Regent: A Language for Implicit Dataflow Parallelism - <AUTHOR> http://regent-lang.org/ <comment><USER2> This looks not unlike a project I worked on several years ago, called Radian ([http://www.radian-lang.org/](http://www.radian-lang.org/)). That venture suffered from weak interoperability with system libraries, but more so from the lack of any niche community which could take it up as a solution. I wonder if you have any plans along those lines for Regent? It's hard to get a new general-purpose language off the ground, so semi-specializing on a particular class of uses can help bootstrap a community.

<comment><USER3> Was curious to checkout [http://www.radian-lang.org/](http://www.radian- lang.org/)

It gets me a server error. Is it still online ?

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure what's up with the website. I've pushed the most recent source tree up to github:

[http://www.github.com/marssaxman/radian](http://www.github.com/marssaxman/radian)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Author here. I'm happy to answer any questions.

<comment><USER4> It looks like you've written your own language rather than make it an embedded DSL so you can really enforce what the tasks can read and write. That's admirable - I've done research with dataflow and I always did embedded DSLs (in Scala, Ruby, Haskell and Java) and it was always a bit of handwaving and arguing that people should avoid breaking the rules. Being able to enforce it must be great.

But did you find it was hard to implement enough of a language to run useful benchmarks?

<comment><AUTHOR> The first version of the language definitely suffered from this. (The first compiler was source-to-source targeting C++, and integrating it with anything external was always a pain.) This version is actually more like an EDSL: the compiler targets Terra ([http://terralang.org/](http://terralang.org/)), which does codegen to LLVM. The compiler is still completely under my control, so in theory I could make it "pure" and not allow the language to do anything unsafe. In practice, I've found that it's useful to be able to do things like call C functions---that way, you don't have to rewrite 100% of every code, just the parts that need to run in parallel.

In my experience, porting a ~5k line application is usually a week or two worth of work, and usually most of that is spent trying to understand what the original code is doing, rather than writing a lot of new code. Regent code is usually fairly compact compared to the sorts of things we benchmark against (C++ and MPI codes).

<comment><USER5> The question I would have is more: what is the value-added of your own compiler here? Could the same think be done with some C++ operator overloading, and a template library, and the runtime?

<comment><AUTHOR> Regent actually sits on top of a C++ runtime library called Legion[1] that supports very similar abstractions (tasks, regions, dynamic discover of dependencies, etc.). Unlike most runtime libraries, Legion was intended from the beginning as both a compilation target, and as something users could write to directly. So we do actually have experience building it both ways.

The advantage that Regent has over a C++ library like Legion is that the language can embody the abstractions we want to provide. With C++, there is always an impedance mismatch between how we want people to think about programming, and what C++ forces us to do. C++ code is more verbose, and the C++ type system doesn't capture all the invariants that the programming model requires.

Regent code is also a lot more amenable to static analysis. In Legion, if the system needs to know some property of the program, the user needs to supply that information. (And we're forced to trust whatever the user says---there's no reasonable way to statically analyze arbitrary C++ to validate what they've given us. At best, we can check those properties at runtime, but that isn't always feasible either.) In Regent, many of these sorts of things can be analyzed automatically, reducing the number of moving parts users have to think about. This is only possible because we've thought very carefully about what abstractions we need in the language---the type system is already on the edge of what is decidable, so adding anything more would make analysis intractable.

To be sure, C++ has its advantages too. Some users will simply never accept a new language. So, that's why we're doing both. And for those who prefer to stick with C++, that's always going to be an option.

[1]: [http://legion.stanford.edu/](http://legion.stanford.edu/)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the answer. I'm familiar with the "Impedance mismatch" that EDSL have in C++. If done right, it can be very limited. For example, I like what they did with NT2 (for Matlab programmer): [https://www.lri.fr/~falcou/nt2/tutorial/matlab/first_example...](https://www.lri.fr/~falcou/nt2/tutorial/matlab/first_example.html) . But it is not always possible, depending on the paradigm.

I agree that static analyses and invariant enforcement/extraction is a good reason to have a new language (I think most of the time you have to "get around" with "convention" when using C++ EDSL).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What is the primary use-case/s of this language?

Understanding what it is useful for will probably help programmers apply it somewhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> So far I've focused mostly on HPC use-cases---generally simulations on a variety of data structures: (multi-dimensional) arrays, graphs, meshes, etc. The more interesting cases are distributed pointer data structures, and our hope is that supporting these will help Regent generalize well to non-HPC use- cases as well.

Here are a couple representative examples of what we've done so far:

* A hydrodynamics simulation on a 2D unstructured mesh (a pointer data structure): [https://github.com/StanfordLegion/legion/blob/master/languag...](https://github.com/StanfordLegion/legion/blob/master/language/examples/pennant.rg)

* A simulation of an electric circuit (a graph): [https://github.com/StanfordLegion/legion/blob/master/languag...](https://github.com/StanfordLegion/legion/blob/master/language/examples/circuit.rg)

(We have smaller toy examples that work with linked lists, trees, matrices, etc.: [https://github.com/StanfordLegion/legion/tree/master/languag...](https://github.com/StanfordLegion/legion/tree/master/language/examples))

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This looks very similar in spirit, more modern in implementation, to the hierarchical task graph work that came from the University of Illinois Urbana- Champaign, in particular under Professor Constantine Polychronopoulos, early 1990s. Seriously. Since Monica Lam at Stanford would know this, was this a basis for the work?

</comment><comment><USER8> Neat stuff. Are data structures up to the programmer, or are there primitives for e.g. matrices?

<comment><AUTHOR> Matrices are easy enough:

        var grid = ispace(int2d, { x = 4, y = 4 })
        var matrix = region(grid, float)

But beyond that, most things are left to the programmer. E.g., if you want to build a mesh data structure, it's up to you to decide exactly how to build it. (Do you build a graph with pointers? Do you make it an N-dimensional grid? etc.) But my impression talking to application programmers is that most of the time, they want to make those decisions themselves anyway. A standard library might be nice, but it's never going to fit all use cases. So the first job of any language design is to make sure the abstractions are general enough to describe what users want.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Slack + Discourse + StackOverflow = EffectiveDiscussions - <AUTHOR> Hi,
I've combined features from Slack (chat software), Discourse (forum software) and StackOverflow (question-answers) into a single piece of software, EffectiveDiscussions.
EffectiveDiscussions solves some problems here at HN that annoy me, and you too I would think:
1) When you return to a topic, how do you find the comments added while you were away?
2) It's hard to find the parent comment, if it's far away. Then, once you've found it, it's hard to find the comment you were reading before, somewhere far away downwards.
3) Downvote because disagree or not?
Solutions & demo: https://www.effectivediscussions.org/for/hacker-news
Feedback/ideas/questions are welcome. It's open source.
Regards,<AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Looks a bit rough on mobile. But like the idea

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, thanks for the feedback. Can I ask, what's the mobile phone screen size? in pixels? What mobile phone? (Android/iPhone/...)</comment></comment>


More Reasons to Choose Apache Pulsar over Kafka - <AUTHOR> https://kafkaesque.io/5-more-reasons-to-choose-apache-pulsar-over-kafka/ <comment><AUTHOR> There's also a Reddit conversation going on a similar topic [https://www.reddit.com/r/apachekafka/comments/dvodn9/swap_ap...](https://www.reddit.com/r/apachekafka/comments/dvodn9/swap_apache_kafka_out_for_pulsar_with_zero_code/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)</comment>


Most employees of NYT won't be required back in physical offices until 2021 - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Sulliview/status/1275074784351543298 <comment><USER2> Meanwhile, my employer has said zero remote work once the state transitions into the next phase. They want to be "fair" to everyone, including those who have positions that cannot be performed remotely.

So, you have a co-morbidity? Nope. You have no childcare suddenly? Nope.

It's startling how stuck in the 1980's some people are. Just absolutely astonishing.

<comment><USER3> I've heard two C-level guys with two separate German SMEs say that the only part of their workforce that hadn't handled remote work well was middle management.

The people doing the actual work were happy WFH and simply getting stuff done. Senior management / C-level types were content seeing sales figures and general output from afar.

Middle management struggled because they had a hard time judging work estimates for tasks and whether people had their butts in seats etc.

Just an anecdote but thought that was intriguing.

<comment><USER4> One of the execs of the bank I work at made a public statement that they actually saw the productive output of the IT organization shoot up during the WFH weeks here in Denmark.

But of course middle management didn't agree so now we are back in the office.

<comment><USER5> > the productive output of the IT organization shoot up during the WFH weeks

Should be careful about projecting that to the long term. During WW2, to increase production, the workweek was increased to 50 hours. Production went up substantially. But after 2 or 3 months, productivity dropped back below the 40 hour week. With subsequent experimentation, they found they could get sustained production increases by alternating between 40 and 50 hour weeks.

It's premature to declare victory for WFH. There can be long term deleterious effects:

1\. the excitement and newness of WFH wears off, and the boredom and loneliness of it sets in

2\. one loses connection with one's colleagues

3\. one loses the serendipity of chance encounters and lunches with colleagues

4\. you don't know your boss and he doesn't know you

We'll see.

<comment><USER2> The issue is, all of your 4 points can be overcome with just one intervention - communication.

WFH relies on communication, in multiple modes, more times a day than working in an office. Failure to do that will lead to issues.

<comment><USER5> Out of sight, out of mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ask HN: do you make any distinction between "working from home" and "working from home during a pandemic"? I see a lot of people arguing that WFH is the new normal, citing long reopening timelines, their own preferences, increased productivity, Twitter's policy change, etc.

But just a few years ago, IBM and Yahoo radically curtailed their WFH policies, and they made (what seemed to me to be) pretty credible arguments that the policies were being abused (WFH employees not getting on VPN for days at a time, for example).

I wonder if what we've seen since March isn't really "working from home", it's "working from home during a pandemic", and there just _isn 't anything else to do_ (with the critical exceptions of housework and child, elder, and sick- person care).

The current situation has actually been good/neutral for my personal productivity, since I'm more able to easily chat with my colleagues across the country... but why _exactly_ is that easier now? Are they more available because they're working from home, or because they're __stuck __at home?

<comment><USER7> Personally I can't wait for this to come back to normal: being inside an office for 9 hours every day helps me be productive and focus.

<comment><USER8> I guess it depends on your WFH situation. If you live in a big enough house to have a dedicated office room, probably it is better to WFH. If you live in a studio, where you do everything in a single room, then it is better to go to the office to change the scene a bit.

<comment><USER9> idk. I basically have my office in my bedroom right now and I find it to be fine. I guess what helps is I already had 2 large monitors and a second hand high end office chair so I find this setup just as good as my one in the office just without the standing desk. I guess what helps is I live with 5 other adults so I don't feel like I am missing any kind of social element that I would have got at work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's a photo of the newsroom so you can get a sense of the degree to which they work in proximity:

[https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/12/18/opinion/sunday/18...](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/12/18/opinion/sunday/18pubed/18pubed- superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp)

<comment><USER11> So unlike a modern tech company, they sit farther apart and at least have barriers between their desks?

<comment><USER12> agree on the bigger desks bit, but what difference does a 12" tall barrier make?

<comment><USER13> In addition to the privacy aspect, it probably helps reduce the travel distance of any particles that one exhales

<comment><USER14> > In addition to the privacy aspect, it probably helps reduce the travel > distance of any particles that one exhales

Maybe a little bit, but I'd think you'd want barriers that are _at least_ head-height if you wanted to to that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Get ready for a wave of outsourcing of everything from tech to bpo like the US labor market has never seen in the coming 6 months.

Once employers go through the initial pain of setting up remote work, the more than 50%(and sometimes as much as 80%) cost savings will be irresistible. If you are not in government, healthcare, or other industry that does not have legal requirements to maintain a US presence and you work in an office, I would be saving every penny and working on a career change ASAP.

<comment><USER16> Time zones are still a thing. No matter how remote someone is, if they're more than a few times zones away it becomes problematic. More than nine timezones across the company is nearly impossible to do well.

So if we're talking about a US company, if you want anyone on the west coast, hiring continental Europeans will be tough, unless one of those groups is willing to work outside normal hours.

Also, taxes can be hard. I'm sure as remote working gets more popular, services will pop up to help with this and maybe laws will change, but right now, it's really hard to hire someone outside the US, and it's fairly complex to hire someone _inside_ the US in state that you aren't already in.

The most likely outcome of remote work is a lowering of salaries in the big cities and a raising of salaries in more rural areas, as salaries tend towards the national median.

<comment><USER17> Also: Culture barriers, language barriers. Even if the cheaper market speaks decent English, there will be a greater communications overhead.

Also, skill compatibility. Maybe your labor pool is bigger, but so is the employer pool of everyone with world-class skills in whatever domain you're operating in.

<comment><USER18> I wish things like this mattered. I've worked for more than one company where the bulk of development happens in India.

Even though we would have a 2-3 hour window in the morning US time where meetings happen, there is lack of business context, and language/skillset barriers, the cost savings is just too much to overcome.

<comment><USER19> Had a similar discussion with a tech company that was outsourcing to fairly competent developers that I figured were sandbagging because the defect rate was so high that it didnt make sense.

I talked to the director who was in charge of this and brought to light the impact on the customer base.

The response? We were paying devs on the order of 10% of what we would pay in the united states, and if they padded it to 3x it still would save us an insane amount of money.

There's nothing wrong with outsourcing per-se, but its lovely when the actual "we dont care about the customer's result" comes out of someone's mouth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This seems to be the norm for many companies. Everyone is throwing in the towel on 2020 so far as the office goes with the goal to take a fresh look for 2021 at the end of this year. Many will likely never go back to the setup they had before.

If you're in the market for commercial office space you can probably get some killer deals moving forward.

</comment><comment><USER21> I really hate how this is being dragged out in month sized increments. My partner and I went to Austin for a month and a half and now are back in the Bay Area to hear the next decision on her office reopening. 2021 is 6 months away. That's not enough to move somewhere else that would make the pain of moving worth it.

<comment><USER22> I say this with all seriousness, and I understand some people don't have this luxury, but if you do, please quit.

These companies will continue to punish their employees if they are allowed to do so. The only way to create change is through leverage.

This goes for anyone facing this decision. If you have the ability to quit, you should absolutely do it. Take a year off, find another company that doesn't support archaic business practices, start your own business.

You owe it to the people that don't have that option. The people that are forced into commuting. The people that are forced into depression because they have to continue to pay their massive rents in absurdly expensive cities. The people that have incredibly poor mental health because they're pulled into gross office politics that pit employees against each other.

We must force these companies to change their bad behavior.

<comment><USER23> The things you describe are far from the charged language you're using, and also much of your description may not apply at all to the post you responded to.

How does someone quitting their job because their work is playing a global pandemic step by step help any of the things you listed? This approach is a very logical decision and honestly complaining this loudly about that step is incredibly privileged in a time where many are facing layoffs and pay cuts. Oh no! Your company has kept paying you, you're working remote for a job you were hired for in person, but you can't get a guarantee of when you'll be back in the office because of a pandemic? The horror!

That's not to take a "be happy with what you get and lick the boot" approach at all, but many companies have quite nice policies in regards to how COVID-19 is being handled.

Your issue appears to be with non-remote work in general, but you also make it seem like high COL cities are the only option. If someone is not able to be mentally stable working in the bay or Seattle or NYC etc, there are plenty of small cities with tech jobs that will pay good money with low COL and a short commute they can go work at. They absolutely should quit, for themselves. That was true before any pandemic.

> The people that have incredibly poor mental health because they're pulled > into gross office politics that pit employees against each other.

Again, where was any of this mentioned? It sounds like you are projecting the issues of some companies. These companies should absolutely change their behavior, but again, this was true before the pandemic. I'm not sure how someone quitting will tech them a lesson either as those places probably already have high turnover and they won't have much issue hiring n the current market.

You say you create it through leverage, but I see no such leverage being developed in quitting even if all of this was true.

<comment><USER22> > This approach is a very logical decision and honestly complaining this > loudly about that step is incredibly privileged in a time where many are > facing layoffs and pay cuts.

I addressed the privilege in my post. It's in bad faith to bring it up as if I didn't, also gaslighting.

> How does someone quitting their job because their work is playing a global > pandemic step by step help any of the things you listed?

Playing a global pandemic step by step is not the issue. The pandemic exists. As a business, you were forced to do away with your archaic work-location policies. To then go back on those is repugnant. Simply keep the change the pandemic forced.

> That's not to take a "be happy with what you get and lick the boot" approach > at all, but many companies have quite nice policies in regards to how > COVID-19 is being handled.

For jobs that can be done remote, anything less than the option to work 100% remote forever is corrupt.

> These companies should absolutely change their behavior, but again, this was > true before the pandemic.

Every company that forces employees into an office has gross office politics. The power dynamic of the commute is a self-fulfilling prophecy for this very issue. Asses in seats are office politics.

<comment><USER23> > I addressed the privilege in my post. It's in bad faith to bring it up as if > I didn't, also gaslighting.

You addressed it in respect to the ability to quit. I'm talking in terms of the standard you are setting and projecting onto all companies. I don't see how that's in bad faith or gaslighting. I don't think you know what that term means based on your use.

> For jobs that can be done remote

This might be the key issue - it sounds like you are massively undervaluing aspects of non-remote work that are beneficial to both workers and companies.

> Every company that forces employees into an office has gross office > politics.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm all for more remote companies existing, but offices are not inherently corrupt.

<comment><USER22> > I don't think you know what that term means based on your use.

You made me second guess if I did in fact address the issue. I did.

> it sounds like you are massively undervaluing aspects of non-remote work > that are beneficial to both workers and companies.

You're right. I am undervaluing it. Being in person has no inherent benefits over being remote. Maybe 20 years ago, but the internet has fixed those issues. Low-fidelity remote work is a cultural issue. Not a technology issue. Companies refuse to do remote work correctly so they can continue archaic co- located work.

<comment><USER23> > Being in person has no inherent benefits over being remote.

Socializing. Clearer communication with better nonverbal interpretations. The ability to more easily drop by someone's desk, to whiteboard in a room, etc. For some, productivity. Separation of home and work life. Even an excuse to get out and about.

Yes, there are ways to get some remote analogs for some of these, but they don't magically work the same for everyone.

> Low-fidelity remote work is a cultural issue.

That doesn't make it any less of an issue to implement. If anything, that's harder than a technology issue. Why would you trust these bad companies to implement any sort of sane work culture in a remote setting than they do in an office? If anything, remote only offers more abuse vectors.

> Companies refuse to do remote work correctly so they can continue archaic > co-located work.

I think you're far too pessimistic here. Laziness and resistance to change is far more likely than malice in regards to not going remote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm in the worst of both worlds right now. Unable to commit to fully remote but still having to pay to live close enough to commute. I think a lot of people are stuck like this until their companies decide on a long-term solution.

</comment><comment><USER25> I've heard now from a couple of people that they've enjoyed remote work and some have already sucessfully negotiated that in future they will work part time from home. So it really seems that some of the change will be permanent.

<comment><USER26> I've worked remotely most my life but as a new parent...I really want an office.

<comment><USER27> As a (not quite so new) parent I really want a coworking space that's a five minute walk from my apartment. That way I can do school dropoffs and pickups so much more easily. In my dreams expanded remote work means lots more coworking spaces popping up. I know, I'm a dreamer...

<comment><USER28> I assume there will be plenty of co-working spaces at least in cities. But, at least so long as the company has an office you could go into, I wouldn't expect they'd reimburse you for it. Some companies will do this but, in my experience, it's only if there is no company office in a city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Companies who were the butt-in-seat type most likely didn't have a sudden realization that WFH and telecommuting was productive, most likely they want you back in the office but they just don't want to do the required work to transform the office into a safe environment.

</comment><comment><USER30> I wonder how good their remote security is. I imagine every single government regularly tries to hack them.

<comment><USER22> Can you elaborate on what you mean by remote security?

\- Cloud security?

\- Controlling physical safeguards remotely?

\- Something different?

<comment><USER30> physical security of remote devices

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've been trying recently to wrap my head around what life is going to be like from here on out. Where do we go? Things will never be the same again. Remote work will now be completely normal, that's for sure. But how do we get back to living our lives? Fundamental assumptions I've had about the things I've wanted to do in life are now basically no longer an option. Will Silicon Valley no longer really be a "thing" anymore with physical meetups, hackathons, conferences etc. being a thing of the past? Surely at some point we have to reckon with this, rather than just hunkering down in our caves.

<comment><USER32> This is not forever. We will likely have a vaccine at some point, may be within a year or two. We will also keep getting better at treating it over time - in identifying susceptible populations, developing cures, and hospitals being better equipped.

<comment><USER33> Near term availability of a vaccine seems like wishful thinking. The data is noisy, but some of it indicates antibodies to the virus are short lived. That would implicate the usefulness of a vaccine. And that's if one can be developed, a serious question given the lack of success in developing vaccines for other human coronaviruses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Not a good time to own commercial office real estate. Office rental rates will likely race to the bottom as more and more businesses decide to stay remote.

</comment><comment><USER35> A cycling pal of mine is an in-house lawyer at a big oil company here in Houston. They were told a couple weeks ago that there were no plans to go back to the office until at LEAST 2021. All the work is being done just fine.

<comment><USER36> Working for a unionized public sector employer, they are nevertheless doing the charade of "well, we'll go back next month, oops, maybe not" over and over. So I guess it's not just the heartless capitalists.

Most recently, a mid-July date was mooted for returning to the office, but a few days later it was announced that the union-negotiated work-from-home arrangements have been extended to October. It's ambiguous whether there will be a transition period, or if really nobody wants to go in.

But nobody seems to want to push things out as far as next year all at once. Some employees feel threatened and say they're not going back until there's a vaccine. I'm just kind of bemused for the moment, because I'm almost 100% sure that as things get worse, there is no chance of following through on the plans, yet the authorities keep making them, and then pushing the date out a little more.

I'm fine with going back to the office as soon as other people are and management can explain why we should. But I'm not sure that's happening in the forseeable future. Every day we get an email from our dear leader talking about going back as though we need to keep our hopes up, yet we are also told how well we are doing working remote. So...why return?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> My workplace is pushing aggressively to eliminate remote work, with 50% off remote work in the next couple of weeks. I'm in one of the biggest hotspots, and as the last few months have shown, a significant amount of work has been perfectly viable from home. But before this shutdown, my workplace had a hard ban on WFH. It's the "the workers will be lazy if they're not in the office" mentality. As though you couldn't be lazy at work as well.

</comment><comment><USER38> A friend that works there told me that they have been polling their employees for strong feelings around going permanently remote

<comment><USER39> I have strong feelings against permanently remote. I feel like this hasn't been fully thought out. Face to face interaction is much more high bandwidth than remote video calls (in other words, it conveys more information). Not to mention that this transfers the costs of office space to the employee, maybe this is why all employers are quick to jump on this bandwagon. Curious to see where this new trend will fall in 2021.

<comment><USER40> Many companies have been reimbursing home internet and electricity bills since March. Mine even paid for an chair, desk, monitor and lamp of my choosing for my home office.

I hope this becomes the norm if remote becomes mainstream

<comment><USER41> This is probably not the norm. I have a friend that works in a call center, and they've been working remotely during the pandemic. Her company won't pay for anything; she uses her personal laptop, personal consumer-grade Internet connection, etc. The consumer ISP doesn't provide their stated upload and download ever, and the ISP charged her $100 to come out and investigate the issue without fixing it. (You run a speedtest to their speedtest node, and it doesn't live up to what is advertised. How can the ISP turn around and charge the customer for telling them that!?) The company won't pay for the debugging. When the Internet dies, she's told "welp, you're done for today" and doesn't get paid. (She also works 4 days x 10 hours, so one bad day costs more than the average 5 x 8 employee.)

It is kind of a nightmare making every employee responsible for being the IT director for free. I imagine that most companies are not going to see good results here. (It's good when it's good, but what do you do when it gets bad? Nobody has a plan.)

All in all, consumer ISPs seem to be doing pretty good with the pandemic, but I worry that it's mostly a string of good luck rather than solid infrastructure investments.

<comment><USER42> > You run a speedtest to their speedtest node, and it doesn't live up to what > is advertised. How can the ISP turn around and charge the customer for > telling them that!?

Easy, the CPE equipment is garbage or placed in a shitty location. I'm a nerd, but my ancient wifi setup started to struggle with the entire family working and schooling all day. I upgraded to a Ubiquiti solution with multiple antennas and life is good.

<comment><USER41> We are talking about wired performance here.

I worked on the CPE team for Google Fiber, and indeed, WiFi performance is something that we spent a lot of time on and never got perfect. The average ISP using off-the-shelf CPE doesn't stand a chance. I fear that the CPE is not the problem in my friend's case, and the ISP is just aggressively oversubscribing, and so nothing can be done. Switching to the business plan won't make a difference unless they drop all consumer traffic whenever the business subscriber needs to send and receive, and they are not charging enough money to lead me to believe they're doing that. I don't know anything about DOCSIS, though... I have worked at two ISPs and they both used GPON. The limitations of GPON, however, I understand well ;)

<comment><USER42> That's unfortunate.

With COVID wfh, I've definitely heard alot of horror stories about local ISPs, especially with time of day based issues. (10 & 2) seem to be high-disruption periods. Where our folks have gotten engaged, 30/35 times it's wireless issues.

One thing that I would offer is for your friend to try to get input from neighbors in a rough proximity. I did have an issue a few years ago with Time Warner Cable where a contractor screwed up and hung the wrong grade coax on a pole.

<comment><USER41> I like the idea of surveying the neighbors. We will try that next :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> how much of these permanent WFH will impact Uber's revenue? I swear work commuting is a big chunk of their revenue

<comment><USER36> I don't understand how people could possibly do that; apart from the cost, my experience with Uber and Lyft was awfully stressful. Something new and unsettling would happen in 5/6 rides - I didn't particularly feel like it was worse on average than a regular cab, but I didn't feel secure either. Drivers taking their hands off the steering wheel, fumbling and accidentally hitting the SOS button, tailgating...I only used them when I absolutely had no alternative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Remote work is such a fascinating leadership challenge given how dogmatic both sides have become. The tone of the debate is verging on a religious argument (on both sides), but it's all centered on work-related topics which typically don't engender such extreme responses.

<comment><USER28> A lot of individuals have very strong preferences. And those who want to go back to how things were also realize that, if many companies shift to a more patchwork employees can continue to WFH if they're able to and want to, many offices won't ever go back to the way they were.

In addition, many feel (probably with some justification) that there's a real opportunity at the moment to influence policies that favor their personal preferences. And you won't influence if you don't take a strong stand.

<comment><USER44> "In addition, many feel (probably with some justification) that there's a real opportunity at the moment to influence policies that favor their personal preferences. And you won't influence if you don't take a strong stand."

This is a great point, and that's exactly what makes this an interesting leadership challenge IMO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Same with my company. People who must be on campus can go back to the offices by the Fall, but everyone else - probably not until next year.

</comment><comment><USER46> Next step in work evolution, I'd say.

Now we just have to increase entrepreneurship by some orders of magnitude and things will scale like never before.

</comment><comment><USER47> I've always assumed most writers for these papers don't actually come into the office anyway. What's different? They're extending that to full time staff as well?

<comment><USER48> Yes. I worked for a major newspaper and would guess that all the people in editorial make up less than 50% of the staff. You have business, accounting, tech, delivery, support, sales, security etc...

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> "The End Of Times is Neigh"

Times New Roman Times Magazine Times Square Hmm.

</comment><comment><USER50> That's good for their sysadmins and softwar engineers. They love to raise anxiety levels and create ambiguity interpeters (people who start believing there is meaning in people and objects around them) in NYC. Yes, this is a real thing... Don't ask for details, the short story is someone discovered they could exploit people with genes for paranoid schizophrenia to make them anxious and afraid to the point they look for meaning in things around them.

</comment><comment><USER51> Everybody talks about online mobs and trolls but what happens when the entire workforce is online?

How vicious can one (mob) be against another co-worker when you can't phisically see him to calibrate what's really going on and the reaction to what you do?

<comment><USER52> Well hopefully you don't have vicious mobs at your workplace.

<comment><USER53> My generally-pretty-friendly workplace has recently had quite a bit of viciousness about:

a) bbatsov's response to calls for Rubocop to be renamed

b) The use of "master" as the canonical branch's name in our main git repo

c) Linking to xkcd #75 (which uses the c-word) (the link was provided in response to a thread about mixed levels of profanity)

<comment><USER54> When bikeshedding meets virtue signaling you know you're in for a good ride

<comment><USER9> I have to admit I have a weakness for reading but not participating in these shit-hit-the-fan github threads. So many people arguing over something so trivial.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bankers fail to censor thesis exposing loophole in bank card security - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/30/bankers-thesis-bank-card-security

<comment><USER2> Link to the actual thesis:

<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~osc22/docs/mphil_acs_osc22.pdf></comment>


Gigi's Story: Gigi's Cupcakes Owner Gigi Butler - <AUTHOR> http://www.gigiscupcakesusa.com/gigisstory <comment><USER2> ph0rque can you provide some context as to why you found this interesting?

<comment><AUTHOR> I found two things interesting:

Here was a lady who pursued her dream (singing), but it left her disillusioned. What she ultimately became successful at was something she was good at, not necessarily her passion.

Also, it provides a stark contrast to what HN considers the typical entrepreneur's story arc (whether as a funded or a bootstrapped entrepreneur).</comment></comment>


Microsoft Office 365 beta program open - <AUTHOR> http://www.office365.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> "We anticipate that the average wait for an account is approximately 2-4 weeks during the Beta period." FYI</comment>


13 steps to make Test Driven Development(TDD) actually work - <AUTHOR> http://www.bobbylough.com/2015/09/13-steps-how-tdd-can-actually-work.html <comment><USER2> I never thought of doing it this way. Just write your tests first then give up.</comment>


#BoycottApple trending on Google plus due to Galaxy Nexus ban - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/s/%23BoycottApple/posts <comment><USER3> Something about Koh's overwhelming bias for Apple seems really suspicious. It's one thing to preeminently ban sales of product A for reason X, but to also ban sales of product B for reason Y where products A and B have the same parent, and where reasons X and Y are completely unrelated? Something is wrong with this picture.

What else could be going on? Maybe I have a cynical view of humanity, but I spent a few minutes digging to see if I could find anything on requirements for District Judges to release tax returns (as they are essentially public officials, right?). Couldn't find anything on that, but generic salary data is available: <http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/js_3.html>

$175K is probably rather low when you're used to working in the high-stakes world of patent litigation.

It'll be interesting to investigate this with more depth. ( Another interesting / related read: [http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/local/me- judges-pay2...](http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/local/me-judges-pay27) )

<comment><USER4> If you are accusing her of bribery, that is a very serious allegation.

Imagine if such a thing happens and is eventually exposed. What a scandal would it be. I don't think any large company, let alone Apple, would want to be involved in any such mess.

<comment><USER5> I don't know about this case, but I think ITC has been suspiciously anti- Google for the past few patent cases. In almost every single instance they've ruled in favor of Apple or Microsoft, and against Google.

<comment><USER6> Setting aside your confirmation bias, I'll point out that Google haven't themselves brought these patent cases to the ITC in the same number or with the same force as have Apple, Microsoft, or anyone else. Google has filed fewer cases with a smaller patent portfolio.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow that live stream update is a nightmare - I keep trying to read what's happened and things get pushed down almost immediately. A clickable (or w/e) "18 new posts" would make it usable.

<comment><USER8> To save you the trouble, it's a stream of content free fanboyism and witless photoshoppery. Every single comment would be downvoted to oblivion if it were posted here.

<comment><USER9> on reddit however...

<comment> mkr-hn If you actually used Reddit you would notice that most ignorant and outright trollish comments are downvoted into oblivion. You _see_ a lot more awful comments, but that's only because Reddit is larger. They're treated the same.

<comment><USER10> Not if you make a comment like "iSuck, but I think I am better that everyone" on r/technology. I wish your description were true everywhere.

<comment> mkr-hn Comments like that usually come after a long, dumb tree that started out with good intentions. It happens on HN too. The difference is that I can collapse those threads on Reddit, or hide the story completely.

<comment><USER11> Collapsible comments on HN would be awesome. Too often I get deep into a huge comment thread that has gone off topic and close the tab after I lose interest and forget what the topic was supposed to be about.

<comment> mkr-hn The resistance to it probably comes from the belief that it would hasten HN's decline. Once you can collapse subthreads, what's the motivation to not contribute to the subthreads?

But Reddit at levels 1-5 is almost indistinguishable from HN at levels 1-5. The only differences between HN and Reddit are topic diversity, collapsing, and limiting comment display to the top 100 or 500 comments.

That has me using HN less in recent months. It failed to account for the inevitable with display tools, so a thread that would be perfectly navigable on Reddit is unreadable on HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is really a non-issue. Tech companies sue each other and get import bans all the time. The victim eventually moves some UI widget three pixels to the right and the import ban is lifted and life moves on. The only real consequence of all this is that lawyers on both sides make a lot of money. Google is not going to stop making Android and Apple is not going to stop making iOS. Both will just advance more slowly because money is being spent on lawyering rather than programming.

<comment><USER13> I think suggesting that nobody is hurt by ridiculous injunctions like this is a bit disingenuous. Firstly, consumers are denied the chance to purchase a product that exists; it's been made! It's ready to ship! Sure, you might not want one, but it's certainly possible that other people do.

Something else an injuction does is robs a manufacturer of any time-to-market advantage that they may have had releasing the product when they were actually trying to do so. Holding sales back by even a month can mean the missing of critical retail periods throughout the year. I'm not even arguing either way about the validity of the claims _behind_ the injunction here -- if it turns out they are in the wrong, then they should certainly pay damages to Apple based on how much damage that they caused by doing the wrong thing (i.e. profits from sales).

How much the target of an injunction benefits from being allowed to sell their product is concrete and measurable. How much Apple benefit by preventing a competitor from placing a product on the market is, in stark contrast, essentially unknowable and thus difficult to compensate for if Apple turn out to be wrong.

<comment> X-Istence If consumers want the device they can simply purchase an Apple device. If Google did indeed violate the patents in question the features the user want are available in Apple's products.

You mention first-mover advantage ... that is exactly what patents are supposed to grant, you invent something cool, you get a patent on it, and then YOU get exclusivity on that invention for X years so you can recoup your costs of R&D.

If company Y owns the patent and company X clones it and sells it for $50 cheaper company Y is now disadvantaged even-though it spent all of the money researching and developing it in the first place. Apparently the Judge agreed that company Y is in the right and that company X should no longer be allowed to sell their widget until the lawsuit is settled.

<comment><USER14> Nope. It works slightly different, first companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung and others invested billions of dollars in creating telecommunication standards. Next those companies are forced to license patents for those technologies to Apple. Apple creates phone which base in 95% on technology created by those companies, they are adding several features like "slide to unlock" or "pinch to zoom" and patent it. Samsung, Motorola and others looks on Apple product and says "OK, so it means that customers want other UI, we can give them it too", they are participants in OHA which created very similar to iPhone project of OS for mobile phones (in the same time). So they start to produce and sell such phones. Now Apple goes to court and pretends that theirs big "innovation" is so unique that it should let them to block anything similar to theirs "inventions" (in the same time Apple took notifications system from Android)... what is the most funny part, Motorola and Samsung must license to Apple patents needed to build cell phone, but Apple may do not license theirs patents. This cause that patents for cell phones which costed billions of dollars are cheap for Apple (but its competitors needed to pay billions for those), but patents from Apple which costed only money needed for filling patent applications are impossible to obtain by its competitors.

<comment><USER15> Remember we are talking about only the 3G chip in the iPhone. Just that tiny chip, not the GPS chip, or any other part of the iPhone, and not the whole chip, just one part of Motorola's patents used to make the 3G standard. So a tiny, tiny fraction of the functionality of an iPhone.

The patents Motorola is using are called standards-essential, because many companies got together to create a standard, for example, 3G telephony, they pool their patents together and promise to license them to any manufacturer who wants to create a device that uses that standard, in this example, any cell phone that uses 3G, be that Apple, LG, HTC, RIM, anyone.

Since they have now created what is essentially a monopoly on that technology, they could force any or all of these companies to pay them exorbitant license fees because anyone who makes a 3G phone must use these technologies, and therefore these patents. That does not mean the patents are themselves valuable.

For instance, Motorola may contribute an encryption patent. There are many hundreds of other methods of encryption, so that patent is worth very little by itself, once it is selected for the standard, it is the only method that can be used to interoperate. If an manufacturer wants to use an encryption method they invented, they cannot, because their phones won't work with the cell towers.

Here is where we find the current litigation, Motorola says their patents are worth 2.25% of the entire value of an iPhone. There may be hundreds of patents in the 3G standard, if they are all worth 2.25% and there are 300, then the 3G patents alone represent 300*2.25% of the value of an iPhone, or 675%. So everything else, all the other ideas, innovations, etc are worth nothing.

This makes no sense, and the courts have said that these patents must be licensed on a Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory basis (FRAND). That means they must license the patents for what they were worth the moment BEFORE they were added to the standard. in the Motorola-Apple case that might be .05% of the value of the iPhone. Motorola and Google are using standards-essential patents as a weapon against Apple to force Apple to either pay exorbitant rates for the patent, or, more likely, force Apple to allow android to violate apple's non-standards-essential patents.

Thus Motorola is using a restricted, standards-essential patent in a manner which is explicitly forbidden by law. Judge Posner is extremely unhappy with Motorola and Google about this behavior. See the FOSS Patents Blog for more detail.

It is entirely unlike apple's use of patents, it has never used a FRAND encumbered patent to sue a competitor.

<comment><AUTHOR> By the same standards , Apple is saying that all the value of Galaxy Nexus is worth four patent many of whom are contestable and attributable to broken patent system. As far as I can see apple is saying contextual search done from many resources is worth $349 per galaxy nexus..but 3g that makes such a search possible is not worth $12 assuming retail cost of iPhone as $500. The FRAND is such a easy excuse to hide behind, when you use real technology to make stuff work and are unwilling to pay for it. Compare it with slide to unlock or searching multiple databases on a phone. I am pretty sure none of the technology that Apple 'invented' are being used here. Google came out with their own ways of making this system work.Apple are welcome to come up with their own 3G standards if they don't want to pay for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm wondering what kind of institutional respect for IP and spirit of innovation would lead Samsung to whip up this UI?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxYZXjXozc>

Sure, one can argue that Samsung and Apple both look to a common ancestor for their ideas, but I think Samsung is more insidious than people are willing to admit here.

<comment><USER17> I'm not sure what that has to do with the most recent injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Nexus. The judge issued the injunction on the strength of U.S. Patent 8,086,604, which "provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques". The infringing technology is specifically called out as Android's Quick Search Box, which has been present for years.

The Apple patent in question is obvious on its face. Off the top of my head, Google Desktop Search, which was released a month or so before Apple filed for the patent, is prior art. Nat Friedman's Dashboard project (<http://nat.org/dashboard/>) represents significantly more advanced prior art and predates Apple's patent filing by over a year.

Samsung may be insidious, but that's not the issue at play here. The judge ruled that Google's Quick Search Box violates an Apple patent that should never have been issued, and represents a toe hold to go after Android as a whole. This is a farce.

<comment><USER16> I don't feel that this lawsuit is specifically over the four patents in question and only the four patents in question. It's punishment (in the game theoretical sense) for Samsung's institutional attitude. Obviously the discourse here has taken on import beyond the purely legal realities and into a more moral conversation about right and wrong. Morally speaking, I feel that many of Samsung's design decisions are wrong. This isn't to say that Apple is totally clean either, but it bears mentioning that the "victim" here has no problem with seeing how much copying it can get away with, and I see no problem with its getting punished for it once in a while.

<comment><USER18> That's classic ad hominem 101. "It doesn't matter if what you're doing is wrong or not. You... you.. you're dirty! And a jew! You should get sued!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why is such a trend on Google+ relevant?

As much as I would like to embrace Google+ as a Facebook alternative, Google+ has still a very limited audience – and, of course, a very Android-focus audience …

EDIT: Downvoting my comment just because it isn't enthusiastic on Google+? Comm'on!

<comment><USER20> It is appealing to see a down-voting complaint for an unpopular opinion related to a comment which dismisses a trend on Google+ being irrelevant because the network is relatively unpopular.

I doubt the 75 million people who use Google+ consider themselves a "very limited audience."

Regardless, not a reason for down-voting.

<comment><USER21> I would have thought using a false claim to denigrate something would be a reason for down-voting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't understand why #BoycottSomething should be used for protests. Boycotting an influential company is extremely hard.

I'm sure that there are more rational ways to protest, instead of trying to boycott a company that actually delivers some of the best products. No company is perfect and Apple's case is just a tip of an iceberg in the whole industry.

<http://www.dontmakemesteal.com/> is a good example. We know the movie industry sometimes uses intellectual property rights against their customers but there are good ways to fight back without disregarding the merit of the entire thing.

<comment><USER23> What are the other ways to protest? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious.

<comment><USER22> On a small scale, petitions will work better than a hash tag on a Google-owned website. The person that made the decision is the judge. So a rational way to protest is to protest the decision itself.

On a large scale, make something disruptively innovative to fight back.

#BoycottApple may work by alarming and reminding Apple of their unethical act (to the crowd). But the effect is small because it has nothing to do with Apple's product quality and customer service. If no one buys Apple products any more, we won't necessarily be better off.

That said, I think Apple seriously doesn't have to go this far. If they have the energy to continue innovating there shouldn't be any fear.

<comment><USER24> Remember Amazon and one-click? There was sufficient backlash that they never tried anything like that again. Could work with Apple.

<comment><USER25> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent> says the revised patent was confirmed and they've been paid for licenses to use it (by Apple and possibly B&N). I don't see any effect the backlash had.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> More interesting than a bunch of chatter on Google Plus is this article on Forbes, "Could Steve Jobs actually win his thermonuclear war?":

[http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/30/could-steve-jobs- actu...](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/30/could-steve-jobs-actually-win- his-thermonuclear-war/)

I don't think this will be the last of Apple's actions against Android. When Steve said they'd "patented the hell out of" the iPhone, I got the sense he really wasn't joking.

<comment><USER27> They've patented the hell out of everything that they've done in the last decade with the iPhone, but the very foundations that they stand on have been patented the hell out of by Motorola, Ericsson, Nokia, etc for the decades prior.

Standing on someone else's foundations isn't the best place from which to start a thermonuclear patent war.

<comment><USER28> If you have enough lawyers it is. You can do anything with enough money and lawyers.

<comment><USER29> In other worss: the justice system is no longer a monopoly of the state on violence. But a for hire entity, where the highest bidder can buy their preferred form of "justice"

This is not a good development, and we can wonder how long it will take before the bric countries choose a radical new direction towards IP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The people that want to boycott Apple don't even buy Apple products. So good luck with that. And besides that, you should know that Google makes a lot more money from iOS than from Android ($10 average from each iOS device vs $2 from each Android device), so if Apple stop selling iOS devices Google would be harmed in their income.

At least Apple use legitimate patents, unlike the use of FRAND patents of Samsung and Motorola. Nobody is going to make a #BoycottMotorola for using FRAND patents to ban Xbox 360 in countries like Germany?

</comment><comment><USER31> The South Korean government (owned by Samsung) has been blocking and putting up barriers to foreign phones for years, including delaying the introduction of the iPhone to South Korea, to give Samsung and co. a chance to develop competitors.

I'm glad to see the US government blocking a South Korean product for once, if that is indeed what is happening.

<comment><USER32> Where is the evidence that South Korea has blocked foreign phones?

I can do the work for you, South Korea for instance banned the sale of games inside the app store for a long time. I have a hard time finding examples where South Korea outright banned phones however.

Even if they did, why would you want the US to follow such bad examples. These policies are not healthy in the long term for a variety of reasons.

South Korea is a rather protectionist country, and drawing a line between the Chaebols (Huge conglomerates such as Samsung) and the government is often hard. By the way, this is not surprising considering South Korea was a US- backed and sponsored military dictatorship for a long time.

However, the iPhone 3GS launched in South Korea 3 to 4 months after its introduction to Europe and the US.

Nokia was active there for years.

Last time I was in Seoul, the new iPad launched to great fanfare.

<comment><USER31> I mean that the phones were blocked for a while, before they were allowed.

I'm not American, but still I wouldn't mind seeing these South Korean chaebols get a taste of their own medicine.

Protectionism may reduce the overall efficiency of a system, but can be good for the individual actors within that system who implement it. I think Americans are more interested in their livelihoods than in the efficiency of world production. In fact total efficiency should never be our goal; that would make slaves of us all.

The original iPhone was blocked from South Korea for quite a while.

Here's more info on South Korean protectionism in relation to phones: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html?mod=...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html?mod=djemalertTECH)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> What's the background on [https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-aR5Kiv6yGJ8/T_AgxfYEw_I/A...](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-aR5Kiv6yGJ8/T_AgxfYEw_I/AAAAAAABKMM/32LqpvZrqY8/s682/aLGOQ.jpg) ?

(It's the first time I've seen this comparison.)

<comment><USER34> We've had smartphones as we know them for longer than people seem to acknowledge. Apple just made a slick UI and went with a capacitive touch- screen.

<comment><USER4> That is over-simplification of facts. If that were true, why doesn't Samsung leverage the device shown in the comparison to counter-sue Apple?

Edit: Trying to understand the down votes. Would like to hear counter- arguments.

<comment><USER34> Because they aren't copies, they simply have similar designs. By your logic, I suppose Microsoft could sue Apple since Windows Mobile had an applications list.

<comment><USER4> Exactly. They aren't copies.

But MS suing Apple - I don't think my logic has any such implication or connotation.

As pointed out in Nilay Patel's article, TouchWiz is an attempt to mimic iPhone look & feel.

If Samsung had evolved their original design, which you had pointed out was not a copy, then it is a different story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Wow, so people who want to buy Samsung instead of Apple anyway are going to boycott Apple? Apple is quaking in their boots, I'm sure.

<comment><USER36> I was actually thinking of buying a Mac for the first time just last week, even after being outraged by the Galaxy Tab 10.1 thing. They have good hardware and it's Linuxy, but thank you Apple for acting sooner with this Nexus rubbish rather than later..

So there you go, an actual sale lost and I'll remember this for a long, long time

<comment><USER37> So then you're boycotting Motorola and Google products as well because they had a similar injunction against Apple in Germany right? If not why?

I find it amusing how emotional tech people get over these patent wars. Its one companies legal team versus the other over legalities and trivialities. If you looked at how often car companies sued each other over look and feel patents you would realize the whole thing is a non issue. If you want to change things start with the legal frameworks that allow it to happen. Complaining that companies are using every trick available is somewhat of a non surprise. You might want to start with the patent office and their granting of patents though.

But "I'll remember this for a long, long time", really? That is quite sad, evaluate technology for its tech, not for the companies legal team. But whatever.

Note: I'm not arguing for or against apple or google and their legal teams with this post at all.

<comment><USER38> "Evaluate technology for its tech, not for the company's legal team."

No. Doing so means that I can become complicit in legal actions that ultimately hurt me as a consumer by providing companies like Apple with the revenue they need to fund such attacks. One must consider the legal actions, the social actions, etc. of a company when buying their products; it's part of being a responsible and long-term self-interested consumer.

<comment><USER37> I'm curious then, what exactly do you buy? Almost every company on this planet has done things both legally and socially that would mean you boycott almost all corporations. This would asus is out, samsung, motorola, <insert any major manufacturer of anything here>, how do you correlate this view with the rest of the products you buy?

Do you drive a car and fill it with gasoline or diesel? Then likely you're implicating yourself in the extraction of natural resources and disasters with this viewpoint. While I applaud the concept, it seems a bit restrictive. Note I'm not saying you should deny when companies do bad things like an oil spill disaster, but if we're going to glom on extra responsibilities for corporations that build devices we buy we're going down a very slippery slope that can only end with abandoning modern lifestyles.

Also another question, if patents are granted and being infringed, are you saying companies should not act upon infringement? If yes, then why would companies get patents?

<comment><USER38> I get that there are compromises made in every decision I make, and that to that extent, I _am_ complicit in the actions taken by the companies that I support. I certainly did not mean to exempt myself from that; rather, I was trying to argue against the philosophy that such considerations should be ignored. While I get that pragmatism is important, I disagree that we can disregard the actions of the companies we support.

As for the point about patents, I think that there's a difference between acting on infringement and actively seeking to expand their patents post-hoc to shut down competition. More broadly, I think that the USPTO needs to be much more selective about patents, to avoid precisely these kinds of problems.

<comment><USER37> No worries, sorry for the late reply, had to go watch sports and drink beer. :)

I was just trying to find out exactly what it was that sparked your personal boycott and how that extends to other areas of life.

Personally I can't be arsed to care about tech company patent litigation since there are much worse things to worry about. In essence I'm referring to things like child labor/environment damage etc.... I'm not absolving tech companies, but on a scale of 1-10 as to ethical considerations its not that high on the list I would rank.

Basically that's my view in a nutshell, at work so I can't give a full reply, tschuss!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Not surprising. If it was trending on Twitter that would be news.

<comment><USER4> I agree. This is a trending topic on a Google property, to protest a court ordered injunction on another Google product. Unless this trends on Twitter or reaches Reddit front page, it is of no consequence.

<comment><USER5> It did reach Reddit's front page...It's currently on 7th place.

<comment><USER4> I'm checking Reddit within 35 minutes of your comment here. I don't see anything related to Apple on the front page - positive or negative. Do things change that rapidly on reddit?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Perhaps Samsung will consider not slavishly copying Apple design for their next products?

<comment><USER41> In Korea Samsung sells cars that are almost exact copies if American and German models. Korean businesses have no qualms about straight up stealing others designs. For example looking at this car, by a company called Ssangyang, <http://www.jeepfan.com/readersjeeps/ians-korando/> it's an almost perfect clone of a Jeep CJ-7. This is exceptionally common with Korean Chaebols. Samsung getting sympathy over this is laughable. In Korea Samsung runs over the little guy all the time. It's a highly corrupt, politically nasty company. Spend more than 10 minutes in Korea and people would lose all sympathy for poor little Samsung.

<comment><USER42> Well, to be fair, one of the main reasons for Asia's growth the last decades is exactly the blatant disregard for patents and copyright.

Sure, it may feel unfair to the original creators of the products, but it sure has forced them to continually innovate. I'd actually argue that cloning is a positive (as long as you differentiate it sufficiently, don't clone a BMW and call it a BWV) thing for the world. In my opinion, if you can create a better/cheaper version of something, you should be allowed to.

And if it's possible to easily duplicate your product and make it cheaper/better somehow (if it isn't better somehow nobody'll buy the clone), it's a strong sign that the original product/business isn't good enough and doesn't deserve to be the leader.

<comment><USER41> I agree that the copycats who "do it cheaper" do drive innovation at some level, however, the reason they can do it cheaper is that they've invested almost nothing into developing the product, other than reverse-engineering costs. For example, no one was doing a multitouch screen for a consumer mobile device until Apple. In fact, companies such as RIM where declaring the full QWERTY hardware keyboards were the future of smartphones. So Apple took a risk, a huge risk in fact. So when a company like Samsung (or any in their cohort) comes along and puts a touchscreen on a phone, when no one else was doing it before, Samsung effectively benefited from Apple's risk. I'm not arguing that the concept of a touchscreen should be patent-protected, however the specific technology behind should be.

Furthermore, part of Samsung's complaint against the injunction is that the iPad design patent is "generic" and should not be subject to protection, yet if it was so generic, then why wasn't anyone else using that design before Apple? Just because it's minimal doesn't mean it's generic. It appears generic because the iPad became so ubiquitous. Coca-Cola bottles are another good example of the logic behind a design patent. The Coca-Cola's classic "Contour" bottle, or "Hobble skirt" bottle, from 1915 was one of the first glass containers ever to be patented based only on its unique shape. In 1916, Coca- Cola debuted the patented bottle which would help distinguish them from competitors. Even today, that bottle is recognized as a "Coke bottle." No one is arguing that bottles should be patent protected, but the specific characteristics that make a bottle unique certainly should be. The Coke bottle is a prime example.

Design patents protect that which distinguishes one product from another.

If you look at this image: [http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/illo/nw/story_graphics/10oct/gal...](http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/illo/nw/story_graphics/10oct/galaxy- tab-hands-on/samsung-galaxy-tab-8.jpg)

The products look almost identical, although the Galaxy pictured is the smaller version than the 10.1. But really.. who in their right mind can say that Samsung just happened to come up with the exact same design as Apple. More importantly, would the neighbor down the street, if she saw them both together, be able to tell them apart? She's likely say, "Oh cool, Apple made a smaller iPad."

For more examples of Samsung blatantly ripping off Apple designs, have a look at this: <http://www.iclarified.com/images/news/20889/74763/74763.jpg>

Samsung copied the exact same green for the phone icon as well as positioned it in the exact same default location as the iPhone. The clock icon is a square clock with a round face with a slight change of shading. The Notes/Memo icon is virtually identical expect the Samsung version is slightly zoomed out. The similarities continue through Galaxy products. The web browser icon even (at least a year ago) had a compass on it!

I am not a fan of RIM equipment by any stretch, but at least they designed their own icons without ripping off Apple: [http://geekynotes.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2010/07/blackb...](http://geekynotes.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2010/07/blackberry-6-home-screen.jpg)

Even the Samsung box design was copied from Apple.

Samsung box: [http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/10/galax...](http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/10/galaxy-tab-unboxing.png)

Apple box: [http://admintell.napco.com/ee/images/uploads/appletell/ipad-...](http://admintell.napco.com/ee/images/uploads/appletell/ipad- unboxing1.jpg)

For comparison, here's a Sony box: [http://www.taragis.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/05/Sony-Table...](http://www.taragis.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/05/Sony-Tablet-S-Box1.jpg)

We, the tech minded can argue differences, but that isn't at issue. Of course a tech person knows the difference between a Samsung Galaxy XYZ123 and an XYZ321, but the average person that sees that Samsung product is going to certainly confuse it with Apple.

Arguing that this injunction is somehow stifling innovation is bullshit. Samsung themselves are stiffing their own innovation trying to create a copycat product and riding the Apple gravy train as opposed to inventing something of their own. At least Amazon, Sony, HP, Microsoft are/were attempting to distinguish themselves. I respect the vapor-ware MS Surface far more than the extant Samsung Galaxy simply because at least Microsoft is trying to innovate, even if they seem to have a rough time of it. THAT'S what competition is about, not copying someone's designs and tweaking it a little. It's about building a better product than the other guy. Microsoft, and it pains me to say it, is one of the few companies other than Apple that are truly trying to innovate in the mobile device space. Samsung is just another East-Asian mega-conglomerate trying to cash in on someone else's work. In 2010, Samsung's revenue (not including subsidiaries outside of Korea) was $258 billion. Apple's was $63.5 Billion. I mention that because the anti-Apple narrative is that somehow they are bullying poor little Samsung when that just isn't the case. Samsung is the number 2 patent holder by number of patents globally, just after IBM and just ahead of Canon. Microsoft comes in at number 6. And Apple -- number 39. RIM is number 40.

To make Apple out as the villan in this saga is ridiculous. Maybe we don't like Apple because their SDK offends us or our neo-hipster aesthetic is offended by the ubiquitousness of their products, but in this case, Samsung is getting exactly what they deserve.

People that want to turn this into an Android vs. Apple battle are missing the point of the injunction, nor did they read the filings in the case. If this were an Android/Apple battle, it would be Google in the courtroom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The day that there is a #BoycottGoogle+ trending on Facebook/Twitter will be the day Google+ can claim to be truly mainstream!

<comment><AUTHOR> Why should a product judge whether its successful or not based on other product. Google plus has some of the most tech savvy users and level of conversation is usually very high. I will say that most early adaptors of G+ are pretty influential in their domains.

<comment><USER44> >Why should a product judge whether its successful or not based on other product.

I think it's his intent to show that nobody outside of tech really cares about this.

>Google plus has some of the most tech savvy users and level of conversation is usually very high.

The 'tech savvy' users are everywhere. What it shows here is what everyone already knew: that much of Google+ consists of Google fans.

I'm eager to see when there is a #boycottGoogle or #boycottMotorola for the Xbox ban.

<comment><AUTHOR> >What it shows here is what everyone already knew: that much of Google+ consists of Google fans

On the the day New IPad launched , Ipad trended on Google for whole weekend - mostly with people sharing pics of iPad and taking about gorgeous retina display.

<comment><USER44> Being a fan of Google doesn't mean that you're disinterested in a competitor's product. I'm sure there were Apple forums that had a lot of comments (both positive and negative) regarding the events held by MS and Google.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will agree with you here about being fan of multiple product. But it should be noticed that when you have millions of users (based on Google IO numbers about G+) biased voices are usually stifled and general consensus emerge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> What will the immediate consequences be, if the injunction actually goes into effect? I have a ton of questions about this, but basically:

\- Will Samsung/Google just tweak the software to get around the patent, and continue shipping?

\- Could Samsung ship the device sans-Software, and have a US based facility install the OS to get around this?

\- What is the appeal process that Google/Samsung can take? That is, when Samsung files the appeal, how long does it take to be reviewed and considered? Can Apple appeal an appeal?

\- What is the meaning of this 2014 court date?

\- What defines the "Galaxy Nexus"? Could they change the colors on it, or tweak the case, and call it a different device to continue shipping?

Of course, any answers are basically speculation at this point, but mostly I want to get a feel for some of the possible avenues that the parties have to take.

<comment><USER46> Good thinking.

I wish a high quality device without pre-installed OS was available.

Great specs similar to GNex, at an affordable price comparable to $350 Google charges for unlocked units.

Let customers run whatever OS they wish.

WebOS, Android, iOS, Windows, any one in particular or all at once.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Scrolling through the results, I see:

\- 50% Star Wars imagery (iPhone as stormtrooper once, but usually that ugly green Android guy using a lightsaber on something representing Apple)

\- 10% Lord of the Rings imagery

\- Many posts that "support the cause" without delineating any sort of argument

\- No one disputing that Samsung ripped off Apple's designs or patents

Interesting.

<comment><USER48> Take a look at the Galaxy Nexus (the phone in question) and tell me which Apple design or patent it infringed. (Bear in mind the unified search patent has prior art - by Google to wit, and is likely to be invalidated)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> " I won't bother getting into how the judge who ruled on this injunction is a former lawyer from an intellectual property firm who went after companies for profit."

[https://plus.google.com/101209004947484771936/posts/XcZFPu8q...](https://plus.google.com/101209004947484771936/posts/XcZFPu8qwpe)

</comment><comment><USER50> "Well it looks like Team Android have conceded a penalty, but the players are crying foul play saying Team Apple dived. Some team Android fans are also attempting to stage a pitch invasion to protest, but are easily held back. Team Apple scores! The game continues..."

</comment><comment><USER51> Google would do the same if they were in Apple's position. So boycotting does not make sense.

<comment><USER52> That is clearly untrue. When Apple wanted to make a phone they made their ecosystem a jail cell.

When Google was in the same position and wanted to make a phone, they started the Open Handset Alliance, and developed free software for manufactures and consumers to use and modify as they see fit.

How exactly is that doing the same thing?

<comment><USER53> I cannot upvote this enough.

I for one will never buy another iPhone. But I am in a jail cell. How can I leave iOS? My friend tried once and it bit him in the ass. He lost his iPhone (which never had iOS 5 and thus never had iMessage). But at some point between losing his phone and disabling his sim card, the person who stole/had his phone upgraded to iOS 5 and turned on iMessage. So his stolen/lost phone was now taking all his iMessages. My friend then bought a non-Apple phone and NONE of his friends (including me) that were using iPhones were able to text him. We received messages from him, but all our replies were being sent as iMessages to his stolen/lost phone. He had to change his phone number in the end. Who designs this shit?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I find it ironic that people use Google+ to protest against this, as Vic Gundotra has alienated me a lot more with his stupid policies than Apple ever has. #BoycottGoogle+

</comment><comment><USER55> Our patent system is insane, granted. But in this case, at least Apple, ya' know, actually invented some of the stuff they are using against Android.

<comment><USER56> Have you actually looked at the four patents used in this litigation? I think it's highly arguable whether Apple really invented any of those concepts.

<comment><USER57> There is a clear and well understood process for invalidating those patents - prior art.

If you don't believe Apple invented them then come forward and provide some evidence. I would imagine Google and the Android OEMs would throw a few million your way for the trouble.

<comment><USER58> But that's the problem, isn't it? Even if Google produces prior art, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did (although I haven't actually looked at the patents so I can't be 100% certain), the injunction would still exist.

So yes, there is a well understood process for invalidating patents. And that is, no doubt, going to play a major role in the case. But all that comes _after_ the problem itself--the injunction lasts _while_ people are showing prior art and forwarding any other arguments they have.

So my complete understanding is as follows: the fundamental problem here is the patent system. The issue is that Apple was able to get weak patents and then is able to use those patents to get an injunction on a product _before_ the patents can get tested in court. This lets them leverage a weak hand and ~$100m to weaken their competition, regardless of the patents' actual validity. This, combined with a bunch of other problems with the patent system (oh, let's patent math as long as it's run on some computer!) is why there is a call for patent reform. The reason people are annoyed with Apple is that, instead of being nice, they're abusing a broken system to damage their competition.

Of course, I'm certainly no lawyer and have been following this case only superficially. This is a good summary of what _I think_ is going on, but could have no bearing on reality whatsoever.

<comment><USER59> "...instead of being nice..." There is the problem. Apple is a business, it doesn't exist for altruistic reasons. Neither does Google, no matter how vehemently they say that they do. As others have pointed out, there doesn't seem to be a boycott on Google for their part in the attempt to gain an import ban of the XBox or their support of the alleged abuse of FRAND patents, both by their newly acquired subsidiary. Apple are playing the same legal game as Google are.

<comment><USER60> > there doesn't seem to be a boycott on Google for their part in the attempt > to gain an import ban of the XBox or their support of the alleged abuse of > FRAND patents, both by their newly acquired subsidiary.

That is because the perception is that they're using it to countersue Microsoft and Apple who filed the first volleys.

>Apple are playing the same legal game as Google are.

No, Apple was the initial aggressor against HTC, Motorola and Samsung.

And that matters a lot. Have you seen the PC OEMs sue each other over patents like this? They seem to compete in the marketplace like most other industries.

<comment><USER59> The FRAND suit legally has nothing to do with this, and what's more it is blatant. What I see here is a bunch of fans of Google giving them a free ride. I don't like Apples approach at the moment either, but to lay any kind of blame solely at their feet is at best naive. Googles recent business dealing are far more worrisome, especially the Kenyan affair. It doesn't matter who shot first either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Just started <http://www.reddit.com/r/boycottapple/>

It's about time.

<comment><USER57> I am assuming you are going to setup /r/boycottsamsung, /r/boycottgoogle, /r/boycotthtc as well ?

Because their FRAND abuses are 1000x worse than what Apple and Microsoft have been doing. When you have governments (FTC, EU) and non-mobile companies (Intel, HP, Cisco etc) complaining you know it's something serious.

<comment><USER61> > I am assuming you are going to setup /r/boycottsamsung, /r/boycottgoogle, > /r/boycotthtc as well ?

Samsung have given me a replacement for two monitors that were just out of warranty. They came over and replaced them right then and there. For free. They were just normal 17 inch LCDs. No extra warranty. Google has given me untold GB of emails and made it work just everywhere, even in every text browser. I love Google Authenticator. I use DuckDuckGo, but still acknowledge that Google are a company that knows how to put things together. They do charity, contribute greatly to open source, help endangered languages and at least seem to have a bit more of a conscience. HTC has taken the mobile phone and turned it into something a great deal better. I don't own any of their products, but I can honestly say that my mobile is better because of them.

I'll now let you compare all this to my experiences with Apple over the past two, three years: [http://www.reddit.com/r/BoycottApple/comments/vvdfd/my_perso...](http://www.reddit.com/r/BoycottApple/comments/vvdfd/my_personal_motivation_for_hating_on_apple_beyond/)

<comment><USER57> Okay. Do you use Netflix or Hulu, own a Canon camera, play on your Nintendo, watch TV on your LG, use Skype to chat, connect with Facebook, edit home movies using Adobe Premiere ?

Because Google/Motorola could stop ALL of that and so much more.

<comment><USER61> I'm in Australia. I use Skype to chat and Facebook.

If Google or Motorola ever do me as wrong - even indirectly - as Apple has, I'll start /r/boycottgoogle. But they haven't. Not even close.

<comment><USER4> I'm having trouble understanding this argument. You say Apple has wronged you with this ban on Galaxy Nexus. But the injunction is in the US and you say you live in Australia. How does that affect you?

So maybe you are opposed to Apple by principle; but by the same principle you should be opposed to Google/Motorola, too, as they have got an injunction on a few Apple products in Germany. Are you opposed to Google, too?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Now also trending on twitter:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4187672>

</comment><comment><USER63> In other news, #boycottApple helped Google+ realize that they need to design at least one feature correctly... If I am viewing a livestream, don't move the box that I am reading from. Goodness gracious.

</comment><comment><USER64> Is this somehow started by or otherwise related to Joe Wilcox's boycott?

[http://betanews.com/2012/06/29/apples-injunction-stopping- ga...](http://betanews.com/2012/06/29/apples-injunction-stopping-galaxy-nexus- sales-is-shameful/)

[http://betanews.com/2012/06/29/preliminary-injunction- bars-g...](http://betanews.com/2012/06/29/preliminary-injunction-bars-galaxy- nexus-but-apple-is-a-loser-for-winning/)

<http://betanews.com/2012/06/09/im-boycotting-apple/>

</comment><comment><USER65> You folks have it all wrong. If anything, more product import blocks need to happen so people will start realizing how busted patents are.

</comment><comment><USER66> Has Apple actually posted the cash required to enforce the ban? Until confirmed, this is merely doublethink.

<comment><USER57> Apple posted the bond almost immediately during the Galaxy 10.1 injunction. I see no reason why would it be any different now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Funny, I thought the place to be right now would be "boycott Facebook". Where can I go to find that?

</comment><comment><USER68> I didn't know Google+ had trends?

</comment><comment><USER69> What's the source of this news?

</comment><comment><USER70> Holy shit, it's trending on Twitter? Well that's going to change the world!

</comment><comment><USER71> This is fighting stupid with stupid. Oh I know, let's make an online petition to let Apple know how upset we are. Between that and a trending G+ topic, surely they'll change their ways.

So that we're clear, since reactionary fanboy downvotes are popular here, I have no desire to part with my beloved Galaxy Nexus or new Macbook Air. I just find it completely inane that this is frontpage HN news.

<comment><USER72> So you're opposed to boycotts? Or are you criticizing this boycott because it's not (yet) big enough to influence Apple?

Lots of boycotts have been successful throughout history, and most of them started small.

<comment><USER71> Yes. A trending G+ topic is basically equivalent with Rosa Parks. /s. When was the last time an e-petition led to actual change, because I've seen dozens of them signed by huge numbers of people and never any with a tangible effect.

But mostly, who honestly thinks Apple is going to change their policy based on a trending topic on G+, they're probably laughing hysterically at it.

Pigs will fly before this translates into any measurable decrease in sales or revenue for Apple.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you forget about SOPA, when the community united against restrictions forced upon it. It was a silent protest , mostly through petitions.

<comment><USER71> Yes, I didn't really think about that. However I think a threat to open speech on the Internet and an injunction against a single type of smartphone are likely to evoke a different reaction. If we have every news organization talking about an Apple boycott in a week, I'll happily eat my words.

I'll say it again just to C(M)A, I am no fan of Apple doing this and would love to see them accept Android as a competitor instead of trying to litigate- secure their position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> In other news: Katie and Tom are getting a divorce ...

Thank you google plus.

<comment><USER74> Wait they are? Why wasn't that posted on HN? I'm off to TMZ......

In other news - it matters to Apple. Those that say it doesn't say that simply because they want to believe it doesn't matter to Apple. Who knows the exact day MSFT went from an exciting scrappy start up helping to put a PC in everyone's home and taking on the likes of IBM to the despised Death Star. I don't know - but it always starts with a change in public perception from doer of good to capitalist money hogging evil guy. It always catches the corporation off guard because they haven't really changed any business practises - it's just suddenly they're now Goliath and no longer David in the public eye.

I can see Apple winning the battle and losing the war here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I'm a huge fan of Google, Apple, Linux, Xbox, and Kindle. Apparently, I need to start insulting and belittling myself or something...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Now its trending on Twitter (at least it shows up on my twitter home page trend as number 7, but these trends change very very quickly). Its still trending on Google plus after 2.5 days. This is going pretty viral. I so wish that this will put some sense into judge and Apple to not ban Galaxy Nexus - <USER2> unlock hardware phone which is made for developers, hackers and has pure AOSP experience.

<comment><USER76> Or possibly it will put some sense into Samsung to stop infringing on patents...

<comment><USER77> Do you write code for a living? Care to estimate how many linked-list "patents" you've "infringed"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A recent development on this matter...Samsung has moved to ask the court to stay the injunction

[http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-demands-apples-galaxy- nexus...](http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-demands-apples-galaxy-nexus-ban-be- frozen-01236623/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Another very contentious patent granted to Apple <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4186731>

</comment><comment><USER78> The Times They Are a-Changin'

</comment><comment><USER79> Trending on Google+?

So all 5 Google+ users posted it?</comment>


RFC – The Shotgun Method Course on Client/Server Applications Development - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mswehli/rfc-the-shotgun-method-course-on-client-server-applications-development-223abc1abd69 <comment><AUTHOR> If anyone has any comments please post them here aswell. Would love some feedback before i get started!</comment>