The underwater river - <AUTHOR> http://seawayblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/cenote-angelita-underwater-river.html <comment><USER2> Sort of same phenomenon actually happens in the ocean if I remember correctly.

When I was taking my diver's license some years back we were told that temperature differences in different water flows might also cause a visible layer between the two such flows.

The underwater world is amazing.</comment>


Merlin Mann: Better - <AUTHOR> http://www.merlinmann.com/better <comment><USER2> It's The Society of Drivel effect.

Morning radio shows on rock/alt stations perfected it a long time ago -- focus your segments around sex and alcohol. Throw in fart jokes too for good measure. Hoards of simple people will flock to you.

We've moved on though. More dangerous than airwave broadcast drivel is our newfound self-participatory drivel. reddit lets you think you're being clever. HN lets you think you're being smart. Brain rot personalized to your interests. It slips around your "I'm wasting my life" filters for hours (days?) at a time.

Sometimes it's good. You want to turn your brain off. Browsing reddit is cheaper than antidepressants. You just have to guard against too much looping. Infinite loops of social media consumption are hazardous to your health. Everything in moderation, including moderation.

All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.

<comment><USER3> I love it when I come to a thread, HN or reddit, and I read the first comment and think "Cool, I'm done with this topic, no need to read ay other comments. <clicks x>

<comment><USER4> Upvoted? Nope. Ctrl+W'd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it's a good time to reread <http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html> : ( _"A crap link is one that's only superficially interesting. Stories on HN don't have to be about hacking, because good hackers aren't only interested in hacking, but they do have to be deeply interesting."_ )

</comment><comment><USER6> This has been submitted to HN quite a few times. Here's the last one I personally remember: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1704931>

You can Google for "<http://www.merlinmann.com/better> site:news.ycombinator.com" for past discussions and thoughts.

<comment><USER7> I posted a reply to this that got auto-killed for some reason. Hilariously, that only reinforces the point I was hoping to make, which nobody will read. :-)

<comment><USER8> Obviously, it was auto-killed for the sex references. Because then it must be drivel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like reading people write about how people shouldn't write insignificant shit. While I agree with him, it's always slightly ironic.

<comment><USER10> Exactly. Navel gazing at its finest, something the Merlin does with some frequency. Though to his credit, he does do it well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is Merlin telling me to stop reading Hacker News?

<comment><USER12> I don't know about that, but anyone who writes a comment on this article totally missed the point.

Err.

<comment><USER13> or disagreed with it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very interesting to see this article on HN. Guess we're having a Merlin run here?

I'd actually go as far as to say that "Better" has shaped my thinking about social networking and the Internet in general. Attention is a finite resource -- even moreso for those who struggle to focus -- and as someone with an economics background I'm tempted to consider the marginal benefit vs. marginal cost of the things I read about on the Internet.

Usually these comparisons usually come out strongly negative, even when we're talking about Hacker News. We would get much more out of a chapter of CLRS or an OSS patch than something from Techcrunch or Daring Fireball.

Just something to consider.

<comment><USER15> You would probably like the economist Tyler Cowen's books. There are several but in one (I forget which) he goes so far as to say you should walk out of movies after 10 minutes if you aren't enjoying it and walk into the middle of another. Any other strategy is a waste of precious time.

He writes a ton of book reviews on his blog (marginal-revolution.com), but half the time the review is "I probably won't be finishing this one."

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Better is relative.

While I love reading well researched and thoughtful pieces on certain topics, I also like the fact that, for instance, on HN there are quite a few off the cuff "idea" posts that are half-baked but meant to inspire conversation and discussion than to be authoritative treatises on the subject.

Merlin wanted to stop consuming and producing half-baked ideas and content, and that is his call.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think part of this comes with age. We realize we don't have a lot of time left, we've accumulated a lot of cruft in our information input habits as well as in what we produce, and there's a strong impulse to focus. Writers and philosophers thousands of years ago were also complaining about this same thing and coming to the same conclusion.

</comment><comment><USER18> All I know is Merlin Mann became famous by selling productivity porn. Now he repents and he's a prophet?

</comment><comment><USER19> In a nutshell: We don't know our neighbors, yet we spend our time reading news about countries we'll never even visit.

<comment><USER20> Most people and most things aren't interesting, so I will be better of looking at what is than whom I have been randomly placed nearby.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Facebook is listening to your conversations - <AUTHOR> This happened in last 5 minutes.
Was speaking to a friend about Wix website builder. And within a minute in my FB news feed - I see Wix relevant link (link was from techcrunch: http://tcrn.ch/2jdnFeM)
The news item is published on Jan 19th i.e 6 days ago! I haven't seen that link in my last week of social media browsing. How did it all of a sudden became relevant ? Freaky! <comment><USER2> This was discussed a lot:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/5k4dn8/im_becom...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/5k4dn8/im_becoming_scared_of_facebook/) (6086 comments)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13252242](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13252242) (109 comments)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11833718](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11833718) (49 comments)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10360761](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10360761) (54 comments)

</comment><comment><USER3> I believe this has been discussed before, but it never ceases to amaze my wife and I.

We will be talking about, say suddenly needing new Swiffer pads. Face to face conversation, emergent and organic conversation, no prior searches in the last few weeks or anything like that. Then, next time you're scrolling through instagram, there is an Amazon ad for Swiffers.

<comment><USER4> I keep getting ads for plates of shrimp.

<comment><USER5> Stop calling people "fooking prawns" then!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I read last year accusations some android apps were in trouble for undisclosed listening to identify ads on television, that might be a good starting point for more information, it's technically possible something was listening.

[http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ftc-android- developers-a...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ftc-android-developers- apps-tv-listening-silverpush/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Wouldn't this waste a lot of bandwidth?

Or is it likely that the audio is being analyzed client side before pushing results to a server somewhere?

Also, if this was actually happening, should this be announced in some terms of service?

</comment><comment><USER8> For me it's not the question of whether they're doing it. Its technically feasible, so it's being done.

What interests me more is whether the broad user base cares enough to change their habits. Does it become freaky enough for them that they'll change the way the use the platform? (Doesn't matter if it's Facebook or any other website.)

</comment><comment><USER9> Same thing happened to me. I was eating Sunchips and then logged into Facebook to see an advertisement for Sunchips. Wouldn't be surprised that they're also watching us.

<comment><USER10> how often do you eat something, log into Facebook and not see an ad for that product?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Are you talking about Messenger in text, Messenger in voice/video, or face-to- face conversations? I'm reading some of these linked threads that suggest that the microphone is recording at all times.

<comment><AUTHOR> face to face

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's from Techcrunch not FB. They use retargeting/remarketing ads and sell this info back to Facebook. A lot of websites do that... It's actually easy to find out what people browse on the web only by looking at their FB news feed. If you see a birth control ad on your girlfriend's FB news feed - run away!

<comment><USER13> > If you see a birth control ad on your girlfriend's FB news feed - run away!

What?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why is that surprising though?</comment>


Drawing The Line Between "Peer-to-Peer" And "Jerk" Technology - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/start-ups/drawing-the-line-between-peertopeer-and-jerk-technology#.U8ljozhSp3Y.hackernews <comment><USER2> None of this is peer-to-peer, it's all highly centralized. "Jerk" technology is an indicator of gaps in the definition or enforcement or the law. In the case of Uber, there probably should never have been any distinction to the law between taxis that can be hailed and hired cars, for example.

There were no gaps in the law when it came to Monkey Parking.

<comment><USER3> Hence the scare quotes around "sharing economy" or "peer-to-peer". They're creating something that appears to be about people helping each other, but it's actually about a middleman sucking money out of those people.

<comment><USER4> It seems more like the middleman sucking queueing time away from third parties and converting it into money, really.

<comment><USER2> Either way, it seems like a middleman.

<comment><USER4> Sure, but you say that like it's a bad thing in itself. There's a long, long tradition (thousands of years at least!) of despising middlemen because their products aren't tangible. But they get rich because a connection through a middleman is _better_ than missing the connection in the first place.

<comment><USER5> Middle men are hated by those who see no value in human relationships. Otherwise the value is quite apparent.

<comment><USER2> You're talking about "middle men", I'm talking about "middleman." These services do not have middlemen, they have a particular middleman. Individual actors who choose middlemen to broker a deal with other individual actors is still peer-to-peer: take real estate for an example, or the stock market. Having to go through Bob in particular is centralization, and I don't think you can infer anything about my belief system when I tell you that if everything has to go through Bob, it's the diametric opposite of peer-to-peer.

>Middle men are hated by those who see no value in human relationships.

Thanks for thinking you know me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The question of "Does the seller actually own the thing being sold" is interesting. For example, I consider StubHub jerktech, even though the owner does indeed own the ticket. But encouraging people to buy up tickets for resale at markup seems jerky to me.

<comment><USER4> > But encouraging people to buy up tickets for resale at markup seems jerky to > me.

StubHub isn't doing that; the act (or venue) is. Knowingly selling something in bulk at 50% or less of its value is "encouraging people to buy up [the thing] for resale". They do it because they like packed houses.

edit: having read the article, it's striking that all three of these examples (entertainment tickets, public parking spaces, and restaurant reservations) involve valuable things being given away. It's difficult to complain that people who sign up for valuable freebies and resell them are "just being jerks"; even if Parking Monkey never makes its business work, and dies, it can perform the societally-valuable service of restructuring the parking situation generally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bring it on, many of these are great services.

I guess in today's economy being a jerk means understanding the time value of money.

Why is paying people to look for parking spots such a big deal? It reminds me of when the City of Vancouver arrested an old grandmother because she would go around adding nickels and dimes to people's parking meters.

If cities would invest in the kinds of infrastructure people actually want this would be far less of a big deal. Many people want parking spots, therefore if you reduce the number of spots it increases the value of them to the point where it becomes worthwhile to act as a parking scout.

</comment><comment><USER7> Big companies do this all the time. They skirt regulation, harm people, pay the miniscule fine, and keep on operating as if nothing happened. In most cases, limited liability means nobody goes to jail.

</comment><comment><USER8> Same two suspects (one of which has already agreed to desist) different article.

If you want to read about the parking guys and restaurant reservation guys again, read the article. But if you have already read 7 articles about how evil they are, you can safely skip this one as it has nothing new.

</comment><comment><USER9> Telling startups "Don't be a jerk" is premature optimization or at least foolish. "Everyone is a jerk" seems like much better advice.</comment>


Plane Finder - Track flights around the globe - <AUTHOR> http://planefinder.net/

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a similar project made by students at ZHAW (a swiss university of applied science) but only covering planes on swiss radars. Check it out here: <http://radar.zhaw.ch/radar.html></comment>


IOS jailbreak developers did it again - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAEeLwWzUcA

<comment><USER2> Is there a transcript somewhere? I really need a transcript to be able to remember anything :P</comment>


Ask HN: Would you be interested in Screenshot scrapping SaaS? - <AUTHOR> Let's say you have a desktop application form which you want leads.
I have this idea to build screenshot processing service that will extract data using OCR and presented it in tabular format that can be exported as excel.
Need feedback on this idea? Do you have a real world use case which image scrapping is the only option? <comment><USER2> The word is "scraping." A doubled consonant indicates a short vowel. "Scrapping" rhymes with "tapping." To scrap something is to break it down and discard it. To scrape in the context of scraping an image or web page is to extract useful information from a source whose medium isn't suited to extraction.

I see this all the time. If you're going to try to sell someone a scraping service, do take care to use the correct word.</comment>


A Theory of Mass Culture (1953) - <AUTHOR> http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/039219215300100301 <comment><AUTHOR> A discussion of the dynamics and impacts of an earlier era of mass culture, including political ramifications.

Source available via Sci Hub ([https://sci- hub.ac/10.1177/039219215300100301](https://sci- hub.ac/10.1177/039219215300100301)).</comment>


Climate change 'fraud' letter: a Martin Luther moment in science history - <AUTHOR> http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1019/Climate-change-fraud-letter-a-Martin-Luther-moment-in-science-history <comment><USER2> So a single scientist from an unrelated field (nuclear physics) unravels decades of study by climatologists, based on a contention that the energy industry side of the debate is the _under_ funded side?

Figures that the author of the article is a meteorologist. Meteorology is to climatology what day trading is to economics.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reading his resignation letter it's clear he's not even attempting to refute climate change. He's just attacking the methods and motivations used to prove it.

Frankly I find a stunning correlation between the popularity of scientific opinions, and their supposed 'truth'. Go back in time and I bet 99/100 scientists could prove the existence of God during the inquisition.</comment>


When to give up on your startup - <AUTHOR> https://ao.gl/when-to-give-up-on-your-startup/ <comment><USER2> Most of the items on that list would be better on a list of "when to give up on a product". But a startup isn't (necessarily) a single, specific product. In fact, I'd argue that you very much should _not_ see a startup as being strictly synonymous with any given product, even if you only have one product in development at the moment.

To my way of thinking, if the goal is to find "product / market fit" you can accomplish that by iterating on the market, OR the product. It's cliched to talk about "pivots" but you can try products other than the one you started out with. And you can keep trying until you either succeed, or are forced to quit by one of the factors like

 _You have lost the passion for doing the business and it's time to move on._

or maybe

 _You can't afford to run it anymore and it is starting to ruin your life._

Although on that latter one, you can potentially adopt the "keep the burn rate super low, and work a day job" model in which case literally "running out of money" probably won't be a problem. But burning out might be, and that could be a legit reason to walk away.</comment>


Advanced Image Optimization Tricks - <AUTHOR> http://sixrevisions.com/web-development/advanced-image-optimization/

<comment><USER2> _Gaussian Blur JPEG Optimization_

Blurring reduces noise/entropy so that JPEG compresses better. You can use a bilateral filter (Photoshop: Surface Blur; GIMP: Selective Gaussian Blur) for larger amount of smoothing while preserving edges.

 _Image Posterization_

This is actually called image quantization. pngquant[1] and pngnq[2] are two specialized open-source tools for automatically selecting the best palettes to represent the image with least perceptual error.

 _Selective JPEG Compression_

JPEGmini[3] automatically selects areas of interest with custom perceptual metrics and preserves quality within those areas while optimizing out other areas. I tested the sample image in the article: JPEGmini obtained 6.7% decrease in size without manually selecting the mask.

[1]: [http://pngquant.org/](http://pngquant.org/)

[2]: [http://pngnq.sourceforge.net/](http://pngnq.sourceforge.net/)

[3]: [http://www.jpegmini.com/main/shrink_photo](http://www.jpegmini.com/main/shrink_photo) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2940505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2940505)

<comment><USER3> Given that these techniques seem to be well-known, it would be interesting to see a JPEG compressor which uses what we know of human vision to minimize filesize while keeping the image visually the same.

JPEGmini seems to go partway with selective compression, but it seems like there's room to improve the actual compression algorithm to do things like gaussian smoothing instead of just truncating the high-frequency components to reduce filesize.

<comment><USER4> Well the whole point of a compression scheme like JPEG is to use what we know about human vision to minimize file size while not visually changing anything.

But JPEG is a pretty crude algorithm designed mainly to be computationally cheap [to match the capabilities of computer hardware in 1992 when it was created]. Trying to make better encoders within the limits of what JPEG decoders can handle is quite limiting, and yields only marginal improvements.

It's possible to do much better if we're willing to accept more CPU time spent in encoding/decoding using fancier algorithms. Unfortunately it's really hard to get traction for anything else, because the whole world already has JPEG decoders built into everything. For instance JPEG 2000, designed to be a general purpose replacement with many improvements over JPEG, is now 13 years old but used only in niche applications, such as archiving very high resolution images.

But for use cases where you control the full stack, better compression is quite viable. Video game engines for instance devote considerable attention to image compression formats.

<comment><USER5> I'm trying to write a better JPEG compressor: [https://github.com/pornel/jpeg- compressor](https://github.com/pornel/jpeg-compressor)

IMHO JPEG algorithm isn't crude. IMHO it's actually quite brilliant—simple and very closely tied to human perception. The core concept of DCT quantization hasn't been beaten yet—even latest video codecs use it, just with tweaks on top like block prediction and better entropy coding.

Wavelet compressors like JPEG 2000 beat JPEG only in lowest quality range where JPEG doesn't even try to compete. Wavelets seem great, because their blurring gives them high PSNR, but lack of texture and softened edges make them lose in human judgement.

<comment><USER6> I have tried your JPEG compressor. While it does make red less dull at 2x2 chroma subsampling, it does also blur red (or orange) into (white) backgrounds. IMO the sum is negative, at least with the particular image I tried.

I'm particularly interested in this because lossy WebP only supports 2x2 chroma subsampling. So any optimisation for JPEG could maybe also be applied to WebP.

I have made a topic about this once on the WebP group, which also has the image I tried with your compressor.

[https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/forum/#!topic/we...](https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/forum/#!topic/webp- discuss/ndtfez5-ZfM)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for trying it out.

With chroma subsampling there's tradeoff - either bleed black into color areas or bleed color outside. If have any ideas or know research on choosing when which option is best, then I'm all ears.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Selective JPEG Compression" was a new one for me.

For PNG, always run your images through ImageOptim ([http://imageoptim.com](http://imageoptim.com)) before committing your work.

And for large PNGs, ImageAlpha ([http://pngmini.com](http://pngmini.com)) lets you reduce bit depth, keep transparency and maintain a decent image quality.

<comment><USER8> > For PNG, always run your images through ImageOptim

Why only PNG?

<comment><USER9> I'm not the OP, but I've had trouble with the JPEGOptim feature of ImageOptim. It created JPEG files that crashed the JPEG decoder on some older android phones.

The files worked fine elsewhere, so I think it was an decoder bug not an invalid file, but I had to avoid optimizing JPEG files to avoid the problem.

This was about two years ago, so I don't recall version numbers or phone models.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> OK, interesting article and some quite effective tricks but this is not "optimization". Optimization means getting the best possible result from something, by some criterion. For example, blurring an image and then getting a bit better compression is not optimal. But if it could be shown that was getting the best possible compression for JPEG then it would be optimal.

The article should be called "Image Compression Tricks". I don't think any of the techniques are considered advanced in today's technology.

</comment><comment><USER5> Photoshop posterizes evenly and doesn't touch alpha channel.

It's possible to pick posterization levels more fitting the image:

[http://pngmini.com/lossypng.html#posterization](http://pngmini.com/lossypng.html#posterization) ([https://github.com/pornel/mediancut- posterizer](https://github.com/pornel/mediancut-posterizer))

</comment><comment><USER11> The example images they use are the ideal use cases for each of these techniques. The rocks photo has no hard edges. Wood texture by nature is similar to what posterization does. These tricks won't help in many cases. Although if you do happen to have something that fits the criteria, these should be quite useful.

</comment><comment><USER12> here's an older related HN post on a similar topic [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4623160](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4623160).

I again wish there was an Imagemagick/Graphicsmagick script to do this.

</comment><comment><USER13> advanced...really?

</comment><comment><USER14> I've read this 10 years ago.</comment>


FBI Warns of Russian Interference in 2020 Race and Boosts Counterintelligence - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/us/politics/fbi-russian-election-interference.html <comment><USER2> They have been meddling in other countries' elections for decades and only now realize the others might do it as well?

The pikachu meme seems more than appropriate here.

<comment><USER3> The FBI works within the USA. It would be the CIA that would does meddling in other countries' elections. Seems you have been spending too much time watching cartoons.

<comment><USER4> Last remark seems uncalled for and unnecessary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Fake news marathon from the 2016 election hasn't finished yet, but Deep State and their minions from the NY Times are already trying to start another campaign.

I wish there was some truth to it, because the US government is the worst election meddler (and let's not forget the wars and coups) in the history of mankind.</comment>


Making Informed Security Decisions - <AUTHOR> https://resonantcore.net/blog/2015/02/making-informed-security-decisions Hi mods! This doesn't display but I can still fill it in when editing. <comment><AUTHOR> If you're already a security expert, this is probably nothing new.</comment>


Extending Google services in Africa - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/extending-google-services-in-africa.html <comment><USER2> I traveled to Africa a few years ago and I remember being floored and a bit annoyed that after driving three hours into the jungle and the locals had perfect cellular reception. At this point my service back in the states didn't even work properly at my house in the middle of town.</comment>


Gamer Rewrites Valve's Steam Installer For Debian - <AUTHOR> http://www.thepowerbase.com/2013/03/gamer-rewrites-valves-steam-installer-for-debian/

<comment><USER2> I'm not a Debian user so I'd appreciate if anyone could shed some light on what's so wrong with Valves installer (it can't be that bad since there now seem to be packages available [0]) that made made it necessary to rewrite it instead of fixing it like the Debian guys seemed to do?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fixing stuff if you know how to do it but the first thing to do should always be trying to get it fixed upstream and/or by your distributions packagers. [0] <http://ftp- master.debian.org/new/steam_126.96.36.199-1.html></comment>


Ask HN: what code text editor do you enjoy the most? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Visual Studio (Javascript, C#, C++, etc).

I use Notepad++ for PHP but it is fairly bad. Eclipse for Java (Android) which is also fairly bad.

Never understood the appeal of using a console application for text editing (yes, I can use Vi fine). It is like tying one hand behind your back and then claiming it makes you "more efficient" once you learn how to do everything one-handed.

<comment><USER3> Most of Vim users use GVim, and Emacs defaults to a graphical interface.

<comment><USER4> Not necessarily I believe. That assumption is pretty much community, geography, age, OS, and niche dependent. I use - and have for at least 10 years - a combination of Vim, Tmux, and the usual linux utils under Zsh (I actually used screen for the first few years) for my text editing needs. That being said, I learned Vim in Linux at the same time I was learning C when I was a kid. I've noticed that generally people that started on the Rails bandwagon (which I love btw) or on OSX as their first dev platform use Mvim/Gvim. That said, I've noticed the more "unixy" people using Vim on a terminal. There are exceptions to both rules of course.

Not my intention to get a debate going about this though, just offering a slightly differing point of view.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Enjoy? Enjoy is an interesting way to think about it. I guess probably gedit. Just enough features to be useful. If I could print from sublime text, I might put in the effort, because it seems like I could enjoy it.

Notepad++ is my favorite in windows.

</comment><comment><USER6> TextMate 2 is awesome. I compiled it from the source on Github, so it was free, and I love the little features (like auto-indenting HTML tags and autocompleting brackets and the like) and the language compatibility and plugins.

</comment><comment><USER7> For several years I was using Notepad++ (and before that PSPad) on Windows and Gedit on Linux, but I recently switched to Sublime Text 2 on both platforms. I also use NetBeans, mainly for coding in Java.

</comment><comment><USER8> Emacs, but I start my students off using Sublime Text 2.

</comment><comment><USER9> Vim. But I'm a little bit confused when using vim with big file, it's getting slow. It'd be great if any of you guys already have the solution

<comment><USER10> Might be your term if its slow vim will be slower... For example Osx terminal.app is slow...

<comment><USER11> This slowness could also be due to keeping a swap/backup file. Maybe try switching that off.

For that poster above, I've never understood the appeal of gvim or macvim, I am very happy with vim in a console (with tmux.) Perhaps there are some plugins that work better under (mac|g)vim.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Vim, both in a terminal and in a GUI window. The learning was slow in the beginning but patience paid.

</comment><comment><USER13> Emacs

</comment><comment><USER14> Enjoy? Sublime Text 2.

Use most of the time? IntelliJ Idea.

</comment><comment><USER15> Komodo Edit is pretty good too. Have you tried it?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been coding for about 8 months and just used regular desktop notepad lol. So noobish but yea I'm trying to see what code text editor people recommend

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sublime Text 2 for Mac and Notepad++ for Windows.

</comment><comment><USER17> WingIDE for Python... Notepad++ for other tasks

</comment><comment><USER18> currently i like - brackets <http://brackets.io/> and xcode

<comment><USER19> Don't lie, nobody likes xcode

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sublime Text 2 for sure.

</comment><comment><USER21> MacVim

</comment><comment><USER22> vim, gedit

</comment><comment><USER23> Vim

</comment><comment><USER24> cat

</comment><comment><USER25> Kate. Simple and beautiful.

<http://kate-editor.org/about-kate/>

[http://lifehacker.com/5911460/the-best-programming-text- edit...](http://lifehacker.com/5911460/the-best-programming-text-editor-for- linux)

<comment><USER26> Do you hide the chrome? Don't know if I could work with that much chrome in my face.</comment></comment>


Stop Password Masking - <AUTHOR> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/passwords.html <comment><USER3> Usually this guy's observations are spot on, but this is just wrong. For instance, every time I give a presentation I usually have to login to a secure site. I'm almost always plugged into an overhead projector while I'm logging in.

So, not only is this guy suggesting websites change their technology, he's also suggesting users modify their behavior to be more secure.

Not going to happen.

<comment><USER4> > For instance, every time I give a presentation I usually have to login to a > secure site.

To be fair, he _did_ suggest that password masking was toggled by a checkbox that was ON by default.

<comment><USER5> It's just too easy to screw that up and despite the argument proferred there is no real benefit. If typing on mobile devices is hard it doesn't seem what we need to do is post our credit card numbers online.

<comment><USER6> I used to work as phone support for a webapp targeted at Real Estate Agents. 60% of our web + phone support requests were related to passwords. A third of those requests were errors due to misspellings.

An option to reveal the text of the password field would have a drastic effect on these support requests. It would lower calls and call times on these issues. Even if this 15-minute change only saved 30 minutes of support time a -year- this would be a net win.

You might not screw up passwords, but plenty of people do. I'm not suggesting to have it permanently visible, just the option to make it visible. This enables people with password issues to debug their own issues before resorting to a password reset or contacting support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> At least when _setting_ or _changing_ passwords, I would like an option to display them in clear text.

Slightly on-topic: I find it silly for a shopping website to display your complete credit card information in plain letters on screen, while masking your login password. The credit card info can be misused to empty your bank account, while the login password can be misused to ... what? Send obscene support requests and muck about with your digital shopping cart?

<comment><USER7> > Send obscene support requests and muck about with your digital shopping > cart?

That, and if your credit card is stored on their servers, which your statement implies, it'd be easy for me to buy stuff on behalf of you. Right now, I'm buying you a new 72 inch Plasma screen which you can't afford. Have fun returning it!

Of course, I could send that plasma to myself, but it'd be stupid of me to do so, since I'd be giving away my where abouts.

<comment><USER4> > if your credit card is stored on their servers, which your statement implies

No, I did not intend to imply that.

The places where I do most my shopping, I have to (or prefer to, in the case of Amazon) enter credit card information on a per-purchase basis.

<comment><USER7> I considered for a moment the possibility that you were referring to entering your credit card numbers without masking, and probably should have deduced that given the context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is very unconventional advise. But this is Jacob Nielsen talking on usability. What he says is generally backed by very extensive testing and way more usability experience than any of us on news.YC have.

You might not agree to unmask all passwords but why not this

> It's therefore worth offering them a checkbox to have their passwords > masked; for high-risk applications, such as bank accounts, you might even > check this box by default.

This is spot on as well.

> Password masking has proven to be a particularly nasty usability problem in > our testing of mobile devices, where typing is difficult and typos are > common

And on a mobile device, people snooping would be uncommon as well, so why mask passwords on mobile sites?

So please think hard on this, before you dissmiss this as stupid or untenable.

<comment><USER9> >So please think hard on this, before you dismiss this as stupid or untenable.

I have. This is stupid and untenable.

Problem one: Right now if I encountered a login form that didn't mask the password I would probably attribute this to incompetence, not usability. I don't think I'm the only one.

Problem two: Right now all login forms work the same. The top field is the username and under that is the password field. This would break that consistency by adding the "show (or hide) password" behavior. In his description he even suggests that some sites default to a different behavior based on some notion of degree of security. Now logging in with someone looking on becomes quite a bit more nerve-wracking because you need to figure out if the password field will disclose your password. This is less usable.

Now, where I think this may be useful is if it is added as part of the "invalid password" behavior. Offer to give the user help only if they need it. Provide them a button to show the password they entered, and allow them to try again underneath it to fix any typos or verify that they correctly entered the password they were thinking of. This helps the user without changing the way the login form operates in the default case where a correct password is entered (a password that's probably in the user's muscle memory because they use it for everything). I know I've actually seen this done somewhere, although I can't remember where.

Mobile is a bit different. I'm completely behind the times in using a mobile device to access the web, but I know that my terribly slow phone running its gimped browser (netfront, I think?) on its tiny screen quite a few years ago provided the option to display masked fields in the editor window it would switch to whenever filling out an input field. This seems like a better solution to this problem to me (and was almost a necessity on that device since it didn't have a proper keyboard).

<comment><USER10> I'm 100% in agreement with you here.

Mac OS X's Keychain Access has "show this password", and iPhone does masking but still shows you the last character you just typed for about a second.

I think these are both good compromises.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My God, do you even know who "this guy" is? Stop and give it a thought a bit.

He is right about the point, straight on. I've been thinking about implementing it on our web app at aleveo.com like that. Let me elaborate.

We all know that having a simple and usable register/login form increases signups. Let that aside, I've kicking out everything of our forms until really only the necessary. Among those things is the repeat password/email field, username (enough with those) etc. However, what if caps is on, or the keyboard layout is other and so on, the person will signup for your service, but next time he wants to login, if he is having issues with the form, you're done. He'll blame you, as he think he knows what he types as a password.

It is essentially wrong not to see what you are typing. If you noticed, Mr.Nielsen didn't go into implementation. He said that the concept is legacy. A good implementation would be having a checkbox next to the password field "[] show text" or similar, default unchecked.

An older person would definitively appreciate that, but it is not only for them, as it happens to me too (24 year old) to mistake until I figure out what I am really typing in (first keystroke swallowed, typing mistake, caps, wrong layout, etc)

<comment><USER12> He might well be an expert in UI but certainly is no expert in security - so I think he is broaching fields he is not qualified in :)

Regardless just because he is a well respected individual does not make all his ideas "the right way".

I think people are misreading what he said and making knee jerk reactions. But, for exampl...:

> password masking doesn't even protect fully against snoopers.

Seems an irrelevant point - he doesnt weigh the security tradeoff against the supposedly improved usability. I would argue that password masking is the #1 deterrent for _casual_ password stealers. Plus reading fast typed keys is a skill needing to be acquired. A determined thief will always find a way to get your password. The masking is deter the casual criminals (or just your co- workers etc!!)

> It's just you, sitting all alone in your office, suffering reduced usability > to protect against a non-issue

For a UI designer/engineer I think this shows a whole lot of ignorance about how people use computers... does he really imagine most people use their computer this way? really?

One important point he misses is that password boxes leap out at you BY being masked. This is an important UI concept because the user knows they are logging into something "secure". It is also the expected behaviour (for better or for worse); not _just_ a convention but an ingrained expectation! UI designers hardly ever break expectations like that in my experience ;)

In terms of not seeing what your typing: he should know a vast majority of people watch their fingers as they type. Knowing you made a mistake is a fairly natural process (yes, we have tested this).

He DOES have a very very good point about mobiles - this is a perfect example of where masking shouldnt be employed. And I suspect this is the main point he is making. But extending it to every format? No, that IS silly.

:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This guy must have been joking. The fact that HE always types his passwords alone in his office does not mean that any sane person would like a possibility that anyone ever has a chance to see his password. Apparently, some people are not always alone...

<comment><USER14> Yes, good luck to anyone in (a) an open-plan office or (b) an office with security cameras.

<comment><USER15> Are the security cameras trained on the screen or the keyboard?

<comment><USER16> Would you know?

<comment><USER17> And would you know if they just recorded the keys your fingers pressed?

I think Jakob is really onto something here.

<comment><USER18> They could record the sound of the keypresses too. They may be impossible to discriminate subjectively, but they all have a distinct signature...

<comment><USER19> Yep, see: <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~zf/papers/keyboard-ccs05.pdf>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> He is sure right about the reset button though. I can't be the only one who has entered a dozen or more fields only to lose it all with an inadvertent reset rather than submit.

Also, how about the iPhone compromise? It displays the last character you typed for only an instant.

<comment><USER21> "I can't be the only one who has entered a dozen or more fields only to lose it all with an inadvertent reset rather than submit."

The solution is obvious to me. If javascript is enabled, allow the user to undo a reset.

If javascript is disabled, don't show a reset button or make it harder to click accidentally somehow (make it smaller or a link or more out of the way).

</comment></comment><comment> mark-t I'm not willing to concede his point yet, but even if he's right, this should be implemented by the browser, not the website. And if you consider taking his advice, I suggest masking the password as soon as the input field loses focus.

</comment><comment><USER22> Combine this with the "remember password" feature of most browsers, and you have a real problem.

<comment><USER23> Browsers have to store the cleantext password and you can see them all here:

Firefox > Preferences > Secutiry > "Saved Passwords" -> "Show Password"

<comment><USER22> Of course, but it's highly unlikely you'd accidentally expose that page to someone. I was thinking more along the lines of letting your friend use your computer to check gmail, and whoops, there's your password already in the box.

<comment><USER24> Of course, but if I let my friend use my computer to check gmail, he or she could go to Firefox -> Preferences -> Security -> Saved Passwords and see all of my passwords anyway. By letting somebody use my computer, I'm implicitly trusting them to not misuse anything they might find.

<comment><USER22> The problem is it's no longer avoidable. A friend is unlikely to want to snoop on your saved password list, but can not avoid it when your password is already in the box, and they have to delete it to type their own in.

Anyway, the simple fix is to not show saved passwords in plain text.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> One of the most annoying offenders of this is the windows wireless configuration utility.

It refuses to let you see the WEP key that you are typing, but insists that you type it twice.

If it were something like "what is your favorite flavor of popsicls" and not "type this random 58 character sting of hex", then that might be acceptable, but it isn't. Really, who is going to be standing over your shoulder and memorize that?

/drives me insane

//iwconfig ath0 essid "blueberry struedel" key $foo ftw

<comment><USER26> "Windows"? "WEP"?

 _Current_ Windows (Vista) allows you to tick a box and see the WPA key as you type it (once) (it's masked by default).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think it would be good if browsers came with an option to mask or don't mask passwords. But I don't know if it would work, since the users who would find and change that option would be the heavy users, that have almost no trouble with passwords.

If only that option could be easily showed and asked for simple users: a little icon within password boxes showing if it's masked or not, and a hotkey / click on the icon to toggle it on/off.

<comment><USER5> Even if you could make it easy to find such an option, you'd just be giving the users the loaded gun to shoot themselves with.

<comment><USER28> Well that's actually their responsibility...

However they would appreciate the feature if they can't manage to make their password work (e.g. caps lock, different keyboard layout, etc.)

<comment><USER29> I was once typing in my password on a box I forgot I had converted to Dvorak. I was almost panicking because I was _so sure_ I was entering the password correctly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is totally ridiculous. So whenever my colleagues or students are working with me on something and I have login to my email or whatever system I need to get to, it's not bad enough that I have to feel uncomfortable that they can see my keyboard while I type my password but they can just look at it on the screen. I guess this is what happens when you actually let "usability experts" design your systems.

As for this "checkbox," how many users will unwittingly have their online identity stolen because regular users aren't thinking about whether they need to select some checkbox before they type in their passsword. Also, that seems more annoying than more usable.

As someone else mentioend, this makes "remember password" totally unworkable; though personally I don't like that feature either.

There is a difficulty in mobile devices but that is because typing on such devices is not really great in terms of usability.

The other thing is that I don't think there is much evidence that this is really a problem. The only "barrier" problem that people have observed is having to create an account in the first place, but that is a separate issue.

<comment><USER15> Yes, hidden by default would be better, even when the password is only protecting photos of my cat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Somewhat valid points... but for the most part not.

And although I'll probably be shot down for this:

The iPhone OS's method of displaying the last masked character briefly before masking it is probably the best way to handle masking.

</comment><comment><USER31> I look forward to the day when an option other than passwords become viable. Have you ever looked at a typical users password? Run john the ripper over you're users passwords field and prepare to be frighted. If you don't store them hashed just take a look at them.

The fact is we need a better option both for security and usability.

</comment><comment><USER32> Bad argument #1: Masking doesn't help since someone can just watch the keyboard or use some extremely complicated and expensive analysis to determine what you are typing.

Response: This is like saying locking your door doesn't help because someone can just get a bulldozer and push it in. Sure, it's true, but you aren't locking your door to make your home impenetratable. You're locking your door to prevent casual unauthorized entry. You don't want someone to just wander in while you're away and take things without having to do any work at all. And you don't want someone to just barge in without knocking (well you might, but it's a case for locking your door). Similarly, you aren't masking passwords to make it impossible for anyone to ever know your password. You're masking passwords so you can log in to your email in front of your friends without them getting tempted to use the information they gleaned.

Also, I can type faster than most people are probably able to read a keyboard (and my passwords are not words which makes them even harder to figure out), but there is likely no one on earth who can type faster than people can read.

\---

Bad argument #2: It's ok to unmask some passwords because the information isn't critical.

Response: Take the example of looking at pictures of your cat. Where are these pictures? Let's suppose they're on Flickr. Actually, it doesn't matter much. Now, does Flickr (or this other website) just allow you to view pictures? No, it also allows you to post pictures (I wouldn't want someone posting their porn pics under my account), chat with friends (DEFINITELY don't want to be impersonated there), and even CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD thereby stealing your account. If you're just talking about password protecting a directory on your computer with cat pictures, sure show the password... but anything this trivial wouldn't be password protected anyway. Simply put, if it's important enough to have a password, it's important enough to have that password masked. Otherwise, why have it at all?

\---

Excellent point: Since users DO use the same password for multiple things, you don't even know or control what credentials you are giving away. You may very well give away someone's bank PIN.

</comment><comment><USER33> My concern is that not using a standard HTML password field will break the 'remember password' functionality built into browsers.

When you log in to a site, all the major browsers automatically ask you if you want to save your password. But if you display the password in plain text then the browser doesn't detect it as a password... and it doesn't offer to save it for you.

So what is that likely to result in? • Users getting annoyed at your site, and thus lost business • Users writing down their password somewhere else, resulting in a loss of security

These outcomes are exactly the opposite of what Jakob Nielsen is trying to achieve!

</comment><comment><USER34> Just put a "show password" checkbox next to it and use javascript to change the input field type from password to text.

<comment><USER35> Yeah, that'd probably be a one-liner JavaScript. Something like:

      onclick="getElementById('pwd').type='text';"

But you'd want a bit more to toggle it. Still, maybe a slightly better way -- and a way to address the security issue at the same time -- would be to show the password when you hover over the field with your mouse. Is there a way to do this easily with JS?

<comment><USER34> You can do it in jQuery very easily. Give your password field the id of "hover-password" and add the following jQuery snippet:

      $(function() {
        $("#hover-password").hover(
          function() {
            this.type = "text";
          },
          function() {
            this.type = "password";
          }
        );
      });

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This will solve another issue related to passwords. Password confirmation. Displaying password in clear text removes the need for password confirmation field. This could be a worthwhile experiment.

<comment><USER12> That doesnt seem a sensible move to me. Clear text pass boxes with NO password confirmation removes the error checking from the machine to the user. We all know users are extremely error prone and bug ridden.

Why take the risk? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Summary: We have no data about this problem, nor our proposed solution.

"In most cases, however, users will appreciate getting clear-text feedback as they enter passwords."

If Nielsen had a mockup or something that we could all clearly see was a huge improvement, then sure, let's do it. A UI change this drastic should have an order of magnitude gain to it. Otherwise, move on to bigger fish.

</comment><comment><USER38> Sadly, my employer is going the opposite direction and planning to implement "strong user names" and mask both fields. This is in response to users with access to sensitive information leaving passwords written down near their workstations.

Clearly the answer is another password.

</comment><comment><USER39> Isn't there also a thing that password form fields can't be read by Javascript?

<comment><USER40> Nope, they can be - it's how things like SuperGenPass work. (Highly recommended btw)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Disagree. Even bullets shouldn't be displayed while the user types the password. Why should a security camera in an office know that the user's password length is ten, twelve or twenty nine characters?

<comment><USER15> If you have a well chosen password and it is that long, knowing how long your password is won't be enough for the office snoop to crack the password. I'd be more worried about the camera watching which keys I'm pressing.

On the other hand, if I start typing my password too soon after the login box appears on my laptop, it eats the first character. I would never have worked out why I was finding it so hard to login if the password box did not display bullets. (See also dodgy keyboards.)

<comment><USER41> Dodgy keyboard is a good point; makes for a compelling case in favour of bullets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Unfortunately usability doesn't necessarily coincide with security. If you have to choose between the two, security always wins.

<comment><USER28> I have to disagree. Who wins between usability and security depends on the application you're using/building.

Rarely there is one good solution to fit all problems.

<comment><USER42> While this is true. In the general case, if your application is required to be secure, its not a choice.

Don't get me wrong, usability is very important, but if your application has to be secure(and not having someone look at your password over your shoulder is a requirement), then how can you choose usability over security?

<comment><USER28> _not having someone look at your password over your shoulder is a requirement_

What I say is that sometimes this is not a requirement even if the website offers a login feature.

I guess that for my online mail client I would prefer to have a masked password field.

Now for my account at an online rss reader I actually don't care that much because there is nothing to protect (at least in my opinion) and no value for someone to steal and remember my password. Maybe however I still want to be protected against someone on the web who happens to have the same name as I do and wants to steal my account... However the probability for this guy to be over my shoulder is quite low.

Maybe this is all a question of personal interest. Some users will prefer usability over security while others will prefer the opposite no matter the application. If this is the case then I would vote for having the option to toggle between one and the other...

<comment><USER42> I think being able to mask and unmask your password with a checkbox is certainly viable(as long as the masking is the default). The problem lies not with users like you who have different passwords for different applications, the problem lies with users who have the same password for all applications.

That being said, that is probably beyond the scope of what the author is trying to address but is still always something to consider.

<comment><USER28> Fair enough. I agree that the website may expose a "global" password as you and another person said.

I guess I'll design my future login boxes with security enabled by default and unmask option for the responsible user who would need it...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I noticed that heysan didn't mask the password on their login page when using my nintendo dsi, incompetence or usability?

</comment><comment><USER44> This guy is just completely detached from real world...

</comment><comment><USER12> _The more uncertain users feel about typing passwords, the more likely they are to (a) employ overly simple passwords and/or (b) copy-paste passwords from a file on their computer. Both behaviors lead to a true loss of security_

And his solution is to present passwords in clear text?

Hmmm. That seems to be a mix metaphor of a message: lets prompt people to make a more secure password (arguably not going to have much effect) but then display it in clear text.

To me that seems a _true_ loss of security :)

EDIT: ignoring his point (b) because that is completely irrelevant - <USER2> text password boxes are no more or less secure than copy/pasting the password. BUT your not giving the user the choice - every user has that bit less security, not just those copy/pasting.</comment>


Ask YC: Do you love or hate software piracy? - <AUTHOR>

There are 2 sides:
Side-1 says that piracy can have its benefits over the long run. Because people will get used to using the pirated s/w and over time those using pirated software will eventually convert to licensed software. Pirated s/w also creates brand awareness and popularity of the s/w. Microsoft would not have become popular giant if there was no piracy as their s/w  are expensive to begin with (especially in 3rd world countries). BRIC countries has the biggest pirated s/w users, but at the same time today they are the biggest market for legal s/w, if people didn't had an option to use pirated s/w then they wouldn't be knowing about that particular s/w, hence no revenue for that s/w company.
Side-2 says that stopping piracy will generate an additional tens of thousands of new jobs, billions in economic growth, and millions in tax revenues for each country. (though no one explains how and from where these numbers came from).
What's your take??????? <comment><USER2> I put myself through university and gained extensive skills using pirated software. At the time I decided I would do what needed to be done and because I could. I resolved however to get licensed copies once I was working.

7 years later I have an annual budget of £2.3 million and am responsible for buying decisions relating to the software we use. Autodesk, Macromedia (until a while ago) and Adobe have all been represented largely.

All I can say is that at the time, I used software piracy to my advantage - now I am trying to repay my debt.

<comment><USER3> Amen do that! I would have never learned Photoshop or Dreamweaver without pirated software. This was me in college. Doing that under your own company would be a bad thing to do. Don't risk it unless your using the software for personal education gain.

<comment><USER4> The upside to buying software as a student is that these companies sell them with a massive discount..or give them away for free. The downside being it's usually only for noncommercial usage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Overheard from This Week in Media (<http://www.pixelcorps.tv/this_week_in_media>):

Post-production houses and graphical design companies often demand that all job applicants already have Photoshop experience. Yet for someone who doesn't already have a job, they can't afford Photoshop in order to get experience. The unspoken industry solution is that everyone has a pirated copy of Photoshop for personal use.

Also mentioned is that the big 3D modeling/rendering packages that _everyone_ uses for production work (3D Studio, Maya, and LightWave) also happen to be the most pirated 3D software. Coincidence? Is the dog wagging the tail, or is the tail wagging the dog?

<comment><USER6> Many jobs also require college degrees, yet it isn't an unspoken industry solution for first-time job applicants to lie on their resumes because they couldn't afford to go to college. So this "unspoken industry solution" of pirating Photoshop strikes me more as a rationalization for why someone wanted to pirate rather than an explanation of why they needed to pirate.

(Never mind that art schools cost a lot more than Photoshop, teach Photoshop, sell Photoshop at discounted student rates, etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This subject comes up every month or so, and every time I give my opinion which is always in the minority. Sometimes I think I'm the only one. So once again, as I prepare to get downmodded into oblivion, here goes...

You forgot Side 3 - I hate software piracy because it's wrong. Period. It's unethical, immoral, and illegal. And it's that simple. I don't even consider either of your 2 choices because both sidestep the question of right or wrong to examine other issues. This is situational ethics.

In all the years I've been in business, my number one concern has been ethical issues. The partner who disconnected his speedometer to increase his resale value. The vendor who raised his prices to get a personal "kickback". The employee who downloaded a customer list and sold it to a competitor. I could go on and on and on...

I've seen stuff like this so many times, and I ask the same question every time, "If they will compromise their ethics on something small, where do they draw the line?" I've seen multi-million dollar deals scuttled because someone didn't trust someone else because of their personal behavior on a "small" issue like this. Don't let yourself fall into this trap. It simply isn't worth it to save a few bucks.

I've heard all the counteraruments. "It's no big deal." "Everyone does it." "It's not hurting anybody." "I'll never get caught." Or the worst one of all, "They've already ripped me off, so I'm just getting them back." And you know and I know and everyone here knows it's all BS. We're just making excuses for what we all _know_ is wrong.

Almost every proprietary software vendor has a complimentary "developer version" or a very cheap "student version". There are many other ways to get access to software or music without breaking the law or compromising your ethics. But a lot of us are just too lazy to take advantage of these things.

I would expect the Hacker News community, of all places, to be especially sensitive to this issue. After all, we are smart, hard working people who make software. But it seems like I'm always in the minority on this one.

So before you click that down arrow on this old prude, can I ask one question? Does _anyone_ agree with me?

<comment><USER8> > Does anyone agree with me?

The law doesn't even agree with you. Copyright is not a natural right, it's an exchange of monopoly for the hope that your artistic achievement will advance the natural arts of our society. If the terms of that grant are onerous and society derives no benefit from it, then it is not immoral or unethical for society to revoke your monopoly.

In this case, if everyone is pirating, then it's absolutely moral for an individual to do it.

<comment><USER7> "The law doesn't even agree with you."

My lawyer would beg to differ with you.

"Copyright is not a natural right"

Neither is land ownership.

"In this case, if everyone is pirating, then it's absolutely moral for an individual to do it."

Thanks for the new counterargument. This one is even better than "They've already ripped me off, so I'm just getting them back." I guess I'll be using it in next month's post.

<comment><USER9> Land is a rivalrous good, whereas most digital products are not.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_>(economics)

Some information goods are excludable, but not easily, and less so with fast internet connections. This pushes them towards the category of 'public goods':

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

Copyright is "legislated exclusion":

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions>

Anyway, copyright is a compromise, and I agree that people should respect the law, but the law should also change to fit the facts. The Mickey Mouse copyright extenions, for example, are what might be described in technical terms as "a load of horse shit". 100 years is way too long. I think that we should look at how to rejig the compromise, without eliminating it completely, for the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "though no one explains how and from where these numbers came from"

I think those are just poor understanding of economics. Hope I don't say anything incredibly stupid, but the money has to come from somewhere. It seems more likely that the economy would suffer if more people would pay for software, because doing business would become more expensive. Or maybe it is just zero-sum (either the pirates get to spend the money, or the software vendors, but no additional wealth is being created).

Not saying I would decide for 1 or 2. Morals are a difficult issue. Is something immoral, just because it is against the law? What if I don't agree with the law? I am from Germany, so I have been taught that there can be times when the laws themselves are immoral.

I can't blame some poor 3rd world person to pirate a game or a movie that they otherwise would never be able to afford - I don't see the loss for the vendor? The usual counter is "games and movies are not essential for living", but I don't agree. I think people's lives should be worthwhile, too.

<comment><USER11> by the way law is sometimes created by the lobby - in short people who are going to gain a lot ... they own the politicians and make a law , which sometime is not acceptable by general public ... if a particular law is going to impact masses then why not to have referendum before making and passing a bill to create a law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've seen a similar argument when used with music: people download music, share it, and the pirated band sells more CDs as they gain fans (questionable) and draw bigger crowds (much more likely and doesn't help the record company in anyway).

However, unlike that, I think Side-1 has pretty strong merit - especially with the widespread availability of pirated software and the amount of people in college who want to use the software but can't afford it. If the software companies REALLY wanted to buck the trend, they'd license education software A LOT cheaper than it is right now. When I was in undergrad, I could buy Windows XP, Office, and Visual Studio anywhere from $10-20. I bought all three and never had to pirate a single piece of MS software.

<comment><USER13> I could download a lot of MS software for free because they have a partnership with my university.

I even used it to get WinXP to play some games. It's kind of strange to have a burned CD-R lying around - that is actually a legitimate copy.

<comment><USER4> I don't think it's strange.

The odd thing is I have literally a dozen legitimate serials (at the least) of Windows XP through MSDNAA and other sources, but I will still install a pirated copy with an activation crack. It's just waaaaayyyy less hassle in every way (plus the downloads tend to be slipstreamed with the latest updates, which is something I'm too lazy to do on a regular basis).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> An example of how piracy helped a company: Macromedia.

Back in the 90s Adobe didn't had trials for their software on their website, and the software was usually lots of MB. Compare that to the old 30MB download of a Dreamweaver trial that you could easly find a crack off. If Adobe had done the same with GoLive (former Cyberstudio) at the beginning they would probably have owned the WYSIWYG HTML editor market.

Also with some different apps, tough Adobe's Livemotion never was a true competitor to Flash.

</comment><comment><USER15> regarding side-1: I started out as a windows user using pirated copies in india... this discouraged me from using linux for quite some time, as we used to have phone modems and bandwidth was pathetic... one day i got a mandrake linux cd with a magazine... it was great fun using it, but gnome sucked then, but now i prefer linux over windows. so for windows at least, side-1 did not have any benefits. in fact, windows helped me start using computers and i 'converted' to linux!

i had another question: suppose a person cannot check out a book from a library (copy is out), so he downloads an ebook off the net and reads it, then deletes the copy as soon as he obtains the copy from the library.... so what effect did this 'piracy' have on the book producer? the book is _quite_ old and i doubt whether the author (hint: amoeba) would be getting any big royalties on the book....

</comment><comment><USER16> Why do you want my opinion?

<comment><AUTHOR> 2 sides of the coin, it would be interesting to know which side is shinier for you :) if you were microsoft or oracle or ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Love. Read "Pirate's Dilemma." Pirates are good for capitalism, good for society, good for the world. Anyone who stands in their way must die.

</comment><comment><USER18> Ask YC: Which is better, Pepsi or Coke?

<comment><USER10> I prefer battery acid. (Edit: upvote if you think battery acid is better than coke and pepsi)</comment></comment>


Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful - <AUTHOR> http://zgp.org/targeted-advertising-considered-harmful/ <comment><USER2> > Why aren't users saying, "There's a magic machine in a data center that will > only show me ads for stuff I really want to buy? Better turn off the ad > blocker!"

Regardless of the technical and privacy reasons for blocking, I just don't want to buy anything. I had no thought of a particular product before seeing the ad, and no thought afterword of buying it, despite its being just right for me.

I just don't want anything, other than food, clothes when mine wear out, and occasional specific purchases like a car or a book (that I knew I wanted on my own).

I think a big part of not wanting anything is that I don't watch cable or broadcast TV, just movies on Netflix or Vudu. I've inadvertently unconditioned myself from the purchase response. I'm almost sickened on the rare occasions when I see broadcast TV. "Really? I used to watch this constant, animated catalog of product? Bleah!"

<comment><USER3> > I just don't want to buy anything.

But you still do. And you are susceptible to advertising signaling.

You buy toilet paper, shampoo and soap (I hope), laundry detergent, gas, coffee (presumably), personal ailment products and so forth. There is no way anyone could possibly research every category products they buy. So you will use what information you have available to you...and that is probably the memory of certain brands spending a dump truck's worth of money on advertising.

<comment><USER4> > But you still do. And you are susceptible to advertising signaling.

I honestly don't understand the confidence with which people claim this is universally true for absolutely everyone. I have no doubt that many or most people fall back on brand recognition, but it's really not that hard to avoid. To be clear, I don't doubt that brand awareness is driven largely by advertising, but no one has ever made a good case to me for why that necessarily affects purchase.

When I buy a commodity item (soap, tp. etc), I usually buy the cheapest one that I haven't already found to be lacking (or if I hit upon a particular product that I found works well for me, I continue buying that). When I buy a big ticket item, it's almost by definition worth spending an hour doing research on, and for expensive items there are almost always ample reviews and articles representing both sides[1].

[1] I'm aware that ethics breaches like undisclosed payola have the ability to corrupt this line of investigation but it doesn't have to do with susceptibility to advertising signaling.

<comment><USER5> Because your brain's a sponge, and all that stuff gets into your subconscious and affects your decision-making. In your examples given, it colors your perception of which products 'work well for you' and it biases that research you do for big-ticket purchases.

Studies have demonstrated it time and time again -- if you think you're unaffected, well, maybe you're _less_ affected by most, or maybe you're engaging in wishful thinking.

<comment><USER6> Sure, the brain is a sponge and remembers many things which you're not consciously aware of. Those memories can affect your decisions. So far, so good. But... and there is a big 'but' here...

Advertising does not always have the desired effect. I generally avoid commercial content - whether it be printed advertisements, sponsored content or otherwise - but it is nearly impossible to avoid being exposed to some commercial content, whether I like it or not. Those advertisers which, through sheer tenaciousness or downright trickery manage to make their way into my consciousness might not like what their presence there does: it actively lowers my perception of their products as viable choices. To me, advertising is like mould on a piece of bread, like slimy threads in a bottle of beer, like a wriggling meal worm in a bag of flour. It does many things, but it does not make me want to buy the related product. I probably conditioned myself to behave like this due to my dislike of the dishonesty in advertising, but this is less relevant. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one out there who reacts like this. Mentally connecting a brand or product to a piece of advertising just makes me think it is of low(er) quality, over-priced, designed to fail or otherwise deficient as the manufacturer needed to whittle down on production costs to pay for said advertising. It might not be true, but to me it feels like it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am visibly frustrated with this article. It attempts to paint a proliferation of ad blocking as a measure by users to take back their privacy.

But it totally ignores the proliferation of defensive software to protect users from malicious ads that attempt to trick or confuse the user, many of which are funded or provided by the very agencies interviewed. The web without an adblocker can be a very dangerous place and users are becoming educated on this.

Ignored also is any not that the signal is confounded further by people seeking to avoid *-roll ads on video media, a market with amazing growth but positively miserable tools for unobtrusive advertising largely chained to the expectations of legacy media. YouTube is 10x better with adblock letting you bypass the same 15s shotgun preroll ad 16 times a day.

It also heavily biases the reasoning towards older people with a heavy stake in expensive and smaller log advertising. And all due respect to Doc Searles (SBLUG for lyfe!) and other sources, they're not 19yr old with what amounts to a substantial shift in privacy values and expectations informing their decisions.

Most toxic of all, this article implies that advertising overspend is the important part. While banks and other vendors have recognized this effect, its in no one's long term best interests to continue to feed that trend. It is tool that large institutions use to lock out small business by implying cash flow = confidence. We really don't want to encourage a world where you have to behave like Samsung to succeed even at a small scale.

I've resisted restarting my blog but ugh... I'm tempted to pull together some opposing data just to sock this pro-old-media anti-technology screed in the chin. It's just such an obviously disingenuous take on the situation.

<comment><USER8> I adblock so that pages take 1/10th the time to load as they would otherwise, don't block me from seeing content, and don't irritate me by playing sound or animations.

The other factor I see is that most ads are terrible. Most YouTube ads seem to think that they have 30 seconds to tell a story, and try to do so. No, you have 5 seconds to hook my attention. Some ads actually succeed at this and I watch the whole thing just to see what they're saying. Most start out with a slow pan across a horizon or some kids running around a house making noise, and I click Next before I have any idea what the ad is even remotely about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's true what it says about the purpose of advertising, and how it needs to be expensive to work; and the cost of advertising online keeps getting lower and lower. However I'm not sure stopping targeted ads will magically solve everything and make online ads as profitable as traditional ads; I'm sure most people block ads because they don't want to see them, not because they are targeted. Maybe online ads should be like traditional ones: ads being more expensive the more traffic the website gets; so having a banner in a very popular website should be the equivalent of having a billboard in an important avenue. So cost should be per view, and not per click. After all most of the most expensive ads in traditional media are there to establish a brand, not for you to buy something right now.

</comment><comment><USER10> Inb4: "Considered Harmful" Essays Considered Harmful - [http://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html](http://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html)

<comment><USER11> Nerd clickbait!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The spam analogy for targeted ads is a really bad one, I think. Spam became popular for senders because it was extremely cheap to reach millions and millions of people. Over time costs did grow a bit, because of the effectiveness of filtering, but at the same time if it's unlikely for your spam to be ready, how much would you be willing to pay for it? Not that much, hopefully.

Targeting does not necessarily reduce the cost of ads - for very valuable users the cost of an extremely targeted ad can be quite high. The question is then what happens to the total cost of the campaign. The article seems to imply that the cost of the campaign is low for low-quality sellers, and this is why targeted ads become a bad signal for buyers. But online ads are very often performance tracked, and the entire reason that some demographics are so expensive is that the ads to them perform well. If an ad is measurably giving a high-return on investment, then the advertiser should be pouring as much as they can into the campaign, which implies that campaign budgets for some targets go up, not down, and the quality signal to buyers should be higher, now lower.

So it seems like as targetting differentiates by consumer, it also differentiates by seller. The ad networks also allow choosing which publications to target, and higher quality publishers do cost more. So given some self-awareness about your own value for a given target and the quality of the publication you're reading, you could (given the signaling theory of ads is correct) get a better signal in many cases.

</comment><comment><USER13> If we reject the author's claim that the purpose and value of advertising is solely a signalling mechanism similar to a peacock's feathers, then the entire argument fails.

<comment><USER7> And it's a very skewed perspective that would raise that, as any small business owner can tell you. It is not even the faintest exaggeration to say that every intentionally publicly facing point of information is advertising for every company of one sort or another, even down to things like office location, retail store location, and employee hiring practices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Too bad 99% of the effort in the Valley is focused on this question. Hey, its almost as if the interests of capital are generally antithetical to the desires of most of humanity.

</comment><comment><USER15> 1\. People care about how much they think an advertiser is spending on ads? Really?

2\. I had my ad-blocker turned off for quite a while. I turned it back on when I was watching lots of short youtube videos, and seemed to be getting almost more video ads than actual content. If there was an option for "only block ads on these sites" (as opposed to "only _allow_ ads on these sites"), I'd use it.

3\. I don't care what some bigco that thinks I'm one data point out of a few million thinks about me. I would care what targeted ads (or content) show up if I'm doing something in an in-person-social context. So if I sign up to give a talk at a local UG, or go to a hackathon or something, I have a second browser that's not used for irrelevant stuff. And so doesn't have tracking cookies (including login cookies for anything social).

<comment><USER16> In regards to your first point,

Imagine you are in the market to buy a new phone.

Two flagship devices just came out, one from a well estaished brand that is a solid contender, and another from a company that is new to smartphones and had traditionally competed in other product areas.

The new entrant's product is superior and priced competitively.

You read that the established player is spending a record 300 million on advertising for their latest flagship. Meanwhile the new entrant, despite having a large corporation behind it, has not made any major announcements about its ad campaign, nor for that matter have you really heard much buzz outside of enthusiast circles.

At some point you'll realize the new product is DOA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Why doesn't Apple's browser "help you connect and share with your favorite > brands"?

Perhaps they are building such a system behind the scenes. Of course, all confined to the boundaries of their own ecosystem (the app store / itunes / and perhaps paid-for ads) Who knows what the future might bring to iOS users.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't mind high quality brands advertisement being displayed on pirate and even porn websites.

What I do mind is "one magic trick to lose fat" advertisement displayed on most popular, high quality websites.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you ask somebody if they want personalized ads, of course they say no. That sounds creepy.

But in reality, those ads work, which means that people are more likely to make a voluntary economic transaction after seeing them than they would be in the base condition.

So this comes down to: do we believe what people say... or what they do?

<comment><USER20> You're missing a case, which is the one I fall into. I recognize that ads work and I don't want them too.

This is why I indiscriminately block or avoid them whenever I can. I would like to believe that I'm above the influence of ads but I'm not and I seem to have no control over my or my children's exposure to them. Sure, I could just not use the internet but that's only a small portion of the ads I see everyday; I can't watch TV, listen to radio, read newspapers or magazines, hell I can't even go out in public without being bombarded with them!

But on the internet I have at least a few tools to fight back, but they're slowly being eroded now that advertisers are paying for content itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Such an imaginative title.</comment>