Why do games as an entertainment medium elicit this kind of cultural shame? - <AUTHOR> http://nabeelhyatt.com/post/269124967/hi-my-name-is-mike-and-i-was-a-fishville-addict

<comment><USER2> Part of it, I think, is the lack of imagination factor (on the part of the person playing the game). Movies try to get you to look at the world differently; books make you conjure up your own imagery to match the text. Comic books even force you to imagine the voices of the characters, their motions and motivations.

Video games give you a very well-defined, discrete rule system. You are X character with Y motivation trying to achieve Z goal. If you don't achieve Z goal, you lose. If you achieve Z goal, you win. Winning Z goal means nothing in the "real world". Chuck Klosterman[1] described video games as similar to masturbation; there's a sense of achievement, but the feeling of gratification can be very shallow.

That said, I think there are video games that are more conducive to creative and interesting behavior than many books, just as there are many TV shows that inspire better thinking and creativity than mediocre movies. As another poster said, it will take time for the stigma of "video game brain-rot" to end.

[1] He's a pop-culture commentator with no real expertise in this, but I wanted to credit his analogy.

<comment><USER3> There's some truth in Klosterman's analogy, but I think it misses the point that much of other entertainment/art (in movies, TV shows, books, etc.) doesn't push you to think differently than you do. It simply feeds some emotional or whatever need - like masturbation. Don't get me wrong, I think this is ok.

But I think where games need to go if they want increased legitimacy is to develop games that cause you to think differently about the world. That ask questions without simple answers. I think it'll be hard because of the interactivity of games, but I think it's necessary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a very good question. I think we have stereotypes of people who are 'too in' to games and we've all probably known one of them.

I know one thing that many people don't like about (most) games is that they are engrossing and not easily interruptible. You can't "pause" your WoW Raid to go have dinner. There's no DVR. People seem more accepting of sports for sure, even though they are often engrossing and encourage poor behavior (just watch the people outside Fenway after a game and then tell me hardcore WoW raiders are bad...) Also the fact that you can spent more than 2-3 hours on them at a stretch easily gets to some people.

Some people view games as anti-social because they don't always require others in the room, even if you're interacting virtually.

I know that when I was single a few months ago, I kept seeing women on dating sites saying, "No gamers", but then they'd go to list the books, movies, sports and TV shows they liked.

Its my free time and I do what I want with it. The last two companies I've worked for (GamerDNA and imVOX) have been gaming related and its been great. I kinda love it actually. I don't watch any television shows, or sports. I rather like music and almost always have it playing. But games are something I find highly interactive and fun.

</comment><comment><USER5> _Somehow people who play games a lot get some kind of shame and then label it a crazy addiction. I'm not sure I really understand or care to understand the cultural elitism._

I don't understand; I don't care to understand; I just want to rant about it.

Addiction is intentionally built into games. Klondike Solitaire probably hit on it by accident, but Everquest, WoW, and Farmville were built to intentionally exploit the pleasure system to secure hours upon hours of attention. Other games do this to a lesser extent, but there is always a payoff for some interval of play.

Contrast this with comics, which are designed to, at worst, exploit the human tendency to fetishize particular reappearing characters. The latest issue of _Captain Amazing_ may hold your attention for a while, but there is no built- in active mechanism triggering dopamine hits in a regular basis. Television would come the closest, and that is similarly maligned by elitists who want the whole world to know that they don't even own a TV.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this aspect of games, but it definitely puts games in a different category than the other forms of entertainment that Nabeel is holding up for comparison. I'm surprised this isn't obvious.

<comment><USER6> Games, especially MMO's and Social Gaming exploit their addictiveness to keep people paying them.

Certain TV shows exploit similar addictiveness. CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: New York, NCIS, NCIS: Los Angeles, Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Law & Order: Trial by Jury . . . all still supplying ~24 new episodes a year during prime time slots. To put it roughly, 9 _days_ worth of programming that is essentially identical. Then there's the more unique (to some degree) procedurals (IE NUMB3RS, Castle, etc. Incidentally, the only procedurals I like, I can't stand the CSI crap as my mind is violently raped by unscience almost every other episode I watch) that appear.

I personally did stop watching TV for a prolonged period, but for no elitist reason as I love TV . . . perhaps too much. However, I'm satisfied watching _only_ the show, so I'm more a DVD person.

Movies, again, strike at this addictiveness with the 'unnecessary sequels' market. It's one thing when a movie plans multiple parts, a la the Borne trilogy. However, then there are the Bond series that maybe only hit a good movie every 3rd or 4th produced, but still take in millions. Then there are the totally unnecessary sequels that appear because the studios dangled hundreds of millions of dollars off an ACME sized mousetrap to bag a producer.

Books similarly can get into this trouble of unnecessary sequels. I believe Agatha Christie inadvertently suffered this problem as her publishers forbid her from killing off Poirot, it took her 40 years for the novel that killed him off to be published.

Ironically, the most addictive TV shows and books appear to be detective dramas. This is easily illustrated by the fact that Mystery/Crime novels is the biggest market in literature, and by the fact there are over 9 procedurals routinely running during prime time slots, year after year for almost a decade.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Please use permalinks, or older Hacker News threads won't make sense.

<comment><USER8> Copied the text down here:

<http://pastebay.com/74435>

<comment><USER9> That's not the correct solution; the blog itself has perfectly good permalinks: [http://nabeelhyatt.com/post/269124967/hi-my-name-is-mike- and...](http://nabeelhyatt.com/post/269124967/hi-my-name-is-mike-and-i-was-a- fishville-addict)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Video games are still very new. The people who grew up with the first consoles are what... 30 or 40 now?

Culture doesn't change over night. Give it a few more generations.

<comment><USER6> I agree, but I also believe the market has to change. I worked as a reviewer for video games, movies and TV series, and I have to say video games are exceptionally lacklustre in the story department.

The biggest video game franchises (excluding the sport franchises) all have massive stories behind them. Virtually every FPS touts '10 hours of gameplay' as if it's a good thing. They're essentially an _exceptionally_ long movie that's so deficient in story that if it were alive, it would have died from malnutrition. RPG games exhibit masses of story, sometimes unbelievable amounts for a video game, which is ideally where games should be headed.

A unique immersive single player games, like Mass Effect, GTA, Final Fantasy, Fable, etc, all seem to turn into huge franchises. The sand-box nature of many of these games then enables the whole creativity aspect to enter as people begin to play things like a puzzle. FPS's tend to use multiplayer competition to keep themselves played after the campaign is completed, although notably many of these games barely have a single player built in.

WoW is purely designed to be addictive, it appears to serve no other purpose due to the "oh you're a good boy, +1 level" rewards it deals out. Before WoW I never heard of games being 'addictive'. I heard about people playing games way too much, in fact I likely did, but that usually abated with boredom during the off seasons (incidentally the movie seasons).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Games are one of the only pursuits that actually allow you to experience that you've accomplished something, and in fact they're all designed to do so, and it's neatly packaged in such a way that you can be certain it's possible for you to experience at least a set sequence of accomplishments.

Couple that with complete abstraction from "the real world" and they are capable of producing the type of persona that is immune to accusations of uselessness / slacking, the person in question constantly gets their "I did stuff" buttons pushed by their in game accomplishments, despite accomplishing very little in the real world.

The only other pursuit where this springs to mind is sport, and sport has been around long enough that culture has adjusted to it, and in some cases actually translates sporting achievements into real life achievements. South Korea is already taking this tack to a degree with video games, and with professional gaming leagues, etc, you can see it's probably the way that the pursuit will develop / integrate with mainstream culture eventually.

Speaking for myself, I've been absorbed in games at times, the degree to which this absorption is expressed is inversely proportional to my satisfaction with the real world at any given time. I think culture proper doesn't like the idea that "gamers" may be a group mostly capable of not caring what culture thinks about them.</comment>


Native UI (Building desktop applications with electronjs) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jamzi/building-desktop-applications-with-electron-native-ui-7389586e94bb <comment><USER2> Not sure if this will get answered here, should join a discord if Electron has it...

Does this mean that you need to install Electron even the clients/non developers who want to use your desktop app? Is a .exe compiled for windows?

I listened to a pod cast about it, it is intriguing as I am a web developer and wanted to develop desktop apps.

I think it can cross compile too which is awesome.</comment>


Apple changes words in order to change the debate  - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2620-change-the-words-and-you-change-the-debate <comment><USER2> It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot.

The fact is, Android's openness _does not make it to the end user_. Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disable specific features and other nonsense. Don't like this? Too bad. Android's openness _isn't for you_ , now that carriers and manufacturers are getting wise to your hackery tricks. They're going to make it as hard as possible to root your Android phone. So you'd better get used to that awesome Blockbuster app.

In the end, iOS and Android devices are on even footing in terms of big companies trying to control the final experience.

Which leaves us with one thing: motivations.

Carrier motivations are to _fuck you out of as much money as humanly possible in the short term_. In the past that meant disabling device features to force you into their ecosystem – I'm sure this will continue one way or another. They'll load branded garbage onto your device. They'll put specific marketplaces on your device, and maybe even remove Google's if they want to. Their manufacturing partners will happily conspire with them on this, including the firmware fuse that prevents rooting your device so you can make it somewhat clean again.

Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible. (edit: and so, Apple's play is the converse: to maximize your cheerful purchases of Apple gear in the _long term_ – thanks, matwood)

If you're a carrier, Android's openness makes it much more valuable than iOS in the short term. In that, Google's piety will ring true. If you're an end user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss.

I trust Apple infinitely more than I trust the carriers to make something I'll enjoy using. And that's the key to understand. With Apple, what I buy will always be clean. I'll always instantly understand the tradeoffs. With Android, it's going to be a gamble. How hard has my carrier boned this device? I'll have to research if I'm a nerd or be surprised if I'm everyone else. And there goes the power of Android as a brand.

Android is no longer Google. Android _is_ the carriers.

When was the last time you heard someone write _those_ guys a love letter?

<comment><USER3> Although I agree with the general point that Android is not totally open in an absolute sense, I think you too easily ignore the ways in which it is open relative to the iPhone.

First and foremost, I don't have to jailbreak my phone to install apps not "approved" by Google/the carrier/whoever. I can download an APK from anywhere.

Secondly, the code is open. This does matter in practice, because there are people who can and do take advantage of this to create modified versions (e.g. Cyanogen). If Google decides not to take a particular direction, but enough people want it, it can happen.

Thirdly, it's not tied to one hardware manufacturer. Apple may make great hardware, but they attack a certain target market, which not everyone fits into.

Finally, although your argument about carriers has some truth, it misses a couple of points. It's not like iPhone users are exempt from all carrier restrictions - why can I tether via my Android phone yet iPhone-owning friends cannot? And there is nothing about Android that forces you to use a certain carrier (ironically, in the US, it's iPhone users that have no choice of carrier). I purchased my phone on T-Mobile in the UK, now I use it on another carrier in Australia, no problem.

<comment><USER4> _I can download an APK from anywhere._

Out of curiosity, do you (or any Android users reading this) find yourself doing this with any frequency?

<comment><USER5> That's how I installed Fennec.

<comment><USER6> Same here, also couchdb and a few other apps I've found that were available as APK and o'reilly books.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Good point, it is in Apple's interest to reframe the debate. Theoretically, Apple could argue that Google's core assets (search and advertising) aren't open-sourced. Their Android apps (like Maps) aren't open-source and Apple could say that "open" is just a marketing buzzword that Google uses to try and beat Apple with. However, that will be an argument on turf picked by Google.

"What is best for the customer" (and also what is best for app developers) is imo a much better argument for Apple and so it isn't surprising that Apple would prefer to fight on this turf.

As an app developer, I develop for the iPhone/iPad (even though I wrote an Android app with their beta SDK long before Apple launched the app store and Google launched their first Android device). So I personally agree with the case made by Apple.

In this context, it is also worth noting that Rovio (which earned >$1M/month with their $0.99 iPhone app) recently released an Android app, but made it free. They seem to be using the "ad-supported" model for the same reason that many developers don't develop paid Android apps (and I hope I haven't offended too many Android users by pointing out that Android users download very few paid apps). Rovio has also mentioned the difficulties with Android fragmentation. Overall, I'd say that Apple's argument does resonate in the market.Google's argument (and the fact that it is available on all major US carriers) is also very effective. Overall, this is a great time for mobile devices/apps

<comment><USER8> It certainly resonates with developers. Ultimately, however, that hardly matters.

Apple allowed an Android toe-hold in the market and they're going to continue to pay dearly for it. Google has steadily improved the OS, and the phones reflect that. The hardware has gotten better and the overall user experience has continued to improve. Not to mention that that quality of the third party apps has continued to improve as well.

We are likely to see at least one more major OS revision for Android before Apple finally brings something over to Verizon. Remember, Google has brought some serious talent to bear here with the likes of Matias Duarte (user experience for WebOS) now on the Android front.

Fragmentation is a developer issue. The app-store issues are by and large developer issues (particularly since Google has finally opened up the paid app options). Get outside of the echo chamber and you'll see lots of folks happily using their Android phones and feeling pretty good about it.

Jobs is getting agitated because, in my opinion, he knows this is a battle he's going to lose. Customization is right at the top of features most important to cell phone users (I can't post the citation, it's an internal study I was given access to). Android's open philosophy certainly filters down to the end user when it comes to customizing the phones. Be it with new launchers, keyboards (my iPhone toting friends are intensely jealous of Swype), or just about anything else on the phone.

Remember ringtones and wall-paper after all. That was an incredibly huge market driven by the folks wanting to customize their phone. Cases are another expression of that. Android eventually wins, because for most folks, that is the driving factor. Apps are going to be a wash in the end... both platforms already have enormous breadth and precious little in the way of high quality. They won't influence the outcome. Apple will lose, simply because they insist on being Apple.

<comment><USER9> I don't think fragmentation is only a developer issue. It breaks up the target market into silos, which means it will require more effort from a developer for less potential revenue. If this results in fewer and lower-quality apps on the Android Market, this will impact the perceived value from the viewpoint of the customer.

If I were to buy a phone, I don't want to have to worry about whether the apps on my friend's Android phone will work on mine. It's one more thing for me to worry about, and it may be just the thing to stop me from buying it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Framing is powerful and fascinating game every spokesperson worth its money plays.

Steve Jobs talked a lot about fragmentation and brushed openness aside. Why then did Andy Rubin not talk about fragmentation but emphasize openness? Because he is not stupid, that's why.

That's what makes many of those public fights very frustrating to watch. In a perfect world humans wouldn't get distracted by frames. They would be able to recognize that there is nearly always more than one aspect to a story.

It absolutely drives me crazy when, for example, so many advocates of nuclear power can only ever talk about CO2 and so many adversaries of nuclear power can only ever talk about safety and waste.

<comment><USER11> It's not really relevant to your point, but I happen to be a nuclear power advocate who thinks it's safe, clean, and efficient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Another "great" example of this: the Corn Refiner's Association has applied to rebrand HFCS into "corn sugar."

[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syru...](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syrup_image)

<comment><USER13> It's a very interesting situation because while it's clearly a "typical evil corporation" move, it's one that's objectively justifiable given the evidence. Because I am anti-putting-sugar-in-everything (HFCS or otherwise), I hope that this _will_ result in more people associating corn syrup with sugar. All the campaigns against HFCS should really have been campaigning against all forms of sugar all along and the association will (perhaps inadvertently) make people more averse of products with too much sugar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I can totally see where framing this as integrated vs. fractured can happen. A coworker has an Android based phone and the latest update from the phone manufacturer killed the app she had to get to the corporate email account. 3 months in, the problem still isn't resolved. You end up with a gaggle of vendors all pointing the finger at each other as well as the app maker.

On my iPod Touch, I can get to the corporate email perfectly fine, through all of the iOS updates I've gotten.

Apple can test all of their base features and their apps and know that they work on every device they ship. It just works and it is integrated.

</comment><comment><USER15> There are some great reads by the cited examples.

George Lakoff's (left) Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate - is a fascinating read regardless of your political beliefs. [http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate- Progressive...](http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate- Progressives/dp/1931498717)

The Frank Luntz (right) example of death tax vs. estate tax is pretty well known. What he put together for the GOP about how to frame the bailouts/Wall St/financial reform/Obama admin this year is also a fascinating political document: [http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23808095/Language-of- Financial-R...](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23808095/Language-of-Financial- Reform)

</comment><comment><USER16> I really think the comparison with politicians is (probably unintentionally) disingenuous. The thing that would make reframing an argument in different terms dishonest is (a) when it is done without telling you- politicians don't say, look we don't like such and such term, we're going to call it this instead and (b) when the terms that it is reframed in have undue intrinsic positive or negative value.

When Steve did it, he clearly stated what he was doing and justified reframing the argument in that way. In that case, reframing a debate using more appropriate terms to really approach the core of what is different is an honest tactic that is often necessary to really compare two things objectively.

Secondly, the terms fragmented vs. integrated appear to have less intrinsic value than open (good) and closed (bad).

As such, you can argue with which is the most relevant framework to compare the two systems (and actually, this is going to be different for different user groups- manufacturers care about different things than developers, or end users), but I don't like the implicit characterization of his reframing the argument as somehow dishonest. That seems close-minded.

</comment><comment><USER17> Except the debate isn't _open_ vs. _closed_. It's _iOS_ vs. _Android_. Since Jobs is trying to strengthen Apple's position in _that_ debate, where's the foul?

</comment><comment><USER18> We can also look at it as Apple viewing this from customer perspective (fragmented vs. integrated) and Google viewing this from production and development philosophy point of view. Which view is more relevant to a customer? (where a customer is your regular Joe/Jane)

</comment><comment><USER19> Oldest trick in the book. It's good to see the tech industry catch up with what politicians discovered centuries ago.

<comment><USER20> Why would be it good to see an industry take cues from the least honest profession?

<comment><USER19> I wrote that with sarcasm dripping from my words, but I suppose it didn't translate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Open and closed can mean so many things in this context. The whole debate really _needs_ to be more semantically focused on what they mean to really make any sense.

</comment><comment><USER22> The "real" real problem is not the carriers. Its the way the government manages the spectrum.

We could have a dynamic marketplace where devices, users, networks could buy spectrum in advance or real time and even resell it.

We need incentives for making the most use of spectrum, for making more spectrum with faster clocks. Seems we have incentives for controlling and inhibiting innovation.

Instead we've sold spectrum to the highest bidder who can then control access to it and have no real open competition. Maybe Google's bid last year will change that a bit (<http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9910932-7.html>).

You ought to be able to create your own network by buying spectrum in a fluid marketplace. Or just be one guy buying spectrum as you need it for some device you made yourself.

Don't if that all makes sense, but I think you may at least see what I mean by the problem behind the problem.

</comment><comment><USER23> Growing up, my stepmother was very big on the power of words, and how you can change people's minds based on how you say a thing. She was right, of course... but to my mind, that seemed like protecting myself from this manipulation was more important (and more ethical) than using this knowledge to manipulate other people. For a long time, I'd practice re-writing everything I heard using words with the most negative connotations I could without changing the meaning of the sentence.

"I gave him a job, and his skills and abilities are helping my business do well." vs. "I am profitably exploiting his skills and abilities."

the meaning is essentially the same, but don't say the second one in public. (in my teenage years I tried that, too.. it ended badly.)

Anyhow, I don't spend as much effort on it as I did, but I still think being aware of this sort of thing is an important part of everyone's mental self- defense.

</comment><comment><USER24> For those who would like to listen to exactly what Steve Jobs said, the audio is posted at <http://www.apple.com/investor/> and will probably be there for about 10 - 15 days.

</comment><comment><USER25> I still remember how the Bush administration carefully worded some bills.

Healthy Forest Initiative - opens up more parks to the timber industry

Patriot Act - Who would dare say they are against Patriotism?

<comment><USER26> I'm strongly against patriotism actually but I see your point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Apple could be much more open with iOS and at the same time be not less integrated. How does the whole AppStore policy make iOS more integrated?

When I am criticizing Apple for iOS not being open I mean it is not open to run any application that works on the device.

The Problem with iOS is that only Apple-Signed applications are allowed. Because of that, Apple has the power to keep the competition and the content they do not approve of out.

</comment><comment><USER28> Their previous argument—"yes, it's open, but it sucks"—was less effective than this. It also said pretty much the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER29> _We think the open versus closed argument is just a smokescreen to try and hide the real issue, which is, "What's best for the customer – fragmented versus integrated?"_

Sounds awfully familiar. Didn't they learn anything from the desktop wars in the 90's?

</comment><comment><USER30> George Lakoff's class, "The Mind, Language, and Politics" (Cognitive Science C104) was my absolute favorite class at UC Berkeley. We read plenty of his work and Frank Luntz. I'm glad to see these ideas again!

</comment><comment><USER31> Say what you may about Jobs, but you have to admire how he plays the game.

<comment><USER32> I would prefer that he let his products do the talking - which they do. That's what makes all of this even stranger.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> They stole my comment from earlier today: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1807530>

</comment><comment><USER34> Jobs begs the question: Are the users actually the system integrators?

What does that even mean anyway?

<comment><USER35> Exactly. And what does fragmented and integrated mean in the context of a consumer? I've heard fragmented as far as developers go but consumers just get a device and normally keep it for at least 2 years. How is fragmentation hurting them and what integration is it that they're doing?

<comment><USER36> One way this 'fragmentation' can hurt users is by removing some developer's incentive to build on the platform.

I believe that is what the Tweetdeck quote was about, anyway.

<comment><USER37> Except it wasn't a real quote. @iaindodsworth (TweetDeck's CEO) wrote today it wasn't: <http://twitter.com/#!/iaindodsworth/statuses/27813412620>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Debating 101: Frame the argument.

Both sides of any argument do this. Google by calling it "open" which means more than it really does. Apple doesn't debate it's not open, it just debates that the results aren't any good because of the confusion of choices. "Open" is supposed to be a good thing, Apple doesn't believe it is.

But the fact is that Apple is crying about it, they're explaining why they made the decisions they made. They need to justify this to their investors. Google needs PR to make Android look good.

That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion. Do these guys read the news, maybe they just started?

<comment><USER39> >That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion.

That's a pretty touchy example. Honestly, I've always thought that "pro- choice" was stretching the truth more than "pro-life".

<comment><USER40> If you want to see where "pro-life" may be stretching the truth, consider that not all "pro-life"-ers are vegans. When they say "pro-life", they're trying to imply that embryos are people, which is really the crux of the debate.

<comment><USER39> I'm actually okay with "pro-life" as shorthand for "pro-sentient life". I think that's obviously implied - the debate isn't about whether cows should be able to get abortions.

<comment><USER40> But whether an embryo is sentient or if its life has more value than that of a dog or cow is a debatable point for people who don't derive their opinions from their dogma. If you take "pro-life" to be short for "pro- sentient life", then you've shifted focus away from the issue over to what's pretty much a tautology.

<comment><USER39> I agree with you that an embryo isn't sentient - however, they believe it is, or at least that it has a "soul" (which, in their minds, is the same thing). Their position is that wrong to kill something with a soul. You can (and should) be scientific about whether or not an embryo meets that qualification, but that's a question of their poor science, not their motive nor the position they think they're arguing...which I do think is reasonably accurately captured by "pro-life".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> How about "integrating" a phone that works into your phone.

</comment><comment><USER42> There's a term for the kind of rephrasing used by Apple: "fear, uncertainty, and doubt"

There's another term: "propaganda"

I could probably rephrase the matter endlessly if I really wanted to.

</comment><comment><USER43> How about Jobs misinterpreting a blog-post bij the makers of TweetDeck, by using it as an example of how terribly difficult it is for developers to write for the 'fragmented' android platform.

Just a little later the CEO of TweetDeck (@iaindodsworth) tweets this: "Did we at any point say it was a nightmare developing on Android? Errr nope, no we didn't. It wasn't."

Help me out, is this a typical case of 'FUD'?</comment>


Ask HN: Are drones legal to fly indoors around people? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> If not, Maker Faire has had a problem the past few years. Ditto several tech companies.

I think they're legal but use common sense, i.e. don't buzz people, keep a safe distance, don't fly them where ceilings are not high enough to keep an adequate safety margin, stay away from potential obstacles they could hit, and you're in pretty big trouble if you fly a drone into a person and they get hurt.</comment>


Why Android Will Win the Mobile App Wars - <AUTHOR> http://useragent.metapede.com/2009/08/11/why-android-will-win-the-mobile-app-wars/

<comment><USER2> I think the author forgets that Apple initially told all us developers to forget the idea of a native iPhone app and just deal with having only webapps for the iPhone until iPhone OS 2.0 was released.

I think the author also forgets the 30% cut, while making Apple a small profit, is also about paying for hosting the app, running the app store, providing limited support to users, credit card fees, and other such overhead. If Apple really desperately wanted that 30% cut, Mobile Safari would not be supporting HTML 5 features like geolocation that make it easier for webapps to access the same information native apps can. I expect to see further improvements to Mobile Safari that make it even easier to take advantage of the iPhone's hardware.

Plus, there _is_ a subscription model for the app store that is not news, but is not yet commonly found on the app store yet. One example would be some of the monthly fee-based GPS navigation apps. The same model also allows for adding more content to applications for an additional fee.

I don't disagree that the app store is broken in some ways and needs fixed (wait, I don't see most consumers actually caring about it though...), but the argument is presented without sufficient research on the part of the author, even taking into consideration the date on which it was posted.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't understand the article's logic. It starts by describing App Store complaints, then it goes on to argue that Android will win over the iPhone because the future of phone applications is web apps... while ignoring that iPhone is no more restrictive toward web apps than Android is.

The assumption that Android will eventually expose all of the phone hardware to web apps is questionable, as is the assumption that Apple will not modify their platform to stay competitive.

It would have been better to simply argue that the App Store will eventually become irrelevant, and leave out the whole iPhone vs. Android argument.

</comment><comment><USER4> Rather than on open vs closed, native apps vs web based apps app war win will be decided solely on the number of users a given mobile platform has. For that some android manufacturer would have to stand up to design an iphone killer.

<comment><USER5> An easy way to get an iPhone killer:

        1) Get a darn good smartphone
        2) Offer phone & network that *doesn't suck*

1 - is out there already. 2 - The carriers are basically shooting themselves in the foot! Apple carries AT&T. All the others flounder because they don't have Apple to carry them.</comment></comment>


Apple patents a curved screen phone - <AUTHOR> https://www.patentsandtech.com/apple-patents-a-curved-screen-phone/ <comment><USER2> _sigh_ While I'm not surprised, I'm certainly disappointed.

I bought a Galaxy S9+ with a curved screen a couple months after it came out. Seeing my friends' S8 curved screens was enough to convince me to buy one. They look great (imo anyway), and look more "edge to edge" than non-curved screens (at least right now).

But. I am sick of the top and bottom of YouTube videos being cut off because some of it is wrapped just past the point where you can see it well. I'm sick of having to move the edge of the case slightly to drag a bounding box to the edge of the screen. And the last time I cracked my screen and took it to be repaired (which thankfully ended up only being a screen protector crack) they quoted me over $500 to replace the screen. Can you imagine how much Apple will charge for screen replacement if Samsung are already charging over $500?

<comment><USER3> again, we have seen a lot of apple patent application that did not result in a product being sold.</comment></comment>


Why CEOs Shouldn't Publicly Discuss Religion, Politics Or Sex(ual Orientation) - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngreathouse/2012/08/21/shutup-and-sell-ceos-shouldnt-publicly-discuss-religion-politics-or-sexual-orientation/

<comment><USER2> I'm not seeing much "why" in this article. There are a couple of anecdotes and a lot of opinion spewing, but not much of substance to support the idea that "founders shouldn't publicly discuss Religion, Politics or Sex(ual Orientation).

Also, to his point about having a responsibility to "maximize returns for all shareholders":

 _It's a myth that corporations have a legal duty to maximize profits to shareholders at the expense of everyone else. Historically, the executives and directors of U.S. public corporations understood that they had a responsibility to other constituencies – customers, employees, suppliers, creditors, the communities in which they operate, and the nation._ [1]

If doing what's best for "customers, employees, suppliers, creditors, the communities in which they operate, and the nation" involves discussing politics, religion, or sex publicly, then a CEO _should_ do it, even if it causes short-term financial loss. IOM, it's time for leaders to start looking at the long-term view a little bit more; as opposed to only focusing on "this quarter."

[1][http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/three-corporate- myths...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/three-corporate-myths-that- threaten-the-wealth-of-the-nation.html)

<comment><USER3> Agreed. For example, there is enough vitriol against private enterprise and business in this upcoming American election that businesses NEED to make a stand. The alternative is to quietly plan shifting capital and production means to more business-friendly countries -- things which no one who started a business in the US wants to do (they started the damn thing here in the first place!).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So, they should never mention their wives/husbands? Was Zuckerburg's wedding a terrible misstep? Catholic hospitals are a disaster? Every lobbying group is a net negative for the company? I don't think he's thought this through.

The problem in those specific cases was not choosing not to advertise on talk radio: it was failing to make up for those advertising channels elsewhere. (Though in Carbonite's case, advertising to people who will swallow whatever they are told without performing independent verification might be a superior strategy, of course...)

The key is for the company to have an identity and a CEO who supports that identity. No one is surprised when Google opposes SOPA or creates a It Gets Better video: that is the kind of company it is. People who don't want to be part of that wouldn't work for Google.</comment>


Dear Economist: The Rumors of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated - <AUTHOR> http://blog.quantopian.com/quant-strategies-the-rumors-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/

<comment><USER2> Google Cached version : [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qqivRrn...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qqivRrnMkyoJ:blog.quantopian.com/quant- strategies-the-rumors-of-my-death-have-been-greatly- exaggerated/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, we fixed the problem causing the slow loads.</comment></comment>


Retirees Might Run Out of Money 10 Years Before They Die - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-13/world-s-retirees-risk-running-out-of-money-a-decade-before-death <comment><USER2> This study is very poorly interpreted. It specifically excludes government and corporate pensions (including social security) from its calculation.

Consider:

1\. Avg income (all ages) in the US is ~50k/yr

2\. Avg social security is ~25k/yr (mostly untaxed)

So including social security in the calculation HALVES the annual burn rate, more than doubling your runway because of greater interest compounding on savings.

Additionally, many baby boomers retiring today have some kind of additional corporate pension from their early careers in the 70s and 80s and these are all government guaranteed, even if the issuing firm goes bankrupt. That probably adds another 5-10k/yr per person on avg.

And finally, most retirees today own houses that have massively appreciated since purchase. Given very favorable laws on cap gains from primary residence sales + low interest rates on borrowing against a home, most retirees probably have a nice additional cushion to draw from.

Overall, this article is FUD. Unless there's a massive economic recession/depression in the near future, most retirees will be absolutely fine. The poorest will struggle, but probably no more than they have since Reaganomics kicked in 40years ago.

<comment><USER3> >This study is very poorly interpreted. It specifically excludes government and corporate pensions (including social security) from its calculation.

It excludes corporate _defined benefits_ pensions. I suspect the people on corporate defined benefits is fairly low at this point.

Source of the social security number? I have a salary above average, and the SS web site estimates a $24K/year for me (today's dollars). Lower income folks should get less.

<comment><USER4> Social security benefits are extremely non-linear using from 90% down to 15% of income in each range. It also only considers a limited set of your highest years earnings, which can mess with early estimates.

The minimum benefit for someone who worked 30 years making minimum wage is $872.50 per month, 10.5k/year The maximum benefit is $2,861 per month or 35k/year, for someone who made 140+k for 35 years.

<comment><USER5> The benefit is linear but the distribution of people getting it is not evenly distributed around the middle of the benefit range. Therefore the average benefit is not just the mean of the min and max SS benefits.

<comment><USER4> The existence of bend points in the formula means it's non linear. [https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/bendpoints.html](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/bendpoints.html)

 _PIA formula For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2019, or who dies in 2019 before becoming eligible for benefits, his /her PIA will be the sum of: (a) 90 percent of the first $926 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus (b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $926 and through $5,583, plus (c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $5,583._

Note the c is capped 11,075 US$ per month as income above that is not taxed.

<comment><USER5> Oh, I'm sorry. I misread your first claim. I thought you said the benefit WAS linear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I believe situation for long-term investing like retierement is getting worse. After all quantitive easing and low level of interests rate, the capital gains on safe assets are minimal accounting for inflation. As an aftermatch capital gains on everything else are getting lower. Years of 10% gains over long-time are over, even 8% looks over-optimistic over long term for huge amount of people.

Maybe our capital system couldn't effieciently store so much savings while keeping reasonsble economic growth with ageging population.

At this point AGI and universal basic income may be the best hope for the bottom 90% of population.

<comment><USER7> Pension funds assume 6-8% real returns in their actuarial calculations (and even then, most are painfully underfunded). If real returns come in much lower than that, then many of the State, local, and private pensions will be destabilized. Social security and Federal pensions should be fine no matter what.

<comment><USER8> Interestingly optimistic. I've been doing my recent retirement calculations with 5% nominal returns. I suppose it's because I'd rather be pleasantly surprised in retirement than starve.

<comment><USER9> 5% nominal returns, then ~2% inflation and income taxes on withdrawal. That's going to require a high savings rate.

<comment><USER8> Yes, unfortunately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "The forum assumed retirees would need enough income to cover 70% of their pre-retirement pay, and didn't include Social Security or other government welfare payments in the total."

The above caveat is pretty huge...

<comment><USER11> Exactly. If that number were arbitrarily changed to 60% and _did_ include Social Security, well, there goes the news article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I agree with the comments that the methodology is flawed and the conclusion overly alarmist. One of the things my grandfather would say was "You don't have to worry about running out of money if you're living off the interest." He had lived through the depression and would tell stories of people who were spending savings to "keep up appearances" and it cost them everything.

<comment><USER13> But one can't live off the interest any more because we've manipulated the system to close to zero interest rates. To be able to earn 20k, single person survival income, that individual needs $1M in savings.

Times from our grandparents times have changed. The problem is very clear. Higher interest rates boost savers, at the expense of risk takers (some good, some bad). Instead, we've goosed the economy for so long with low interest rates that savers got bit by inflation and speculation has become a way of life.

<comment><USER12> Apparently you need $715,000 in an SPX index fund in 2000 to reliably pull $24K/year ($2K/month) out of it. I made a toy model for that : [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pBoa2mikeKQ4zPHOHu6L...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pBoa2mikeKQ4zPHOHu6La_PA5Uk- lr8Srkcx9oaMGlM/edit?usp=sharing)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Financial education is a _must_.

Even workers who earn very little can easily be assured of a safe retirement if they save and invest prudently from a young age. (That's the key-- a young age.)

This is all very well proven. It should be taugnt from the earliest grades. Yet it isn't. Totally frustrating.

<comment><USER15> It's not that simple. It depends crucially on real rates.

When rates are close to zero, as now, you'd basically have to save half of your after-tax income. And that won't allow you to cover big medical bills or health insurance. Some government help is required.

Financial education alone is not enough.

<comment><USER14> That's a question of asset allocation. A well-diversified portfolio should have assets that produce income even when stock-trading isn't. (i.e. bonds, dividend-producing stocks.)

It's also crucial to understand that it takes time. Stocks are still doing well, were absolutely roaring for the past 10 years. This is a blip in a single investor's timeframe. You need to invest a percentage year in, year out. Through high markets and lows. Keep plowing that percentage in. Every great investor from Buffet to Bogle to Dalio will tell you this is a known formula for success. The 'current time' is irrelevant.

In every timeframe (even times of rising inflation, crashing stocks, etc.) there are assets that are appropriate. That's where education becomes important-- understanding what your levels of risk and comfort should play in allocating your assets.

Don't believe nobody will make money over any extended time period. Some people certainly will. Education can help you do well in many environments (including the current one. Many people are doing very well.)

<comment><USER15> First, your theory that 'current time' is irrelevant is predicated on the broad market still producing relatively high real returns. This is by no means certain, and "secular stagnation" asserts precisely that the high returns are over for now.

Second, how about some division of labour? Instead of every individual learning about the optimal allocation of assets and the CAPM and so on, how about everyone just pays into a central pot while working, and a few specialists invest it optimally.

(Different risk aversion can easily be incorporated in that framework.)

Just like you and I don't build our own cars, and don't need to know about how it works and how to repair it to use it.

That's how it should be done in the civilised world: you pay into a pension pot, and then when you retire you get a pension.

And there's another benefit: instead of everyone having to save to cover their maximal possible remaining lifetime (with expected waste being maximal possible total pension minus expected total pension) everyone only needs to save to cover their expected remaining lifetime (with expected waste being zero).

<comment><USER14> In short, because every-man-for-himself has a long history of great success. It simply works.

Ignore it at your peril.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In developing countries, the retirees' retirement is often their children. I think people need to keep in mind how important children can be in terms of securing your comfort in your old age.

<comment><USER17> > I think people need to keep in mind how important children can be in terms > of securing your comfort in your old age.

As much as I see your point, that is unrealistic for many, many people. Especially in the US where that is not prominent societal norm.

My parents live thousands of miles away from any of their children. Most of my siblings don't have the money to save properly for their own retirement let alone support their parents. And housing situations often do not support two households living under one roof.

And this applies to families that still talk to each other.

<comment><USER18> Then it is a wrong societal norm. My grandmother retired at about 95 years old and she lived with us (daughter's house and 2 grandchilds) until she died at 106. She had a tiny government pension (about $100 per month) that she had not to spend on anything because the family cared for all her needs. When you live with someone and the marginal cost is just one room and one seat at the table then this is not a burden for anyone. If you want your separate house and someone to help, that is not sustainable unless you saved big time.

<comment><USER19> > Then it is a wrong societal norm.

This is an underrated point, but I hope you can see how prevailing factors in both the business world (Amazon's two-day shipping springs to mind) and the culture are seriously stacked against these mores.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There might be some trouble ahead, if the the improving technology means the current life expectancy figures are too pessimistic.

So far the growth seems to have been quite steady. Does anybody know how well the old predictions have hold up?

</comment><comment><USER21> This is just another example of how our society is under pressure to change to giving basic support to all people in order to handle the chaotic realities of labor markets and financial vehicles.

</comment><comment><USER22> Does anyone reading this know r/financialindependence ?

<comment><USER23> yes..?</comment></comment>


Founding Sales: Startup sales for founders - <AUTHOR> https://www.foundingsales.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I saw this mentioned in another HN thread yesterday and wrote a comment saying how much I loved it ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22531835](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22531835)). Posting it here as a top-level post in case people missed it (the link was buried in the comments of a thread about a similar book that isn't free). I am not affiliated with the author, but I've found his advice super helpful and wanted to share.</comment>


With Windows Phone 7, Did Microsoft Actually Bring A Gun To A Gun Fight? - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/12/windows-phone/

<comment><USER3> I guess I live in some alternative reality where my HTC desire is actually much more enjoyable to use than an iphone. I can see how iphone users could enjoy their device more, I just wish they would extend the same courtesy.

fanboy ranting aside I dont think I could trust microsoft to give me a nice computing experience again, even if some people like it superficially, there must be something wrong in there.

<comment><USER4> 10 points and climbing for a reply that essentially says, "Bah, it's Microsoft, there must be something wrong with it"? That's really disappointing, HN.

I foresee some serious cognitive dissonance playing out as Microsoft manages to do a whole lot better than hive-mind "HA HA too little too late / M$ sucks" sentiments have been allowing for. And frankly, Microsoft deserves the success they've got coming to them here. Somehow, the teams responsible for WP7 have been able to overcome the bureaucratic, backstabbing inertia that Microsoft is famous for, and they've produced something pretty damned good for a 1.0. Shame that so few people bother to actually examine the platform in any detail before pontificating about it, predicting its doom, etc.

<comment><USER3> To be honest it was a pretty vacuous comment, and was mostly about iphone / android than windows mobile.

But I didnt say it sucks, or that there must be something wrong with it, I said I couldnt trust them (with a lot or money) not to suck, and my opinion isnt formed from some hivemend, its formed from the last 10 years of my experience with microsoft products.

<comment><USER5> _I didnt say it sucks, or that there must be something wrong with it_

Actually you did, almost word for word: "there must be something wrong in there" :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article seems a little under-appreciative of some of the innovations in Android. After using Android I don't think I could go back to a phone that didn't support home screen widgets no matter how good it looked or how pleasant it was to use otherwise. A serious amount of my use of my phone is mediated entirely through widgets now.

Having said that - I totally agree that WP7 is going to be pretty competitive and I'm really happy about that. My hope is that it makes Google go the extra mile with Gingerbread to really sweeten up the UI a bit - but we're going to win (consumers, that is) either way.

<comment><USER7> >Google go the extra mile with Gingerbread to really sweeten up the UI a bit

I've never understood what exactly people mean when they say that. The one area Google needs to fix is the settings menu, with a much more logical organisation which they failed to do properly even in Froyo. Other than that, the worst flaws in Android are not things that Google can just wave a wand and fix without breaking backward compatibility.

Agree with you about the widgets, though. Can't live without them.

<comment><USER6> I present to you the iOS date picker side by side with the Android date picker:

<http://i.imgur.com/PcNGf.png>

One has a beautiful touch responsive scrolling display while the other requires you to pick out small + and - symbols and tap repeatedly on them until you get to the right date. Mis-hitting the square below brings up the keyboard with a jarring UI-rearranging effect.

This kind of stuff, as well as the fluidity of the UI in general (jerky scrolling, transitions sudden instead of animated) is what they need to address.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a long-time developer of Windows desktop applications, I am quite excited about the possibility to using Visual Studio, C# and .NET to create software for my phone. I like what I see so far, and suddenly, Android doesn't look that much exciting to me anymore.

<comment><USER9> I'm with you. I have wanted to develop apps for a while, but I didn't want to jump into Java or Objective C. With C#, I already know how things work, so there is no learning curve for me. So I dropped the $99 to sell apps in the marketplace. My market verification is complete, but I was not picked for the initial wave of apps. Hopefully, I'll get cleared to sell WP7 apps soon after launch.

<comment><USER10> I run dev marketing for wp7. Shoot me an email and lets see if we can't get you on the list. brwatson@microsoft

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone know if it will sync with Macs?

<comment><USER12> I don't think it will at launch. But they're supposed to be working on support for Zune desktop for the Mac.

<comment><USER13> Thanks. Now I spilled coffee on the keyboard...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> While I understand that the diversity of the hardware is a strength, I feel that the Androids problem is the large variety of hardware it is on which makes it harder to develop for than the iPhone, does anyone think that these problems will be a major issue for Windows Phone 7?

<comment><USER8> No, I don't think so, because according to the presentations Microsoft put forward strict rules for the hardware makers who wants to run WP7, like processor, RAM, only two allowed screen resolutions, etc.

<comment><USER15> Hmmm, that sounds a lot like the lead-in for another "Vista Capable" debacle.

[http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/01/1-5-billion- mic...](http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/01/1-5-billion-microsoft- vista-capable-booty-hardly-ill-gotten.ars)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's telling that most of the comments on this article are the usual iPhone vs. Android arguments. I just don't see the interest out there for another smartphone platform to survive, particularly one which is so far outside the interface norms established by earlier entrants.

</comment><comment><USER17> _In the Hall of the Mountain King_ , also used in _The Social Network_ regatta scene.

Coincidence or intentional?

<comment><USER18> It has become the de facto dark humor tension building track.

<comment><USER17> What about _The Thieving Magpie_?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So, their idea is to make a phone so awful, so useless, people won't want to use it, right?

They could have done it with WinMo 6... It would be cheaper...

</comment><comment><USER19> IDNS (Is Dot Net, Stupid) :-)

</comment><comment><USER20> Techcrunch comments resemble Youtube comments more every day

</comment><comment><USER21> Just got an iPhone 4, after 'upgrading' from a 3G.

It has the new hotness. Retina screen is nice, but it's so annoying that I can't use it with my left hand. Thanks apple.

I can see things hotting up if Microsoft can get it together, but they're very much the underdog and lack a reason to buy one (unlike say, iphone - <USER2> shiny, android - the geeky, blackberry - the constant messaging).

<comment><USER22> I just got my iPhone 4 yesterday. I love it, I really do.. I haven't been able to replicate the deathgrip to the same extent that others can. Best I can do is drop 1 bar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> _...it's going to get stranger and more frantic if Microsoft once again becomes a big player in the mobile space. If they get there, will they use their power to try and bend the carriers to their will? Or will they take the Google approach and let them walk all over the place dictating features and bloatware?_

If M$ doesn't bend carriers to their will, then they might end up with crappy software on superior hardware. Not only does Microsoft have to guard against design-by-committee from within, it has to deal with the same from the carriers. In other words, Microsoft has to fight its DNA to be beautiful, while Apple just has to follow their usual tendencies. On the other hand, individual companies in the Android space can decide where they fall in the luxury/bargain spectrum.

Apple vs. Android is cathedral vs. bazaar. Is Windows Phone 7 going to be another cathedral, a bazaar, or will it be a half-assed combination of the two?

(Note that cathedrals took advantage of the efforts of several generations of individual workers adding their own contributions, but in a way which fit the whole. In other words, cathedrals were also a kind of ecosystem!)

 _The mobile space is about to be a full-on gun fight. And at least Microsoft seems to have walked into the middle of it with the right weapon._

A 3-way standoff? Who's the Good, The Bad, and The Ugly?

<comment><USER12> >If M$...

I thought Hacker News was above the juvenile 'M$' but guess I was wrong.

>Is Windows Phone 7 going to be another cathedral, a bazaar, or will it be a half-assed combination of the two?

Right now it looks like a good combination. Good variety in hardware(for example, phones with real keyboard unlike the iPhone) while still retaining the ability to directly update the software(no shipping of old versions that take ages to get updated, if they get done at all, like Android).

<comment><USER24> How is "M$" juvenile? It is a nickname I have seen from many adults but never from children. Do you mean "immature; childish; infantile?" as the dictionary suggests? I don't see hows. It implies to me that the person using the nickname claims that Microsoft is motivated entirely or largely by making money at the expense of all other considerations. It's cut from the same cloth as "MSFT," which implies they value their stock price above all else (this would appear to be wrong, based on the stock's performance, but there you go).

You or I may not agree wit the characterization, but I hardly see this as immature. Informal, perhaps, in comparison to writing "Microsoft (who worship at the Temple of Mammon)..." But I don't see it as childish and juvenile.

There is another possibility. If "M$" has been regularly used by people who are juvenile in other ways, perhaps using "M$" in trollish flamewars and ad hominem diatribes, it can become guilty through association with juvenile rants. Is that the problem here? That the nickname has been used so often by people acting in a juvenile way that it has unpleasant overtones you perceive that are invisible to someone like myself who doesn't share your life experience?

<comment><USER25> Using M$ is pretty much a defacto ad hominem - it means you're leading your position by saying 'Microsoft only care about money', and then using that to argue that there must be a problem with their products, without backing up or clarifying that assertion.

Imagine if people started their posts with 'Facebook, who hate privacy, have just...', or 'Apple, who hate freedom, have now...', or 'Google, who are spying on you, are about to...'

That would be pretty pathetic.

<comment><USER24> _Using M$ is pretty much a defacto ad hominem - it means you're leading your position by saying 'Microsoft only care about money', and then using that to argue that there must be a problem with their products, without backing up or clarifying that assertion._

Your description of the alleged meaning of this nickname is similar to my understanding of an ad hominem, however it differs in substantial ways. When Microsoft is the subject of a discussion, an assertion about their motivations is not an ad hominem: An assertion about one of the persons participating in the debate would be an ad hominem.

So what we have is an assertion about Microsoft's motivations and an unfounded argument that this is the cause for some perceived product woes. This is clearly weak rhetoric (and trivially fallacious: Apple seems to do just fine lusting after money).

But I am left rubbing my chin in confusion by your assertion that using the nickname automatically means that you're arguing that there is a problem with their products. My understanding is that the problem with their products is that have no taste. Someone using "M$" could be thinking that their avarice means that they behave in monopolistic ways, or that they have a certain type of internal company culture, or any number of things.

But there is no need to assume what they are saying or to jump to some conclusion about what they are claiming: I can simply read what they write. If they write "M$ are unable to ship good products," I can argue with that statement directly instead of arguing with their use of the nickname.

As for your second paragraph... Wow. Imagine if I were to make up a whole list of things that people are __not __saying and use it to stir up all kinds of emotional feelings as a way of trying to convince you that using a nickname I don't like was pathetic. Would that add to the discussion?

I think I am going to stop right here. I see a nickname that claims Microsoft cares primarily or only about money. You see a nickname dragging all sorts of baggage and claims and unfounded arguments around. You feel the need to exert social pressure to eliminate it, including characterizing it in an insulting fashion ("juvenile").

I understand what you are saying, and that is quite enough for me.

<comment><USER12> He didn't characterize the comment as 'juvenile', that was me. Pay attention to the commenters' names. :)

>I see a nickname that claims Microsoft cares primarily or only about money.

The original commenter clarified that it meant something along the lines of 'Microsoft, who has money'. That shows that it's a term that can result in a lot of confusion, but I have seen it mostly used as a put down by people who think it's cool to use it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Wall Street Journal Leak site expects you to own the copyright - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/05/phone-hacking-publishers-leak.html

<comment><USER2> My guess is that some idealistic bright young thing at WSJ said "We should let people submit stuff to us anonymously" and envisioned it as a simple file upload with a submit button. And because laws exist and lawyers at big companies (and small ones) tell you whether to use one square of toilet paper or two, they said "you must add this copyright thing or it's not gonna fly". And the idealistic bright young thing thought "That's not quite as cool as an anonymous document dump, but it's a document dump... I guess".

Then the internet (the market?) told the WSJ, we do not agree to your lawyers' terms and conditions and another good idea was defeated. Big corp: you can't remove the core values from a product and expect the idiots will flock to it because you are Big corp and should be taken seriously.

</comment><comment><USER3> Doesn't that pretty much invalidate the notion that the site is in fact a "leak" site? If I own the copyright, I'm not leaking, I'm releasing information!

Maybe this is just a fancy new way for government officials to release phony "leaked" stories without attribution?

<comment><USER4> My understanding in the United States is that the federal government can't copyright. I'm not sure how this affects other governments, but the must own the copyright issue shouldn't apply to US government documents.

<comment><USER5> I'm pretty near certain that is the case. But this is probably more about lawyering than anything else: "Your Honor, to our knowledge the submitter of the document owns the copyright and any infringement is born entirely by them."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Pro-tip: If you mail the documents to them you don't have to click an accept checkbox.

<comment><USER7> I could think of a better place to mail whistle blowing material - namely John Young.

<comment><USER6> Send them to as many places as you can. Then you don't end up with the Wikileaks problem where they delay publishing to suit political goals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This makes me wonder if there's a loophole in their source protection pledge.

If you were to check the box asserting copyright, and if the whilstleblowee were to file a John Doe suit against you for copyright infringement and then subpena your identity from the WSJ, would they comply with the subpena?

<comment><USER9> Yes.

"Al Jazeera and the WSJ both say they reserve the right to identify leakers to law enforcement if pressed to."

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ha ha ha, oh wow. So much for "WikiLeaks competitor".

<comment><USER11> It's like the Zune of document dumps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Totalitarian honeypot?

</comment><comment><USER13> sounds like Wile E. Coyote is running ACMEleaks, waiting for the roadrunner

conglomerates and altruism don't tend to mix

</comment><comment><USER14> That's just CYA.

<comment><USER15> It concerns me a lot when someone asks me to sign something with a lot of boilerplate or "it's just CYA.". Even if it's for a friend, you never know when the company's going to be sold or your friend isn't in charge any more and all of the things you signed will be in the hands of someone you've never met. Words are important, whether they're in computer programs or legal documents.</comment></comment>


First Person Tetris - <AUTHOR> http://firstpersontetris.com/

<comment><USER2> Maybe this should be "second-person tetris" since you rotate with the block. I would expect a first-person tetris to offer either a view from the POV of the blocks downward, or from the base upwards at the blocks headed my way.

<comment><USER3> It's third person, but with a visual frame of reference fixed to the piece, at the time the piece appears on the screen. I don't see how that's even close to first person.

It's also really fun.

<comment><USER4> The "person" in this case is the person playing tetris. But since the screen rotates with the piece it desroys the FPS effect, unless people rotate their heads like that when they are playing tetris :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Holy nauseating reference frames batman...

This really seems to mess with the part of my brain that's been optimized for playing Tetris, even after ~50 lines... It's like going from being fluent in a language to a complete noob again.

</comment><comment><USER6> Some other fun takes on Tetris:

Tetoris (AKA Tetris HD) <http://gprime.net/game.php/tetoris>

Tetris 1D (complete with high scores!) <http://www.tetris1d.org/>

</comment><comment><USER7> Now I'm dizzy. Pretty cool idea though.

</comment><comment><USER8> Has anyone seen a tetris implementation from the other first-person perspective? As in, you're the block, looking downwards?

Probably far too hard to play, but that is what I was expecting when I hit the link..

<comment><USER9> Like this <http://www.3dtris.de/>?

<comment><USER10> Thank you!

I had an old DOS version of this, and haven't been able to find anything that replicated the experience. This is great.

<comment><USER9> Yea I remember playing it back in the day. It was called "Blockout" - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockout>

<comment><USER11> It was indeed. A friend of mine liked it enough to replicate as a Java applet - <http://brokout.org/>

My site, but his app. Oh and for amusement value note the specs that it was tested against...

<comment><USER12> I guess it's necessary in order to see the blocks at the bottom, but the ultra-wide field of view makes it hard to tell visually when the blocks have reached the top two levels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This reminds me of Tuper Tario Tros, in which you play a version of the NES Mario but have to switch to playing Tetris so you can have blocks to jump on when there are walls/gaps that are too large. <http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/522276>

</comment><comment><USER14> <http://www.firstpersontetris.com> \- the no-www gives me a domain squatter page :(

way too addicting, btw.

<comment><USER15> Both with and without get me a domain squatter page. We're down to the coralcache: [http://firstpersontetris.com.nyud.net/swf/FirstPersonTetris....](http://firstpersontetris.com.nyud.net/swf/FirstPersonTetris.swf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I can play first-person shooters all day long, but this makes me motion sick, and I had to stop after a few minutes. It's a shame, because I really like the concept.

</comment><comment><USER17> <http://urbancanvas.net/firstpersontetris/>

courtesy reddit [http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/aoxr9/its_firstperso...](http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/aoxr9/its_firstperson_tetris/c0ipcws)

<comment><AUTHOR> I apologise unreservedly. I do not use reddit, and found this on some IRC chan to distract me for a few minutes... I figured it would die like all my submissions have with less than 20 upvotes and a few comments about similar implementations or pros/cons of such a drastic change to user interface.

<comment><USER17> It was just that the submission was leading to a placeholder landingpage instead of a game; so I looked it up on reddit to see if anyone had a mirror. But, now, the submission is leading to the game. Odd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Am I the only one that noticed the tv "scanning" that happens. That combined with the surrounding imagery of the VCR really are nice touches.

This guy is awesome.

What is doubly awesome is that there is no credit on the page as to who made it. He just made something cool, and put it up. Done.

</comment><comment><USER19> Bloody hilarious. I was almost in stitches when I did my first rotation.

</comment><comment><USER20> I want to play this so bad, but I get a headache and mild nausea after about the 4th piece.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have no idea why, but I find this so much more intuitive than "normal" tetris.

</comment><comment><USER22> This started some nausea pretty quick for me.. which makes it brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is incredible. Somehow I find it easier to concentrate and figure out than normal tetris. I can think faster with this one.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> @jacquesm: I think I just inadvertantly gave you a case study!

/me hangs head in shame

<comment><USER24> Yes, but now I'm really confused ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is doing funny things to my head.

I'm up to 3700. :D

<comment><USER25> And I lose at 4420.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is way too addictive. There goes productivity.

</comment><comment><USER27> I've always been crap at tetris - I only got 880.

</comment><comment><USER28> Beware of sickness! Don't spin your head.

<comment><USER29> I played for about a minute. Now I feel car sick. Or maybe Tetrisick?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> _Firstpersontetris.com

What you need, when you need it_

</comment><comment><USER31> Oh god, I feel sick.

</comment><comment><USER32> that was fun 9400 points / 55 lines . . . and now back to making stuff work properly in IE :(

</comment><comment><USER33> Ugh, no straight pieces?

<comment><USER34> If you're relying on straight pieces you're doing it wrong!

Back when I was starting with Tetris I would always try to avoid "holes", i.e. empty spaces that are covered on top. And this leads to the requirement for the straight pieces.

I became much better when I started to accept holes and instead just try to keep the top edge a nice shape compatible with many blocks. The straight pieces become a bit of a nuisance, actually.

<comment><USER35> I think you take a major strategic step when you force yourself to use the straight pieces horizontally. You learn how to play without relying on them to clear large areas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> i want this on my iPhone

<comment><USER37> the iphone version requires you to rotate the phone instead :-)</comment></comment>


Mono: A cure for Microsoft monotheism - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/application-development/2011/08/11/mono-a-cure-for-microsoft-monotheism-40093649/

<comment><USER2> Can someone explain to me why Microsoft doesn't embrace Mono (or at least its ideal) outright? It seems to me like a stable and well supported multiplatform C# could establish a long lasting .NET hegemony across the industry. Appears to be a no-brainer.

<comment><USER3> One of my favorite Microsoft stories is of Windows for Pen Computing. A company named GO had brought out a product based on Pen interfaces (this was around the time of Windows 3.1). Microsoft feared they'd lose their monopoly so they rushed out Windows for Pen Computing 1.0. It stunk and so it failed pretty quickly.

In the book Barbarians at the Gate one of the co-creators of "Pen Windows" tells the story of that failure and what he told his fellow co-creator. Here's a quote from the book...

[Begin Quote]

"Greg, Look. This wasn't a thing about making money. This was all about 'Block that Kick.' We were on the special team. We were preventing GO from running away with the market. That was our job.

Look, your background is in applications, you have to ship the application. My job is in systems. Systems, for much longer on, has been completely 'Don't let anybody else steal DOS from us.' That's all we're doing. We weren't trying to sell software, we were trying to prevent other people from selling software.

From my view, Pen Windows was a winner. We shut down GO. They spent $75 million pumping up this market, we spent $4 million shooting them down. They're toast!"

[End Quote]

Sorry for the long winded post but I wanted to point out how old this strategy is. .Net wasn't a product to make money it was a product to block Java. By making it the default Windows development environment they were able to do so without flushing money down the toilet (as was done in the example above)

So, as Miguel De Icaza says in the piece, Microsoft really doesn't love .Net the way Xamarin does. They still want people developing for Windows alone. Their developers just happened to create a great tool while management was paying lipservice to cross platform development.

<comment><USER4> I don't think an old anecdote about GO/WfP sheds much light on the birth of .NET.

Microsoft wanted the goodness of a managed platform, while having the freedom to evolve it and generally make it a) not suck as much as Java, and specifically b) be better at interoperating with existing (Windows) software. .NET clearly wasn't rushed out the door as a panic response to Java. .NET arrived years after Java & J++. MS just realised that managed was the way to go for a lot of development activities.

Java was and still is available for desktop programming, but by now C# has clearly evolved to be a better language, and .NET a better platform for developing (Windows) desktop apps.

<comment><USER5> The situation with Java is even stronger than "MS just realized": MS was /forced/. Back then, MS thought Java was great, but looked at it as a language and execution engine as opposed to a dream about "write once, run everywhere", and so released J++, allowing developers of Java applications to use a replacement toolkit that bound to native Win32 widgets. This caused them to get sued, and the result of the case was that they lost their license to Java. J++ 1.1 seriously came with a dialog when you ran it apologizing that they were legally required to stop distributing the application, and that you should look into alternatives. Thus, .NET was born.

<comment><USER4> I don't see how your elaboration on the history contradicts anything I said. This is all common knowledge. Totally understandable that Sun tried to lock MS out of tailoring their platform to Windows, and totally understandable that MS would want a good managed platform, instead of going with a flawed compromise system they didn't control.

<comment><USER5> I do not feel like the goal of my comment was to contradict what you said, only to clarify and strengthen it: the people you are arguing against believe that Microsoft built .NET to damage Java, and demonstrating that not only did they choose it because it was "the way to go" but that they were actually /forced/ to do so, is a much stronger way to undermine that belief.

<comment><USER4> Yep, to be honest I think we're agreeing.

<comment><USER5> (I have been trying to agree the whole time, such as to "clarify and strengthen" your statement...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think once the IDE catches up to the level of Visual Studio or the Java stalwarts Eclipse/IntelliJ it will really take off. I usually do my stuff first in VS then bring it up in Monodevelop to finish it off and make sure I am mono safe.

<comment><USER7> The Visual Studio IDE has gotten much much worse.

I started with Visual Studio 6 (mostly using Visual C++, and VB6) and it was a speedy. Visual Studio 2003 was a little slower but not bad, 2005-2008 about the same. It was all bearable and acceptable.

Now Visual Studio 2010 is painful and awful. I've got a Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of RAM and the interface is slow, you can see the GUI repaint sometimes. Clicking on the interface causes frequent pauses that take close to 1 second to respond.

<comment><USER8> Opposite experience for me. 2005 and 2008 were incredibly slow, painful, and prone to locking up or flat out crashing. I don't think I've had one lock up or crash since I switched over to 2010 about 4 or 5 months ago. Also, I can have multiple instances of it open now without my whole computer gasping for RAM. In fact, when I launch a second instance it comes up in a split second, making me feel like the core parts are sharing common resources.

<comment><USER9> I have to agree with this. VS 2010 is by far the best so far on many different levels as you've already pointed out.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft's Interoperability Principles and IE8 - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/03/microsoft-s-interoperability-principles-and-ie8.aspx

<comment><USER2> A couple of opposing views on the matter from ALA:

Against: <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/theyshootbrowsers>

and

For: <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/minorthreat>

I, myself, am very glad for this decision!

<comment><AUTHOR> _"... A couple of opposing views on the matter from ALA ..."_

Nice reads. I think this kind of thing is going to look mild compared to the bunfight over new Javascript language spec ~ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript#Fourth_edition>

<comment><USER2> This _is_ that fight. It's the hope that not implementing opt-out version targeting is a precedent that IE8 will continue to follow.

The IE team recently has shown great dedication to bringing new versions of IE up to par with the standards set out by the W3C. I would not be surprised if they are close to on par with adoption alongside the other browsers, and with no opt-out version targeting we'll be able to more immediately see these changes take place.</comment></comment></comment>


iPhone OS 4.0 - <AUTHOR> http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2010/04/15/iphone_os_4_0/ <comment><USER2> _I'm not convinced that the task switcher needs to exist. Since apps in the task switcher aren't really running, the task switcher isn't so much a task switcher as it is a list of recently used apps_

The task switcher lets you switch back and forth between apps one handed using your thumb. I think that's part of the rationale for it. Also, the Least Recently Used algorithm will dynamically make a short list of the actually used apps in a user's collection. Most users probably spend 80% of time in a small minority of their apps.

<comment><USER3> It'll be interesting to see if the older phones get this. As you say it can function as a recently used list, even if those apps are not running, the user shouldn't have to care about the distinction.

<comment><USER4> If this is what people want (a LRU stack of apps), wouldn't they'd be better off making the dock do this, instead of introducing a third app area?

<comment><USER5> I don't think so, the dock works well for "frequently used", which is not the same as "recently used".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One thing I have not seen mentioned anywhere is that iPhone 4.0 make web apps more usable than before, since it no longer reload the web app every time you switch back and forth from the home screen, as long as it's still active in the task switcher.

<comment><USER7> When does it reload the web app every time? That's a memory limitation, not a task switching one. I've noticed Safari tends to keep loading pages and _rendering_ them in the background.

<comment><USER6> What I meant was web apps that are added to the home screen. Previously it works just like native apps: web apps will need to store and resume its state every time it launch or quit. This cause web apps without manifest file to reload itself every time it launches.

In 4.0, it works just exactly like in Safari: as long as the app don't get killed from the task switcher, its state are resumed automatically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Android has an almost-identical "task switcher" (press and hold the Home button to show a popup of recent apps). I don't think anyone I know uses it regularly - and I just spent 18 months working in a 30-person Android software company.

<comment><USER9> This is my primary way of switching between recent applications. Take it with a grain of salt, though, as the Android way of dealing with App icons is a world of a difference from iPhone.

Android uses a separate and almost useless alphabetically-sorted application's drawer. You are able to put applications on the home screens, but chances are that you are messing with an application that you don't use very frequently and thus have not placed it onto a home screen. In addition, on stock Android (not rooted/jailbroken), you only have 3 home screens.

<comment><USER10> Android OS 2.1 increases it to 5 homescreens. In addition, you can put folders on any of the Android homescreens that work almost identically (from what I gather from the description in the article) to the way folders work in iPhone OS4.

I think others have mentioned that you can get 3rd party apps for Android that increase the number of home screen to at least 7. These do not require rooting or anything else unusual, just a quick download from the Market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I know, another article about the iPhone, but I really liked this bit (with relevance beyond the iPhone OS):

 _«I think it's fair to say that most people involved in interaction design tend to agree that hierarchical file systems have largely failed their users. […] However, when we say ‹hierarchical file systems don't work›, most of us end that sentence with ‹so we need to replace them with something better› in our heads. Apple, on the other hand, ended the sentence with ‹so we're not going to bother with this stuff, let's just leave this up to each individual application.›»_

<comment><USER11> To play devil's advocate for a minute: One possibility is that the most useful method of organizing data is necessarily different for each application.

There are even applications for which hierarchical organization is entirely appropriate at the UI level: An obvious example is an outliner. And it's not a coincidence that our filesystem UIs have little icons of file-cabinet drawers and file folders: The real world features file cabinets and folders, and people have traditionally been able to make sense of those, hierarchy and all... _in a context which naturally fits into a hierarchical scheme_.

It's worth asking whether the cardinal sin of the hierarchical file system _isn't_ the fact that hierarchical is innately confusing, but that for thirty years and more programmers have labored to fit non-hierarchical problems into a hierarchical paradigm, often in totally unnatural ways. Replacing that One True Paradigm with another One True Paradigm might just prolong the fundamental mistake.

<comment><USER12> That's a great point. I certainly think applications should have the freedom to offer their own custom view of the user's data (as you point out, even hierarchical views, if that makes sense in their context - for example, it makes sense for MP3 players, where there is a natural hierarchy along the lines of Band -> Album -> Song), but I also think Apple should show some leadership here, both on a UI level, as well as on a technical level (for synchronization, versioning and similar features).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Before using it, I too was skeptical about the task switcher, but it works really well. It is fast and works about as well (and as quickly in practice) as alt-tab on a Mac or PC.

The author makes a good point about the difference in icon placements between the folder icon and the folder itself.

For file management, iPhone OS 3.2+ is already half way there. It syncs specific files from one's computer to specific apps. What we need is to extend this and have a system-wide documents database that is akin to the contacts, calendars, and music database APIs. Version control support in this API would be cool as well.

<comment><USER14> Does OS 4.0 running on an iPhone allow access to syncing specific files via iTunes like OS 3.2 on iPad does?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I installed 4.0 a few days ago on my 3G and only notable difference is the folders. I think to use multi-tasking I need to upgrade my phone to 3gs? Stinks if that's correct!

<comment><USER4> Stinks?! Really? Apple have done a pretty good job of backporting features where it makes sense to do so.

<comment><USER16> Still stinks though if he can't get the full update.

<comment><USER17> He also can't double his ram with a software update.

<comment><USER18> All you need is RamDoubler!

<http://macreviewzone.com/archive/hardcider/Reviews/RD9.shtml>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Unfortunately, notifications were not addressed in iPhone OS 4.0."

OK, it was kind of passive aggressive of you (the author of the post) to just state this without any explanation backing it up, but I'll bite. Please do give us your rant about how local notifications (introduced in OS 4.0) in addition to the already existing push notifications does not address notifications.

Or maybe you just missed that part?

<comment><USER20> I think he just meant that the method of showing notifications to the user hasn't changed.

<comment><USER21> More specifically, if you receive more than one notification, the former is pretty much lost. Your app icon is annotated with a number but you have no idea what happened if you have several icons already annotated.

<comment><USER19> Thanks, that's a good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The new multitasking model, recently used app switcher, and folders are sound a hell of a lot like the equivalents in Android. (which isn't a complaint by the way... ) I wonder why they didn't also adopt a notification system similar to the pull down notification drawer in Android?

</comment><comment><USER22> It's worth noting that the task switcher is probably more important for the iPad. I very much intend to write blog posts and the like on my iPad and being able to quickly switch between a couple of different applications while doing so will make the task much more pleasant.

</comment><comment><USER23> I would be interested in the author's opinions about the iAd platform.

</comment><comment><USER24> The task switcher also function as apps killer. Holding your finger on one of those app will make popup the delete button to completely shut down the apps, background apis included.

</comment><comment><USER25> Apple's approach is closer to a folder metaphor than Lukas's. <http://goo.gl/NMhl>

<comment><USER12> So you're saying real-world folders switch around the positions of their contents when you open them? :-)

<comment><USER25> That would be confusing! Not at all. I'm simply saying your take is a lot like a popover and think that Apple's implementation though not perfect, is closer to a folder. Actually, to be exact they should have really called it "Drawers" because that's how their animated and in a drawer, contents do indeed get shuffled around!

Although, I've had instances when handling bulky folders and moving them around, the top most documents would get accidentally rearranged! ;-)

<comment><USER12> I agree, drawers would have been an apt metaphor. Also, drawers get stuck sometimes, so that would be something interesting Apple could emulate, as well :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Has anyone tried installing OS 4.0 via iTunes on Windows? The fact that they're distributing it as a dmg made me wary...

<comment><USER27> It's a developer release, you should be wary.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Flow-fill layout for images and video - <AUTHOR> https://layout.speakeasyevents.live/flowfill/?n=70&spacing=8 <comment><AUTHOR> I needed a layout algorithm for a video app I'm working on, so I wrote this.

</comment><comment><USER2> I am just here for the cats.</comment>


Netflix's '3%' Turns the Google Job Interview into a Dystopian Nightmare - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/netflix-3-percent-review <comment><USER2> Am I the only one who thought this was going to be about the actual interview process for Netflix's engineering team?

<comment><USER3> Nope.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This feels a bit clickbaity. As far as I can tell nobody really interviews in this fashion anymore.

The actual content makes it seem like an interesting show akin to Black Mirror.

</comment><comment><USER5> And here I was thinking, damn if the interviews weren't hard enough .. well good to know they haven't stepped up a whole three notches

<comment><USER6> > And here I was thinking, damn if the interviews weren't hard enough .. well > good to know they haven't stepped up a whole three notches

Ah yes, interviewing in tech, from what I hear: ten times harder than interviewing for a C-suite management role at the same company... with no more than a tenth of the effective pay.

Edit: Supply and demand of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article just makes the series feel like an anti-capitalist propaganda vehicle (which it might very well be, I haven't seen it). The title is also misleading - the article never mentions Google

</comment><comment><USER8> At least they can become the 3% based on innate intelligence and talent. With tech interviews, you need to come pre-packaged with experience and skill, like those "entry level" positions that want 3-4 years of experience across multiple technologies.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's arbitrary and seemingly (because it's biased) random who passes Google's interviews. Maybe it's not as bad now, I wouldn't know, but even as recently as a few years ago, it was almost as though they decided who to hire before interviews even began.</comment>


Ask HN: What Browser Extension You Would Love to Have? - <AUTHOR> I work in a company that wants to invest in the browser extensions.
We are wandering around and building small stuff because and don't have a quality idea for the project and what do people need.
For Example Honey, Pocket, Grammarly is bigger ones.
What you would love to have as an addition to your Browser? <comment><USER2> DANE support [1].

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS- based_Authentication_of_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS- based_Authentication_of_Named_Entities)

</comment><comment><USER3> <sigh> TabMixPlus of course...</comment>


Tell HN: Happy New Year - <AUTHOR>

At least, in some parts of the world at this moment! <comment><USER2> </2014> <2015>

</comment><comment><USER3> Happy New Year from the Mid West!

</comment><comment><USER4> Happy New Year from EST!</comment>


Essential Remote Work Tools to Stay Productive in 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://www.infolio.co/post/essential-remote-work-tools-to-stay-productive-in-2020-video-chat-task-and-content-collaboration <comment><AUTHOR> Video Chat, Task and Content Collaboration</comment>


The Trip Treatment - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatmen

<comment><AUTHOR> I accidentally left the final character out of the url, so if a mod could change that I'd appreciate it.</comment>


Conspire: A Programming Environment for NOWHERE - <AUTHOR> http://blog.duangle.com/2015/01/conspire-programming-environment-for.html?m=1

<comment><USER2> This looks fun!</comment>


A complete daily plan for studying to become a Google software engineer - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jwasham/google-interview-university <comment><USER2> I don't get it, why would anyone follow the advice of someone that is not actually hired by Google? That makes no sense at all. "Follow me, because..... because.... I WILL SUCCEED".

I've myself been interviewed by Google and yes, you cannot wake up an hour too late and go get a cup of coffee while simultaneously answering the questions in your pajamas (like I did). Sure you need to study some classic CS, but it's not really that overly difficult if you are a natural. They give you this list of subjects on which you are to self assess your skills so that you can get somewhat tailor made questions of what you feel strong in. Just go study basic CS stuff around those questions.

I failed because I did not have all the Big-O complexities and all the Unix syscalls in my head at that particular time, but you sure could go memorize them. It's all about passing those initial very basic tests so that they know you are worth their time - from that point you should get to show yourself a lot more.

But don't take advice from me, I'm not hired by Google.

</comment><comment><USER3> ..If you like this project, please give me a star.

Oh come on!!</comment>