Android overtakes iPad in tablet race - <AUTHOR> http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/android-overtakes-ipad-tablet-race-8C11278308 <comment><USER2> It's hard to find good sales numbers on specific tablets. 4.6 million Nexus 7's were sold[1] in 2012, but I haven't found data on how many of the 2012 model sold in 2013, or how many of the 2013 model have sold so far. Still, this is one model that appears to be selling in numbers nobody would have predicted for an Android tablet at the beginning of 2012.

The iPad mini, however, is more difficult to judge. Apple hasn't released sales numbers that don't lump the mini in with other models, suggesting it's been a failure and they're afraid to reveal how few have actually sold[2]. A failure by Apple's standards might be a runaway success by most other's standards, but the mini clearly isn't flying off the shelves the way an Apple device in a new form-factor should. It's specs were disappointing and it offered questionable value, so this isn't a huge surprise. I would bet good money that the next gen mini will treat the form-factor properly instead of giving it sloppy seconds, but consumers may have negative associations with the iPad mini brand that need to be overcome.

Personally, I think Apple really underestimated the appeal of the 7" tablet. A bigger screen is certainly nicer for some things, but 7" is perfect for reading ebooks and the smaller size of 7" tablets make them truly portable and comfortable to use hand-held. I'd love to see good sales numbers to see if it really is 7" tablets that are boosting Android sales and dragging down Apple's sales. If so, this might be a situation where an under-served market allowed an agile opponent to bust into a market firmly held by a single dominant incumbent!

\-----

[1][http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Google-Nexus-7-Tablet- Sales...](http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Google-Nexus-7-Tablet- Sales,21179.html)

[2][http://www.businessinsider.com/ipad-mini- sales-2012-11](http://www.businessinsider.com/ipad-mini-sales-2012-11)

<comment><USER3> Apple in general doesn't report how different models of a product sell. That it also didn't for the iPad mini doesn't indicate anything. (The only exception I can think of is the iPod touch were Apple also didn't report any specific numbers but at least said that most iPods sold were iPod touches. I think it's quite obvious why Apple felt compelled to be a bit more specific in this case, what with the iPod touch running iOS and being part of the ecosystem, unlike all other iPods. Other than that Apple will report how many portable Macs they sold, how many desktop Macs they sold, how many iPods they sold, how many iPads they sold and how many iPhones they sold.)

That Business Insider article is pure bologna, no doubt written by someone who is quite clueless about how Apple typically reports its numbers. You can go back through apple.com/pr and look at everything they typically release after launches and Apple's pattern becomes quite clear.

(I also think it's general consensus that the iPad mini is quite successful. Which is not saying anything about hypotheticals. If you measure Apple against the size of the market they clearly _could_ sell more. Can they, do they have to, do they want to and can Apple's iPad business still be considered a success if it doesn't are then, I feel, the most relevant questions.)

<comment><USER4> Minor tangent but Apple did release a specific number of ipod touches when they hit the 100 million mark last year.

<comment><USER3> Ah! Cool, didn't remember that. Do you know any other examples? I couldn't think of any, but it's very possible that my memory is somewhat spotty in that regard (but the general paatern of what Apple does and doesn't release is nevertheless clear.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I never understood these comparisons. How can we reasonably compare a hardware product (iPad) with an operating system that runs on a large number of other tablets? I understand that it's a convenient "us vs them" analogy, but it makes no sense at closer examination.

<comment><USER6> The comparison isn't of the hardware product, it's of the operating systems. Developers want to know what the installed base and rate of change for users of each OS is so they know the target market size to make decisions like which OS to develop an app for first. Consumers want to know what other consumers are doing because they don't want to get stuck with a device (like a Blackberry) that the market is abandoning and no one is making third party apps for.

<comment><USER7> If that's the case, then should we be including Kindle in the Android basket?

Amazon pretty much owns its own fork, and is substantially different.

<comment><USER6> Maybe. It's still a lot easier to get an existing Android app to run on a Kindle than it is to get it to run on an iPad.

It seems like kind of a moot point anyway. The Kindle has less than 5% market share. Even if you take it out, what really changes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In term of global sales, Android tablet could be more than iPad these days. In term of usage, iPad would be much more than all Android tablets [1]. Additionally, an iPad has 2-3x life span than Android tablet on average (I has used over a dozen tablets). I seriously don't like to see so many low-quality tablets thrown into market. You are much better of buying second hand iPad.

[1] [http://www.cultofmac.com/233063/ipads-web-usage-share- hits-5...](http://www.cultofmac.com/233063/ipads-web-usage-share-hits-5-month- high/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd love to see this broken up by what I'd call "true tablets" (like the Nexus 7) and devices that are marketed primarily for media consumption by the media producers (Nook HD/Kindle Fire).

In the wild (I'm talking Houston, not SF or NYC, so maybe it's a different story), I see very few non-iPad tablets. I can't honestly recall seeing more than maybe 1 out of 50 or 100. I do see tons of Android phones, however. (Maybe it can be explained that Android tablet users are less likely to show off, and keep the device in their home/office?)

</comment><comment><USER10> that being said, it's a rare occasion I actually see an android tablet in "the field"...

<comment><USER11> My anecdote, I know lots of people who own some kind of Android tablet but no iOS device and lots of people who own iOS devices who own at least one Android tablet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm so tired of the horse race analogies. Competition in business is more like an elaborate multi decade gymnastics competition than a horse race. Both Google and Apple are doing a great job executing their different business models. It's like two gymnasts doing very different routine and ending up with close or tied scores even though their points on individual things may greatly differ.

</comment><comment><USER13> I love my Galaxy III Android phone. Incredibly nice as a phone, social media, games, and even has a neat little Java IDE to build apps right on the phone.

I was waiting for the new Nexus 7 and when it was released I made a snap decision to stay with iPad, giving my iPad 2 to a family member and buying an iPad mini.

For one thing, it is simply more fun to own one of each types of device. Way more fun.

Secondly, I have workflows in place on my iPad (e.g., working on book manuscripts using leanpub + dropbox + IA Writer; ssh into my servers) that I can also do on My Android phone, but I like working on the iPad.

For consumers, having both OS options can only be a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER14> "To begin with, no single manufacturer of tablets comes close to Apple in terms of volume. Android as a whole may sell more devices than Apple, but the ecosystem is split between the likes of Samsung, Amazon, Asus and others. The full-size iPad and the iPad Mini are still the best-selling models out there. Android may have slightly more of the pie, it has to be split more ways."

As usual the title implies one thing and the articles says another. The usual Apple is doomed story to gain some additional pageviews to sell ads. Same old same old.

</comment><comment><USER15> Android will always have a larger install base than iOS. iPads are aimed at the upper end of the market, while Android is installed on a wide variety of tablets aimed at different budgets and form factors. This is far from an an apples-to-apples comparison. While the Android fanboys love numbers like this, it says exactly nothing about the advantages of either OS. Both platforms have enough market share that both must be targeted for apps to be successful anyway, so specific market share really doesn't matter.

<comment><USER16> But it is important to mention these things. It's needed as a counter weight to the message that was spread not long ago by people like Gruber, "there is no tablet market, only the ipad market"

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> These statistics are hard to square with the fact that I've observed a total of two Android tablets in the wild.

<comment><USER18> Living in USA I assume.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Overtakes in number. Wow that's really so impressive. And now show me how much people spend money on there.

<comment><USER20> I think you're supposed to have moved on to "But nobody uses their Android tablet, they are all sitting in closets" line.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Much as I like my iPads, the lack of Flash support is still a problem. Steve made the wrong call there.

<comment><USER22> This is a joke right?

<comment><USER23> It's too bad @shit_hn_says on Twitter has apparently shut down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It seems rather silly to report sales numbers in a market where nobody reports sales numbers. For an actual measurable statistic, we should look at usage numbers. And in that race, iOS tablets are far far ahead of android tablets.

</comment><comment><USER25> When do we start counting phones? The galaxy mega is 6.3 inches.

</comment><comment><USER26> I hate these types of articles because they bring out the worst of HN. Accusations of fanboys and vitriol over both sides are spewed and incomprehensible arguments rule.

It's like Slashdot all over again.

</comment><comment><USER27> How can a software overtake a hardware ?

Sensationalist headline.

</comment><comment><USER28> Look at all these Android fanboys upvoting a nonsense article to the front- page. _tsk tsk..._

>>The iPad, long the best-selling tablet in the world, has received a check to its dominance: Android has taken the lead in both tablets sold and in the money people paid for them.

Yea, when you flood the market with cheap, shitty tablets it's easy to "take the lead." The thing that is often forgotten is that the money made from iPad sales goes directly into Apple's coffers, whereas Android sales benefit mostly the manufacturers. And just like with iPhone vs. Android, we see which devices are actually _used:_

[http://chitika.com/files/Android%20vs%20iOs%20Overall%20Shar...](http://chitika.com/files/Android%20vs%20iOs%20Overall%20Share%20of%20Web%20Traffic.png)

<comment> saiko-chriskun easy to take the lead with cheap, shitty tablets? why don't you put out a cheap, shitty product and tell me how that goes.</comment></comment>


Harvard's Edward O. Wilson tries to upend biology, again - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/04/17/where_does_good_come_from/?page=full

<comment><USER3> I'm a biologist, and I never realized that group selection _wasn't_ broadly accepted until I read this article. I'd always assumed it was trivially implied by the theory of natural selection. Natural selection has been observed at every level, from entire organisms all the way down to the subcellular level (transposable elements, mitochondria, and others) I've never doubted that it also operates on populations of organisms.

I've often explained aspects of human society to my non-scientist friends in terms of group selection. (Short version: Humans who formed tribes out- competed the loners.)

On an unrelated note, I don't see how group selection and kin selection are mutually exclusive.

<comment><USER4> It appears you may have been misinformed.

Kin selection: organism X helps organism Y because it improves the prospects for the part of X's DNA that Y also has. The more related X is to something, the more willing X is to sacrifice itself for it. The most extreme example is also the most familiar: each of your cells has DNA identical to each of your other cells (if all is well). So a cell is completely willing to kill itself for the "collective", even at the expense of its own ability to reproduce. A less extreme example is that of a woman declining to pursue kids of her own in order to help tend her sister's, which could be adaptive when, e.g., food is scarce.

Group selection: members of a particular group (e.g., a tribe) are willing to engage in altruistic actions (e.g., suicidal defense of said tribe pre- procreation) even though doing so maladaptive at the level of the individual's DNA. This kind of cooperation is adaptive for the group as a whole, but not in the least for the individual. Groups that encourage this kind of behavior will outcompete groups that don't, so groups are selected for this trait.

IIRC, the primary reason that group selection is thought to be wrong is that it (apparently) can't yield an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS) -- it will always be better for the persistence of any individual's DNA if that individual refuses to be altruistic.

<comment><USER5> >IIRC, the primary reason that group selection is thought to be wrong is that it (apparently) can't yield an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS) -- it will always be better for the persistence of any individual's DNA if that individual refuses to be altruistic.

I don't think that could be right, because the altruistic individuals altruism could include killing/punishing non-altruistic individuals. Shooting deserters comes to mind, as a real-life human example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The remarkable thing about his new theory, group selection is that to an outsider and a lay person, it sounds simpler and a lot more dynamic then the original kin selection theory. This is no crackpot prediction by someone who enjoys causing a ruckus. It very neatly explains related observations such as adhoc gangs/groups which are as common in the animal kingdom as they are with humans.

I'll put a calendar reminder in 2 years from now to check back on how this one turned out :-)

Thanks for sharing! This is indirectly but wonderfully on topic for this site.

<comment><USER7> Are adhoc gangs/groups that perform altruism common across genetic lines?

While some animals do exibit adoption, I don't think its nearly as common as altruism towards biological children. And group membership that requires altruism overwhelmingly seems to have genetic tie-in.

<comment><USER8> In order to have altruistic behavior in a group you need to spread a gene that promotes such behavior within the group. The simplest way for this to happen is for the gene to appear in one member, and then spread to others by inheritance.

For this to happen across, say, two genetic lines, it seems you need the "cross-altruistic" genes to emerge more or less simultaneously in the two groups so they can cooperate. The probability for this to happen is smaller, so it's not surprising that it happens less often than kin-style altruism. But if this does happen (and apparently it does), then it means kin selection is not enough to explain altruism.

It seems to me that Wilson's theory is an elegant generalization of kin selection. I don't see the contradiction between them, although I'm not a biologist so quite likely I'm misunderstanding something.

<comment><USER9> "In order to have altruistic behavior in a group you need to spread a gene that promotes such behavior..."

This premise seems to be taken as fundamental dogma in the evolutionary theory community, but perhaps should be questioned. Here is my (layperson's) counterexample: a species might have a gene that switches between whether an individual is a drone or a reproducer over the course of their life; a switch like that could thrown early in the development based on ambient hormones or whatever. If the individual is not a reproducer, they don't spread their own genes but they help the hive or whatever.

I think there is an unexamined assumption guiding contemporary evolution, that ALL behavior must be explained by genes ALONE -- in the case above, lifetime behavior is determined by an environmental trigger, even though the set of possible behaviors is determined by genes. This dogma seems, well, silly and wrong.

(Throw in cultural behaviors with outcomes like longer life and more offspring, and the classical system completely falls apart.)

<comment><USER8> Certainly not all behavior is the direct result of genes; I don't think this is the common viewpoint. For example there are genes that enable learning. This is extremely useful since disseminating behavior by learning is much faster than doing it through evolution. The rapid changes in human behavior in the last few decades (at least) can be explained in this way, and not by natural selection which is too slow.

Genes that encode specific behaviors are just the simplest possible mechanism that works, and they do account for a vast number of phenomena. I think Occam's razor applies: If you suggest a more complicated mechanism, you should have some supporting evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> <http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Group_selection> for the prevailing view.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for this link. That helped me understand why group selection may be intuitive but is most likely wrong. To summarize, group selection _can_ work mathematically, but you must carefully choose the parameters of the mathematical model in order for "grep-selective" behavior (i.e. altruism toward strangers) to be selected. (These parameters define things like the cost and benefits of altruism to the "giver" and "receiver".) The slightest variation in these parameters results in a collapse of altruism and reversion to selfishness. So while it is theoretically possible, in practice the incentives just don't line up in a way that selects group-selective behaviors over selfish ones.

<comment><USER10> <http://lesswrong.com/lw/300/group_selection_update/> for a version of the view E. O. Wilson is proclaiming.

My guess is that E. O. Wilson is probably right about ants, David Sloan Wilson is probably not right about group selection being like Daniel Dennett's universal acid, and Steven J. Gould was probably wrong in most of what he promoted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> We hear a lot about thinking for yourself. Here's an example of someone who does.

</comment><comment><USER12> >Yet, strangely, self-sacrifice exists in the natural world, even though it would seem to put individual organisms at an evolutionary disadvantage: The squirrel that lets out a cry to warn of a nearby predator is necessarily putting itself in danger.

its obvious - just compare 2 species of squirrels, one which demonstrate behavior described above and another which doesn't. Which species would survive over time better? Without making complicated statistical calculations, the Nature has already calculated the answer - we have the squirrel species of the first kind, and not of the second. It is also obvious why selfishness still exists - because altruistic traits seriously decrease the survivability chances of the individual specimen carrying the traits.

<comment><USER13> Well no, because selection operates at the level of the individual, not the species. A "defector" mutant squirrel without the instinct to cry out when it sees a predator would have an advantage over the regular squirrel.

Some folks have done those complicated statistical calculations, and I believe the current consensus is that group selection is a pretty minimal effect, except in exceptional circumstances.

On the other hand, I'm not sure this is a great example. As a big scary potential predator I've scared away many a predator in my time, and y'know what? They don't cry out at all! They just run!

Does anyone have experience with screaming squirrels?

<comment><USER12> >Well no, because selection operates at the level of the individual, not the species. A "defector" mutant squirrel without the instinct to cry out when it sees a predator would have an advantage over the regular squirrel.

Evolution is a statistical macro process aggregating individual selection events. Thus the "defector" mutant squirrel have higher chances to survive, yet the (sub)species consisting of only such "defector" squirrels will lose to the (sub)species where statistically significant share of specimen demonstrate altruistic behavior.

People discussing evolution usually make 2 major mistakes :

\- assigning explicit "species evolution/survival" level motivation to specific action of specific specimen

\- directly extrapolating individual specimen events to the level of species, not paying attention to emergent higher-order system behavior

>Some folks have done those complicated statistical calculations,

such calculations is like law logic - can be bent both ways. Have any idea about chaotic dynamical systems and the effect even small perturbation can cause?

>Does anyone have experience with screaming squirrels?

if you hike in the SF Bay Area hills, you'll see the high social organization they exhibit, including "watch duty".

Edit: for illustration, as somewhat related in principle - recently "Schneier on security" posted [http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/05/status_report_...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/05/status_report_t.html) about "dishonest minority" - their individual situation is better, yet the species consisting entirely of the "dishonest minority" type specimen would obviously lose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone understand enough to tell us what the "math" is all about? According to the article, the math is key to this ... yet they don't give any info at all about what that math says and how it is relevant. If anyone can enlighten us, please do!

<comment><USER15> It's up behind a paywall (probably... with my university connection I'm never sure what has it and what doesn't) here: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7310/full/nature0...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7310/full/nature09205.html) . If anybody is more mathematically sophisticated than I, wants to tackle it, but can't get through the paywall, send me an email (in my profile).

Skimming through the supplemental information, it seems like they assume a Markov process where individuals adopt one of two strategies (with a preference towards adopting the strategy that their parent adopted), then look at which one is more likely to be dominant in the population.

<comment><USER16> Is this it? [http://www.uvm.edu/~cmplxsys/newsevents/pdfs/2010/nowak2010a...](http://www.uvm.edu/~cmplxsys/newsevents/pdfs/2010/nowak2010a.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Did Richard dawkin's "selfish gene" not move us beyond this point in the debate? With the focus on survival of the fittest _genes_ rather than the fittest organisms altruism seems far more logical.

<comment><USER18> The problem is that nobody knows what a "gene" is. It's a pseudoscientific term that implies we know where to find traits (which could be conserved by evolution) in a genome. We don't.

<comment><USER17> Regardless of how you define what a "gene" is, the "unit of selection" is a fragment of an organism's dna, not the organism itself. In this context Dawkin's explores an ESS(evolutionary stable strategy) that exhibits altruistic behaviour. It's also worth noting that group selection is shown to be unstable as an evolutionary strategy. This review of The Selfish Gene gives some good background <http://www.miketuritzin.com/writing/review-the-selfish- gene/>.

<comment><USER18> It's a lot like a binary diff, where phenotype is the source code, natural selection the programmer, and the genome the binary. Natural selection works on the phenotype, and you are saying that at all times the binary diff is compact, or sensible to talk about. Untrue. In fact it's trivially untrue because the genome is too small.

Group altruism is stable and is a very strong attractor of population behavior. All that's required is that group members be able to recognize one another. <http://people.brynmawr.edu/twong/models/pseudoaltruism.html> Individuals born into such a group may learn this or it may be genetically inherited (instinctual), or both. Of course the distinction between learning and instinct is also a bit fuzzy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It is astonishing to me that this discussion has gone on for as long as it has without anyone mentioning the work of Robert Axelrod:

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

Axelrod showed that it is not necessary for individuals to share genes in order to cooperate to mutual benefit in an evolutionarily stable strategy.

<comment><USER20> Note that in the tournaments that Axelrod organize, in order for a cooperate strategy to thrive, there must be a critical mass of other cooperate strategies too. Kin selection, which Edward O. Wilson is attacking, is the current explanation of how this critical mass of cooperative entities come about. If kin selection is wrong then an alternative explanation must be found to explain the appearance of this critical mass of cooperative entities.

<comment><USER19> Two things: first, kin selection is one possible mechanism by which a critical mass of cooperators can arise, but it is not the only such mechanism. And second, the mechanism that gives rise to cooperation may have evolved for some other reason, with cooperation as an ancillary effect.

For example, inter-species cooperation (as between dogs and humans) is almost certainly not a result of kin selection.

So even if Wilson is right and the theory of kin selection is flawed (I can't imagine how he could be right, but I haven't read the paper) that is not an indictment of Axelrod.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if there is any type of controversy more exciting than this? - <USER2> and Dawkins are overrated... Btw other very interesting scientists/thinkers on Anthropology, Evolution theory related to humans, are Dan Sperber, Boyd & Richerson "Not by genes alone", Michael Tomasello "why we cooperate"...</comment>


How does one get the system to actually use the IPv6 Temporary Addresses? - <AUTHOR> https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/57925467-2b8d-4c2d-b1f2-b0402581a30e <comment><USER2> Windows 10 also re-enables ipv6 on major updates. It's nice to try to explain to grandma how to turn it off again, so the pc would actually have working internet again.

Yes, turning on ipv6 should not break the net. Let me introduce you to the concept of "shitty modems from shitty isps".

<comment><USER3> What is the modem doing to cause v6 to break in such a way that it affects the user's experience? In theory, broken or degraded v6 should be taken care of with Happy Eyeballs [1] at the user's device, so the user doesn't even know anything is wrong. I'm really curious what kind of breakage would slip through the cracks.

eg, when Netflix started blocking IPv6 tunnel brokers in their VPN crackdown, my house was affected and Netflix was broken. As a "short term" fix, I blocked traffic towards the v6 tunnel at the firewall, but was too lazy to disable v6 prefix advertisement or actually take the tunnel down. I intended to revisit the whole situation, but forgot.

Despite all the devices on my home network having global v6 addresses, you'd never know that anything is broken because Happy Eyeballs is working as intended across everything - Mac OS, Linux, iOS, Android, Windows.

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

<comment><USER4> Happy Eyeballs cannot be implemented in libc/Winsock/etc. alone, because it crosses the abstraction barrier of the Berkeley socket API. Happy Eyeballs wants you to open two TCP connections to the same hostname, one over IPv4 and one over IPv6, and use the one that returns an ACK first. But the BSD socket API separates the process of looking up the hostname and opening a connection to it - getaddrinfo() returns a list of addresses, but you can only pass a single address, with a specific address family (IPv4 or IPv6), to connect(). So the intended use is that the application iterates over the returned addresses itself. You could come up with some scheme where libc caches the IPv4 and IPv6 results and has getaddrinfo() return a fake address to the application that's actually an index into the cache, and have libc implement Happy Eyeballs on its end once connect() is called, but that would probably have all sorts of negative side effects, starting with the fact that getaddrinfo() couldn't be used for any other purpose than generating addresses for connect().

Also, not every protocol is compatible with Happy Eyeballs, because there's no guarantee that opening a connection is harmless. It's perfectly valid for me to e.g. implement a smart lightbulb protocol by having it toggle off/on when it receives a connection from a trusted network interface without actually requiring data to be sent. If you used Happy Eyeballs in this case and both IPv4 and IPv6 worked, you wouldn't be able to turn on your lights. This is of course a contrived example, but the authors of generic libraries like your libc have to worry about contrived examples.

So it has to be implemented by application software or at least a library for the specific protocol like HTTP (layer 5 or up), which means that in practice, lots of apps won't have it implemented. And therefore in practice, broken or degraded IPv6 is very end-user visible.

<comment><USER5> although otoh in theory there are 65535 usable ports, but shitty shitty firewalls and shitty shitty "sysadmins" often mean you just get 2, and TCP only at that, but it seems that just that bare minimum "connectivity" works well enough that "regular users" don't notice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Initially browsers use the temporary IPV6 address. After a while they start consistently using the permanent one."

This is the most troubling aspect to me. The process of enabling the random ipv6 address would be:

1.Click the "enable" checkbox

2\. Check if it's working. (initially, it does)

3\. Forget about it for the next 12 months

Somewhere between Step 2 and Step 3, the feature spontaneously turns off and the ipv6 address is leaked, and the user is none the wiser.

<comment><USER7> As I read the article, "after a while" is more like hours than months :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think IPv6 privacy extensions are a bit overrated in their usefulness. What I mean, at least for most residential deployments, is that the first 64 bits (the prefix) is the same no matter what you do with the last 64. Even if the exact IPv6 suffix is randomized your address can still be linked to an account by its suffix. Unless you are a part of a large network suffix randomization won't do much good. And large networks are probably better with DHCPv6 anyway. If only Google implemented DHCPv6 for Android...

<comment><USER9> The main issue is that it uses that same suffix no matter what connection you are on.

<comment><USER8> I don't disagree, but privacy extensions do not solve the problem of tracking, only alleviate it since there are still ways to be tracked. In any case believe a stateful solution like DHCPv6 is better for deployment anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Link sends me to some sort of live.com login page.

Could someone link a mirror?

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://archive.is/P6R9H](https://archive.is/P6R9H)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can one block IPv6 in Windows Firewall?

</comment><comment><USER11> "Bug"

<comment><USER12> Windows 10 "privacy".

<comment><USER13> How many people are using IPv6 in the first place though?

<comment><USER14> Between zero and ninety percent depending on which network provider you are on. Comcast? Seventy percent. Reliance Jio in India? Ninety percent. Fptelecom in Vietnam? Sixteen percent. Telstra in Australia? Forty percent. Sky in the UK eighty percent. .. it depends. (I measure this for my day job, btw)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Wireless ECG advice? - <AUTHOR>

I'm working on a wireless ECG system for my senior capstone design project and I'm not sure what direction to take when it comes to software. The idea is to read the ECG signal from the patient, and transmit it wirelessly in real-time to a host computer (laptop for now, Android device/iPhone eventually) for post-processing and visualization. Does anyone have experience with ECG software? Is a web app too slow for this vs. a native desktop app? Any language recommendations? <comment><USER2> Doc here. If you want a trace, then a web app is _way_ to slow. In theory it should be plenty fast, but in practice, the connection is neither reliable, nor fast. Have you asked the guys at Polar? I worked with a Mech E team on a bicycle wheel design; they got the DuPont engineer who designed the original trifoil wheel to help. It would be worth asking. Look up "holter monitor". I'd think there must be some C libraries for this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your suggestions! I figured a web app wouldn't be ideal for our needs. Our challenge is that we have to transmit and process up to 12 leads at a time. Most of the products out there today are only using a few ECG leads. We also have to design and build the the actual device that will transmit from the body. It looks like a native Windows app is usually the standard for software in this field of work. Thanks!</comment></comment>


For-profit college cancels $500M in student debt after fraud allegations - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/profit-college-cancels-500m-student-debt-after-fraud-allegations-n954486 <comment><USER2> This would be a good requirement for any educational institution:

"give all prospective students a single-page disclosure with information including job placement rates, anticipated costs and the average earnings of graduates."

<comment><USER3> This seems like a terrible idea. Colleges should be about learning. I can understand guaranteeing what skills at what proficiency should be attained, but job placement and career advancement are the result of a different process. If you want a business that studies the needs of employers, gives crash courses in those skills to build what is determined to be a desired resume, and then aggressively markets you to prospective job opportunities, that sounds valuable, but it most definitely not an educational institution.

<comment><USER4> Like it or not, the primary reason a lot of people go to school is related to desires about their future earning potential. I don't see how intentionally refusing to provide information on outcomes experienced by past students is going to benefit those people.

Not everyone goes off to an expensive school at 18. Rest assured, those institutions are going to stay available. This is about for-profits, and calling those "educational institutions" is already an arguable proposition.

<comment><USER5> I would assume graduates that obtained high paying jobs would be more likely to complete these surveys. Of course they could include how many graduates were polled and how many responded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The debt stems from institutional loans the company issued to students

The article makes it sound as though these weren't government loans. Are students of that institution able to tap government loans?

Bootcamps often post misleading statistics about placement numbers [0]. Will they be subject to the same fraud allegations? I would think misleading statistics are pretty much par for the course for nearly all form of sales. I generally apply by the principal of "never ask your barber if you need a haircut". These seem kind of fraud allegations seem to be arbitrarily enforced and politically motivated.

[0] [https://medium.com/@abinoda/coding-bootcamp-placement- rates-...](https://medium.com/@abinoda/coding-bootcamp-placement-rates-are- still-misleading-and-harmful-a761a0b9ecaf)

<comment><USER7> The value of a college degree has changed whether you get the degree from an Ivy League School or a diploma mill. All colleges are basically false advertising at this point. The settlement will make some politicians feel good, but the reality is the entire system needs to be overhauled.

<comment><USER8> I would dispute this, if only using personal experience. The value of my degree from CMU has paid itself back multiple times over in terms of doors opened.

Your statement feels like too broad of a brush. In my view, there's a huge fat tail of non-value add schools that are only surviving because of this perception, but the narrow bulb of the elite schools maintains that value if only due to networking and social proof.

<comment><USER2> Did you study engineering at CMU and literally design a system that opens doors?

That would be awesome.

<comment><USER9> "We here believe that the most important thing a college can do is lift its students up and open doors for them here at the Central Minnesota School of automatic door and elevator repair. Keeping you cool under pressure is the job of our sister school, the Minnesota Institution of Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sometimes these issues occur in public Universities. A friend of mine took a Masters in Occupational Therapy, and their school continually advertised very high averages for OTs. The vast majority of the program staying the East Ohio/West PA area looking for jobs. The schools average was US and included much higher Cost of Living cities where salaries would be higher. When asked for local data, they had none available and claimed the data was local. Literally nobody got anywhere near that salary who stayed in the area, and none of the interviewing companies ever even offer something near that. An honest disclosure on how many people get jobs and how much they earn regionally should be required for any school, profit or non-profit.

<comment><USER11> Why regionally?

In the UK, most move away from home to study, and then move away from their University to work.

Anecdotally I don't know a single person who studied at University and works near their hometown.

For many it's the main reason they study. To get out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm guessing the kids who actually paid their student loan debts didn't get any of their money back.

<comment><USER13> If it's been established that there was fraud, I'd think that they would have claims. If Career Education has any capital left, there's potential for a class action. And if I remember correctly, plaintiffs can demand treble damages.

<comment><USER12> > If Career Education has any capital left, there's potential for a class > action.

I'm guessing there isn't any capital left.

<comment><USER14> Is it possible to sue the executives and investors?

Morally it seems appropriate. Execs who participated in or knew about and didn't report fraud sound like accomplices, and investors who received the proceeds of criminal activity shouldn't be able to keep those proceeds.

<comment><USER12> Piercing the veil is deliberately kept difficult by the justice system. You need concrete proof, which is easily destroyed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > More than 90 percent of its students are enrolled through online courses, > according to the company.

That's a huge number. I believe online education is going to be an important part of college education, but that's almost the entire student body. Good to see this debt being cancelled.

</comment><comment><USER16> /rant

The entire premise of these (snobbish) comments seems be: if you majored in anything that is employable, then it's "vocational", and you really didn't learn anything.

That's insulting and a load of bullshit. I can only speak for EE, but it's all theory and loaded with difficult math, physics, etc. So an English major is "educated", but an EE education is trade school? I think the "educated" majors ought to take graduate level electromagnetics. They'd be raked over the coals.

/rant

</comment><comment><USER17> It should be mentioned that both of the schools owned by Career Education Corporation receive over 90% of their funding from the US Govt.

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

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American%20InterContinental%20U...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American%20InterContinental%20University)

AIU was founded in 1970 'as the American Fashion College of Switzerland'. CEC has been under investigation since the mid-2000s, and decided to close most of its schools in 2015.

Not that for-profit vocational-training schools with credibility problems are a new thing. They are 'accredited' by ten nationally recognized accrediting agencies overseen by the Dept. of Ed. It should be dismaying that schools which primarily 'serve' federally-funded DoD and GI Bill students are not held to objective claims about their efficacy.

</comment><comment><USER8> For-profit college? Fraud?

Surely you jest.</comment>


How Google is secretly recording through your cellphone - <AUTHOR> https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4295350/did-you-know-google-has-been-secretly-recording-you-heres-how-to-find-the-creepy-audio-files-that-are-monitoring-your-conversations-every-day/ <comment><USER2> This is The Sun.

Don't expect quality journalism...

PS. Google also can access your emails. Also knows about everyone in your contact list. They also know what video you watch on YouTube. Oh the horrors

</comment><comment><USER3> this link is very nsfw</comment>


50 years after Apollo, conspiracy theorists are still howling at the 'moon hoax' - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/50-years-after-apollo-conspiracy-theorists-are-still-howling-at-the-moon-hoax/2019/05/23/ca5b4a3a-700e-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html <comment><USER2> It's a hoax. The moon doesn't exist.

<comment><USER3> I'm thinking it must be the "conspiracy theorists" that don't exist. Must be a false flag - I mean, after all, there's NO WAY a real person would believe these conspiracies. The government is trying to get us believe in the dogged stupidity of the common man. Wake up sheeple!</comment></comment>


Few days left for early bird admission to MassChallenge  - <AUTHOR>

Only few days left for early bird admission to MassChallenge startup competition with $1M in prices http://www.masschallenge.org/. If you are going to apply let me know if you need endorsements. <comment><USER2> I was a $50,000 winner in MassChallenge 2010 and it's a great organization. I've written a few blog posts on my experiences there. Hope they are helpful:

7 Startup Lessons Learned as a MassChallenge Finalist - <http://bit.ly/cojZkt>

How to Create a Killer MassChallenge Application - <http://bit.ly/ecwRxV>

How to Make it as a MassChallenge Finalist - <http://bit.ly/gLT5ne>

</comment><comment><USER3> I strongly encourage all startups (being founded, just founded or around for years) to apply to MassChallenge 2011. They can only gain from it. Olivier Boss (Energesis Pharmaceuticals, a MassChallenge 2010 award winner)

</comment><comment><USER4> Thanks, considering it - do you know of a list of 2010 MassChallenge startups?

<comment><USER5> <http://masschallenge.org/finalists/2010></comment></comment>


Show HN: Python library to create Siri shortcuts - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alexander-akhmetov/python-shortcuts <comment><USER2> I might be missing something but I couldn't find a way to trigger shortcuts to make them useful.

So for example, I'd love to have a shortcut that checked if I was still at work at 17:15 each day and tell me to leave (potentially after checking for train delays). It seemed from the developer intro I read about shortcuts this would be possible but it doesn't seem like there's an interface to wire up shortcuts to trigger like that. Anyone have a workaround?

<comment><USER3> Haven't tried it yet but the guide suggests you can run shortcuts on a recurring schedule.

> You can use Siri to add shortcuts to the Reminders app, specifying shortcuts > to be shown at a particular time or location. For example, you can schedule > a reminder to run the Log Weight shortcut each morning, or to display the > Home ETA shortcut when you depart from work.

[https://support.apple.com/guide/shortcuts/add-a-shortcut- to-...](https://support.apple.com/guide/shortcuts/add-a-shortcut-to-reminders- using-siri-apdacfdf1802/ios)

<comment><USER4> Sadly, this will really just create a reminder to run the shortcut. Not run the shortcut.</comment></comment></comment>


Graphics Programming Projects - <AUTHOR> http://graphicscodex.com/projects/projects/index.html <comment><USER2> Those time estimates look way too optimistic.

Or I am just the type that would mess up an equation and spend the next 3 hours trying to figure out why something is rendered upside down or worse, with just subtly incorrect lighting and colors.

Anything math-y that doesn't fail loudly requires a different type of debugging skill that the typical programmer doesn't have.

<comment><USER3> I mean 5 hours is pretty much a days work realistically so if you look at it that way it seems pretty reasonable to me. Project 1 is basically a "you'll take a day to do this" project 3 is basically a week's work, etc.

If it comes with some instructions and hints it would line up with my estimates pretty closely, that said I've done a bit of this sort of work before so I might have less unknown unknowns in my estimate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been recommended the book "The Raytracer Challange" [0] which let's you implement a raytracer in the language of your choice by only giving you the expected results and test cases in a TDD fashion. Super creative way of learning!

[0] [http://raytracerchallenge.com/](http://raytracerchallenge.com/)

<comment><USER5> Another nice one is the Ray Tracing in One Weekend guide [https://raytracing.github.io/books/RayTracingInOneWeekend.ht...](https://raytracing.github.io/books/RayTracingInOneWeekend.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I approached this wondering if it would be somewhat like 'Make a Lisp' or similar [0], that as a competent programmer you could start within minutes of starting to read the instructions.

It doesn't seem like that. I think this is because

* it has comprehensive background for newbies (e.g. the idea of setting breakpoints in a debugger)

* it is the accompaniment for a separate book

* it has some serious background assumptions (e.g. you know calculus)

* graphics programming is much, much harder than making a lisp.

[0] [https://github.com/kanaka/mal](https://github.com/kanaka/mal)

[Edit: formatting]

</comment><comment><USER7> perhaps link to the https version? [https://graphicscodex.com/projects/projects/index.html](https://graphicscodex.com/projects/projects/index.html)</comment>


Show HN: Bitcoin for Students(CampusCoin) - <AUTHOR> Hi We are building Bitcoin for Students where we are on a mission for Education of Students on What is Blockchain(Technology behind Crypto) and helping  Students through our Udemy like Learning Platform and help them Build the next generation of Web Applications on a blockchain. https://www.campuscoinproject.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi</comment>


Global Nomad Guide: Web app providing resources for the international lifestyle - <AUTHOR> http://GlobalNomadGuide.app <comment><AUTHOR> Directory of hospitals & clinics around the world. Directory of therapists focused on the globally mobile. Emergency contact numbers (112/911/etc) for every country Vendors/suppliers for needed services</comment>


Show HN: Make money sharing content with Cred - <AUTHOR> https://cred.is

<comment><USER2> I have to ask, are you guys collecting data and then selling it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope! All payouts are funded by advertisers paying to be featured on the interstitial page. The only data that we allow advertisers to target is the destination domain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There's an interstitial page.</comment>


Cascade reactions use nanoparticles to convert CO2 to complex molecules - <AUTHOR> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b07310 <comment><USER2> Interesting although I'd love to see a discussion on the energy efficiencies as these catalyst aren't free. CC (carbon carbon) and CH (carbon hydrogen) bonds are higher energy than CO (carbon oxygen) bonds. Hence why oxidizing (burning) carbon releases energy. You can't reverse that reaction without an energy source.

So maybe this process or a similar process could be driven from a sustainable non combustion source.

The entire global economy is powered by burning stuff and first we need to figure out how to change that (the advances in wind and solar give me hope) then we need to generate enough excess power that we can start converting CO bonds back into CC or CH bonds.

<comment><USER3> I recently watched a TED talk which changed my opinion of renewables from "maybe" to "no". Basically he argues that solar and wind are low density energy sources that require significant resources to capture, which all become waste after 25 years. Meanwhile we have nuclear which provides consistent base load, and for very good reasons we have gotten good at containing all the waste/pollution produced.

I'm now of the opinion we should be on a sprint towards fusion, investing heavily in other nuclear technologies, e.g. thorium, along the way.

Sorry to leave a video link, but it's what changed my mind and therefore in my opinion the best delivery of the argument I'm aware of.

[https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w](https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w)

<comment><USER4> Save yourselves a click, it's Michael Shellenberger's talk.

A man with a _serious_ axe to grind on nuclear, and so creative on facts with respect to renewables that he's either being disingenuous or is simply incompetent. His Bloomberg pieces are equally shoddy.

<comment><USER5> Did you mean serious axe to grind on renewables? As he hates renewables it seems.

> so creative on facts with respect to renewables that he's either being > disingenuous or is simply incompetent

I work in an energy company making renewable forecasts amongst other things and I agree with your judgement.

<comment><USER4> Oops, yes I did.

He either hates renewables, or badly wants nuclear.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Illustrated Theory of Numbers (2012–…) [book, work-in-progress] - <AUTHOR> https://illustratedtheoryofnumbers.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/with-respect-to-history/ <comment><AUTHOR> tl;dr: '… I am convinced that "translating" Euclid into modern algebraic notation is historically destructive … In writing the Illustrated Theory of Numbers, I am trying to give respect to history. … In the style of Tufte …'

Do check out the published page spread previews of this book-in-progress: they're beautiful!</comment>


Why You Should Never Work at a Startup - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-you-should-never-work-startup-brian-de-haaff

<comment><USER2> There are plenty of excellent reasons why working at a startup is a poor choice for most people. These are some pretty terrible reasons.</comment>