Tim O'Reilly: The heart of what is best in capitalism - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/iZvW7pgcy6m <comment><USER2> This line is great: "profit in a business is like gas in a car. You don't want to run out of gas, but neither do you want to think that your road trip is a tour of gas stations."

<comment><USER3> I've used a similar analogy frequently, that profit is to my business as fuel is to an aircraft. I want as much profit as I can get not because I'm greedy but because I want to stay in their air as long as possible, constantly making longer and more adventurous flights.

My biz might be just a little four-place Cessna right now but my goal is to someday be a nice Boeing Business Jet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem isn't Wall Street greed. The problem is that the government rescued the banks with public bailouts, at a time when a true capitalist system would have put them out of business.

<comment><USER5> You are seeing a delineation between wall street/banks/government which is not there.

The problem IS [wall street/banks/government] GREED

All of Obama's top advisers are GS and banking cartel.

Thus we transfer all our wealth to them.

Just like when all of Bush/Cheney's cabinet (including Cheney) were all from the MIC cartel - we transferred all our wealth to them.

This is 30 minutes worth your time:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KDeUsWsUhKU)

<comment><USER6> David Icke? The guy who thinks the world is run by alien reptiles? _Really?_

I'm the biggest conspiracy theorist there is (Conspiracy 0: hijacking the term "conspiracy"), but this guy flips my bozo bit.

That said, his description of fractional reserve banking is mostly accurate; it just seems an odd source when there are so many good video and text diatribes on the subject.

<comment><USER5> True - but there is not a single thing I can find wrong with this statement. This is one of the best arguments against what is going on right now that I have seen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I always get a prickly uncomfortable feeling whenever a business leader comes out and says 'profits aren't the most important thing'. It's this type of wording that can give life to stupid ideas such as 'you can run a business without making a profit'.

I also lose respect for business leaders who try and paper over their success with motherhood statements like 'I wasn't in it for the money', when clearly they enjoy the trappings of wealth.

People should be proud to state they are chasing a profit, proud to make profits, proud to have successful, profitable businesses. It's impossible to make profits without providing value for other people. Profits (for the most part, over the long run) are just a recognition that you're productive and are providing something of value.

My take on this particular piece is that a focus on _short term profits_ is a mistake, and that a focus on long term value through great products and innovation is the right choice. Because long term value creation should necessarily result in profits.

But I just wish more people would have the gumption to say 'I made a big set of money hats for myself, my investors and my employees, and I feel great about it'.

<comment><USER8> But sometimes the value added is not morally obtained. Western countries derive a lot of value from resource rich countries that are impoverished. Unfortunately that value often times comes at the expense of great environmental and social damage done to these countries.

Chasing profits for the sake of profit without regard to morality is bad. As a famous saying goes, the love of money is the root of all evil. It's not true in every case but the spirit of the adage is true and society ought not to forget this.

<comment><USER7> I disagree with you on so many levels it would be hard to know where to start. Yours is the type of comment I referenced as woolly thinking that comes from people declaring that profits aren't really necessary.

Of course environmental degradation is a poor outcome for everyone involved. But that has nothing to do with making profits. An unprofitable enterprise is more likely to be damaging the environment than a profitable one.

<comment><USER8> Do you have any data to back up the claim that unprofitable enterprises are more likely to be damaging to the environment than profitable ones? I doubt very much that you can find such data. I'm open minded enough to consider such data.

As an example of my doubt that such data can be found I'll note that oil wells and pipelines in Nigeria are much more likely to leak crude than pipelines in the U.S. Regulations are in place precisely because in the absence of such regulations companies will not engage in environmentally safe operations. Countries that lack a decent regulatory governing structure are the ones that have the most environmental damage from mining and oil extraction.

I didn't say anything about profit being necessary or unnecessary. I said that profit without considering moral implications is bad.

<comment><USER7> No I don't have any data, because no such data would exist or would be very hard to collate.

I can look at the environmental condition and record of any heavily controlled economy or region, or one where nobody has ever really made a profit anywhere. Chernobyl is a grand example. Google is another - they have the profits in order to implement best-practice environmental standards for their operations and buildings, to sponsor world-changing initiatives. Many things that wouldn't be possible without healthy corporate profits. A struggling search engine company wouldn't be trying to power their datacentres with renewable energy or doing many of their other things.

I've done enough travel to know the filthiest, most polluted places are those where profitable companies don't exist.

Your example of Nigeria just shows that countries mired in poverty and lack of productivity and wealth lack the resources and ability to implement strong environmental controls.

Any oil company involved with a leaking pipeline is not going to be as profitable as one with a pipeline that doesn't leak.

I personally know people who work in the oil industry in developing nations. The popular image of people like this is of cowboys with no regard for the environment, yet they, and the companies they work for, work hard to get things right. But it's not always possible in a corrupt environment where rewards don't go necessarily to those that work the hardest, but those who have the connections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hint: that's not capitalism.</comment>


Ask HN: Implementing Auto-Copy - <AUTHOR>

I've been scratching my head and Googling the last couple of days looking for a way to implement auto-copy into a project. We've tried using the clipboard implementation which basically uses a small flash file to copy, only problem is that it breaks in Flash 10.
Need some help from the hackers, I'm all out of ideas.
EDIT: I wasn't that clear, sorry. Basically I have a url shortening script and I want someone to be able to shorten a url, be redirected to a page and have that short url they created auto-copied to their clipboard - so they can just close the window and paste the link easily. <comment><USER3> <http://url.ie> (another url shortening service -- do we need yet more???!) does exactly what you want. I believe it's just javascript but you can check the page source for yourself

<comment><AUTHOR> We know. I can name 5-10 services off the top of my head that do the same thing we're doing. This is more of a personal project, not a major site trying to compete with the likes of tr.im is.gd tinyurl etc.

We are planning on releasing the code once we finish it up so anyone can host a url shortening service on their own site. Just another stupid weekend project :)

Back to url.ie and their url copying - it uses the flash implementation meaning it breaks for anyone with Flash 10.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You would have to somehow get the user to click on the Flash object. I wouldn't rely on Flash for the user experience, though. What YouTube does is probably best (an input box that selects all on click). People are probably most familiar with that method.

Even better would be to figure out a workflow where the user doesn't have to copy, or paste anything.

<comment><AUTHOR> We actually have that right now, the box selects all when you click it: [http://www.grabup.com/uploads/3fa8b2cde15df8314a8ce242451b03...](http://www.grabup.com/uploads/3fa8b2cde15df8314a8ce242451b039d.png?direct)

Just thought it would be nice if there was an auto-copy function - <USER2> shortening with our bookmarklet and copying took just 1 click.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Auto-Copy as in the firefox extension? Or what?

I think you're going to need to be a bit more specific here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that, updated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like the idea of a popup box and making the cursor ideally select all the text.

</comment><comment><USER6> oh and could you make your bookmarklet popup in a new window? never got why people didnt do that.</comment>


Nanotrusting the Nanotime - <AUTHOR> http://shipilev.net/blog/2014/nanotrusting-nanotime/

<comment><USER2> Author's note: Interesting to see this resurfacing after a year. JMH had improved significantly since then, including the release of 1.0.</comment>


A New Network Stack for Zcash - <AUTHOR> https://www.zfnd.org/blog/a-new-network-stack-for-zcash/ <comment><USER2> The design choice of hiding the entire network behind a single end-point is interesting. As mentioned in the blog, it forces pushing down complex routing logic into the networking module. I'm curious about what other options were considered and why this approach was picked.</comment>


Apple is not a technology company - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/chris-messina/silicon-valley-is-all-wrong-about-the-airpods-8204ede08f0f <comment><USER2> > Apple doesn't give a shit about neckbeard hipsters who spent thousands of > dollars on expensive audiophile gear that rely on 100-year-old technology to > transmit audio signals.

Is that stance from a reductio ad absurdum contest? Like nobody ever use with great success an humble audio cable for non expensive audio stuff in the real world outside the silicon valley?

My modest proposal : if you really want to remove an more than often annoying 150-years old technology that we don't realize yet we don't really need it

... remove the Phone from the iPhone

<comment><USER3> that is called an iPod touch.

<comment><USER4> No data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was really excited about some aspects of AirPods, like the IR sensor that could detect whether you had them in, and pause audio accordingly.

Then I saw a photo of what wearing AirPods looks like from the front ([http://www.iostipsandtricks.biz/wp- content/uploads/1473/7957...](http://www.iostipsandtricks.biz/wp- content/uploads/1473/7957d419aacdf6a.jpg))

Apple will still sell a mountain of them, because Apple is really good at changing peoples' perceptions of what looks bad, to looking good. The Apple watch is a perfect example. Square watches with rubber bands never looked cool. Motorola innovated a round digital face with the Moto360, and Apple responds with a square digital watch, with a rubber band.

<comment><USER6> > _Then I saw a photo of what wearing AirPods looks like from the front_

Compared to what? Not wearing in ear headphones at all? Because with all of them you look the same, just with cables dangling too...

<comment><USER7> Have to admit it's the first time I see headphones that make you look like you inserted tampons in your ears.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, so that look should be avoided if you're 13 years old, because other kids will laugh at you since tampons are funny because its women stuff. /s

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I made this comment before - the real value of the airpods is the foundational work for VR snd other things that go on your head. Wireless is critical. I have a hololens and DK2 beta, and the difference between untethered and tethered is hYOOOOGE. Airpods are v1.0 that will figure out latency issues, push the limits on bandwidth, push sensor capabilities, explore onboard DSP functions, gather data to feed into machine learning models for head and other behaviors, etc. It is the "scout" that is deployed deep in enemy territory to lay the foundation for the cavalry's entry into what will emerge as one or more multibillion dollar markets (e.g. VR, new interface paradigms, brain computers that plug into the cortex :).

Apple is fantastic about introducing a foundational technology that people puzzle over, and then follow that MVP with a set of killer, well understood features for the mass market that leverage it (touch id followed by apple pay). To summarize:

* v1: Introduce puzzling HW/SW enabling technology disguised as a feature / roadmap swimlane, to work out the kinks, de-risk the technology.

* v2: Introduce clear-as-daylight applications for the mass market that leverage earlier work.

Look at the early days of AirPlay. I recall streaming wireless music to my speakers back in the mid 2000s, and how buggy it was / how much latency there was. Lo and behold, many iterations later, and we have seamless audio and video airplay (ok, almost seamless). What makes me an expert on this stuff? Nothing, other than thinking about it and using it for many hours. This has nothing to do with jewelry.

</comment><comment><USER9> Well, that writing style certainly is calculated to make me think that the author is a douche.

As to the substance of the argument: if your basic point is connecting AirPods to the Apple Watch, then man, you're really begging the question. I suppose it's possible that the watch will eventually become a big success, but it just has not yet.

(I was also amused to see the gold Edition watch ad in there -- the gold has been discontinued and the Edition has gotten a 90% price break).

<comment><USER6> > _Well, that writing style certainly is calculated to make me think that the > author is a douche._

Funny thing, people name-calling others "a douche" for their writing does the exact same thing to me. Meta, huh?

> _I suppose it 's possible that the watch will eventually become a big > success, but it just has not yet._

Big success compared to what? It already outsold all smart-waches 10 to 1, and is the number #2 watch brand (overall) in the world in sales. And that's in its first iteration, and from a company that never made watches before, and when technology (battery, etc) is still immature for most of things one could add. To contrast, it took several years for the iPod to be that succesful.

If that's failure, I'd like to see what success is like.

<comment><USER9> What success looks like for the Apple Watch:

Apple disclosing how many units they have sold.

Apple moving to a 12 month release cycle.

Anyone besides people who were emotionally invested in its success from pre- launch thinking that it's a success.

<comment><USER6> > _Apple disclosing how many units they have sold._

Apple does that selectively, and doesn't say how units they sell for many products. Including highly succesful ones. Besides, he have estimations, and are all big numbers for a watch, so?

> _Apple moving to a 12 month release cycle._

That doesn't make any sense. A watch is not something people buy every few years, like phones have been since forever (also thanks to subscription contracts people have to pay for phones anyway which subsidize part of the cost).

Not are they like laptops which people change every 4-6 years because new machines are much faster and come with new connections and stuff (SSDs over HDs, thunderbolt, retina displays, etc). Besides people have started updating laptops that much the last 5 years or so, as CPUs hit a plateu that's been good enough for most.

Even when there are some breakthroughs to show for it (like this model's more capable cpu/battery, the waterproofing, etc), people won't just buy another $300 or more smartwatch in 12 months, heck not even in 2-3 years.

This means Apple's best move is to put out new models at the pace when they have enough interesting tech/changes to add. A new release in 12 months wont have that, and even if it had them it would be too fast a cycle for repeat buyers.

> _Anyone besides people who were emotionally invested in its success from > pre-launch thinking that it 's a success._

The markets shows it's a success.

<comment><USER9> Yes, Apple is selective with the products they disclose unit sales for: specifically, they tell the ones that are big successes.

As to release cycles: If people won't pay another $300 in 2 years for a watch, no matter how much the internals change, that certainly does put a cap on the consumer enthusiasm for said watch, doesn't it?

<comment><USER6> > _As to release cycles: If people won 't pay another $300 in 2 years for a > watch, no matter how much the internals change, that certainly does put a > cap on the consumer enthusiasm for said watch, doesn't it?_

Yeah, like it puts at cap at around 2 years for a phone, of around 5 years for a laptop, etc. Reality tends to put caps on things.

You expected people buying new watches every year? Or do you think Apple expected that?

<comment><USER9> You don't have your lifecycle set to the generation length -- phones, as you note, are around 2-3 years, but they have a lifecycle of one year. The fact that the watch has a much worse lifecycle than the phone -- despite being half the cost -- gives valuable insight into Apple's beliefs about how compelling it is.

If the Apple Watch were amazing, and a new generation could be more amazing yet, why wouldn't a substantial number of the owners upgrade in a year?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Apple doesn't give a shit about neckbeard hipsters who...

This is always what we hear from Apple advocates trying to justify a bad decision on Apple's part.

"Apple doesn't care about third party apps, they want to control the experience on their iPhone, so no app store"

"Apple doesn't care about multiple resolutions, that's fragmentation"

"Apple doesn't care about market share, they care about revenue"

... ad nauseam.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, it's called having a focus.

Remember this "opinionated software" thing?

Plus, it works for them, made them the biggest company on the planet while they were NOT following the armchair quarterbacks, so?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Apple's AirPods will probably suck, audio wise, but there's a chance they're sturdy as hell. I know because I've used Apple's otherwise useless EarPods to listen to spoken word content and to fall asleep with for years.

The only thing that break on the EarPods are the cables, and if you're not like making knots intentionally, you can wake up in the morning tangled in them for more than a year before they start to break.

So, yeah, I like the eur 500 worth of other headphones I own at the moment too. Sure, it's weird I'll need to use some goddamned dingus to attach them to my next phone.

But fuck me if we're still stuck with current wired tech for audiophile gear in 2030. It's not like I want to use shitty headphones out and about. I do because I don't want to fuck up the cables, etc. And wireless headphones still suck, universally.

We live in the future now for goodness' sakes and Bluetooth audio is only marginally less useless than it was ten years ago.

So yeah, if you've got any sense of pride over where wearable tech should be taking us, please, roll over and beg that this infusion of Apple's proprietary shitty cans into the marketplace will raise adoption of voice control _and_ increase development of less shitty hardware to make music and user interface appear in our fucking ears with no wires.

I don't own any Apple stock so I don't really give shit, except I prefer to buy tech somehow designed to fit together. If Apple crashes and burns because they're trying to make wearable computers in your ears a thing, so be it.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm skeptical for a few reasons:

* AirPods don't look all that great, even if they are familiar in design

* AirPods are expensive

* Siri isn't useful enough yet

* Talking to Siri in public still feels weird

* Talking to Siri in a shared office environment feels even weirder

<comment><USER12> > Talking to Siri in public still feels weird

Even when it's normal, like when my daughter used to have an imaginary friend, talking to your imaginary friend is weird.

<comment><USER11> Yeah... the utility offered needs to be super compelling to outweigh the weirdness factor.

I think that's partially the genius of something like Alexa (and eventually Google Home). You're in your own space so you're more likely to feel comfortable blurting out questions and commands.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Except for us with oddly shaped ears, where ear buds have always been the bane of our existence. They won't stay in my ear, no matter what. Call me a neckbeard hipster all you want, I still like over-the-ear headphones, and Apple's "revolution" can suck it.

<comment><USER14> Earbuds always fall out of my left ear (but stay in my right). But I've read people who tried them already saying that they fit better than previous earbuds they've tried, which is a good sign. I'm guess I'll still have a problem, but I'm hopeful that maybe Apple's actually solved it.

In any case, you can still use over-the-ear headphones. I believe Apple said that Beats would be selling headphones with the same W1 chip that AirPods use. Or you could just use any of the existing bluetooth headphones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand why people are getting so upset about other people getting upset about a feature being removed. "No, you're wrong, it's good for you to not have this thing you wanted."

<comment><USER16> I don't understand why people are getting upset at all! If you don't like it, don't buy it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> One argument I haven't seen much of is how these new wireless technologies make things less future proof. In 200 years I can splice some copper wire to a pair of headphones and maybe make them work. Good luck trying to get some goofball wireless standard to work let alone some proprietary one.

</comment><comment><USER18> 5 hours of listening time on the AirPods…

<comment><USER17> Honestly, until we have week-ish long battery life and background radiation charging, I'm not ready to ditch all my wires.

<comment><USER19> the only reason i got a pebble instead of a moto 360 is because my pebble's battery lasts a week.

<comment><USER20> I went from an original Kickstarter Pebble, to a Samsung Gear 2, to a Moto 360, back to the Pebble Time Steel. It really does seem like Pebble provides a better product all around. It was a fun trip, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > What Apple has done is produce something that isn't a technology product, > but is, rather, a fashion object

Is there a general consensus that they look fashionable? I was surprised how they look almost exactly like the old headphones with the wire cut off instead of having an entirely new design.

I think bluetooth headphones in general are great personally. Not having wires getting caught in things is ideal, there's no wire getting itself into knots, I find pairing easy and when some headsets have 20+ hours of battery the battery life really isn't an issue. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about myself.

<comment><USER14> Apple turned white earbuds into a fashion accessory back with the iPod.

<comment><USER21> > Apple turned white earbuds into a fashion accessory back with the iPod.

Fair point, I remember how obvious it was iPods were getting popular when you saw lots of people in public wearing white cored earphones for the first time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Others have commented on the tone of the article. Sure, they're right. Doesn't matter.

Sometimes the value of an article or observation is how it flips your view of the world around.

 _Apple is a fashion brand that makes jewelry that connects to the internet_

Huh. I've never seen or heard it expressed so well before. I've read comments about "integrated ecosystem" and all kinds of other babble.

But that, right there? _Fashion company_? That's the money quote.

Remember how YC tends to invest in teams, not ideas, people, not tech? Tech is fast, tech is cheap, tech is transitory. (Sure fashion is transitory, too - but people are always buying the next one.)

Apple and a few other "tech" companies just use - and in some cases build - incredibly advanced tech. Viewing them from the perspective of the engineer or MBA means one sees a narrow slice of who they are.

But viewed as _a fashion brand_ , Apple is a whole other thing. Those are the terms on which it should be evaluated.

(I offer no evaluation. My head is still spinning from the perspective jolt.)

<comment><USER22> I don't mind a downvote, I really don't, but I'd prefer a counterargument.

If you disagree, say why. Engage.

(It's why I dislike downvoting: Driveby disengagement with negative consequences.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sort of reminds me of the UI from the movie Her. Fully integrated handheld and ear piece

<comment><USER24> Minus the strong AI behind the UI, minus a snug fit in the ear, plus one smartphone, and plus a hanging microphone.

The concept is sound, in my opinion, but the airpods are a miss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> We changed the baity title ("Silicon Valley" is pretty close to universally counting as linkbait in titles now, and the rest was over the edge) to a subtitle that appears to summarize the author's argument.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is the part that made it make sense to me:

[https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1200/1*N9h4FVkyYoZ...](https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1200/1*N9h4FVkyYoZoipi4PTK1Fg.png)

[Image of person wearing earbugs; text "Wireless headphones. Finally untangled."]

Tangled headphone cords aren't sexy and never will be. Removing them altogether is the logical next move.

I just wish the replacement was better than Bluetooth.

<comment><USER4> I'll take tangled headphones over eminently losable $150 headphones.

<comment><USER14> Why are bluetooth earbuds more lose-able than wired earbuds? I have several pairs of wired earbuds that came with my phones over the years, and I only know where 1 pair is (coiled up in a drawer on my desk).

Unless the earbuds are permanently plugged in to your device, it's just as easy to lose them as it is to lose wireless earbuds.

Unless you're trying to argue that they'd fall out and you wouldn't notice until you've already lost it? Because that seems unlikely. How often have you had an earbud fall out without you noticing? That's never happened to me. I mean, they do fall out, but it's pretty hard to not notice when that happens.

<comment><USER24> So, you notice when they fall out (anecdotally, this happens to me all the time with the current generation of Apple headphones) - how will this help when you're walking down a sidewalk and they get crushed under someone else's feet? Or fall down a drain? Under your seat in your car?

Headphones are one case where a wire is eminently helpful to have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As someone who wears a hearing aid, I can see how it might be nice if Apple made wearing earpieces more fashionable. (Not that I've had any problems, but I can imagine younger people with hearing loss caring about this.)

But that doesn't mean they will succeed. Sometimes an Apple product turns out to be a flop. Despite their best efforts, it's not as cool as they wanted it to be.

</comment><comment><USER28> This article says what I've been thinking/trying to explain to people about this.

Before the iPhone, the only people who had/wanted smart phones were "uncool" business people[1].

And I think its the case with bluetooth headsets right now.

[1] - this may or may not have been the case, but it was definitely the general perception at the time.

<comment><USER29> "Before the iPhone, the only people who had/wanted smart phones were "uncool" business people[1]."

I think this is demonstrably untrue. Blackberry's were popular with regular people as well. BBM was huge amongst non techies, at least outside the US.

The problem was they were too expensive. Which is why Blackberry released the Pearl in 2006 which was entirely a consumer product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> > the airpods drip with sex appeal

That's like, your opinion man.

Some people need trinkets to get laid, others don't ;-)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Made me laugh hard after a long time, yet informative.. Any other articles like this?

<comment><USER31> Idk... I felt that it kind of took an extremely long time to get to the point. But that might just be me being critical about long, redundant sentences like this post is...

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> It's the new iDweeb. Whether Apple can make this a fashion statement remains to be seen. The iWatch didn't really get traction.

<comment><USER14> There's no such thing as an iWatch. And the Apple Watch certainly did get traction; it's second only to Rolex in worldwide sales!

<comment><USER33> In a super, super, super diverse field. That's like saying my grocery store is #2 in worldwide sales (this is reductio ad absurdum, but you get my drift)

<comment><USER14> I dunno, if a brand new supermarket chain launched, and within a year they became the #2 supermarket chain in worldwide sales, that would actually be very impressive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> It basically just came down to space on the phone AND they waited just like us for how many years for the "industry" to make Bluetooth not SUCK?! The industry failed and Apple moved on by making it not suck.

Enjoy your corded headphones.

<comment><USER35> >Enjoy your corded headphones

I will, thanks

Sent from my Galaxy S7 Edge

<comment><USER36> Sadly, in the view of most "It didn't happen until Apple made it happen" rings true to most people.

I was looking at wireless headphones before the iPhone 7 announcement and found some good ones (Samsung Gear IconX and Bragi Dash).

Unfortunately they are not the cool kids.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Hear hear, these silly Airpods are a small revolution. Bluetooth headphones that don't suck make quite a difference.</comment>


The Real Origins of Birthright Citizenship - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-was-won-freed-slaves/574498/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Good article. The lede is definitely not buried:

> _Its purpose 150 years ago was to incorporate former slaves into the nation_

Initially I scoffed at the idea that an executive order could even attempt rescind this amendment. Reading about its history and now I know it's on shaky ground.

Personally, I wish people had a simple way to immigrate here. It seems our current system rewards those who break immigration laws and punished those who try and go through the system. I don't know what the solution is, but I hope something changes in a dramatic way.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't see anywhere where they explain how Trump can actually repel the law using an executive order.

Would you kindly point me towards it?

<comment><USER2> It's going to create a legal challenge played out in courts, which would answer the question "who does the 14th amendment apply to and under what circumstances?"

I don't think it would create any executive order jurisprudence.

<comment><AUTHOR> >> _I don't think it would create any executive order jurisprudence._

You mean to say you don't think an executive order would be enough to repeal the 14th amendment?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


AWS t2.unlimited - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-t2-unlimited-going-beyond-the-burst-with-high-performance/ <comment><USER2> so just how much power will it use if i were to fire up a miner on one of these? i know itd cost a small fortune but id be interested to see just how high it would auto scale to as its billed as "unlimited"</comment>


Edward Tufte, Information Sage - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/mayjune_2011/features/the_information_sage029137.php#

<comment><USER2> Edward Tufte does leave a deep impression. I stumbled upon his books in my university's library, about eight years ago, while studying design.

Some years later—while going through files on my old computer— I found a pair of schedules. I'd design these every semester so my friends knew where to find me, since I didn't have a cel phone.

Before Tufte (c1999): <http://blog.duopixel.com/images/horario.gif>

After Tufte (c2002): <http://blog.duopixel.com/images/horario2.gif>

If I'd design it now, I'd take a different approach yet again. In the end, good design is neither a nice style or maximizing data-to-ink ratio, it's about making information understandable and pleasurable to use.

<comment><USER3> Congratulations sir, and thank you for that excellent example. Professor Tufte held a master class while I was at UCLA Design, and his belief that information should be comprehensive, clear and legible, while obvious, still holds for me significant poetic challenges. Being comprehensive is not about simply adding more information. Instead it's about removing unnecessary information so as to prioritize the most relevant information. My favorite example of late is the NYT 2008 ballot redesign. Not only is it clear and legible, but it successfully removes all the unnecessary information to make the remaining information more actionable. --> [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/08/25/opinion/200808...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/08/25/opinion/20080825-ballot.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was on vacation in SF a few years back and discovered from a sign in my hotel lobby that Tufte was giving a workshop there the very next morning. I immediately signed up.

You'd think it would be really weird to spend $400 to sit in a hotel ballroom for 7 hours while you're _on vacation_ \-- but it was well worth it. I had read through some of Dr Tufte's books but it was much easier for me to really integrate and understand the concepts with the detailed explanations and visual displays he presented during the workshop.

If you ever have a chance to go to one of his workshops, I highly recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Something to keep in mind with Tufte's ideas is that, while he has many wonderful ways of thinking about visualizing data, often it's hard to generalize his concepts into a simple set of general purpose visualizations, suitable for use on a variety of problems. Instead, you find yourself seeking to find a way to display data in as "Tufte" a way as possible, which more of than not means a discrete visualization for every kind of data you have.

This becomes a problem in data visualization software, where the number of data visualizations is far less than the number of possible datasets of interest. So many datasets will tend to map to very few visualizations: bar chart, scatter chart, both with a time series, relatively uncomplex graphs of low connectivity density, etc.

You can see Tufte has this problem himself, with his singular "invention" the sparkline really just being a form of a tiny time series line graph. Which is cool, but it's not particularly earth shattering.

My takeaway has always been to be mindful of Tufte's analysis, but don't be slavish to it unless you _can_ produce a unique visualization for each kind of data.

<comment><USER6> thanks. that helps explain why many people i know who are vocal fans of his work produce such poor interfaces - there is nothing simple for them to learn from in a constructive way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting quote on PowerPoint:

 _Tufte dissected NASA's PowerPoint slides on his Web site, showing that the program didn't allow engineers to write in scientific notation and replaced complex quantitative measurement with imprecise words like "significant." He then published a twenty-eight-page essay called "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint," in which he analyzed hundreds of existing PowerPoint slides and showed that the statistical graphics used in PowerPoint presentations show an average of twelve numbers each, which, in Tufte's analysis, ranks it below every major world publication except for Pravda. The low information density of PowerPoint is "approaching dementia," he wrote._

</comment><comment><USER8> The comments are interesting. Tufte alumni are starting to network.</comment>


Show HN: Turn Sketch files into front-end code automatically - <AUTHOR> https://zecoda.com <comment><AUTHOR> Zecoda allows you to turn your Sketch files into front-end code automatically.

We built Zecoda to help accelerate our product development. We are using Zecoda to easily go from a Sketch file to a fully responsive web project.

As front-end developers, we often found ourselves demotivated with the design hand-off process. It takes time, lots of meetings and boring back and forth questions. We started to see an uncomfortable pattern when refactoring or reusing old code for new projects to accelerate the workflow.

Sure, there are great software to help us with this problem (looking at you Zeplin) but it still require us to look at each layer or component individually. Not that fun IOHO.

We truly believe automating repetitive tasks is the way forward for software. With this in mind we are fully dedicated to:

\- Automate software development repetitive tasks

\- Remove the (stupid) hurdle from design to code

\- Accelerate product development

We are working hard to launch Zecoda's platform in the next weeks. We'd love to hear from you and get your help to shape our product before we officially launch. Drop us a line at firstname.lastname@example.com with any feedback (or questions) that you have for us.

If you think Zecoda can help your workflow, request early access below.

Request early access: [https://zecoda.com/#subscribe](https://zecoda.com/#subscribe)

Demo: [https://zecoda.com/#demo](https://zecoda.com/#demo)

</comment><comment><USER2> This seems cool. Really curious to try it with one of my own Sketch projects. When do you expect to open private Beta?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey! Looking forward to give you access to our product. We are working hard to launch Zecoda in the next weeks. We'd love to hear from you and get your help to shape our product before we officially launch. Drop us a line with any feedback (or questions) that you have for us.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: React Native or Flutter? - <AUTHOR> What is your pick, if you are starting mobile app development today? <comment><USER2> I picked Flutter and I'm really happy with it. The latest release of Flutter makes me even happier as there are some nice improvements. I'm using Material components because for me it is the bootstrap of UX these days and requires little thought to make a fairly clean UX. As a developer I can just drop in components as necessary.

      * Hot reload, on device, works and works well.
      * Really nice error messages (in latest release).
      * It is fast.
      * Dart is pretty nice once you get used to it.
      * Provider api for state management works great (basically, react context).

I also do a lot of react web dev, but given that Flutter targets web (and desktop now... goodbye electron), I might try that in the future once it matures a bit.

Some one is developing this kind of cool example of the web target: [https://github.com/rxlabz/panache](https://github.com/rxlabz/panache)

<comment><USER3> I like Flutter as well, I've tried both react-native and Flutter for some small size side projects. I did not like Flutter at all when I've tried it just after the release but now that it had time to mature a bit, it's an excellent tool.

However I don't see why people try to push it on the web, it just renders everything in a canvas, it's a poor fit for web development.

<comment><USER2> Oh wow, I didn't notice that it went to a canvas! Thanks for pointing that out. Definite consideration for whether or not to do use that in the future.

<comment><USER4> flutter is based on skia rendering engine and recently they added support for web assembly, it's a matter of time. the thing is, think in terms of capacity and vision, react native is done, flutter will move.

<comment><USER5> React Native is certainly not done.

<comment><USER4> it doesn't look promising with the latest beef in the community and the last release notes that I saw in this project - to be real, they're laughable in comparison with flutter 1.9 changelog.

<comment><USER6> They just introduce the new JavaScript engine just for react-native (hermes.js).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have seen this question before on HN and I think my previous response seems to be relevant to this and should help the OP.

This ultimately depends on your situation. I would have said Flutter since it is past 1.0 and RN is still in beta. But my main problem here is that you will quickly run into difficulty in attempting to use C/C++ libraries in Dart.

Dart has beta support for native FFI but it is not stable unlike RN. Right now, they instead have 'Platform Channels' which has a significant overhead when passing messages back and forth compared to a native FFI. The issue is still open on Github: [https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/7053](https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/7053)

I can reuse and port my JavaScript/TypeScript projects into mobile very quickly thanks to React Native. Flutter on the other hand, requires learning Dart which depending on your use-case makes sense if it is a new project, not so if you have invested in JavaScript.

Perhaps once Dart gains a production-level C/C++ FFI, then I can seriously look at both Dart and Flutter again.

<comment><USER8> > The issue is still open on Github: > [https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/7053](https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/7053)

The last message in that thread mentions dart:ffi is in preview.

<comment><USER9> It is, and looks like a toy versus what P/Invoke is capable of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> React Native. Not because of the framework, because they both work well, but hiring a JS dev is about a billion times easier than hiring a Dart dev so if you need someone to support you later things will go much better.

<comment><USER11> I dabbled with Dart for sometime, got an impression that a competent Java/C# developer can pick up Dart in no time, I think hiring shouldn't be an issue.

<comment><USER10> There are a bunch of problems. Firstly, people simply don't apply for jobs that use languages they don't know. That makes filling a role really hard. Secondly, if someone has to learn the language when they join that puts a lag on how quickly they can be useful. You can't go as fast, which is bad if you're a startup. And lastly, companies are (usually) very reluctant to let someone spend the first few months getting up to speed if a technology choice means they can recruit people who'll immediately be effective.

That's not to say using a less popular language is a bad idea (it isn't), just that hiring should be a part of the technology decision making process.

<comment><USER12> > Firstly, people simply don't apply for jobs that use languages they don't > know.

I did in my last job change - and 80% of the office here didn't know the stack/language when they first came in.

> Secondly, if someone has to learn the language when they join that puts a > lag on how quickly they can be useful.

You could learn enough dart to be useful in a day if you are a C#/Java dev with JS experience - enough to go through the codebase - and thats something that takes time no matter what the language - dart isn't that exotic.

Flutter has a higher learning curve but that should also be on the order of week or two depending on how much you know about frontend. React native is the same deal.

> And lastly, companies are (usually) very reluctant to let someone spend the > first few months getting up to speed if a technology choice means they can > recruit people who'll immediately be effective.

Meh - when they chose stuff like Dart they know hiring pool is limited and usually word the job posting like that - ie. they expect you to be able to pick it up on the go.

I mean your whole argument is nonsense because things like this happen all the time - my current gig I started as a .NET dev with some python/django experience - I'm working on ruby on Rails stack - never touched that before in my life. Took me like 1 day of reading up to be able to go through the codebase - a few weeks and code reviews and I'm pretty much in tune with how they write RoR.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Although unpopular on HN: Cordova-based apps with a good mobile look-alike framework can get you very far for a smallish app.

Advantages:

\- truly one code base

\- iOS, Android, and web apps

\- JavaScript skills are useful

\- experience is "good enough" for the average user

Downsides:

\- almost no fine-grained control of input controls (like which keyboard to show)

\- doesn't respect users' accessibility options of the OS

\- small differences between the native widgets and the CSS/HTML lookalikes

\- not anymore: performance. It's really good enough on devices of the last 4-5 years

I use Ionic, or more specifically: Stencil with ionic web components.

<comment><USER9> I used them a couple of times, for that kind of user experience I rather use a PWA.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, but the average user doesn't know what a PWA is and they want to install an app through the app store. Furthermore, with Cordova, you can also use plugins such as In-App-Purchases or access to more persistent storage (SQLite) instead of what the browser offers.

<comment><USER9> You can package PWAs via the stores as well, in which case they are able to access native features as if they were browser APIs.

<comment><USER13> Not yet on iOS, or am I mistaken?

<comment><USER9> True, only on Android, Windows and ChromeOS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I love React Native!

That said - if you're not familiar with the JS ecosystem (node_modules, etc), then it can seem a bit overwhelming at first, especially when you encounter configuration or build errors. I don't have any great answers for that except that "it gets easier" with more time and practice.

Also, if you haven't looked at React Native for a couple of years and had a bad experience before - try it again! It's come a really long way in just a few years.

For example: I used to have to worry about cross platform code/libraries working on iOS and not Android - but almost never run into that anymore.

</comment><comment><USER15> With SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose on the horizon for iOS and Android developers, respectively, you should really invest time into learning those frameworks.

<comment><USER16> A relevant read for someone to seriously consider the "Neither!" answer:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20695806](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20695806) "The not so hidden cost of sharing code between iOS and Android" (dropbox.com)

<comment><USER9> Plenty of people already descontructed that post.

From the "lack of open source" C++ libraries or how hard it is to find C++ devs (assuming one actually wants to properly pay them).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wrote this article... on the basic differences.

[https://medium.com/@andrewt3000/flutter-versus-react- native-...](https://medium.com/@andrewt3000/flutter-versus-react- native-64ea9204e35f)

I love react for web development, but... idk. If you're interested in material design and don't mind that your app will look like a google app, I would seriously consider flutter.

</comment><comment><USER18> You will get better answers by giving more context.

\- What are you building?

\- Do you have short deadline?

\- Are you building it for yourself or someone else?

\- How big is your team?

\- How many devs do you have to hire?

\- Do you have time and budget for longer on-boarding if your new hires have to learn a technology?

\- Are you refactoring or replacing an existing software?

\- Is it just a MVP product?

Without context it is just a technology comparison which is somewhat polluted by someone's experience or may be biased in some communities.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think if you are _starting_ mobile app development, learn the basics of the 2 main native stacks (iOS, Android). Preferably learn one of them well. A couple of years ago I might have suggested web (PWA's) as a third kind of 'native' app, but that route seems to have lost traction.

In my experience, you'll be a better x-platform developer if you know at least the basics of the native platforms you're targeting.

This is not to say that native is the best choice for all apps. You may find that flutter or React Native suit a particular project best. You may ultimately prefer to specialise in one of those. But that's a separate issue from what you should do starting out.

<comment><USER9> Quite the contrary, what I have seen around here is that what would have been a Cordova/Ionic project, nowadays is usually done as PWA.

<comment><USER19> Well it's only an impression I have. I'm not seeing much use of PWAs in the wild, and there seem to be fewer articles touting them, but that's just my sample. If what you say is true, I'd be pleased.

<comment><USER9> Even Microsoft has replaced their JavaScript UWP bindings (WinJS) for PWAs.

[https://developer.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/pwa](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/pwa)

Chrome has added support for PlayStore PWAs (TWA)

[https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/02/using- twa](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/02/using-twa)

And even Apple has improved the support since iOS 12.2.

<comment><USER19> The Microsoft example seems a bit desperate - they bombed in mobile so of course they're seeking cross-platform refuge.

But are PWAs being used that much for real? Beyond just installable web sites (ie. full offline support with service workers, etc?). I seem to remember Twitter did a nice job with Twitter Lite, but I've never seen anyone use it. Again from memory I think Skype did a quite impressive PWA. I'm a big fan of Checkvist, & they have a PWA which is moving slowly but in a good direction.

Anyway, that aside, for a dev wanting to get into the mobile space (which I think was the OP's intent), PWAs would hardly be the best first option for a tech to learn. Surely whatever your personal tastes, you wouldn't disagree?

<comment><USER9> Yes, many digital web agencies are going through that route for mobile web sites, instead of having to deal with native toolchains.

Do you also consider Google and Apple's move desperate then?

While Microsoft has definitively bombed on phones, they are doing pretty alright on convertible laptops/hybrid tablets.

As for best option, I also mentioned a couple of other ones, which I advocate as alternative to PWAs.

I see Flutter has a future as bright as CoffeeScript, if it keeps being tied to Dart.

As for React Native, it depends on how much one feels like having to deal with JavaScript and the interoperability issue that often happen across Android devices.

<comment><USER19> It was your invocation of Microsoft's move I considered desperate.

You're still studiously avoid mentioning any actual PWAs. I'm someone who wishes PWAs would take over, as I dislike all the OSs and don't want my usage habits or data to be tied to them. But as of now it's not happening, is it?

If a person was trying to advise a developer new to mobile apps, with _their interests_ rather than the _advisor 's tastes_ in mind, I cannot believe they'd advise PWAs as a primary focus.

Learning a platform isn't a forever-decision. A new mobile app developer can always learn new tech as needed. But if they want a start now, they're better off learning what's dominating today.

<comment><USER20> \- [https://eng.uber.com/engineering-uber- lite/](https://eng.uber.com/engineering-uber-lite/)

\- twitter web

\- tinder

\- starbucks loyalty app

<comment><USER19> I know there are some decent individual examples (indeed I mentioned some myself). I'm just unconvinced that the once-anticipated shift from native apps to PWAs is happening. They are expanding into some niches, but mobile app development is still overwhelmingly native. Certainly for my local job market, only an ideologue, uninterested in the repercussions of their advice, would suggest to a mobile app newbie that they learn PWA tech first - iOS & Android developers will walk into a job anywhere, whereas they'd be hawking for a while to find work building PWAs (though web tech more generally is hot as always of course).

<comment><USER9> That is the whole point, 90% of mobile apps are actually CRUD apps that can be easily done as mobile Web SPAs.

The PWA part is just yet another tool on mobile Web.

Also in case you missed, I suggested Qt, Xamarin and C++ with Native views.

As for job market, on my area you would be having an hard time finding 100% pure native development offers, everyone only cares for some kind of solution that can be deployed across Android and iOS.

<comment><USER19> > 90% of mobile apps are actually CRUD apps that can be easily done as mobile > Web SPAs

There I agree with you. I'm a fan. But it has zip to do with this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> We wrote an article on the exact same topic when we were making this decision ourselves: [https://www.mobiledeveloper.net/blog/flutter-or-react- native](https://www.mobiledeveloper.net/blog/flutter-or-react-native), to summarize here are the factors that we have considered -

User Interface - Flutter works flawlessly with proprietory widgets

Development Time - React takes less time

Performance - Flutter makes it easy for developers to use the existing code

Stability - React is more stable

Programming Language - React uses Javascript and Flutter uses Dart

At the end of the article, you will be able to pull yourself from this dilemma.

</comment><comment><USER22> I built an app in React native a few years ago, at the time it looked more mature than flutter. However I had a lot of issues regarding keyboard placement, I still had to write platform specific code, which wasn't too bad your could use .android.js or .ios.js. Android also felt like a second class target for React native. A lot of the css features wouldn't work. It could be a lot better now, but I haven't tried since. I very much believe it would be easier pursuing a PWA or writing native code for each platform.

</comment><comment><USER4> if you're a corporate slave then pick react native because it's easier to find a JOB with it. If you're a dinosaur who started his career coding in Delphi then pick Xamarin. If you want to enjoy development and make some side project/startup pick Flutter. If you don't respect yourself or you are funny - C++ + native views, that's a huge ROFL.

<comment><USER9> What about the dinosaurs that started using Timex 2068 BASIC and Z80 Assembly?

<comment><USER4> they should be crowned as living deities and go to Valhalla

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> [https://killedbygoogle.com/](https://killedbygoogle.com/)

</comment><comment><USER24> My pick is what's appropriate for the situation - you haven't described yours so it's not really possible to help you! Flutter is imho Generally Better but there are absolutely going to be cases where RN is going to be less fighting against the system

</comment><comment><USER25> Reasons to use Flutter/Dart:

      * no (or less) native platform quirks/differences
      * better programming model than Android SDK
      * good performance

Reasons to use React Native:

      * uses native widgets (if that matters to you)

My recommendation, write your portable app using Flutter/Dart. If that's not satisfactory, call that your Android version and write an iOS in Swift.

Do not fool yourself into thinking either Flutter or React Native will give you native app performance. It can be as fast but the pauses are in different places and users can definitely feel the difference even if they can't articulate it.

</comment><comment><USER26> Xamarin.Forms: the joy of single-codebase for many frontends, plus decent language to code with (F#, C#).

</comment><comment><USER27> Wrote a bit about this: [https://beta.trustory.io/claim/1226/argument/3011](https://beta.trustory.io/claim/1226/argument/3011). I would also consider Kotlin Multiplatform.

<comment><USER28> > The biggest issue with Flutter is that it paints it's own custom UI, and > doesn't use native components. Historically, frameworks that took this > approach haven't stood the test of time (see Java AWT and Swing)

Works in games, with Unity and the like. Not coincidentally, some Flutter users and even devs have been describing Flutter as "Unity for apps."

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> i'm currently asking myself the same question, and i used to like flutter approach. However, after having tried a flutter demo app from the store ( the one comparing vegetables), and seeing it lag on scrolling on an iphone10 , plus seeing that the keyboard placeholder doesn't follow the keyboard animation ( so you see a white mark behind), i'm seriously reconsidering this option.

plus, i feel safer coding my business logic in typescript than dart. It'll be more useful in case i want to code a web site (flutter web renders to a 2d canvas , which feels wrong for some reason), eventhough dart theorically compiles to js, i feel typescript is more used for that.

</comment><comment><USER30> We picked React Native and while it's not without its problems in general we quite like it. The community around it is pretty good and being able to use a wide range of JS/React packages is really handy.

</comment><comment><USER31> These days we have the same questions, but with extra ones:

Fluter or Native? Which the answer is Fluter never ever can be natives, like JAVA and SWIFT, but is good for must of the startups to start quick

PWA or Fluter? We don't know

</comment><comment><USER32> Flutter. It really helps me my daily life. You can do many things at home without going outside. Transactions outside can be done inside the house already.

</comment><comment><USER33> Another neither answer:

Kotlin Multiplatform with Jetpack Compose and SwiftUI.

Jetpack Compsoe might even become platform independent in the future.

</comment><comment><USER34> Purely from an available jobs perspective, I recommend that you go with React / React Native.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm working on a new framework that attempts to take what I think are the best ideas from the web (zero installation, easy to lay things out without tracking measurements yourself) and combines them with the best ideas from React (functions as components, ideally no mutable state). I want to solve what I see as the original sin of the web: inept separation of presentation from content.

The other thing I aim to solve is the issue of the browser and corresponding web standards being a monolith so large that only Google and Apple can afford to implement them. By wrestling back control over layout, I hope to show that a next-generation browser could be much more like what James Mickens laid out with the research he presented in this talk: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uflg7LDmzI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uflg7LDmzI)

I decided to prototype it in JavaScript, and right now it just renders into a canvas element. I love working on it, because all the unit tests run really fast. It can do that because there's no browser in the way - node-canvas is _much_ lighter weight. Once the design is settled down, I'd like to rewrite it in Rust. The other advantage of this is that it is incremental. It'll run in any existing web browser, and building a cut-down browser that isn't web- compatible is doable in a few weekends.

The best way to see its capabilities so far is to look at the test screenshots: [https://github.com/maxharris9/layout/tree/master/test/screen...](https://github.com/maxharris9/layout/tree/master/test/screenshots) \- see especially text-actual.png, text-concave-cutout-actual.png, text- diamond-actual.png. I fell down a rabbit-hole with that a bit and made it wrap text around arbitrary polygons, hyphenating on syllable breaks and everything.

I just lost my job a couple of weeks ago, and I've been taking time off to work more on this thing. Tomorrow I hope to get mouse click events tracked through the component tree. And at some point in a week or two, when that's done, I really should write the application that I had in mind for it!

I know a lot of people have concerns about accessibility with the approach I've taken, and all I can say to that is, please help me work on that instead of criticizing me. I know there is talk about an accessibility DOM coming in browsers, but I fear that I'll just have to fall back to rendering plain HTML in order to drive screen readers, which is a terribly inefficient and indirect way of doing things. Also I don't even know where to begin with screen readers, what's the most popular software for that, etc.

</comment><comment><USER36> i would pick xamarin. \- if not part of the option, maybe react-native. and never flutter, last time i check, flutter allow a numeric value to be null.

</comment><comment><USER37> Kotlin Native. Native UI, shared logic

</comment><comment><USER38> No mention of Electron? Is it no longer cool?

</comment><comment><USER9> Neither of them.

Qt, Xamarin, PWA, C++ with native views would be my picks.

<comment><USER39> I mean this genuinely and without offense... are you serious or joking?

<comment><USER40> [https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides](https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides)</comment></comment></comment>


Google News Redesign - <AUTHOR> https://www.behance.net/gallery/20386163/Functional-and-visual-redesign-of-Google-News

<comment><USER2> Looks great, love these concepts!</comment>


API Analytics - using Heroku, 3scale, GRAPE and Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://www.3scale.net/2012/07/how-to-out-of-the-box-api-analytics/

<comment><AUTHOR> The github repo with code is here: <https://github.com/3scale/sentiment-api- example></comment>


Recurring Payments on the Real Time Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.untitledstartup.com/2010/02/accepting-payments-on-the-real-time-web/

<comment><USER2> I had no idea this subset of eCommerce was so underdeveloped. Kind of depressing for some of projects I have on back burner that would _like_ to include recurring-pmt option.

Looks like there's lots of room for new competition. YC candidates: hint, hint.</comment>


No Longer Wanting to Die - <AUTHOR> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com//2015/05/16/no-longer-wanting-to-die/ <comment><USER2> Treatment for depression is badly handled almost universally... It seems as if people still don't generally understand that it's more than 'feeling a bit sad'.

If you break your knee, you will (99.9% chance) go and see a doctor. If the first doctor doesn't fix it, you'll see another. Your knee is broken, unusable, painful and you have a drive to fix it.

A more serious injury will generally result in a friend/family member/passer by getting you to a doctor.

If you suddenly enter a depression... even getting to the stage of seeing a doctor can fail, because suddenly everything is 'pointless' (bad wording. sorry.). And if you see them and they give bad advice, you maybe can't be bothered to see the next one. Or you miss the appointment because getting out of bed was too hard. Etc.

It's more severe than most physical injuries because it affects your ability to seek help.

<comment><USER3> > even getting to the stage of seeing a doctor can fail, because suddenly > everything is 'pointless' (bad wording. sorry.)

Everything actually is pointless, since all matter and energy will dissipate from entropy on a long enough time span. Also everyone you know will be dead in 100 years, most likely.

Also most of these people would go see their doctor if there was a million dollars in gold waiting there for them. It's not that 'everything is pointless' is the reason preventing them, but rather that there isn't enough significance in seeing the doctor.

<comment><USER4> Yes, all true, but you'd have to be depressed to not have the cognitive biases which prevent you from making this more than an academic observation.

<comment><USER3> I modified my original comment, so I guess I'll rewrite it. And I totally agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As someone who has suffered from moderate but not debilitating depression for much of my adulthood, one thing that has always stood in the way of getting treatment has been finding a damn therapist. Back when I was a broke, insurance-less musician, I went to inexpensive sessions with a student therapist who listened to me talk for a semester but offered very little in the way of help.

Shortly after getting insurance I asked my doctor for a therapist recommendation. The therapist she sent me to was a very nice old man who started suggesting prayer as an answer to my problems in the second session. That was also our last session.

I wish there were a way to do this that eliminated some of the trial and error, because listings tend to be pretty neutral, and reviews are sparse and not particularly trustworthy. You end up picking someone who's close to you and hoping it works out. It's a great way to lose a lot of time, and you know one of the things about depression is failing to find a therapist after a few tries greatly decreases motivation to keep trying.

<comment><USER6> Totally speculative, but I think this might have something to do with a high demand for good therapists. For instance, I spoke recently with a friend who was studying to practice psychoanalysis and when I asked him if he was looking for clients, he turned me down in such a way as to suggest 'you're not on the level of my clientele' or at least 'I have all the clients I need.' This was in New York where I'm sure there's a huge base of wealthy potential clients willing to pay a premium.

If therapists have no problem finding clients, word of mouth may actually be the best system for them.

Please correct me if I'm off-base here.

<comment><USER7> Or maybe he didn't want a friend as a patient. You're not supposed to bond with your therapist but if you're already a friend it's too late.

So his rejection may have been ethical and not about your worth as a patient.

<comment><USER8> I know as someone who was a caretaker[0] for a partner, it's incredibly hard to separate making responsible choices for someone who can't always make them from your regular actual friendship or relationship with them.

If you were already friends with the person, I really don't see them ever wanting to treat you formally. In the worst case they might have to make the almost impossible decision between involuntarily committing you (if they think you are a danger to yourself/others) and losing a valued friendship, or not committing you against their better instincts to preserve their friendship and risking you harming yourself/others. (Not that you are necessarily in that category ever, but if you're making a decision like "Can I ethically provide treatment for this person?" you really have to think about worst cases.)

[0] I don't have any medical/therapy training, but I wound up spending a few months taking care of someone I was dating who was having a pretty severe manic episode. Very irresponsible of her doctor, in retrospect, who later said the reason he hadn't hospitalized her was because she had me to help take care of her/watch her--and we were both college students and he had met me once, briefly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am not surprised that a treatment that is so effective to the author has remained unknown to him for so long. I have had feelings of suicide for the last 14 years. I personally hate meeting psychologists, because they can be so unpredictable. Some of the better ones prescribed me medicine, some of the worse ones, told me I had to stop crying and find solutions to my problems, that I was lazy. I was also told because I could do my job and earn a good living, I had nothing wrong. Few acknowledge that having no friends for 14 years can be disruptive. I am in a state where every moment is sad, but over the years at least I have learnt to keep a happy face on the outside and wait for something to happen. I just wished psychologists be more scientific and stop considering everything trial and error!

<comment><USER10> Here are some suggestions that worked for me, and may (or may not) help.

I find that depression -- at least for me -- has two main causes:

[1] Excessive emotional response to bad situations (similar to what the author of this article is experiencing).

and:

[2] Insufficient motivation/goals/joy.

My solution to [1] is twofold: mindfulness and resolution. Be aware that excessive negative emotional responses are bad (as they lead to depression), so it is better to just observe bad situations and try not to get overly emotional. Secondly, try to resolve the issue (either by actively managing it, or by accepting that the world is just like that and you can't change it), so that the conflict doesn't arise in future.

For [2], the solution is to have a purpose in life, with motivating, goal- oriented activities that you enjoy. I suspect this might be the issue for you. There is more to life than having a well-paid job. I gave up very well paid contract work 15 years ago, as I hated it. Since then I have worked on my own business. I earn a hell of a lot less money now, but I'm much happier.

Having friends (or at least social contact) is also important to mental health, even if that is just saying hello to people you meet on the street, or chatting to like-minded people online.

Please don't wait for something to happen. Take charge of your life and do something about it. Being depressed all the time is an unnatural state, and is your brain's way of telling you that you need to change something in your life. Sometimes you need to make major changes in your life to make things better.

Feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.com if you want to chat.

<comment><USER11> Re: [2]

But what are you to do when you have no purpose in life? No motivating, goal- oriented activities that you enjoy? For many depressed people, including myself, everything seems pointless and therefore nothing has purpose and nothing is motivating or truly interesting.

No one really offers any good advice on this part of the solution and yet it's the most important part! Everyone seems to think that everyone must have something that interests them enough to chase a goal for the rest of their lives but I think the reality is that very few people have this. And furthermore motivation ebbs and flows, I have found that it's not very reliable and so a solution that involves it seems oversimplified to me.

<comment><USER12> IMHO, having, and still confronting the darkness:

a) Yes, everything is indeed pointless / "pointless".

b) Think about what "pointless" means. It requires an agent to assign and remove importance. Who is this agent? Is it you, is it society, is it what you have been told since born? What's his goals / values / pov? Why exactly is something "important" or not?

c) F _ck "saving the world". F_ck "there is a point in this". See it, start, simpler: Do you enjoy eating some specific food? That's the meaning of life. Do you enjoy taking a dump? That's the meaning of life. Do you enjoy chewing gum? That's the meaning of life. Do you enjoy saying some arcane joke? To yourself or some random person you just met? Even if they dislike it or don't understand it? That's the meaning of life. Do you enjoy scratching your @@? That's the meaning of life.

The "purpose in life", is to eg scratch your @@, and for 2 seconds, say "I liked that, and I currently feel good".

It may sound ridiculous, but everything comes from that. If you eg say, "I was thirsty, it's hot, and I enjoyed this cold glass of water", you are on your way to be happy, and also on your way to save humanity. If you want to do that. ..Don't believe me that everything comes from that. But, pls, do enjoy the one second of today, that you felt well doing whatever.

That's the meaning of life. That's the purpose. And when you internalise that, you will find something that is nice for two seconds, and, eventually, you will find the "purpose".

<comment><USER10> Yes, I agree that you should try and find meaning in everything you do. Basically you want everything that you do in your life to be in line with your motivation and goals. It's partly a process of changing your outlook on life, and partly about making actual changes to how you live your life.

However, you should also be aware that one of the symptoms of depression is being unable to find enjoyment in activities that you normally find enjoyable. This might be the problem that throwaway3301 is experiencing.

It's not always easy to figure out what is causing depression. It's as if your brain has set off a "master caution" warning light, and you then have to figure out yourself what the problem actually is. I would recommend just asking yourself "is this what I want to do with my life" (in terms of your job, where you live, your relationships, etc.)

Also, depression can feed on itself in a vicious circle. I think this is where CBT comes in, as it teaches you to avoid negative thought patterns (although I never used it myself).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I had a brother that committed suicide 7 years ago and his story was similar to yours.

A history of extreme emotional swings and hospitalization for attempting suicide.

I was the best man at his wedding. Once he got married and had three sons I thought that was the end of that part of his life.

In my mind, no one with three little boys could ever kill themselves.

I was wrong. As soon as his marriage started to fall apart, he did it.

If anyone reading this knows someone that suffers from depression, never underestimate the power of depression.

<comment><USER14> Your story is very sad, I'm truly sorry.

An important risk factor for career-oriented married men is total abdication of social efforts and leaving it to the spouse "to manage the social calendar." In the long run, this causes men's own friendships to atrophy. Then, if your spouse divorces you (or pre-deceases you), you find yourself without any functional support structure, which could trigger depression or worse.

I learned this from a book I read a while ago ("Lonely at the Top"), which tries to explain the causes of male suicide, especially among successful men. I vowed then, that if I get married, I'd make a very deliberate effort to maintain those friendships I had before the marriage. It's quite possible that someday, those friendships will be all that you may have left to rely on.

<comment><USER15> This is so important, and one of the subtle reasons that the modern divorce- friendly culture adds dangers to men.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> While I don't really understand the differences between CBT and DBT, I've been seeing a therapist who has prescribed a lot of the treatments the author mentions. It never occurred to me that I suffered with anxiety but through a series of events I started having panic attacks and sought help.

I've since learned that anxiety is often a front for emotions that cannot be adequately expressed or processed. For me, it's all the "unhealthy" emotions - anger, sadness, shame. The tools I've been able to deploy in anxiety fits include mindfulness: simply concentrating on my breathing and realizing how my body is reacting to stimuli. Often just meditating for a few minutes helps lower my anxiety, get my breathing under control and stop my heart from pounding.

There's also journaling my emotions several times a day. I built an app that sends me an SMS asking me how I am feeling and why and logs the response for later analysis.

It's not easy building new skills. It's also not easy re-training your mind after a lifetime of negative thinking. But so far its been working, and I've been able to do it drug free.

<comment><USER17> > I built an app that sends me an SMS asking me how I am feeling and why and > logs the response for later analysis.

Please share if possible! Sounds great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> In England DBT is patchily available. You'd usually have to be very ill, or persistant, to get it, and wait times can be too long.

There has been a focus on CBT. That's great because for most people CBT is effective and short, but as this article says it doesn't work for everyone.

Very recently there is a lot of work to improve access to other talking therapies. Patients now have more choice about where to get their treatment; maximum times for waiting are going to be introduced; "parity of esteem" with physical health is more important. (Although watch out: You may have to wait 18 weeks to have a hip replaced, so you may have to wait 18 weeks to start your psychological therapy.)

One of the problems is that DBT needs experienced (expensive) practitioners, and tends to be used for people who are iller and who need a bit more support. So it's harder for health trusts to implement DBT programmes. Not trying to make excuses for them - I campaign pretty hard to improve treatment for people with a diagnosis of personality disorder and access to therapy is one of the main things.

> And as imperfect as my D.B.T. practice was early on, I found that just > taking anxiety down a degree or two gave me a measure of control over my > decision making in the presence of intense emotion. The lesson was profound. > I couldn't eliminate anxiety from my life, but I could learn how to tolerate > it, and cope without making the situation worse.

This is a really nice point. It's an iterative process. You work at it.

<comment><USER19> Having done CBT, I found the complaints in the article really puzzling. Glad the author found something that worked for him, though.

<comment><USER20> What jumps out at me is that, as far as I know, CBT training focuses on having the therapist provide cognitive tools to reduce awful automatic thoughts and emotions. The therapist empowers the client. Some therapists bring from their own prior experience the ability to manage anxiety, shame, and guilt by leading the conversation, but others approach their work like computer programmers -- for them the task is to get the code in there. If you have ever seen a talented salesperson alternate pushing and withdrawal as they manage the prospect's anxiety and vanity while bringing them to a purchase, you have seen the element that is present in some CBT, but not part of the official training. Without that management by the therapist, the client may feel worse in sessions, and might come away with the sense that CBT is belittling. An irony here is that the greater respect of empowering the client may feel like less respect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is an important article. Dialectical behavior therapy and other mindfulness-based treatments are rapidly becoming go-to therapeutic methods. While I wasn't depressed or suicidal, about two months ago I started DBT training through a book [1], but used another audio book for mindfulness training [2]. The results have been fairly profound.

The key is "radical acceptance". The universe is perfect _in this moment_ , even if there are things you don't particularly like. You are a worthy and lovable person _in this moment_ , even as there are certain aspects of yourself that you are currently trying to change. That's the dialectical part of dialectical behavior therapy. The idea of radical acceptance is something that can be applied right now, even before learning the skills.

The author talks about shame. Shame convinces us that we are broken, that we aren't good enough. It tends to get passed through generations due to the way we are raised and the way we raise our children. Treating that shame is very effective for convincing us that we are, in fact, good enough. A book called Taming Your Outer Child [3], accompanied by meditations developed by John Bradshaw meant to get one in touch with one's inner child [4], are both very powerful for healing that shame.

Finally, I can't help but add a TED talk by Brene Brown called the Power of Vulnerability [5]. In it she describes the idea of feeling worthy and "enough," and how it is key to happiness and living a fulfilled life. For me, it was helpful because it gave me a concrete idea to work towards.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Dialectical-Behavior-Therapy-Skills- Wo...](http://www.amazon.com/Dialectical-Behavior-Therapy-Skills- Workbook/dp/1572245131)

[2] [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindfulness-Eight-Week-Finding- Peace...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindfulness-Eight-Week-Finding-Peace- Frantic-ebook/dp/B005NJ2T1G)

[3] [http://www.amazon.com/Taming-Your-Outer-Child-Self- Sabotage-...](http://www.amazon.com/Taming-Your-Outer-Child-Self-Sabotage- ebook/dp/B00KC6FDLS)

[4] [http://www.audible.com/pd/Self-Development/Home-Coming- Audio...](http://www.audible.com/pd/Self-Development/Home-Coming- Audiobook/B002VAET86)

[5] [https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability?langu...](https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability?language=en)

</comment><comment><USER22> I find it curious that what strikes me as the real reason for feeling depressed - his inability to handle anxiety and reliance on medication for it, was not the first paragraph, with multiple exclamation marks around it.

THAT was the problem that got fixed as far as I can tell. There was also shame, feeling of inadequacy, etc but the real issue here seems to be that once you can handle a debilitating level of anxiety, you feel empowered to go out and live life and try things.

That's what so many of these depression or suicide articles/ideas seem to be missing - there is usually some debilitating condition that the person is keeping quiet about, that's contributing to the downward spiral and until that gets fixed, nothing is going to work out.

The debilitating problems range from individual to individual, so how can one silver bullet be found for being suicidal or being depressed? It varies.

The issue as I see it in a lot of cases, is one of not being open enough about the root of the problem with yourself and others. Sometimes they don't even really know! (Usually younger people)

I have met a number of people who have depression and it's usually the same story - being very defensive about whatever the root cause might be and if you probe them, they'll clamp up. It's almost like it hurts too much to admit that you are not ok.

That's where there's such enormous amounts of shame - if you've lived with a problem for a dozen years and haven't fixed it, that'll get most people down, no doubt about it.

So yeah, on one hand there's definitely stigma attached to depression and being suicidal but on the other, by treating it as some unicorn of a problem, we are not helping anybody. I think an assumption that there's a root problem that once tackled, will yield massive returns, would go a long way. Coupled with recognizing that most people feel almost insurmountable amounts of pressure at one point or another and find/having people who are understanding and constructively supportive beyond 'everything's gonna be ok' is paramount.

<comment><USER18> > I have met a number of people who have depression and it's usually the same > story - being very defensive about whatever the root cause might be and if > you probe them, they'll clamp up. It's almost like it hurts too much to > admit that you are not ok.

There often isn't a root cause for depression. Asking people why they're depressed can feel like you're judging them - "What have you got to be depressed about?"

<comment><USER22> The previous paragraph makes a note on that:

"The issue as I see it in a lot of cases, is one of not being open enough about the root of the problem with yourself and others. Sometimes they don't even really know! (Usually younger people)"

If you genuinely don't know, then you need to figure that out, asap. That's what happened to me pretty early on in life, I actually went to my parents one day and musingly said 'I am not happy, I don't know why'. Acknowledging that there genuinely was a problem, was an important step, because then I read all sorts of books and at least did surface level things like 'being more positive' \- gleamed from that famous Dale Carnegie book.

It didn't do anything overnight but it got me to open my mind to a wide array of ideas I hadn't considered before - some of them counter-productive, others quite good.

To think that there isn't a root for depression is to basically admit defeat. I recognize that there may be great comfort in going 'well, that's just how I am, not much I can do' but that's the type of mentality that leads down the dark road of despair - if you think you are powerless to change it, then you are quite likely to end up in a place where you are pretty fkd.

<comment><USER18> > To think that there isn't a root for depression is to basically admit > defeat.

No. It's to accept that depression happens for a variety of complex reasons and to simplify it to some mythical root cause is not in anyway helpful.

This root cause stuff sounds like traditional psychoanalysis which has been pretty much totally debunked as useless now.

People are much better off ignoring root cause and focussing on treatment. The article mentions two evidence based therapies - CBT and DBT - neither of which ask people to look for a root cause.

<comment><USER22> Maybe root was the wrong word to use - I didn't mean some singular event that happened to you. It takes 2 seconds to recognize that that makes no sense.

By root I mean by changing one aspect of your life - you'll see considerable results. There may be 2-3 root causes, maybe even FIVE!

Point is it's not insurmountable. If you talk to people who were depressed and aren't anymore, they won't claim it was alchemy that fixed it. More likely, they'd attribute it to feeling empowered, rather than helpless and being a victim.

As a personal example - I know a lady who was deeply depressed, food disorder, alcohol problems, a lot of stuff.

Everybody was at a loss for what the fk to do about it. Then comes my friend who happens to really like her. Guess what, they're engaged and she's doing A LOOOOOT better.

Why? Because now instead of feeling like her life is over and that she's worthless, she can see that what she wanted (family and kids and being loved) is not some unattainable dream. She got some professional help for her disorders and while it's a long road ahead, she's in a different place.

So while there's many things left to unroot, ONE root of finding somebody who she can see a future with, is giving her the motivation to get better.

These are the kinds of stories that make a lot of sense - finding something to look forward to AND feeling like you can get there, along with some help in terms of logistics goes a long way.

I went off on a tangent there but I'm all for CBT or whatever other techniques. Point is - if you don't have a conscious break-through of recognizing what the problem was and how you're fixing it and WHY it's working, you are still lost. Just that you're receiving some mythical help at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This thread describes so many flaws to the mental health care system. Does anyone want to team up and maybe solve the problem?

While I'm no domain expert, I know a ton about mental health and the process of finding a good provider that you're comfortable with.

I'm a generalist, mostly back-end guy (Ruby/Rails/Postgres) with a good eye for design. I've had a few lucky exits. I think this can be another one.

Email is in profile.

</comment><comment><USER24> Lithium actually did it for me. One week on it and the suicidal ideations disappeared. It is basically poisoning yourself though, can be pretty rough on your body.

Also the concept of "mindfulness" is so great for those ruminations that never seem to quiet down. Yoga, meditation, running, working out, all seemed to really feed into the idea of being "present".

</comment><comment><USER25> Honest question: Is it just me or did articles related to suicide appear more frequently than usual lately here, and in the general media? Or is it this bias where I just pay more attention lately and the frequency never really changed, plus/minus noise?

</comment><comment><USER26> This "DBT" idea seems like it's just a specific implementation of "CBT." Not something to contrast with "CBT".

</comment><comment><USER27> I've seen hypnosis and EFT help some people with depression. Unfortunately, they seem to be a treatment options that go overlooked.

</comment><comment><USER28> Hacker News unfortunately seems to be more and more about depression/psychology and less and less about positive entrepreneurship and tech/programming. I want to be inspired.

<comment><USER10> I suspect that it might be because the people who are driven to be entrepreneurs also have a higher likelihood of suffering from depression.

<comment><USER14> Yes. Unlike the parent, I welcome reading such stories. It keeps me cognizant of the risks of ignoring mental well-being. I think our professions (programming in particular) has more mischief potential because it makes it easy to drift into solitude while remaining productive. I can easily do my work locked up in a room with my computer sustained by Instacart without much human interaction, but therein lies sorrow. You couldn't work like that if you were a dentist or a plumber. I sometimes envy the forced social interactions of other professions.

<comment><USER29> I wonder if a life of programming, in particular, could mislead us to see big messy life as merely a stream of input, logical processing, and output.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Latest Prenda Filing: John Steele Knows Who Alan Cooper Is, But Won't Say - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130306/17310822232/latest-prenda-filing-john-steele-knows-who-alan-cooper-is-wont-say-plus-almost-300-pages-tap-dancing-around-important-questions.shtml

<comment><USER2> Perhaps John Steele is the inmate running the asylum...?</comment>