Merrell Trail Glove Failures and Minimal Running in a Communist Shoe - <AUTHOR> https://blatanterror.com/2018/02/08/merrell-trail-glove-failures-and-a-minimal-running-in-a-communist-shoe/ <comment><USER2> I really liked the Merrill hikers I started buying about 10 years ago. I wore out about 4 pair over the course of about 6 years. Then they quit making them and the next time I tried to buy a pair of Merrill's none of them were near as good.

There were a lot of discussions on a backpacking forum I belong to about this and the universal consensus came to be that Merrill was no longer a shoe we could recommend. As they got more popular their quality receded and I and others really mourned that.

Before we started buying Merrill's we bought aftermarket insoles for our shoes and many of us are back to doing that again. But you can do that with a lot less costly shoe and Merrill offers no real advantages right now over some of those cheaper shoes.

Selling a cheaper made shoe for the same premium price may have increased their profits a bit in the short term, but that cost them a huge amount of good will.

You cannot fool hikers or runners with inferior quality and they don't care what your logo looks like. Reputations rise and fall with them and Merrill has lost theirs.

<comment><USER3> second to that. I had many pairs of Merrills. The last pair lasted ~6 months, and the interior fabric had torn apart and the padding was entirely ruined. I don't even exercise that hard, and I don't pronate. the sole wear was fine, but the uppers were ruined.

<comment><USER4> I'm sad to hear my recent bad Merrills we're not a one-off. I know people who swear by Keen, but I can't stand the toe box. Might have to try to get used to it for the next pair.

<comment><USER2> I bought a pair of Keen's after I quit Merrill. They lasted a long time, close to two years of pretty heavy use and gripped very well, but they needed an aftermarket insole right out of the box and cost about $140 or more. They were good shoes but were never close to as comfortable as the old Merrills.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I run relatively regularly these days. My journey of running started with a marathon. I went from nothing to marathon in 6 months, with lots of training, weight loss (healthily because I still love to eat), and stamina increases. But after the marathon, it took over a week to walk normally again. Long runs sucked, and I really began to hate running. Running shoes were killing me, and I hated the idea that the shoe was there to help cushion the foot fall.

Then a friend encouraged me to try vibrams. And suddenly I fell in love with running again. I have huge calves, and these helped tone them a lot more, but now my strike is mid-front, and it's comfortable to go 4-6 miles (though I struggle keeping pace with my dog).

We have a wonderful suspension system built into our bodies, but it only works correctly when applied correctly. We do not strike the ground the same when running as when walking. And Vibrams taught me quickly to strike differently (especially if I wanted to avoid really sore heels). The springiness of running on our feet transfers to our ankels to our knees to our hips to our back. I'm not an expert, and I know others can run with a rear strike, but for my body shape and what I've learned to run with, the front strike was important and I have Vibram FF to thank for it!

<comment><USER6> i love low drop shoes for normal day to day wear - i hate feeling padding under my feet (original chucks) but i wore vibrams for 6 months and got to about 6 miles on em before i gave up out of pain on my tarsals and metatarsals. if you're running on cement (which most of us are) you just can't do it in vibrams. i still toe strike but in regular trainers.

<comment><USER7> I run regularly on cement with my vibrams. You have to build up to it, and you can get minute stress fractures in your foot while getting to that level. Traditional shoes protect your feet from so much of the stress that most people aren't physically prepared to just switch to a minimalist shoe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My friend, the company you need to go visit is Vivobarefoot. They are not as cheap as your Chinese shoe, but they are the wide-toebox, no-support, tough- as-nails-soles that you have been looking for.

      https://www.vivobarefoot.com/

Because of them, every shoe that I wear for _every_ occasion can be minimal and I get to feel everything under my feet everywhere I go. I even have fancy black leather shoes for special occasions.

They are wonderful.

<comment><USER9> Those prices are astronomical, though. $240 for a pair of shoes, when according to the author of the original article, something that serves the purpose is available for a dollar a pair?!

<comment><USER8> You get what you pay for. These shoes last a very long time.

If you are timid about the price, they have regular clearance sales about twice a year, usually about 40% off. Just get on their mailing list. And buy quick as soon as the sale occurs!

<comment><USER10> I got my current pair on sale a couple of years ago and they are not dead yet (although fairly light use), but this year they didn't have any in stock of more than six styles I checked within hours of the sale announcement. I emailed them and they said they had been out for months. So sleazy advertising and expensive and most of the styles look horrible IMO (and, as the article complains, any style you like will no longer be made once you need another pair), but good shoes.

I'll keep an eye out for the cloth shoes. Not many options for thin sole shoes. Concrete can be horrible on shoes with softer soles, however, and the Vivobarefoot soles are the best thin soles I've seen for use on concrete.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm surprised that the author went with the vapor glove over another version of the trail glove.

I was another one of those that loved the first version. Ran them through multiple spartan races, half marathons, etc. They lasted a good 2 years before the sole really started to wear through. I remember looking for the next version during that time and seeing they were not continuing with the line. But they must have changed their mind, because they eventually came out with the trail glove 2.

I'm currently running with v2, with about a year of minimal wear on them, although it's mostly been weight training and 4 mile runs. They also seem to be continuing the line as it's now on v4. It would be interesting to see if there is any consistency on wear through the versions.

</comment><comment><USER12> Just a few days ago I was remembering a pair of these that I picked up back in the eighties for… a school play? I liked them so much that I wore them until they disintegrated.

We picked them up from a martial arts store (this was during the Karate Kid fad), and sure enough, a quick search for "kung fu shoes" on Amazon is all it took, $10. I'm going to grab a pair as soon as spring rolls around…

<comment><USER13> Cool! After reading this article I clearly remember buying "Kung-fu shoes" in DTLA/Chinatown as a kid, they were a couple of bucks a piece and probably my favorite shoes at the time.

I also clearly remember they did very little to protect your feet from the black asphalt playground heat in the middle of summer, lol.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm not a runner but I am a hiker and what I learned was to buy resoleable boots (obviously this opinion is of no value to runners).

There are lots of decent midpriced boots but all have the soles glued on. Typically they don't even last 1000 miles before they wear out and need replacement. The problem is that by then they have adjusted properly to my foot!

Now i've had the same boot for almost a decade, having been resoled four times. (in that time my dog has gone through about 10 sets of boots)

<comment><USER15> Brand recommendations? The last three half hight hiking shoes I've bought have fallen apart in months...

<comment><USER14> Well I personally don't believe in hiking shoes; I like a solid boot with ankle support, and find the hiking shoes sacrifice performance.

Yes, they are heavy, but they protect me from all sorts of absurd trail problems (ice, rocks, mine tailings, "punji sticks", weird grades and rock edges, etc). The stiffer sole prevents arch fatigue.

(Trick, which I did first for my off the shelf Asolo boots: I had the cobbler take them apart and put in a device that was basically a plastic half pipe with a flat plate at one end. The plate went above the boot sole and under the internal sole (under my foot) and the half pipe ran up the back of my ankle. Gave be a lot of additional stability on uncertain ground and prevented pronation). Even those Asolos were only about $300 and lasted a few years; I had the sole repaired at about 400 mi and then tried again, fruitlessly, after another couple of hundred. But they were super comfortable.

I had my boots custom made from a guy I met through my (then) local camping store in the Prenzlauer Berg. Cost about 1000 Euros. Sounds like a lot but on a per mile basis they have been cheap and they fit my feet like a glove.

Your best bet would be to talk to your local cobbler (what repairs can they make?) and your camping store because you need a local network who can support your boot. Also Dave Page in Seattle is THE GURU hiking boot cobbler and may recommend something. I have found the uppers of Asolo and Vasques boots to be outstanding, and I use a pair of modified Asolos as my jungle boots.

Oh, and despite what I said about hiking "shoes", I did hike from yosemite to the desolation wilderness (tahoe-yosemite trail) in Chaco sandals which have _no_ ankle support. I wouldn't do it again, and all my toes ended up bloody, but it was actually pretty good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've been a minimalist runner for about a decade at this point. Merrell disappointed me in this exact same way. They also used to have a zero drop gore-tex shoe for running in snow that they discontinued.

My best solution has been to turn towards running sandals. I've done a lot of barefoot (foot to ground) running, but the sandals provide enough protection from hot pavement and rocky trails. Also, the main reason I've had to throw away my minimalist shoes is due to how bad they smell after a while. That's not a problem with sandals.

There's a great company based out of Santa Cruz called Shamma. Leather straps and made to order for $70. I get a few thousand miles out of them. I've done hundred mile stretches on the PCT in them and even ran a 50 mile race in them. And I swear to god I do not work for the company. [https://shammasandals.com/](https://shammasandals.com/)

</comment><comment><USER17> A couple of people have asked me separately about where I found these on Taobao. Here is a link: [https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=a230r.184.108.40.206cc5590...](https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=a230r.184.108.40.206cc5590iVkkiR&id=537578442226&ns=1&abbucket=17#detail)

I'm not sure it was this particular buyer I bought from, but they are approximately this. Beware, it's pretty difficult (read near-impossible) to buy off taobao without chinese because the seller will expect that you chat with them about the purchase before they ship.

</comment><comment><USER18> The author is incorrect - his shoe is a Vapor Glove 2, not a 3 - as evidenced by the design and clearly visibly label.

And the Vapor Glove is definitely not a follow-up to the Trail Glove, it's a different shoe. Merrell still makes Trail Gloves (though yes, the design has changed both for better and worse). I'm currently considering the Trail Glove 4.

</comment><comment><USER19> Last year, I bought two pairs of Merrell boots: A "normal" pair and a winter pair (bit more insulation, and some extra-grippy bits on the soles).

Unfortunately, trial in the store was not long enough and/or was too distracting, but on both -- different models -- the "box" of the left boot is narrow than that of right. And over the course of a few hours and/or more extensive walking, this causes my left foot to hurt from the constraint. Meanwhile, my right foot is perfectly cosy and fine.

This is not something I have experienced regularly with other brands. For some reason, that season, Merrell seemed to be making lefts smaller/narrower.

(Unfortunately, I ended up severely ill for a couple of months, two days after purchase. By the time I was well enough to consider returning them, I was too embarrassed at the time passed. And I'd gotten them on quite a good combination of sales, meaning that the store probably would have had to eat their cost, if they took them back, due to model/yearly revisions.)

P.S. I'm returning to just buying "decent" stuff from LL Bean. I seem to find less size variation in their products (e.g. jeans). And even "premium" products too often seem to be a crap shoot, these days.

Although I do love and baby my Asolo's, bought from an expert who spent an hour fitting me. Over a decade ago, now. But I'm not going to wear them out on daily tromps for exercise on our local gravel trail.

P.P.S. I also had a pair of those Chinese slippers -- looked exactly like the ones pictured. Bought somewhere in San Francisco's Chinatown. They were ok, certainly for the price, although I wouldn't run in them. Had them until I took them to a friend's, because they were obsessive about people removing their shoes. Never got them back. You can't trust your friends, either. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER20> I just wish I could get shoes wide enough for my feet. Anything wide enough is too long (a good 4cm of wasted space at the front). I have tried supposedly extra wide shoes like Lems, but the only thing that is comfortable is either the Vibram Five Fingers or Crocs (terrible for running) or some Birkenstocks (just).

<comment><USER21> I have very wide feet. In the UK shoe measurement system a width of H is the widest. One of my feet is H, and the other one is wider. I wear Vivobarefoot [https://www.vivobarefoot.com/](https://www.vivobarefoot.com/) and they actually fit. I'm no longer buying shoes 1-2 sizes too big to fit my feet. I'm currently wearing Gobi for every day wear, and exercise in a Stealth II. All of these needed a bit of time to break in. When I tried on a Primus they were a bit tight all around, so probably best to avoid that style (or try them on yourself).

<comment><USER20> I definitely have what could be (disparagingly?) called Saxon feet. Widest width on their own are definitely not enough. The overhead image of the StealthII looks like the most promising thing I have seen for a while.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This doesn't excuse Merrell's quality control at all but for a bit of consumer protection: If you purchase your shoes at REI and they fall apart like this, they'll happily provide you with a refund or replacement.

</comment><comment><USER23> I had a pair of Trail Gloves pictured and they were great. Every pair of Merrells I've bought since have been disappointing. Either wore down too fast or were uncomfortable.

<comment><USER24> I'm kinda confused. I'm wearing a pair of trail gloves right now, and Merrel has continued to make them, incrementing a version number along the way... I wear them every day, and have been rocking them for my last four pairs of shoes, using 'em til the sole wears through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Seems like Toms are pretty similar to the Chinese shows mentioned in the article.

<comment><USER26> Toms sells $10 shoes for $40, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> He should just coat the soles in ShoeGoo and patch as necessary. Same for the high wear areas of the cloth.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd love a link to where the author found those 布鞋 on TaoBao. that seems like the best bet.</comment>


How to get started with anything - <AUTHOR> http://leostartsup.com/2012/01/how-to-get-started-with-anything/

<comment><USER2> (From link in the submission) I like the way the MVP was done. I've felt uncomfortable about fake webpages that don't do what they say, but the way this was worded seems reasonable to me: [http://blog.bufferapp.com/idea-to- paying-customers-in-7-week...](http://blog.bufferapp.com/idea-to-paying- customers-in-7-weeks-how-we-did-it)

      Hello! You caught us before we're ready.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds a lot like Kaizen. I liked this -- appropriately short -- book for more real-life examples and background: [http://www.amazon.com/Small-Step-Change- Your-Life/dp/0761129...](http://www.amazon.com/Small-Step-Change-Your- Life/dp/0761129235/)

</comment><comment> Tim-Boss Step 1 on the path to motivation: Ingest coffee/red bull...

<comment><USER4> Caffeine in short.</comment></comment>


Show HN: A paper trading API written in Python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kirkthaker/investopedia-trading-api <comment><AUTHOR> Note: This version of the API supports Python 3 now (finally)! The API is for Investopedia's stock market simulator. Feedback appreciated!

<comment><USER2> I am interested in developing an API for a particular Broker. Could I have your email address?

<comment><AUTHOR> I added my email to my profile. Would be happy to answer any questions you have.</comment></comment></comment>


Coming to Chrome: a new way to use tabs - <AUTHOR> https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/manage-tabs-with-google-chrome/ <comment><USER3> Neat, and works well for the toy example with 4 tabs open. I don't really think it would work as well for the "tab collectors" as they think. They seem to be aware of this too, since none of the screenshots in the post have anywhere near what I would consider a significant amount of tabs open.

I use the tree style tab extension on Firefox[0], which I cannot live without. Horizontal tabs become useless after about 15 of them are open. Tree style, 50 tabs are just as easy to navigate as 5. I really wish browsers would build this in as a native feature.

[0]: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style- ta...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/)

<comment><USER4> Shameless plug. I made the ContainerTabsSidebar firefox addon[0], which is inspired by the TST. It groups tabs based on firefox privacy containers, which means every container has an isolated cookie store. I'm a tab hoarder and developed it to work for such "use-case".

It's very similar to the groups presented, but displays tabs vertically.

[0]: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container- tab...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-tabs- sidebar/)

<comment><USER5> This feels like tabs are becoming bookmarks

<comment><USER6> Tabs are bookmarks that can keep their state. Normal bookmarks have only the URL, and any parameters that go in the URL, but discard the rest, like your position on the page, your navigation history, or what you are doing in a PWA.

Tabs don't discard data, bookmarks do. Sometimes you just want the landing page and a bookmark is fine, other times you want the extra data and a long- lived tab is needed.

<comment><USER5> Many tabs refresh after no activity

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This seems to be a mixture of the "collections" feature from Firefox Mobile (Beta/Preview) and Firefox's container tabs, but without the security / isolation benefits.

From what I can tell, the main benefit seems to be in relation to identifying similar-looking tabs. It's unfortunate that they didn't bake in the same security and isolation benefits of Firefox's container tabs, or the "put aside and come back to it later" functionality that (old) Edge and Firefox Mobile's "collections" bring.

I'm also not sure how adding _more_ to the tabstrip will improve utility in Chrome, where tabs so quickly become impossible to manage because the strip doesn't scroll.

<comment><USER8> A bit tinfoil hat, but could it be an attempt to head off Firefox Containers which would be a threat to Google Cookie collection? That's certainly my main use case for containers, using Google Music without telling the rest of the web about my Google account.

<comment><USER9> [https://github.com/atomontage/chrome- private](https://github.com/atomontage/chrome-private)

<comment><USER10> This looks very useful, but it combines valuable profile management work with disabling various web features per the author's opinions. Sadly, disabling those features by default makes it significantly easier to fingerprint users using this script (which is precisely the opposite of its intentions).

So I forked it and set those features to be disable-if-requested rather than disable-by-default, so that people who just want to manage separate profiles have an option that doesn't make them easier to fingerprint:

[https://github.com/floatingatoll/chrome- private/](https://github.com/floatingatoll/chrome-private/)

<comment><USER9> Forking to switch a bunch of command line arguments around seems excessive to me. You can simply write a wrapper script that passes the arguments in the way you want them to be passed.

Enabling those options does nothing to improve fingerprinting resistance, it's a completely bogus argument.

Disabling them however, in combination with the recommended extensions that are in the README plus custom user agent handling, does bring tangible benefits.

Finally, fingerprinting resistance isn't mentioned once in the README. It's simply too hard a problem for me to claim that this simple script intends to solve it. You can however use the script as a foundation that you can build custom strategies on top of. More than adequate for that purpose.

<comment><USER10> Forking permits me to efficiently git rebase against upstream when there are changes, using rerere to remember easy conflict resolutions. A wrapper would not work as two of the options cannot be removed from the command line (and the author refused a PR that would have permitted such a wrapper).

<comment><USER9> I am the author. Flash support in Chrome is going away soon (but even if it didn't) I am not going to be publishing any code with support for that crap baked in. However, it is understandable if you disagree.

Re: referrer option, as I explained, it's a nop. So no point in having extra code for that there either (I really should remove it).

<comment><USER10> I had to use Flash two weeks ago to get a food handler's permit online due to pandemic and terrible horrible choice from a list of 20 options, so I am unusually positioned to disagree from personal basis. I do agree that it should die and I can't wait for it to do so either!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It seems to me I'm in the minority by being a minimalist here? I have at most 10 tabs open. Same for Sublime Text open files. I regularly close all but one tab/file just to reset my cognitive load. This does force me to rely on the history from time to time, which I must say is a true pain in Chrome. You can't even search or filter by date. Also, revisiting a page will move it up the top of the list, which is annoying because I lose all previous instances of when I visited the page.

As for the grouping of tabs, there's always been a way to group them: a new window. I wish there was a feature to drag+select a group of tabs and send them to a new window. I guess this new feature tries to solve the same problem.

<comment><USER12> > I wish there was a feature to drag+select a group of tabs and send them to a > new window

There is! Press CTRL while clicking individual tabs OR press SHIFT while clicking the first and last tab you want to move to a new window. Selected tabs appear slightly brighter. Then, just drag. This works in Chrome and Firefox.

<comment><USER13> I wish I could upvote you twice. Whenever I need to separate my tabs from the main window I have to adjust them individually, which is a real pain if you have more than 10 tabs open.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have a dream. What I really want was likely not possible when tabs were invented, but should be now.

I want least recently used tabs to automatically fade away, but still be fully known and searchable the way that 'search my computer' or 'google search' works. With search filters like last hour/day/week/month. And it seems like history should be kept per tab, not altogether.

This way I keep a minimal-to-medium number of active tabs, but have all those magical things-to-do, pseudo-bookmarks, or other things that cause open tabs to grow and grow available via a quick search interface, auto-magically.

<comment><USER15> The great suspender will get you part of the way there.

<comment><USER16> Agree, need it a lot because of Chrome memory hogging.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I use Tree Style Tabs in Firefox, but I have mixed feelings about it.

It should help me visually find tabs, but truth of the matter is that it doesn't. Horizontal tabs become useless after 10 tabs opened, indeed, but vertical tabs become useless after 30 tabs opened.

Opened tabs also consume a lot of memory. It's why I now use Auto Tab Discard, which works, but then gets in the way because by Ctrl-Tab-ing you end up hitting inactive tabs that you did not want, which are then reloading and it's annoying.

What does help me in finding tabs is tab search via the address bar. In Firefox it works great, you can also prefix your query with a `%` to limit your search only to opened tabs.

Chrome also provides a way to search open tabs. It's not as good as Firefox's and you have to enable it yourself, but it's fine [2].

[1] [https://add0n.com/tab-discard.html](https://add0n.com/tab-discard.html)

[2] chrome://flags/#omnibox-tab-switch-suggestions

<comment><USER18> Your situation sounds similar to my own. The following two extensions have helped me solve the '30 tabs' problem:

TabSearch does the same thing you're doing with the search bar, but with fuzzy searching and more customisability which makes finding tabs a bit easier.

Close Discarded Tabs is a very simple extension I wrote for myself that acts as a sort of garbage collector for Auto Tab Discard. You can customize Auto Tab Discard to discard tabs in a way that purges irrelevant tabs to your liking, and then if you notice the list of tabs looks a bit overwhelming, just click the trashcan and all the discarded tabs are closed. If you want to make sure you don't close a tab you wanted, just quickly scan through the list and click any that you want to keep.

TabSearch: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/tab_search/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/tab_search/)

Close Discarded Tabs: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/close- discard...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/close-discarded- tabs/)

<comment><USER17> Hey, thanks for "Close Discarded Tabs", it's precisely what was missing :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Maybe I'm wrong (EDIT: seems I'm wrong!), but I feel like the people with dozens of tabs open (guilty) aren't the ones who use organizational features?

Also, it's a hidden feature, but you can already Shift+Select a group of tabs, and close/move/etc the whole group.

<comment><USER20> Wrong! I have a very sophisticated system for managing my tabs. I'm very breadth-first when browsing the web and I also switch contexts a lot. Tabs are like a big Todo list for me.

For a while, I would get really frustrated when chrome would crash and close all my tabs, but recently I found a ln extension that keeps track of my tab history as a big tree! Yippee!

<comment><USER21> I use tabs exactly the same way! I also use windows for context switches. Right now on my work machine I have one personal window, and 5 other windows of 10-20 tabs each.

Closing a window after doing all the "TODOs" is insanely cathartic

<comment><USER22> You get to clear out your TODOs? I'm very envious of you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What I find hilarious about tabs is that it's basically a full reimplementation of a multitasking interface within a MDI (Multiple Document In Window) context: we came up with windows for different applications and for different documents within that application, and then for the browser we went back and revised the conventional wisdom.

<comment><USER24> I guess nothing stops us from running one tab per window but I have to say I'm not keen to go back to that. What we be the advantage there over tabs in your opinion?

<comment><USER25> Why WOULDN'T you want to be able to use tabs on all of your windows?

And why WOULDN'T you want to be able to move any tab to any edge (top, bottom, left, right) of any window?

And why WOULDN'T you want to be able to group and stack and tile tabbed windows from different applications together?

<comment><USER26> What I would like, is Emacs/Vim-style buffers. When you don't have one open, it's completely invisible. When you want to switch to it, you perform an incremental search for its title. No need to hunt for things on the screen. A lot faster and a lot more tidy wrt what's currently visible on the screen. No distractions.

<comment><USER27> If you're willing to go whole-hog, I've had good experiences using EXWM for this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> LOL "tab groups" AKA "windows". You can have this life today! When you have a tab that doesn't fit in with the others, pull it into its own window. When you're done asking google a question, close the window to close all the tabs associated with it. Use cmd-` to cycle through windows and expose to find a specific one!

I am happy to see them doing something new with tabs, I'm just sad that so many people seem to have stopped using the oldest GUI metaphor in the book in favor of monolithic browsers.

<comment><USER29> This is what I do, but for me it only works because window management is so quicky and easy with Expose gestures on my Mac.

Doing the same approach on Windows drives me crazy and I end up wanting to have all my tabs in one window so I can find them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm always very happy to see UX innovation, so kudos to Chrome for that.

However, I just don't quite see the point of this particular feature.

If you only have a handful of tabs open (like the 4 in the example), you hardly need to bother to categorize them.

While if you have a ton of tabs, you can already use different windows (one for personal, one generally for work, one for a specific project, etc.). Shift-selecting and dragging multiple tabs at once makes it pretty easy.

What "tab collectors" seem to universally like truly is tree-style tabs, so you can see the titles of your 40 tabs and see which one opened which. I suppose I can just hope that maybe they're taking baby steps toward that?

</comment><comment><USER31> Great, yet another Opera browser feature finally becoming mainstream! It only took a decade[1].

[1][https://www.practicalecommerce.com/Opera-11-Launches-Tab- Sta...](https://www.practicalecommerce.com/Opera-11-Launches-Tab-Stacking)

<comment><USER32> This is still the best implementation of this feature and no other browser has gotten it right, yet. Even Blink-based Opera now fails in this regard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> As a hoarder, tabs act somewhat as low-effort bookmarks: instead of having to explicitly bookmark sites, I have to explicitly not-bookmark them (i.e. close the tab). In other words: "organising" my tabs is the default and takes no extra effort. Additionally, when I'm done with something, cleaning up is really low effort as well: I close several tabs in a row, and can relatively quickly judge which ones to close.

In other words: this just seems way too much effort for me...

</comment><comment><USER34> Reminds me a little bit of Vivaldi's Tab Stacking feature [0]. Yet, it looks less useful, especially for tab hoarders as mentioned in the other comments here. But progress is progress and maybe we'll end up with something better than the Tab Stacks in the end.

[0]: [https://help.vivaldi.com/article/tab- stacks/](https://help.vivaldi.com/article/tab-stacks/)

</comment><comment><USER35> See this is a good idea but suffers from a UX problem: it is just way too cumbersome to create a new group and add new tabs.

When I am on a roll I just want to hotkey a new tab open an start typing a search query for something. ctrl-t and type is just too fast and keeps me in the zone.

What if they added a new hotkey for opening a new tab in a new group? ctrl-g is taken, so something like ctrl-shift-g? Whatever it is, you get the point. Open a new tab in a new group. All tabs opened from a group stay in that group.

So, say I open a new tab group to search for something in google. I then read through the results and middle-click several items to open in new tabs. All those tabs should stay in the group. That way I can easily jump around to other tab groups and see what group had all the references to my question. I can then do this for several topics and keep things straight.

</comment><comment><USER36> Shamesless plug: I've built a tiny WebExtension for Firefox that I believe is the fastest way to jump between tabs ever, with the keyboard. It's for those of us who have more than 15 tabs open.

You basically click a one key, and then fuzzy search through your tabs until there's only one option left, and the tab opens. Alternatively you enter the tab number and it opens. It's probably one of my most useful weekend projects.

[https://github.com/bjesus/teleporter](https://github.com/bjesus/teleporter)

<comment><USER37> This is actually really nice! While I don't have a lot of tabs open at once, dragging my mouse over and clicking is really tedious. Even though the Firefox address bar allows you to switch to already open tabs, it's still not seamless. This is great for noticing the name at a glance and switching quickly.

<comment><USER36> Thank you! Super glad you liked it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> > tab collectors who have...significantly more

Guilty as charged. I have a hard time saying goodbye to some of those tabs sometimes. Tab minimalists react in horror. Meh -- they're missing out.

> Now, with a simple right click, you can group your tabs together and label > them with a custom name and color.

I'm afraid that this might just free enough pixels to allow me to collect yet more tabs. ;)

<comment><USER39> Don't feel too bad about your tab hoarding, I'm at 3 windows with 4630 tabs and I'm pretty sure I'm closer to a stress test than a user. Chrome can't function with 1/20th of mine and Firefox runs smooth and fast. Restarting with loading all the session data takes seven or eight seconds total. It can't just be the different multi-process models so I'm pretty sure that the Chrome team can do better.

<comment><USER40> I think I found my kindred spirit! I have one Firefox instance presently at 3 windows and 3379 tabs and another with 10 windows and somewhere north of 2300 tabs. I wouldn't dare do this under Chrome/Chromium.

On my system at least, I've noticed that Firefox _does_ get less responsive around 8000+ tabs. Mostly it's just the start up that complains.

Sometimes I'll get annoyed and mass-bookmark/close tabs (filed under date of closure). Do you ever do that or do you usually filter through things on an as needed basis?

<comment><USER41> Oh, there are kindred spirits here. I've recommended this on other tab-related discussions but Tab Stats is one of the few Firefox addons that have been worth using as a tab hoarder. Allows me to see which pages are open in multiple tabs and then deduplicate them if needed, or just looking at (or closing) open tabs based on domain.

(I'm not affiliated with the creator and it's not without its own annoyances, but still easily recommendable to anyone with thousands of tabs open)

<comment><USER40> Awesome.

I don't find it _too_ tedious to go through and nuke things I know aren't useful long term (they're usually shunted to a separate throw away window for this reason!), but there's no easy solution for tab deduplication. What you've linked looks like it fits the bill!

Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Tab minimalist here... It won't help _the others_. They just don't pay attention to tabs. It's like a mental blind spot for them... Maybe an outright disorder. They just keep opening new tabs every chance they get. I once sat over someone's shoulder and watched them continue to click the same link in a message over and over again to look at a JIRA while we were debugging something. Every time, it just opened up a new tab. And they just didn't care. That was how to open up that bit of info. 10, 20, 30 tabs... They just kept piling up. I almost lost my mind This is a techie, mind you, not some random office worker. It was mind boggling.

What Chrome really needs is an auto close feature. Default to like 10 tabs max, with the option to increase for power users. Oldest tabs without any activity get whacked automatically. The world would save gigawatts of power overnight.

<comment><USER43> You'll create an infinite number of tabs if you have the following rules:

\- if you will open multiple links from a page, keep that tab, and then open each link in a new tab

\- each tab is a train of thought -- don't overwrite a tab's train of thought, always open a new tab to keep your trains of thought distinct

\- only close a tab once you know that train of thought is fully complete

\- don't interrupt your current train of thought just to evaluate if an earlier train of thought is complete (and therefore whether you should then close that "tree" of tabs)

AKA garbage collection for your mind, that only allows you to run stop-the- world when no other processes are running

<comment><USER44> That's exactly how it is with me. Also it is often more convenient to open a new tab and search again for something then to find it in one of already opened tabs.

It would be perfect if beside Google search results the browser would show tab results (with full FTS) and history results. I would prefer to have it there instead of search bar's completion.

Then if tabs would really be just history of opened tabs the browser could do some LRU GC.

<comment><USER43> Firefox location bar searches through your open tabs and it was way too annoying, had to disable it. So I guess I actually missed another rule:

\- your current train of thought always needs to be in the rightmost tab OR it can be the leftmost tab if you have a current working set with like just 5 tabs

the latter of which is what then leads to an infinite number of windows...

Which is why on top of the built-in "close all tabs" and "close all tabs to the right", I also installed plugins for "close all other windows" and "close all others tabs and all other windows".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Others already wrote about Firefox tab groups and containers. I do use containers but I use a different way to group tabs.

I'm using Ubuntu with Gnome shell customized to look like the old Gnome pre 2014, or was that 2012? I have a virtual desktop per customer and one Firefox window per desktop. One "customer" it's my own pet project of the moment and another one is where I keep my email, WhatsApp web and Telegram desktop and other social media in their own private container tab. So I group per window and I need less functionality from the browser because I rely more on the OS.

I believe that Gnome calls those desktops Activities but I disabled nearly all of the Activities related stuff. I have hotkeys to move to desktops and I use them like old school virtual desktops, a fixed number of them. IMHO yhe less the screen moves the better it is.

</comment><comment><USER46> When I feel I have too many tabs Open, I simply close the entire window. I don't understand tab hoarders. I've watched them use browsers and they almost never revisit those hoarded tabs. They actually start from a new tab and search or type in a URL when they want to go back to previous tabs.

Chrome should make this behavior more obvious to do. Like LIFO queue for tabs which popped tabs turn into history entries and keep a max number of tabs visible.

<comment><USER47> The problem with history is it loses spacial relativity. How does one tab relate to another. Which sites opened which tabs.

Tabs are a poor but semi-adequate way to preserve the relationship between urls, by understanding their distance from each other and the rules of how they open.

Another thing tabs do, is allow you to designate what NOT to return. If you use something like GoToTab [1], it will specifically NOT return results that have been closed. Merging everything to history doesnt give you that separation between "not relevant in the future" and "maybe relevant in the future."

[1] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/goto- tab/hjfkaobgk...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/goto- tab/hjfkaobgkmaeomgdhmhhipdbjdhhjkoi?hl=en)

<comment><USER48> > How does one tab relate to another. Which sites opened which tabs.

> Tabs are a poor but semi-adequate way to preserve the relationship between > urls,

I recommend Tree Style Tab [0], which fully preserves this relationship. When one tab opens another, the child tab automatically becomes a child in the tree, making the whole thing very self-organizing. Also being a tree, the parents can be expanded/collapsed, if there's a group you're putting aside for the moment.

That's for Firefox, at least. It looks like there's a few that other people have made for Chrome [1][2], but I can't speak to how well they perform.

[0] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style- ta...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/)

[1] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree- styl...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-style- tabs/biiammgklaefagjclmnlialkmaemifgo?hl=en)

[2] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tree-style- tab/oic...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tree-style- tab/oicakdoenlelpjnkoljnaakdofplkgnd?hl=en)

<comment><USER47> But how does that preserve the relationship after I want them to no longer be tabs? The convert tabs to history or tabs to bookmarks destroys that relationship data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> A great next iteration would be to let users fold/unfold those groups, so that you only have one visible "tab" per group in the top bar.

This would really help the "tab collecters" (like me, who had to close 78 tabs some weeks ago).

<comment><USER50> I can't see any benefit really to this new feature they announced without what you're suggesting.

If they add the ability to collapse groups, then I would probably use it, otherwise I can keep my tabs just as organised without a need for some colour hints.

<comment><USER49> Same. I was really excited first when I saw this feature. After installing it, I barely use it now. It helps a bit for a first overview, but my tab bar is still super full.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Soo it's just a label thing? Can you hide groups and show them later? It seems to me chrome is still behind Firefox and his tab group extension

[https://addons.mozilla.org/it/firefox/addon/simple-tab- group...](https://addons.mozilla.org/it/firefox/addon/simple-tab-groups/)

</comment><comment><USER52> From the screenshots it seems they give space priority to the name of each tab group instead of the tabs themselves (when space was already at a premium). In one example, 3 tabs were barely intelligible yet the group name was fully visible.

It would be better to have:

\- An alternate short name or icon that is automatically used when there is no space (common?).

\- Relocated tab group name, e.g. small text "above" the tabs instead of stealing space from the tabs.

\- An option to have no name at all, relying on other distinctions only (some people are color blind so you always need a non-color option; maybe different patterns of border lines, or shapes?).

</comment><comment><USER53> As much as I like this, why is it so hard to have tab management that just works? I have six pinned tabs that I always want up. Important things like Gmail, Calendar Drive. Stuff that should never change. I don't want to have to remember to open links in a new tab from pinned tabs. It should know that pinned means pinned.

Perhaps if they enabled group persistence? I'm hoping this rather obvious feature is in there.

My solution has been to use a tab manager with a saved session that I can always recall when my pinned tabs break (such as when Chrome crashes, and loses my session entirely).

<comment><USER54> One of the great features in Chrome is that you can open your recently closed tabs with CTRL+SHIFT+T. This will bring back an entire window full of tabs and even works between reboots. I usually have a dozen tabs open and when I reboot, I simply open up Chrome again, CTRL+SHIFT+T, and I am right back where I was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I liked what IE ... 8? has done abck in the day where opening a new tab from another one will create a colored group, so you kinda have automatic grouping that allows you to tell at a glance "Oh those all belong to the same tvtropes tab rampage, but I'm looking for that other thing now I was looking at before".

<comment> frosted-flakes IE8 through IE11 had the coloured tab groups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Opera was doing this ten years ago. They used to call it Tab Stacks[1]. Note that Vivaldi has this feature[2]. Or is this chrome feature different?

[1]: [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2010/11/hands...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2010/11/hands-on-opera-11-tab-stacking-vs-firefox-panorama/) [2]: [https://help.vivaldi.com/article/tab- stacks/](https://help.vivaldi.com/article/tab-stacks/)

</comment><comment><USER57> Nothing can beat Tree Style tab in Firefox. You can make "folders of tabs" and whole hierarchies. For "tabs collectors" like me who have 40 tabs always open this is a must.

My current setup : I have 5 pinned tab on top of the tree.

Below I have a "github" group of tabs.

Below I have a set of tabs opened on different parts of an app I'm working on.

Below is a group of documentation tabs.

Below is another group of articles I plan to read at some point.

Below I have the HN tab, with a tree of articles and comments.

I can't imagine going back to horizontal tabs. This is just much too good.

</comment><comment><USER58> This is nice, but what I really don't get is how come the most popular browser in the world in 2020 not have an native option to go through the tabs in the most-recently-used order.

This is major productivity improvement compared to ctrl-tabbing the tabs in their physical order. IIRC, multi-tabbed IDEs figured it out somewhere in the 90s and it has become a de-facto standard since then. But nope, Chrome doesn't support it, making the Ctrl-Tab hotkey effectively useless if you have more than a handful open tabs.

<comment><USER59> The _only_ extension that I've seen implement this closer to right is CLUT [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/clut-cycle-last- us...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/clut-cycle-last-used- tabs/cobieddmkhhnbeldhncnfcgcaccmehgn) (specifically, the "Quick switch" and "Normal switch backward" keybindings). Every other one I've tried does not.

I only wish that a) it would visually display the tab history the way Firefox does, and b) being able to shorten the Normal switch backward timer, so I could use that only.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'd love if a browser supports horizontally and perhaps vertically splitting the browser window/tab like you can in iTerm or tmux or terminator and let us view multiple pages at once in a single browser window area. Whichever page is active owns the address and toolbar.

<comment><USER61> Vivaldi has this feature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I'm pretty certain that I'm not going to be using any new tab organization feature, if it requires me take explicit action to get the benefit. If I was reasonably capable of organizing my browsing, I wouldn't currently have 468 tabs open to start with...

<comment><USER63> Check tree style tabs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> In my experience, Chrome has never been the browser for people who want to open more than a handful of tabs and keep them around for sometime. It becomes sluggish and makes the whole system sluggish. I see similar issues with the new Microsoft Edge (based on Chromium) and Brave (also based on Chromium, but somewhat better).

"Tab collectors" is a derogatory term to describe anyone who needs to do some research on some topic and needs to open up tabs, links from them and figure out the topic(s) they're dealing with. Yes, this can devolve into a collector situation if not managed well. But not everyone who has a need for it has to be insulted this way, especially from technical users, where daily work can easily turn into opening several tabs and windows at once.

That Google Chrome isn't designed or optimized for heavy usage will not go away just because they throw a new feature to group tabs. You may be able to group them, but will the browser be any less sluggish with the addition of this feature? That's what I'm interested to know. For users of a few tabs, tab groups may not be as useful since they'd already be doing the grouping with windows. For users with many tabs, tab groups isn't going to be useful as long as the browser can't handle many tabs.

<comment><USER65> I have tried it already and it is of no use for me. I want a way to group tabs in different Chrome windows and assign the Chrome window a name, so that I can have: Work Window, News Window, Personal Window, Communication Window, etc. and in each of the windows the related tabs. Today I can do that, but each "chrome-window-icon" shows with the name of the tab that is open, and not the "chorme-window-name" (Work window, etc). In Windows 10 I used an app to rename the instances of Chrome but I cannot find a solution under Linux (Ubuntu).

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I just want the title bar back, above the tabs, on the mac. It's so frustrating trying to move/select the window with a tiny sliver available to click on.

<comment><USER67> Top right seems to always have space.

You can also drag any window from any side by dragging perpendicular to the resize direction. It's still small but I never heard anyone complain about precision there.

And then there's window manager if you're a power user.

I also think you can move any window with three finger via system settings.

<comment><USER66> > Top right seems to always have space.

Top right isn't always visible when trying to click a window to bring it forward

> You can also drag any window from any side by dragging perpendicular to the > resize direction. It's still small but I never heard anyone complain about > precision there.

Interesting, I hadn't seen that before. It's still a small space and annoying to grab, but it's better than now knowing about it.

> And then there's window manager if you're a power user.

Not sure what you mean here.

> I also think you can move any window with three finger via system settings.

I use a mouse and full keyboard. I've never been able to interact with the mac well without them.

<comment><USER67> > Not sure what you mean here.

I mean automatic tools to move windows. I use BetterTouchTool with a lot of custom gestures to handle my windows. With this I mean for example swiping with 5 fingers to the left moves and resizes the window to take up 25% of the screen on the left side. And so on so forth. I rarely drag my windows around anymore, it's second nature at this point.

> I use a mouse and full keyboard. I've never been able to interact with the > mac well without them.

With BetterTouchTool (I just tried this) I can set e.g. fn+mouse click to toggle a move state on a window. So the window you tapped (anywhere within) will now follow your mouse until you click again.

It can also simply teleport your window to wherever you fn+clicked.

There are unlimited options within this app by itself.

<comment><USER66> I'll check it out, thanks. Though I still think just leaving the title bar alone would be a simpler solution. Plus, it means you can see the title, which is nice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I use about a gazillion tabs. My biggest problem is losing them, or having to re-open them after a restart. Though sometimes a fresh start can be relieving.

My next biggest problem is running out of memory when running other programs alongside Chrome. Perhaps it's due to how I like watching YouTube a lot, which seems to suck my RAM dry. I have 16 gb RAM, but even then I sometimes get hiccups, and the culprit seems to be Chrome. Not sure what to do about it, aside from closing tabs.

I know it's probably a bad habit to open several programs as well, but using the Adobe package together with a browser is kind of a must, at least if you're juggling several projects at once. Same for programming, but Sublime Text is hardly a resource hog.

If this works between sessions, and perhaps even between computers, AND it saves memory, then I'm sure I'll fall in love with it. I've had other solutions suggested to me, but installing yet another plugin is not appealing to me. Though after reading this thread, I think I'll perhaps give Vimium a try.

</comment><comment><USER69> The Vivaldi web browser[0] found a great solution to this problem years ago. Tab stacking, tab tiles, and native tab hibernation. I've been rocking it for 3+ years now, and I've got to say it is the best browser out there.

[0]: [https://vivaldi.com/](https://vivaldi.com/)

</comment><comment><USER70> It's sad that operating systems gave up, before even trying to, to properly organize content with windows managers.

There's really no good reason why browser needs to have tabs, and have that exclusive ecosystem, not available to rest of the apps on the system. I'd love to be able to group and manage my windows as easily as tabs.

<comment><USER71> Sway and i3 let you use tabs nearly anywhere you can use windows. I'm not a huge fan of tabs outside of the browser anyway, but it works well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> The concept is totally flawed. Having 10+ tabs open is as chaotic as it was before. Too bad, Google missed a chance to solve a problem many people seem to have. At least here on Hackernews I am reading from time to time that people have the same problem I have – tab hoarding.

So far only one third party extension helped me with this – Workona [1]. It makes it possible to switch between tab groups. The downside is that the company behind it has a complete overview of browsing behaviour and at some point they want a monthly fee (6$ / month) for the unlimited account, which I am going to pay if no better solution comes around.

I also tried Firefox tree view, but it is missing the feature to switch tab groups.

[1] [https://workona.com/](https://workona.com/)

</comment><comment><USER73> This is fixing the wrong problem. Tabs aren't broken, browser history is.

When I tried to find a web page from a certain date a few months ago, it was almost impossible to find.

I actually think Internet Explorer used to have quite a good history. That's what we need, not better tabs management.

<comment><USER74> It is even worse in Firefox, half my history is just outright missing. It is like it only saves the final page each tab was open to instead of anything I browsed using that tab in the interim.

Not to mention the UI for Firefox's history is pure garbage of the worst kind. The fact I have to go three menus deep just to open the history screen is bad, the fact that it isn't a screen and some kind of dumb pop-out /thing/ that cuts off content is terrible. No time-stamps either, or way to organize the flow of browsing (e.g. under what tab/window it was open in).

If it worked correctly it would still be bad. But it doesn't work correctly making it the worst part of Firefox right now, it has been broken for over a year.

PS - The history-missing bug is still active as of right now. Half of the pages I visited this morning just outright aren't listed at all. I was searching on google using a site: modifier and middle clicking open dozens of tabs, almost none are listed only the root searches.

<comment><USER75> > The fact I have to go three menus deep just to open the history screen is > bad

History is never more than 2 clicks away:

        - Open Library button, click History
        - Open History menu (macOS)

However, yes, core browser functions seem to be stuck to what they looked like in the year 2000 for most browsers. Only Safari basically tries to reinvent its UI every couple of years.

<comment><USER74> On mine (Windows) it is:

Menu -> Library -> History -> View History

Which is four clicks by my count. In either case it is too many and the UI you get at the end is like a 1990s reject.

They should just make it a full tab like Chrome has.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Vertical tabs, Chrome. Come back to me when you have Vertical Tabs.

<comment> frosted-flakes Chromium Edge is getting vertical tabs, and from the screenshots it looks like a decent implementation. At the end of March, the blog post said it was coming to the Edge Insider Preview "in the next few months".

Animated screenshot: [https://46c4ts1tskv22sdav81j9c69-wpengine.netdna- ssl.com/wp-...](https://46c4ts1tskv22sdav81j9c69-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/prod/sites/2/2020/03/67cf527900048a6d657f159efd3146bf.gif)

Microsoft blog post (scroll down to #2): [https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2020/03/30/the-t...](https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2020/03/30/the- top-10-reasons-to-switch-to-the-new-microsoft-edge/)

<comment><USER63> No nesting :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Who is this for? I don't see anyone who can use it. If you have less than 10 tabs you don't need to group them, and if you have more than 10 you will spend your time having them in the good group.

And at the end what is the benefit oh having groups?

</comment><comment><USER78> Tab groups, and only 10 years after Opera! [https://www.practicalecommerce.com/Opera-11-Launches-Tab- Sta...](https://www.practicalecommerce.com/Opera-11-Launches-Tab-Stacking)

</comment><comment><USER63> Why don't they just put tabs on the side? It makes no sense to me. Tree style tabs has solved this issue a long time ago.

</comment><comment><USER79> Anyone who keeps many tabs open and is a keyboard centric user, how can they use chrome? In Firefox, when I press ctrl-tab, it takes me to the most recent tab. In Chrome, this takes me to the next tab.

I'd expect chrome to have an option to change this, but no, you need add-ons, and those just offer other hotkeys.

Nowadays, I keep my tabs open in, if I need another identity (like my work- related account in a cloud provider), I use opera. Chrome is only for: any site that only works in chrome + debugging my own web development activity

<comment><USER80> > In Firefox, when I press ctrl-tab, it takes me to the most recent tab. In > Chrome, this takes me to the next tab.

Coincidentally, this drives me nuts with Firefox and is always the first option I disable. If I open 10 tabs from a single page, I want to be able to cycle through them with the keyboard easily. Having CTRL+Tab go to the most recent tab completely ruins that.

<comment><USER81> Yup, I disable "tab = most recent" both in IDEs and Firefox right off the bat. I don't understand it at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Am I the only one to use windows as tabs groups?

Shift + click on tabs to select multiple tabs, then right click > "Move Tabs to New Window".

<comment><USER83> That's what I do, but I still keep only a small number of tabs open in each of a small number of windows. But FYI you can just drag the tab(s) down and they'll form a new window.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> It looks cool as a person who has at least 20 tabs open in Chrome almost always but it would be much better if we could also use different profiles in the same Chrome window.

As they demonstrated, people usually would like to use labels such as work, personal, etc. but it's not really useful if I can't log in my GSuite and personal Gmail in the same Chrome window.

</comment><comment><USER85> I'm in the tab collector category, but after I read something I don't need it sticking around in my autocomplete. If I want it saved I add it as a bookmark.

For this reason I just use incognito mode. On Android, every so often Chrome decides to just discard all my open incognito tabs. (This is also described here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AndroidQuestions/comments/40fe10/in...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AndroidQuestions/comments/40fe10/incognito_tabs_automatically_closing/) .)

Could you fix this bug. Namely, please do not discard open incognito tabs without confirming with me.

I am sure I don't discard them accidentally (by closing the browser or something) as I am quite careful not to throw away my reading. I wish Chrome would do the same, and be more careful about just throwing away whatever I'm reading.

I feel this is as good a place as any to leave my comment so it is noticed.

</comment><comment><USER86> Are these separate containers (like Firefox containers) or just some UI to visually group certain tabs?

<comment><USER87> The latter

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Everyone I work with seems to always have about a million tabs open at all times, myself included. Maybe they've figured out a way to manage them, but for me, it's hard to keep them from becoming anything other than a disorganized mess. I use a couple of plugins that really help like the Great Suspender for managing memory use, and the this looks like it will definitely help. The thing that puzzles me is that this seems like an obvious step progression in tab management - but it's also the first real move to help people with a widespread challenge that's been around for many years. Is this the rate of improvement we should expect from Chrome?

</comment><comment><USER89> I feel like the hidden that feature that allows you to select and move multiple tabs is severely underrated. I'm a tab hoarder but not disorganised, I tend to work on multiple things at a time and what I'll do is everytime there's more than 4-5 tabs on a specific project, I'll move them to a new window and hide the rest. That way, I'm not bothered by the other subjects in my view and the current "workspace" is still easily manageable. I fail to see the point of this change this late in the browser history as it would surprise me if powerusers didn't already have their own way of managing tabs

</comment><comment><USER90> My greatest problem with Chrome and tabs is its tendency to "forget" pinned tabs when restarting. I've lost pinned tabs quite a few times and don't trust Chrome to keep them. This never occurs with Safari and Firefox in my experience.

</comment><comment><USER91> Cool, something similar exists in Firefox (with an extension). Still not going to switch to Chrome, though. I have the Chrome browser open once or twice a week because, as one can imagine, gmail works better in Google's browser - <USER2> once I finish fully migrating everything to protonmail and my own @ I'll have no reason to ever use a google product again (run a NAS I can access remotely, collaboration in Microsoft Office works "good enough" and tbh I prefer the version controlling for what I need it for, DDG is at least at parity with Google search and is frankly better for images).

</comment><comment><USER92> I just wish the OSes would alt-tab through all tabs in all apps instead of just top level windows. Yes, other forms of tab organization might be useful but my productivity would go up more if I could more easily swap between the last 2-8 things I did in a consistent way.

As it is sometimes alt tab works, some times it doesn't. It all depends on what the last few things I did were and is therefore infuriatingly inconsistent.

I tried "Witch" on MacOS to fix this but it's got its own set of issues since it's having to hack around to do its job.

</comment><comment><USER93> Or use this strange hack to group tabs: "File > New Window"

</comment><comment><USER94> This looks nice but in my experience, it is unrealistic to have Chrome with many tabs open on a laptop. The machine would slow down, drain the battery and force me to close tabs before I need to classify them. Did that change too?

IMHO a feature as a tab limiter would be more productive for me at least, forcing me to close or archive tabs before opening new ones. I have ancient tabs of great finds that at some point I need to decide what to do with but never come around and don't really remember what was so great about that tab.

<comment><USER95> The Great Suspender is essential for that: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great- suspende...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great- suspender/klbibkeccnjlkjkiokjodocebajanakg?hl=en)

<comment><USER94> Thanks, it looks like there's a Safari version too. This may change things!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> I've been trying to control my tab hoarding in Chrome by limiting the amount of open tabs with the xTab extension[1]. It seems to help, even though I can bypass it by opening another window. As a side effect of this my browser windows tend to be organized by topic.

[1]: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/xtab/amddgdnlkmoha...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/xtab/amddgdnlkmohapieeekfknakgdnpbleb)

</comment><comment><USER97> I hope this does not change the usability of large numbers of tabs in Chrome, which are still completely usable when they shrink down to Favicon size.

In contrast to Safari, which never shrinks tabs below ~1 inch and instead changes the tab bar to an awful horizontal scrolling/carousel view.

Safari tabs are completely unusable past around 15 tabs when it starts hiding and resizing the tabs on the edges. It's the main thing preventing me from switching from Chrome to Safari.

</comment><comment><USER98> Sigh. Just give us proper tree style tabs already :/

</comment><comment><USER99> I would love if Chrome can assign a domain + account to a group automatically. Without this, I don't think I can make use much of this feature.

</comment><comment><USER100> Downloaded the Chrome Beta for Linux and this doesn't work: Nothing about tab groups or colors when you right-click on a tab.

</comment><comment><USER101> Just learned about this Min[0] browser yesterday.

It uses the concept of "tasks" to organize tabs. Still haven't really tried it, so can't really recommend, but since it's not really well known (I guess) I thought it was worth sharing.

[0]: [https://minbrowser.org/](https://minbrowser.org/)

</comment><comment><USER102> I would like tab-management to work as follows:

\- Export Tabs as list. Format could be something like URL;TITLE[;GROUP][;...]

\- Import list as Tabs: The inverse

Then I could use existing tools (xsv,fzf,vscode,excel) to do whatever I like with my tabs. Some things may be lost (cache, scrolling position...) but I wouldn't care as they don't work anyway with modern websites.

<comment><USER103> Tree style tabs supports exporting tabs/trees as lists. I don't think importing works, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> I don't see anything here that isn't possible with OneTab except that the tabs are all open. At least with OneTab I can (manually) move tabsets between Chrome and Firefox as well as between machines: [https://www.one- tab.com/](https://www.one-tab.com/)

</comment><comment><USER105> This should really have the option to collapse the tabs in each group (only showing the colored dot or group name).

</comment><comment> s-km Tested this out a few months ago, got real excited when I saw they had a beta thing for it but was let down that you couldn't collapse and expand tab groups down to just their titles. The functionality should even be there-ish already, since pinned tabs collapse down to just the site's favicon.

</comment><comment><USER106> What I would find very helpful is if Chrome on macOS could reopen all its windows on their original spaces—rather than all on the same space—when it needs to restart to install a new version.

Having all Chrome windows from many spaces for different tasks re-appear all on top of each other is quite frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER107> It looks good when it's only few tabs, when you have more than 20 tabs you don't even see a favicon. I don't understand why tabs don't have minimum width. In firefox you always see favicon and first tree letters and there are arrows that help you scroll through tabs.

</comment><comment><USER108> I miss Opera 12's tab groups. [https://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/9738/opera-how- to-stackgroup...](https://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/9738/opera-how-to- stackgroup-similar-tabs/)

</comment><comment><USER109> I thought Google was pausing non-security Chrome updates during the COVID crisis, what happened to that?

<comment><USER71> This feature has existed for a long time under chrome://flags. They skipped Chrome 82 for COVID: [https://www.chromestatus.com/features/schedule](https://www.chromestatus.com/features/schedule)

</comment></comment><comment><USER110> I have needed "the tab problem" solved for many years.

I've tried and never stuck with any third party solution.

I work in specific "modes/projects" and each mode has several tens at least of tabs open.

It would be great if I could somehow switch between work modes and see all the relevant tabs for that mode.

<comment><USER111> Control+N a new window for each mode is what I currently do. Then Super+<backtick> to cycle through them (if you're on a Mac)

It's not perfect though. If you accidentally open a few tabs in the wrong mode there's no easy way to transfer them. And I'll often forget that another window is open in the background

<comment><USER112> If you are using Tree Style Tabs and they are all children of a parent tab then you can just drag the parent tab over to the other window.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> I find tabs in Safari and Chrome fairly difficult to navigate when using them (I have many open and scrolling through loads isn't that useful); I find Safari's overview mode (pinch out on iPad or Mac) far more useful because you can see what you're after.

</comment><comment><USER114> This looks great. Definitely feels like something that should have existed for a while.

Hopefully this will encourage some "tab collectors" to convert their groups to bookmark folders.

I use Safari on my Mac, but its behind in tab management. I especially miss being able to drag multiple tabs at once between windows.

<comment><USER115> Interestingly, moving multiple tabs is one of the few places where Safari on iOS can do something that Safari on macOS can't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> What's a good browser for personal use nowadays? I have Firefox on my desktop but on mobile the experience is very lacking, with many pages downright breaking. I'm currently trying out brave which seems to at least block ads and tracking.

</comment><comment><USER117> I am a tab minimalist, but still i am looking forward to this. Been using this in the official release for a while now (activate it via chrome:flags). Only thing i am missing is persistency (keep the group if tabs are closed) and some kind of collapsing.

</comment><comment><USER118> I use tabs essentially as low-friction bookmarks/todo items. I'd use bookmarks more if it were as low friction as just keeping the tabs open.

I definitely don't enjoy having a bunch of tabs crammed in a horizontally constrained space.

</comment><comment><USER119> Those labels leave even less space for actual tabs. This looks very misguided to me.

</comment><comment><USER120> This is great. With this comes to Firefox. I guess Firefox has a kind of similar feature (Containers), but this new Chrome feature looks way nicer, even though it might not have containerization.

</comment><comment><USER121> Great, more free persona classification for their advertising engine

</comment><comment><USER122> For the love of god, google, please give me vertical tabs. It's been years. I'm happy using Firefox or Vivaldi, it pains me whenever I have to open Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER123> The web browser is essentially an operating system within your operating system.

This update is making the browser-os work more like a window manager.

tabs are to chrome as application windows are to OSX.

</comment><comment><USER124> The way to deal with tabs for me is to be a "tab ascetic". Majority of the time I have only a single tab open. Sometimes 2. With 3 it gets uncomfortable.

</comment><comment><USER125> This works for Google because they want you to only use Chrome. That's how Google engineers work.

For the rest of us, it's a reminder of how increasingly troublesome it is that window managers are tied to the OS, and (on 2/3 of the major OSs) locked down so any third parties that want to innovate here are limited to doing it only for their own application.

This looks like just the sort of thing Dan Ingalls meant when he said "We in computer software insist on stepping on the toes of those who came before us instead of climbing on their shoulders".

</comment><comment><USER126> As a tab collector this is useless to me. I rather have a way to automatically move certain domains to specific, separate windows to keep things organized.

</comment><comment><USER127> This type of separation would be better served with having multiple chrome user profiles. Like one for "work" and one for "home".

</comment><comment><USER128> My favourite part is how they're taking something firefox had for years and then removed, and presenting it as an innovation!

</comment><comment><USER129> Nope. Not much use. I've discovered Opera has workspaces, unfortunately limited to five, but exactly what I want for tab management.

</comment><comment><USER115> Using space in the already crowded tab area might not go over all that well. Couldn't they have moved the tab group indicator to not be inline?

</comment><comment><USER130> I still dream of a web browser that manages to combine browsing history, bookmarks, tabs and multi-device sync in one interface.

</comment><comment><USER131> Vivaldi is too sweet to let go and switch to chrome. They are at least 10 years ahead in tab management and it is enlightening.

</comment><comment><USER132> Amazing. Chrome discovered the wheel!!!

Oh wait... no it hasn't! Firefox already had something similar, only more advanced!!!

</comment><comment><USER133> The one enhancement I wish Chrome would make to their tabs is give me an option to make them less than ½-inch high.

</comment><comment><USER134> Wow all you 'many tabbers' I only ever have about 4-6 tabs open before I feel cluttered and close some.

</comment><comment><USER135> At first glance it seems like it's the Multi container extension of Firefox without cookies isolation

</comment><comment><USER136> I usually stick to 5-6 tabs at a time. I don't understand how can people deal with 40-50 tabs or more.

<comment><USER80> I'm with you. I don't like it when I have more than a few open at a time. I also don't like having unread email or chat messages because of the same impulse. They're to-do items that haven't been done yet so I deal with them and move on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER137> Time to order more RAM for this bad boy

</comment><comment><USER138> Move tab one left. Move tab one right. Move tab far left, move tab far right. Keyboard acceleration?

</comment><comment><USER139> If you want to use Chrome(ium), but also have modern features and privacy focus, just use Vivaldi.

</comment><comment><USER140> I'm happy to see tab hoarder folks here. I should improve hoarding system.

</comment><comment><USER141> this seems to me like another opportunity for chrome to be a memory hog, specially with the extra UI features.

But I am glad to be proven wrong here. Judging by the comments there seems to be a use case for a lot of the user base.

</comment><comment><USER142> Ff container tabs but without isolation?

Isn't that what the window manager is for?

</comment><comment><USER143> > There are two types of people in the world

He lost me on the opening sentence.

</comment><comment><USER144> What's the use of the groups if they don't collapse?

</comment><comment><USER145> I hope this comes to Android as well, in desktop or tablet mode.

</comment><comment><USER146> Something like a group collapse feature would be nice here

</comment><comment><USER147> Why doesn't my down arrow key work on this page?

<comment><USER115> blog.google breaks it, as has been noted before: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22949003](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22949003)

<comment><USER147> Found it. In [https://www.blog.google/static/blogv2/js/all.js?version=4.3](https://www.blog.google/static/blogv2/js/all.js?version=4.3)

      {key:"onKeyDown",value:function(t){var e=t.preventDefault;this.isToggle(document.activeElement)?(e(),!this.header.isKebabOpen&&this.header.openKebab(),this.getFirstLink().focus()):this.isLastLink(document.activeElement)?this.isLastLink(document.activeElement)&&e():(e(),this.focusNextLink())}}

There's a logic error in the nested ternaries: event.preventDefault() is called in every branch.

Fixed:

      {key:"onKeyDown",value:function(t){var e=t.preventDefault;this.isToggle(document.activeElement)?(e(),!this.header.isKebabOpen&&this.header.openKebab(),this.getFirstLink().focus()):this.isLink(document.activeElement)&&(e(),!this.isLastLink(document.activeElement)&&this.focusNextLink())}}

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER148> Here's an idea: make the list of tabs vertical

</comment><comment><USER149> Is this a new method for Google to keep tracking cookies active? I know many people who leave tabs open for months. Using tabs for "read later" seems questionable, performance wise.

</comment><comment><USER16> Useless. I need to be able to collapse groups

<comment><USER150> Don't be so dismissive. Collapsing groups is coming up, you can even enable its preview version through a chrome flag.

</comment></comment><comment><USER151> Why don't they give me vertical tabs?

</comment><comment><USER152> what's the use case here that's better than just having separate windows for separate concerns?

</comment><comment><USER153> I hope they port this feature to Brave.

</comment><comment><USER154> Alwz prefers firefox over chrome.

</comment><comment><USER155> Oh what memory will we use!

</comment><comment><USER156> Hey, Firefox tab groups!

</comment><comment><USER157> will there be an option to disable this? it's ugly

</comment><comment> kalium-xyz Folders are back?

</comment><comment><USER158> how about close to the left?

</comment><comment><USER159> innovation in 2020

</comment><comment><USER160> oh now they learn from firefox, but maybe grouping like this would easier for them to do the ads targeting

</comment><comment><USER9> While Google finds new ways to offer reduced functionality, here's how I use tabs in Chrome:

[https://github.com/atomontage/osa-chrome](https://github.com/atomontage/osa- chrome)

<comment><USER161> That actually seems like rather convenient, if I were emacs user on Mac, I would give it a try.

That said, you gotta agree that this time google actually adds functionality that might be useful to some, unlike more common _scrap-important-adblocking- api-to-screw-everyone_.</comment></comment>


Planet Explorer Beta - <AUTHOR> https://www.planet.com/ <comment><USER2> The ToS that you're presented with upon signing up is pretty absurd. It requires you to commit to providing feedback "on a regular basis of not less than once each week during the Beta term", and to creating "a written evaluation of the functionality, performance, usability, and stability of the Beta Site and documentation provided."

It also prohibits you from linking to the site or disclosing any information about it, including the existence and contents of the ToS. Boy, I sure hope I don't get sued for posting this comment. /s

<comment><USER3> Be a useful beta tester or give up your right to use the beta.

<comment><USER4> S/he brings up a useful point of understanding the ToS. What if the next iOS and Android _require_ my location be constantly shared with third parties? I would lose privacy or have to go without a smartphone which is freakishly hard in today's modern world.

Obviously that's a hypothetical but I appreciate anyone who pushes back on digital rights given how deep we are in the civic/digital rights gray zone.

<comment><USER5> > have to go without a smartphone which is freakishly hard in today's modern > world.

Totally off-topic but sometimes I find it unnerving how _hard_ it is to spend a week without _any_ type of mobile device. People look at you like you're insane.

<comment><USER6> Just like saying you don't own a tv in the 90'. It's weird at first but a fantastic social filter. Saves you so much time to bond with the proper people, the ones that are ok with people different from them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Quite off-topic, but that made me think of a project I wish I'll live to see implemented. I'm sure it will be done by someone eventually, though it's probably too difficult right now. I'm talking about a whole-world representation of paleontological knowledge. It'd be a simulation of the world with all known species. There would be a time slider that would span through all eons. On large scales we could see continental drift and on short scales we could see procedurally generated simulations of plants and animals with basic behavior (like hunting, grazing, circadian rythms, reproduction and so on...). It would make it possible to see evolution going on, generations after generations.

I don't think it's totally unfeasible in this century. We already have video games with procedurally generated planets that include flora and fauna (No Man's Sky is a famous example, but I believe Elite Dangerous wants to do something like that eventually). So it will be similar, only it would be based on actual scientific data.

<comment><USER8> You should have a look at GPlates: [https://www.gplates.org/](https://www.gplates.org/) It comes with a default dataset that will get you part way there as far as the raw data goes.

There are also several paid mobile apps that add more "nice-looking" overlays (e.g. Interactive Earth).

Of course, for the paleogeography, you're referring to something much broader and more difficult, but somewhat similar things are done to create paleotopographical reconstructions. I've only seen those sold by vendors, though, so I don't think any of them are public.

Ron Blakey's paleography is a classic example of something not too dissimilar, as well: [https://www2.nau.edu/rcb7/globaltext2.html](https://www2.nau.edu/rcb7/globaltext2.html) It was made back in the late 90's/early 2000's and has been expanded on since, but it's something of a manual version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sidenote: Planet presented on Google Cloud Next 2017 keynote today: [https://youtu.be/h9FSqVbdHis?t=8109](https://youtu.be/h9FSqVbdHis?t=8109) They told that they use Google Cloud Platform to store 7+ PB of data and upload 7 TB daily with a hockey-stick growth trajectory. Personally their mini satellites were my favorite part. Disclaimer: I work for Google.

<comment><USER10> They just bought Terra Bella too so they have a bunch more data from that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Too bad the resolution outside the US is quite low and the data is closed. If anyone is interested in a similar web app but without country-based limitations, you can take a look at Sentinel Playground at: [http://apps.sentinel-hub.com/sentinel-playground/](http://apps.sentinel- hub.com/sentinel-playground/) The best part? All Sentinel data is open to anyone, courtesy of the European Comission. Available at [https://scihub.esa.int/](https://scihub.esa.int/) or, for those invested in AWS, directly here at Amazon S3: [http://sentinel-pds.s3-website.eu- central-1.amazonaws.com/](http://sentinel-pds.s3-website.eu- central-1.amazonaws.com/)

<comment><USER12> This! Sentinel (1 and soon 2, which launched days ago) data is also available from Google Earth Engine using their API or web UI: [https://earthengine.google.com/datasets/](https://earthengine.google.com/datasets/)

It is hosted on Google Cloud.

<comment><USER11> Note that Sentinel 2A has been already delivering amazing data, the launch this month was for his twin (Sentinel 2B) which is meant to reduce in half the revisiting time!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It was inevitable that the tech would progress to this, and continue getting higher resolution and more frequent.

Account may be required, but here's an excellent example of the use: The Oroville Dam.

[https://www.planet.com/explorer/#/geometry/POLYGON((-121.518...](https://www.planet.com/explorer/#/geometry/POLYGON\(\(-121.5181+39.5201,-121.4566+39.5201,-121.4566+39.5574,-121.5181+39.5574,-121.5181+39.5201\)\)/items/REOrthoTile%3A20170227_191349_1057320_RapidEye-4/center/-121.504,39.536/zoom/14/interval/1%20day/mosaic/global_monthly_2016_11_mosaic)

</comment><comment><USER14> When Google Maps/Earth came out I remember distinctly an immediate sense of completion at the ability to explore everything instantly.

This is it, this is all of the things. The whole world right there explored and surveyed and mapped and labeled and catalogued and borders drawn. There's no mysterious potion shop whose location is whispered and forgotten in time, no unknown shipwreck full of treasure on an unreachable beach, no secret dark alley hidden through a hedge that leads to Hogwarts. No Hogwarts at all, we've already looked everywhere for it.

You can just get on your pocket computer from the couch and pull up the picture of it taken on June 5th with the reflection of the Google mapping car in the window and littered with discarded Starbucks cups and some blurred out licence plates.

</comment><comment><USER15> Someone want to explain? It does not look free what is it useful for? Looks like Google Maps with a timeslider.

<comment><USER16> If I'm not mistaken, the benefit of Planet over Google Maps is that all imagery on Planet is less than 24 hours old. So, you can see daily snapshots of different locations.

The time slider is huge (albeit potentially creepy)... you can see before and afters of a disaster, check if someone's car was parked outside on a certain day, watch progress of construction, etc.

<comment><USER17> Sound like some version of Eye In The Sky[0], scary and unsettling.

[0]: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye- sky/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/)

<comment><USER18> Except Planet's goal is global scale, and I don't think they are aiming to do anything real-time atm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Yet another site breaking my back button. No, I DON'T want to have another fucking back button entry every time I zoom in, zoom out or slide the map.

</comment><comment><USER20> Why don't I see snow in Boston during the winter months of 2016 and 2017?

EDIT: With access to the daily views via a free account one can indeed see winter days in which it's all covered in white :)

</comment><comment><USER21> Javascript errors are preventing any interaction with the website for me.

<comment><USER22> Curious what browser/OS you're on. There is also a form for submitting feedback here: [https://planetexplorer.typeform.com/to/frytMa](https://planetexplorer.typeform.com/to/frytMa)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Map projection feels weird. Anyone knows which one are they using?

<comment><USER24> Looks like Web Mercator. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Mercator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Mercator))

It's the same projection most online maps use, which is a bummer. Equirectangular ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equirectangular_projection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equirectangular_projection)) is much easier to grok (IMHO) and is supported out of the box by D3.

<comment><USER8> Equirectangular is not a projection. For all of web mercator's faults, it at least preserves direction, which is nice when you're looking at streets/etc locally. Regardless, all of the web mapping stuff standardized on web mercator ages ago. Like it or not, for web mapping, you're stuck with web mercator, unless you want to serve your own streets/etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Do You have pricing info on the different plans?

<comment><USER26> I don't represent planet, but you have better luck with a question that's narrowed a bit. For instance, who are you?

<comment><USER27> What an odd response. I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Why does it matter who the asker is?

<comment><USER28> Maybe planet.com only sell their imagery datasets to companies?! That's what came to my mind with GP asking "who are you?" probably meaning something like "who do you represent?"..

<comment><USER27> Right, the old "how much you got?" pricing scheme.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Does anyone know what are the current alternatives to this? Aggregating various government satellite photos?

<comment><USER30> There are a few (including USGS Earth Explorer and Astro Digital), but [https://remotepixel.ca/projects/satellitesearch.html](https://remotepixel.ca/projects/satellitesearch.html) has one of the nicer interfaces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Wonder how long they'll get away with using a variation on the lonely planet logo?

[https://www.google.com/search?q=lonely+planet&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=lonely+planet&tbm=isch)

<comment><USER32> You mean, how much longer they can have a circle as the main part of their logo?

<comment><USER31> Not everyone has an eye for graphic design, so if you can't see the that the resemblance is more than just "a circle as part of their logo", that's understandable.

If you need a tool to help, take a look at the google image search for "lonely planet". Their image matching algorithm thinks planet's logo is related to lonely planet's.

<comment><USER33> It's uncannily resemblant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> " 2016 PLANET LABS INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED."

It's 2017, update your website footer! [http://updateyourfooter.com/](http://updateyourfooter.com/)

<comment><USER31> You're probably getting down-voted because (aside from the off-topic comment) that isn't how copyright works. In most cases copyright starts from the time the work is created, and lasts for a specific period of time (Disney-style exceptions notwithstanding), whether copyright is explicitly declared or not.

The copyright notice only serves (informally) to indicate the start-point for this time.

<comment><USER11> I think the idea is addressing these people (like me) that were used to seeing those "Last edited on XX-XX-XXXX" notices at the footer of HTML pages and worry that the project may be dead/outdated if the date is old.

Now that I think about it, is this why people puts "Copyright $initial_year - $current_year"? Because as you rightly say, only $initial_year is legally relevant.

<comment><USER35> > Now that I think about it, is this why people puts "Copyright $initial_year > - $current_year"? Because as you rightly say, only $initial_year is legally > relevant.

Both are, actually, and $current_year may be the most relevant. That formulation generally indicates that the current work was created in $current_year, but is a derivative (possibly through a chain of intermediaries) of a work created in $initial_year.

Derivatives are independent works with their own copyrights, and copyrights of works where the author for copyright purposes is a corporation rather than a natural purpose last a fixed time from the creation of the work in the US, currently, IIRC, 95 years.

So something that says (assuming accuracy of the notice) Copyright 2001-2017, with a corporate author, will be out of copyright (barring further extensions) in 2102, but is ultimately based on an earlier version that will be out of copyright in 2096.

Of course, a lot of websites use automatically updating and false dates for copyright notices, and anyhow the usual current advice is not to include a date at all.

<comment><USER11> Hmmm I see, I didn't assume people meant that the subsequent updates of the website are intended o be considered derivative works, but for instance by similarity to different editions of a book, I guess this is actually the case?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you miss MySpace? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Yes, I think in its own little way it promoted learning html to younger people. (I personally got my start on my Neopets page)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow :) Which feature(s) do you miss the most.

<comment><USER2> I think I miss the customisation the most, whenever I look back on that time and forward to the gender-in-tech discussion I can never stop thinking about how almost all my female friends would spend hours adjusting, tinkering and just plain trying to out-do their friends in any way they could.I often wonder what would have occured if it was also a JavaScript sandbox..

At the time I was in my teens so alot of my music discovery came via the 'top friends' of bands or artists I already enjoyed - I would spend hours just browsing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> No.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sad.</comment></comment>


Python Reference – a collection of tutorials and other useful things - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rasbt/python_reference

<comment><USER2> good one for beginners, though few important stack is missing like pandas. But well embraced by IPython notebook. Good for learner.But try it yourself prior to adopt any technology mentioned here.

<comment><AUTHOR> I recently started to use pandas a lot for my data analyses. However, I didn't get to write about it yet. But it will surely follow one day :)</comment></comment>


Poor man's DoS attack (using Chrome + a spoon) - <AUTHOR> http://amal.net/?p=3829

<comment><USER2> +1 for the laugh.

Reminds me of this wannabe `hacker` I knew once who lived on an estate that had free wifi. He proudly told me how he managed to DOS the wifi router and make it lock up. I pointed out that he had in effect and litterly DOS'd himself of the internet and for that I was truely thankful such achievements got recognised in the Darwin awards.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice I'm sure a few of those at the same time could crash some websites!</comment>


Music Visualizers in CSS - <AUTHOR> http://likethemammal.github.io/css-visualizer/

<comment><AUTHOR> This was made by a friend of mine. It uses only CSS and DOM elements, no WebGL/canvas/anything-else. You can also check out the actual repo here:

[https://github.com/likethemammal/css- visualizer](https://github.com/likethemammal/css-visualizer)</comment>