Apple to delay privacy change threatening Facebook, mobile ad market - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN25U2JU <comment><USER2> One thing that removes a lot of credibility from Apple's "for the good of the user" communication on this is that they broke out the personalization for their own ad network as an option, put it in a different location, and made it opt-out instead of opt-in.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-a...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple- ad-network-gets-special-privileges-that-facebook-google-wont-on- ios14/#4d31d1dc7515)

<comment><USER3> Yeah, this is crazy: Settings -> Privacy -> Location Services -> (ALL the way to the bottom of the list, past all apps) System Services -> Location-Based Apple Ads. Oh, and if you have text size increased by any amount, "Ads" doesn't even appear and it's just "Location-Based Apple..." (on or off).

The harder something is to find and disable, the shadier it seems.

<comment><USER4> Apple definitely does shady stuff. Sure on privacy they are the better option, usually. But don't forget it recently came out that Siri was sending recordings to be analysed without the users knowledge. They also will only very begrudgingly fix design faults in their products. I recently was a victim of their flexgate issue and because I have the 15" MacBook Pro it isn't automatically covered. Other users with this issue are fighting Apple in a class action over it. You would hope that a company that makes as much money as Apple would stand behind their products better but unfortunately that's not the case.

<comment><USER5> That Siri sends recordings to humans for analysis without user consent is a myth. I went through a screen pointing out this is exactly what will happen, and buttons to opt in or out, during initial OS setup. This was a while ago, before iOS 14. The myth is likely perpetuated by people who do not use Apple devices.

<comment><USER4> I was going off this article: [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/14/apple-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/14/apple- siri-secret-surveillance-campaign-investigation)

A former contractor who worked for Apple in Ireland told EU regulators that he heard highly personal conversations as part of a project that transcribed portions of Siri recordings to improve the feature's voice recognition. Apple apologized after the infractions were revealed and said it had suspended the project while it implemented better practices.

<comment><USER5> I know of that case.

My point is that Apple disclosed to users that this will happen, so I am confused as to who would consider this an "infraction".

I had to set up iOS multiple times (broke phone screens, got an iPad and so on), and as far as Siri was around I remember being informed.

During initial setup you have options to turn Siri on with continuous listening, on via button only (my preference), or off entirely. One tap and a short bit of text informs you of privacy implications, including that your voice recordings may be sent to and heard by humans in order to improve QoS.

I did not have to dig through a wall of ToS, it was a clear and concise paragraph set in large enough type that took single-digit seconds to read.

I wonder whether (1) I am missing some circumstances or a period of time where this was not the case, and therefore I should be offended as well, or (2) people are misinformed and piling on Apple for, as far as I'm concerned, little to no reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> (Re-posting on this thread)

What a bummer! As an iOS user, I was eagerly looking forward to this feature, wanting to tell others about it and how the upgrade to iOS 14 would be worth it just to clearly expose apps that want to track users.

I already have ad tracking limited in my settings (Settings->Privacy->Limit Ad Tracking), but that was something I had to explicitly turn on, and there's no notice on which apps use the ID for advertising.

<comment><USER7> The only reason you are so desperate for this feature is that Apple refuses to let you install a firewall on the phone you supposedly own. Otherwise you could be running pihole today.

<comment><USER8> Not really. Pi Hole is great but it comes much later in the process and is an inexact process trying to filter out internet requests. The filter Apple has stops apps from being able to get the identifying data in the first place. It's a lot better.

<comment><USER9> PiHole only works insofar as tracking requests use a different domain. It's great, but it's not a panacea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I understand why they delayed, and it may be the right decision. However, tracking-by-default is a dark pattern in software, and it needs to be driven out.

In no other domain is implicit, cross-arena tracking by default acceptable. Computers _should be_ no exception.

<comment><USER11> > _In no other domain is implicit, cross-arena tracking by default > acceptable._

Maybe you don't think it should be acceptable, but it's the norm everywhere. Computers _aren 't_ an exception.

Your purchases are tracked by credit card companies. Your license plate is tracked by road cameras. Your financial history is tracked by credit bureaus. Your phone calls are tracked by your telephony provider.

And you haven't opted into _any_ of them.

In fact, except for the annoying cookie pop-ups on websites, I've never encountered opt-in tracking anywhere in my life. _Everything_ is tracking-by- default, and you're lucky if you get an option to opt out _anywhere_.

<comment><USER12> Giving examples of a bad pattern doesn't make the pattern less bad. This should have never been the default behavior.

<comment><USER13> curiousllama said that implicit tracking was not allowed in any domain other than software. Don't move the goalposts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Given the App Store antitrust lawsuit and "big bully" PR issue that Apple is facing, they probably realize that now would be a terrible timing for them to flex their muscles and crush a multi-billion dollar ecosystem (even if it's the ethical thing to do).

Facebook's concern isn't oriented around their revenue - it's about the 3rd party advertising ecosystem on mobile in general ($2B of FB's $80B revenue). FB and Google will take a small hit from their 3rd party mobile ad networks going away, but they still have their dominant 1st party businesses to fall back on.

Who this really hurts are the apps that don't directly sell their own ads and rely on a 3rd party network to monetize. Those apps' revenues will be chopped in half overnight, sending a shockwave throughout the entire mobile ecosystem.

FB and Google get poked in one eye, but most ad-supported apps will be blinded.

<comment><USER15> It also kills off all the smaller players in mobile advertising, of which there are many (mostly focused on gaming, because that's what makes money on mobile).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Apple's blog post about their plans:

"We are committed to ensuring users can choose whether or not they allow an app to track them. To give developers time to make necessary changes, apps will be required to obtain permission to track users starting early next year. More information, including an update to the App Store Review Guidelines, will follow this fall."

[https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=hx9s63c5](https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=hx9s63c5)

<comment><USER17> This reads as just another popup you'll need to click before you can use any app. Just like cookies.

<comment><USER18> The pop-up is literally "allow tracking" and "disallow tracking" and disallowing does not give the advertisers any kind of information about cross- app usage. It is not something you can as a developer circumvent.

<comment><USER19> There are hundreds of ways to fingerprint you and your device, without an avertising ID. You just need a few (5-7?) To uniquely identify someone.

A few examples that come to my mind: Current battery level, typing speed, phone model, OS version, battery wear (guessable from charge/discharge rate), charge rate (depends on the charger), finger width, propensy to use features differently (scrolling, zooming, selecting text), clipboard contents, RTC lag, microbenchmark performance... System preferences alone is probably enough (brightness level, airplane mode, dark mode).

If a fingerprinting library is present in more than one app, I find it unlikely that both fingerprints couldn't be linked to the same user. If one of these apps has a log-in, they can probably link that up with the rest of browsing history, on-device and cross-device.

Sounds far-fetched? I don't think so. I rather think I'm underestimating the issue.

I think one technical answer to that would be to "taint" every measurement of a potential identifier, and track its usage across the program. If the app tries to submit information that is somewhat related, block it.

Alternatively, compute a score and block it above a certain threshold (that _will_ be gamed, but could help a transition). Or use a RR-like mechanism to change the measurement to a dummy value, and replay up to the exfiltration point.

<comment><USER20> What you've said is accurate, but one thing that's different in this case compared to the web is Apple's walled garden.

The walled garden certainly has problems but in this case a real benefit is that Apple forbids these kinds of technical workarounds. You can implement them, but do you want to run the risk of your app being banned from the only distribution channel on iOS because of it?

<comment><USER21> That walled garden still appears to have major holes in its fences, as shown by the Facebook SDK having infected every single mainstream app for the sole purpose of stalking the user in the background (over time Facebook can correlate the traffic by date/time, IP address, device type, etc and link different instances of the SDK together).

<comment><USER20> Yes, but this what the feature is aiming to address. Apps that use the Facebook SDK will have to ask for permission to track the user and if the user says no they shouldn't intialize the Facebook SDK, at least not the parts that relate to ad analytics and tracking.

<comment><USER21> It seems to me that this feature only restricts access to the IDFA/Advertising ID. It does not prevent the app from loading a piece of malware that uses other means (device & network fingerprinting) to stalk you regardless of the availability of the IDFA.

<comment><USER20> Apple have been very clear about you being responsible for the SDKs you use and while the technical limitations are only about IDFA Apple have also stated that other methods of fingerprinting are not allowed when the user asked not to be tracked. Thus, App A that uses SDK B can be banned from the App Store if the user asked not to be tracked but B still tracks using something like fingerprinting.

<comment><USER21> > other methods of fingerprinting are not allowed when the user asked not to > be tracked

We'll need to see how well this is enforced and whether they will challenge bullshit excuses. I can already imagine the Facebook SDK sending its usual amount of PII and them saying "this is only for fraud protection (or a similar BS reason) and we pinky-promise to never use this information for anything else".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Here's the technical detail that everyone seems to be missing: IDFA is an Apple API.

[https://developer.apple.com/documentation/adsupport/asidenti...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/adsupport/asidentifiermanager/1614151-advertisingidentifier)

"The advertisingIdentifier is an alphanumeric string unique to each device, that you only use for advertising."

Apple created an API for advertisers that gives them a unique identifier, specifically for the purpose of tracking users. This has been available since iOS 6, released in 2012.

Shame, shame on advertisers for using the thing that Apple made for them to use!

If Apple cares so much about privacy, why did they make this in the first place? Where has Apple been for the past 8 years?

<comment><USER23> They made it all they could control it. Before this the advertisers were sneaking out other data like the Mac address etc. The advertiser I'd had always been opt in so it was progress for privacy.

<comment><USER22> > They made it all they could control it.

Didn't seem to work.

> The advertiser I'd had always been opt in so it was progress for privacy.

It's opt out: [https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT202074](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> As much as I like iOS in this regard, it's a shame Apple felt this threatened to delay this feature. I'm sure privacy is a high priority to Apple but when it comes to money, expect them to do this more often. Privacy users are already taking things into their own hands anyway, so this only hurts the tech novices.

Edit: It's funny how on HN, you can tell the ones who get triggered when you say something disparaging about adtech. Just interesting to see here vs other tech media outlets.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, I'm curious which large partner or top 10 app provider said they'd delist on iOS if not given a stay of execution. The number of companies that could cause this decision is small.

<comment><USER26> It is more complicated than that. There is a whole industry that depends on tracking IDFA to function, it is not about being creepy, something simple as knowing if your marketing campaign is effective becomes very hard. On one side we have hoarders of data like Facebook and Google, on another side there are legitimate use cases like app publishers measuring marketing performance.

SKAdNetwork was poorly designed, it did not involve publishers and channels and till this week it was literally impossible to test. A 3 month period will allow all actors in the advertising industry to integrate and come up with solutions that protect the user's privacy.

If this was released in the current state, you are giving the whole advertising market in a silver plate to google and facebook, who because of their huge share of SDK integrations are much better prepared to overcome the limitations. The market would also shrink instantly, many publishers and channels would disappear, specially the small ones.

<comment><USER27> > There is a whole industry that depends on tracking IDFA to function

And hopefully that will become "was" at some point.

> it is not about being creepy

The ad industry is a poor judge of what's creepy; their interests are not aligned with user interests.

> A 3 month period will allow all actors in the advertising industry to > integrate and come up with solutions that protect the user's privacy.

The advertising industry has had a very long time to come up with solutions to protect the user's privacy. The only way it'll _ever_ happen is if it's inflicted upon them. The less ready they are, the better.

<comment><USER28> > hopefully that will become "was" at some point

> their interests are not aligned with user interests

How do you propose apps monetize going forward? The vast majority of users do not want to pay for the apps/utilities on their phones, but still appreciate the value these apps provide them nonetheless. Targeted advertising enables apps to provide these services to users for free by having marketing budgets front the cost. The removal of IDFA really only cripples the little guy, and speeds up the consolidation of wealth among Apple, Amazon, Google, and FB.

I'm curious what revenue model you would suggest for apps that wish to remain free, if not advertising-based?

<comment><USER27> > The vast majority of users do not want to pay for the apps/utilities on > their phones, but still appreciate the value these apps provide them > nonetheless.

Chicken and egg problem. There are enough free apps that they drag down user expectations for pricing. It's hard to figure out value on an absolute scale ("hmmm, is this worth $4?"), and easy to compare value on a relative scale ("wow, $8 seems expensive for an app"). Ads push the app market downwards.

> I'm curious what revenue model you would suggest for apps that wish to > remain free

The same revenue model I'd suggest for any other kind of regularly produced content that can't charge or doesn't want to: patronage, subscriptions, sponsorships, merch, add-ons or regular updates that people want to pay for, services people want to pay for. Have you ever read some of the behind-the- scenes details from YouTube channels that support the people making them? Ads don't even come close to paying the bills, even if you're huge. Patronage, subscriptions, sponsorships, and merchandise do.

<comment><USER28> How is it a chicken and egg problem if we're in a post-ads world? Billions of people now have the expectation that content, utilities, and information can be made accessible to them, for free, by simply allowing ads in their feed. From the perspective of someone in a developed nation, the change to a patronage revenue model may seem trivial, but for the vast majority of the world this is a non-starter. You're arguing that information should paywalled, when it currently can exist free of charge.

Also re: the Youtube anecdote - YT ads actually pay out quite well, especially if you're huge. You usually see Patreons, etc. from the smaller channels or content creators that want to hit a certain quality of life/stability. The top 10 YouTube channels easily clear $10M from ad rev alone.

<comment><USER21> > Billions of people now have the expectation that content, utilities, and > information can be made accessible to them, for free, by simply allowing ads > in their feed.

They can still opt-in; not to mention this is about creepy ad targeting that exposes the user to lots of risk if the targeting data ever leaks (it's a time bomb); advertising per-se isn't banned, it just can't stalk the user.

However this will hopefully open the door for alternative monetization options, like you know, the old-school, boring paper bills that some people might have in their wallet and might be willing to hand over in exchange for a good app, service or product. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I would love to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting.

Having already pissed off the advertisers, Apple felt threatened enough to turn around and alienate its power users.

Couldn't have been an easy decision...

<comment><USER30> I suspect this news will get far less attention than the initial changes, so Apple still gets (almost) all of the good PR from the change without actually hurting the app developers.

They certainly still get to claim they are focused on privacy even if they decide to kick the can a few more times, since the notifications/controls will come "eventually".

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> While the delay does disappoint me as a user, I can definitely understand the "give developers more time" angle. It seems doubtful to me that big ad tech hasn't already been working on ways to circumvent this policy and it feels like a few extra months won't exactly make a world of difference for them. I do hope this gives the "little guy" more time to rethink Ad strategy to not involve tracking.

<comment><USER31> They are giving the cockroaches time to find a new place to hide before they turn the lights on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is a change that will take an existing setting and make sure the user is aware of it.

If you want to flip the switch right now for all third party apps:

Go to Settings > Privacy > Advertising. Turn on Limit Ad Tracking.

</comment><comment><USER33> A cynical take is that all these ad platforms drive a ton of app installs for Apple and create stickiness on iOS. Without all these targeted ads, it will decrease app downloads and with the App Store already under such scrutiny they decided to measure twice and cut once.

<comment><USER34> This is not that cynical! Apple pulled the plug on something they created on purpose (ID for Advertisers) without really understanding the impact of that decision on their own App Store bottom line. So many in app purchases are initiated by users acquired via ad campaigns. Remove the campaigns, remove the users, remove the revenue, maybe even more (i.e. Developer's interest for iOS)

But, I bet this is mostly antitrust related, the risk is too big on that front in the current context. Now, what I wonder is whether they'll adjust to play by the same rules as everyone else (and not using some extra features as detailed in the Forbes article mentioned in another comment [0]) or revert in some way.

[0] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-a...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple- ad-network-gets-special-privileges-that-facebook-google-wont-on- ios14/#e8b644475152)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> That's really sad. I thought only a company like Apple has the financial power and the balls to push back the ads industry. Apparently not.

</comment><comment><USER23> Bad Apple.

What was Facebook going to do? Pull out of iOS? They had all the power.

<comment><USER36> It's worth noting that Apple and Facebook very recently sparred over the 30% App Store fee related to donations[0]. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Facebook offered to back down on that controversy if Apple agreed to this, but of course this is pure speculation.

0: [https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/28/apple-blocked- facebook-...](https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/28/apple-blocked-facebook- update-apple-fees/)

<comment><USER23> Good point, I'm sure there would have been some quid pro quo there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> What will really happen - apps won't work without accepting tracking. So technically users will be given a choice, and in practice there will be none. Just like now - "Oh, you don't want to give us your contacts, sms, location and all photos? Fine, here is an app with every function disabled. You want to actually use the app? Give us permissions."

<comment><USER38> Even so, it's still better at the end of the day if users are at least aware that they are paying for their services with their data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Just as they put this ad online [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l61NE0eqkw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l61NE0eqkw) ... "Privacy. That's iPhone. – Over Sharing"

<comment><USER40> "Comments are turned off."

I was about to grab some popcorn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> No! I was enjoying the idea of being able to deny every app that asks. Oh well.

<comment><USER42> You can go turn it off in settings phone-wide already today.

<comment><USER40> Shouldn't it be off by default?

<comment><USER42> No, app install ads were quite useful to me as a developer in the past. And judging by the retention rate on the people that installed via those ads, they derived value from them as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Apple has a massive user base now, I imagine they are preparing to make sure users stay in their ecosystem for everything. I won't be surprised if they eventually use their own Siri search service instead of google as the default. Once they have all of the users locked in to their ecosystem I think apple's own ad network will eventually be touted as "secure" and Apple will avoid antitrust scrutiny because everyone opts in to this ecosystem, voluntarily paying higher prices for access. It's pretty genius really.

</comment><comment><USER44> I cringe reading the deluded opinions from people in this thread that clearly do not understand the impact on the app ecosystem, let alone how ad tech works.

I'd liken it to reading a post on mumsnet.com with 100+ middle aged women arguing about 5g.

<comment><USER20> I don't think people in the thread don't understand as much as they don't care about ad tech and the ecosystem. As technologist we understand the invasive and creepy nature of ad tech and would like to see it gone, sure there'll be lots of second order effects but personally I am just tired of ads and ad tech.

The "Do No Track" header is the perfect example, largely abandonded because when ad companies realised how many people would set it they just ignored it altogether. Thankfully with Apple's changes they, as the gatekeeps of the walled garden, can ban apps that don't respect the user's "don't track me" signal.

The ad industry has had an abundance of chances to fix these issues, but haven't. As a user I welcome Apple forcing their hand even if the business models of many apps will be broken as a result.

It's a cleansing by fire if you will.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Any chance a cheque has been written behind closed doors here?

<comment><USER46> A cheque? Unlikely. Was this a part of a closed door negotiation? Likely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> A couple influencers these days couple make a viral video on how to go into settings and switch this off and then you've effectively got the update anyway.

</comment><comment><USER48> Is anything changing except the timeline? Pushing things forward a quarter is not really a big deal if we're still getting the privacy improvements.

</comment><comment><USER49> As a current Android user, this was one of the driving reasons I was considering coming back to Apple. Maybe I'll switch "early next year".

</comment><comment><USER50> I think with the Epic battle and the rumors that Google is about to head to court is probably the reason that shook em to hold off on this.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is unfortunate. Adtech is a cancer. We don't need to give it time to adapt, we need to shut it down.

<comment><USER51> Do you realize the number of free services that one uses thanks to ads? Not everyone can afford to pay for these. I for one use gmail, google maps, google calendar, google docs, etc. Every day

<comment><USER52> Do you realize how much bullshit people buy that they do not need because of ads? People end up with much less money because of that. And the environment suffers too.

And no, without apps people would be able to discover new things. Current ads are not about facts but connecting feelings with products.

<comment><USER53> > Do you realize how much bullshit people buy that they do not need because of > ads? People end up with much less money because of that.

Other people's issues with financial self-control isn't a solid basis for being against something. By that logic, alcohol, clothing stores, videogames, literally anything that might influence people to buy things they don't really need is bad.

<comment><USER54> There's a line where what you call "people's issues with financial self- control" becomes a societal/systemic problem. Alcohol and gambling are the classic examples where extra taxation and regulation like age restrictions come into play. Where is that line for general advertising? I don't know. But it's out there.

P.S. Speaking of videogames, I'm of the opinion that many mobile "gatcha" games should be regulated like gambling products. Hoping legislation catches up in this regard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> So did Apple just bully Facebook into those additional election season changes?

</comment><comment><USER56> Zuck probably begged Tim

<comment><USER57> Zuck needs this least of all - people post their lives to FB via Instagram, all you need is a high quality, high cardinality object detector, and some NLP. For ads shown on e.g. Instagram or FB, there should be no impact at all.

Google could mine Photos I suppose, but there's no user graph there, and no text blurb, and no "likes", so it's less valuable. Google is also more reliant on tracking due to DoubleClick and ad exchanges. Be that as it may, Google search ads should also be unaffected.

Where this really hurts are ads shown in apps which are not controlled by Google/FB. Those would need an ID to know who you are in order to boost relevance. And that's being withdrawn. I'm not sure how much exposure FB has to that, though. I know Google is heavily exposed.

<comment><USER23> Well Facebook was the biggest name complaining in the media that this would seriously hurt their ad revenue.

I also wonder why, because their apps already require a user to sign in. It must reference to cross-app tracking, I'm also surprised they were so dependent on that.

<comment><USER58> Facebook didn't complain... they said they would shut off FAN which generated a whole of $2B in revenue for them in 2018 when they make $80B this year.

They were telling their customers to find an alternative monetization strategy since this wasn't going to be worth it for them.

<comment><USER23> I'm not the only one viewing that as a complaint:

[https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/facebook- complains-a...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/facebook-complains- apple-responds-ios-14s-big-privacy-change-gets-postponed/)

<comment><USER58> I'm really not sure that makes you right. It's a fact that FAN is 2% or so of revenue for FB. And it's also a fact that FB, with their analytics/ads SDK and all the data they ingest from their own applications, already owns a very important data source for their targeted ads. These are plain as day facts. If you ever bought ads, you'd know that FAN, for the typical buyers, represents a tiny fraction of spend on FB (less than 5% typically). Then journalists can write what they want, as much as I like Arstechnica and pay for it, that's just plain wrong and countered by facts. It's also frankly funny how little journalists know about ads when in most cases it's the source of their income.

Furthermore, it's absolutely hilarious to think that the most valuable company in the world, with enough cash reserves to be able to almost buy FB outright, would somehow be willing to walk back their core value message because their, allegedly, value adversary asks. Apple made the change because they would have cratered their app economy and they themselves weren't going to play by their own rules, FB maybe played a role because $2B are a lot of money for the free apps, but they aren't a lot of money for FB. It's really hilarious to think that Apple gives a crap about what FB writes on their site, specifically when it's about privacy. Apples cares about its ecosystem, not about what FB says. Totally hilarious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> One, if not the main, feature to upgrade to iOS 14 is now delayed to any of the 365 days of 2021. Clear message: "Save adtech and continue to screw your customers". Bravo Apple, Bravo!!

<comment><USER60> Less than 90 days ago this proposed feature hadn't been announced and now you are vilifying them for delaying it a few months?</comment></comment>


Is Y Combinator growing too quickly and, if so, why? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Is-Y-Combinator-growing-too-quickly-and-if-so-why

<comment><USER2> I feel questions like this are too subjective to offer any real sort of conclusion. It usually just ends up people discussing a lot of opinions based on somewhat vague assumptions.</comment>


Isomorphic UI Framework Benchmarks - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/marko-js/isomorphic-ui-benchmarks <comment><AUTHOR> I notice that Marko.js is still 8x faster of React on server side rendering.

For those companies that do server side rendering of content assuming frontend machines are CPU bounded this means that they could have a pretty big cost saving on frontend servers.

Server side rendering may improve the first page load. But it is usually used mainly for SEO purposes. But Google should has been able to index SPA apps for a while. So is server side rendering still very relevant today?</comment>


Time POY: Snowden's 200,000+ votes go missing, now behind Miley Cyrus - <AUTHOR> http://poy.time.com/2013/11/25/vote-now-who-should-be-times-person-of-the-year/slide/poll-results/ <comment><USER2> It's hard to overstate how unimportant this is.

A non-binding online poll to help pick who will be on the cover of a dying news magazine. Notable recent winners include Vladimir Putin and, uh, "you" as well as "A Protestor".

<comment><USER3> | Notable previous winners include Vladimir Putin and, uh, "you" and "A Protestor".

Don't forget Hitler!

<comment><USER4> And Stalin, twice.

And G.Bush Jr, twice.

And Obama, twice.

(In fact, you'd be pressed to fill more than one hand counting the pleasant people on the list)

They claim it's the "most influential person, for better or worse", but don't admit that's _as long as the person did not really upset the status quo._

The idea that Snowden might be Time POY is laughable. The "trolls" know this, which is why they make a mockery of the poll each year.

<comment><USER2> Actually I think there's a chance they do pick Snowden, but I don't care because it's really of very little consequence. I'm sure Time cares much more about selling magazines than maintaining the political status quo.

<comment><USER5> I think there's actually a very good chance. These are journalists doing the picking after all although their selection will likely have pretty much zero to do with the results of an Internet poll. (The chances of it being Miley Cyrus on the other hand are about as close to zero as you can get.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is the dumbest way to present a poll I have ever seen! There are 44 choices but you can either vote for "Miley Cyrus vs Jimmy Fallon" or click next 34 times and vote for Edward Snowden.

I'll give you a hint since the servers seem to be overloaded and right now I can't even vote for Snowden:

[http://poy.time.com/2013/11/25/vote-now-who-should-be- times-...](http://poy.time.com/2013/11/25/vote-now-who-should-be-times-person- of-the-year/slide/{persons-name}/)

where persons-name is the name of the person you wanted to vote for. You need to prove your identity with Twitter or Facebook. I have no idea if this is new or if it's how the poll has always been run, but the voting is open 'til Dec 4.

I'm afraid if I direct link, they're just going to see it as a voting ring and disqualify all of your votes. If you can even get the page to load. I am currently still waiting.

<comment><USER7> Not only prove your identity, but also fork over your friends list. [http://i.imgur.com/ATUOa9T.png](http://i.imgur.com/ATUOa9T.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> PSA everyone: TIME Magazine's POY online technology has always been a POS, and TIME Magazine, not doing quite so well in the financials as the years go on, has likely done little to correct that.

From last year: How 4Chan Made Kim Jong Un Time Readers' Person of the Year [http://gizmodo.com/5968230/how-4chan-made-kim-jong-un- time-r...](http://gizmodo.com/5968230/how-4chan-made-kim-jong-un-time-readers- man-of-the-year)

Time for a overused saying: Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence.

<comment><USER9> That saying leaves out one important piece of information from an ealier saying that it was influenced by:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but __ _don 't rule out malice___"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor#Similar_quotatio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor#Similar_quotations)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Time is the same poll that was hacked to allow Moot to win, and for the names of the top of the list to read MARBLE CAKE ALSO THE GAME.

Fixing the places of the top 21 people seems like an exploitable poll. I don't know how much has improved since then.

<comment><USER11> You can't see the difference between ballot stuffing and vote rigging?

Ballot stuffing can be done by anyone with motivation.

Vote Rigging (e.g. - deleting votes) can only be done by the people running the system.

<comment><USER10> You can't see the difference between vote rigging and fixing gamed votes?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is hilarious. I voted yesterday and Snowden had 99% of the vote. He deserves to win.

Someone should conduct a real, independent poll an award a POY award from the Internets.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is about as clear a sign that Time magazine has become irrelevant as you could ever wish for.

<comment><USER14> It's a clear sign that Internet polls are as irrelevant as you could ever wish for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I love how people who don't have Facebook are excluded from voting. Not that I care, but there's no way Edward Snowden should suffer the indignity of appearing in the same list as Miley Cyrus for anything... and to especially lose to her?

<comment><USER15> It's almost worth creating a Facebook account just to bring justice to this... and then deleting it.

<comment><USER16> Good luck deleting it.

<comment><USER15> I know :-/ It's ridiculous, sigh.

<comment><USER17> Once you delete your account and leave it alone for 90 days, its gone. It will never be linked to you again. Thanks, Irish Data Protection Commissioner!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Pretty clear it's being hacked, especially when their site's been completely buggy for me every time I've tried to vote.

</comment><comment><USER19> \- Yesterday AM you could auth in with Twitter or Facebook and vote without posting.

\- Yesterday PM Twitter was no longer an option.

\- Today AM Twitter is an option but not for auth, now it opens up an "intent" page with a pre-filled tweet.

My guess is that a) it didn't go viral enough without forcing a tweet, b) Twitter was easier to fake or c) the Twitter app got blacklisted for a high number of "revokes"

</comment><comment><USER20> Maybe they cleaned up a bunch of 'spam' votes?

</comment><comment><USER21> Online polls are dumb, but here's some background on the current one:

[http://www.dailydot.com/news/time-person-of-the-year- miley-c...](http://www.dailydot.com/news/time-person-of-the-year-miley-cyrus- rigged/)

<comment><USER22> It's pretty saddening that some random programmer is going to let his own ego kill the chance to make a statement (yes, I know you personally know POY means nothing. The masses don't, move on.) about privacy and surveillance, all "for the lulz".

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I know that Miley Cyrus is definitely not person of the year. But if she were to win, that would be hilarious. I can't imagine a single person taking it seriously or respecting the result.

</comment><comment><USER24> more of a gimmick, The results will be completely different, ultimately the editors will decide.. clever way to generate hits :/

</comment><comment><USER25> Is this some sort of cruel nightmare? This is everything that's wrong with the world.

Miley Cyrus essentially wore not very much on live TV and everyone went partially insane for 6 months. Snowden revealed a tyrannical regime to the world, risking his own freedom, so that we could take action and make the world a better place... yet here we are.

The latter is regarded as less important, less of a standpoint in human history than some meaningless celebs rear end.

<comment><USER26> It is now, that's how your supposed to feel. History will tell a very different story. Miley will be just another singer/actress.

<comment><USER27> Miley _is_ just another singer/actress, and it appalls me to think she's even being considered. It says this country really has turned into "Idiocracy."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> 1\. Is an anti Snowden old media conspiracy. (isn't everything?).

2\. If you want a real conspiracy, it looks like the major banks were conspiring with the FBI to assassinate Occupy Wall St leader via sniper. [http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files- ows.html](http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html)

3\. Time still matters. The old and ignorant still turn to it for "news".

4\. If you ever thought Snowden would beat Miley Cyrus, you obviously don't know much about America.

<comment><USER29> To be fair, a large number of Americans would be of the type to have strong negative opinions of Miley Cyrus's latest antics. It's just they are also not the type to vote in online polls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I went through this list:

CEO of Yahoo? (For making some teenager a millionaire) No

CEO of Twitter? (For taking the company public) No

CEO of Amazon? (For buying a newspaper) Maybe

CEO of Google? (Google does amazing things every day) Maybe

Pope? (I don't know enough about what he has done) Maybe

Person in charge of Obamacare.com? Hell no

Lebron James? Hell no

Angolena Jolie? Hell no

Hanna Montana? Hell no

Next in line to run Fed? No

Putin? (He is Snowdensitting, threw a big FU to the #1 democracy) Maybe

Obama? (Coverage for those with pre-existing conditions,forcing insurance companies to use premiums to pay for healthcare) Sure

Snowden? (Giving up freedom, family, to expose government missdeesds at 30) Sure

Mr. Syria? No

Everyone else? What did yall do?

</comment><comment><USER31> For what this source is worth. They are claiming the poll is being hacked.

[http://www.eonline.com/news/485526/miley-cyrus-leads- time-s-...](http://www.eonline.com/news/485526/miley-cyrus-leads- time-s-2013-person-of-the-year-poll-but-there-s-a-catch)

<comment><USER32> Holy crap ! I clicked the link and for a moment thought I'd been click-jacked to rate my camel toe. That should have an NSFW on it for anyone sensitive or with work colleagues around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm dissapointed. I thought I would find a comment about moot on this post or at least a reference to this image ("trolling is a art"):

[http://i.imgur.com/iwmk2vn.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/iwmk2vn.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER34> Man, Miley Cyrus just being present on this list already discredits it completely.

</comment><comment><USER35> I remember when Julian Assange won that poll some time ago. To no one's surprise TIME didn't give him the title but as usual to some mainstream politics lackey.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think we should hack it to make Miley Cyrus win with 100% of the votes. Just to make fun of the irrelevant.

</comment><comment><USER37> I think I'm the only person on the Internet that didn't see that Miley Cyrus video.

<comment><USER37> And I'm not the only person on the Internet to know that what Snowden released has been 'known' to the internet community for 20+ years. A release of documents does not consititute proof of what one already knows, because we all knew this type of surveilance was being done on a regular basis BECAUSE IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN DONE[1]. Just because we use wires and bits over pen and paper doesn't mean the governments and people in control don't want to have as much information about who they are 'controlling' as they can:

        Don't try to tell me that some power can corrupt a person
        You haven't had enough to know what its like[2]

Read some (good) history sometimes too see more startling revelations of the 'unthinkable' things your governments and controllers might be doing[3][4].

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_room](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_room) for an example.

[2] [http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/nineinchnails/capitalg.html](http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/nineinchnails/capitalg.html)

[3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_Uni...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States)

[4] [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/subjects/search/?query=histo...](http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/subjects/search/?query=history)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I find it hard to believe anyone really thinks Miley Cyrus should be Person of the Year.

</comment><comment><USER39> Like Time magazine has any relevance left today? (Did it ever?)

</comment><comment><USER40> Why is Bashar Al-Assad on this list?

<comment><USER41> The POY is for recognizing people of great impact, not for endorsing their position. Hitler was POY at one point.

<comment><USER42> And Stalin won it twice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Miley Cyrus : a degenerated girl who can't sing without auto-tune.

<comment><USER44> But.. but... She went half naked on TV and licked a wrecking ball in her video. How artistic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Fuck Time Magazine.</comment>


Foursquare sets revenue plan - <AUTHOR> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/merchant_dice_df9UYAegjUldVV40Sea92H <comment><USER2> Exact same story: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2833816>

No telling which (if either) will get traction - best check there to avoid splitting any discussion.

</comment><comment>==

ADDED IN EDIT: At this point someone has down-modded my comment. Fair enough - your prerogative. My aim was to ensure that any discussion didn't get split across two submissions, to try to add value by helping avoid repetition. If you think trying to avoid such things is of negative value, by all means feel free to discourage me.</comment>


Doug Lemov believes great teachers are made, not born - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/11/revolution-changing-way-your-child-taught

<comment><USER3> See also the NYT magazine article "Building a Better Teacher" from 2010: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all)

</comment><comment><USER4> Man, I thought that calling on people at random was just sort of standard practice. At the college level it forces people to be ready or at least think even if they aren't. Glad someone is actually going in an measuring these things. The political problem is still there, but having the words to actually talk about technique is vital for improving it.

<comment><USER5> Related point: a study found that science teachers call on boys more often than girls, even when they think they are being fair. To combat this, it helps to keep a list of names (even an attendance sheet) and make a tiny mark when you call on someone. Then you can see who you haven't called on in a while. [http://www.narst.org/publications/research/gender.cfm](http://www.narst.org/publications/research/gender.cfm)

<comment><USER6> This seems like it is begging for a small app that can be on a smartphone/watch/whatever and will randomly provide a name.

<comment><USER7> I can't see JustAnotherApp™ helping in a meaningful way. How would that work? I fear the teacher would need to bring another device or pull out their phone, distracting the lecture.

It sounds like the biggest problem's awareness (teacher bias). From there, a class roster and a pen would address tracking in the simplest form.

<comment><USER8> > How would that work? I fear the teacher would need to bring another device > or pull out their phone, distracting the lecture.

How is using a phone/tablet for this purpose any _more_ distracting from the lecture than using a paper + writing instrument + writing? A mobile device isn't going to get in the way than keeping an attendance sheet on a desk/podium/clipboard and using that.

<comment><USER7> I disagree. Think about the implications of using an app v. pen + paper. I assume the device would need to remain unlocked, have notifications turned off (e.g. email), and the screen isn't currently synched with a projector among other assumptions. Are these reasonable? If so, can you elaborate on what you're envisioning for both scenarios (app v. pen)?

<comment><USER6> In either case, the instructor would need training to do the actions discretely. Waiting for a teacher to go jot down any notes is annoying.

<comment><USER7> A teacher would need training to explain class participation and write a checkmark? Students are too clever to not notice. There's nothing to hide.

<comment><USER6> Yes, a teacher would need training for this. Did you read the article linked? One of the initial points was praise for the teacher addressing a kids behavior without the rest of the class noticing. This isn't something that is just natural. It is a skill that is built. Some people have just been building it for so long that it seems natural

<comment><USER7> Huh?

This sub-thread isn't about ways to correct student behavior (Doug Lemov article). We're talking about the NARST article, which explicitly lists a process where you call on students, using a roster. There's nothing discreet about that.

<comment><USER6> Right, I'm saying for this to be effective and not a distraction, training it would large boon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Over the summer I went through an alternative teacher certification program. The program focused a lot on the techniques in Doug Lemov's book, Teach Like a Champion. I have implemented a few of Lemov's techniques and they have been very helpful in managing classroom behavior.

</comment><comment><USER10> So believes any second year student of cognitive sciences, I suppose - <USER2> _and_ environment, while environment dominates.

</comment><comment><USER11> Title made me think of this video: [http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEmuEWjHr5c](http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEmuEWjHr5c) (from someone with PhD in teaching physics).

<comment><USER12> > from someone with PhD in teaching physics

Although there's no harm in mentioning it, and there may certainly be a correlation, it's worthwhile to note that the credential doesn't make the man: having a Ph.D. in physics education is no more a guarantee that one is a good teacher than having a Ph.D. in English is that one is a good writer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This looks like a substantive article. Can anyone suggest a more substantive title?

Edit: we'll use the subtitle for now.</comment>


The Shallow Cynicism of 'Everything Is Rigged' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/25/opinion/trump-warren-sanders-corruption.html <comment><USER2> But it is. Not all of us are able to make the 200k a year that is required to have financing on a house.

Either the US finds a way to increase median compensation (not average), or it reforms the housing regulations city-by-city so that supply is increased rather than artificially constrained.

And this is just one example of rigging. We haven't even talked about student loans or "criminal justice".</comment>


Ask HN: Is Google reaching its limit? - <AUTHOR>

I could argue Google has made only superficial improvements to it's search engine over the past 5 years.  They tweak the algorithm, they change rankings, and they add "instant" search.
I get the distinct feeling that Google has already reached, or is quickly approaching a technology barrier, where they simply don't know how to improve search any further before their competitors catch up.  And this is guiding their decisions to enter so many other industries and make so many acquisitions.
What do you think it will take to make a search engine several orders of magnitude better than Google than is today?  (is NLP-based A.I. required?) <comment><USER2> i think if one views google as a search company, its logical to make that conclusion. but i think google sees itself as a way to organize information and that battle is far from over with the amount of information that is coming online or being created.

<http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/04/schmidt-data/>

if you look at it from the organization perspective, some of the acquisitions seem a bit more logical. if you're google, do what you can to make sure your on the forefront of information organization (AI, AR, locale, instant...whatever might be the next way to organize)

I think startups that continue to organize that information will thrive

Less abstractly, google gets a vast majority of revenue from a few sources and thats risky, so enter lots of industries and try to diversify</comment>


The Longest Poem in the World - <AUTHOR> http://www.longestpoemintheworld.com/ <comment><USER2> beautiful merging of "machine" and "human." the lines themselves are quite emotive: i hadn't read 'normal/banal' tweets before and they're quite expressive. the algorithm that selects rhymes either happened to be doing great as i watched, or actually takes into account syllables and removes spam and urls.

edit: here's an example (4 consecutive lines chosen because they convey a strange meaning):

> Don't you hate it when you call someone back and they don't answer!

> RIP Dominick Dunne and Ted Kennedy. Damn you, cancer.

> Furthermore, it feeds on other animals and eggs. THIS IS MADNESS!!

> Somewhere between a lot of happiness and sadness.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's cool. Like an ode to banality.

<comment><USER4> Banality is the root of all art. I think the idea of a poem written by the entire planet* is rather romantic myself.

*kind of

<comment><USER3> I think it falls beautifully into the romantic surrealist genre, and appauld it for doing so. I wasn't criticising banality, though I would disagree with with your commment on banality is the root of all art. What are you basing this on?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like how it detects rhymes. I've never looked into that but it sounds non- trivial (unless you just have a map).

<comment><USER6> Ya, could someone explain how this algorithm works?

<comment><USER7> There are rhyming dictionaries, but also just parsing the pronunciation indicators of a traditional dictionary for matching end-sounds would work -- and allow matching syllable counts as well. Wiktionary includes pronunciation guides in 'IPA' symbols:

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

There's also 'soundex' encoding of names/words...

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

<comment><USER6> Ahh... I see. I didn't even know such dictionaries existed! Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have a syllable counter, we should merge it!

</comment><comment><USER9> That was cool, maybe if you try to add another kind of rhymes it would be cool also.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, or maybe only choose lines that are in iambic pentameter.

<comment><USER11> Hmm. Haiku version?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My favorite rhyme:

"Sex and the City ruined women for me. wtching coffee prince and lovin it =D"

<comment><USER13> two separate lines, as in you read the "dee" out loud?

<comment><USER12> Exactly.</comment></comment></comment>


Steve Balmer going-nuts collection - <AUTHOR> http://onsoftware.en.softonic.com/the-best-and-worst-of-barmy-steve-balmer

<comment><USER2> Really funny stuff - in the second video (best one hands down - "I'm pooring ice water on my face!" haha) Balmer reminds me of John Belushi's character in "Animal House" mixed with Jason Biggs' main character in "American Pie".</comment>


The Mac mini isn't dead yet, says Tim Cook - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/the-mac-mini-isnt-dead-yet-says-tim-cook/ <comment><USER2> So let's say they do a refresh on the Mini. How long do we get to wait until the _next_ refresh? As an example, I present the Mac Pro. It got the trashcan refresh and then...how many years later and it's still basically the same specs and (surprisingly) the same price. And instead of a new Mac Pro, we get an "artist's rendering" of a hopped up iMac that will come out later this year. No word yet (that I've heard) of an update to the actual Mac Pro.

The point I'm driving at is, fine, Apple updates some product lines. But are these product lines I want to rely on? Next time I need to prop, say, a build server do I want to rely on Apple's good graces to keep their hardware up to date? Or should I find other solutions so that the next time I need hardware to do $A_JOB I know I can find reasonably recent hardware for recent prices? Because a quad core Mini was a fine box for the money back in 2012, but come 2021, I'm not paying 2021 prices for 2017 hardware.

It just seems like over the five or so years, instead of surprising us, Apple finely gives in and updates something, then subsequently seems to say, "there, we updated it, now shut up and leave us alone for the next five years".

</comment><comment><USER3> It is pretty depressing that 5 years later there's no upgrade path from my 2012 Mac Mini. I'm starting to think about how to disentangle myself from the Apple ecosystem, because currently there's no new Mac I want to buy.

</comment><comment><USER4> Another area they have screwed their customers is the WiFi routers. I just got rid of 2 Airport Express for ubiquiti gear. Never going back.

</comment><comment><USER5> so basically a recent shaming of apple over its age has shown that it has effect. similar to what happened with the Mac Pro; though all we got was a photoshop version as no independent tester ever got an iMac Pro or near it

Apple should up and be willing to discontinue products it plans on not supporting or at least put in writing a guarantee of refresh. letting products languish is never good for your image

</comment><comment><USER6> Mines not dead, but deffo on it's last legs!

</comment><comment><USER7> Fine, just let us know.</comment>


AESRand: SIMD code to create 32-bytes of random numbers every 3.7 cycles - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dragontamer/AESRand <comment><AUTHOR> This was a fun weekend project for me, and I felt like sharing.

* Passes 8TB (~20 hours) of PractRand statistical tests. Mersenne Twister fails after 0.5TB, so this should be "statistically sound" enough for anyone.

* Roughly 30GBps worth of random-numbers, far faster than conventional RNGs.

* Got to use those really interesting SIMD intrinsics to write the ccode.

* Really short: like 10-lines of code for the core generator. It was a great tutorial for me on learning how to use Agner Fog's instruction tables to come up with a fast configuration.</comment>


Video Shows a Guy Asleep at the Wheel of a Tesla on the Mass Pike - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2019/09/09/video-sleeping-driver-mass-pike/ <comment><USER2> From the Twitter thread there's these startling stats: [https://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsDrowsyDriving/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsDrowsyDriving/index.html)

> Researchers estimate that more than 70 million Americans suffer from a sleep > disorder (Institute of Medicine, 2005)

> An estimated 1 in 25 adult drivers (aged 18 years or older) report having > fallen asleep while driving in the previous 30 days.1,2

> The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that drowsy > driving was responsible for 72,000 crashes, 44,000 injuries, and 800 deaths > in 2013.3 However, these numbers are underestimated and up to 6,000 fatal > crashes each year may be caused by drowsy drivers.4-5

</comment><comment><USER3> Theoretically, if honking doesn't help, does it help to drive in front of the Tesla and slowly brake to convince the autopilot to either beep the driver awake or come to a stop?

</comment><comment><USER4> You have to view the good with the bad. I am not a Tesla fanboy, and I've seen dozens of accidents on the same road where drivers fell asleep and the car kept going.

Just last month I saw a young girl's car go into a ditch in Indianapolis because she was working 3 jons to survive. The sleepiness just overpowers you before you know it, even though in the back of your mind you shouldn't be on the road.

60MPH isn't good but it's better to have autopilot that doesn't kill anyone.

</comment><comment><USER5> Tesla... Saving the lives of sleepy divers since 2018

</comment><comment><USER6> Can we also mention, though, the guy who's shooting a cell phone video while driving on the Mass Pike?

<comment><USER7> It could have been a passenger taking the video while he was driving. At least, in the video, it appears the person recording is using both hands on the device for a moment, and I doubt anyone driving would dare to completely let go of the wheel at high-speed.

<comment><USER6> Your appraisal of the denizens of that highway is far more generous than mine...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am beginning to think that these videos are staged. We all know that these type of videos will go viral.

My big question is why don't the people that take them bothered to get the license plate. If they are so concerned then why wouldn't they take the license plate and let the police know first?

<comment><USER9> Really?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Dang that's crazy... next feature for Tesla: detect if you're asleep and play a sound to wake you up.

<comment><USER7> The article says it already does that.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: review my site: somebodybuildthis.com - <AUTHOR>

After lurking on hn for a while, i decided to make my dream site exist, so here it is-- a site where people can post their ideas and have people with time build them.<p>I'd appreciate any feedback or criticism, thanks! <comment><USER2> The layout could use a bit more work. There is a lot of wasted space on a wide browser and the main body hides if I shrink my browser window to much.

I registered for an account, but it didn't not automatically log me in. Not a huge deal, but little things add up. Then after I logged in, it kept me on the login page. You should redirect to the home page.

I like the idea. I think there have a been a number of posts both here at HN and other places basically saying, here is an idea for someone, or someone solve my problem. I would find those and use that to help populate it.

One feature/benefit that would be useful is to find how who liked/wanted the idea. Perhaps there needs to be 2 types of voting. 1 vote is 'that is a cool idea' the second is 'I would buy this now if it existed'. The second feedback is much more valuable than the first.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about the signup and display- i'll fix those immediately.

Great idea for multiple voting too.

Thanks :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice idea (heh), maybe pinch some top-rated ideas from <http://halfbakery.com> (with attribution) to kick things off a bit.

</comment><comment><USER4> The structure and layout look nice, but you need to seed the site with more content. I'd suggest that you use a bunch of friends to start with, and go from there.

</comment><comment><USER5> Good idea. Would it not make sense to have them categorized by language. I would really like to know what requires to be done in my language of choice.

I actually have a lot of time, and have been working on open source projects that people liked but no one seems to actually need, so this really would be helpful for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> I like that idea(heh), maybe in addition to categories? So you could select "View all tools in python" or "View all apps in javascript" or just "View all apps"/"View all ruby".

Thanks for the review.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> clickable: <http://somebodybuildthis.com>

<comment><USER6> make email for idea updates for users</comment></comment>


Does NPM is weak? - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/unbug/status/713063748345286656 <comment><USER2> No, you can't republish an existing package version after unpublish. (unless you ask npm nicely and they know you)</comment>


Ask HN: Launching my first major site solo. Need advice. - <AUTHOR>

For the last couple months I've been building a site that has huge viral growth potential. Since I don't have any experience managing back-end systems (normally have assistance) I need to find a hosting solution that's really easy to manage and can scale quickly. I've been researching cloud hosting and looking at a few hosting companies. Since I'm bootstrapping the startup currently, I'm budget conscious. Any recommendations on companies or hosting methods? The site is entirely php, uses mysql, and I'm looking to add Ajax soon.<p>Additionally, can anyone recommend a good open source shopping cart? Looking mainly just for the back-end processing, I already created all the pages. Since I'll be selling physical products it needs to handle and process payment, address, and shipping information. <comment><USER3> Hi Curt,

I see two considerations for hosting: budget and technical ability. For example, using Media Temple's DV service is going to be inexpensive ($50/mo to start out), scalable, and simple to setup. Compare that to RackSpace Cloud Servers ([http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/cloud_hosting_products/server...](http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/cloud_hosting_products/servers/)), which is even less expensive up front ($12 a month or so), but from what I understand requires a bit more technical ability to setup/configure the server (please correct me if I'm wrong folks, as I haven't used Cloud Servers yet, just talked w/ people that have). Either option will easily scale.

There are many other options, but don't want to provide "advice" when I haven't used solutions like <http://www.voxel.net/> or others.

Other considerations - is this going to be a global audience? If so, look into using a CDN. You could use MT's CDN (<http://mediatemple.net/webhosting/procdn/>) if you use the DV service since it is currently only available for MT customers.

I don't have much experience with ecommerce platforms, but your needs seem pretty basic and should be covered by any opensource option out there. Can you think of anything specific that you'll need in the longterm spec - <USER2> pricing options for consumers or wholesalers, discount codes, etc.?

Good luck with your startup!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the answer, on the shopping cart I do have multiple prices, discount codes, and credits. Right now I actually was handling this myself, but if the cart can handle that, all the better.

Really just looking to learn from people with experience using them, normally one or two carts rise above the rest.

<comment><USER3> Well hopefully someone with more experience in the shopping cart area can respond with some good advice for you (because I definitely don't have the background to comment). Good luck with your startup! ~Bob

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a huge fan of Amazon EC2. They charge base on what you use and most likely where you're at now, you can fit on a small server. The cost will vary depending on usage but I presume for where you're at, it should be under $100/month although that might be more than what you're willing to pay.

You can also go with some VPS for now until you're ready to jump to AWS</comment>


The Great Fish Oil Experiment - <AUTHOR> http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml

<comment><USER2> From the article: _The US government and the mass media selectively promote research that is favorable to the fish oil industry._

Don't countries with completely public health systems have the opposite incentive? Health care costs so much that certainly at least _some_ countries in the world are actually interested in reducing costs associated with self- inflicted conditions...

I always have a hard time buying hard-core conspiracy theories against contrarian science. There is so much incentive in being the only "right" person if you can really prove it that there are always people trying to be that guy... right?

<comment><AUTHOR> Although "selectively promoting" seems like a pretty mild conspiracy theory, I agree with you on the whole conspiracy theory angle. That kind of supporting evidence almost always lowers believability of the rest of an overall argument. The article would be just as, if not more, effective without that statement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here's an interesting op-ed from the NYT the other day: "A Fish Oil Story": <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/opinion/16greenberg.html>

" For the last decade, one company, Omega Protein of Houston, has been catching 90 percent of the nation's menhaden. The perniciousness of menhaden removals has been widely enough recognized that 13 of the 15 Atlantic states have banned Omega Protein's boats from their waters. But the company's toehold in North Carolina and Virginia (where it has its largest processing plant), and its continued right to fish in federal waters, means a half-billion menhaden are still taken from the ecosystem every year. For fish guys like me, this egregious privatization of what is essentially a public resource is shocking. But even if you are not interested in fish, there is an important reason for concern about menhaden's decline. Quite simply, menhaden keep the water clean..."

</comment><comment><USER4> I tried supplementing with various forms of omega-3. It took me a while to figure out the exact correlation, but as it turned out, too much EFA in general made my skin bruise and swell up readily. Hence, the days where I took fish oil and ate almonds and a salad with oily dressing would leave me literally crawling to do things by bedtime because my feet had become so unbelievably swollen.

I dropped the supplements pretty quickly, but was now hyperfocused on the swelling, because it still cropped up occasionally, and, I now realized, had done so for years, but in the past I had just written it off. It took another six months to figure out that vegetable oils - regardless of their ratio of EFA content - were the source of the swelling. Once I got rid of those, problem solved.

<comment><USER5> I have almost the opposite problem. When I forget to take fish oil for a few days, my skin becomes very dry and forms a weird rash near my elbows. Fish oil fixes the problem.

(It is hard to correlate supplement consumption and wound healing, but this has happened enough for me to be somewhat convinced that it is true. I was introduced to fish oil to specifically to "treat" this condition.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the article: _The US government and the mass media selectively promote research that is favorable to the fish oil industry._

I find this unlikely. The fish oil industry is not a giant industry on the order of the corn industry, or the beef industry. It just doesn't have the size necessary for that kind of pull.

That said, it's good to read some skepticism about the utility of fish oil. As with many possible substances, there are trade-offs.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I linked this in a previous HN thread but thought having a thread with its own comments would be interesting.

</comment><comment><USER7> summary? fish oil isn't healthy?

<comment><AUTHOR> To summarize: fish oil is a polyunsaturated fat which has been experimentally shown to cause shrinking of the brain and gonads in animals as well as early aging. While there are short term benefits to using fish oil we still don't truly know how harmful the long term effects are, similar to how X-Rays used to be prescribed to treat inflammation before we knew about the radiation that they caused.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > The editorial boards of oil research journals often include industry > representatives

Um... there are _oil research journals_ , plural? I am _shocked and apalled_ that this abundance of ungual knowledge has hitherto escaped my attention!</comment>


iPad 2 Has Been Jailbroken [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.redmondpie.com/jailbreak-ipad-2-ios-4.3-by-comex-confirmed/

<comment><USER2> I generally understand the technical premise of exploits and running arbitrary code, but I am genuinely curious how one searches for exploits in a system like this. Throwing known exploits at new APIs and see what happens? Or is it more subtle?</comment>


Ask HN: what is my chance to find job in startups as a .NET developer? - <AUTHOR>

I'm new to US and a hardcore .NET developer so I want to know whether there are many .NET startups around or .NET is mostly irrelevant in US startup community? How about in the Valley?<p>The reason I ask is because I am aspired to work in startup and want to know whether I should keep developing my .NET skills or start learning Rails, iOS, node... which seem to receive much attention from the HN community. <comment><USER2> In the Valley, very unlikely. I don't have any factual statistics to throw at you but in all the years I've lived here, from purely personal observation and interactions, with exception to employees of the local Microsoft division here, I have yet to run into anyone using .NET at all. Everyone is mostly a Java, Python, Ruby, or a PHP shop. However, you might have better luck in the Seattle area as that is where Microsoft is headquartered (Redmond actually which is close to Seattle) and more likely the startups around there maybe more influenced in .NET usage.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, Steven. Quite sad but it's good to know :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I imagine that if Windows mobile can start grabbing more market share then there would be demand for devs who could create apps on that platform.

Otherwise, I would hit Github, Twitter, LinkedIn, meet-up info, etc to see what sort of .NET activity is coming out of the Valley.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's a good advice. I'm starting searching on LinkedIn right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you are serious about it, I would learn either Ruby, JavaScript or Objective-C. Those are the hot markets right now and what many start-ups are focused on.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that what I feel from reading HN. Guess it's worth picking up one of these to make myself more relevant to the startup community.

<comment><USER4> The other advice that I would give you is that before you do so, take a deep reflective look at yourself and ask, am I the type of person that likes learning new things, as well ask yourself if that will remain true as you grow older. If the answer is no, then be careful about chasing the hot technology path, because it requires constant retooling. While Ruby, JavaScript and Objective-C are hot right now in 2 years it may be Clojure, Dart and Go. You have to be prepared to retool as soon as the market starts to trend away from the currently hot technologies. There is also a trick to not jumping too soon and not waiting until everyone else has jumped on the bandwagon. Playing the cutting edge game takes a certain type of person.

If you get lucks and land in a start-up that succeeds, then the issue is less relevant, but until you do land with a success story you have to plan like your next job will be in a totally different technology stack, because it may be.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice, kls. I'm not afraid of learning new tools, I do that all the time although it's really hard to master something (much less the whole cool modern stack) within 1 or 2 years (while still keeping doing whatever paying you). I'll think about it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Very Distant Galaxy Cluster Confirmed - <AUTHOR> http://www.cosmosup.com/hubble-confirmed-a-galaxy-cluster-located-at-a-distance-of-9-9-billion-light-years

<comment><USER2> Blogspam. The original source is [http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/05/very- distant-galaxy-cl...](http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/05/very-distant- galaxy-cluster-confirmed). The source appears at the bottom of the article as text (not a link) in a shortened form: [http://goo.gl/oZskQH](http://goo.gl/oZskQH)</comment>


Work/Sleep/Shop Triangle (summary: work at home, be close to beer, be happy) - <AUTHOR> http://webworkerdaily.com/2007/04/12/happiness-and-the-work-sleep-shop-triangle/ <comment><USER2> Robert Putnam is a brilliant political scientist, so there must be more to this concept than the article reveals.

I believe the marginal increase of happiness by using this method is less than doing more fundamental things like exercising daily, developing good friendships, having a girlfriend, etc..</comment>


Stop trying to work hard - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@SellerOfDollars/stop-trying-to-work-hard-131bc397e779#.aqghyui56 <comment><USER2> Are we sure this guys account isn't satire? [https://medium.com/@SellerOfDollars/on- eggs-f5a5ff3fa588](https://medium.com/@SellerOfDollars/on-eggs-f5a5ff3fa588)

<comment><USER3> It's totally satire and I was totally was trolled. >facepalm<

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The guy's insinuation that your achievements were fueled by chemicals is wrong. I know many people who developed their willpower, made a decision and did something, no chemicals involved. I myself don't depend on (or even enjoy) caffeine or even sugar to get stuff done. I get it done better when I enjoy it. Often the trick is to start doing something small where it's safe to fail ... and as you start doing it, you get more ideas and soon you're in the zone.

Russians have a saying: _appetite comes when you start eating_.

PS: Also, he writes "I don't make spelling / grammar mistakes" soon after writing:

 _There's no doubt that I'd rather surround myself with go-getters who say what they do and never take yes for a reason why not._

Ugh.

<comment><USER5> Hey, that's exactly the sentence where I stopped reading! High five

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Let me guess: most of your hard work came from doing something physical like > ingesting drugs like caffeine, adderall, or LSD

I agree that our biology probably plays a much bigger part in determining how productive we are than any simple behavioral change, especially of the type you typically find in self-help books and articles on 'productivity tips'.

But this doesn't necessarily mean that these biological factors are mostly fixed at birth and can only be affected through the use of stimulants. For example, regular exercise, a healthy non-inflammatory diet, and adequate sleep all have the potential to significantly improve productivity.

And even if ultimately all of this is mostly fixed and genetic, and there's nothing we can do to become more productive, I feel that it's a far healthier attitude to at least keep trying than to resign completely. Simply believing that we have zero control over our ability to work hard can become a type of self fulfilling prophecy - believing it just drives productivity even lower.

</comment><comment><USER7> Is it just me or he sucks at presenting an argument. I read the whole thing and am still not clear exactly what he is trying to say.

He keeps equating hard work or success with height. What's the point? You are either born to be successful or not? Your hardwork isn't something you did, it was something you were born with?

</comment><comment><USER8> I like these "You're not especial" kind of article. Don't looks like satire to me. Or you do what you are good for or you are a pretender (you can also work hard toward it :))

</comment><comment><USER9> I think I might be missing the point of the article. It just seemed to be a bit of a rant (not very pleasant one at that). Is the author saying that people that perform well are born that way, so shouldn't be rewarded?

</comment><comment><USER10> First-order nonsense. Reading through his other posts on Medium, this is not the first time.</comment>


The Magical Excel 97 Far East Language Build Screwdriver - <AUTHOR> https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20191119-00/?p=103115 <comment><USER2> Last week, a PC in my wife's medical office wouldn't boot, with the dreaded "no drive detected" error message. Figuring "what do we have to lose", I turned it off cracked the case, started whacking the C: drive with a screwdriver handle, and punched the power.

It booted.

The office manager who was watching me had to pick her jaw up off the floor. We proceeded to copy everything possibly important off it onto a USB drive, knowing that may well have been its last spin-up ever and it's next power off may be the final one.

<comment><USER3> Could also have been a loose cable. Completely unplug (both ends) all the cables, and then plug them back in. I've had cables come loose over the years, especially back in the IDE days. It's easy to overlook, because the cables can look like they're properly seated.

<comment><USER4> I've had it happen to me a few times with SATA cables that don't have a clip (or the socket can't use it, like before SATA 300). IDE sticks in there so well that I think I'm going to damage something when pulling a cable out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That reminds me of the story about the magic switch: [http://catb.org/jargon/html/magic- story.html](http://catb.org/jargon/html/magic-story.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> Great story though you could have just pulled out the switch and soldered the wires together :-)

I look forward to the practical soldering test for developers at FANG's - every one on here can solder right.

<comment><USER7> That was my reaction too. Maybe I just work much more in hardware, but if I came across that issue, I would have just pulled out the wires for the switch and soldered a new one on there.

Is there something I am missing?

<comment><USER8> Well the part you're missing is that if these folks were anything like me and just pure software people they probably pronounce it "soul-der" and would look at a soldering iron with deep concern and confusion.

Seriously, I have no idea how to solder so it wouldn't even come to mind.

<comment><USER9> This is why I think CS degrees should require at least EE 101 or Computer Engineering 101. Soldering is such a basic skill that is super valuable. And it's not hard:

1\. Plug in soldering iron

2\. Wait

3\. Touch tip of iron to metal you want to fuse with 1 hand

4\. Touch solder to tip of iron with other hand

5\. Remove iron once desired amount of solder has melted into place

It only takes an hour or two to go from solder noob to pro.

<comment><USER8> It wouldn't help me very much lol, I have a philosophy degree.

<comment><USER7> I agree with the other comment! The best time to learn is now. You're never too old.to learn about how all of this works.

<comment><USER8> Oh I agree, but I've never really been a hardware tinkerer though... that's not what I get enjoyment from so I don't really think about that stuff too much.

I'll probably pick it up eventually... maybe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Office 97 actually gives me a little bit of nostalgia. It's the last version for me that actually felt pleasant to use (assuming you turn off Clippy, which isn't much of a barrier).

<comment><USER11> When I was a little kid and started using computers for the first time, Office 97 was one of the only programs installed on my family's PC. I swear the only reason I ever opened Office was for Clippy and its fellow animated characters :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The fun part is that there is def a disconnect between the dev team and hardware itself (or help desk). To resolve the issue, you only needed to short two jumpers on the motherboard to get it to turn on.

If it was a NON-ACPI hardware, then the hardware switch was wired into the power supply itself, which, then again you could've undone the cable and connect the circuit to boot the computer.

<comment><USER13> I would imagine that a build machine for Office 97 would be of the pre-ATX days and have the switch wired directly to the power supply. Like a clicker- style pen, those power buttons were often push-on-push-off, and occasionally the mechanism would break. Jamming something, like a screwdriver, into the power switch hole would be a completely acceptable thing to do for a one-off.

It probably took a little time for the initial panic to wear off and allow the folks doing the build to realize it was a simple matter. The thought "we may not be able to" is a bit of a reach. At worst they could swap power supplies or whatnot.

<comment><USER14> Doesn't that mean the switch was working with mains electricity though? In general, I'd recommend against sticking a screwdriver into anything 120v AC

<comment><USER15> Extremely unlikely. It was probably 12V. Just like the switches today are 12V and you can 'power on' an ATX power supply by jumpering 2 wires on the main 20/24-pin ATX cable.

<comment><USER16> No, pre-ATX power supplies did have their main and only power switch on the 120V AC side. And when the power switch was on the front of the case, the wires going to that switch carried the full 120V AC voltage and current.

Turning on the power supply by shorting a pin to the ground (it's not 12V, it's 5V, pulled up to the always-on 5V stand-by rail by the power supply) is an ATX novelty.

<comment> T-hawk Can confirm. I shocked myself a few times by bumping into the terminal of the 120V AC wire at the power switch on the front of a case. As long as it's plugged in to the wall, one side of that switch is hot even when the PC is off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In high school, circa '97, I was working in a computer lab. As I entered the room, I was rapidly admonished " _don 't touch the table!_" So naturally, I reached out, tenderly as possible, brushed the table with my fingertip. Sure enough, the computer immediately reboots. He cusses a blue streak, as he's been trying to install Windows but folks kept touching the table! I regret not talking him through the issue, because obviously nobody would use such a flaky machine... but I'd (quite reasonbly) lost his goodwill in my initial mischeviousness. To this day I don't know how the machine was so sensitive to, presumably, a miniscule change in capacitance. There's a possibly that it wasn't grounded and I was carrying a nontrivial electrostatic charge, but the table surface was insulating!

</comment><comment><USER18> Turning off the computer or putting it in suspend mode is somewhat expected nowadays unless it is a server in a rack that runs untold virtual machines that get 'spun up' as needed.

Back in 1997 the idea of turning of an specialist idle PC that consumed company electricity was not the done thing to do. If you were a lowly office worker using Office 97 or its ancestors then you would turn off your machine at the end of the day and start the day with a ten minute boot time. It took a long time to get these efficiencies right and a silly amount of time was wasted. CRT monitors ruled the roost back then too, after 6 you would see lots of silly Microsoft OpenGL screensavers running.

I wonder what the actual power consumption is these days compared to then? It could be a factor of ten.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm surprised there weren't backups they could've restored? If the difficulty was setting up the build environment correctly, then even a duplicate hard drive for each build server would've saved them from a pinch.

</comment><comment><USER20> Office 97 is older than my undergraduate students. That's so weird.

</comment><comment><USER21> The amusing but strange sub-story here is the build engineer claiming that the product may never be built. That is a type of endemic first class whining the type of which I am sick, sick, sick of.

<comment><USER22> To me, that appeared to simply be effective communication. Raising a potentially serious issue early rather than waiting until all options have been exhausted and giving the security lead no time to react. Had they not been able to succeed, the advance notice could help in getting other resources moving in advance of the internal or external deadline.

<comment><USER21> Inability to power on a build machine is not a serious issue. It is a temporary problem with many solutions. To suggest that the build may never happen would imply a much more serious problem. That does not seem like effective communication, it seems like reckless panic to me. Perhaps they thought the motherboard was fried. Even then it would be irresponsible to suggest that the build could not happen. Certainly communicating that there is a problem is a good thing, but offering up the possibility of no resolution when the diagnostic is only just beginning is not.

<comment><USER23> And if the issue was that the machine ate a power surge at some point and the hard drive (+other components) was fried? It may have no longer been practical to recreate and QA that build machine...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Amazed nobody thought of virtualizing the old hardware.

<comment><USER25> In 1997?

<comment><USER26> This wasn't in 1997. Article is talking about patching Excel 97 years after it came out, which is why all the build machines were dormant and turned off. Based on when the team moved (follow link in story), this would have been after 2007.

<comment><USER27> That predates Hyper-V, and I suspect qemu or virtualbox would have been a challenge.

VMWare, though...

<comment><USER28> I used VirtualBox heavily in 2007, worked flawlessly</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Seveneves by Neal Stephenson is now out - <AUTHOR> http://www.harpercollins.com/9780062190376/seveneves

<comment><USER2> I'm only a few chapters in and it's his first book in a long while that has captured my interest before page 300 or so.</comment>


Free prescriptions for all under the age of 25 in Ontario, Canada - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/toronto/budget-2017-sidebar-1.4086229 <comment><USER2> Always interesting to see right-wing parties attack universal government handouts on the basis that it'll go to rich people.

Do they assume that their wealthier voters know that it's a bluff?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think there will be significant rise in prescriptions.</comment>