The Coca-Cola Company offers $10K Prize to Re-Imagine the Soda Fountain - <AUTHOR> http://www.hackerdojo.com/Re-ImagineTheFountain

<comment><USER2> The Coca Cola Company pulled in nearly fifty billion dollars of revenue last year. They can afford to hire some industrial designers.

These kind of corporate hackathons are just scams designed to allow the company to take advantage of hundreds or thousands of hours of skilled labor in exchange for pocket lint. It's ultimately detrimental for everyone trying to make an actual living in the field.

Don't work on spec.

EDIT: You will also have to pay for using the 3D printer! Marvelous.

<comment><USER3> Except it

        * Gives participants resume boosters
        * Gives people direction on what to build in their spare time
        * Gives a common goal for those that feel like it
        * Offers college students some money (because it's probably not a well-employed
           industrial designer that's going to win, because they aren't the ones
           participating)
        * Gets new ideas on the table, because cross-discipline innovation is where some
           of the most novel innovation can be found
        * Gets community feedback in the form of tangible products
        * Can be used to scout new talent

<comment><USER4> 1\. How so? I participated and won this hackathon is a resume booster? How does that compare with actual paid work from a client?

2\. Getting a client and working on a paid project gives me plenty of direction as to what to build in my spare time.

3\. What?

4\. You're only getting money if they think your idea is best. One person/group wins, not everyone. You could have been doing something with guaranteed pay, not spec work.

5\. Sure, you get new ideas on the table, but that doesn't mean they're good ideas. Not to mention you're giving away free ideas.

6\. You're not really getting feedback from the community. You're getting it from the corporate sponsor.

7\. No. They'll simply award the winner(s) $10k for IP and off they go. A win for the company.

<comment><USER5> 1\. How does dropped out of college to start startup compare to completing college degree? From the mouths of corporate hiring managers, suprisingly well. Until we get someone who does these kinds of decisions to comment on this, both statements are moot. 2\. *paid time. 3\. 2+ guys get together and do something. Everyone feels the fuzzy feeling of doing something with other people covering their backs. It's the tech equivalent of jamming. 4\. Yes. Money is the measuring standard in this thing. I'm a big fan of money, but it's a means, not the end. 5\. Doesn't mean they're bad ideas either. Also, if out of fear of bad ideas, we stopped pursuing ideas all together, we would stand still exactly where we are. 6\. Nor is solving crossword puzzles. It can still be fun and relaxing/agitating. 7\. If your company doesn't take down the names of those people who completely reengineered one of your key products in 2 days, I'm very sorry for your company. 8\. Hackathons are fun. I want to sit with a couple of friends and play with ideas. If you're doing it for the money or the resume building...you got different priorities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Saw a digital one in San Diego recently. It had a touch screen and allowed you to make your own flavors of lots of brands of soda.

Vanilla coke, orange coke, vanilla sprite, peach Fanta, etc.

The sodas it produced were predictably terrible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Come make a better one then :p

<comment><USER7> Word I hear in the foodservice industry is that Pepsi is dying for a Freestyle-like device. Coke cornered the important pieces of the technology and shut everyone else out.

Think of a way to get Pepsi, Dr Pepper, and 7-11 back in the game and you'll do a lot better than $10K.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> When was the last time you heard Goldman Sachs rent out a room, provide pizza, and give 10k to whoever can improve on their strategies the best? Oh, but they're providing test data for free!

Kraft is actually renting out a ballroom in SF for anyone who wants to improve their cheese recipe. You get 10k if you can make a better mac and cheese than Kraft! You'll get a gold star on your resume while we make an extra 13 cents per packet sold (on a scale of billions a year).

It probably cost Coca-Cola 10k to bring the consultant who thought of this idea. If they truly wished to repay people for bringing immense value to their business they would offer them upwards of a $1M USD, not less than your average car.

Coke nearly invented the modern day soft drink industry, and milk that cow to the tune of billions a year. Yet apparently if you beat them at their own game you only get 10k. And your IP taken. And probably a gag agreement.

Seems a little unfair, doesn't it?

<comment><AUTHOR> ...you want $1M for a weekend of work?

<comment><USER8> That's kind of the crux of the problem, isn't it?

If I am able to improve the vending machine (one of the most ubiquitous appliances in the US, at least) in a weekend don't I deserve something of that magnitude?

On the other hand, if I can improve on the vending machine, what makes you think I'm going to spend my weekend doing it for 10k?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I guess if you have some million dollar idea and the market/human resources to produce it, you probably should do that this weekend instead.

Keep up your brilliance every weekend and you could retire to some tropical island of your choice by the end of this month. If your brilliance also correlates to previous time, I don't know how you have time to write back and forth with me over HN, you should probably be busy with your billion dollars or so right now.

The reality is, great ideas take time to produce. If you want to dedicate years of your life to producing a great idea, go ahead. I wish you good luck. If you'd like to have a few beers that weekend, meet some cool people, play with some cool technology, and possibly walk away with five new Macbook Airs or whatever HN folks would like to spend it on, come party.

<comment><USER8> I think you're missing the point, I'm not attacking HackerDojo or hackathons, those can be quite fun. For the right reasons. But if someone succeeds in this task, that invention is worth millions. Coke is offering 10k. That's exploitation disguised as a "party".

It just feels awfully similar to that guy you kind of know inviting you over for beers, and then preceding to try and convince you to build his app idea for a couple hundred bucks and no equity. Even if I wanted to help him, why would I do it for so little?

It just seems like coke is piling on the "Get those nerds to build X idea and let us profit off it" train, and the lowball offer isn't helping.

<comment><AUTHOR> But if you really do succeed in the big ground-changing way, you can decline the prize money and keep your IP. We specifically worked that into the contract with them for this reason.

I understand why people are afraid of big companies, and I have certainly seen the wreckage of these things done wrong, I just don't understand how any of those fears are founded in reality in the case of this event.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's interesting to see Coca-Cola embracing this- I attended a hackathon they organised with Spotify last year and had a great time. It's particularly pleasing to see that the terms of the prize are very upfront here- they will pay you $10k for your prototype and IP. You are free to walk away.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah. We (Hacker Dojo) worked with them extensively on these terms, and we're really pleased how flexible and understanding they have been. It has been very impressive to see such a large company listen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> 10k is kind of a small prize for something like this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Show me a weekend hackathon with half as big a prize pot.

<comment><USER11> >$10k for a weekend's worth of work seems rather excessive.

<comment><USER12> Sure, that'd be fine - if they paid everyone $1k, I'm sure tons would jump for the opportunity.

Remember, the real equation is: 1 weekend of work = (small probability of) $10k. A whole lot less of a deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder why there aren't more cheap R&D contests like those. It seems like a fun way to get outside ideas and can result in some really nice inventions.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it's a matter of knowing how to connect to a community of folks who make things. That's probably why they partnered with Hacker Dojo.

<comment><USER14> I find this incredibly interesting, but I am a bit intimidated by my lack of hardware hacking experience. What would you recommend as a good way to get into these sorts of hackathons?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you're local, sign up and attend the info sessions on carbonation etc. Generally though, this is about understanding the technology then repackaging it for a new place and purpose, so with some business sense you should be able to hobble along fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> That's cheap - 10K won't even pay a 10th of the pitching costs for the kind of agencies they usually deal with

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd design it like a Cobra to stress the fact that Soda is toxic... To each their own, but I like my hackathons to be about bettering the world.

<comment><USER17> "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison."

Overconsumption may be the problem, i treat soda like a candy and drink one glass once/twice a week.

<comment><USER18> Moderation is good. Wouldn't recommend drinking candy though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm outside of US, if any team going to the event, wants a extra hand, I would love to collaborate. I already have a good idea about the external design.

skype: carl.theteuton

<comment><USER5> I'm outside as well, but I'll share some aswell. There's been some beer keg development using elastic bags and paper cartons to create throaway kegs which eliminate the overhead of sending the kegs back for refilling. Esentially the liquid isn't squirted forth using a pump, but the elasticity of the container. This could be useful because it would get rid of that pesky pump. It'd also save space. When it comes to cooling the beverage, I'd go with either thermoelectric elements (convert electrical potention into thermal potential - Peltier element), or Thermoacoustic elements, which use precisely generated sonic waves to cool liquids. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoacoustic_heat_engine>) Plus? You'll get the cool where you want the cool, and you'll save the whole compressor, evaporator, pump system that regular fridges are. Another thing that's cool, but entirely off topic is acoustic levitation, but it'd neither add to smallness nor convenience of the tap. You have a 3d printer at the hackerspace, so use it, but remember that if coca cola uses the design, they'll want to injection mold it. If a part can't be injection molded or stamped from sheet metal, think of some other way to do it. After all, consider that one of the engineers judging it might as well be the engineer who has to make it mass producable. You might also, before the competition, go to a local fast food joint and snoop around their machine, ask what problems crop up most with it, etc. The machines coke will provide you will most likely be factory condition, and you won't be able to tell where there's wear, where liquid dries and where dust settles. Right now I'm imagining a unibody, 25x15x20 quader which takes collapsible pouches of drink concentrate along with CO² pressure cartridges and a water line/water tank (could you use the CO² pressure to further compress the water whilst simultaneously cooling it using a thermoacoustic element, thus leading to carbonation? I'm thinking of a CO² jet compressor kind of setup) that is easy to fill, easy to clean and hard to break. Use capacive touch on the panel by the way, you gotta have a microcontroller in there anyways, so those couple of pins won't hurt too much. You can use a ir diode couple in the base to detect a glass.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> who wants to drink from the FIRE HOSE?

</comment><comment><USER21> Would not support a company that peddles carbonated sugary junk. It's to blame for the obesity. Period.

<comment><USER22> How absurd, would you blame Ford for deaths that result from street racing?

Overindulgence, like unsafe vehicle operation, is on the user.

<comment><USER23> If Ford had a $2.5billion[1] advertising program encouraging people to take part in street racing then yes, I might well hold them partly responsible for street racing deaths.

Especially if the budget for public health education is tiny.

[1] 2007, according to this source ([http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/what-top-brands- spen...](http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/what-top-brands-spend-on- advertising.html))

<comment><USER22> They've certainly spent plenty of money sponsoring racing games, racing events, and various other racing related things. The connection between cars and going dangerously fast is not something the automotive industry had nothing to do with.

If you can't control yourself after seeing _"These CGI polar bears and this multi-ethnic group of skater kids both like our soda"_ , then that is entirely on you. ( _Well, on you, or perhaps on your parents who clearly failed to raise you properly._ ) For anything short of _"More doctors smoke camels"_ , I really cannot place blame on companies for advertising. I see no evidence of such deliberate deception in modern soda advertisement.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Free online version of Photoshop coming soon - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/28/adobe-photoshop-online-edition/ <comment><USER2> Why pre-announce it? To prevent people from using competitors in the meantime. Why the need to do that? Because Adobe is genuinely afraid of those competitors.

MSFT used to do this a lot. It doesn't require you to actually have something in 6 months; if people wait, you've achieved your goal. I'm surprised Arrington bought it.</comment>


Facebook forces all users over to Facebook.com e-mail addresses - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/06/facebook-forces-all-users-over-to-facebook-com-e-mail-addresses/ <comment><USER3> This morning my mother was complaining that many of the email addresses in her Droid Razr contacts had been replaced with Facebook ones. It would seem the Facebook app had been populating her address book with emails and contact photos, and decided to migrate all her Facebook-using contacts over to this convenient new system. That seems like a much greater controversy to me than Facebook hiding people's email addresses.

<comment><USER4> Yes, and how about iMessage and FaceTime that require email addresses in contacts to work? And also the 3rd party sites that rely on Facebook OAuth API to identify users based on emails (they could use uids, but I'm sure some are still using email).

<comment><USER5> This completely blows away the "let's the users sign up using facebook, we store their email and if we ever decide to ditch the FB login, we can always email them a password reset"

<comment><USER6> I think for now the api is still returning their correct email address.

<comment><USER7> Have you tested it? Is this going to stay that way or will API usage move to returning only @facebook.com as well?

<comment><USER6> Yes I just tested it.

<comment><USER7> And they are still returning non-Facebook addresses through the API?

That's surprising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Obligatory jwz quote: ``Zawinski's law of software envelopment''

 _Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can._

(obviously Myspace did not read mail ;-))

[EDIT]

In response to <http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=patrickaljord> below, Myspace introduced email service in mid-2009. Perhaps the above should read, ``(obviously Myspace did not read mail back then when it mattered ;-))''

<comment><USER9> > (obviously Myspace did not read mail ;-))

Except that it can <http://www.myspace.com/guide/mail>

<comment><USER10> There has to be a corollary floating around about sufficient user bases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Amusingly, facebook dropped 2 out of 3 test messages from the other address facebook knows about. Seriously, if anything should be whitelisted, it's that.

I understand that they want to read my mail. They want to know who i interact with.

Why make such a shitty mail client? No POP. no IMAP. Can't view headers. It's not clear how much html is allowed, because they're dropping to many messages.

They're not even pretending it's a serious offering. They're just screwing around with settings.

 _edit_

\-- mail lag is 30 minutes now --

<b> <u> and <i> work, <font> and <span> failed.

<comment><USER12> In my experience, test messages never work, but real messages always do. Somehow.

<comment><USER13> _In my experience, test messages never work, but real messages always do_

Obviously you can confirm that the real messages that you do receive gets through. What about those that didn't? How do you know that they didn't? How do you know no such messages exist?

Are you being naive here or am I missing some sarcasm?

<comment><USER12> Serious, but yes, I do worry about real messages that didn't get through. Hmm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't think its overstating the situation to say: Facebook changes profiles without permission or notification.

<comment><USER15> True, but there is a fine line. You cannot reasonably move a product forward if a few select people refuse to play along. Every product I release, I'm met with disdain from users that don't want to change, and how it was perfect the way it was. And the next release with a different change, it's the same users complaining how the version that they're using now is perfect, why would I change things?

People love to complain, and people don't like change.

<comment><USER16> There is no fine line here. Facebook changed a personal attribute of their users. This particular action is not justifiable under any circumstances I can see.

<comment><USER17> The only justification i can see is that it's facebook, and this is pretty much the sort of behaviour i expect from facebook. i have a hard time getting outraged over behaviour that is totally in character.

<comment><USER18> Explanations are not justifications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It seems like they didn't change your previous preferences but rather added a new one and changed how they interpret preferences as to what is displayed.

If you look at your list of e-mail addresses, it will let you choose who to share it with if it should be shown on timeline. Previously I had a real e-mail address that was being shared with friends and another real address that was for 'only me'. When I looked at my preferences today, I saw that those settings remained intact and that it added a third @facebook.com address that was being shared with only me.

I think the second field might be brand new. It says either "Shown on timeline" or "Hidden on timeline" and when I looked today it showed both of the email addresses that I had previously set up as hidden and the new facebook.com one as shown. If they would have just marked the e-mail address that I had set up to be shared with friends as "shown" and added the @facebook.com address as "shown", I (and suspect many others) would be happy and it would still allow them to emphasize that people can use @facebook.com e-mail addresses. (Some people might not like this for spam reasons, but I think this is would be far less evil than what they did.)

Also, since they don't share e-mail addresses via the social graph or have other ways of viewing data, what is the point of differentiating 'show on timeline' with specifying who you share it with? None of the other fields (phone number, IM screen name, address etc.) include this "show on timeline field" but rather set visibility based on the sharing settings. It seems like the "show on timeline" field is completely unnecessary and was only added to get the effect that we're all talking about. (So this was clearly evilness rather than incompetence; for some preference system changes one could argue that it was necessary to 'break' old preferences since the new ones were so different, but that isn't the case here.)

<comment><USER20> FWIW, I had my real email addresses showing before this weekend and when I checked this morning, the only email address that was being shown was the @facebook.com one. My other 2 email addresses (one visible to each of my friends and one only to a close few) were hidden from my timeline. Shady!!

<comment><USER21> I can confirm. I had my wife check my account, and she has the most liberal viewing privileges of my profile out of anyone I know. She now only sees a @facebook.com email address. My primary address, @gmail.com, is no longer visible under Contact Info on my profile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There are three discussions about this on the front page :-/ .

I think this is just might be one of those things which would ticks us off as techies... but techies are the minority audience for sites like facebook.

Do emails sent to the facebook id go to the standard facebook 'message system'? If so, for a majority of people this will probably make sense... want to message somebody on facebook? You don't have to login to facebook! Email them at firstname.lastname@example.com. I didn't know you could do that, pretty sure a lot of other people didn't either. Now a lot of folks probably are updated about this feature.

In addition: non-techies who have accidentally exposed their private email id's will now have their facebook id's scraped instead... and the ones who exposed their private emails intentionally will change it back anyway.

However, all said and done... it could have been done differently.

<comment><USER23> > If so, for a majority of people this will probably make sense... want to > message somebody on facebook? You don't have to login to facebook! Email > them at email@example.com.

There are easy ways to advertise this fact, without changing anyone's personal info in their Facebook account. It could be as simple as adding the text "You can also send messages to email@example.com" to JaneDoe's profile page.

<comment><USER22> I do agree - it could have (and possibly should have) been done differently. I was trying rationalize facebook's action. It's a hugely successful company run by people smarter than I.

<comment><USER24> "run by people smarter than I"

Don't bet on that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is so much worse than anything Google has ever forced upon users with Google+.

<comment><USER26> What has Google "forced upon users" with Google+? Especially given that you can still remove G+ from your large Google profile (for now at least)

<comment><USER27> One big thing that had a real impact on me was removal of the social features in Google Reader. I'd also argue that removing the ubiquitous "subscribe to this site via RSS" icon in the location bar was also damaging. RSS readers are a boon to the open, eclectic web, and any action that reduces their use is damaging, in my opinion.

<comment><USER26> They did nothing to change the RSS portion of Google Reader, the rss icon is a Chrome issue and is easily solved with one of a dozen extensions. The feature they removed was "sharing" and that was really ancillary to Reader/rss anyway.

<comment><USER27> You are a troll.

<comment><USER26> Other people clearly agree with me. Is there a reason you feel this way? You can still subscribe to and read RSS feeds. As I said, the sharing aspect you mention, while a part of Google Reader, had nothing to do with RSS (the idea OR protocol) and was an add-on.

Naturally as Google wanted to unite social strategies they shifted "Sharing on Reader" to "Sharing on G+". I don't see why that's shocking or terribly hard to cope with.

And most of all I don't know why me expressing that makes me a troll. Or are you just angry and unable to articulate yourself outside of calling me names?

<comment><USER27> If there was any doubt in my mind before, you've removed it.

<comment><USER26> What is your problem? Again, do you have anything to say? You realize that by calling people names and not engaging in discussion, you're acting _precisely_ like a troll, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Earlier discussion, now 2 days old: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433>

Here's some discussion and a link describing how to fix it: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4157589>

</comment><comment><USER29> With Facebook making this change, I guess anyone who is unaware of this and syncs their Facebook contacts to their phone (either directly or via apps) stands to lose the 'real' email addresses of their friends and especially once they sync back to their desktop/cloud/gmail etc!!

<comment><USER30> On my Android the Facebook details are in a separate bucket than my Gmail contact details. So the Facebook sync hasn't overridden the email addresses that were manually entered by me or have been synced by Google's Contacts.

But on the other hand I'm seeing a lot of new Facebook email addresses in my contacts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm actually not able to change my email settings currently. It forced my real email to "not public" mode and my facebook email to "public" and the buttons are unresponsive. I also can't "remove this from my timeline" either.

Update: A few hard refreshes later, the buttons started to work.

<comment><USER32> Same happened to me. I think their email settings servers/subsystem is just getting hammered right now as more and more news articles are being written about this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Wow. This thread just alerted me to the existence of that 'other' mailbox. I had no clue that existed. That could have saved me some trouble; I just found this message from last July:

[http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1792/screenshot20120625at35...](http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1792/screenshot20120625at359.png)

<comment><USER34> I just wonder how many millions of messages that have gone unnoticed. I've seen a few articles written, alerting people to it's existence, but it's not like people are searching for articles on things they don't know exist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Yay... I'm always looking for more reasons to NOT use Facebook for any communication whatsoever. Thank you, Facebook!

<comment><USER36> Doesn't seem like you're looking too hard -- you know, still having a facebook account and all.

If you hate it that much, delete the account :P

<comment><USER35> Well, yeah. I'm mostly just jabbing at them in frustration at how much other people buy into centering their lives around FB... but I'm not a total luddite. :) Every once-in-a-while, someone from high school wants to get in touch with me and FB is a decent enough honey pot.

That said, I am enough of a luddite to not see the need to have a Twitter account.

<comment><USER37> Grumph. Not having a Facebook account is not being a Luddite, not any more than not eating at MacDonalds means you hate food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> FWIW: I don't have timeline, and it changed mine to @facebook.com

<comment><USER39> Timeline was rolled out to all accounts. Are you using a plugin to approximate the old look or something?

<comment><USER40> I've still seen some people who don't have Timeline yet. It is rare though.

<comment><USER41> I can't stand timeline. I find it really difficult to read them for some reason - probably something to do with having more than one column - and poor alignment - it's cognitively difficult.

<comment><USER24> I read an opinion piece that said is was _deliberately_ confusing... an attempt to trick you into clicking on ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is nothing but a fairly desperate attempt to gain email address share, and promote Facebook lock-in.

Think about Joe Average User who spends a bunch of time on Facebook. If people start emailing them at firstname.lastname@example.com, then they can scarcely abandon the site...

</comment><comment><USER30> So I just disabled the Facebook contacts sync on my phone, because as of today it is useless for me. I'm also thinking of uninstalling the Facebook app, because the web interface is good enough for me, and I kept the Facebook app just for the contacts sync.

<comment><USER43> Good luck with that. I can't uninstall the facebook app because my carrier decided that this app is not optional. It just can't uninstall. Android Samsung Galaxy S2 on Rogers

<comment><USER44> Root it, install titanium backup, remove it (if its not rootable then there is no way that im aware of). That's what I did for my HTC desire so I could remove the crapware (fb app included) on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I only wish that when Facebook gave away my email when I connected with other sites that they gave away the Facebook email address. As it is, I almost never give permission to sites because most require an email address. I do not wish to share my real email address just to read an article that has shown up on my newsfeed, but would gladly share my @facebook.com email address

<comment><USER46> Whenever I come across an interesting "___ read an article" post, I just Google the title of the article.

<comment><USER41> Try right clicking (or menu key), copy the url, open new tab (CTRL+T), go to location bar (CTRL + L), and paste (CTRL + V). It's the Javascript I think that hijacks the click.

<comment><USER47> Alternatively, click Cancel when it asks you to add the app, and it will redirect to the original article. I think this is what annoys me most on Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I just checked, and this has not happened for me. My email address on Facebook is still my personal one.

Interestingly enough, even though I have an actual username set, my @facebook.com address is still the numbered user ID.

</comment><comment><USER49> Not sure if this has always been a "feature" of Facebook's email service, but apparently you can login with the facebook email address. A would-be hacker only needs to guess your password.

Case in point: a friend has already told me there have been renewed attempts to log into her account from other locations and devices.

</comment><comment><USER50> Reminds me of foursquare. I can't, for the life of me, get it to post pictures to my facebook feed any longer. I've tried reinstalling, posting with a camera picture, posting with a gallery picture, relinking facebook, tapping the icon on and off, making sure picture is public, etc..

I'm pretty sure they disabled this functionality so they can show the map instead which gets them more clicks into their site proper and helps their traffic. Really pisses me off because I take a picture every check in and think they are more interesting and don't think people should be forced into foursquare to view them and don't want to have to post them separately - <USER2> in their marketing material for the new face lift they even show a picture of a facebook post with a picture. Lies.

</comment><comment><USER51> Well I was using my gmail account to collect all the worthless emails Facebook sends me. Now I guess I will be wasting Facebook's disk space instead.

On the positive side, they'll be getting no data to mine since they already know what I do there.

<comment><USER52> You can easily disable those emails by changing around your Facebook settings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I already use google as my preferred giant corporation with access to every email I send. I wish there was a way to turn off all facebook messages or at least send an auto-reply saying that I rarely respond to facebook messages.

</comment><comment><USER54> Does it give you a friendly email address or is it just random numbers (or your fb id)? For instance, if your facebook username is "AznHisoka" do they display email@example.com ?

<comment><USER55> If you don't have a username then currently its your FB id although, if you do have a FB username then the @facebook.com email is the same.

<comment><USER56> I didn't set a Facebook username, and Facebook force-assigned me one for this email address.

<comment><USER55> I'm assuming you have timeline as I still have friends on Facebook who don't have it and their user number = fb email

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Well, this is actually a good thing given Facebook's mission, "Making the world more open and connected."

To do this, you have to have public profiles. Do you want your personal email to show up on public profiles? But Facebook email, on the other hand, probably doesn't matter (at least not right now when the "open" paradigm is still in infancy.). Its OK to be shown to random people and search engines and other features that come down the pipeline.

</comment><comment><USER58> A few weeks ago, my facebook account appeared in the list of "linked to your facebook".

I deleted that connection, yet still my email address has changed to this new facebook account.

Unhappy.

</comment><comment><USER59> Crap thing changed the primary email address of the contacts n my iphone ios6

<comment><USER60> ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> It's a brilliant plan, really. What they really wanted is for everyone to list their real email address, but they knew that if they forced that, everybody would be up in arms, so they forced the opposite change instead.

;)

</comment><comment><USER62> Does anyone know how to forward that address to a real email address which I can access with an email program? Is there an Facebook API for those Messages? Facebook chat can be easily plugged into my XMPP client (except for group chats).

I'd rather not delete that address because I do not want someone else to have it. But as it is now the email ends up in a subfolder of Messages called "Other" and I am in no way notified about them unless I happen to click on Messages and recognize the small unread count beneath "Other".

This is really useless.

</comment><comment><USER63> The sad thing is that Facebook probably thought "Hidden from Timeline" was the appropriate setting since every opt-out thing they've done in the past has bit them in the ass. Now they do an opt-in for "Shown on Timeline" and they get bitched out.

The only unfortunate thing is that you cannot see emails to which you should have access to that are not marked as "Shown on Timeline". Complain about bad UX, not a security (in some ways) setting that is opt-in.

<comment><USER64> No, they hid my previously viewable external email address and replaced it with their own.

Facebook literally tried to hijack communications intended for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Reeks of desperation, but really who cares?

</comment><comment><USER66> I can just see it now. There will be ads with your face endorsing products related to email correspondence.

</comment><comment><USER67> I assume that this is an attempt to take advertising revenue away from other webmail providers. So if facebook's users become predominantly known by their facebook email address then their friends will just begin sending directly to that address and bypassing other systems.

</comment><comment><USER68> This has got me thinking that it's time to ditch Facebook. I'd like to use Google+ because I think they're more likely to be a trustworthy steward of my data, but I find the UI really confusing. Are there any other realistic alternatives?

</comment><comment><USER69> You what this is? This is money people having too much say on the product.

I have no doubts this is so they have one more metric to impress (number of emails exchanged thru Facebook). Then they will proceed to selling paid messages for advertisers.

</comment><comment><USER70> I checked my settings and already hid my facebook.com email. My non-facebook address was sill visible. Anyone else not have the problem from this HN article link? I keep up on my privacy settings.

</comment><comment><USER71> Not sure if it is related, but I noticed my "Political Views" entry was also removed quite recently. Was previously "other". Anyone notice similar changes to user info?

</comment><comment><USER72> Displaying FB addresses is not so bad, what I'm more concerned about is that I just tried sending mail to some of my friends' facebook addresses and nothing shows up..

</comment><comment><USER73> "Force" seems a little strong. However, I am surprised I heard nothing about it until the change was already made. That's the part that makes me uneasy.

</comment><comment><USER74> The Manson Family. Note that "family".

A controlling psychopath or cult requires cutting off access to outside resources, preempting a possible escape path.

No different.

<comment><USER75> Could we _please_ not take the trendy HN cynicism so far as to equate Facebook with mass-murdering serial killers? It's a _social networking site_.

<comment><USER74> My point was not to equate the murderous behavior. I see that you might find such a comparison distressing.

Facebook is circling the wagons on its user base. I see no one this benefits other than Facebook itself.

While promoting effortless and frictionless sharing of every last minute detail of daily life and thought within the Facebook "family", they are now very actively creating massive amounts of friction in order to prevent people from sharing with the same people anywhere else.

They are closing the exits in a defensive move to prevent people from leaving.

This is not good social behavior. This is what cults and psychopaths do in order to exert control.

This looks like the behavior of an entity with mal intent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> And, they won't let me enter "Scheme" as a language. It is tyranny.

Years from now, when people say "remember 2010 and Facebook?" I'll remember. :-)

</comment><comment><USER77> Just go into your About Me and enable "hidden from timeline" for the @facebook.com email address. Now everything is back to normal.

<comment><USER78> The fact that you can easily change it back doesn't make it ok for FB to make these kinds of sweeping changes. Again, FB shows its poor stewardship of user account data. I'll happily continue only using G+.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Outrageous, IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER80> Alright, I'm tired of this. Can everyone please shut the hell up about Facebook 'forcing' people to change their e-mail address? Facebook isn't forcing you to do shit.

They changed the _default_ e-mail address that appears in your profile. I'm happy about this. It means all my Facebook friends have a way of contacting me that isn't my primary e-mail address, meaning that type of communication is easily compartmentalized and thus taken care of.

</comment><comment><USER81> That's it! I'm canceling my subscription to Facebook. Oh wait. Oh yeah.

</comment><comment><USER82> So that's why I've stopped receiving spam to my GMail account.

</comment><comment><USER83> Thank god, I don't have a Facebook account.

</comment><comment><USER84> Facebook is the electronic total surveillance, just on a voluntary base. They have enough users and nobody seems to care much about it, so it won't get better.

</comment><comment><USER85> I really feel this is the right moment to give other social networks a chance. I am so tired of FB and all their antics . If only my friends were there on G+.....

<comment><USER86> If only other social networks started using distributed social protocols like OpenID, Activity.streams, Salmon, OAuth, FOAF.

Don't crave for a nicer walled garden. Instead start tearing down the walls.

<comment><USER85> I am really glad that G+ does not give right access to external apps. It prevents the network from getting spammed , help to maintain cleanliness of the content and really helps in relevant discussions rather then water my farm kind of posts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> This is good for a lot of ignorant users who don't know they're displaying their real email to the world.

</comment><comment><USER88> "Forces" is too strong a word, IMO.

<comment><USER89> You can't avoid this change, so yes it's forced.

<comment><USER88> It didn't replace my addresses and there are two other stories on the front page about this, so it looks rather linkbaity.

<comment><USER90> Did you check your profile, not your settings? My email settings were unchanged, but on my public profile they were different and had been set to a facebook address.

I think it's easy to understate the importance of this, personally, and don't mind the multiple stories. I'm extremely annoyed at this - I don't want this email address, that I do not control, be published as some kind of contact point for me.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple Sues Amazon.com, Seeks Order to Stop Use of 'App Store' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/apple-sues-amazon-com-over-use-of-app-store-trademark.html?cmpid=yhoo <comment><USER3> Apple is here making an ultra-aggressive attempt at a land grab in the world of application software.

The mark granted to it is for "App Store". Under relevant trademark law, a mark cannot be registered if it consists solely of a generic or purely descriptive term. "Store" is generic. So too is the word "application" - <USER2> is commonly thought of as being what the word "app" refers to. Therefore, no trademark could ever be registered for the word "store" or for the word "application" and certainly not for "application store" (no trademark can be registered when _all_ of its constituent elements are generic). A trademark identifies the _origin_ of goods or services and no one vendor can claim that a whole generic category of goods or services can be set out as a domain for which it and it alone is the origin. The question is, does any of this change because Apple's claim is for the word "app" as opposed to "application."

Apple claims that "app" in this context is a word that refers uniquely to Apple in the public mind - that is, when a typical consumer hears of an "app," that person immediately associates that word with "Apple app" and not with the generic term "application." In legal parlance, then, Apple is arguing that the word "app" here has an "arbitrary" meaning and is therefore registrable to Apple alone. If Apple prevails on this claim, it will be able to sue anyone in the future who tries to sell "apps" through any form of "app store."

Of course, many other vendors are using the "app" designation for selling online applications and there is thus vigorous opposition to Apple's application. Indeed, once the trademark examiner granted the application, Amazon immediately filed a proceeding contesting it. To date, then, Apple does not have any definitive determination in its favor on this issue. By continuing to push the trademark application, and by filing this lawsuit, Apple _hopes_ to pave the way to have exclusive use going forward of "App Store" as against all competitors.

I think Apple is overstepping it on this one. If it should be granted what it seeks, how will other vendors be able to refer even generically to what they are offering? Trademark law is intended to protect a company's distinct offerings and to prevent others from pawning off a vendor's good will by passing their goods or services off as that of their real owner. I doubt that anyboday will believe that what Amazon or Google or any of a number of other vendors offer is an attempt to trade on Apple's goodwill. On the other hand, trademark law is _not_ intended to give anybody any form of exclusivity in describing generic categories of goods or services. That appears to be precisely what Apple is here attempting to do.

Apple has one more obstacle to overcome as well. A term that is at some point a distinctive identifier of a vendor's goods or services can _become_ generic over time (consider "yo-yo,"aspirin," "escalator," and many others that have suffered this fate). If "app" was at one time distinctive to Apple a few years back, I seriously doubt that the public today thinks of it as anything other than a generic indicator of what you can download from a wide variety of sources.

<comment><USER4> "Windows" is a trademark ([http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualPrope...](http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/Usage/Windows.aspx)), so how do you explain that? If windows is not a generic word, it must be because it's applied in a specific context (a window manager). So then, possibly an "app store" doesn't just mean a store on Main St, that happens to have applications on its shelves, but a novel concept worthy of a trademark?

<comment><USER3> Your question is a very good one. A term that is primarily descriptive cannot be registered as a trademark on the primary register with the USPTO. However, if a vendor spends a lot in advertising over a substantial time such that the public comes to identify the relevant term with one vendor and not as a primarily descriptive term, then that item is said to acquire "secondary meaning." Once a primarily descriptive term acquires secondary meaning of this type, it _can_ be registered on the primary register. Context matters here as well because marks are registered in revelant "classes" of goods or services. Thus, for Microsoft, "Windows" eventually acquired secondary meaning in the world of computer software (but not as applied to window installation in the building industry). Others can freely use "windows" in most any category of goods or services they want in the building trades but, given that the term "Windows" is now exclusively associated with a product from Microsoft in that class, not in the class of computer goods to which "Windows" belongs.

Other well-known secondary-meaning marks: "Holiday Inn," Subway's "Footlong" sandwich, many others.

<comment><USER5> Apple has successfully promoted the heck out of name "App Store" and spent a fortune doing so. If that's the criteria they have a solid case.

<comment> brown9-2 You are overlooking the second part of this:

 _such that the public comes to identify the relevant term with one vendor and not as a primarily descriptive term, then that item is said to acquire "secondary meaning._

It is not clear that the public identifies "app" as something from Apple only.

<comment><USER6> It's a biased selection but, Google's Page Rank certainly says that the public tends to "link" the term 'App Store' to 'Apple' in a pretty consistant manner

[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8...](http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=app+store)

<comment><USER7> On the other hand, half of the "related searches" on that page are "nokia app store", "android app store", "samsung app store", etc., which are not the official names of any of those brands. Its possible that the public uses more formal names when linking but less formal names when searching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Today's News Summary:

Apple = Trademark Troll

Microsoft = Patent Troll

AT&T = Monopoly

If Amazon fights this they could win and it could be good news for everyone, except Apple.

p.s. Yes I know Amazon is a patent troll as well.

<comment><USER9> How the heck is AT&T a monopoly?

<comment><USER10> The only GSM carrier left in the US?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 'App' is short for application I guess that's the problem so Amazon should come up with their own shortened version I suggest 'appl'

</comment><comment><USER12> Wonder what were apple thinking when they used iphone which clearly belonged to Cisco. [http://gizmodo.com/#!227504/cisco-is-expecting-signed- agreem...](http://gizmodo.com/#!227504/cisco-is-expecting-signed-agreement-on- iphone-trademark-today)

These names are so common and apple fighting over is lame.

<comment><USER13> Maybe they were thinking they could buy the name from cisco, which is what happened pretty soon after. Have you considered the possibility that Apple had talked to cisco quite a bit prior to announcing the iPhone, and knew they were going to be able to acquire the name, and the subsequent "noise" cisco made about suing apple was a negotiating tactic?

Their agreement was pretty mild-- cisco wanted apple to support its VPN technology on the iPhones which they did.

Apple generally, if it finds someone else owns a name it wants that doesn't already infringe on one of Apple's names, buys the name from them.

It doesn't just copy the name and wait to be sued, as Amazon did here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Could there be hope in arguing that "app store" is now a generic term for an online software shop?

<comment><USER15> Apple did the "App Store".

It reminds me of the Crayon story. Seems simple: wax drawing tool. But wooo! Crayola had to give up the name.

Personally, it's a tough call. They are all Crayons, they are all App Stores. Not sure what the solution is.

<comment><USER16> Wikipedia claims the word Crayon goes back to the 1600s, and has photos of boxes with the word "crayon" from 20 years before the company that became "Crayola" existed.

So what name did they have to give up?

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

Better examples from Wikipedia are:

Aspirin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG

Butterscotch, originally a trademark of Parkinson's

Escalator, originally a trademark of Otis Elevator Company[4][5][6]

Heroin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG

Kerosene, originally a trademark of Abraham Gesner

Phillips-head screw, named after Henry F. Phillips

Pogo for the toy Pogo stick[6][7]

Sellotape, a brandname of The Sellotape Company

Thermos, originally a trademark of Thermos GmbH

Tipp-Ex, originally a trademark of German manufacturers Tipp-Ex GmbH & Co. KG

Yo-yo, originally a trademark of Duncan Yo-Yo Company

Zipper, originally a trademark of B.F. Goodrich[6][8]

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Isn't this a parry to Amazon's One Click patent?

Certainly an interesting way to negate the fees...

</comment><comment><USER18> AMZN: Buy

<comment><USER19> Why (in relation to this)? Curious, because I just bought some.

<comment><USER20> Perhaps because the suit is a signal that Apple fears competition from Amazon?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Common words or not, nobody was using the term 'App Store' before Apple made it popular (after popularizing smartphone apps). Suddenly everyone wants to have their own App Stores (after making their own iPhone clones). Please, let Apple have its App Store and come up with something original. Cannot be so hard.

<comment><USER22> But plenty of people were talking about "web apps" before the iPhone. Which shows that "app" is not distinctive or unique. Nor is "store" distinctive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "People thinking 'app store' was in use before Apple's have bad memories - <http://www.google.com/trends?q=app+store> ", @treestman

</comment><comment><USER24> The Apple "App Store" trademark:

[http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:jg...](http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:jgea6f.4.1)

</comment><comment><USER25> On bad day for patents and law suits - when it rains, it pours.

<comment><USER26> Unlike a patent, you have to actively defend a trademark for it to remain valid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Everyone knows the "App" in "App Store" is short for "Apple".

<comment><USER28> So, how many Apple computers can I buy in the Apple App Store?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Are they trying to trademark "jobs" as well?

</comment><comment><USER30> Can't they just change it to App Market?

<comment><USER31> Both Apple and Amazon are run by two of the smartest businessmen in the world.

For Amazon's part, they're attracted to the phrase "app store" because:

a. due to Apple's efforts, the phrase has gained an amount of familiarity and also b. it's simply a good name.

If only Apple products have this "app store" thing, they have another unique offering. But if you can access an "app store" from any device, there's less incentive for the consumer to specifically buy an iPad (over a Kindle, for example).

For Apple's part, they know right well that they're pushing it by contesting their exclusive right to the generic phrase "app store". But for the reasons outlined above, it's very much in their interests to prevent others from using it and they have relatively little to lose by going to court to attempt to do so.

<comment><USER32> > a. due to Apple's efforts, the phrase has gained an amount of familiarity > and also b. it's simply a good name.

+1 glad to see someone's paying attention :)

The term 'App Store' is being used by a lot of vendors operating in the cloud/mobile space. It's familiar and when you use it people have an idea of what the offering is.

If Apple can keep the association of 'App Store' an Apple exclusive that gives their brand more value. That's why they're going after a big company instead of a small one. If they can win this against Amazon they almost automatically crush all other uses of the mark by smaller companies.

If they lose they only lose a few million. That's not going to make a dent in their budget. Small risk / big payoff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I was wondering when this would happen.

</comment><comment><USER34> They should just call it Amazn Store.

</comment><comment><USER35> Apple said 'No'.

</comment><comment><USER15> I saw Amazon pull this stunt a few days ago. No respect for software developers? I think that's it!</comment>


Tell HN: Learn about the state-of-the-art in Program Synthesis - <AUTHOR> Hi HN:  Program synthesis generates code from specifications: test-cases, I-O examples, and assertions. On September 19-20, synthesis experts will speak about recent breakthroughs and practical tools. The talks will be aimed at software engineers who haven't encountered synthesis before. We want to extend an invitation to the HN community because the periodic posts on program synthesis and Z3 show interest in the technology.
Speakers include researchers from Stanford, Berkeley, UW, MIT, and Google Brain. As a preview, here are 3 topics that will be covered: hw-exploit synthesis (https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ctrippel/#publications), end-user web programming (https://schasins.com/papers/), verification and synthesis of OS level code (https://unsat.cs.washington.edu/projects/).
Technical abstracts and registration is on: https://synthetic-minds.com/pages/conference/2019/#program. After the conference we'll post the slides of the talks.
The foundations part will explain why synthesis reduces to solving an \exists\forall query. More specifically, the query asks "does there exists a program P such that for all inputs x, P(x) computes the correct output?" A solution to the query is the synthesized program P.  How to solve the query? The Z3 prover works well for boolean satisfiability (i.e., one \exists query). To solve an \exists\forall query, one approach is to have a two Z3 solvers communicate: one solver synthesizes a candidate program P' that is correct on a sample of inputs, while the other verifies that P' is correct on all inputs. If P's is incorrect, a counterexample input is added to the sample on inputs.  The two solvers iterate until the latter is satisfied with the correctness. This process is not unlike GANs; it is called CEGIS (counterexample-guided inductive synthesis) and was invented 2005, and built on an earlier CEGAR (counterexample-guided abstraction refinement) technique from the 90s.
Please comment; or email us with questions. <comment><AUTHOR> I am the OP. Along with Ras and Henele, we are leading efforts in program synthesis at Synthetic Minds (YC S'18). I started working on synthesis in 2007; and Ras has been developing these techniques since the late 90s and is an ACM fellow for his work in program synthesis.

The researchers will talk about their peer-reviewed work in web automation, hardware security, operating system extensions, programming for non- programmers, automatic code translation, and superoptimization. Hopefully, this will illustrate the power _and_ limitations. We'd love for people to extrapolate from these onto their own domain-specific automation needs.

By touching upon foundational techniques (making imperative code functional, symbolic compilation, SMT encodings, partial evaluation), hopefully the leap to "code synthesis" will seem less like magic and more like an obvious next step. In addition, open-source frameworks exist (e.g., Rosette, Sketch) that abstract away these foundations, and the program will cover those in hands-on workshops.

We'd love to hear insights into application from people for whom synthesis is new. Some problems are exciting to us (Synthetic Minds is working on smart contract synthesis); and we'd love for the community to brainstorm applications to their domains.

</comment><comment><USER2> Cool! Very similar techniques can be used in the hardware domain. For these types of problems, at least, I have found SRI's yices solver to be much, much more performant than Armando's CEGIS solver. Do you have any tips on other solvers you've found to be faster for exists-forall problems?

Here's a raw example of a 32-bit adder super-optimized according to rough delay, gate complexity, and wire complexity models embedded in the 2QBF: [https://share.riseup.net/#xg2ySn41zmhtHtmrlQWn5Q](https://share.riseup.net/#xg2ySn41zmhtHtmrlQWn5Q) . According to post-PAR results from Innovus, it can actually (barely) beat DesignWare adders at some points in the trade-off space.

<comment><USER3> Hi, this looks like a strong result. Congratulations!

Short answer: to scale up hardware synthesis, it may be necessary to change the encoding rather than look for a better solver.

More details: I should first say that I have limited experience with synthesizing hardware. My lessons come from [1], where synthesized a small Wallace Tree multiplier. What that taught me is that hardware arithmetic circuits should perhaps not be formulated as a 2QBF problem -- because you might need too many counterexample inputs to terminate the CEGIS loop.

Instead, I believe that the circuit synthesis should use algebraic reasoning (for correctness) and combinatorial reasoning to explore the space of candidate circuits. Since one symbolic input is sufficient to show correctness, the problem simplifies from 2QBF to SAT.

This idea is briefly explained in Sec 4.1 in [3], a project that synthesizes software expressions that look very much like hardware circuits (permutations and such) [2].

I am happy to discuss this in person if it might be helpful to your work. Both Mangpo (the author of [2,3]) and I will be at the conference.

[1] [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5227085](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5227085)

[2] [https://github.com/mangpo/swizzle- inventor](https://github.com/mangpo/swizzle-inventor)

[3] [https://github.com/mangpo/mangpo.github.io/blob/master/paper...](https://github.com/mangpo/mangpo.github.io/blob/master/papers/swizzle- inventor-asplos19.pdf),

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is very interesting - my eyes stuck on the programming for non- programmers as we in MOOCTORS ([https://www.mooctors.com](https://www.mooctors.com)) we are building a tutoring platform for MOOC students who are not necessarily programming experts. We invite technology experts and everyone who can code to register as tutors on their free time, help students on their MOOC courses, and earn an extra income for doing that. How Synthesis could power tech/coding tutoring?

best, Athanasios

<comment><USER3> Hi Athanasios, program synthesis has been used to automatically repair introductory programming assignments (a sample of papers is at the end). This technology could make tutors more productive: [1] says that 81% of synthesized repairs were of high quality. This is very impressive but the tutor is still needed to check the quality. Also, synthesis cannot repair all programs (an empty submission cannot be repaired). Finally, this automatic repair allows the tutor to focus on giving guidance, rather than on finding the bug in a programming assignment.

[1] [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.03165.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.03165.pdf) [2] [https://rishabhmit.bitbucket.io/papers/icse18.pdf](https://rishabhmit.bitbucket.io/papers/icse18.pdf)

<comment><USER3> I should add that Rishabh Singh, one of the lead authors of of the repair papers, will speak at the conference.

<comment><USER5> Thanks Ras for the above pointers! I also wanted to add that there is a demo of the system with different levels of feedback mechanism hosted here: [http://sketch2.csail.mit.edu/python-autofeedback/new- encodin...](http://sketch2.csail.mit.edu/python-autofeedback/new-encoding/)

It uses constraint-based synthesis to search for small repairs. We also did some follow up work on learning from other student's solutions to learn to correct similar mistakes: [https://rishabhmit.bitbucket.io/papers/sarfgen_pldi18.pdf](https://rishabhmit.bitbucket.io/papers/sarfgen_pldi18.pdf) [https://rishabhmit.bitbucket.io/papers/dyn_iclr18.pdf](https://rishabhmit.bitbucket.io/papers/dyn_iclr18.pdf)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Experience with bundling laptops w/ startup app? - <AUTHOR>

I've got a complete management system web-app (with a 2-year contract) I'm selling to a particular small business niche.  More often than not, these businesses don't have computers, which I believe is one factor limiting sales.  I believe if I could offer hardware along with my app, more businesses would bite.
Does anyone here have experience with bundling hardware (laptops) with your product?  Do any major hardware sellers work with small guys like me (Dell for example)?  I haven't been able to find anything.  I'd even be willing to swallow some of the laptop costs to gain a few more sales.
Any advice? <comment><USER2> Pure speculation:

Price the computers, figure a healthy markup and list them on your sales sheet to see if anyone bites. Worry about the logistics of volume later if you have it. Don't eat any costs.

<comment><AUTHOR> What I'm specifically wondering though is if there are any special programs for situations like these. For example, it's common for corporations to have contracts with large computer manufacturers (like Dell) where they pay a flat sum and get upgrades every so often and support. Does anyone do that on a smaller scale? There's definitely no way I can support the hardware in addition to my app.

This could perhaps even be a new startup idea: A startup that provides consultation services or in some way handles all hardware related tasks for specific small businesses with specific needs.

<comment><USER3> It'll be tough to avoid supporting the hardware. If it's provided by you and used to run your application, then you're going to get the support calls.

You can push the client to call the hardware vendor ("we don't support hardware, read your contract, here's the number for Dell"), but that's going to frustrate the client and reflect poorly on your business.

It sounds like a losing proposition unless you price the hardware and hardware support into the cost of your system.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, good point. We already get hardware related calls and just deal with them. Getting more of those and actually being responsible for them, especially from around the country, I don't believe would be worth the cost if can be avoided.

Perhaps we could just provide consultation services for the client on what good and applicable hardware they could purchase. That is something most of them already need, since they have no IT department or IT knowledge, and at the same time it would be removed enough from us.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Want to be happy?  Are you Stoic enough? - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/want-to-be-happy-then-live-like-a-stoic-for-a-week-103117 <comment><USER2> I always like the lake metaphore. In calm weather, the lake is flat and reflects everything (all problems). On a stormy day, it absorbs them.</comment>


Fixing Toxic Online Behavior in League of Legends - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/191262/Video_Fixing_toxic_online_behavior_in_League_of_Legends.php <comment><USER2> I think the approach that Valve takes to this in DotA 2 is pretty phenomenal. If you get reported you are put into a 'low priority' pool, since the people who play in this pool are generally there for a reason it makes a very effective punishment. If you play a day's worth of games with people who are total assholes you see how much it sucks to be on the receiving end. I'm consistently impressed with how the community in DotA 2 will permit long pauses, be courteous, and in general nicer than any other game I've played. Also the pace of this talk is infuriatingly slow.

<comment><USER3> Actually, I think it's terrible in it's current state. I made a second account to try some heroes/practice heroes on. Recently they changed the number of reports to four per week, but I almost need to report a person per match for either feeding, afking or really bad language. I realize this is in the 'normal' bracket, which is still pretty terrible.

You might be consistently impressed, lately I have been consistently disappointed by the Dota 2 community.

<comment><USER4> I'm in the normal bracket too and that is my experience as well. I used to max out on reports per week just reporting bad language.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The way he presents the priming results makes me really suspicious that they made statistical errors.

First, the numbers are all given as percentages relative to a control. This makes the measured changes appear larger. If the control percentage was 5%, then a relative increase of 20% is just an absolute increase from 5% to 6%. (Also, the relative increase inherits variation from both the control and the target bin.)

Second, the data is presented as if it were cherry picked. They give the most interesting bins or transitions between similar bins, instead of discussing metrics over all of the bins.

I did a very rough estimate of the variation you'd expect to see, given 217 bins of binomial distributions with n=10^5 and p=0.05 where you report percentages relative to one of the bins. It's on the order of +-5%, despite the large sample sizes. Minor changes in protocol could increase this to +-30% and explain all of their results.

The wild swings when the color or font is changed increase my suspicion that they're seeing noise (because I really don't expect priming to be that strong).

Note that this is based entirely on the very superficial amount of data the presenter included in his slides. It may also be the case that they just omitted statistical details because they expected it to be boring to the audience.

<comment><USER6> I kept watching for the Standard Error, Im very surprised they didnt show it as that is very important to know how accurate, he said they had millions of data points but considering all the stats Im really surprised they didnt mention it at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it's interesting that they're attacking things from the human/social side, but don't even mention the possibility of tweaking game mechanics.

For example, years ago I made a DotA-genre map for starcraft. The community was significantly less "toxic". This may have been due to its smaller size, but there were also game mechanics that I think contributed to it.

First, I focused on uneven games being fun. This was mostly achieved by (partially) shared income. On a smaller team your portion of the shared income was higher, so your hero was stronger. An ally leaving had upsides: suddenly you'd have a higher income and a bunch of back-dated income.

Second, dying had no downsides except you had five lives. You didn't get a time-out. The enemy didn't get experience or a pile of money for killing you. Instead, you'd repick your hero and spawn back at base right away. When you died you came back specialized for the current situation and you came back fast (you had constructive things to do; no time to focus on complaining). Until your last life, dying actually had upsides! Sometimes people would even strategically die, trading a life in order to switch roles or to teleport to the base (in dire situations).

It was hard to be angry at a terrible player for dying repeatedly... they were removing themselves from the game, after all. I'm sure the smaller team size, and the presence of 'safe' tasks like moving tanks to defend key areas, also didn't hurt. Having a weak player on your team wasn't ideal, but you could still have a fun game where they contributed.

<comment><USER7> I've played a few of these games, and I also think it's an issue with the core mechanics. Each match can be around forty-five minutes long. So it's really easy to dig a hole for yourself and spend a lot of the game getting repeatedly beat down. Then add in the high learning curve, and small teams. This means that a single player who's learning the game or trying out a new strategy can potentially cause his entire team to lose.

If you intentionally set out to design a game that turned all your players into assholes you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> That was an interesting watch.

I can't help but feel the tribunal would inevitably lead to holier than thou attitudes, they would vote on surface behavior rather than intent and effect. To put that in context, I used to play Planetside with a clan called Obsidian Empire. We had a player there that was the most vial, crude son-of-a-bitch I had ever seen (well, heard). If you screwed up he'd be on you fast. But he was so outlandish that really everyone loved him.

Addressed in a setting as puritanical as the tribunal, he'd never make it. People are likely to vote on shortly adopted principles and on the surface behavior, rather than what message the player actually sent to who the player was talking to.

it's disinfectant, for sure, disinfectant gets rid of alot of problems. Serious problems in fact. It may sound incredulous to argue against it when weight against disinfectants benefits. I'd bet allot of the hackers reading this would rather my friend simply not be such a prick.

I'm glad it's there, but I would prefer a system where a good intentioned friend would survive the process.

<comment><USER9> 1\. You'll never get reported by people you know, so it doesn't matter.

2\. If you're being vile to someone you don't know, it doesn't matter if your friends think it's hilarious. What matters is whether you're ruining the game for other people.

I have not noticed any holier than thou behavior since they rolled this out. It's been some time now, so if that was going to be an effect we'd probably have noticed it by this point. I have noticed that people have gotten much nicer on average, but it's hard to tell if that's the tribunal or that more skilled people are nicer -- my rank has gone up quite a bit since I started.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Funnily enough, I built something to solve this problem [1]. It's working out alright [2].

It's fascinating what a simple humanizing 'hi' (with a smiley face) can do to the outcome of a game.

It's straightforward enough to match people perfectly based on skill level, but the pseudo-anonymity and high volume of games means that you often never see the same people again. It's easy to abuse them and never even consider your own mistakes.

The best players focus purely on their own play and their own mistakes; they rarely blame external factors for when things go badly. Just what they can improve on: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3wqhmG__Io>

[1] www.teamfind.com - the idea is to find other real humans to play with that you can relate to (and have fun with).

[2] There's a voting system - 93% of all votes are positive.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is why I migrated to Dota 2. The general population is more mature, and there are simply less situations in the game which induces rage. What I am talking about?

\- The fact that you can pause the game, and wait for someone to reconnect, so you won't lose a game because someone kicked his reset button.

\- When someone is AFK the gold is shared amongst the other players.

\- You can control the disconnected person's hero.

These and a thousand tiny other little touches makes Dota 2 a better community to be in.

</comment><comment><USER12> The problem is that Riot's implementations have completely failed at solving the problem.

By promoting reporting now a lot of the abuse has turned into threatening to report each other. Where before new players would be called shit. Now they are threatened for being bad. There is actually a report option for reporting a new player.. this makes many new players give up because they feel it is against the rules to have no idea what they are doing.

The Tribunal while a nice idea doesn't work. Riot's implementation has a rating system where judges are ranked based on their accuracy. That means many people punish based on what they think other people are doing instead of making their own decision. On each case there is no requirement to spend a specific time looking at it. No requirement to read all the text. I know people who punish every case without reading and run at 90% accuracy on the league table.

Another issue with the tribunal is that it punishes for almost anything. If you say GG after 9 minutes... its punishable. If end the game saying gg easy... its punishable. Combine this with the fact that enemies can report you without specifying a reason means a percentage of players who get punished shouldn't be in the tribunal to begin with. Combine this with terrible support... getting unpunished means going on Reddit and hoping a Riot employee spots it..

At best Riot have shifted the problem from verbal abuse to threatening to report. At worst they have failed completely.

The two main flash points are before you can play ranked games and have a new account. The second one is in champion select...

If you are banned you make a new account. If you want a second account you make a new account. This means the game for new players is incredibly toxic. About 50% of new players are people on smurf's or banned players leveling. This leads to a lot of frustration when you have a 20 death ally on your team. There are a bunch of things they could do.

1\. Add a tip pointing out a mute button exists... It took me 80 games of randomly being shit on before someone told me about the mute button. If someone starts to spout abuse I just click the ignore button. Problem sorted.

2\. They could give headstart smurf accounts to people who tick an option saying they are experienced players. This would help noobie players play against each other and have a soft intro to the game.

3\. They could improve the tutorial so players actually start with some idea of what they are doing.

4\. They could make the early climb on new accounts start versus bots to force people to actually get a feel for the game before throwing them into PvP

All 4 solutions would ease the problem new users are facing.

Another issue is in games where 2 or more people want to play the same position while picking champions. A lot of people say 'mid or feed'. They want the mid position. If they don't get it they will repeatedly let the enemy kill them in game...

Simple solutions...

1\. Implement a dice in champion select to allow people to roll for the same position.

2\. Simply add a line of text when people enter champion select that position is given in order. If you are first pick you have first pick of position. It is up to you if you want to give it up.

There isn't a single tip that says "if you ally is having a hard time in lane, consider aiding them rather than criticizing them."

The attitude of league at the moment is "if you playing bad you are spoiling my game and I will abuse / threaten to report you for it."

When you actually take the effort to communicate with your team and your team actually aids weaker players the mood in games greatly improves. The trouble is that Riot provides little guidance on doing this.

For all their research the implementations based on the research sucks.

<comment><USER13> There are a couple of points I'd have to disagree with you. \- Firstly, I'd bet that several report options, especially the "unskilled player" one, are just placebo that do nothing, and provides the upset player a scapegoat to fire on, without negatively affect anything. A rather nice solution actually.

\- There IS a minimum time requirement that you have to spend on each case (90 seconds, I think). People who punishes every case and run 90% accuracy on the league table could mean that, the priori of a player getting to Tribunal being banned is 90%. Which means that the automate system that put up Tribunal cases are doing a great job! Of course there could be other explanation. But I recalled Riots used to have a "pardon day" that they actively asked banned player to post in a thread, so that a human will actively review the cases. I don't think more than a dozen accounts were really edge cases.

\- There are an option when you create new account to choose which type of players you are (there were 3 of them: new to MOBA, new to League, experienced, I think). I don't think it helped the smurf situation at all. The type of players that are banned would be more likely to be the type of players that like to "pwn" new players.

\- There are a tip that says "Your teammate performs worse if you harass them"

\- Adding the dice roll for the game is infeasible, for the reason that the metagame's roles (top, ad, support, mid, and even the jungle in the past) are created by the players, not Riot. Unlike WOW, in which roles (tank, healer, dps) are specifically designed by Blizzard, the roles in League are strongly defined by the metagame at the time. It's not that Riot doesn't design a champion with a specific set of characteristics in mind, it's just that the range of role a champion can do varies quite a bit: in WoW, a dps trying to tank will be killed in half a second. In League, we used to have mainstream range AD mid, tanky mid, caster mid, assassin AD mid, teemo mid etc. There's no way to meaningfully classify "roles" or even "lanes" position properly - who knows if one day we might have 1 - 3 - 1 laning like dota?

<comment><USER14> From memory, the Unskilled Player report option just tweaked their matchmaking a little.

<comment><USER15> It doesn't even do that, these days. It's there to let assholes vent their rage while not filling up the queue with useless reports.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I play about 3 - 4 games of league per day and have over 3000 games played. My personal solution is to try and be the same as I would be face to face. Occasionally, I do get toxic and call someone an "idiot" but I never use stronger language than that. I enjoyed the presentation and it looks like Riot has some smart people actively working on problems. My only lament is the lack of smart people working in customer support. I've never been treated so badly as a paying customer. With 108MM players, I wonder how much I have to spend to get good customer support? Maybe it doesn't matter to Riot if they treat paying customers badly? I'll never know. Riot isn't getting any more of my money. I have other friends that spent at least twice as much as I have and they just won't play anymore simply because of a negative customer support experience. It doesn't take a PhD to know that paying customers make your business successful.

</comment><comment> floody-berry Even though MOBAs are inherent breeding grounds for trolls due to the captive nature of the game, Riot has done themselves (and everyone else) no favors in how they've dealt with things. For a game that was released in 2009 they've done an astonishingly bad job at working from the start to prevent things that _anyone_ who had played multiplayer games in the past 10 years could've predicted.

Even now they seem more interested in allowing and studying the behavior than preventing it. Combine that with their poor-to-completely-dysfunctional matchmaking and the total lack of incentive to even play when your next 20-60 minutes are held hostage by a troll (whether it's on your team, the enemy team intentionally provoking things since forcing opponents to rage or afk is a valid "strategy", or both) and it's hard to take them seriously on toxic players.

</comment><comment><USER17> My favorite moment in this whole saga was when they started giving awards for being marked as pleasant/helpful by other people. Players were pretty religious about being quiet and saying 'gg' for the first couple weeks- they were grinding awards.

It wore off.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is fascinating! And they don't even talk about their last point "showing what is good, encouraging good behavior" but they now have a "honor" system where you can give other players badges for their good behavior. They now have that as well in CS:GO and Dota2. And it's working.

I was surprised to see a complete shift of attitude, and I think this was the most efficient point (too bad they didn't talk about it). People now say GG before and after every game, it actually looks really superficial, like they're only being brown nose to get good badges.

<comment><USER19> I don't play LoL or CS:GO or DOTA2, but I do play a lot of Call of Duty (yeah, yeah I know, real gamers look down their noses at COD players -- I play mostly because it is what my IRL friends play online and it is a great way to socialize with them regularly).

The idea of the wider player community deciding who is or isn't an honorable/good player is absolutely terrifying as a COD/FPS player where large swaths of the community think you're a "n00b camper" if you play the game even slightly strategically. Every FPS I've played (as far back as Doom LAN on PCs) has been like this where the game supports many different weapons and play styles but community majority tends to decide what small subset of those are "good" play, and which are "cheap", "overpowered", etc.

So... meeh, I personally am not a huge fan of the player community being in charge of this stuff. YMMV depending upon which games you play and the average maturity of their community, I suppose.

<comment><USER18> LoL is a PC game, thus the community is more mature. But I don't think that's the reason the Tribunal is working.

If you take a look at it, it's really well made. It uses gamification, it rewards you with riot points (that you usually have to spend real coins to get!) and is apart from the game. By that I mean that when you're in the Tribunal, it has nothing to do with the game. It's like another game where the goal is to be wise and good.

Also many players have to decide whether or not the player is getting a ban. And as someone else said here, you rarely see players complaining when they don't deserve it.

> I personally am not a huge fan of the player community being in charge of > this stuff.

It's either that or robots that would do it. The playerbase is way too big to pay people to do this job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Started playing LoL when the Mac Client came out beginning of last month, and have played an unhealthy amount since. The systems in place are nice (and I appreciate them and take advantage of them), but there are of course still those toxic players. Thankfully it's super easy to hit a mute button and never hear them again! But that requires the player to know about the feature and have the willpower to use it instead of responding in kind (as is often the case). Once I started muting toxic players my quality of gaming skyrocketed.

</comment><comment><USER21> Why doesn't LoL just disable public chat? Enable chat for premades, that's it. If you're playing with your own friends you can chat. If you're playing with randoms, you don't get chat. Toxic behavior gone and people can actually, you know, play the game. The purpose is to play the game, not use it as 1998 AOL Chat Room.

<comment><USER22> In a game like this, you need to cooperate, even with randoms. They now introduced a ping-system where you can select specific pings via a radial menu, which makes it possible to signal missing enemies to your team and warn players in specific situations. But even that system, as great as i think it is, lacks some signals. For example, how to communicate that the ping before was a mistake by using pings alone? You couldn't signal the basics needed for this game without writing.

Also, if you want to help a player with a build or talk about the bigger strategy, you normally need to talk to your team. Not being able to do that could lead to frustrations and harm the game even more than the occasional insult does right now.

How to sort out champion selection before the game without a chat?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It looks to me that the answer was to disable chat by default in all games. I like this a lot in console games, for example in Dark Souls summoned players bow to one another (or use other gestures), but for a PC game that's based on team work this is just giving up.

</comment><comment><USER24> Feedback doesn't always indicate what he said.

If there was cross team chat and someone voted Honourable Opponent doesn't mean it was positive cross team chat.</comment>