Record low numbers of millennials think buying a home is a good investment - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/23/record-low-numbers-of-millennials-think-a-home-is-a-good-investment.html <comment><USER2> Bought my first place 6 years ago and people were telling me the same thing. "Market is at a peak", "downturn is right around the corner", etc.

So glad I ignored them because it is the best financial decision I've ever made. Literally changed life for me and my family.

<comment><USER3> I assume you still own it and those gains aren't realized?

<comment><USER2> We'll be selling it and retiring this year!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Investment is a terrible way of thinking about homeownership.

In the markets that are most affected by this phenomenon like London, SF, and so on, for the vast majority of individuals, it's the only thing that costs money anyway.

Anything else can either be binned as 'trivially cheap' (e.g. groceries+bills+transport combined) or 'luxury fun' (e.g. nice clothes, expensive holidays, etc).

To the point that money in the abstract is basically irrelevant (vanishingly small numbers of people have liquid wealth, but tons of families with modest jobs own 500K, 1M, 2M homes in London).

If you don't want a house or apartment to call your own, a place to make good and have suit your needs (with nice fittings, a layout that suits you, neighbours you know well and so on) then you don't want it.

Young people barely ever want this stuff (I sure didn't) and the Internet has only exacerbated that. Money has less to do with it than people think, I reckon.

</comment><comment><USER5> A home should not be considered as much of an investment as it commonly is. A home is a physical good you buy because you need a place to live, and generally the economics work out so that it's long term cheaper to buy a place than to rent it. Ideally home prices should be _low_ for the reason you want any other physical good to have low prices: so you can spend your money on other things.

But, a home is generally the most expensive thing people own. For a lot of people (most?), it probably makes up the majority of their net worth. So in general the incentives are for policy to be passed to pump up home values because people want to make money without having to work. Basically, we have perverse incentives regarding housing prices due to the fact that they are expensive things.

</comment><comment><USER6> The best investments are those that are used to produce income. Passively investing in real estate means buying an asset that produces no income, costs taxes/maintenance/insurance, and the structure declines in value due to people wanting new things, not old things.

The net result is you're relying on increasing demand to make money, which only works for location, location, location.

<comment><USER7> For owner occupied real estate (read: your house), the asset produces [tax- free] income in the form of rent avoided.

<comment><USER6> That's right. But using a house, like driving a car, pushes its value down. Wear and tear.

I own my home because I like owning it and being able to use it the way I want to rather than asking permission from the owner. But I don't think I have illusions about it being an investment. It kinda sucks as an investment.

<comment><USER7> I suspect we see things fairly similarly. I bought our house because it was a great location, (potentially) lovely old house, with a yard and parking, and sized/designed that we might be able to live there 30+ years.

I bought it considering the ownership to be primarily an act of _consumption_ ; it's just happened to turn out to be a greater windfall than my actual/intentional investments. I accounted for it like consumption, but had pretty strong suspicions that it would have a strongly positive financial return. (Nice large, already old, single-family with a yard in Cambridge, MA.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> _While buying will you save money on rent, studies have shown that, if your priority is building wealth, investing in stocks and bonds can have a higher overall return, even as you continue to make rent payments. The London Business School and Credit Suisse found that, between 1900 and 2011, housing offered returns around 1.3 percent per year, after adjusting for inflation. The average annualized total return for the S &P 500 index over the past 90 years, by contrast, is 9.8 percent._

 _" A single family home is not an investment," CFP Eric Roberge tells CNBC Make It. "It may gain money over time, but if you're looking to invest, buying a single family home and then living in that home is not the place to do it."_

A few things to keep in mind:

Obviously location is important. Parents have done really well on their Bay Area homes ,averaging a compounded return of 7% since 1996 on home equity (or about 3.5% real), but other locations may be worse. That far exceeds the 1.3% figure quoted by the article and includes the 2008-2011 hosing bust.

The 1.3% figure may be abnormally low due to the exceptionally high inflation of the 70's and early 80's distorting the stats. It is exceedingly unlikely imho that we will see 10% inflation again.

The article downplays the erosion of potential wealth due to rent. Since 2009, rent, especially in booming areas like Seattle and Bay Area, has far exceeded inflation. [http://greyenlightenment.com/bay-area-rent-prices-are- surgin...](http://greyenlightenment.com/bay-area-rent-prices-are-surging) Also, many landlords require a huge deposit and a good credit score , which negates many of the advantages of renting such as not needing as much money and nimbleness. Otherwise, for short-term rents you're stuck with services like AirBnB, which is even more expensive on a per-night and inflation- adjusted basis.

Rent + stock market may beat home ownership, but when the market falls, rent does not fall. Also one must account for the fact a mortgage allows a lot of leverage, which magnifies those returns.

Home ownership allows cheap leverage and has generous payment and tax plans, which stocks do not have. With stocks, you have no negotiating power with the broker if you find yourself in a bind.

<comment><USER3> _but when the market falls, rent does not fall._

Why do you say that? Rents certainly dropped during the financial crisis even in hot cities like SF.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, rents dropped dramatically in the Bay Area, even faster than home prices. My first 1BR was $1400/month for the first 3 years I lived out here (2009-2011); the exact same complex had been renting these apartments out for $2000/month in 2007 & early 2008.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In other markets, homes aren't seen as investments by _anyone_. For example, in Japan, homes are considered depreciating assets, like cars. Homes are abundant, surprisingly cheap (even in dense urban areas, like Tokyo), and regularly demolished / rebuilt. The reason for this affordability is Japan's flexible zoning laws. In America, urban areas have very strict zoning laws, which do wonders to prop up real estate prices.

<comment><USER10> In japan you don't own land either right, you just acquire a 90 year lease.

<comment><USER9> That is not true. That's the case in China, not Japan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I only see real estate as a good investment two reasons:

1\. Capital/equity appreciation - the value of the home + land is worth more in the future. This is not a guarantee in most parts of the country. There are a few areas that are fairly resilient (usually within the metro area of the largest cities in the country) but the barrier to entry can be impossibly high for most people.

2\. Hedge against inflation - the value of your mortgage stays the same, but rents (and, in turn, the value of the dollar) increase. This is the classic "rent vs buy" scenario. If rents / sq ft are more in your area than owning the home it's worthwhile. This may not _always_ be the case but even if rents dip they may (will) rise again and the predictability of a mortgage payment over 30 years can offer stability. Again, though, it can require considerable upfront capital to secure that steady payment.

<comment><USER2> I suppose it depends where you live. But in general, in growing cities it's a matter of supply and demand. More and more people move to growing cities, and there is a fixed supply of zoned land to build on.

A few other reasons to add to your list:

\- Preferential tax treatment. In the US and Canada, capital gains/appreciation on your home is completely TAX FREE. For comparison, any gains you make on the stock market 15-40% will go to taxes.

\- Leverage. Try going to a bank and ask for a $500K loan to invest in stocks. Not going to happen. You can do this with a mortgage at incredibly low interest rate.

<comment><USER3> In the US appreciation is only tax free up to $500k.

<comment><USER12> "only"? What percentage of home buyers do you imagine see more than $500k in appreciated value on their home?

<comment><USER3> A couple bought a house near us in SF for $900k back in 2011. It's now worth close to $2M.

They'll be paying taxes on half of that appreciation.

<comment><USER13> ... and CA taxes on the _full_ amount.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Personally it's having the knowledge of 2008 still fresh on my mind, the uncertainty in the market, a possible coming recession and the speed at which unsustainable housing prices are currently increasing make it more attractive to Rent & Save rather than buy a home.

<comment><USER15> > possible coming recession

Possible? There definitely is one coming. It's just a question of when.

<comment><USER2> Could be 30 years from now..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It really does _not_ look like a good investment at this time, though individual houses and local markets could vary. Record low numbers of millennials also believe the earth is not flat, and they're right.

</comment><comment><USER17> A geographic breakdown of attitudes to home purchase would have made the survey more useful. Arguably, the economics of purchasing a home in NYC/SF are somewhat dubious. However, investing in a home outside of those areas and more particularly in areas, such as Texas or parts of the midwest, where housing is still affordable and the economy predicted to grow further, might be a good decision.

</comment><comment><USER18> Well it's a pretty common sense investment idea. If something's gone up a lot, there's less upside in it.

If you look at how many years' income it costs to buy a home, it's gone up by a lot in many places. Back when it used to cost 2-3 annual salaries it might have made a lot of sense to buy a place. Now there's parts of the world where it's 10x.

<comment><USER19> Well, you have to live somewhere. The true cost is the difference between your mortgage and the equivalent rent.

<comment><USER5> There's more factors than that though, such as commute time and general desirability of the area you buy in, stability of your job, insurance, etc.

It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison

<comment><USER19> In general yes, it is about the stability of your job _and_ you having to move somewhere else to find a job.

But, if you are in area where jobs are plentiful in your area of ecpertise, it's not about the stability of your job but the ability to find another one quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is a home an investment though? You would plan to live in it and probably retire in it. And even if you sold it eventually you would have to spread the profit (assuming appreciation) over the many years that you have lived in it.

<comment><USER7> If you are pretty sure you're going to stay in the house for 7+ years, I still think buying housing is a good financial decision. I max my 401(k) each year. We bought a house 10.5 years ago and (because of leverage) the appreciation on it dwarfs my 401(k) balance (max deferral and S&P-500-ish investment returns for 10 years).

Do I think the next 10 years will be as good as the last 10? I don't think so, because I don't think that housing can grow sustainably faster than wages [because wages are spent on housing] and as interest rates inevitably rise from the current low levels, that will put pressure on price appreciation as well. Nevertheless, we have a house that suits our needs and fully expect to be here in 10 years.

It was a struggle to afford the downpayment and payments when we first bought it. It forced a certain amount of financial discipline. It'd be a similar sized struggle now for us to buy the place for the Zillow WAG.

By all means, though, if you don't think your career/field is stable or think you're going to move in the next half-decade, don't buy a house to live in.

<comment><USER5> Nitpick, but I think housing can grow faster than wages by a couple mechanisms. First, if supply is heavily constrained and people are trying to move to the area, what they might do is start sharing homes. Average wage doesn't change, but the number of wage earners in a home increases. Second, speculative investors can raise prices indefinitely since they aren't even earning a wage in that area - but I do think it's often overstated how much of an influence this has had in actual cities that have had housing cost explosions like Vancouver

<comment><USER7> I'll adopt your nits, though the second one seems at least loosely capped by wages in the long-run.

The first one is also a valid (actually quite good) house-hacking strategy. My brother and my brother-in-law both afforded their first houses in large part by renting rooms in it to friends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Smart millennials! Over almost all periods where we have enough data (1800 onwards) buying real estate has been a worse investment than buying stocks. A couple of exceptions are the decade leading up to the 2008 financial crisis (i.e. the swansong of the real estate bubble) and the decade from 1945-1955 as returning soldiers and the post-war boom increased the demand for property in the U.S.

Real estate produces rents but also costs (taxes, maintenance) and over long periods the investment only just keeps up with inflation. Putting your money in productive businesses (the stock market) has historically been a much better investment, beating inflation by something like 3-5%.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's not necessarily bad advice. Some credible financial advisors are now saying houses are not investments.</comment>


Not on Facebook? You're probably a psychopath - <AUTHOR> http://www.theweek.co.uk/technology/48363/not-facebook-youre-probably-psychopath

<comment><USER2> Old news! Please, people, stop posting this damn article!

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4349305>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4368963>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4351027>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4350429>

</comment><comment><USER3> This is either facebook advertising or an awful article, maybe both.

</comment><comment><USER4> Geez, what an awful article.</comment>


'No knock' searches plus stand-your-ground laws: A deadly combo - <AUTHOR> https://news.yahoo.com/no-knock-searches-plus-stand-144300844.html <comment><USER2> This is a USA Today article, and it opens with:

'Kentucky's "stand your ground" law allows its residents to use deadly force against intruders they believe are breaking into their home.'

That's a flat lie.

"Stand your ground" laws _don 't even apply_ in cases where someone is breaking into your home; where they exist, they apply _off one 's property_, applying almost exclusively to public property or rights-of-way, or private property where you are empowered to be armed by permission of the owner (e.g. private security).

The right to self-defense from within one's home exists almost everywhere in the USA; exceptions (if any remain; MA use to be this way, at least) are referred to as _" duty-to-flee"_ jurisdictions. In other words, you can't use deadly force even within your home against an armed intruder if you have _any_ way to escape, even through an upstairs window.</comment>


Roman Ways as Subway Lines (credits to https://sashat.me/) - <AUTHOR> https://www.frizzifrizzi.it/2017/06/07/le-strade-dellantica-roma-fossero-le-linee-metropolitana/ <comment><USER2> That looks really cool.

Please add ferries. How did the grain dole get from Carthage?</comment>


Bourbon: Thoughtbot's vanilla Sass mixin framework (SCSS) - <AUTHOR> http://thechangelog.com/post/7343704173/bourbon-a-set-of-vanilla-sass-mixins-that-use-scss

<comment><USER2> This makes Stylus look even more sexy.

      @include position(absolute, 10px 5px 0 0);

vs

      relative: top 10px right 5px

or

      relative: top right

etc

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea I like the more terse syntax as well. The idea of scss is to be closer to the CSS syntax for adoption purposes. In a perfect Sass world, I'd have the flexibility of the scss syntax without the curly braces and semicolons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I really don't see what the main the difference is between this and compass?

+1 for stylus' clean syntax</comment>


Digi-Comp II Replica - <AUTHOR> https://www.instructables.com/id/Digi-Comp-II-Replica/ <comment><USER2> If you like this, Matt Parker's YouTube video on Dr. Nim might be of interest: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KABcmczPdg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KABcmczPdg)

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a Digi-Compesque marble computer on the market at present, the Turing Tumble. [https://www.turingtumble.com/](https://www.turingtumble.com/) Offerings include the CAD files for $15 US [https://store.turingtumble.com/products/virtual- pack](https://store.turingtumble.com/products/virtual-pack) .

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd like to make one but that's a lot of real estate. I wonder if it's possible to scale it down, or would that affect the physics involved?</comment>


Programatically Understand Gaussian Processes: Part 1 - <AUTHOR> https://nipunbatra.github.io/blog/2019/GP-1.html <comment><USER2> There's also "A Visual Exploration of Gaussian processes".

[https://distill.pub/2019/visual-exploration-gaussian- process...](https://distill.pub/2019/visual-exploration-gaussian-processes/)

Everything from distill.pub is great.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that distill.pub is great and so is the article you've mentioned. I did seek inspiration from the linked article amongst many others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm kinda confused by the graphs like this: [https://nipunbatra.github.io/blog/2019/20d-conditional.gif](https://nipunbatra.github.io/blog/2019/20d-conditional.gif)

I would expect the graphs to curve (somewhat) smoothly between the 3rd and 4th known points, but instead the 4th point shows up as this weird discontinuity—the graphs are far above it, and then spike down to the 4th point only very close to that point. Why is that? The result doesn't seem (to my untrained eyes) to be very satisfactory.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good questions. A few quick thoughts. These may not be enough though!

First, the mean function specified in the prior is zero for all the points. Thus, points would have a high density near zero.

I have a strong hunch that choosing a "smoother" kernel would not lead to this discontinuity.</comment></comment>


Watch a Robot Dog Herd Sheep on a New Zealand Farm - <AUTHOR> https://futurism.com/the-byte/robot-dog-herd-sheep-new-zealand <comment><USER2> Is that merely remote control or autonomous?

First of all, herding involves reading livestock's intention, predicting where they'll go next, and stepping towards them in a way that nudges them in the right direction. Watch a video on actual sheepdog work: search for "herding trials". The human instructs the dog at a high level: circle around, drive the herd, round up stragglers, or peel some individual off the herd. Pretty sure Boston isn't up to this level of image recognition and goal planning yet. It's like guarding a shooter in basketball.

Also, on a biology level, the dog mostly moves the animals with body language and gaze. Sheep infer a threat from how the dog is staring and react. Pretty sure Boston doesn't have the stare down either. The sheep might get accustomed to a bot that wasn't reacting with them.</comment>


Apple criticised over 'presumptuous' news app email - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33151325

<comment><USER2> Do not open the teapot. There is currently a tempest in there.

Apple can not legally bind you by sending you an email and using your public RSS feed. Anyone doing business who does not understand this needs to learn some law _right now_.†

At its most basic layer, Apple News appears to be an RSS reader which may display ads. This is nothing new. If you don't want your content syndicated, don't publish an RSS feed.

The edited synopsis of the email I have seen second hand on the web _does_ appear to be very badly conceived. The exact verbiage and a (presumably) California lawyer would be required to tell exactly what it means.

It is possible they are offering to exchange timely notification of legal action toward your articles in exchange for you indemnifying them. That would make me uneasy, my content is all my own (I think), but I'm not going to be expanding my legal footprint without some concrete compensation.

␄

† 7 years of fancy CS/EE education and I can say from building and running a software/hardware business for 20 years that the _most_ valuable single course I took was the Business Law class that was required and I then thought was a stupid waste of my time.

<comment><USER3> I was making fun of this yesterday, but I don't know wtf they were thinking by sending out an e-mail like that. Their lawyers must have looked at it. There must be something more to it then a mail out of the blue. It's possible you agreed to something earlier than allows them to make stupid demands like these.</comment></comment>


Coronavirus Datasets from Every Country with Confirmed Cases - <AUTHOR> https://lionbridge.ai/datasets/coronavirus-datasets-from-every-country/ <comment><USER2> outbreak.cc is also a great resource</comment>


GNU 30th anniversary - <AUTHOR> https://gnu.org/gnu30/?hn

<comment><USER3>
      Can you believe it? The GNU system is thirty years old today!

      In 1983, Richard Stallman launched the free software movement
      with the words, "Free Unix!" We've freed a lot more than that in
      the last thirty years. The GNU system is now a vast universe of
      fully free operating systems, window managers, and software that
      serves almost every imaginable purpose. More than 95 percent of
      the world's supercomputers run free software. A majority of web
      servers run free software. Even more impressive, there are
      estimated to be tens of millions of free software users worldwide.

      That's a lot to celebrate. This weekend, the Free Software
      Foundation will be honoring thirty years of GNU with a
      [celebration and hackathon in Cambridge, MA][1]. Around the
      world, there are over [eighteen celebrations][2] planned on
      almost every inhabited continent. And online, people are showing
      their love for GNU by embedding the [special 30th anniversary
      badge][2] on their websites and [donating to support GNU's future
      work][3].

      Please join us in the celebration:

      * [Watch the livestream from the Cambridge celebration][4] to see
         John Sullivan speak at 10am EDT (14:00 UTC) and Richard Stallman
         speak live at 5pm EDT (21:00 UTC) on Saturday, September 28.
      * Find the [celebration][2] nearest you.
      * Embed the [special 30th anniversary badge][2].
      * [Donate][3] to keep GNU going strong for another thirty years.

      Happy Hacking,

      The entire Free Software Foundation team

      [1]: https://gnu.org/gnu30/celebration
      [2]: https://gnu.org/gnu30/
      [3]: https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom
      [4]: http://live.fsf.org/gnu30.ogv "GNU 30th live streaming"

</comment><comment><USER4> In case anyone didn't catch it, Stephen Fry extolling GNU and free software:

[https://gnu.org/fry/happy-birthday-to-gnu.html](https://gnu.org/fry/happy- birthday-to-gnu.html)

This man is a wonderful person.

<comment><USER5> While I appreciate the focus, the guy is entirely opposite when it actually comes to technology purchasing and quite happily throws piles of cash at closed proprietary products on a daily basis and brags about it on television.

<comment><USER6> Better to have someone like Stephen Fry talking about it and raising awareness then nobody at all.

<comment><USER7> After watching this particular video, it was clumsy, with lots of rough edges. It doesn't seem to have been written for a target audience, and contains a grab-bag of iffy factoids - which is not up to Fry's reputation of knowledgable, insightful commentary. At the very least, they could have moved the MBA out of frame.

<comment><USER8> MBA can't run GNU?

<comment><USER7> Anyone that can make a hackintosh already knows everything that Fry mentioned - which is one of the reasons why I said the target audience is unclear. And half the people who can run a hackintosh will be able to pick the errors in what he said as well. For those who aren't aware of the hackintosh, having the MBA in-frame sends a very mixed message. Why even defend it's presence? The founder of GNU hates Apple products for philosophical reasons _directly related to the fundamental principles of GNU_. Having it in frame is a misfire.

Fry is one of the most amazing people on the planet, but he was still a bad choice for this video, given that he actively lionises Apple's products - <USER2> the point where he receives special editions available to none other than Jobs himself.

<comment><USER8> A Macbook Air running GNU/Linux isn't a hackintosh.

Why defend it? I made the film.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To celebrate, we're giving away all our software! This weekend, you can download any GNU project free of charge! On a serious note, I think I will actually download and play with a few new projects. Maybe I'll even try out Debian/HURD :)

<comment><USER10> gNewSense (a GNU/Linux distribution with a fully free kernel) has finally reached version 3.0 in August. Development appears to have restarted, and the new version is based on Debian (Squeeze I think) as opposed to Ubuntu.

My celebration takes the form of running gNewSense on my recycled Thinkpad for a bit to see if I can actually get stuff done with it. (WiFi means using a USB adaptor as closed source firmware needed for the built in Intel cards).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Linux, GNU software, the BSDs, Apache, and the entire culture and ecosystems built around them have long earned a distinguished place in history, among humankind's major achievements in science and technology. Here's to the next 30!</comment>


Italian or British? Writer solves riddle of spaghetti bolognese - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/24/italian-or-british-writer-solves-riddle-of-spaghetti-bolognese <comment><USER2> Lol, everybody in Italy has had "spaghetti bolognese". We call them "spaghetti al ragù" and learn the name "spaghetti bolognese" the first time we are exposed to international gastronomy, possibly the first vacation abroad.

The issue here is about spaghetti not being the proper kind of pasta for the "ragù" sauce, tagliatelle is the traditional one. Ok, noted, but ragù is still a common sauce for spaghetti and maccaroni. Maybe not in high priced restaurants but definitely at most people's home. Basically you use what you have.

Now back to Python vs Ruby vs Node... :-)

<comment><USER3> Haha yep. This was a bit of a funny side joke in a Top Gear special, when they went through the Italy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So if the official research states that you can vary the sauce to include oregano, basil, and garlic, optionally adding various cheeses, and you can vary the pasta between _tagliatelle_ (fresh egg pasta) and dried _spaghetti_ (and you can vary the name between _spaghetti al ragù_ , _spaghetti bolognese_ or _spaghetti alla bolognese_ ) then that's really a pretty wide range of dishes.

Interesting that _restaurants focused on serving the dish with tagliatelle, in part because fresh pasta cooked faster_ ... fast food, not high cuisine. White tablecloths eat your heart out!

In the same spirit, I wonder if we will create a _tagliatelle_ version for Infinite Food one day? [http://8-food.com/](http://8-food.com/)

<comment><USER5> Only in Italy, where slightly different shaped pasta magically means a completely different meal.

<comment><USER4> Hehe, that's some well placed cynicism. I've been looking in to what makes a noodle dish (normally a noodle soup) from various parts of Burma/China/Laos/Thailand/Vietnam/Japan unique, and it's been fascinating. I would say there's far more variety in Asia than in Italy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've always found it interesting how native American foods (tomatoes, potatoes, peanuts, chilis, corn, strawberry, pineapple, etc.) have been integrated into "traditional" cuisines around the world. Italian spaghetti sauce or Thai peanut sauce, etc. have only been available for a few hundred years max... Still a lot, but some other traditions go back millennia.

<comment><USER7> A lot of really old recipes, say, those dating to the roman era or even only the renaissance, are very unpalatable for modern tastes.

<comment><USER8> Do you know of any good repository of (as far as we know) accurate recipes from that sort of time? I'd love to be able to cook a Roman dinner one night or something.

<comment><USER9> Having spent very little time in the Roman Empire I can't vouch for its authenticity, but [http://www.passthegarum.co.uk/](http://www.passthegarum.co.uk/) looks like an interesting source of recipes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Controversy surrounding the dish resurfaced last month, when Antonio > Carluccio became the latest in a long line of chefs to complain that one of > Britain's favourite "Italian" dishes did not, in fact, exist in Italy

Food snobs like those really get on my nerves. I mean, it's one thing when one starts adding cream to carbonara (or make it with _just_ cream, like they do in the UK) but swapping spaghetti for tagliatelle is hardly a crime. And like the article said, people in Italy are not _that_ anal about the type of pasta - ragù is one of the universal sauces you serve with anything. I grew up eating Spaghetti al Ragù on sundays in my local trattoria.

Besides, _ragù alla bolognese_ is only ONE type of ragù. There are others, even if we just to stick to the traditional ones, which are eaten with all sort of pasta shapes: hare ragù (pappardelle), sicilian ragù (eaten with small ring pasta), neapolitan ragù (maccheroni or rigatoni), lamb ragù, pork ragù...

And throwing a hissy fit for adding a bit of garlic, surely, it doesn't go well with the sauce, but it's hardly a crime against humanity.

<comment><USER11> I definitely agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> BTW, in Italy we call them spaghetti _alla_ bolognese

<comment><USER13> Which means what exactly?

<comment><USER11> alla = "a type of seasoning/condiment/cooking"

Examples:

Pasta alla carbonara

Pizza alla marinara

Trenette al pesto

<comment><USER14> Let's note that grammatically 'alla', 'al', etc. is 'at/in/towards' \+ 'the', but in this idiomatic use gives the meaning in the parent comment.

<comment><USER15> Yes and no, it is "worse" than that.

In this particular use (for bolognese or pescatora, amatriciana, etc.) "a/al/alla" means "in the style of", BUT when it is pasta al ragù (al pesto, al pomodoro, etc., i.e. other main ingredients) the "a/al/alla" means "with".

And we have also our own exceptions, one says "Pappardelle sul cinghiale" (pappardelle is yet another type of pasta), literally "pappardelle _on_ the hog", BUT you don't have the "a" in "spaghetti aglio e olio (e peperoncino)".

As a side note a "ragù" has nothing to do with the (usually horrible) tomato sauce that is used for "spaghetti bolognese" outside Italy.

<comment><USER11> Never heard "pappardelle sul cinghiale"! Sort of slang, maybe.

Mai sentito parlare prima di pappardelle sul cinghiale, è un uso abbastanza dialettale mi sa.

Ovviamente non si può non concordare sul ragù. ;)

<comment><USER15> Well, they are typical of an area, and they are called like them there, so it is maybe _somehow_ a "dialect" but I would rather say an "idiom":

[https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappardelle_sul_cinghiale](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappardelle_sul_cinghiale)

[https://books.google.it/books?id=M_vYmUgN3e0C&pg=PA289&lpg=P...](https://books.google.it/books?id=M_vYmUgN3e0C&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289#v=onepage&q&f=false)

you won't find, in any restaurant or "trattoria" in the area written on a menu "al" cinghiale.

It is typical - I believe - of "pappardelle", they are also sometimes (less common recipes) "sulla lepre" or "sul papero".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Where I come from we have this dish called "fish greek style" which apparently is known in Greece as "fish russian style" and not known in Russia at all. Or so the urban legend says.

I happen to currently live in Bologna, I've had the local tagliatelle al ragù and all I can say is that it makes so much more sense to have it this way instead of using spaghetti - it's simply better.

</comment><comment><USER17> I thought the whole issue was around the spaghetti meatballs, not the bolognese which is well known in the majority of Italy. Duh.

</comment><comment><USER18> Even if not Italian, why on Earth would spaghetti bolognese be British? I've eaten them in many countries around Europe...

<comment><USER19> that's right, they are american. Sicilian immigrants could barely afford beef in their native Sicily, so when they started having a little more money in their pockets in America, they started adding beef to everything. Which is where spaghetti with meatballs comes from as well. No italian has ever had spaghetti with meatballs.

<comment><USER20> America isn't the only country to have had lots of immigration.

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

<comment><USER21> Viz. Peter Capaldi, current Dr Who. Something like 1.5% of the Scottish population has Italian ancestry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A riddle? Did someone ever really think that this was a british dish and that no one in Italy could come up with a tomato+meat sauce?

<comment><USER21> Simplifying somewhat, most Britons believe it's a genuine Italian dish, and most Italians believe it's a horrible British parody of their cuisine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This article is such click bait.

</comment><comment><USER24> > What he discovered was that spaghetti has been consumed and produced in > Bologna and in the neighbouring countryside since the 16th century.

It's funny to read about someone denying eating some kind of food. But, then:

> Italians' rigid adherence to cooking traditions, Valdiserra said, is linked > to the false belief that they have not changed much over centuries.

So it becomes a matter of pride and tradition. I'm curious what future generations will think about our habits: raw foods _vs_ processed ones, vegetarian _vs_ meat farms, diversity _vs_ individually tailored according to genetic profile and needs.</comment>


Keanu Reeves will return as Neo in new 'Matrix' film - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2019-08-20/the-matrix-4-movie-keanu-reeves-lana-wachowski <comment><USER2> I wish Hollywood studios would create more new original stuff. There was a meme circulated around a few weeks back with a movie theater sign with Childsplay, Toy Story 4, Godzilla, Aladdin and Men in Black on it with the title, "The 90s called and want their movies back."

I get that older movies with established franchises can be secure bets to bring in money, but there's a lot of diminishing returns. I feel some people just see these releases in the theaters because there's nothing else released.

<comment><USER3> Lots of original movies are released - probably more than ever. It is just that the public prefers names they know, so the sequels/prequel/reboots/adaptions generate more money and attention.

Just look at all the attention this announcement gets. You don't get a HN thread because some studio announce they will film an original story from an unknown screenwriter.

<comment><USER4> >Lots of original movies are released - probably more than ever. It is just that the public prefers names they know

In the 80s and 90s we had bladerunner, the original matrix of course, we had alien and a significant amount of mainstream, big name fiction. Yes, retro movies have always existed but alongside the creation of entirely new genres, in particular in science fiction. We had Gibson alongside others creating the entirely new cyberpunk subgenre that influenced many of these original movies.

What exactly is the equivalent of this today? Yes we have _some_ new stuff, I liked Ted Chiang's Arrival for example, but is there a big new future oriented wave of genuinely new fiction? I don't see it at all.

<comment><USER5> Annihilation, Dark City, Riddick Chronicles, Babylon A.D., Guardians of The Galaxy, Fast and Furious, Hummingbird, Transporter, Crank, Hardcore Henry, Revolver, Lucy, Ghost in The Shell, Now you see me, Passengers, Transcendence, Maze Runner, Limitless...

I think we've had a good run; I also think it's easy to be biased and not see it because of some nostalgia-effect of sorts. If you are f.e. 30+ you might more easily dismiss a movie as Limitless or Lucy as uncredible; both are based on a common myth that we only utilize a low percentage of our brains capacity, as an example, so they are that: unrealistic. But I think that's an unfair comparison because of an inherent bias that when you think about a movie like The Matrix you don't see it with the same critical lens because you perhaps had less knowledge of the world in your earlier years. #JustAFewThoughts

<comment><USER6> > But I think that's an unfair comparison because of an inherent bias that > when you think about a movie like The Matrix you don't see it with the same > critical lens because you perhaps had less knowledge of the world in your > earlier years.

Nah, the worst BS explanation in The Matrix was just as immediately triggering, even though I was younger. The difference is that:

(1) the rest of the movie contradicted the nonsense explanation (in part because it wasn't the actual concept, but a revision added in narration only without revising the rest of the film (or the sequels) around it in response to test audiences confusion with the explanation that the creators originally had in mind), and

(2) the narration providing it was given to a character that, while set up as the "wise mentor", it was pretty critical to the entire series was unreliable narrator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The trend to do ever more sequels, prequels, reboots, other stories in the same universe etc has a really awful side-effect that _everything is always explained_. There is no mystery in any of these things that won't eventually be explained in full and therefore no gaps left for the imagination of the viewer to fill in. The original Matrix film in my opinion would be significantly more interesting if all the loose ends hadn't been conveniently tied up in subsequent films.

Imagine if we hadn't seen how Anakin became Darth Vader? As a kid I imagined a much more terrifying journey that turned him to the dark side. The prequels could never live up to that.

Edit: ...and on the other hand, imagine a "Duel" prequel where we get to see the truck driver's backstory. Consider how dramatically this would reduce the stature of the original film. (p.s. If you haven't seen "duel" you should).

<comment><USER8> When Steven Spielberg created Close Encounters of the Third Kind, he showed the interior of the spacecraft which he now regrets. There is something to be said for capturing the imagination of the audience and leaving them wanting more.

Also, midiclorians.

<comment><USER9> I didn't know he said this. An interesting comparison point with books, although they're more detailed than films, they also dont touch the same part and leave us dreaming more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm curious to see how this will pan out. I think the Matrix trilogy is a good example of a movie franchise that probably should've ended after the first movie, but perhaps the Wachowskis can pull a (white) rabbit out of their hat.

<comment><USER11> I would stop after the second but then you would need a different ending.

<comment> a-saleh I heard the original idea was, a single prequel and a single sequel.

Instead studio supposedly wanted to cash-in, so there was anime-prequel anthology, a short prologue film two sequels themselves and a companion game.

And I do think there is an excellent ~2 hour movie hidden somewhere in some ginormous edit combining all of the matrix-sequels material, instead of what we got, that was still good and entertaining, but not living up to the hype :)

<comment><USER12> The whole 2003 meme of making a 3-5 hour movie and splitting it into 2 parts was pretty much a horrible idea, and thankfully hasn't really caught on.

<comment><USER13> It was much better, than a season of nothing on netflix which should be 3 hours max instead of 10-12.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Given the hidden meaning of the whole series, I wouldn't be surprised as to how Neo would still be alive in the movie.

Spoiler Alert:

In fact, Morpheus was in charge (by the Machines) to search for people in the Matrix who thought something was wrong. He would then offer them a chance of waking up in the "real world". But this real world turned out to be yet another Matrix designed by the Machines to deceive those people into thinking that they're actually _fighting_ the Machines while in fact, they were still _in_ another Matrix! It was a perfectly designed illusion. This idea gets more serious when you realize how absurd it is for the Machines - that basically took over the world - to _need_ human brain power to operate. Then again, maybe this whole Matrix is not designed by the Machines and only follows a script written by humans to predict possible future scenarios. I'd be willing to watch the next Matrix film!

<comment><USER15> The machines using human brains for computation or something would make a lot more sense than the bioelectricity and a form of fusion that the movies go with.

All of Zion is working on the search, the story just focuses on the group that finds "the one".

<comment><USER13> Mice. Searching for The Question. We already know 42 is the answer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If only they "unmade" the sequels, pretended they never happened and just did a proper sequel, keeping to spirit of original Matrix...

<comment> your-nanny what sequels? I don't remember no sequels /s

<comment><USER17> Those Matrix sequels people keep discussing must be some sort of déjà vu.

<comment><USER18> It really is just as well some creators have the commitment to keep true to their original vision. I mean, imagine how much Star Wars could have got screwed up if anyone had tried to extend it beyond the original Trilogy?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I feel quality storytelling has tailed off in Hollywood.

The aim is to produces movies with the broadest appeal, ideally in other markets beyond the US. While that makes business sense, having to ensure a movie can translate to many languages and cultures has the effect of overly simplifying dialog and focusing on visuals and action sequences.

Making a clever, deep, challenging and insightful movie with originality that can also be slotted into many target markets is a reach too far and so we end up digging around well known franchises and opting for the same old predictable stories.

The big screen is too big now. The future of engaging storytelling is increasingly going to need to come from other places.

</comment><comment><USER20> It probably will have something to do with Neo electrocuting Sentries in the "Real World" and the fact that "Real World" is just another matrix.

<comment><USER21> That is one of my favorite theory, that IRL in matrix is the actual top layer of simulation meant to keep the anomaly contained. Maybe that's the direction they will take? But honestly I'd rather not have Matrix 4 be a thing at all :/

Or maybe this was all a dream and neo and trinity will wake up in their boring lives at the start and for 2h go about their uneventful, shitty lives :D

<comment><USER22> or it could explore the concept that the world is a simulation all the way down (and all the way up!)...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is gonna be interesting. The plot has to be good because the innovation in special effects is over.

Although KR is super dedicated to the fighting stuff apparently, so that should be good. Maybe Smith comes back and they just give them a new reason to brawl. I would go see that.

Actually I would prefer an awesome Neo-vs-Smith fight over the "infinite worlds" idea. I don't see what's left to explore in that direction, the transition from one world to another is just the same as going from the Matrix to the real world. Lose your identity and start over, except you'll gradually realize you've never had any real identity outside any of the Matrix-worlds. So, your identity is completely contextual... but maybe there are some things that never change? What is human nature and what isn't? But they kind of did this in the third movie already, where it was revealed the prophecy is a lie. Back to square one for Neo.

Whatever it is, I hope it's not going to be a PC reboot with a female lead or something. Though actually I'd be alright with it if they made it mainly about Trinity.

</comment><comment><USER24> It might be good. Who would have predicted 10 years ago that a Blade Runner sequel would be outstanding?

<comment><USER13> It's not even close to outstanding.

<comment><USER25> I agree, it was a huge letdown for me. The whole film felt like it was built around fan service and visual appeal. Don't even get me started on Jared Leto or the ending "twist", that part was so cringy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think that once the people running Hollywood realized they can make a consistent profit from running the same stories over and over again, they lost all appetite for risk and for trying out new things.

The end result is endless reboots and sequels at the box office.

<comment><USER27> > once the people running Hollywood realized they can make a consistent profit > from running the same stories over and over again

You mean 1940?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Did anyone at all watching the movie in the cinema at the time think that the character's name was "Neil" but spoken sort of London style "Neeh-ul" with the final "l" more or less silent?

I ask because despite sort of knowing it could not be so I still found myself not 100% certain. On the one hand why would Americans say Neil that way. On the other hand what kind of daft name was "Neo" especially if you're trying to create a solid sense of reality prior to ripping back the curtain?

Certainly kept me guessing anyway...

<comment><USER29> The character's names are a reference to his messianic destiny in the movie. So:

\- Neo is an anagram of "one" because he is "The One" who will change the destiny of mankind

\- His first name is Thomas which is a reference to Doubting Thomas: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas)

\- His surname is Anderson, which translates as "son of man" which is a reference to Jesus: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_(Christianity)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_\(Christianity\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's interesting because I watched the movies just a few weeks ago once again, and I promise you (spoilers ahead) that Neo and Trinity are quite dead :). Let's see how they come back to life... Maybe flashbacks? Maybe a Matrix before Matrix? Maybe a Matrix reboot?

I'm scared and happy at the same time about this news.

<comment><USER31> > Let's see how they come back to life... Maybe flashbacks? Maybe a Matrix > before Matrix? Maybe a Matrix reboot?

Or a matrix inside the Matrix

<comment><USER32> And then we'll need an infinite number of sequels

<comment><USER33> Yes. What if we are living in the sequel watching Matrix sequel?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I hope that this new film will be more a technological and philosophical horror, and not attempt to replicate more gimmicky and dated aspects of the films for a sense of nostalgia. The Matrix universe certainly contains many dark and thought provoking themes which could be further expanded on.

</comment><comment><USER35> Pretty sure that all the way back just after Matrix 3 was released there was a statement from Keanu Reeves in media that he turned down offerings on participating in a fourth Matrix movie. Like forever and he will not talk about it any more. Of course I can't find a resource on that right now because (thanks to nowadays SEO optimizations I guess) the first dozen pages are cluttered with related links on that there will be a fourth movie with Keanu now. Maybe someone else can confirm or debunk this "myth" ...

<comment><USER36> I think, you may have mistaken his quote on the sequel of the movie "Speed". He said in an interview, that despite having a good working relationship(& chemistry) with Sandra Bullock, he declined the sequel because the movie plot didn't interest him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Funny I was just thinking how much of the first Matrix captured his time. It was an unquestionnable instant hit. I wonder if they can still grab that mindshare effect.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm fine with this. Keanu's action movies tend to have action that is actually creative and enjoyable to watch. Most fight scenes are really quite boring, but I'm happy to watch John Wick kill people for a few hours.

The Matrix is a good setting for action films. I won't care terribly if it lacks the philosophical or sci fi aspects

</comment><comment><USER38> Neo, this is loco!

</comment><comment><USER39> I wish they had made more of the animated shorts in the animatrix, or a live action equivalent. I'd love to see a continuation of the lore/universe from all kinds of different short stories and perspectives

</comment><comment><USER29> He's also doing another Bill and Ted:

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1086064/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1086064/)

<comment><USER40> This is something I'll watch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> big matrix fan but to me it also feels like a period piece, with the matrix itself being designed around the millenium era of human existence (our peak, before AI) and the whole land line/payphone/cellphone thing for example..... it worked at the time the movie was released because that was our reality

weird/hard to go back to that, but jumping it ahead to current day seems weird too. I dunno

</comment><comment><USER42> Like the last two parts were not enough of a disappointment...

</comment><comment><USER43> Matrix 4! Good news in this real world dystopia nowadays :)

</comment><comment><USER44> I think i just saw a black cat pass by... twice...

</comment><comment><USER45> sad keanu morphs to cool keanu

<comment><USER45> whoaaaa downvotes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Will Charlize Theron play his grandma?</comment>


Revolutionary Intel chip uses light to send data - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_15616178?nclick_check=1

<comment><USER2> Interconnect separate device is a nice outcome of this tech. But I think there is a more immediate application for this, the interconnection of chips on a motherboard. This way the motherboard will only be important for power purposes and will leave the information streams to optical connections. It will save a lot of money not spend on crosstalk between copper lines and will crash some speed barriers at the same time. Now only we need an optical bus.</comment>


The Simple, Sleek and Smart electric standing desk - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/182384199/the-simple-sleek-and-smart-electric-standing-desk <comment><AUTHOR> We launched our Kickstarter. Please check it out, let us know if you have any questions!

Cheers,</comment>


End of daily injections for diabetes as scientists restore insulin production - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12016532/End-of-daily-injections-for-diabetes-as-scientists-restore-insulin-production.html <comment><USER2> Finally! A treatment that's not 5-10 years away! I expect to see this therapy deployed widely any moment now. This should be front page news!

</comment><comment><USER3> This is absolutely huge, and it has the potential to benefit a huge proportion of the population, fantastic development!</comment>


The Tragedy of Pokémon Go: What it takes for good ideas to attract money - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/07/the-tragedy-of-pokemon-go/490793/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Looks like this is the core argument for why Pokemon Go is a tragedy:

"""Even Google couldn't make Ingress work without reskinning it as Pokémon. And while Pokémon is popular and basically harmless, the alternating reality it offers is still that of a branded, licensed, kiddie cock-fighting fantasy."""

I think the real tragedy is that the author of this thing can't lighten up and enjoy something that is making all kinds of people happy.

Edit: He even links to this example of why it is a wonderful thing! [https://imgur.com/KAwwxFp](https://imgur.com/KAwwxFp) But no, it's a tragedy because it's corporate-branded and juvenile. OK.

<comment><USER3> Personally I have no problem with stuff being corporate branded and/or juvenile but I am surprised that the cock-fighting element isn't mentioned more often in relation to Pokemon. Maybe it is because I have seen a little real life cock-fighting (and its horrifying) but I find that aspect quite repellent.

<comment><USER4> So is gunning down other people. Fortunately, many people can separate games from reality and this lets all types of games, from Counter-Strike to Pokemon to the Total War series, to succeed.

I'm utterly convinced the average 13 year old can separate the concepts of fake monsters that disappear back inside their little round homes from the reality of two animals trapped in a small area fighting to the death.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure this a fair analysis. Yes, Pokémon certainly added a nice built in fanbase, but I don't think that alone would have made it the social phenomenon it currently is.

As the article mentions, the gameplay is significantly easier than Ingress. Also, the theme is much more family friendly and less paranoid. It's got cute pocket monsters you can collect throughout the day. Additionally, the camera aspect makes it built-in social sharing material, especially since it's a palatable theme.

I'm not going to share Ingress photos with anyone else, but a humorous picture of Magickarp flopped on the beach is fun to share.

I'm seeing a lot of people who are completely ignorant of Pokémon playing this game. I see parents downloading it to go on walks with their kids. It's fun, easy, and fits in nicely with people's aspirations (more exercise).

None of that was really in place with any of the previous iterations. They were all too "serious", dark, and/or niche audience.

I suspected Niantic expected this to be a moderate hit with Ingress players and Pokémon fans - both were a niche audience. It's the gameplay and family- friendly theme that has made this as popular as it is.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. Ingress had gameplay that was not only niche, but it was abstract and difficult to explain -- and THEN explain why it was fun. Pokemon is, not only a completely different game with different rules and objectives, but the gameplay is super accessible. I enjoyed Ingress, but I completely disagree that it's a "tragedy" that it (or other, often similarly convoluted games) didn't take off with a broader community like Pokemon has.

While I appreciate that the article exists, and think that its message (the apparent necessity of corporate branding to drive VR) is a good one to consider, their logic may have some holes. Pokemon is not just re-skinned Ingress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Majestic_ was a great concept, but unfortunately, it launched a few weeks before 9/11\. Here's the trailer[1] and press kit[2]. You can see why this was a problem after 9/11\. It's still a problem - before 9/11, there was no government department looking for vaguely suspicious activity, and the police were not as militarized.

Majestic's slogan was "it plays you". It played on its schedule, not yours. The pressure made it more compelling, but limited the potential audience. It was like having to be on line for a raid in WoW, or LARPing.

Pokémon Go is a casual augmented reality game. It's not even multiplayer. Simple wins in casual gaming. (Angry Birds, anyone?)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcTDMYq3xCw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcTDMYq3xCw) [2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG0oY8obuGU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG0oY8obuGU)

</comment><comment><USER8> Well, from what I've seen, there would have been no other way for this app to be successful without piggybacking on the success of another company's obsessive fans. No other customer would put up with a game that is so badly made. From a developer's perspective, this app is a true disaster, with an amazing level of incompetence that permeates the entire launch.

First, the servers have been going up and down like a yoyo, which despite its unprecedented success should never have happened more than once.

Second the app on iOS crashes every few minutes - I've never seen a more buggy app. Using Unity no less. It's not due to some weird edge case, it's constant... log the damn errors and make sure it doesn't happen again. It's Monday, I should have had an update from the App Store by now, but nope.

Third, there's apparently no caching (which might explain their server problems). Every time the app starts (or more likely crashes and restarts), it hits the server to download all the local POI info again from scratch. God help you if you're in a spot with bad connectivity.

Fourth, what is it doing do drain the battery so badly?? I've driven for a couple hours with maps apps running without killing my device. It must have zero logic in the app to manage power drain because it'll kill my iPhone in an hour easily.

This game owes its success 100% to the popularity of Pokemon and nothing else, the app would never had any success if it had to stand on its own merits. As it is, Niantic is doing its utmost to kill the franchise with their ineptitude.

<comment><USER9> This is a reskinned Ingress, with simpler game mechanics.

Log the damn errors and make sure it doesn't happen again? Have you written software? That is the most simplistic advice in the world. By your thoughts, all software should have been updated in a few days to be bug free.

Had an update from the App Store? You realize that is gated by Apple and that you have to submit the update and wait an indeterminate amount of time for the update to be approved before appearing on the App Store?

No caching? How would you cache game state when at any time the board state can change without warning, due to the actions of another player? And cached game state would invalidate your game actions, which would cause inconsistencies.

With draining battery, it needs location services as well as constant internet connectivity. If you're looking for directions, you can make educated guesses when you're going to have to pull location again. Whereas now, you have to constantly be polling, because you yourself don't know where you're headed.

And re: Nianitic's "ineptitude", you don't have any ideas what problems they're trying to solve.

<comment><USER10> > Have you written software? That is the most simplistic advice in the world. > I think the above poster was using hyperbolic language to make their point. > Niantic was founded by engineers from Google. It seems a bit ridiculous that > with all the expertise and funding they have, they couldn't even provide a > stable backend architecture. It's not that difficult to scale an api using > Google's app engine or aws.

>No caching? How would you cache game state when at any time the board state can change without warning, due to the actions of another player? And cached game state would invalidate your game actions, which would cause inconsistencies. The app could at least cache some of the info of your pokemon as well as the locations of nearby stops and gyms. Then only the status of those gyms and nearby pokemon would need to be synchronized when you reopen it.

<comment><USER9> > Niantic was founded by engineers from Google. It seems a bit ridiculous that > with all the expertise and funding they have, they couldn't even provide a > stable backend architecture. It's not that difficult to scale an api using > Google's app engine or aws.

That's like saying "they have Google engineers, therefore they must have Google funding and they should be able to smart things out." AFAIK, Ingress was built on app engine, and had huge scaling issues.

> The app could at least cache some of the info of your pokemon as well as the > locations of nearby stops and gyms. Then only the status of those gyms and > nearby pokemon would need to be synchronized when you reopen it.

It's not clear how much faster that would be. The majority of the RPC time is probably due to network latency issues, not the amount of data being fetched. That said, without slapping a profiler on it, you can't tell either way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> TLDR for the article: The nascent field of AR games has not, heretofore, produced compelling experiences. There now is one wildly successful AR game, but it is successful because it taps into a massive, well-loved cultural phenomenon. This is "tragic".

My thoughts: I've met dozens of people while playing Pokemon Go in the past few days. Seen many clumps of strangers trading tips about where different Pokemon are and comparing the ones they caught. The gameplay is not particularly polished or deep, and the servers are constantly being overwhelmed by the game's success-disaster, but overall, I see a lot of promise. If they add more mechanics that encourage people to form groups and play together, it can drive a lot more positive, serendipitous connections in the world - a rebuttal to those who think that smartphones will necessarily make us more introverted and asocial.

I don't fault Niantic at all for the bugs, crashes, or capacity issues. Most apps have bugs and issues on their first release. Almost never do they surpass Twitter's DAU within their first week of launch. They should be lauded for such a great success and for keeping the lights on with so much usage.

</comment><comment><USER12> It's effectively a way to meet other people and explore new places. Being pokemon themed gives people something to bond over and connect with each other.

Items like the 'attractor' that brings pokemon to an area for everyone attracts people as well as pokemon.

I hope there are more ways to be social with it in the future, because that's it's strength.

</comment><comment><USER13> The saddest part to me is that the AR experience is still sub-optimal, which given the state of monocular SLAM isn't necessary. Niantic, with the funding they have and google connections, could have given the AR function 6DOF had they tried a little harder.

Our little team have been able to do monocular SLAM 6DOF with 1/50th of the funding, so it's confusing why they didn't go that route.

Even still, it appears that the users really don't care, which is even more interesting to me actually - especially given the complaints that people have leveled at mobile based AR technologies to date.

<comment><USER14> >> Our little team have been able to do monocular SLAM 6DOF with 1/50th of the funding, so it's confusing why they didn't go that route.

Cause they don't have the experience?

I usually turn off the AR so i don't have to wave my phone around like an idiot.

<comment><USER13> _Cause they don 't have the experience?_

I'd be surprised if this was true - being a part of Google and all for quite some time.

I'd be really interested to know what percentage of users have AR turned off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The real tragedy of Pokemon Go is that it's essentially a glorified Cow Clicker. The core gameplay (battling and leveling to strengthen your team, then using them to collect ever-stronger Pokemon) has been replaced with mindless swiping. Toss Pokeballs until one works, then move to a new spot and repeat ad infinitum.

This "game" had so much potential, but they removed all the gameplay!

<comment><USER16> Isn't the core game walking around? It's great, I did it before it was part of a game just to feel good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ian Bogost is a professional critic, so I think he'll exaggerate how he actually feels. He probably really likes the game and still thinks it's super cool.

Frank Lantz is a really positive guy overall, so again, I think his negativity overstates how he actually feels. His company Area/Code was not acquired for its location based games, and Area/Code never made a game where you look through a camera and see a thing superimposed in it. Suggesting Area/Code 'got there first,' as Ian does, is a bit of a stretch. Honestly, it's doubtful anyone at Niantic has actually played a single thing Area/Code has made, not even Drop7. Nobody would put a screenshot of Plundr in their pitch deck and say, "We're going to make the next big version of this." Besides, Plundr was never released as a public game anyway, so it would be absurd to compare this actual thing Pokemon Go to what is basically a design fiction.

But even if you allow that all these advertisement game footnotes are genuinely cited/used in Pokemon Go, you're forgetting that none of that really matters in gaming as an art form. The only person's opinion that really matters is the consumer's (and to a limited extend the Google Play Store editors and App Store editors). Players are less interested in who invented what concept. If you're going to reference the past, reference familiar control schemes (like nearly every console shooter references Halo) or properties (like, well, Pokemon). It's surprising that professors of games-as- art like Ian and Frank would seem to get this wrong.

People on this forum are probably most critical of the bugs, but again, none of that really matters. Other commenters have said it more succinctly: if you have something great, people will deal with its problems. Forget DeNA games (like one commenter noted); have you ever tried to play Minecraft on an iPhone? You're moving around your FPS head with your finger and using a virtual joystick, which is literally the most horrible control scheme for touch possible. Kids still deal with it, they really don't care.

Why are there people looking to assassinate Pokémon? I think the Niantic team was given multiple opportunities to do something unconventional, which basically never happens, especially never in any of the jobs of people on these forums. They're kind of rubbing in all your faces that you really don't have to be making elegant hierarchies and making the world a better place all day, if only someone trusted you to do something weird.

</comment><comment><USER18> The poster uses the word traffic a lot but doesn't explain enough why he thinks it's tragic.</comment>


Every Day I Want to Quit Social Media - <AUTHOR> http://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelseidlinger/every-day-i-want-to-quit-social-media#.jw7vQeRoN <comment><USER2> Got rid of my facebook account a few years ago and haven't looked back since.</comment>


Amazon Prime not displaying Google Search due to structured data issue? - <AUTHOR> https://www.impression.co.uk/blog/17199/stream-wars-streaming-platform-seo-and-potential-organic-growth/ <comment><AUTHOR> Streaming/Purchase options are displayed for most movie/tv shows in Google but I've noticed not a lot of streaming platforms (Including Amazon Prime) get featured in them.

For example, search "watch south park online" \- South Park is available on both Netflix and Amazon, surely you want to try and have high visibility in this space? I believe it's because they are supplying a non-indexed URL (it's canonicalised towards another URL) in the structured data but I could be wrong, I've included more details in the blog post</comment>


It's too late for Dave Winer and John Battelle to save the common web - <AUTHOR> http://scobleizer.com/2012/02/04/its-too-late-for-dave-winer-and-john-battelle-to-save-the-common-web/ <comment><USER2> I'm quite torn: I simply can't decide what portion of this post I'm most captivated by. Is it the fact that John knows the exact date from over four years ago that he was booted from facebook? Maybe it's the feat of name dropping a whopping nine different people (I think.. I got dizzy counting) while more or less telling a story about saving a flat file with commas in it. It could be the fact that I just found out that Scoble was a pioneer in the fight for the open web while almost every time I've crossed paths with him in the last several years he's been dry humping a brand new buzzworthy social media platform to death. In the end, though, I'm pretty sure I've settled on the idea that yesterday on what I assume is a professional style radiopodcast thing a number of grown men spent a measurable amount of time arguing about how potentially fair or totally unfair it was that one of them got banned by facebook and also whether heather in 7th period likes one of them.

The only downside of the whole thing is the part where he goes on a broken spirited nihilistic rant about how hopeless everything is while suggesting I may be a social pariah for not having a facebook account.

He and I clearly have a somewhat different perspective on the world, but I am sympathetic to several of the issues he raises. It seems most of his despair revolves around the sense of having "lost" and being overtaken by events. He responds by saying screw it I just don't give a shit about my principles because they aren't working out for me. But the world ebs and flows, and more importantly it needs some people to take a few principled stands about what they believe in and remind people about issues even when not personally advantageous.

Consider what became of the 90's cypherpunk visions as they were soundly crushed by a new millennium bent on ubiquitous private tracking, massive government wiretaps and swiss cheese security. Who would have guessed such an ice age of uncoolness would thaw out in a world where wikileaks was the story of the year, people split dinner with me using money a russian teenager created using a cluster of high performance crypto gear and people organized revolutions online.

Giving up is boring.

<comment><USER3> There's certainly an irony to the idea that such inexorable privatization of "the web" has occurred within the last 4 years that there's no point in even trying to effect any future change in a positive direction. My only real take away from this article is that if you are a Scoble-magnitude tech pundit then you are pretty much forced to use proprietary tools to maximize your audience. It's a bit like reality TV stars who have to join a trashy television program to get the attention they crave—it's a shortcut to a certain end, but it's not the way work that matters is done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> IIRC, Scoble was cajoled by Plaxo to run this script against his account under the premise that he could then import all that data into Plaxo. Scoble got caught running this automated script, a violation of the terms and service that he'd previously agreed to. This became a PR issue - I guess this is what Plaxo was hoping for, except Facebook merely reinstated Scoble's account on condition he didn't run that script again (couched in terms of not breaching the T&C again).

Plaxo is nowhere to be seen these days, so I guess the PR backlash against Facebook didn't give Plaxo the boost they needed.

Later on in the Gilmor Gang Scoble defended his actions by suggesting Facebook was just a Rolodex of contacts, and thus he has the right to export all the data of his contacts for his own purposes; pointing out that how is a crawler bot different from him copying over his 5000 contacts into Outlook one at a time (IIRC, Facebook displayed email address as an image on profile pages, so there'd be no paste).

Only today the story has changed that this was really Scoble fighting for the survival of the common web. That's an interesting position to take 4 years later. I don't recall him bringing this justification up before. Perhaps he has in closed networks like Facebook.

If that indeed was the true reason Scoble ran a scraper script against Facebook, then I'm surprised he went through so much trouble to get his Facebook account re-enabled, and then do nothing to safeguard his data against other Facebook reactions to future violations.

Now he's on Google+, and yet this Facebook data still isn't exportable, and I've not seen any complaint from Scoble about not being able to move all his contacts data from Facebook to Google+. I don't recall Scoble using "the common Web" as justification for uprooting from Facebook to Google+, or from moving away from his blog to Google+.

Not sure I approve of this revisionism. If an common Web is important, surely not being dependent on a closed platform is an obvious strategy?

<comment><USER5> >> Now he's on Google+, and yet this Facebook data still isn't exportable, and I've not seen any complaint from Scoble about not being able to move all his contacts data from Facebook to Google+.

Yes, but Scoble explains why he doesn't complain anymore - because the time when it was worth complaining is over, and other tech influencers at that time didn't join Scoble in his fight. Now, I agree with Scoble, that it is just too late - Facebook will simply not allow you to export your social graph, and that's it. You can just waste your time complaining, or delete your account, but that's all you can do.

<comment><USER6> > _\- Facebook will simply not allow you to export your social graph, and > that's it. You can just waste your time complaining, or delete your account, > but that's all you can do._

I'm not sure that's completely true. One could write a browser extension that extracted the data slowly over time and / or use a caching proxy in order to the same thing. I've been digging in to Squid to see how this might be done, but I've just started. Also, for those with smartphones, it seems like the way mobile FB apps integrate with address books might provide another way to backup one's contacts.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, _you_ can probably do it, but providing a public tool for scraping Facebook (or digging through caches) might be against the terms and conditions, and would probably get the hammer from Facebook counsel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _Deleting your [Facebook] account just makes you look like a weirdo in today's world._

I disagree. It's really not a big deal to be without a Facebook account.

<comment> k-mcgrady You're both wrong :) It depends on your age, where you live, and your social circle. For a lot of people, myself included, deleting your Facebook account would be ridiculous to even consider. For example, myself and several of my friends are spending time working and studying abroad. Facebook is the best way to keep in touch.

<comment><USER9> I've been living across an ocean from my family for over 10 years, deactivated my FB account 2 years ago and never turned back. So I really don't understand your "ridiculous to even consider" -- there are many other ways to keep in touch, and doing without the firehose of low-quality information (wall posts, movie recommendations, etc.) pouring through FB gives you more time to focus on the high-quality information that can be better communicated through other media (phone, email, etc.)

I understand that leaving FB (or never using it) is not for everybody, but "ridiculous to even consider" goes way too far. I think actually it would be great for a lot more people to consider it, even if they end up deciding not to actually do it.

<comment><USER10> It's not my case, but I've heard from some people that they got on Facebook because friends where organizing events there and not having an account meant not being included in these events. This might be a case where it's "ridiculous to even consider".

In the end it depends on the ways people use it. If it's the only channel for communication, then you have to be in it.

<comment><USER11> You just have to be cool enough so that people start thinking "how can we organize the event so that X will also show up". Problem solved :-)

Another question: do you really want to meet people who would exclude you from an event just because you don't have a Facebook account? Friends don't exclude friends...

<comment><USER12> You seem to assume it's on purpose. When almost everyone in your circle has a Facebook account, it's easy to forget that person X or Y doesn't (usually depending on how close a friend they are with them).

Personally, I don't miss my account, but I can understand why others can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I would actually agree that his Facebook scraping should get him kicked off, but not due to some terms of service crap. But think about it. Whose data was he scraping? Maybe Facebook's, maybe the user who entered it should own it. But I don't think it's fair for anyone else to grab all that data and use it for other purposes.

I'm _glad_ that Facebook protects me from someone trying to do that with the data I give them.

<comment><USER14> If you're on FB and you friend me and you allow me to see your name and phone number, I can copy and paste it manually. What exactly are FB protecting you from? The people you've already trusted with your name and phone number?

FB are protecting you from your friends migrating away from FB. Right now that phone book and those pictures and those birthdays all act as a barrier to leaving FB. If it was easy for someone—who you have already trusted, remember—to download your name and phone number and birthday, they might leave and just call you on your birthday. Or send you an email.

FB has protected themselves. Which is their right, but given that the people you've trusted with your phone number can already copy and paste it, FB's road blocks aren't about your privacy, they're about creating friction.

<comment><USER4> "If you're on FB and you friend me and you allow me to see your name and phone number, I can copy and paste it manually."

At the time of the Scoble/Plaxo scraping thing, you couldn't copy and paste the phone number. IIRC, it was an image of text, to prevent it from being copied. It could only be transcribed at that time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As someone who has never joined Facebook and is not even tempted, I have to wonder - I mean the web is not like a TV set with just channels 2-13, or even channels 2-100

The web has hundreds of thousands channels. Facebook doesn't own them any more than Google owns search - they are just better at it for now so more people tune in - build an alternative and they will come - slowly at first, but they will come.

<comment><USER16> Especially when you consider how Google+ got millions of users quickly and how Formspring.me was once described as "addictive". The only thing left is figure out how to be more entertaining than the competition and not get boring. Formspring.me loses its novelty value after a while.

Steve Case used to tell AOL employees, "What can you do for AOL that will get people to ignore Seinfeld after dinner and head straight for AOL?" [https://www.google.com/search?q=steve+case+%22would+always+s...](https://www.google.com/search?q=steve+case+%22would+always+say+that+Seinfeld+is+the+competition.%22)

However, I believe you are a minority. Few people think about creating something popular with the mass market. Most seem to want to build a "niche" product so they can buy their McMansion in the suburbs. Most people want to be engineers or entertainers, but not both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Specifically, to save the URL as the least common denominator of the web.

See <http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html>

</comment><comment><USER18> What about Facebook is not open? Facebook.com can be reached from any computer with an Internet connection. The content is standards-compliant HTML, CSS, and Javascript, delivered via standards-compliant TCP/IP. Anyone can create an account. Anyone can interact with anyone else, provided they mutually agree to do so.

The content is not indexable by search engines--true. But, while that is obviously a problem for search engine companies, that doesn't mean it's not "open."

In terms of getting data out, I had every piece of data I entered into Facebook before I entered it. I have my personal info. My photos and videos were on my cameras, phones, or computers before I uploaded them. The links I posted were in my browser history first. My comments were in my head before I typed them out.

Sure I don't have an easy way to export my friends' data, but that is not my data--it's theirs. Anyway if they are really my friends I can just ask them for their email address or phone number or whatever.

What am I missing? Facebook is a website that requires authentication to use certain features. So is scobleizer.com.

<comment><USER19> One problem is that, yes, _"Anyone can interact with anyone else, provided they mutually agree to do so,"_ but they can only interact in the ways that Facebook defines and allows. You can't, for example, easily write your own app to run on whatever platform you happen to use (hell, maybe you want a "green screen" AS/400 app, who knows?) that lets you post to your friends' wall, or read their posts. And you can't easily load the data about your friends into a database that lets you query it... I mean, quick, how do you find "all my friends with birthdays in March" on Facebook? OK, that was a contrived, off- the-cuff example, but it gets to the point of the thing.

 _Sure I don't have an easy way to export my friends' data, but that is not my data--it's theirs._

That's arguable, IMO. If I have a list of my friends phone numbers and birthdays in a pen and paper address book, would you argue that I don't have the right to copy that book, or remix / reorganize / reuse the data in it, as I want (so long as I'm not violating my friends' rights somehow in the process, like spamming them)?

What we need is for Facebook / G+ etc. to adopt the work being done by the Semantic Web community and the Federated Social Web XG and open the "walled gardens." OR we need new platform(s) to emerge that do so, and for those platforms to supplant Facebook and the other centralized, dictatorial platforms.

<comment><USER20> twitter/goog/facebook will, at some point, create a social CRM, or general PRM (personal relationship manager) with real, actionable, detailed functionality, but it will be enterprisey at a cost level, at least at first. Yes, total guess here on my part but...

When you've got detailed stats on hundreds of millions of users, and how they relate, yes, making money from ads is one revenue stream. The next will be selling that data back to us via nice database interfaces.

select * from followers_of_my_followers where birthday=today and interested in ('fashion','shoes','puppies'); followers.each { follower.message("Happy Birthday from frobozzco! click here for 20% off our new hushpuppies in neon green!"); }

We could pretty easily do that sort of stuff today if there was more of an opportunity for extraction/scraping/mining, but that's generally discouraged by the big players, because, I think, they're going to sell it back to us on a per-use or monthly fee.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> You were not kicked off of Facebook because of "running a script to try to save the common web".

They kicked you off for running a data scraper in violation of the terms of service you agreed to when signing up an account.

</comment><comment><USER22> I actually wrote about this a couple of days ago. Winer even responded to me on twitter. I think we need to change the premise of the conversation. That might help inspire a new generation of young startups.

[http://www.rumproarious.com/2012/01/31/rss-needs-a-new-pr- te...](http://www.rumproarious.com/2012/01/31/rss-needs-a-new-pr-team/)

<comment><USER23> Hey responded because you insulted him. Of course, you were right. Enough people hate dave winer that RSS does need a new face, but you, like a lot of writers, backed down when confronted with him. You should have stuck to your guns, because you were right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Well, I am for an open web, especially in the linked data/semantic web sense. That said, Facebook, Google, and Twitter make it really easy to export your data. Just to be sure about Facebook, I just went to my account settings and requested a data dump, which is happening right now. Similarly, I like to periodically dump my GMail, Google documents, and Blogger blog posts. It seems stupid not backing up your own data. I don't back up G+ data but I use G+ mostly just to link to my long Blogger blog posts. For a public presence, people should really own their own domains. Blogger makes it really easy to assign your blog to a subdomain that you own.

I take a few steps to maintain a modicum of privacy: I log off Facebook after looking at family and friend's posts, and I often run Chrome in Incognito mode because I think that it makes general web browsing a little safer.

<comment><USER6> Whatever this data dump from FB consists of, is it in some usable form? My understanding is that it's a pdf without any ability to import it into any other software. For example, can you import birthdays directly into iCal (or w/e) or import email/ phone #s into your desktop or mobile addressbook?

<comment><USER24> I just downloaded the dump. It is HTML and JPEG images. So, you are correct: you would need to write a script to extract what you want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is a very boring techpolitics piece but it does give one interesting thought:

In a search for privacy we are locking ourselves in other's walled gardens.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think a lot of the problem is that there's no easy, good set of protocols for social networking.

Want to plan a party? There's no protocol for that. We have email and calendars, but we don't have party planning. You can't fire up your calendar client and organize a party with. The best you can do is set a reminder for yourself and then invite others to share that reminder. No comments, RSVPs, etc etc.

Want to share a link with people and have moderateable comments? There's no protocol. Plenty of sites will do it, but none are interoperable.

You can lament the loss of the open web all you want, but if you aren't helping make these protocols a reality, you aren't part of the solution.

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't get it. Couldn't this scraping be easily done with own Facebook API? Why should you run a scraper to find out all your friends?

<comment><USER28> Phone numbers aren't exposed via the Facebook API under any circumstance. For a long time it was the same with emails, including when Scoble wrote that script, but now you can get a user's email by specifically asking for that information via the permissions API.

<comment><USER29> This is not entirely true. A Facebook application can get an email address of an authorized user by requesting it [1] (in the authorization dialog, the user can choose to send the application either the email address they signed up with Facebook for, or a proxied Facebook email address). There is currently no way to use the Graph API to retrieve your friends' email addresses.

[1] To do this, your application has to request the _email_ permission. There is no equivalent _friends_email_ permission. See [http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/permission...](http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/permissions/#user_friends_perms)

<comment><USER28> Ah, true, yes, if I authenticate a Facebook application against my account I can't give it access to my friends' emails, which was the core functionality of Scoble's script.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Or you could get your Facebook data via this way: [http://www.europe-v- facebook.org/EN/Get_your_Data_/get_your_...](http://www.europe-v- facebook.org/EN/Get_your_Data_/get_your_data_.html)

<comment><USER31> That won't work. They certainly don't include friends' contact info when you request data that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> So, exportable contacts = the common web? Please, Scoble, just stop it already.

With these posts, Scoble simply reinforces my personal impression of him as the Court Jester of the Internet.

</comment><comment><USER33> if it really become a problem I dont think Fb/Zuck can stop hackers/programmers from building tools to export user profile, all photos, data, etc.

its quite simple VB stand-alone (so they dont block one IP) application with IE window in it. you log in, and VB is scrapping all the data creating excel file with contacts, saving images organized in folders for other web import, etc). not that big of a deal, right?

</comment><comment><USER34> Scoble is lazy. If you really care about a contact, you will copy the information even if it requires typing each individual character.

</comment><comment><USER35> its the gopher argument..

Some of yo may remember an alternative to web called gopher..

It eventually died due to web being free and it not being free.

The form that is more'free'than fb as far as barriers, etc will out-compete fb.. DW, etc have very little to worry about as this changes rapidly and does not stay the same.

<comment><USER36> Gopher was open:

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1436>

It just sucked compared to HTTP.

<comment><USER37> I remember being shown mosaic on the day it went into limited academic beta and (after half an hour or so) saying "It's pretty and all but I can't see how it's ever going to replace gopher"... the person I said it to _still_ won't let me forget that. However, at the time, I had a point. Not always easy to see that with perfect hindsight.

<comment><USER38> I was the same way when I was shown Mosaic, neat, but what is the point of it? At the time I was perfectly happy with the following text based applications: email,newsgroups,MUDs,ftp.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> SURRENDER NERDS. WE HAS YOUR INTERNET.</comment>


Ask HN: Million Dollar Idea - <AUTHOR> Hi. I am looking for million dollar (GBP ( PLN worst case scenario)) idea.
I need money. I am 29, I am originally from Poland, but I have lived last 10 yrs in UK ( where I studied AI and electronics ). Now Im back to Poland (I moved here because of my beloved woman).
I am trying my best to live and work here and also pay the student loan in UK... but it goes bad. Interests are rising and the rope on my neck is getting tighter. I need to think about future, having 4 kids, lovely dogs and mid size house.
I am not genius, nor super smart. Average I would say. I am very curious about a world and try to thing by myself.
and I am wondering... what to do ? I know people getting money just for nothing to be honest, like for example selling abstraction paintings for millions... or some stupid stones instead of animals.
I do not want to have money just because of it itself. I will not but a Ferrari. I do not need it, its not practical. Maybe.... some comfortable little family SUV. But I will donate a lot of money to homeless dogs and poor kids. I promise. Really. I feel bad when I see a bird with a wound.
I know that if you had some million dollar idea, you would probably materialized it yourself. But.... Maybe.... there is something you could share ?
I will appropriate any advice, idea, anything. I need to move on but I do not know in which direction.
Thank you ! <comment><USER2> You studied AI and Electronics, here's an idea...maybe work in AI and Electronics?

</comment><comment><USER3> Do you have any skills?</comment>


Rant: Why should I email my CV? - <AUTHOR>

This bugs me. Why do recruiters that contact me over LinkedIn still ask me to email them my CV. There's an export button.
Also, why do London recruiters keep mentioning that "They are based in a very prestigious area of London". Do I level up one social class if I work in a prestigious area? Never mind those stock options, I have to work in the office overlooking the queens trash bin. <comment><USER2> Employers don't need your CV, the recruitment firms do. They always ask for them in a .DOC format because many have internal databases. Providing a .DOC makes it easier for them to upload the file to that system, where they can then search for prospective applicants by keyword.

Providing a CV won't make it any easier for you to get the job you're actually discussing. It just makes it easier for them to send you emails like: "I see you have 4 years experience with JavaScript. We have an exciting opportunity to join a team of rockstars working with Java and Spring".

There's another concern to be aware of: some unscrupulous recruiters will edit your CV. That is, if they see a job posting looking for someone with x years experience with Spring, they might just add that to your CV, even if you've never worked with a java stack.

<comment><USER3> >There's another concern to be aware of: some unscrupulous recruiters will edit your CV. That is, if they see a job posting looking for someone with x years experience with Spring, they might just add that to your CV, even if you've never worked with a java stack.

For this reason I always carry copies with me to interviews.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I see working in a 'prestigious area' as a downside. I have worked on a rich neighborhood in my city, the price of everything nearby was way too high (for the same stuff I can buy where I actually live).

About the CV thing I bet this is a legacy workflow that most companies still used to.

</comment><comment><USER5> They also asking for word Doc so they could put their logo on top of the CV.

I dont even own word anymore.

</comment><comment><USER6> Giving an employer an exported Linkedin CV would show thay they don't know you very well, that maybe they don't know you at all. They must show something to tjeir clients at ghe end of the day

</comment><comment><USER7> This has bothered me for a while. I want linkedin to output a PDF resume without all of the cruft.

</comment><comment><USER8> #SmallestViolin</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a shortage of 3D computer vision experts? - <AUTHOR> With the Deep Learning revolution it seems to me that the vast majority of Computer Vision researchers and workers switched from 3D Computer Vision tasks to 2D topics such as Object Recognition. However, in the Robotics and AR/VR fields, classic stuff such as Stereo Vision, SLAM etc. is still relevant and I always see these skills listed in the job requirements for companies of the aforementioned fields. What is your opinion? <comment><USER2> SLAM and structure from motion are basic techniques in drone navigation/mapping, which is currently experiencing a boom in demand due to the unmanned vehicle bubble.

</comment><comment><USER3> A good sign of shortage is high salaries. Are these specialists making more than (or even as much as) your regular Javascript/Java guy?</comment>