A nanophotonic comeback for incandescent bulbs? - <AUTHOR> http://news.mit.edu/2016/nanophotonic-incandescent-light-bulbs-0111 <comment><USER2> This development was discussed on HN about 3 days ago. On that thread I commented that a merit of the incandescent is its continuous output spectrum. The newer lamp technologies produce discontinuous spectral output, CFL having prominent green, and LED blue emissions.

The difference is reflected in the CRI (Color Rendering Index) where 100 represents natural daylight. Incandescent lamps are generally very close to 100, but most fluorescent and LED sources are much lower, 90 or less. CRI is crucially important in the visual arts (museum/gallery lighting, photography, etc.) and other industries (color matching).

There are fluorescent and recently LED lamps that have high CRI ratings. These are relatively expensive items different from the "bulbs" sold at the hardware store. For the future, "remote phosphor" LED lamps look promising, though likely there will be a market for improved incandescents as described in the article.

Looks like advancements in LED, and now incandescent, technology could produce lamps that provide the best of both worlds: high CRI along with significantly extended durability.

<comment><USER3> Note that by definition incandescent bulbs have a CRI of 100.

The CRI is calculated by looking at the colors reflected by a particular set of 14 paint chips under the lamp being analyzed, and comparing it to either illuminant D65 (representing daylight) or to an incandescent bulb, depending on the lamp's color temperature. The color from the paint chips undergo an outdated type of chromatic adaptation transform, and are then compared to the colors under the reference illuminant, using colorimetric distance in the outdated 1964 CIEUVW color space. To find the final CRI take the arithmetic mean of all the distances, scale it, and subtract from 100. Most of the choices in this process are somewhat arbitrary.

CRI numbers are an okay first approximation to judge how much a particular lamp will muck with color relationships, but when you get to the precise details it gets pretty arbitrary, and the spec is heavily gamed by lighting vendors, because it's one of the main values they report. Take CRI numbers with a big pinch of salt, and try looking directly at a chart of emission spectrum if you can, or ideally get a bulb and try looking at various objects under it for better understanding.

<comment><USER4> I've studied lighting tech on and off since getting into planted aquariums in 2006 and remember that some researchers at Philips also lamented the issues with CRI as a metric of light quality and presented their own system which I remember as being a color wheel with a lot of (possibly 100+) marked points. For each point, they'd present a vector as the difference from "actual" (as represented by the appearance in midday sun on a clear day) for a light source, so you could easily see how much a particular light skewed particular colors with fairly fine granularity. I neglected to save the source and haven't been able to find it in subsequent searchings though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cool idea, but these sound difficult to manufacture efficiently, given that you need to grow precise layers of crystal on the filament. On the other hand, you know are living in the high-tech future when even your light bulbs require a clean room!

<comment><USER6> In the age of $0.35 16MHz ARM cores (I'm sure you can get them much cheaper, that's just what I found on digikey) a bit of process complexity might not be so prohibitive. What a time to be alive!

<comment><USER7> Why doesn't everything have a supercomputer (circa 1985) built into it? At $0.35, why not!?

<comment><USER8> Because it's completely pointless in most cases. The "Internet of Shit" Twitter account[1] may be satire but it highlights this unnecessary use of technology.

1: [https://twitter.com/internetofshit](https://twitter.com/internetofshit)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've always wondered how efficient are traditional bulbs as an actual heat source? I live in Minnesota and its -17°F outside, and would it be more energy efficient to heat the room I am currently occupying with the light bulbs of the room, keeping the rest of the house cooler than pumping a higher level of heat to the entire house?

I feel like the switch to CFLs may have increased my energy bills overall.

<comment><USER10> They're somewhere in the vicinity of 100% efficient as heat producers. Even the energy that goes into producing light just decays into heat after bouncing off a couple of walls.

Less "efficient" than using a "heat pump," and possibly more expensive than using gas (I don't know anything about energy in Minnesota). If you're using electricity to heat your home, though, you might as well use something like SETI@home and put it to use :-)

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately you can't use a heat pump (at least a normal one) below about -8C (17F), so -17F would definitely be out.

I also don't know anything about energy in Minnesota, but here in BC, gas heating is still cheaper than electric, especially if you use an efficient gas furnace (that doesn't exhaust too much heat), but not as much as it used to be. (Technically though it will always be less "efficient" than electric due to that exhaust, but that's really comparing apples to oranges.)

<comment><USER12> That's true for air heat pumps, but many people (myself included) have ground water heat pump systems; either open- or closed-loop.

My unit is fairly old (mid 1980 Tetco) and provide all of our heating and cooling. It uses the most electricity in January/February for heating and July/August for cooling, but my total electric bill is usually never more than $200/mo and that included all of the home's "normal" electricity use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I sure hope so. Incandescent bulbs are much more pleasant than any fluorescents and the vast majority of LEDs on the market.

</comment><comment><USER13> Aren't LEDs and CFLs significantly more durable than incandescent? Certainly they're more durable than tungsten-filament incandescent bulbs. Hopefully they can do better than just parity with LED/CFL power consumption otherwise it wouldn't seem worthwhile.

<comment><USER14> Supposedly they last forever, but they don't seem to deliver on the supposed 10+ year lifespans -- I have no bulb older then 3 years in my house.

<comment><USER15> Out of 12 bulbs, I've had three of the CREE LED bulbs from Home Depot fail in a "disco strobe" mode in less than six months :(

<comment><USER14> I actually gave up and bought a bunch of incandescent bulbs at a clearance sale.

Even accounting for wasted energy, financially I'll be in the black for 5-7 years based on my experience with CFL/LED fail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> My LED bulbs work well (Philips), but have one flaw: they do not redden when you dim them. I would like the color temperature to be much lower than 2700K when they are dim- to more approximate an oil lamp.

Anyway, perhaps this work will lead to efficient incandescent bulbs that provide nicer light when dimmed.

</comment><comment><USER17> Does this address the short lifespans of incandescent bulbs? Since the filament portion is essentially the same, wouldn't these new bulbs suffer from this same issue, and wouldn't that make them less efficient overall due to replacement costs and waste?

</comment><comment><USER18> Interesting technology, and it'll be fun to see how they market the technology since people just started understanding that incandescent = lots of energy = money. I wonder if LED technology will be able to keep up.

<comment><USER19> They've developed a photonic crystal [1] which reflects IR while passing visible light. That should be useful. Using it to to try to reflect IR back to the filament of an incandescent bulb is probably not going to be cost- effective. Photonic crystals have detailed structure like an IC, with waveguides and cavities, and are made by similar methods. That's a lot to make just to get an IR mirror for a light bulb, since you'd need a large surface area of the material. Probably more expensive than fabbing LEDs.

This sounds like an interesting development overhyped by the PR staff. Again. See [2].

[1] [http://ab-initio.mit.edu/photons/](http://ab-initio.mit.edu/photons/) [2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10916894](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10916894)

<comment><USER20> Nah, I bet this can be done with a 1D photonic crystal where they can get away with simply using alternating layers of uniform thin film thickness. I forget exactly but I'd think all that's needed is alternating dielectric constant materials with a periodicity ~700nm which isn't that crazy. More expensive than glass sure, but it's not like it'll need special etching to get microlenses.

<comment><USER19> That sounds like an ordinary bandpass interference filter.[1] Those have film layers and only pass a specific wavelength of light. Unlike ordinary filters, the angle at which the light hits the filter affects the passband, because it's the spacing of the layers that makes it work. The receive side of LIDAR systems use those. But those absorb the light they reject; they don't reflect it, much.

[1] [http://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/optical- filters/bandpass-...](http://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/optical- filters/bandpass-filters/infrared-bandpass-interference-filters/3430/)

<comment><USER20> Gotcha, that makes sense. I suppose most of it will come from a narrow solid angle so if it were perfectly spherical you'd be okay but that would only work for the first reflection unless it was all reflection and no emission...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What to do when your startup grows up? - <AUTHOR>

I've been with my employer since the startup days about 4 years ago now.  I'm not a founder, but I'm one of the earlier employees.  The company is now profitable.  The startup feel is gone.  The quick-n-dirty, put something great together, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants, work late nights, brainstorm new ideas feel of the company is gone.  Now there are measure-twice, cut once policies & procedures in place.  Strict working schedules.  No changes to production code without written approval from everyone above me.  People get chewed-out now instead of congratulated.  It sucks.  I would leave if it weren't for the outstanding stock that the company is using as a carrot on a stick to keep me on the corporate treadmill.  My question is: For those of you who live an breathe startups, what would you do?  Would you stick with the company to age into the rest of your promised equity even though the work environment isn't what I joined when I signed on, or would you cut your losses and move to another startup with the hopes of greener pastures? <comment><USER2> You've been there 4 years but you still have significant unvested stock? Can you explain that?

Just by the tone of your post, it's obvious that you long to move to something else. And frankly, you should.

The only math that I would do is a reasonable estimate of the future valuation of your unvested stock. Is it really significant enough to keep you there? The alternative is that you would start your own company as a co-founder, own millions of shares of something that may be worth nothing or a lot. How does that compare to your current situation?

Presumably, you should have enough vested that if your current company is the next Google and your next one is a flop, you still get a nice pile of cash.

</comment><comment><USER3> If possible, how about discussing your situation with one of the founders? They might have a secret project they want to try out, and are also a bit thrown off by the new atmosphere.

Otherwise figure out for sure exactly how big the carrot is they are dangling. Everyone has a price. The beauty of stock options (from an employer perspective) is that the employees never really know what they are or could be worth. Additionally, if they got funding the VC's probably have all sorts of clauses where they get their money back + dividends + their preferred stock in a buyout, further diluting you.

Chances are the strike price for purchasing your options has gone up in the last 4 years.

Also, the investors might want to bail and get their money out, selling the company at a lower price than if they had waited. Or a competitor could come along and wipe out your growth, killing the potential value of the company.

Or nothing could happen. The company could make nice profit and just exist, seemingly forever, never selling. You'll wake up one day 5 years from now, no further to the fat bank account than you are now, and wonder what happened.

Many things can happen that are outside of your control to these stock options that are keeping you there. The only thing you really have control over is whether to stay or not.

</comment><comment><USER4> It sounds like you are asking for permission to quit. Money is a promise of future enjoyment. Are you willing to get chewed out for a future payoff? I am in a similar situation except without much equity in the company and I am about to give notice as soon as I get a contract lined up.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd suggest creating your own startup - and work on it in the evenings, weekends or whenever you might have a few hours. Then just deal with the crap until your startup gets rolling - and maybe by then your stock will come through too :)

<comment><AUTHOR> ha ha. Ok, I'll do that. :)</comment></comment>


Google has opportunity to oppose Huddle's application for trademark - <AUTHOR> http://dodomainer.com/2011/06/30/general-interest/huddle-might-not-have-solid-claim-against-google-for-trademark/

<comment><USER2> If Google gets say 50 million users, and growing, who will benefit more from using the name Huddle? Google or "Huddle"? I think the answer is obvious. Huddle is basically unknown. Google is making the name popular.

Huddle should just roll with it, and maybe just sign an agreement with Google that Google can't go after them later. They only stand to benefit from Google using their name in a popular feature of theirs. Plus, if they become too aggressive against Google, they might suffer from the type of PR Lodsys got.

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be an interesting public relations decision if Google did decide to oppose it.</comment>


Show HN: We are robot tech enthusiasts - <AUTHOR> https://www.personalrobots.biz/?hackernews <comment><USER2> But, are the robots open source?

<comment><AUTHOR> some of them yes, like OTTO based on the opensource project BOB :)

<comment><USER2> Cool</comment></comment></comment>


Spotify removes silent album that earned indie band $20,000 - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5690590/spotify-removes-silent-album-that-earned-indie-band-20000

<comment><USER2> Isn't this actually fraud?

It's identical to giving an ad clicker script to your readers to artificially bump up your ad revenue.</comment>


Y Combinator Learns Basic Income Is Not So Basic After All - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/y-combinator-learns-basic-income-is-not-so-basic-after-all/ <comment><USER2> Heavily discussed 2 days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17851511](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17851511)

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the idea and I applaud money being spent to investigate this, but this isn't gonna work.

Testing basic income in an environment where BI doesn't universally exist isn't going to yield any fruitful conclusions. The conclusions will be caveated with "we gave basic income to people who's peers don't have basic income and that could alter the results". This is why economics is such a difficult practice to comprehend because behaviors don't work in a vacuum (read anything by Kahneman and you'll understand).

On the other hand, if this at least gets the population to _think_ UBI makes sense, even if we can't unilaterally test it properly, then I think that's a good thing.

<comment><USER4> This is exactly correct, and your objections apply at both a microeconomic and macroeconomic level. UBI almost certainly would create widespread and profound price distortions. Maybe a similar model would be what's happened with college tuition. The government set out to make it "affordable" for everyone with demand-side policies, and the supply side of the market responded by absorbing the additional spending capacity by raising tuition geometrically.

</comment></comment><comment> wes-k Very exciting! While, I do believe basic-income is a part of the future, it MUST be paired with providing other social goods. Public school, single payer healthcare, cheap & healthy food, cheap housing, etc.

Without these necessities also being taken care of, there's a good chance people will still not be able to make ends meet.

Seems likely that if a $$ value was ever set for basic-income it would be very hard to move it. We could also _try_ and set it so it always changes and is based upon cost-of-living. That itself is tough though since cost-of-living varies so drastically.

</comment><comment><USER5> Will recipients need to treat these outlays as taxable income? If so, it's worth bearing in mind that many of the eligible people will face a very high marginal tax rate [0] if they lose access to government problems as a result, especially if one or both of the chosen states didn't expand Medicaid under the ACA [1].

[0] [https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-effective- margina...](https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-effective-marginal-tax- rate.html)

[1] [https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap- un...](https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured- poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/)

</comment><comment><USER6> IMHO for basic income to succeed esp the supplemental 1k type ine should have more options of partial work. For instance I would like to work only 3 days a week and building something useful or contributing to a social cause rest of the week knowing I have a cushion of basic income. But the flip side is many companies won't be willing to offer such jobs. At least I am not sure what value I can add to society through this extra income if I still have to work 40 hrs a week.

<comment><USER7> Actually there are too many part-time only positions out there. The trouble is there is a lack of part time work in the higher skill / higher pay area -- most part time is lower skilled / minimum wage labor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have a feeling that Basic Income will be a societal upgrade and people will still work, but I don't think it's going to solve wealth disparity. My gut says that it will actually make disparity more obvious, just people at the bottom won't be struggling as hard. Anyways, this is mere speculation. What do I know?

<comment><USER9> Maybe, but the people who live in the low life are really struggling to survive. UBI can change that and given them an opportunity to arise.

Which is a good thing, does it?

Plus, give the future a little bit more time, when science and technology become advanced enough, maybe the problem can be resolved naturally?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Dupe, comments: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17851511](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17851511)

</comment><comment><USER11> The project homepage with details and FAQ [https://basicincome.ycr.org/](https://basicincome.ycr.org/)

</comment><comment><USER12> This is great! Kind of shocked that capitalism is looking to solve the governments problem. Things are changing.

</comment><comment><USER13> Since it's paywalled:

[https://www.wired.com/story/y-combinator-learns-basic- income...](https://www.wired.com/story/y-combinator-learns-basic-income-is- not-so-basic-after-all/)</comment>


Living Strong with Low-Grade Depression - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/zero-infinity/low-grade-depression-535aafd586d9#.fza3dwv66 <comment><USER2> I can certainly relate with the author and admire his refusal to pass blame in favor of self-reflection. A root-cause analysis often reveals far more flaws than simply observing the effects of malevolent actors. A person, like a server, must be secure from within in order to avoid having their actions dictated by an external entity.</comment>


The Techie Dissidents Who Showed Egyptians How to Organize Online - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/the-techie-dissidents-who-showed-egyptians-how-to-organize-online/70734/

<comment><AUTHOR> Given that I agree more with Malcolm Gladwell's thoughts on the impact of social media's importance (or lack thereof) for revolutions, I found this article quite interesting. I think the main lesson is that while social media may not do much for getting outsiders to be heavily involved and emotionally tied to whatever's at stake, perhaps it is an amazing tool that makes organization much easier for people who are on the ground (at least until the ISPs get shut down by the government).</comment>


Ask HN: Brief explanation of the process from an IDE to the CPU? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Compiler.</comment>


Why The Greatest Online Tool, Email, Still Needs Disruption - <AUTHOR> http://blog.frontapp.com/why-the-greatest-online-tool-email-still-needs-disruption/ <comment><USER2> Solid article. I do hope to see more people enter the client side of the Email world because personally, I think that is what is slacking. There needs to be better Email clients that are more divorce than JUST supporting Gmail or JUST being on your mobile device. I don't think that Email, in general, is broken. I would rather just see better clients out there to make it more usable. More usable by handling attachments better, or sorting, etc. I still have yet to find a good Email client that works well with various Email account types ( _Gmail, Exchange, etc._ ) on different device types ( _Desktop or Mobile_ ). Airmail [1] is probably the closest, but even that has tons of flaws. My example, if you are using a fork ( _Email client_ ) to eat cereal, you don't blame cereal ( _Email_ ) for not working correctly.

[1] [http://airmailapp.com/](http://airmailapp.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks & totally agree: E-mail is neither broken or bad and we need to construct better email clients. Airmail is really good for your individual addresses. Here at Front we try to create the first collaborative email client for companies.

<comment><USER3> > collaborative email client for companies

I read that and thought "what does that even mean? Yet-another-busted-calendar thing?"

Turns out it's actually multiplayer inboxes. Neat! Are you going to release an API so the diehard Emacs users et al can work with everyone else?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As if a sticky, following you around top bar wasn't enough, they also have a bottom bar? It's like reading from a driver's seat of a tank.

Where has this terrible trend originated?

<comment><USER5> I know funny comments are frowned upon, and comments about funny comments are even more frowned upon, but this made me laugh - perhaps because it is such a ridiculous but apt description. Bravo!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Can we stop using "disruption" as a stand-in for "improvement"?

</comment><comment><USER7> Email's great. Your company just sucks.

I've seen it before. The boss doesn't want to defer responsibility. So they have everything go through their approval. Suddenly, you're CCing the boss on every thing you send, leaving behind a train of emails to cover your ass. Soon, other bosses demand the same treatment, and before you know it, everyone's inbox is cluttered with FWDs, and Reply-Alls, making sure nobody is left out of the loop.

Your company should have an email policy.

The one UI improvement I can see: make the reply all button hard to find, so morons don't accidentally click it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Anyone who's trying to think of new ways to disrupt email should take a look at this: [http://visualidiot.com/articles/mailappapp](http://visualidiot.com/articles/mailappapp)

</comment><comment><USER9> Please can we retire the word "disruption"

<comment><USER7> We just need to disrupt the term disruption with a new word. The march of progress continues!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Email is not just IMAP and SMTP. It's much much more (even thought technically speaking the following doesn't have anything to do with email).

Pretty much the only way to invite someone to a meeting at work is to send invite over email. To figure out the place for your meeting, you use "email" client for that. Because you have not sent emails previously to all participants, you use "email" client to figure out the email address of those persons. And the recipients use their "email" client to update their calendar so they remember to come to the meeting.

So to disrupt email, you need to disrupt calendaring and address books and what ever it is called when you search your co-workers email address by their partial name or some wacky username.

It's a mess and a huge beast.

<comment><USER11> The reason email usage is so ubiquitous is because everyone has an email address, and the protocols are well-known and universal.

How else would you propose inviting people to a meeting? Put a paper memo in their mailbox asking for a written reply? Call everyone individually on the phone? Walk around the office and gather everyone together?

If you're thinking about the meeting problem, do you propose a meeting/calendar app/client or protocol that is separate from email? Then the problem becomes saturating your user community with your new client. What do you do if someone doesn't use your new meeting/calendar app/client?

I think what you are describing is a problem with meeting/calendars not email.

<comment><USER10> Because meetings and finding those email addresses are done through email clients, you need to take those into account if you try to write new email client.

Because there isn't any other way to send those invites, figure out the meeting room and the recipients, you need to support those use cases also. Otherwise people will not user your client because then they would have to keep using the old one also.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't get the logic that starts with "Technology is moving fast but email doesn't change" and leads to the solution being papering over email's faults with some slick UI. It's like the whole city's water pressure is failing and everyone is complaining about faucet design instead of that we're using two thousand year old aqueducts. We need more out of online communication than email can give us at a really fundamental level. Suffice to say, my thoughts on this are longer than an HN comment: [http://structur.al/articles/after- email/](http://structur.al/articles/after-email/)

</comment><comment><USER13> This is like watching an old movie late at night on some VHF station (remember those?) We like the story, but the ending doesn't change.

</comment><comment><USER14> Good points, though the article doesn't talk about attachments, which are a terrible pain... It's seeing quite a lot of disruption, with the likes of We Transfer or infinit.io, but now that Google Drive covers this for me I haven't used those services as much.

<comment><USER15> What makes attachments a pain?

<comment><USER16> Because you have to upload them, wait for them to upload, limited by size, zero control over files once they're sent, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> An exciting email client project is in development at [http://mailpile.is/](http://mailpile.is/) \- a self hosted open-source gmail work-alike. (live demo on the site)

</comment><comment><USER18> I'd like to see the UI be more IM-like.

Edit: Guess I can try to explain. Email messages have become much shorter and back-and-forths are frequent (and not always best solved with a call). IM has almost no spam so the idea would be to strike a better balance between only hearing from people you know against the need for "cold emailing". Google's new tabs sort of address this. IM still suffers from fragmentation so there'd be a benefit from using the universal email protocols (so long as unwanted messages could be contained).</comment>


One week with the Google Pixel - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@elliotjaystocks/one-week-with-the-google-pixel-f43e6647906f#.2l4udx8oo <comment><USER2> "3\. Deep Google integration - This shouldn't be surprising in any way, but having Google built into pretty much everything you do on the phone is seriously useful."

This is my main sticking point with Android lately. I would much rather have a stock Android OS + device from Google, and then add the few Google services I want. Instead Google is getting more and more baked into everything, and understanding how my data is being used is becoming more difficult - and this has me worried.

<comment><USER3> I moved from Android to iOS last year for this exact reason. Using android over a few versions felt like a slow slippery slope of access prompts giving permission for google to use ever more personal data about me and my phone. The final straw for me was learning that google uploads and stores audio recordings of everything I've ever said into google now[1].

A year ago when I got my iphone I deleted all of the historical voice data that google stored. Just now, In the process of finding the google activity link below, I've learned that all my deleted voice clips have magically undeleted themselves.

I've been very happy with iOS - there's some little UI gripes, but for me the biggest feature is Tim Cook standing up to the US government on behalf of privacy. I'm convinced that as an organisation Google just doesn't understand what privacy is or why its important to people. With all the new deep app intelligence features in android, I shudder to think about simply how much data google might be storing about its users. I'm very happy to be out.

[1] [https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?product=29](https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?product=29)

<comment><USER4> If I'm not mistaken doesn't Apple also record and upload everything you've ever said to Siri?

<comment><USER5> Apple keeps the data for up to two years, but from 6 months its associated with a random ID code so it's not personally identifiable. At least that's how it used to be done. They have been talking about using more advanced statistical anonymization techniques recently but I don't know if they are used for Siri.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I switched from an iPhone 6+ to the Google Pixel. I've had two problems, but overall love the phone.

1.) The phone is extremely slippery. I don't agree with the author on this one. My old iPhone was way easier to grip, and the iPhone 7 is even better. I bought a case which fixed this issue.

2.) I think this is pretty important. Android apps are second class citizens. A lot of applications don't work properly with Android and you can tell that there just isn't much developer time spent on it. I hope as the Pixel and Google phones become more popular at the high end, more developer time is focused on these applications. Most applications work fine, but sometimes it can be frustrating when an application you expect to work has major bugs.

<comment><USER7> Can you be more specific with your second point? I haven't run across this at all.

<comment><USER8> The Tesla app for Android has numerous bugs that wouldn't have shipped if Tesla leadership carried Android devices.

* The app must be closed in a certain way (back button or swiping away, rather than home button or switching to another app) or else it'll permanently lose network connectivity after a few minutes. I think this is because they keep the socket object in their main activity, and they don't deal with cases where an idle connection gets evicted from a NAT table or similar. But that's just speculation.

* If you launch the app in certain connectivity states, it will not just put up a no-connection alert, but it will flush your stored password. This could leave you in a pickle if you use a strong passphrase that you keep in a password manager, and you were relying on the app to unlock your car.

* The app doesn't support fingerprints. This isn't a bug, but it's something that enough apps support nowadays that it feels strange they're so far behind.

In addition, I'm told the iOS app has more features than the Android version, but I've never seen it myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> He doesn't have an iPhone 7+, yet he claims that the camera on the pixel are "consistently better".

I don't have any, but the side by side tests I've seen of real world pictures it is a complete wash between the two.

I find it silly to say that Apple didn't present a compelling enough camera, but Google did, when they are as similar as they are.

<comment><USER10> They are probably cameras and phones assembled in the same factory.

<comment><USER9> As far as I remember, they are both Sony cameras. I don't know if Google uses Foxconn.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not many negatives. Is it really that great of a phone, or is this really a sales pitch?

<comment><USER12> Exactly, this is a single data point, seemingly without contrast.

<comment><USER13> I've seen pretty good reviews across the board, even from Walt Mossberg, who I generally think of as an Apple fanboy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am giddy about my Pixel XL. I've sold a few of my friends on getting one. I was in the Sprint store cancelling my service as I moved over to Fi and once the guys saw it they all had to play with it.

Only problem that I've had was getting the fingerprint sensor working. You're finger down for around 45 seconds and it vibrates to tell you that its got it. That wasn't working for me and the Google engineers blamed it on software that I'd installed. But it failed before I'd installed any software.

I found an alternative way to do it ironically while waiting for a callback from the engineer. Hold your finger down for 15 seconds, lift it up but keep it hovering over the sensor. Then it will show you it's 20% done and prompt you to put your finger down again. It takes five iterations to get a finger done. You can do more than one finger and I've added four.

The one thing that I don't like is the dialing directory. You can't get it to be alphabetical and instead of a standard list you end up with these big boxes on the screen. Looks great in the photos with a half dozen contacts but fails with hundreds. The UI is extremely awkward and I don't know how it passed user testing. Does anyone have a favorite alternative for me to try?

Two pluses - battery life is fantastic and I've actually gotten almost two days from one charge. I am usually negative on all assistants but Google's is fantastic and I actually find myself using it for all sorts of things. I let my 100 year old dad try it. He smirked and said Google what is the weather in Paris, France tomorrow. It gave him the weather report and there was this gorgeous look of complete shock on his face:<).

</comment><comment><USER15> "The Pixel needs charging once a day, which is a little bit of a disappointment, but it charges really quickly."

I'm not sure I understand this negative. I'd think any problems caused by this would be easily remedied by just charging your phone while you're sleeping, when you can't use it anyway.

Or is he saying that it needs to be charged once a day, even if you charge it overnight?

<comment><USER16> If you don't always sleep in the same place it means lugging a charger.

It means you can't go to bed drunk and neccessarily expect your alarm to go off in the morning.

It really just means that any time your life gets out of routine, your phone is probably going to die.

<comment><USER17> "Out of routine" is routine for frequent flyers. You never know when you'll end up spending the night in an airport transit lounge or you can't get into your hotel at the end of a flight around the world, or whatever. Or when driving or hiking through a somewhat remote area and something goes wrong....

When things go wrong, you need to make calls, put out fires, keep trying to reach remote towers using full radio power for extended periods.

When things go wrong is when you MOST need your phone, so you need a battery that can continue to serve you a lot longer than it normally needs to on an ordinary day unless you can somehow be certain that for you every day will be an ordinary day.

<comment><USER18> Do frequent flyers not bring chargers in their carry on?

<comment><USER19> Tell me. Where in LAX or SFO or LGA can I find an electric outlet?

Some airports make them impossible to find, highly coveted, surrounded by the territorial and ferroucious Horde, oodles of macbook MagSafe and ipad Lightning cables eminating from the wall like thin withering tentacles of some white goop monster emanating from the power grid.

Other airports lock the power sockets away behind "Employee Only" signs and caution tape, with menacing security guards patrolling the area should you even think about stealing those precious MWh from the institution.

Still other airports have rows upon rows of power outlets in plain sight, but every single one of them is dead, disconnected, dying like your phone battery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Half the positives on this list I find to be kinda crazy to be positives. For example having Facebook Messenger handle your SMS messages. Really? You want to voluntarily give all that info to a company as user hostile as Facebook?

Less drastically I question the need to hide apps away in an app drawer. If you don't use the app then just delete it. Am I alone in feeling that way?

I'm glad he's happy and the Pixel seems like a great phone but this list just felt half crazy to me.

<comment><USER21> Facebook SMS support is client side only. They do not get your texts in any way.

<comment><USER20> Are you absolutely sure about that? I'd like to believe you but I can't take it on faith. I completely expect Facebook is giving itself some level of info about your SMS messages unless there is some reason they can't.

<comment><USER21> Trust is the only reason. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are examining the traffic of Facebook apps and someone would make a sink about it if there was evidence they were lieing about their privacy policy. That seems like an adequate assurance for most people but certainly not all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I had the chance to play around with the Pixel and it is really cool.

Honestly I'd probably pick one up if not for the poor, IMO, speaker quality. If you like to talk to your phone Google definitely has the best voice assistant

</comment><comment><USER23> The saturated colors gave me a headache in the first hour of using the phone. Luckily, there is an option to turn on sRGB color profile buried in the developer tools menu (activated by tapping the build version in about phone menu multiple times). After turning the option on, I don't want to look at any other screen.

I'm not sure why this isn't on by default given that the sRGB option on pixel apparently has the most accurate color representation of any phone (can't remember where I read it) today.

</comment><comment><USER24> I've been using Samsung phones for several years (currently still using a Galaxy S6), and my Pixel is supposed to come around the end of the month. Did they really get rid of app badges? That has been a thing for a while, unless I'm not understanding what "badges" are. Also, is the battery life on an iPhone good enough that you don't have to charge it every day. I can't remember owning a smartphone that could go longer than 24+ hours on one charge.

<comment><USER25> > is the battery life on an iPhone good enough that you don't have to charge > it every day

Yup. I have an iPhone 6, and routinely go two days between charges. I can charge it overnight, use it all day, skip a night, all day again, and still have about ~20% charge still left by the time I plug it in the next night before bed.

<comment><USER3> I have a 6s+. With light usage my phone will often last a full 3 days between charges.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've been wondering if I was missing out on the iPhone's 3D touch feature, for interacting with photos, messages, etc. The author didn't mention missing it, so I guess I'm not.

<comment><USER20> I haven't found it very useful. Certainly not a reason to choose iPhone over Android. I have other reasons (like privacy concerns and ecosystem lock in).

<comment><USER27> Honest question - Why would you say Android is worse at ecosystem lock-in than iOS?

<comment><USER28> voluntary Ecosystem lock-in is actually the reason I moved back to iOS. I use an iPad pro, and I don't believe there's a better tablet out there. I use Macbook Pros both at work and at home. Having all of those devices perfectly in sync is amazing for my productivity.

<comment><USER10> I tried too, but I can't find a use for tablets. As long as there is my laptop around, I never reach for the tablet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > For instance, ask it to search for an actor and then ask, "what films has he > starred in?" It knows you're still talking about the same person. > Impressive.

Yeah, but then you ask it: "What is heavier, a cat or an elephant?" and it fails, because it is lacking in common sense. It only has a small-ish factoid knowledge base and lacks all the general common sense things we take for granted.

<comment><USER29> Obviously, because they haven't created a fully conscious artificial intelligence, it's a complete failure.

<comment><USER10> Don't take it so hard. I am the greatest fan of conversational AI chatbots. I am just a little too impatient, especially that I have seen a chatbot that can do those types of common sense challenges.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Pixel. iPhone. Two sides of the same lousy coin. They both do the same thing. And they are doing it increasingly poorly. But consumers keep lapping it up blindly. Do we really need hardware and software updates every year? They just about get the bugs out of iOS 9 and lollipop, and hey, it's been a year. Let's start all over again with new bugs.

</comment><comment><USER31> After trying pixel phone the most annoying thing for me is a fingerprint censor location, its so annoying to pick it up or use two hands to unlock it even when using the power on button which is on a side

</comment><comment><USER32> Always fun to see Apple users step out of the RDF and gush over features that Android has had for _years_ (not all of them, but a good chunk of them have been present in Android for a long time now).

Edit: And yes, the UI/UX has changed remarkably little between Lollipop and Nougat, despite the popular memes amongst non-Android users... like the ones already repeated here.

<comment><USER33> It's never been about the features. We have this conversation every single time.

Users care about the experience, and features are only a portion of the experience. That's what Apple really truly gets and other companies miss time and time again.

<comment><USER32> And the UI/UX is hardly at all different than what has been shipping for the last 3 major Android versions.

Again, none of this is new for people who are actually using a recent version of Android in the last 2-3 years, but go figure I get downvoted for pointing it out.

Just as your comment proves, it's a sad, tired and completely out-dated meme that Android doesn't have good UX. And then these blog posts come along and I roll my eyes because my old phone that is 2 major revs behind Nougat looks and behaves virtually identical to Nougat.

Ironically, there _are_ good features in the last few major revs, but they're more about granular permissions and other functionality that isn't touched on by this article at all.

<comment><USER29> Perhaps writing in a less condescending way might attract fewer downvotes.

<comment><USER32> It's hard to tell someone they're mindlessly repeating years-out-of-date, inaccurate memey tropes without coming across as condescending.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


New to HN, where to start? - <AUTHOR>

Hey everyone, over the last couple of weeks I have been casually browsing the HN forum and have discovered what a massive and excellent community this is. So, I guess I was just wondering if there are any guidelines or things that a newcomer should be aware of? Thanks guys! <comment><USER2> Well, if you want to read things by some of the top contributing users, a good place to start would be the "leaderboard" [1]. Click on one of the users names, and click "comments". These are usually pretty fun to read (especially from those with high "avg" karma).

Also, to answer a couple questions you will inevitably have while browsing through their comments or old posts:

1) There is a karma threshold for down-voting (currently 500).

2) The "expired link" page you see is a known issue and is unlikely to be fixed any time soon.

As for guidelines:

Always try to add to the discussion. Be nice. This isn't reddit (humor is fine, but stupid jokes are not). Upvote on quality of content, not appeal of content.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/leaders>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I guess another question I have, which maybe should just be created in it's own thread is this...

I'm looking for a technical co-founder for a new business. While I'm not trying to find someone from this post, I am curious as to what would be a good path to take to begin to establish myself as a good person to go into business with. It seems that one of the most important things, beside from being generally qualified, motivated, etc. is to begin trying to learn as much about the technical side of things as possible.

Do you guys agree with this? If so, where is a good place to start learning to code on a basic level?

<comment><USER3> If you want to learn to code, start with Udacity:

www.udacity.com

It is a great resource, and it is free.

<comment><AUTHOR> wow, thank you this is extremely useful and easy to understand

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is now two years old, but still a pretty awesome resource:

<http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/startupswiki/Ask_YC_Archive>

Also if you want to search with more control than Google provides, check out:

<http://www.hnsearch.com>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, I'm really excited to really start learning some stuff about the tech/start up world. It seems that I've read more interesting articles on HN in about fifteen minutes than hours on other forums

</comment><comment><USER5> The Guidelines link is in the footer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, alright thanks</comment></comment>


CodingHorror and Open Source Economics - <AUTHOR> http://journal.dedasys.com/2009/03/27/codinghorror-and-open-source-economics <comment><USER2> I applaud Jeff for trying to think of new ways to fund open source development. Ultimately, I think open source will benefit from a diversity of funding sources, including those which currently exist (day jobs, corporate benefactors, and service sales) and those which do not yet exist (such as Jeff's sponsorship clearinghouse). There is no reason to think that the status quo is optimal and cannot be improved. There is certainly no reason to think that new ideas for funding open source development ought not even be tried.

I am not sure why there seems to be a lot of vague criticism directed at Jeff's idea, without much concrete analysis. The author of this article mentions that Jeff's proposal "more or less works here and there" but at a larger scale there are "too many factors" for it to work. How the heck are you supposed to argue with something that vague?

The author just _knows_ that Jeff's idea won't work, but he can't explain why. He implies that we should just trust him because he "gets it", and Jeff doesn't. That implication is the only supporting argument that the author offers. It's not very convincing. He certainly doesn't convince me that Jeff's proposal ought not even be tried.

The tone of the conversation seems to be that people find Jeff's idea offensive in some way, rather than unworkable. I hope that Jeff is confident enough to implement his idea despite the naysayers, if only because I think we will all benefit if it does indeed work.

Lastly, am I the only one that finds the last paragraph dripping with condescension? Reading it makes me feel a little dirty.

<comment><USER3> There seems to be an undercurrent here and on programming.reddit that anything Atwood says is immediately wrong. Just about every codinghorror and blog.stackoverflow post gets on here and programming.reddit and you can count on 100+ comments where most people are criticizing whatever Atwood said this time without pausing to consider what he said or what point he was trying to make.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sorry if this comment comes off as naive; about 2002 I realized I didn't have the necessary set of personality traits to survive as a sole proprietor in the open-source field, so I earn my money elsewhere now (technical translation). And so I'm only peripherally aware of the software industry, so to speak.

But here and there I keep seeing the notion of a bounty pop up, whereby people can sponsor specific changes. These frameworks don't seem to last long, though. And it's fairly obvious why: if I have a business need for a specific change to the point that I can afford a bounty, then I also need a non-flaky pledge from a developer to make the change in a timely manner and follow through with testing and so forth.

It seems to me that we have a mismatch of scale. A small change is worth a week of my time if I _really_ want polka dots on my music player. It's fun and I take time from the paying work just because I get a charge out of it, and maybe the community appreciates it. The positive charge I get from that improves my life -- perhaps makes me happy and motivated enough to be more efficient with the paying work.

But I can't make a living doing other people's small changes one after the other. I don't care about their changes, only their money -- and they can't afford a week of my time to make me care enough about it.

So what you would really need would be to find _all_ the people interested in a given change, and they would _all_ pay for it, and in sum, it might be worthwhile. Right? But that won't work, either -- if I want polka dots on my music player, I might chip in ten bucks, say. If I see that it's already got $75 x 8 x 5 = $3000 dollars pledge, I'm going to say, what? Three thousand bucks for polka dots?

Problem two: I don't actually know it's going to take a week, do I? If it takes two, I'm working myself into a hole. What if 300 people have already pledged their ten bucks and I flake out because it really didn't seem that good an idea afterwards?

And finally, problem three: how long will it take for 300 people to think they want polka dots? The need will have passed by the time it can gain momentum.

So what? Do I work on spec and hope 300 people will pay me? That won't work -- I either give it back to the community, so there's no motivation to pay me, or I withhold my change until paid enough, and it's not open source any more. (By which I mean, it violates the spirit of open source -- the mood is gone, to my mind.)

It could be that when all six billion of us are online and more of us make more than a dollar a day, this kind of scale problem will melt away. But until then, paradoxical as it sounds, maybe the world just isn't big enough for this stuff.

It could also be that a magical change in technology will make it way cheaper to make changes (some hand-wavy high-semantics AI-supported coding system -- be honest, you want to write one, too). That would also alleviate the scale mismatch.

But until then, I think these efforts are doomed to failure. Unless somebody proves me wrong -- but so far, I don't see it happening.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I posted another one too... this one has been building up in my head for a while:

[http://journal.dedasys.com/2009/03/27/software-economics- pub...](http://journal.dedasys.com/2009/03/27/software-economics-public-goods)

I find this stuff extremely interesting.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think one very serious problem with someone paying for features, is determining if a certain change actually does what the person wanted. In the commercial world the client decides that software is good enough for them by paying for that software (that already exists). But say if I want a certain feature from an open source project, and decide to pay for it, and someone writes a sloppy fix which does almost that and argues I should pay them, how is the conflict resolved? The developer has already used his time, so if I decide not to pay, there is a good chance the implementation is included anyway later. One would need the same kind of management as is used for custom software projects, but that is way too heavy for small individual features.</comment>


A Decade-Old Attack Can Break the Encryption of Most PCs - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/cold-boot-break-pc-encryption/ <comment><USER2> Wired seems to have an obnoxious popup telling me to subscribe with no way of closing it. Combined with the browser url bar only 30% of my phone screen has content.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20180914151314/https://www.wired...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180914151314/https://www.wired.com/story/cold- boot-break-pc-encryption/)</comment>


The Xenobots, Virtual Creatures Brought to Life - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/science/xenobots-robots-frogs-xenopus.html <comment><AUTHOR> Original paper: [https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/07/191083711...](https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/01/07/1910837117.full.pdf)

TLDR - The robotic building blocks are skin cells and heart cells, which naturally "beat."

Computers evolve simulated body designs, which are then assembled by hand using real cells.

You can see the actual robots here: [https://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2020/01/07/1910837117.DCS...](https://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2020/01/07/1910837117.DCSupplemental)</comment>


Should you use Yes/No or Ok/Cancel on your message boxes? - <AUTHOR> http://ux.stackexchange.com/q/9946/7235 <comment><USER2> Apple's Human Interface Guidelines continue to be a good resource:

Buttons & Labels: [http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/userex...](http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/userexperience/conceptual/applehiguidelines/Controls/Controls.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000359-TPXREF104)

Alert Dialogs: [http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/userex...](http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/userexperience/conceptual/applehiguidelines/Windows/Windows.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20000961-TP10)

 _edit:_ It's also cool to see how much has (and hasn't) changed over the years. Here's a 1995 version of the Macintosh HIG: [http://dropbox.scripting.com/dave/misc/appleHumanInterfaceGu...](http://dropbox.scripting.com/dave/misc/appleHumanInterfaceGuidelines.pdf)

<comment><USER3> I fully agree that the verb is better.

At the same time, for localization a verb needs to be translated into XX languages. The default Yes/No/Cancel text is already translated. Of course that's not much of an argument since you'd have to translate the rest of your program too but is there something to be said for helping people not familiar with English to be able to use your untranslated program?

<comment><USER4> You could use the verb in English, but fall back to Yes/No/Cancel in other languages for which you don't have a localization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My favorite anti-pattern to this is the following:

"Would you like to cancel this transaction?"

"OK" – "Cancel"

<comment><USER6> Talk about an unambiguous sign that whoever is writing this software is truly and deeply giving zero (0) shits about their job.

<comment><USER7> I don't think that's the case. It's very possible to be a good programmer and care deeply about your work, but at the same time be a terrible UX designer. Unfortunately a lot of software companies don't realize this and give UX the priority it deserves; instead they make their coders guess about it, which leads to things like this dialog.

<comment><USER6> Oh sure, I'm a living disaster area at UX. I meant more that whoever is the "designated responsible individual" (if one even exists -- _doubtful_ ) has given the fuck up.

<comment><USER8> For some reason I didn't read "the fuck" as emphasis, but as a direct object—the person _had had_ a fuck previously, but have since given up that fuck.

I'm going to use that as an example of why UX is hard: not only are people generally not paying attention, but sometimes they misfire even when they are.

<comment><USER6> It's much more elegant in your reading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _"Should you use Yes/No or Ok/Cancel on your message boxes?"_

No, you shouldn't.

<comment><USER10> If you have trouble convincing someone of this, I wrote a little helper application you can install on their computer. It pops up a focus-stealing "WARNING: Are you sure? [Ok] [Cancel]" dialog at random every 10-40 minutes, irrespective of what they are doing at that time. A day of that, and they should get the point. Executable and source download at the bottom of the rant: <http://www.expert-overflow.com/areyousure/>

<comment><USER9> Be careful, you may be stepping on Microsoft's IP. Windows Vista's UAC feature had it first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I once held a meeting for higher-ups (I was rather a peon) to decide whether a single switch should be labeled "online/offline" or "remote/local". 6 managers attended. The meeting lasted 3 hours.

Small surprise that once $14B/yr company just sold its remaining patent portfolio for $500M.

<comment><USER12> What color was the bikeshed there?

<comment><USER13> They're currently A/B testing for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's not just GUI message boxes that thought has to be applied to - any form of user input (including command line apps).

I remember the old DOS days when reading a floppy disk failed:

        Abort, Retry, Fail?

I never could remember the difference between _Abort_ and _Fail_.

<comment><USER15> What is the difference? I never knew.

<comment><USER16> Abort would terminate the entire process, whereas Fail would return an error code to it. Older (pre-2.x?) versions of DOS did not support the concept of I/O error codes at all, so the Fail option wasn't present: instead, you had the charming 'Ignore', which would pretend the operation had succeeded, returning the I/O buffer with (partially) corrupted information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> One problem is that the standard Windows API for creating a MessageBox only has standard options for the button labels. If you to use custom text you have to create your own form.

<comment><USER18> This is due to localisation. Standard dialogues with limited and clearly defined text options can be automatically localised by the system, but if you put arbitrary text on your buttons and you want localisation, you have to provide translations yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My favourite was a disk backup program for MacOS (non-X) called Silverkeeper, which was included with LaCie external drives: <http://i.imgur.com/VMlQH.jpg>

Or in ASCII art (spelling and punctuation as shown):

        +</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----+
        |                          [  Nah!  ]  [ Somewhat ]  |
        |                                                    |
        | Are you sure you want to permanently remove backup |
        | of files in Set "Desktop > Sneech"                 |
        |                                                    |
        | Thsi will completely remove                        |
        | any reference to these file.?                      |
        +</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----+

</comment><comment><USER20> A random idea, maybe an alternative is to label the buttons w/ the actions themselves, i.e. no message + Y/N,Ok/Cancel labels. For Example, instead of: Would you like to cancel this transaction? {Yes,No} just have: {Continue Transaction|Stop Transaction}

... just a thought, I'm no UX designer.

<comment><USER21> If you click the link, you'll see that is the preferred solution.

<comment><USER20> Ah, yes indeed. I suppose yes/no scheme may be applicable to command line tools where the user actually has to type, in the model ui world, it's not really applicable.

<comment><USER22> y

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've always confused about UI and UX. This is def. consider UX right?

<comment><USER24> Yes, the UI is the mechanism that pops up the messaging, but the UX is the consideration of how the message will be used or misused by the user.

Ha, a terrible sentence. That's why I'm a back-end not a UX person :)

It's definitely a blurry line a lot of the time but having worked with a UX guy who was part of our design department, he definitely added a lot of value to the design process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I remember a site on MacOS vs Windows dialog boxes from way back in the late 90's, a time in which many confusing UI patterns abound. It's too bad it's still not around as it is a great guide on how to display the question to the user correctly.

It went on to display a few common(windows 95 I think) dialogs that would leave most users confused. Then showed the Mac dialog in similar operations where it was very clear what the intended outcome of each button would be.

<comment><USER26> If you ever stumble across it, I'd love to take a look at it. That sounds like a great resource.

I'm currently writing my first "big" GUI for work where I serve as both the main programmer _and_ the UX designer. Things such as button ambiguity are things that, until this point, had never crossed my mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It depends on how the question is phrased in the message box.

<comment><USER23> The problem is people didn't read the question carefully

<comment><USER28> The problem is that too many dialogs are designed to require reading an overly verbose message when in reality the vast majority of the time the 2 or 3 words on an appropriately named button are all the context a user needs.

If I initiate a format on a drive volume I don't need a lecture on what a format does and what the risks are, I know them already, I just need a confirmation step.

<comment><USER29> > _If I initiate a format on a drive volume I don't need a lecture on what a > format does and what the risks are, I know them already, I just need a > confirmation step._

When I was 12, I compressed drive C:\ in the hope more free space will be available. I think I'd have benefited from a lecture in the application.

<comment><USER30> I'm not quite clear on your point here. Did the compression cause problems? Did it keep reserved space so you still didn't have any free? Compression on a slow hard drive should generally improve performance and at the very least shrinking files means fewer fragmentation problems.

If you wanted the software to warn you it was buggy before you turned it on, haha good luck.

<comment><USER29> I don't recall all the details, but it was Windows 95 times. This embedded system utility basically zipped the root directory and rendered the computer unable to boot. I could have saved my parents a headache if I had been aware of the consequences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Haha, trick question right? Of course, use 确认 and 取消

</comment><comment><USER32> I would go with a happy face and a sad face or a thumbs up or a thumbs down and save alot of language issues in one simple approach.

I would also have the `yes`/`no` options apart and not how must people do it with them next to each other, avoids mistakes more.

<comment><USER29> Apart from accessibility issues, I don't think emoticons work well in this context. At least they would make me stare more at the dialog and not less.

Although verbs like Save along with icons like a floppy disk might increase familiarity, so graphics could be applied moderately.

<comment><USER32> a very interesting and valid point about mixing the text with graphics. Though I standard of PLAY/PAUSE/STOP/FWD/BACK icons on VCR a is a example of a standard that is embraced and known globaly, no text involved. That said the old stories of people having problems programming there VCR may well have roots in the iconic only introduction only to be dumped into the non-standard programming interfaces that changed from model to model.

I certianly do believe signs/symbols when known have a very intuative communication medium and once adopted and used the comfort value is as good and if not better than some words which are after all a collection of symbols in themselfs. Road sighs would be another area which has at least some universal symbols, maybe those would be more adoptable for a user interface.

Perish the thought that one day we have a computer that you set up and asks you how you the user would like certain common dialogues to be handeled and propergated that customised standard across all applications running upon them. I'm all for graphic symbols to indicate across languages the actions available as apposed to limiting to words alone, which are in themself (for English and many other languages) only a collection of 26 or so symbols combined in themself.

The example you give about the word Save with a icon with a floppy disc is very common in alot of applications, though I do wonder for a new user who is starting out with computers if they would even be able to identify with the image of a floppy disc, let alone know they ever existed and there use. So some symbols are, if not thought out limited in there use and some are timeless classics that still endure today, like some roadsigns. It is also worth noting that colours play a important part and with that also have limitations. If you saw a road stop sign in green instead of red you would think it was a go sign and not a stop one; So careful use is wise. With that the mix you say of text and symbols is perhaps not that bad an approach after all, albiet language biased it would still allow say a user of a mobile phone to navigate the menu's using the symbols to change the menu language back to say English with ease having been comfronted with russian text due to a child changing the settings or the like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I wish the position of the positive or negative action was standardised i.e. YES/OK/Secure Empty Trash (positive) always on the right, Cancel(Negative) on the left.

</comment><comment><USER34> The answer there is perfect. Nothing to add.

<comment><USER35> Yeah my thoughts too, I haven't seen anyone improve on the top answer. No one wants to read the dialogue box, so make it as easy as possible.

<comment><USER36> Quite often the dialogue text leaves one unclear in what the button will do.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which headphones do you use while working? - <AUTHOR> I have used the Shure 215 (https://www.amazon.com/Shure-SE215-K-Isolating-Earphones-MicroDriver/dp/B004PNZFZ8) for a number of years. The ability to replace the cable has saved me a number of times and the headphones still work/sound great.<p>I am curious to know what others use especially for noise cancellation. The Shure 215 are not noise-cancelling but do significantly block. <comment><USER2> I was skeptical about high end headphones till now. My wife gifted me a Bose Quiet comfort 35 last week and initially I was mad at her for spending so much but I can confidently say that they are "The best" headphones if you are coding. The design is great and fits perfectly on ears. I can wear them for long hours. I couldn't bear any headphones for more than 1 hour continuously before and always thought there is something wrong with my ear shape.

I am glad to find these headphones. You should definitely try these without bothering about price. The price will look small when you start using them. If they allow you to go into Deep Work and focus on whatever you are doing then the price pays off!

<comment><USER3> I advise people to give noise cancelling headphones like these a try for 30 minutes to an hour before spending a lot of money on them. I found the noise cancellation feature causes a pressure like feeling on my ears that was very uncomfortable and I could not wear the headphones for extended periods.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I use the Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro. Noise cancelling really only works for static noises (like air conditioning, engine roar), which can actually make workspace noise like talking and voices stand out more.

In-ear headphones don't provide enough comfort for extended listening day in day out, so over-ear headphones are the best choice IMO.

Anything of good build quality in the $150+ price range is likely worthwhile, assuming you don't go for the overmarketed brands like Beats. I chose the DT 770 Pro because they are studio-quality, meant to last, and Beyerdynamics even supplies repair parts. They are meant to last through heavy use while providing studio level sound quality.

<comment><USER5> This doesn't match my experience at all. Bose noise cancelling is excellent and completely blocks out my coworkers' voices.

At home I use Beyers and Sennheisers because I enjoy the audio quality, but at work these headphones are as essential to me as my keyboard and mouse.

<comment><USER4> _shrug_ I have Bose noise cancelling headphones in the drawer at work. For me, they only seem to remove the sound of the air conditioner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> At home I like Sennheiser HD-650, but being open back headphones they leak quite a bit of sound in and out. For the office (and commute) I just bought the Sony MDR-1000x - the noise canceling is very good, better than Sennheiser Momentum or Bose.

I like IEM's for the size but in terms of comfort not so much.

For those on a tight budget, best value headphones I've used are Soundmagic e10 IEM's and Superlux HD681 Evo closed back headphones, for about £25 each they are great.

</comment><comment><USER7> I also have the Bose QuietComfort 30 and I've been using them every day for everything, not only work. I am super happy with how comfortable they are, and while I don't think the noise cancelling is really important working from home, I really enjoy it when I am in a noisy enviroment.

</comment><comment><USER8> Audio Technica ATH-50X with velour replacement pads. Blocks a fair bit of noise while remaining cool.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's great to see such in-depth answers here.

I simply use some cheap skull candy earbuds. The important thing to me is earbuds. They almost never leak sound, and can easily drown out surrounding noise at mid-volume.

</comment><comment><USER10> Beats Studio Wireless (latest edition). The noise-cancelling is so good that I can't tell when somoenee has walked up to talk to me. On planes it manages to cancel out nearly all engine noise. The bluetooth connection is great and works over a surprising distance, this allows me to wander about my office as I'm pondering a problem. Had an issue with the original pair I purchased where the left ear got disconnected after a few months. Apple sent me a replacement pair and haven't had any other issues since then.

</comment><comment><USER11> Bose QC 35. I wish the noise cancellation was adjustable and better. I mean it is good. But I'm one of those people who actually wants to be encased in a cocoon of total silence any time I choose.

Some examples. Sitting outside in a noisy cafe, with NC and white noise playing: zero background noise.

Same setup without a track playing, only NC: I can hear everything, but it's just quieter. Voices, cars still there. Not acceptable.

The way I interpreted the promise of NC was it would actually play the inverse wave and cancel everything. I don't understand why some sound gets through. And I feel cheated.

I don't think my expectation was unrealistic because it was based on the following episode. I was on a plane and the Qatari American guy next to me chatted to me about films. When our conversation died he started watching movies, with some huge black headphones. I asked him about them. And he told me they were NC and asked if I'd like to try. I put them on, then he pushed one button on the side and whsp! Every noise disappeared! The plane engine was gone. He kept talking but it was gone too. It was literally a religious moment for me. I glimpsed another world I didn't know existed. I never knew I could end all the noise. So naturally I had to get myself a pair. I asked what they were and he said Bose QC. They were from a few years ago. So you see I thought I'd found something I could trust.

At Yodobashi Camera I was so excited to buy my QC 35. But when I used them, I could not rationalise away my disappointment. It was qualitatively different. On the plane those headphones had clearly put my ears in a pressurized bubble. Of total silence. But the QC 35 was just like God had turned the world volume down a third of the way. Really not good enough.

So now I still wear them, but I'm always playing tracks. At least I've discovered Spotify. But I still think I'd much rather prefer, the Total Noise Cancellation my first experience promised. Now sometimes I even go back and question the trustworthiness the guy who introduced me to NC such is the magnitude of the difference between my expectation and the reality. Did that Qatari American guy trick me? Did he just start mouthing silently as soon as he pressed the NC button? Or did that NC tech really cut everything? And if the tech was legit, did Qatar or 2014 get better NC tech than Japan or 2017? Why has Bose foresaken me?

<comment><USER12> Bose (and other NC headphones) can only cancel repetitive noise. It can only send an opposite sound wave at the right amplitude and frequency at the right time to cancel another if it knows ahead of time what to send out. So airplane noise, traffic, airconditioning, servers whirring. I find that in airplanes it actually allows me to hear the cabin attendants better, as the drone is cut, but the voices are not. It's why they are not that great a solution in an open office.

The isolation you are looking for you can achieve with ear defenders. Put them over in ear headphones, and you won't hear anything else but your music.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Etymotic er4p with a custom null audio cable and ACS custom eartips, this is not noise cancelling, it's total blockage, when you have music playing someone can stand in front of you shouting at full volume and you won't hear anything but your tunes

Although ACS no longer make custom eartips there are other places that do such as snugz, without doubt custom tips are the single best upgrade you can buy for your sound

<comment><USER14> I agree, getting ACS molds for my ER4p is one of my favorite audio purchases. All day comfort + maximum isolation

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > The ability to replace the cable has saved me a number of times and the > headphones still work/sound great.

I couldn't switch back from using bluetooth headphones. Once you get used to the wire not getting in the way and how you can walk around without having to take your headphones off, wired headphones just feel awkward. When you can get ones with 40 hours battery life then that isn't an issue either.

</comment><comment><USER16> AKG K845bt. These are my first bt headphones and I can tell you that they make a difference. I was skeptical about bt headphones but the freedom you get with them will change your mind.

About sound quality there is no doubts about AKG, in my opinion one of the best brands out there.

In reference to the price.. yes they are expensive compared to other headphones but for someone who uses them more than 5h a day.. I think they pay off

</comment><comment><USER17> I have HyperX Cloud headphones, they're a gaming headset. The mic has nice quality sound, I use it a lot for conferencing. The sound is balanced (a lot of gaming headsets are bass heavy, these are not) and most importantly, they're very, very comfortable. I can wear them all day no problem.

</comment><comment><USER18> None. I find a quiet place for things that require concentration, indeed there are quiet areas for this otherwise private areas exist, work from home, or otherwise enjoy an open-plan office format when collaboration is prioritised.

Pushing for this shouldn't be underrated.

</comment><comment><USER19> I would highly recommend Bose QC20 in ear. I have the over ear version and while mine may excel in the noise cancellation department, the QC20 beats mine out of the water in terms of noise blocking overall.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've been using Bose QuietComfort 15 for years. Unfortunately, something has broken in them so they aren't as good at noice cancellation as they were when I bought them.

</comment><comment><USER21> At home I use Sennheiser HD600s, often through my Marantz PM60005 amp, or a portable Fiio amp. If I'm at work I just Sennheiser Momentums, over-ear kind.

The HD600s are brilliant for gaming, music and movies, but obviously are open backed so are no good for a busy office. I find in games, people often complain they couldn't hear me coming, but I could hear them! The sound quality is amazing and I don't think I'd ever replace them, unless they broke - in which case I'd either buy more or try HD650s.

The momentums are great for travelling and this morning I actually bought my other half a pair of the folding on-ear versions for travelling and being away from home.

</comment><comment><USER14> Working at home lets me use speakers or open headphones most of the time, so Hifiman 400i, but when I need isolation I use either Oppo PM-3 or Etymotic ER4p

</comment><comment><USER22> Spracht Konf-X with noise cancelling. $79.99 .Way cheaper than Bose, and very comfortable for me . I also use them when flying.

</comment><comment><USER23> Velodyne vQuiet. They're not the best, but they periodically go on sale for $30 and they're very good for that price.

</comment><comment><USER24> I use Panasonic Ergofit earbuds: [http://www.ebay.com/itm/322284263220?_trksid=p2057872.m2749....](http://www.ebay.com/itm/322284263220?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT) (really ergonomic, have kept them for 12+ hours/day (fell asleep))

Also have Sennheiser 380 Pro but am looking for something that blocks a lot more.

</comment><comment><USER25> Sony MRD-1000x's are fantastic. Very comparable in price to the QC35's, but I find the active noise cancelling to be noticeably superior.

Also if your media playback hardware is Sony, you can use their proprietary Bluetooth audio codec (less compression) for superior sound... (assuming your source media is high enough quality)

</comment><comment><USER26> Bose QuietComfort 35

</comment><comment><USER27> Marshall Headphones M-ACCS-00152 Monitor Headphones

</comment><comment><USER28> sennheiser 598. Forget that they are on, sound good enough. For noise cancelling, I use the bose quiet comfort.

</comment><comment><USER29> Koss Sporta pro

</comment><comment><USER30> If you're willing to pay top dollar, I highly recommend the B&O Play by Bang and Olufsen Beoplay H8 wireless/wired headphones. I got these at an airport a few years ago when I forgot my AKG headphones and am convinced they are the best to be had. The sound quality is phenomenal and the active noise cancellation is superb. They have a removable battery which is huge for headphones at this price range ($500) and they can last 14 hrs on a single charge which is best in class. But if battery goes dead, can always plug them in an use as wired headphones (though worth mentioning that you lose the noise cancellation which sucks if say you're watching an in flight movie). The best feature is the touch interface for stop/start, volume control, skip/previous track, activate/disable noise cancellation and answering calls. It's resistive touch which means you can use it without removing your gloves which is huge!

Build quality is phenomenal and they're surprisingly low profile. My first pair actually had a problem with the touch interface and B&O not only replaced them, they expedited shipment so I'd get them in time when I explained I had a long trip coming up - so great support.

The only drawbacks are:

\- they're on-ear which takes some getting used to, especially early on before the band takes shape to your head and can press to your ears. However, the padding is very soft and even replaceable! I now believe on ear produces the best accuracy as there's no acoustic reverberations and feedback that you can sometimes get with over ear. However, over ear is more comfortable and even after breaking these in, you'll still get ear fatigue after some hours of use. That being said, I've fallen asleep for hours on flights wearing these and not even playing music as the noise cancellation completely eliminates engine noise and most external sound in general

\- they cannot be charged and used at the same time, even if using the wired lead. This is probably the biggest drawback though at 14 hrs play time and having a replaceable battery, this can be mitigated

\- the previously mentioned drawback of not having noise cancellation when using them wired is annoying because the noise cancellation is exceptionally good

\- they don't fold in any way, so you need to consider how to carry them if not in use. I usually just extend the headphones and keep them around my neck. In general though, you'll find the higher quality headphones won't be foldable as that's an easy point of failure

They're pricey but I've tried a number of other brands and the features/sound quality of these are far and away the best to be had. Not to mention, they look great when worn unlike most others that look cheep or goofy in their bulk. Highly recommend

Amazon has them on Prime: [https://www.amazon.com/Bang-Olufsen-Wireless- Headphone-Cance...](https://www.amazon.com/Bang-Olufsen-Wireless-Headphone- Cancelling/dp/B01KOAJLGE/ref=sr_1_5?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1490804439&sr=1-5&keywords=B%26o+h8)</comment>


Ask HN: How to fund an organisation for open source hardware support? - <AUTHOR> The world needs a well-funded organization that does the work needed to enable open source operating systems to run on consumer devices. Enterprise device vendors are currently incentivized to add open source support to open source server operating systems, since open source is popular among technologists. Open source operating systems are much less popular on consumer devices (such as routers, phones, tablets, TVs, cameras, robot vacuums, washing machines, fridges, scanners, printers, cars, voice assistants etc) so their vendors have little to no incentive to properly support open source on their devices. Every year a multitude of new consumer devices are released that need supporting.
The work that is needed falls into several categories: helping hardware vendors support open source, security research and exploit development, reverse engineering proprietary hardware support, writing new hardware support based on that and cleaning up vendor forks for mainline inclusion.
Once the initial hardware support is available then tinkerers can work on user interface and other projects that enable other folks to make use of the hardware.
How would you fund such an organization? <comment><USER2> Relevant organizations exist already. See Purism[0], Thinkpenguin [1], Technoethical [2].

[0] [https://puri.sm](https://puri.sm)

[1] [https://www.thinkpenguin.com/](https://www.thinkpenguin.com/)

[2] [https://tehnoetic.com/](https://tehnoetic.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Buy hardware vendors which supports open source hardware development.. for eg. Purism, system76 ..</comment>


Large Form iPod Touch To Launch in Fall '09 - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/12/30/large-form-ipod-touch-to-launch-in-fall-09/ <comment><USER2> The argument that this sort of device makes sense because of the app store is bunk, at the least. You don't take an app running on a high-resolution 3.5 inch screen and just throw it onto a screen 4x as big.

<comment><USER3> If you read through the Apple SDK documentation for the iPhone it's stated that the dimensions you are working with are NOT pixels. On the iPhone and iPod, the dimensions you are working with scale 1:1 to pixels, but that you should keep in mind the scale will be different with future devices.

So all apps will scale automatically to bigger screens. And it seems that they planned from the start that bigger screens would come along.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This falls firmly in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category.

<comment><USER5> I don't really follow consumer electronics closely so I'll ask the dumb questions: Why's it so hard to believe? Have these flirtations happened before?

<comment><USER6> Oh, my, yes. People have been wanting tablets for ages, and they've especially been wanting a tablet from Apple for ages.

It's possible that they might be able to mass produce something like this in the $800-$1k range, given that the base MacBook Air starts at $1800. And this would have a lot more in common, hardware-wise, with the Air than with the Touch.

To get sufficient buyers, I think they'd have to get it down at least to the $500-$600 range, or maybe even lower. And I don't think that will be feasible, especially given how people would expect to use it. The screen area is 4x, which multiplies requirements for memory and processor and network throughput and batteries... which all still has to fit in a sexy form factor.

Still, it would be sweet. :)

<comment><USER7> Why would it be sweet? What do all you people who want tablet computers want them for?

I completely see that laptops with digitizer screens that can be turned into tablet form factor are enhanced laptops. Laptops+. Laptops 2.0. Yet they haven't really taken off, and nobody (except me) seems to think they're cool.

Instead people (you included) want Eric-the-half-a-laptop.

Why?

<comment><USER8> I use the iPhone for web browsing. My wife uses it a lot for e-book reading. It would be much better with a bigger screen. If your mostly reading with only a little input, a tablet about the size indicated is very interesting.

<comment><USER7> I also use the iPhone for web browsing, but there are scant few places where I am all of: not at home or work _and_ didn't bring my full laptop, yet can't manage with just an iPhone _and_ would have been willing to bring a midsized thing _and_ wouldn't prefer device with keyboard. Which isn't to say I want an Apple-netbook, but instead dream of an even better iPhone.

The iPhone wouldn't be better with a 7" screen; it would be at home because it wouldn't fit in my pocket - after all, I really only want one convergence device and that's got to be centered around my phone because a) that's the main functional thing that I want to carry around everywhere and b) what good is a portable device without a cellular radio these days anyway?

However, I can probably sum up my reply to:

I feel unjustifiable _angst_ that Apple might be spending some of their limited quantities of human effort building a wretched minitablet _instead_ of any of the iPhone improvements I want to see, therefore I don't want it to happen, therefore I wont believe it even if trusted sources have actually held one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So this is Apple's "netbook"? But sans keyboard.

Apple made a tablet PC in 1989, the _Newton_. It was attractive, but never really took off. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton>

Microsoft had a _Windows XP Tablet PC Edition_ , which likewise went nowhere.

Typing is simply a _better technology_ than writing, for text entry.

<comment><USER10> There are people who still to this day use Newton for taking notes at meetings.

<comment><USER11> Taking notes? I still have a web server running on one of mine :)

The sad truth is that it probably wasn't until the past year or two that PDAs/net-tablets caught up to what the Newton had in '97. It was definitely ahead of its time, but I was sorely disappointed to wait almost a decade to see just how far ahead of its time those little boxes really were.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is exactly what's needed. Current tablets are clunky to use, using a stylus is annoying and multitouch is clearly the future.

Shame that it'll probably be crippled by not having a full OS that allows the use of arbitrary applications. The idea of owning a larger PDA doesn't really appeal to me, so I'll probably wait for UMPC and Netbook manufacturers to steal all the good ideas.

</comment><comment><USER13> Here's my prediction for Fall of 2009:

Apple makes another gadget

</comment><comment><USER14> Do people find the iPhone/iPod touch inadequate for browsing the web?

I can see he value of a large form iPod for digital book reading, but for basic web consumption the netbook is the iPhone/Android (For me at least).

<comment><USER15> Typing decent amounts, and Flash, are important to a lot of people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Macbook Lighter-than-Air?

A 7" screen is too big to be an iPod, so it would have to be focused around films and apps. Yet a 7" device is pretty big to be a device with an accelerometer and no D-pad and be used as a game controller, but not very big to watch films on. And it would be limited as a general netbook competitor by having no keyboard and running the limited iphone-ipod-OS.

Can they make a touchscreen so much bigger and still as good?

Would it be netbook style Intel Atom based and expensive with short battery life and much thicker than the current ipod touch, or the same very low powered phone/pda processor currently used? Could they make it structurally strong if it is as thin as the iPod touch yet much bigger?

I can't see it filling any particular niche given that it would be too big to be pocketable, too limited to be a macbook air competitor and likely not cheap enough to stand far away from the iPhone/iPod touch/macbook.

Who would want one and what would they want to do with it?

<comment><USER16> Niche? People who fly a lot. Basically the same size screen as what's on your seatback, but completely under your control. In general when I travel I'm almost always too lazy to drag out the Macbook Pro. Still small enough to fit in a jacket or parachute pants type pocket.

<comment><USER17> Most people who fly a lot do so for work, so they tend to use that otherwise lost time to work rather than sit back and watch movies. Something that's good for typing is better for work, namely a laptop or blackberry.

I'm also very skeptical about the battery life lasting long enough. Every Apple portable device I've had has sucked battery much too fast to last on long trips.

<comment><USER10> The new macbooks have powerful processors so they run out of juice very fast, but the older ones are much better. PowerBook G4 can last almost an entire flight from CA to New York.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Apple will fall on its face because nobody will want luxurious computergadgets in '09.</comment>


The Easiest Way To Set Up Cron Jobs - <AUTHOR> https://www.easycron.com/

<comment><USER2> If only they'd considered NLP support - eg: 'call [http://example.org/zip/zap/rap](http://example.org/zip/zap/rap) every monday at 5pm'

</comment><comment><USER3> `crontab -e` is the easiest</comment>