eg: No knowledge of user's environment.

-!Cross platform

-No Data sync across machines

Now, before some wise guy says that all n things can be solved w/ n different plugins, let me just say this list is for the general case. Since most people don't have those plugins it's silly to build a business around them. Unless of course you have some way of spreading them, which you usually don't.

<comment><USER15> It's about the sweet-spot. A professional photographer uses Photoshop in a manner that doesn't work well as a web app. However, a party goer takes snaps and posts them to their web space of choice. Same core concept, different level of use and thus different environment. The platform choice is based upon the target audience. There's plenty of room for both approaches.

Similar dichotomy exists in most spaces, casual word processing works well over the web, but I'd rather write a thesis with a desktop hosted word processor. Ditto for IDE's, CAD, NLE, spreadsheets, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Disclaimer: Linked post was tl;dr. I only read the first quote and a paragraph passed that.

The debates regarding web vs desktop are all the same: The desktop has more power, concurrency, 3D, etc etc. The web has the advantage of working anywhere with a browser, persisting data in the cloud so any computer can restart where you left off, etc etc. Its a waste of breath to argue these points.

What I think is more important is that I believe computers ARE headed to a more web-oriented world. But to get there, there does need to be some changes. I think Google has the right idea with Google Gears and it will be interesting to see how Chrome OS plays out.

But web developer or desktop developer, I wouldn't feel threatened either way, since the concepts of desktop development aren't too far off from web development. Both of course have their differences that must be learned but if a software engineer understands the basic concepts of OOP, garbage collection (yes, it matters for the web too), memory usage, etc, then he/she will be fine on both camps.

Disregarding the web as a place where developers flock because they are revelling in their own medicority is a poor observation and a defensive argument by the quote in Tobias's article.

</comment><comment><USER17> The web can never replace the power of desktop applications, and desktop applications can never beat the simplicity of web applications (with both in their current forms). We are currently blurring the lines between desktop and and web, but in the end it will probably resemble more of desktop applications. This is because current web applications run in the browser only because of the limitations of current web technologies. But if we could easily make web applications run like native desktop applications (with no installation necessary), we probably would.

Chrome is making that leap to blur the lines by being a web oriented OS. In the future we'll probably see more of using web technologies, and applications that run remotely coupled with easy (but more powerful) UI development on the client side that runs natively on the user's computer. So we'll have a mix between the best parts of desktop applications: control and power, and the best of web apps: easy UI development and interconnectedness.

<comment><USER18> The product that I really think blurs the line right now is Mozilla Prism (<http://labs.mozilla.com/2007/10/prism/>).

Sure, "we" know that a Prism "app" is really just a web app running inside of a stripped-down copy of Firefox, but the average person (who makes the market) doesn't know that. I've set up some non-technical friends with a copy of Firefox, as well as three or four Prism "apps" - Gmail, Google reader, NYT.com, etc. They don't know, nor do they care, that they're using web apps: they interact with them as desktop apps, which is what matters to them (despite the fact that I've explained to them what's going on).

The really interesting thing is that they distinguish between the Gmail they get by typing the URL into Firefox, and the Gmail they get by launching the Prism "app". Despite the interfaces being 100% identical, they still think of the Firefox-based one as the "web version" of it, in the same way that Outlook users see OWL as the "web version" of normal Outlook - doesn't matter that they're the exact same.

As for web vs. desktop, I think - like most things - it's a case where different tools have different strong points. Some apps will naturally work better in a web-based environment, but some will stay desktop-based.

Seeing as I have as little idea about the future as everyone else does, I'll offer two predictions about the two sides coming together:

 _In the shorter-term, we will see more desktop apps accessing web services behind the scenes_. The main application will still be desktop-based, but some resources (or more likely, improvements on native resources) will come from web services. The big example of this, currently, is Mathematica's cloud computing initiative. To the user, Mathematica is Mathematica - it's on a desktop client, and it's as responsive as ever. But you can configure this desktop client to (silently) spin up an EC2 instance with the Mathematica engine pre-loaded onto it, and route complex calculations to that more- powerful instance, as opposed to computing it locally. To the user, there's no visible difference between locally-computed answers and remote ones; but the desktop app has chosen which source to use based on the calculation.

 _In the longer-term, the distinction between desktop apps and web apps will disappear_. What makes something a web app? Currently, it's that it's written in Javascript that's downloaded and executed in a browser context. What about when browsers have more powerful languages built-in (like Google NaCl promises), and can access the hardware more directly? What about when your OS comes with a built-in ability to download and run these programs, without explicitly invoking a browser - your browser is conceptually like a VM for Javascript, so when this VM is integrated directly into the OS (like Java), what is it?

Let's say I've got a copy of Gmail that uses Gears for persistence, some NaCl to offload some of the processing, and is accessed via a Prism instance - <USER2> this a web app or a desktop app?

<comment><USER17> A web app is an application that _requires_ at least a browser to run. Why? Because the web as we traditionally know it is accessed through a browser and any application that still requires a browser to run _cannot_ be considered a desktop app.

As for prism it still doesn't actually make that app a desktop application because all it still contains the environment designed to run web apps and just simulates a desktop app. You still use it to run apps designed for the browser.

The blurring of the lines will come as web apps start to no longer need a browser to run. So when the day comes I can start up my OS, type gmail.com, and it runs the Gmail app, then the distinction between web and desktop app will truly have vanished. But until then anything that still requires a browser, or browser technology is still in the transition stage.

<comment><USER18> How do you define a browser?

If you strip away the visual chrome, a browser is simply a piece of software that interprets a certain set of languages and displays the result, not unlike the JVM or the CLR.

As for your example, I can do that now - when I type _gmail.com_ into the Vista _Run_ dialog, my browser opens up and runs the Gmail app. How is this different from typing in the name of a JAR file and having it run, aside from a different program being run to interpret the code? Also, what about the tight IE-Explorer integration in XP, where I could open a normal Explorer window, type in _gmail.com_ in the location bar, and then Gmail would open in that window (and have the UI change to IE's chrome)?

<comment><USER17> Because your internet explorer does not allow apps to access low level functions. It still resembles its original purpose: the serving of static pages.

Web apps should break out of the prison that is the browser.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > First, it's not a challenging medium for me.

The guy should probably switch his intellectual efforts over to figuring out how to make his work useful rather than how to make it as complex as possible.

</comment><comment><USER19> I recently worked on a web based product that installed a server and a database on the users machine. All data was stored locally for privacy and locality of cpu resources, but could be backed up in the cloud and shared with whomever the user chose. Given this kind of setup the distinction between web and desktop applications completely disappears.

There are obvious scaling and security issues for this model in the general sense: do you want 200 servers and 200 databases on your local machine, but as a browser managed facility it makes sense to me.

</comment><comment><USER18> Where do things like all-Flash web apps fall? Are they web apps, since I use my browser to get to a web page that contains no more code than is needed to launch the Flash movie? But what if I chose to download (or otherwise receive) the .fla file and launch it using Flash Player - someone could launch it this way without ever having Firefox installed.

Or consider Java Web Start applications - you click one link in a browser, which causes a helper to fire, some code to download, and an app to be launched? What are they?

<comment><USER20> _What are they?_

The future.

The extent to which we constrain ourselves to HTML/JS nowadays is borderline ridiculous. AIR exists and it works. It lets you build user interfaces on a much more powerful platform and these apps will run equally well inside a browser tab or a desktop window. The problem with AIR (and silverlight) is the vendor lockin, nobody likes to rely on proprietary technology.

Free alternatives will emerge as we push the limits of HTML further.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> My web browser is a desktop application.</comment>


I promise not to kill myself: Apple factory workers 'asked to sign pledge' - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/i-promise-not-to-kill-myself-apple-factory-workers-asked-to-sign-pledge-20100526-wddd.html

<comment><USER2> As discussed on the previous stories here: FoxConn has an extremely _good_ suicide rate compared to the rest of China! By a big margin (I recall about 60%).

This sounds very much like them trying to react to the bad press (I will actually say to the unfairly bad press) r.e. suicides at the factory.

Signing a letter promising not to commit suicide possibly has a positive effect - so I can't disagree with it in general. EDIT: the bit about being institutionalised might be a little far; offering medical care is definitely a good thing, any for of enforced sectioning is too far though.

(that's not to say conditions are good there.. I really don't know because none of these articles have gone past the sensational.. I suspect no worse than the rest of China - and so a general improvement would be good)

<comment><USER3> 'the rest of China' is a bad thing to compare foxconn with, you probably should compare it with the other factories in the same town to get a baseline.

The economic situation in China has a huge variation from location to location so it may very well be that compared to the local average foxconn is either much worse or much better.

Either way, this number of suicides in a single company in an absolute sense is bad regardless, whatever the relationship to other companies or regions.

<comment><USER2> > Either way, this number of suicides in a single company in an absolute sense > is bad regardless, whatever the relationship to other companies or regions.

Hmm, I'm not sure I follow the logic. Clearly any suicide rate is bad; and things should be done to combat it. But the fact is they employ 480,000 people and, so, you are going to see a larger number of suicides compared to someone who employs 48,000!

> you probably should compare it with the other factories in the same town to > get a baseline.

Absolutely; can't find any information though. Which sucks.

<comment><USER3> The logic is that it is 25 work related suicides per that number of employees, I'm assuming that it is not exactly the total number of suicides for the whole company, just the ones that are directly related to the work conditions.

If someone jumps off a bridge because they got dumped by their significant other I highly doubt it would be tallied amongst these.

<comment><USER2> > just the ones that are directly related to the work conditions.

Yeh, I now see what you mean. As I said lower down - previous articles have explicitly said this is an overall figure.

<comment><USER3> This one in particular stands out as one that may be pretty directly related to the workplace:

[http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/news-mobile- wireless/unbea...](http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/news-mobile- wireless/unbearable-interrogation-linked-to-apple-iphone-contractor- suicide-1448)

It refers to suicide after 'unbearable interrogation techniques'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> X-Istence Okay, so is anyone else bothered by this statement:

> Apple manufacturer Foxconn was today taking extraordinary measures [...]

Foxconn or Hon Hai makes products for many different companies and their parts end up in thousands of different products all over the world, yes they are one of the primary manufacturers for Apple products but Apple is not the only one that is having products manufactured there. I find that it is very disproportionate for a news article not to mention that other companies also do business with them thereby putting the spotlight just on Apple.

<comment><USER4> It's inaccurate in fact but accurate in spirit. Companies like Apple and Nike should not be allowed to outsource human misery, pollution, or anything else that is reprehensible.

Apple have been bragging about how green their products are, so clearly they are not above taking credit for things done by their subcontractors in their name. So it's fair to bring their name into it when asking questions about working conditions.

That being said, it's also fair to ask HP, Dell, or anyone else who employs Foxconn the exact same questions.

<comment><USER5> > _That being said, it's also fair to ask HP, Dell, or anyone else who employs > Foxconn the exact same questions._

I think that this is the point. Pointing _only_ at Apple in this case reeks of the 'Micro$oft'-type anti-fanboyism of recent years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How to tell you are applying for a bad job: you are asked to sign a letter promising not to kill yourself.

</comment><comment><USER7> Terrible article, as I've come to expect on this subject.

"The 22-year-old's monthly salary, including overtime, was only 2000 yuan ($300) -- about the same as the US price of a 32GB iPhone."

I mean -- _really_? Not only does the article fail to provide any sort of baseline such as simply comparing purchasing power of 2000 yuan in Hunan if not wages of comparable jobs in the area, that's the carrier-subsidized price of an iPhone, not the actual price.

</comment><comment><USER8> It is one of partners of apple, they manufacture for hp and dell as well

</comment><comment><USER9> > _"I promise never to hurt myself or others in an extreme manner,"_

If only students were asked to sign those - we could've prevented so many shootings...

<comment><USER10> now they will need to think of un-extreme ways to hurt themselves and others. no nukes, conventional weapons only.

<comment><USER9> Ah, like the rules of international conflicts / Geneva conventions? You can kill each other, but there needs to be order. Napalm - nay, bullets - yay, landmines - gray area. Civilians out of bounds, unless they try to help the wounded who carried weapons.

We've got to be civilised after all... Yup - we should definitely make people sign stuff like that.

Seriously though - since they've got the nets installed, soon we may have an extensive list of ways to kill yourself in the factory (without jumping out).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't understand people providing numbers about _rates_ and how they differ. If there is suicide, it means something is wrong. It's simple as that. You don't need numbers.

We are so used to providing statistics and being empirical but we need some humanity as well.

</comment><comment><USER12> I agree with this guy (from the article):

 _One Foxconn worker told the newspaper he refused to sign because the company was seeking the right to institutionalise employees.

"If I bicker with my supervisor, will I be sent to a mental hospital?" the employee told the paper._

There's no way in __hell __I'd sign an agreement that gave my employer the right to force me to go to the loony bin.

</comment><comment><USER13> Unfortunately, these conditions seem to be the norm in China, regardless of the company or factory. Even if Apple took the nuclear option and dropped Foxconn as a manufacturer, would any rival companies (that had similar manufacturing capacity) treat their workers any better?

<comment><USER3> After that? Probably the next one would.

It'd be more effective though if Apple forced foxconn to improve conditions 'or else'.

<comment><USER14> I do not think it is accurate. Apple is more of a low volume, high margin kind of business. Mind you, the high margin is for themselves. If at all, I guess the manufacturer may sell to Apple just above cost, just for the sake of the free publicity.

But if you look at the bottom line, I doubt Apple is a Foxconn's make or break client.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Thom Holwerda over at OSNews wrote a short article that provides some much- needed perspective: <http://www.osnews.com/story/23359/The_Foxconn_Suicides>

</comment><comment><USER16> >how she worked 12-hours a day, six days a week.

>"The atmosphere inside our workplaces is so tight and depressing that we're not allowed to speak to each other for 12 hours or you'll be reproached by your supervisors.

Even with 8000 people applying for work daily, Apple, Dell and HP could and should pressure Foxconn to improve working conditions. Imho it's not about not-killing-myself but the daily "I feel like I have an empty life and work like a machine".

</comment><comment><USER17> That's odd, because the agreement they want their consumers to sign says "I'd sooner kill myself than criticize Apple, Inc.".

:-)

</comment><comment><USER18> CP24 (Toronto TV news station) was reporting a tenth death when I watched the news at lunch.

AFP is reporting an 11th death: [http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWnjN18xP...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWnjN18xPhrQL- tPcFPwKf6zDoCA)

</comment><comment><USER19> This pledge not to kill oneself is as useless as the fine for jumping off the edge of the Niagara Falls.

<comment><USER7> Off the original topic, but (ex-) Niagara local here: the fine isn't entirely useless. Some people survive the fall, so when one is noticed, you have to mobilize a rescue team to search for a potential survivor. More importantly, I am under the impression the fine is meant to deter (and recoup the expenses on) daredevils more than suicidal people; people going over in barrels and so on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Soo... are any of the protesters urging higher wages and lower hours or are we all too addicted to our cheap goods?

<comment><USER21> Would it really make _that_ much of a difference in this case? I think Apple is getting more pressure than most because they essentially are selling a luxury good, where the cost spent on the Chinese manufacturing is not that high a percentage of the total retail sales cost, so they could afford to spend more and still turn a profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The article reads like an April fools joke:

      Roof patrols were also being arranged and nets installed
      around buildings to deter suicidal workers, it added.

      "If they jump, they'll fall into the safety nets, so
      their lives will be saved," a contractor told the channel.

And the surprising bit:

      But there was no shortage of people trying to get through
      the factory gates. Around 8,000 people apply to work at the
      factory every day, Foxconn spokesman Liu Kun told the
      state-run China Daily newspaper.</comment>


Formula of the day: Jeans length - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_length

<comment><USER2> Goddammit, I just thought someone had found the perfect trouser length.

It would make everything so much easier.

</comment><comment><USER3> "It is only when thermal energy is not equal to gravitational work that the cloud either expands and cools or contracts and warms, a process that continues until equilibrium is reached."

Gosh, I want pants like that!</comment>


Composable Pipelines [in Go] Improved - <AUTHOR> https://blog.gopheracademy.com/advent-2015/composable-pipelines-improvements/ <comment><USER2> For those that are interested in libraries like these, OCaml has an implementation that written by Jane Street called Pipes[0]. It's been around for years, helps trade billions of dollars a day, is written in a language that actually has parametric polymorphism, and a configurable notion of "pushback". I've written about it before[1].

[0]: [https://ocaml.janestreet.com/ocaml- core/111.28.00/doc/async_...](https://ocaml.janestreet.com/ocaml- core/111.28.00/doc/async_kernel/#Pipe)

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=seliopou&next=980930...](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=seliopou&next=9809300)

<comment><USER3> A lot of cool concepts come from languages like OCaml and Haskell. But for better or worse, we live in a world where simple languages rule the day (C++ being one notable exception), and if we get lucky, we get _some_ of cool OCaml/Forth/Haskell/LISP/Erlang features to play with, in our simple little worlds with our simple little toy languages like Java and C# and Go and Javascript... it's sad in a way, but it's reality. I'd much rather write F# (basically .NET-hosted OCaml) than C#, but no luck finding gainful employment with that...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Without any parametric polymorphism, this kind of utility functions are hardly composable at all.

At best these are copy-pastable patterns.

<comment><AUTHOR> This sounds like an interesting observation, but could you please elaborate a bit more?

<comment><USER5> With parametric polymorphism and generalized algebraic data types, you could:

(0) Give every process in the pipeline could its own input and output type, rather than forcing all processes to use strings.

(1) Enforce, statically, that only "compatible" processes can be composed. For instance, if `Foo` is a process that outputs integers, and `Bar` is another process that takes strings as input, then `Foo` can't feed its output to `Bar`.

However, this is involves some rather tricky type hackery (so-called "type- aligned sequences"). Hardly a good fit for a language with Go's design goals.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, I think I see what you mean.

Well, I think unfortunately my sketchy code examples maybe did not cover the idea in enough detail.

What I'm doing in practice is to create different struct types for each type of process I use, which all are of a "base interface" called "process" (mainly for the Run() method, so that the pipeline component can call it).

An example of this in action is shown in this code example on the Go playground: [http://play.golang.org/p/voUfPGQulf](http://play.golang.org/p/voUfPGQulf)

The typing of channels for each process struct type should now enforce what components can be connected together (you will not be able to assign a "string chan" to a "[]byte chan" field, for example).

Did this answer the question, or do you see further problems here?

<comment><USER5> Ah, okay. I misunderstood the intention of your original example, then. My bad.

In order to prevent further embarrassing myself, I'm going to tell you how I (currently) understand your design, and, if I'm wrong, please tell me: Your "pipeline" isn't actually connecting the processes to each other. You _first_ connect the processes to each other, and _only then_ add them to a "pipeline", whose primary (only?) responsibility is to ensure that each process runs in a different goroutine.

This much doesn't really need parametric polymorphism, let alone generalized algebraic data types. However, calling it "pipeline" is kind of misleading, because the actual "piping" (connecting processes to each other) is handled elsewhere. In fact, using your "pipeline" abstraction, you could perfectly well run a bunch of processes that aren't connected to each other at all.

Is my understanding correct?

<comment><AUTHOR> > Your "pipeline" isn't actually connecting the processes to each other. You > first connect the processes to each other, and only then add them to a > "pipeline", whose primary (only?) responsibility is to ensure that each > process runs in a different goroutine.

Exactly!

> This much doesn't really need parametric polymorphism, let alone generalized > algebraic data types. However, calling it "pipeline" is kind of misleading, > because the actual "piping"

Ah, yes, didn't think about that, but yeah, but that's a good point! I should consider a better name for this ... Thanks for pointing it out!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The example code doesn't actually compile: [https://play.golang.org/p/Fv- Sf1OJdH](https://play.golang.org/p/Fv-Sf1OJdH)

I think it should read: [https://play.golang.org/p/vrwEkHy- DR](https://play.golang.org/p/vrwEkHy-DR)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I have pushed a lot of fixes now and sent a PR.

In the meanwhile, please see this working example on the Go playground: [http://play.golang.org/p/voUfPGQulf](http://play.golang.org/p/voUfPGQulf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hey 'samuell, I think you meant,

        func NewProcess() *A-Process {
         ....

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about all of this, I will push fixed code examples!

<comment><AUTHOR> I have pushed a lot of fixes now and sent a PR.

In the meanwhile, please see this working example on the Go playground: [http://play.golang.org/p/voUfPGQulf](http://play.golang.org/p/voUfPGQulf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just use a transducer. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mTbuzafcII](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mTbuzafcII)

<comment><AUTHOR> Will have a look!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> scalaz-stream does all this and way more and way better while actually being "composable"</comment>


A VC's list of questions to entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.enterprisecorp.com/resources/assessment.htm <comment><USER2> Not a bad list. I have no idea if these are the best 12 questions to ask, but if you are a founder, these are questions you should be able to answer.</comment>


Rayton Solar: Legitimate Investment or Scam? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/truth-review/rayton-solar-legitimate-scam-in-between-7c8e5295265d <comment><USER2> As an expert on silicon and solar, the technology is doomed- here's why:

•It is totally possible, in terms of the physics, to do what they're proposing. All you have to do is take your ingot or boule of FZ or Cz Silicon, draw a vacuum on it, backfill it with hydrogen, and run your ion implantation head over it. Like a Durandal bomb, the upper surface is relatively undisturbed but a cutting effect occurs beneath the surface. Pop, off comes your perfect and thin wafer.

•This idea has been proposed before.

•There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a 3 micron thick silicon wafer. It takes some different processing steps to trap the light, but you can still make a decent solar cell out of it. It's not better than a 400 micron wafer in terms of efficiency, but not much worse. Also, by it being so thin, it's flexible and not so darn brittle. That reduces breakage but also makes handling a little more challenging.

•The idea fails when you consider the economics. First consider the market you're trying to break into- there's a huge glut of silicon wafer manufacturing capacity in the industry. Silicon manufacture is going gang busters, so it's not a commodity that's expensive to begin with. Solyndra bet on silicon prices staying high and that, more than any other reason, is why they failed. This is the same bet with a different topology.

•Bill Nye should perform a little math problem- consider the amount of electricity and hydrogen gas necessary to perform a cleave, 100% efficient, 100% yield, and multiply these quantities by their respective commodity costs. You will end up with a number in excess of the cost of a 500 micron wafer, or perilously close to one.

•I did the math five years ago and it made no sense then, when silicon wafers sold for over twice as much. Just because the existing technology is materially wasteful (it definitely is, generating a lot of kerf and going through a lot of expensive wiresaw blades and polishing processes) doesn't mean that it's economically wasteful.

It's not too late to pivot- I'm sure he'll have no difficulty raising the money in spite of these shortcomings. I'd be more than happy to steer this company in the right direction, contributing IP that actually delivers on these promises. All it takes is an e-mail.

<comment><USER3> I agree that this is going to be a commercial failure even if funded. Additional stray observations:

\- The "magic," if anything, is supposed to be that super-thin kerfless wafers could justify the industrial scale use of float zone silicon. FZ has often been the material of choice for lab scale fabrication of champion devices. Unlike ordinary boron doped p-type Cz silicon, it doesn't have dissolved oxygen traces from crucible walls, so it doesn't suffer B-O complex light induced degradation.

\- High efficiency is still worth a premium, even if low-mid range quality cells are stuck in a brutal commoditized competition. (But high efficiency is not worth a _large_ premium, hence the problems of even well-established high efficiency manufacturers like SunPower and Panasonic.)

\- Super thin wafers are less sensitive to bulk recombination. Though this theoretical advantage is unneeded if you're starting with superpure FZ silicon in the first place.

\- FZ silicon is only available in smaller diameters, so the cells wouldn't be drop-in replacements in the usual 60/72 cell module that starts with 156 mm cells.

\- Silicon's resistance to damage by cosmic rays goes up dramatically as the cell thickness drops down to the few-tens-of-microns range. But that's not relevant for terrestrial use and compound semiconductors are still more efficient and more damage-resistant for space use.

Other companies that proposed to do kerfless wafering with ion implantation and failed to reach commercial success:

Twin Creeks Technologies

GT Advanced Technologies (later owners of Twin Creeks assets)

SiGen

1366 Technologies appears to have the closest-to-industrial kerfless process at present, though it's not as dramatic as as some kerfless technology concepts. I hope that their partnership with Hanwha Q Cells goes to full scale production before the money runs out.

<comment><USER4> 1366 Technologies's full-scale plant in Western New York has yet to break ground. The state finally broke ground two days ago on some minor infrastructure work for the site, but 1366 might be held up by financing issues due to worries that Trump won't follow through on a DOE $150M loan guarantee.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The stock market in general is moving in a strange direction in the past decade.

•First the dividends became the thing of the past as the companies argued that stock buybacks are more tax-efficient. The general public accepted it.

•Then the earnings per share disappeared and loss per share became standard. The argumentation was that it's better to invest in growth today and figure out profitability "some other day". The public ate it with not much questioning.

•Then it was the voting rights' turn to go with IPOs like SNAP. It raised some concerns (like being excluded from the S&P 500), but didn't stop people from investing either.

So if the general public keeps on bringing the money in despite the worsening conditions, it makes sense that someone would come up with even a bolder plan for turning this condition into their personal profit.

I blame the agency problem [1]. Too many investment decisions these days are made by someone investing someone else's money and their interests could be different from simply maximizing the returns and too many people blindly trust their money to be managed by someone else without fully understanding the underlying processes.

1\. [http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp)

<comment><USER6> I don't think you're completely correct about EPS in the broader market, (but correct in the headline names). The rest I agree with completely. What's surprising to me is that there wasn't some sort of retrenchment after the 2007-8 crisis.

I agree with your analysis about the agency problem, but I also see the it as too much money chasing too few assets. Ever desperate for return, money managers will chase anything that has a return, whether it's rational or not.

<comment><USER7> We are still too early in the bubble cycle. The returns are higher every year but they are linear. Wait until the public comes (free money?) and discover this; and then you get a parabolic market run and a subsequent crash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Regarding Bill Nye, this makes me sad. He really was instrumental in making science fun and exciting when I was young. In his post TV life he's become just another political idealogue. Even doing as far as censuring[1] his own TV show when the science contradicts his social justice message.

Now it seems he's coming to normal people with an ax to grind. It's hard to see him not profiting from this endeavor.

1\. [https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/02/bill-nye-censor- transge...](https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/02/bill-nye-censor-transgender- ideology/)

<comment><USER9> He also provided a platform to legitimize creationism by debating it as if it is a valid explanation of how the world came to be. I understand the desire to promote debate but I think he fell into the false balance trap.

He did a great deal to advance STEM in the millennial generation which should not be understated but nobody is faultless. He is a great educator but I question if he really knows how best to use his platform.

<comment><USER10> You're just as far in the opposite direction, though.

When people have strange beliefs, the best way to deal with the situation is usually to talk to them on the same level, as grownups with valid beliefs. Otherwise you change no one's mind.

If we dig through your brain, we'd probably turn up a few questionable beliefs of your own. Most people just aren't that transparent.

<comment><USER11> Ardent creationists are not just people with strange beliefs. They are people who have built their lives around promoting and defending harmfully bad ideas.

If you have evidence that debating them helps, I look forward to seeing it. But from what I've seen, a credible person sharing a stage with a loon elevates the loon. Treating nonsense as sense devalues sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> They've been advertising heavily on Facebook. Companies like Alta Devices and 1366 Technologies have been making kerfless photovoltaics for almost ten years now and are up to gen4 and gen3 production lines respectively, and have been selling in quantity to actual customers.

Meanwhile, Rayton has made a down payment on a "microwave ion source" beam accelerator from Pheonix Nuclear Labs and has apparently yet to come up with the remainder of the funds to take delivery, so they are still at gen0 (proof- of-concept.)

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm not qualified to comment on the financial accusations but if accurate they seem quite damning. However I'm not sure I like the way the author of this piece cites usernames from the _comments of the same article_ as experts in the field of solar technology.

<comment><USER4> As one of the "experts" quoted I agree, but I'll take it as meaning "from someone who knows a little more than me about the subject."

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Very sad to see professors at UCLA acting as directors for this, if its a scam. I'm hoping they're just ignorant of the economics and not committing willful fraud.

<comment><USER14> To be honest, I'd feel better if it was willful fraud.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The EEVBlog also has a skeptical look on Rayton: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbYtn420QBM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbYtn420QBM)

</comment><comment><USER16> Hopeless, ridiculous scam from top to bottom! Silicon isn't even a big factor in price of solar cells. It is dirt cheap nowadays, there is less than 1 cent worth of silicon in 1 watt of solar cell (which is worth 22-24 cents nowadays). And that is a small fraction of cost of watt of installed system ($1-$6 depending on type, size, country, and who you ask). That means, for solar industry, that is at best fraction of percent level of improvement.

Shameless scam for people who must be so stupid they deserve being scammed.

<comment><USER17> Some kindhearted people aren't very smart. I'm not sure anyone deserves being scammed aside from the scammers themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is it legal to make investment advice like this and not be a series 7 (or whatever number) licensed broker/dealer? Is the author a stock broker?

</comment><comment><USER19> Here are some important facts from the SEC filing:

 __If the company cannot raise sufficient funds it will not succeed or will require significant additional capital infusions. __

Rayton Solar is offering Common Stock in the amount of up to $50 million in this offering, but may sell much less. After $7 million is raised, the following $3 million will go to the selling securityholders. Even if the maximum amount is raised, the company is likely to need additional funds in the future in order to grow, and if it cannot raise those funds for whatever reason, including reasons outside the company's control, such as another significant downturn in the economy, it may not survive. If the company does not sell all of the Common Stock it is offering, it will have to find other sources of funding in order to develop its business.

Even if Rayton Solar is successful in selling all of the Common Stock being offered, Rayton Solar's proposed business will require significant additional capital infusions. Based on its current estimates, Rayton Solar will require at least $35 million to create a 54 megawatt, commonly abbreviated as MW, PV module manufacturing facility. This amount does not include the amount needed to manufacture the PV modules for sale. If planned operating levels are changed, higher operating costs encountered, lower sales revenue received or more time is needed to implement the business plan, more funds than currently anticipated may be required. Furthermore, in order to expand, the company is likely to raise funds again in the future, either by offerings of securities or through borrowing from banks or other sources. The terms of future capital infusions may include covenants that give creditors rights over the financial resources of the company or sales of equity securities that will dilute the holders of the company's Common Stock.

 __The company has not yet generated any revenues. __

Rayton Solar has no revenues generated since its inception. There is no assurance that the company will ever be profitable or generate sufficient revenue to pay dividends to the holders of its Common Stock. The company does not believe it will be able to generate revenues without successfully achieving target market sales for the PV module to large scale project developers, large scale retailers and wholesalers, or contractors. If the company cannot raise enough funds in this financing to manufacture and sell PV modules, it will need to successfully sell its solar cells to PV module manufacturers, which will result in less revenue to the company. If that fails, then it will need to license its current and future patents, assuming the company is granted its patents that are currently pending. Rayton Solar is dependent upon the proceeds of this offering for working capital, including for the manufacture of the PV modules.

 __The company is an early stage company. __

As an early stage company and a company developing a new technology, Rayton Solar may encounter difficulties such as unanticipated problems relating to the development and testing of its product, initial and continuing regulatory compliance, vendor manufacturing costs, production and assembly of its product, and the competitive and regulatory environments in which the company intends to operate. It is uncertain, at this stage of its development, if the company will be able to effectively resolve any such problems, should they occur. If the company cannot resolve an unanticipated problem, it may be forced to modify or abandon its business plan.

 __Operations could be adversely affected by interruptions of production that are beyond the company's control. __

The company plans to manufacture its own PV modules. However, if it does not raise enough money, it will sell solar cells needed to produce the PV modules, or license the technology instead. Even if it sells solar cells, the company will rely on vendors to provide silicon ingots and other material. If there are interruptions in the ability of a vendor to provide the necessary amounts of silicon ingots, the company will not be able to meet its production.

[https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1654124/000114420417...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1654124/000114420417002964/v456948_253g2.htm)

</comment><comment><USER20> isn't the point then, Rayton is a cry for help from Bill Nye? as in, he wants the world's best experts on silicon and solar to come together and work 24/7 on this problem.

</comment><comment><USER21> Not surprising. Bill Nye is a business man not a scientist.

</comment><comment><USER22> Its just a liberal contract, and you just have to hope they won't do it the way this article flags.

Most crowd sales have unlimited discretionary use of the funds, and that doesn't mean you can't make a profit, especially if you receive something tradable back.

This is probably another reason why equity companies (or at least, purchases of their private equity) are going to go the way of the dinosaur, without liberalizing a liquid secondary market, now that there are alternatives available.

<comment><USER6> Existing securities laws didn't develop in a vacuum - they were a response to real problems in capital markets. Receiving something tradeable presupposes a counter party to trade with. Those likely will be in short supply once you've bought a lemon.

A secondary market which eschews many of the practices of the established markets vis a vis investor protections, and relies on information discovery and reputation, eventually will develop so much friction related to those costs as to stop being viable.

<comment><USER23> FYI, you're arguing with someone who literally believes investor protections aren't necessary for liquid investments [1].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15134630](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15134630)

<comment><USER22> thats not what that says

what people tolerate has nothing to do with my "literal beliefs"</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Restrain the restraints: The case against non-compete clauses - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/05/19/the-case-against-non-compete-clauses <comment><USER2> An employer buys your time for the period you work for them. If they're not paying you, they have no moral right to dictate who you work for next.

How have we become so far removed from the idea that you sell only your labour to an employer?</comment>