Zombie physics: Baffling results that won't die - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/zombie-physics-6-baffling-results-that-just-won-t-die-1.18685 <comment><USER3> One not on the list: possible influence of solar neutrinos on nuclear decay rates. I'm not sure of the current state of this research, but last I heard 4 years ago it was still an un-resolved question.

[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html](http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html)

<comment><USER4> Here's a recent summary ...

> Concerning the variability of beta-decay measurements

> (Submitted on 20 Oct 2015)

> Many experiments have been carried out to study the beta-decay rates of a > variety of nuclides, and many - but not all - of these experiments yield > evidence of variability of these rates. While there is as yet no accepted > theory to explain patterns in the results, a number of conjectures have been > proposed. We discuss three prominent conjectures (which are not mutually > exclusive) - that variability of beta-decay rates may be due to (a) > environmental influences, (b) solar neutrinos, and (c) cosmic neutrinos. We > find evidence in support of each of these conjectures.

[http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05996](http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05996)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can someone explain why the CMB map in the first image is so suggestively annotated? The original looks far more isotropic: [http://bit.ly/1MBURTA](http://bit.ly/1MBURTA)

<comment><USER3> To demonstrate the strange fluctuations. They just used a different colormap than "the original" (which, by the way, is just one more popular colormap chosen to represent the data).

Don't worry though, this isn't just an artifact of the colormap. There's been work done to show that the hot and cold spots are statistically anomalous, thus this Nature article.

<comment><USER5> Hmm. The official source says "In this image the anomalous regions have been enhanced with red and blue shading to make them more clearly visible." ([http://bit.ly/1MBXXHg](http://bit.ly/1MBXXHg))

That sounds a bit more than a different colormap :)

Also, can't we explain the dipolar variation with some motion in some direction we haven't accounted for (in our local cluster for instance)? I imagine that quadrupole and octopole variations are harder to explain through motion.

<comment><USER6> >Also, can't we explain the dipolar variation with some motion in some direction we haven't accounted for (in our local cluster for instance)? I imagine that quadrupole and octopole variations are harder to explain through motion.

As far as I know that shouldn't be the case. There's no standard frame of reference with respect to which you can move, so for nearly all intents and purposes the earth might as well be standing still. There's also not really any way to 'move' with respect to the CMB; it's always the same time (i.e. distance) away. And at the time of it's creation particles were (presumably) moving in random directions at random speed, with no specific average (or if you want to be precise, with a Lorentz invariant speed distribution).

Searching for 'CMB Lorentz violation' does turn up a few results, but most of those seem to be pure conjecture, I couldn't find any experimental evidence either way.

<comment><USER5> > There's no standard frame of reference with respect to which you can move

But a Doppler shift from the Earth's motion would create a dipolar pattern in the CMB wavelengths. I mean there is an obvious dipole in the CMB due to the solar system's motion ([http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March05/Scott/Scott2.html](http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March05/Scott/Scott2.html)). I just wondered if we're neglecting the motion of some local cluster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hypothetically, if there are sentient critters composed of dark matter, would black holes be a total mystery to them? Since we only really interact with dark matter gravitationally, would they just see inexplicable gravitational point-masses with absolutely nothing there to cause them?

<comment><USER5> They would still 'see' gravitationally active stars turning into black holes. They would infer a form of anomalous radiation from seeing the stars collapsing, and they would guess that there are other fields that interact with this other form of matter.

<comment><USER7> That's assuming that there are DM stars in the same place that our stars are (which is probably a safe assumption to make, if DM stars exist at all.)

<comment><USER8> A particle that interacts only with gravity can not make a star.

<comment><USER7> I'm hypothesizing that dark matter can interact with itself, just as our matter can interact with itself.

<comment><USER8> It's more complicated than that. Think about it from an energy point of view - if it interacts with something it makes (transforms) energy.

Where does that energy go? Normal particles get hot and make blackbody radiation, i.e. photons.

Dark matter can't. Does it have a temperature? Can temperature flow between the particles? Without blackbody radiation you are going to have some violations of the laws of thermodynamics.

Unless dark matter has some other particle to act as an equivalent. So you are hypothesizing an entire family of dark matter particles, and a whole set of new forces.

Two entire universes each with entire sets of particles, that only interact via gravity. We could have a second sun and a second earth, that overlap us and never know it, we would just think that the gravitational constant is different (because our perceived mass is higher).

Sounds like a wonderful setting for a science fiction/horror story.

<comment><USER7> There was a story on HN not too long ago about a proposed Dark QCD - <USER2> different kinds of Dark Matter, Dark Chemistry, etc., a whole "parallel universe" of Dark Matter.

And yup, my friends and I have been brainstorming story ideas all morning!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was relieved to find nature.com and real physics here. My immediate assumption was that this was going to be clickbait about perpetual motion and such.

</comment><comment><USER10> I remain pretty convinced by the argument in [http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.5501](http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.5501) that DAMA is not seeing dark matter.

</comment><comment><USER11> We are seven billion intelligent beings, with significant resources, intelligence, and motivation, and we still don't fully understand "reality".

That is just humbling.

<comment><USER12> Why should it be easy for us to understand the system that (we assume) gave rise to us? In fact, there are numerous arguments via things like Godel's theorem that it _should be hard by definition_ to understand one's "container."

<comment><USER13> I'm curious to hear about those arguments.

My intuition tells me that what makes it hard is that if you are part of the system trying to understand the full system, you must change the system in order to observe it. In effect, you can never have a perfect model of the system because the system will always be affected by the model you build.

<comment><USER12> I'd suggest googling Godel's incompleteness theorem for starters. It proves that within any given system of rules there exist valid theorems that cannot be reached by only logical 'graph traversal' of the state space represented by that system. All systems of rules have 'islands of unreachable truth' within them. (My attempt at a summary.)

A lot of people maybe read _too much_ into it, but it's a very interesting and profound theorem. Among other things it more or less proved that attempts to logically deduce all possible theorems of mathematics from axioms -- which were popular at the time -- are futile because this is impossible. It's related in some ways to the Church-Turing thesis, which also proved such efforts impossible by showing that the halting problem is not solvable... you could never enumerate all the theorems of mathematics because it's impossible to tell if you're done.

<comment><USER14> Pragmatic implications of Godel's theorem are that by extension it is possible to derive ambiguities in any formal system. And as to the possibility of formulating a 'general theory of everything' it's good to remember that the one thing a knife can't cut is itself. Attempt 'Gnothi Seauton' as the old Greeks put it. Meaning understand self before seriously attempting to employ received cognitive analytical functionalities to understand other stuff. But then Kantean musings about what it is that's doing the understanding crop up, which can go on forever.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Language Construction Kit - <AUTHOR> http://www.zompist.com/kit.html

<comment><USER2> I read the book just about as soon as it came out. It's really a great read, even if you aren't interested in creating a language. The author's understanding of linguistics is just amazing. I don't think you could possibly read the book and not learn something.

<comment><USER3> Is the book a lot better than the website? Could you give us a taste of the additional content?

<comment><USER2> I haven't browsed the website in a very long time, so I'm afraid I really can't. I heard about the book from somewhere (probably HN), remembered how awesome the site was when I browsed it years ago, ordered it, and devoured it. Didn't really bother re-checking the website since I was getting the book. Sorry I can't be more help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I came across this page (and Zompist's website) about five years ago. It has quite literally changed my life - it introduced me to a hobby where intellectual games are pursued for their own sake, and a community of people who discussed ideas rather than what was on tv last night. Another great resource is the zompist bulletin board, at <http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/> \- it's where the community is.

Although I've since moved on to programming and engineering, I owe a big debt to zompist. So long, and thanks for all the ideas!

</comment><comment><USER5> For clarification: This is for human/fantasy languages, not programming languages. :-)

<comment><USER6> Of course, that has not stopped Larry Wall ;)</comment></comment>


Independent author John Locke joins Amazon's million-Kindle-seller club - <AUTHOR> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2011/06/independent-author-john-locke-amazon-million-kindle-seller-cost.html

<comment><USER2> Shockingly naive article. "If he sold one million books at $100 each he would make so much more! What is he thinking?" Uh, maybe no one would buy his books if he charged more? Perhaps he's an intelligent man and has experimented with different prices? Perhaps the author of the article should have asked him?

</comment><comment><USER3> This piece is bizarre because the author never once acknowledges that it's possible Locke could _not_ sell a million of his books the conventional way. In other words, the author never acknowledges that Locke may have made _less money_ with a traditional publisher.

</comment><comment><USER4> > Locke makes less money with his 99-cent gambit than he would selling the > same number of books with a traditional publisher.

It's like nobody has ever heard of a supply/demand curve.

<comment><USER5> Well she does say "the same number of books with". It's the implicit assumption that he'd sell the same number of books that is faulty, not the text itself.

<comment><USER4> It's the assumption I'm finding fault with, though. Why include it? It's entirely unreasonable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This title made me do two double-takes.

My first thought: "Are people are buying public domain philosophy works as Kindle books?" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke>

My second thought: "Is somebody writing as Locke as a reference to Ender's Game?"

</comment><comment><USER7> >If he sold a million Kindle e-books at 99 cents, he'd clear $346,500 -- nice work if you can get it. But if he were working with a traditional publisher, that $346,500 might be a lot closer to $1 million.

If there's an "if" in every one of your hypothetical sentences, it's probably not an argument worth pursuing.

</comment><comment><USER8> This article fails to bring several factors into its economic model. It should be about incentives and demand elasticity here - the "steepness" of the demand curve.

According to the article, he recieves $0.35 from a Kindle sale, and ~$2 from a traditional book sale. In this case, he would need to sell (2/0.35) = 5.7 times as many Kindle books as traditional books to be neutral between the options. To get the equivalent incentive from traditional books, he would need to sell ~175,000 traditional books.

Since he offers both physical and Kindle editions for his books, the question becomes, did ~175,000 customers purchase the Kindle book who normally would have purchased the physical book? Probably not, IMO.

So basically, it sounds like Locke actually knows what he's doing - he's driven by monetary incentives and his arrangement has more-or-less maximized his proceeds.

</comment><comment><USER9> It will be interesting to see how sustainable his success is. I bought one of his books for $0.99, well below my impulse buy threshold, and found it to be worth about that. It wasn't a really bad book, but it wasn't much better than what you find in a college creative writing class.

<comment><USER10> Have you read Steig Larsson or Dan Brown? Poor writing skills don't disqualify one from selling millions of books at a much higher price point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Was the author employed by a traditional publisher to discredit the Kindle business model?

<comment><USER12> No, but the PR person who sent in the article probably was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So, is it known for sure that Amazon did not cut him a special deal? It might be rational to incent a "hot" author to offer up a good deal on an exclusive in the Kindle marketplace. Perhaps he got to keep a much higher percentage?

</comment><comment><USER14> Oh, I was thinking it might be the 17th Century English philosopher.

</comment><comment><USER15> The gatekeepers are angry, and they are experiencing major cognitive dissonance.</comment>


Lawyerd Defends IP Rights in GameDev - <AUTHOR> http://lawyerd.net/ <comment><AUTHOR> Lawyerd!is an online platform that allows you to automatically block sites that violate your copyrights in relation to your product on the Internet. Lawyerd! formulates complaint, finds responsible hosting provider, makes screenshot, attached vital documents and send all these to authorized agent in 10 seconds. Just specify the necessary information about your product and put the link on an infringing site.

Find here the link on the description of how to use Lawyerd! [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VY_mbcOHzW0His- IuW4Y6D-pcVL...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VY_mbcOHzW0His- IuW4Y6D-pcVL31_xw/view)</comment>


Meet the Angry Birds new happy bird - <AUTHOR> http://www.facebook.com/angrybirds

<comment><AUTHOR> I like his ability but... its not angry!</comment>


iPhone Killer: The Secret History of the Apple Watch - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/04/the-apple-watch/ <comment><USER2> Everyone is so negative here. It sounds to me like a lot of people are making judgements without personal experience. I'll admit, I thought some of the same things before I got a pebble (which I originally bought just for development).

Having notifications on your wrist is actually really great. Being able to decide if that buzz is important now or not is actually useful, and it absolutely isn't more detrimental to being with people and having conversations.

Perhaps you don't get your phone out for every buzz, but you probably do at least check it most of the time when someone is calling you. Seeing who it is on your wrist and deciding if it can wait is much faster, more seamless, and less of an intrusion.

It may not be worth as much as this costs, certainly for a lot of people, but it absolutely is a great feature. The Apple Watch is also far more powerful than the pebble, and it looks much better too (to be fair the steel pebbles don't look bad, the original though...). It will be interesting to see if there is ANOTHER killer app in addition to the notifications that the more power enables.

<comment><USER3> For you, perhaps.

For me, I feel like I need fewer notifications in my life. The more I can batch tasks together the more time I can spend in deep, interrupted though. The trend towards being more connected more often has benefits but drawbacks as well.

<comment><USER4> The key element here is that the short glance allows the wearer to decide whether or not to act upon a notification.

I open my phone to do one thing, and end up doing something else -- for twenty minutes. I'm looking forward to the watch as a way to minimize my phone usage and simplify my interactions.

<comment><USER5> Chopping up the interruptions and making them shorter does not reduce the context change and mental swapping load.

This is the basic HCI problem everyone is ignoring about watches. It doesn't make the problem better -- it may even make it worse.

The key to managing your notifications better is... wait for it... not looking at your phone constantly.

<comment><USER4> Fair point.

I think when it comes to getting side-tracked, it's partly to do with the current 'pull' model of going into the phone for information, vs a 'push' model of the information coming to you. Though, as you point out, either is distracting and self-discipline is the real answer to staying focused.

The critical thing there will be managing what notifications you get, and which you silence. This is why iOS 8 made such a big change in the way notification permissions are handled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As an aside, the user experience on this page is absolutely atrocious:

1\. The title font is nigh-unreadable.

2\. It took me several seconds to figure out that my browser hadn't frozen when I encountered the first big image in between 'chapters.'

3\. Every time a pull quote starts animating in, my scrolling stutters.

Seriously, Wired, you have one job: show me content (and ads, admittedly, which is arguably what I'm reading), and then get out of my way. No browser stutters, no illegible headlines, no confusing 1920x1080px images. Just content.

<comment><USER7> I actually thoroughly enjoyed the entire reading experience.

1\. Opinion. I had no problem, but to each his own.

2\. I will admit that the full-size images hung around for a little too long.

3\. Did not encounter this issue.

In my opinion, the methods of presentation (including the lack of ads) complemented the pleasure of my reading experience.

<comment><USER6> Regarding fonts: true, but I'm clearly not the only person who holds this opinion, as evinced by [https://twitter.com/search?q=Wired%20font%20-google&src=typd](https://twitter.com/search?q=Wired%20font%20-google&src=typd)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow, Apple is really working the press on the Apple Watch rollout. It's got to be tough for a journalist to write the kind of stories. Great access, but you are basically just repeating whatever talking points the company wants to put out.

<comment><USER9> Welcome to Wired. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I take the core of the article to be (paraphrased): "Your phone is ruining your life. You're subject to the tyranny of its notifications. You want a less obtrusive way to check your notifications."

A few problems with that:

1\. Understand that Jonny Ive and the movers and shakers at Apple probably get an order of magnitude more notifications than most people do. They are, after all, important people with lots of scheduling and lots of communication. My phone isn't ruining my life. I don't get a notification every few minutes.

2\. Android Wear is a notification device. We've seen how people like Android Wear: they think, eh, it's okay. What is going to make Apple Watch different? The people I know with Android smartwatches aren't saying, "Oh, god, I almost love this but if only the watch were prettier," or "If only the UI were a little more polished." They're saying, "It's nice to be able to get notifications on my wrist, but it's not a life-changer and it isn't worth hundreds of dollars."

3\. And part of the reason for #2 is that if you're really getting lots of meaningful notifications, you're going to want to act on some of them, and the watch form factor is just _fundamentally bad_ for acting on anything.

As long as smartwatches are just notification devices, they're inessential peripherals that probably won't get truly popular until they're sub-$100.

If there is a killer app suited to the watch form factor, it hasn't made itself known yet, and it may not exist. Or it might exist and just be hard to find. I think there are surprisingly few really killer apps on the smartphone form factor -- the only one that I think genuinely fits the bill is Uber and its competitors.

EDIT: As several people have pointed out, the browser, messaging, navigation, and camera of the smartphones are definitely killer apps, and are what made the smartphones obviously useful from day one. I agree with that and just left that context out. My comments about Uber are more to do with "new things that you can only do on a smartphone that weren't there on day one, that are also genuinely useful." There are remarkably few apps like that on the smartphone. I think that smartwatches are in trouble because the stuff that's there on day one isn't very compelling (look at notifications), and evidence suggests that it's very hard to create all-new highly compelling apps that aren't obvious on day one.

<comment><USER11> For me, and I hate all sorts of smart objects with a passion, a smartphone's killer apps (that is, what makes me own the hateful thing) are:

* GPS navigation (when I drive - or walk somewhere abroad)

* Camera

* WhatsApp (glorified SMSes, yeah, with the drawback of those damned groups - but, well, it works much better for messaging)

* Email (occasionally, not happy occasions since it sucks for email)

* Web (same reservations as email)

* The hateful parking app that still beats pushing coins into parking ticket machines

That's a lot of stuff for someone not really liking these things.

Since a smart watch is too small to do all these things and a tablet does nothing I really need on top of these things, and none of these things sufficiently better to justify its larger size, I hope there won't be a compelling reason to own either. A phone however has just the right form factor because I can now not have all those other things (a camera, a GPS navigator, a tablet/laptop, small change for bloody parking machines, etc.) without having to carry a bag with some device (and I used to walk around with a small bag but things get stolen from such bags unfortunately; so now I walk around with a wallet in one pocket and a smartphone in another like an idiot.)

<comment><USER10> Sorry, I was too concise for my own good. I agree with you, all those things are essential on a smartphone. What I was trying to say, and this was unclear, was: if you look at stuff that wasn't on the phone from day one, that genuinely came as a third-party app, the one that I think is a killer app for, say, greater than 30% of everyone is Uber or Uber-alikes.

Messaging, navigation, and camera are all great to have. We knew that from day one.

<comment><USER11> Agreed, to an extent, though you underestimate the hateful parking app :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The problem is that there is very little that you can do with a <=1" screen apart from check the time.

I think the reason everybody is working so hard on smart watches is in case somebody else comes up with an actual use case for them, they want to be ready to implement it.

<comment><USER13> I'm surprised at everyone's insistence that smartwatches ape the physical sizes and shapes of traditional watches. It strikes me not unlike past insistence that smartphones needed to have physical keyboards and removable batteries.

Every declared and hypothetical use for a smartwatch would be better-served with a larger screen. Something this side of a pip-boy, to be sure, but at least twice as wide as the display on the Apple Watch. (Increased internal volume for battery would more than make up for increased screen size.)

If everyone was still wearing watches, trying to slide in on familiarity might make _some_ sense. But watches have been on the decline since even basic cell phones began to spread. I understand you have to make something people are willing to wear. But making it familiar, at a cost to its ability to do _everything_ people might want it for, is a short-sighted mistake.

<comment><USER14> Great point. Current smart watches have zero appeal to me. But, if they started to move towards a curved, wider forearm band (similar to a QB arm band playbook), a lot of possibilities open up. It'd probably be a tough sell initially from a fashion standpoint though. I did see some mockups that took this approach when the Apple rumors first started flying.

<comment><USER15> At that point you could just strap your smartphone to your arm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> So the solution to be more "present with the people around you" is to have you look at your wrist every two seconds, rather than just keep your phone in your pocket and look at the messages in 15 minutes ?

That's just bullshit. This will make people even _less_ present, because they'll be even _more_ tightly connected to the invisible communication happening while you're talking to them.

Had my phone running out of batteries today for the first time in months, while i was waiting for someone, and so i ended up just looking at streets and nature around me, doing nothing. _That_ is how you feel more present and aware of your surrounding.

We all know trends are like pendulum. One day, one generation will be fed up with digital overcommunication, and will get back to less invasive technology. I'm looking forward to that day.

<comment><USER17> >This will make people even less present, because they'll be even more tightly connected to the invisible communication happening while you're talking to them.

This is an insightful prediction I hadn't considered. People oftentimes have their phones on silent because they don't want to be bothered at certain times, or can at least ignore some intermittent buzzing. The ease of checking your wrist at every buzz will make it more tempting to divert your attention to it. While it may save phone pulls, it will increase distraction from the task at hand. Now not only do I have a choice whether to check the notification, I now know what the notification is and have to decide whether to act on it or not. Surely that added multitasking will make it more difficult to concentrate.

Just like studies they've done on emails, it's better to let them pile up for a period without notification than to quickly glance at each incoming email. People are just better at concentrating on one thing.

<comment><USER18> I suppose the different types of 'buzzes' might make it easy enough to ignore most notifications without looking, but it remains to be seen if this is how it actually works.

I do think over time we'll learn to deal with these kinds of things. Already we're (slowly) developing etiquette about how we deal with phone notifications, but especially initially it seems people are slaves to the whims of new inventions.

I've seen this pattern with 'regular' phones, for example. In holland I grew up with very clear etiquette of how to communicate by phone. Generally speaking, you pick up and say your name, then the other person says their name, and then you talk. You also don't generally call during dinner time, very early in the morning, or during the night. That this isn't 'natural' behavior became apparent to me when I lived in a country where phones were kind of novel. People would just call each other up at random times and start talking without introducing themselves, causing frequent miscommunication.

Perhaps the apple watch will function in such a way that it 'coaxes' users into better behavior. I certainly hope so. Otherwise, it will just take time for society to develop a proper relationship with our attention-grabbing devices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > "Lynch is leaning forward in his chair, telling me about his kids: about how > grateful he is to be able to simply glance at his Watch, realize that the > latest text message isn't immediately important, and then go right back to > family time; about how that doesn't feel disruptive to him—or them."

I'm sorry, but how in the world is this any different than the Pebble, Sony, and Android Wear smartwatches that came before it? I mean, I get that the iPhone revolutionized the smartphone; I had a Treo 650 when the iPhone was released, and while I still miss the Treo to this day, I can readily admit the iPhone took the concept in new and better directions.

But the Apple Watch doesn't bring anything new to the table. Yes, it's a hybrid Fitbit/Smartwatch...but so is the Microsoft Band. Which, by the way, works with all three major phone OSes; the Apple Watch works with the iPhone only, because of course it does.

I guess I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Yes, the iPod was a revolutionary device, the iPhone even more so, and the iPad can be thanked for all the great (and not so great) Android and Windows tablets out there now. But in this case it's the Apple Watch that is the also-ran, the follower...not the innovator.

<comment><USER20> It's integrated with iOS at a level no other device will ever be because Apple makes it. If you are interested in a smart watch and have an iPhone there is a very strong argument for the Apple Watch over everything else.

Will that be enough to make these kind of devices more popular? I'm not sure, I'm interested to see what happens.

<comment><USER19> I think Apple sees the differentiation (besides the fashion options) in offering Apple Pay. But, last I read there were some real world issues with it that plague all the other mobile payment options out there:

[http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/04/like-all-mobile- wallets...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/04/like-all-mobile-wallets- before-it-apple-pay-struggles-with-retailers/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm glad Apple was so thoughtful with their UX. However, I think the appeal of quality watches is their timelessness and endurance. They could conceivably work just as well centuries from now. The iWatch can't work more than a day without intervention (charging).

<comment><USER22> And because it's a slave device, will it still work with my iPhone23? Or am I expected to buy a new watch every three years?

<comment><USER23> iTunes 10.7 user here (the last version before that crappy redesign). iTunes 10.7 is now 2.5 years old. Since yesterday I cannot access my iTunes account details anymore. App just keeps asking for my password again and again.

Don't expect your watch to have support for more than 2 years.

<comment><USER24> What if you update it ? Software sometimes requires some crucial back-end changes and can't be supported to infinity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> >Along the way, the Apple team landed upon the Watch's raison d'être. It came down to this: Your phone is ruining your life.

Well, don't let it.

But seriously, how do they think the watch is going to be any different? You get a tweet, you interrupt your conversation with the person next to you to look at your wrist. You've just disconnected from the world and been rude to someone.

<comment><USER26> I some ways it would be more rude. Looking at a watch while with someone traditionally sends a different message (I'm bored) then looking a phone which is just disrespectful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Also an iPhone killer: the Wired website, or at least that article.

<comment><USER8> It also has those weird fixed full page photos. You need to scroll past them, but there's a point where you are moving the scroll wheel and literally nothing happens, and you need to keep scrolling. Very disconcerting.

<comment><USER28> Poorly done parallax scrolling. You'd think they would have learned by now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> That is a weird headline. So a device that is an accessory to an iphone and needs an iphone for full functionality is an iphone killer?

<comment><USER30> Not implausible -- the first iPods & iPhones were accessories to desktop computers that needed desktop computers for full functionality, but now they and their descendants are independent and displacing desktops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> So much marketing, so little time for people to get reasonable answers to questions such as: Why _exactly_ do I need an overpriced watch that I need to charge every day and replace every few years? A watch which does much less than my phone. To send taps and heartbeats? Seriously?

Call me a whiner but I really think there are much bigger problems to solve and it's kinda sad to watch Apple do something... _because growth and expectations_.

Anyway, I hope they find the problem for their solution.

<comment><USER32> Apple hasn't stopped everything they are doing to make the Apple Watch. They are a very large company with significant resources. Is trying to tackle payments (Apple Pay), home automation (HomeKit), computing (OSX/Macs), mobile (iOS/iPhones/iPad), music (Beats), video (AppleTV) etc not big enough problems ?

And Tim Cook has made it clear that he sees health as one of the defining issues of our generation and the Apple Watch is his first attempt at it. You really want to argue with that ?

<comment><USER31> You missed HealthKit. HealthKit is something that solves a real problem. Having all your health data stored in one place, that's something that makes sense.

Apple Watch is Not a health device and I fall short of imagination seeing it as a health device. The first attempt? If they really wanted to create a health device, they would have certainly done so, it's not like they don't have the resources. If they really wanted to create a health device they would have created a device which measures blood pressure, body temperature, does blood count tests, etc. Not a watch that counts steps and sends taps and heartbeats.

<comment><USER33> Apparently Apple tried to make Watch a better health device with some of those features.

But the technology just isn't there yet - at least not in a watch form factor.

Obviously a med-lab on your wrist would be a killer device. Unfortunately Watch isn't it.

<comment><USER31> Exactly my point. The technology is there (e.g. [1]) but not in watch form factor. It doesn't need to be, and nobody wants a med lab on his wrist. That's why the Watch is not a health device and saying it's the first step/attempt is just blah blah marketing.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The best approach here is to keep an open mind. Yes it's hard to imagine this being a must have device, but it was hard to understand what Apple was onto with the iPhone until you held it in your hand and lived with it.

Significantly new/different products or services often surprise once they are actually used and can easily be better, or worse, that what they seem on paper.

I have been running Watch apps in the simulator and still don't feel enough of the experience to form a final opinion.

<comment><USER10> It absolutely was not hard to understand the iPhone until you held it in your hand. I mean, obviously you didn't get the full experience until you... got the full experience.

But my experience was that everyone I met was like, "Oh, yeah, obviously that would be a great phone to have." They may have followed up with, "But I can't cope with AT&T," or "But it's too expensive for me," or "But I want a physical keyboard," but nobody doubted that there was a fundamental value proposition there.

<comment><USER18> Much as this is also just anecdotal, my experience was the opposite. Most people thought the iPhone looked 'kinda cool' but 1) thought it was too expensive, and 2) didn't see any reason to switch away from their dumb- or feature phone. I even remember being a bit embarrassed pulling out my iPhone (which was already the 3GS at that point) in public because it felt a bit 'geeky'.

And then over night everyone was using them in public.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> That's not how drop caps work.

</comment><comment><USER36> I don't think a watch will solve the problem that Apple's trying to solve with it. If anything, notifications on your wrist will probably be even more distracting than a phone in your pocket.

<comment><USER37> From my own experience - owning a Pebble - I find that the notifications aren't actually distracting. I'm able to completely put my phone away, which means I'm less tempted to Twitter/Facebook/HN apps, but comforted in that I'm able to see if anyone has called/texted me for an emergency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> "Also, it hurt. Seriously: Try holding up your arm as if you're looking at your watch. Now count to 30." My analysis of the muscles involved in holding up a watch here: [http://tumbledry.org/2015/01/08/apple_watchs_wrist_position](http://tumbledry.org/2015/01/08/apple_watchs_wrist_position)

</comment><comment><USER39> I find myself wanting one just for the health monitoring aspects but I don't really have any interest in wearing a watch on my wrist and am even less interested in it as a fashion statement.

Would it work to wear one around the ankle?

</comment><comment><USER40> The whole page is very difficult to navigate.

</comment><comment><USER41> Forget the watch form factor; I want one in the shape of an arm bracer. At least the size will be useful.

</comment><comment><USER42> "Your phone is ruining your life"...so here's a gadget you can wear on your wrist that will connect to it and deliver you the same notifications your phone does, only on your wrist.

No, phones aren't ruining people's lives. People are ruining people's lives. Companies demanding that employees be accessible all day every day, inside and outside of the office, is ruining some people's lives. Their phones are merely a tool for some people to ruin other people's lives with and that issue is not resolved by moving the notification delivery to one's wrist.

I am an average person, I'm not bombarded with notifications. I get messages from my girlfriend fairly regularly, some texts from friends, and email that is at best not urgent, and worst just junk packaged up in a more pretty manner that I've somehow not unsubscribed from.

I can't help but see smartwatches as a fad gadget with no longevity and I'm struggling to see a real use case for them. The big focus is on "Health". Omg, you can track how many steps you've taken today?! Or your heartbeat?! Wow, that's going to make me turn around and get my life in order, right?!

Well, the (presumably) massive amount of Fitbits and other wearable fitness trackers abandoned on people's shelves would indicate otherwise. Ok, a small percentage of people will actually use these things regularly, but for most they're a fad that will inevitably sit on a shelf gathering dust as is what happens with the vast majority of sports equipment bought by non-sportspeople.

I don't need to be able to access the weather forecast at a moment's notice, I can look out the window and get a good idea, or I can check out accuweather in the morning and see what they reckon is coming our way for the day.

Maybe I'm just becoming more cynical as I'm getting older (and I'm not old, I'm only approaching 30), but mainstream technology seems to be delivering very little substance these days and a whole lot of trendy, heavily marketed nonsense.

Do I need email on my wrist? No. Whatsapp messages? No. The weather forecast? No. Facebook notifications? Absolutely not. My fitness tracked? No, not really and I'm not going to delude myself into thinking strapping something to my wrist will drastically change my habits.

So what do I want on my wrist? Something that will tell me the time instantly without having to fish out my phone, that will look well as a style accessory and that won't run out of battery within a day if I decide to look at the time more frequently and none of these smartwatches deliver any of that without making large tradeoffs on looks or battery life.

Iphone killer? Certainly not. Even if an Apple Watch could work totally independently, the screen/the medium is not conductive to actually doing anything on it like sending a message or an email.

Let's call it what it is - a fad gadget whose sales will be a testament to its marketing and not due to the value it delivers its users.</comment>


Ask HN: How did you get started with automated stock trading? - <AUTHOR> I've seen quite a few posts here about programmers building their own automated stock trading systems. Virtually everyone seems to have failed, but still looks like a very fun side project.
I do some interday trading on eToro for fun, and would love to give automated trading a go, however no trading broker seems to offer APIs, and I can't find a service that offers me real-time data about the market.
What services did you use? Did you spend lots of money on automated trading solutions that allow scripting? <comment><USER2> Have you checked out [https://www.quantopian.com](https://www.quantopian.com)? It is a fun platform to mess around with and get your feet wet with automated trading.

Edit/Addendum: I noticed they allow live trading after connecting your account with either Interactive Brokers or Robinhood.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very interesting, thanks a lot for sharing!</comment></comment>


Jef Raskin: He thought different. (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2005/tc2005031_2111_tc120.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> One particularly moving passage:

The tech world won't know the final impact of Raskin's work until several more months, perhaps years. At the time of his death, he was working on what he hoped would be his biggest mark yet: a new type of operating system called Archy. Friends and co-workers describe it as his longtime vision of easy-to- use computing brought to life.

Last December, funding from an unnamed international company came through at almost the same time his pancreatic cancer was discovered, and Raskin threw himself into completing the framework of the system in his final months, says David Burstein, who's making a film about Raskin's life and did dozens of interviews with him late last year and early this year.

Raskin was programming up until he could no longer type, about a week ago, says his 21-year-old son, Aza Raskin, who worked with him on Archy for six years. "Jef largely ignored being sick," he says. "He thought it was more important to keep his work going. The only thing that happened was he worked harder if that's possible."</comment>


I Am Retiring at 32. Should've Done It Years Ago - <AUTHOR> http://danielscocco.com/i-am-retiring-at-32-shouldve-done-it-years-ago/ <comment><USER2> Yet another lifestyle article with pearls of wisdom like drastically reducing expenses by cutting maid service and weekly massages. Do these guys even know what real life struggle is for most people? Not sure why this is up on the front page. He is able to retire at 32. Good for him. Let's move on and talk about something meaningful or at least fun.

<comment><USER3> i thought you must've been exaggerating about the maid service and weekly massages.

<comment><USER4> To be (sort of) fair, he's based out of Brazil. In many developing countries, maid service and massages is fairly standard for the middle class.*

source: I lived in India and China.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cool, why didn't I think of just not working, it's so simple.

<comment><USER6> I understand your sarcasm, but I think you may have missed what the author is getting at.

Looking at what the author uses as a definition for work, he's basically implying he wants to make money a secondary goal. In other words, instead of working for the sake of earning money, find something you enjoy and find a way to earn a living doing that. The difference comes down to whether you'd enjoy doing what you do as a job even if you didn't get paid. If you'd enjoy it even without earning money, then the argument is that it's not really 'work' (I'm using that term loosely as pursuing your interests may still take up a lot of time and effort).

That seems to be the basic gist of it. I'm sure we've heard similar messages before, but it's still good to see people learn from their experiences. I wish the author well with enjoying his new path.

<comment><USER7> > find something you enjoy and find a way to earn a living doing that

If that is what is called "retirement", I've been retired since I was 15! Thanks for finally opening my eyes to that! I guess I don't need those 401ks and IRAs now - I'm retired already, so no point in saving for retirement.

> If you'd enjoy it even without earning money, then the argument is that it's > not really 'work'

I'm not sure redefining words to have weird meanings specific for one's argument is going to convince anybody in that argument.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here's the cached copy.

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8xTiQWh...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8xTiQWh4_joJ:danielscocco.com/i-am- retiring-at-32-shouldve-done-it-years-ago/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

</comment><comment><USER9> Summary - OP works hard for money for some time and then decides that isn't fun. Now they work only on things that interest them and call that retirement.

As someone interested in financial independence and early retirement, this blog was not what I expected.

</comment><comment><USER10> This post is climbing really fast despite not really having anything interesting to say. What's going on here?

</comment><comment><USER11> For anyone considering early retirement, I highly recommend following this subreddit:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence](https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence)

Also recommend this calculator focused around early retirement, accounts for inflation, decreased spending as you age, social security, etc..

[http://www.firecalc.com/](http://www.firecalc.com/)

</comment><comment><USER12> _"...my first company runs pretty much on autopilot now. Company [x] is being managed by my co-founder."_

That's not really retiring. That's delegating day-to-day operational management.

Watching over a portfolio of passive income assets is basically the "job" of an Investor/Owner.

</comment><comment><USER13> Assuming you have enough money to survive the rest of your life, then retire. If not, you'll be back. And understand it gets harder with age. Want a family? those 16 hr days to run that business get nearly impossible. Want to return to work 18 years later at 50 because you realize you have at least 30 more years, and not enough money? Good luck finding that dream job.

Of course this is all possible, but it's very easy to be shortsighted.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's all about balance and tradeoffs. OP isn't really "retired" per se, since his projects have a positive monetary expectation. But he's decided to make tradeoffs and made following his curiosity and interest a priority, instead of putting money first.

The more relevant question is to ask ourselves what our priorities are, and if possible, be able to answer, what our _#1_ priority is -- the one we truly want to maximize. Once we know that, then we can look at the paths we have available to maximize this, and what sort of tradeoffs with other valuable factors (like money!) it would entail, and whether it's something that makes sense in each of our lives.

</comment><comment><USER15> Deciding to give up some lavishness and to stop working after acquiring some passive income and a reputation to fall back on seems like a pretty straightforward if healthy decision for somebody who can afford the luxury.

</comment><comment><USER16> Gotta love when the front page of hacker news takes down a blog

</comment><comment><USER17> sounds like yet another scam from someone who actually makes money by selling a guide on how to retire before 40. yada yada

<comment><USER18> Plenty of people are noping out of the rat race in their early 30s.

It's one of the few joys of working in this lovely industry of ours.

<comment><USER19> What is plenty? 1%? 2%?

It's possible, but it's difficult. In most cases luck ends up being a huge factor whether you want to admit it or not. For many in the Bay Area it just comes down to good timing: moved here 10 years ago, locked into a monthly payment less than $1,500/mo, spent the last few years making ~$200k. Sure, you put in the time. But someone else can put in the time today doing the same thing you did and they will have a completely different outcome. It's not reproducible, because the largest factor was good (lucky) timing.

The hardest thing to do is reduce you monthly housing expense. The best "advice" is actually playing the which-city-should-I-live-in lottery. Pick correctly and the 30% of your income that goes towards housing can increase by 200-300%. 10 years later, there's your retirement. Pick incorrectly and you'll be stuck with average gains like everyone else.

It's just a different kind of lottery. You can make a smart bet, but it's still a bet.</comment></comment></comment>


Why AwesomenessReminders is Actually Really Awesome - <AUTHOR> http://www.jasonshen.com/2010/7-reasons-why-awesomenessreminders-is-actually-really-awesome/

<comment><USER2> "2) It boosts office morale. When Ryan and I set up AwesomenessReminders, we had it rotate through our team – so everyone would get a turn at being awesome. [...] We all like to stop what we're doing, put the call on speakerphone and cheer when they tell us we're awesome."

Funny to see this on the same day that <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1707170> made the front page.

<comment><AUTHOR> I saw that Economist article. Have to say - those British guys seem like squares. =) My understanding is that Zappos put "fun" and "weird" into their culture because everyone already felt that way. And the example they cite from Mad Men (drinking at work, having affairs) is way more disruptive/unproductive than a 30 second phone call.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> <http://Awesomenessreminders.com> is going to go out of the ballpark, I'm pretty sure of it.

There is work to be done (price points, the nuisance factor in some cases) but that's all doable.

The first imitations are already appearing which is always a sign that you're on the right track. Zack has a little goldmine here and I'm 100% sure he'll strike it big.

It's interesting how something that strikes everybody as 'dead obvious' at first sight has never been done before.

1K subscribers now, on to the second thousand, in less than another month ? If it goes (more) viral then it has every chance of doing that.

The bottleneck will then become to find good callers.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hmm...

I got this for a friend of mine about a month ago when it was mentioned.

A couple of things:

They didn't call her every day, it was more random.

They should offer a way to pass-it-on (maybe they do and I just don't know?). That way my friend can go "HOLY CRAP THIS IS COOL!" and forward the reminder to one of _her_ friends.

</comment><comment><USER5> Phone calls just seem a little antiquated to me. I wish I could pay someone $10/month to read my blog and make positive comments on it once a day!

</comment><comment><USER6> From HN guidelines:

If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it.

<comment><USER7> Why the downvotes? As far as I can tell it was a polite reminder of the guidelines for headlines by someone who I would argue has been around long enough to say it (account age >400 Days). Not to mention that it was the first thing I thought when I saw the headline.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've had an account for a long time but mostly have been lurking/dormant. Just started submitting more stuff - but yeah, I'm going to carefully read over the guidelines now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting article. I think the financial factor sells me on the concept.

I actually didn't believe that it would work, but apparently it does; would love to get some more numbers. Maybe in a mixergy interview?

@Zach: kudos to you, my man.

</comment><comment><USER9> Jennifer is one of my new favorite people ever. She's going to be so happy to read your post.

for the record, I'm a/b testing the counter to see if it makes a difference. Thanks to some help from Hiten Shah, at <http://www.KissMetrics.com>, i was able to set up the a/b test in 5 minutes using javascript. Five minutes!!!</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a collab tool that combines excel with git? - <AUTHOR> At my company, whenever there is a project, we have to use a huge ass excel spreadsheet to keep track of the various items.
However, this methodology clearly sucks and there are several problems with it including:
- Inability for multiple users to open the spreadsheet without copying and creating another spreadsheet on their local machine. Now we have a multiple version problem. - Inability to really keep track of change (coworkers usually just highlight the cell of an item that has an issue yellow, or red, or whatever whenever there is a problem and then write up the issue in yet another column) - Inability to keep track of who asked for the change (who marked this item yellow?) or who fixed it, or when did they fix it. - It is easy to make mistakes. The current spreadsheet we have for a project is easily 80 columns by 20k rows. Let's hope you don't have an off by one row error when you're entering in something. - Along with the above, nobody can tell what has been deleted, or added (other than color) because the spreadsheet is huge and even removing five items is hard to see. - The idiot who started this mess is clearly trying to use excel as a database.
So is anyone aware of a tool that can behave similar to excel, tracks historical user changes and see differences between revision (pretty much what git does) and generally make my coworkers significantly less miserable? <comment><USER2> Google Docs & Apple's ICloud both have cloud based excel sheet equivalents that can allow multiple people to edit simultaneously and also track who made what changes.

If you did this with git, it'd have to be text based so a CSV textile that could be exported to an excel doc whenever needed, would be the closest you could get. Good luck teaching your team how to use the command line though :)

You might be better to redirect your effort into lobbying your boss to use software that's actually designed for project management such as Trello?

</comment><comment><USER3> We have a tool that makes Git understand Excel workbook files: [https://www.xltrail.com](https://www.xltrail.com) Is that something that might help?

<comment><AUTHOR> Holy crap...this might actually be the solution. I'll have to request a demo and play around with it next week.

<comment><USER3> feel free to drop me an email: email@example.com</comment></comment></comment>


HK police fires rubber bullet at protesters and civilians at point blank range - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/coycrb/zero_regard_for_human_life_anymore_close_range/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is just one of the many incidents of police brutality that happened in the latest protest in Hong Kong. All the cases quoted below (and many more) happened just yesterday. Baton beating, framing protesters, firing tear gases in residential areas have been a "norm" to HK police and have happened every time there was a protest, so 2-3 times a week on average in almost every district in HK. They are not quoted. Numerous similar brutalities have happened throughout the protests in the past 2 months.

Some other cases are: 1\. Police ground a protester's face on the ground, breaking his teeth and injuring his face: [https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/08/12/video-hong-kong- police...](https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/08/12/video-hong-kong-police-make- bloody-arrest-assisted-officers-suspected-undercover-protesters/)

2\. Police shot "bean bag bullets" at a protester's eye, rupturing her right eye and caused permanent blindness: [https://news.now.com/home/hot/player?newsId=358763&hot=1](https://news.now.com/home/hot/player?newsId=358763&hot=1)

3\. Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets into MTR (subway) station at normal operating hours: [https://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/politics/article/3022348...](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/politics/article/3022348/hong-kong-police-ramp-force-firing-tear-gas- inside-kwai)

4\. Police disguised as protesters to incite to riot and capture real protesters: (Same link as (1))

5\. While they were insistent and brutal in arresting protesters, HK police assisted and protected triads AGAIN as they attack civilians: [https://www.facebook.com/standnewshk/videos/1256615241186946...](https://www.facebook.com/standnewshk/videos/1256615241186946/?__tn__=kC-R&eid=ARAY1pwPhe_gM2S0RLC- UMSGqJDcrQetDaLfmfNsy9eopJA4pVddGtGCm0u1ry6r1zlRm4wgXKNz3EvB&hc_ref=ARQhTDQMyOzoz8hEduHczIrRd2ajfmQK30DW02bZSmaqOrOPBcvmsIzhtIzJIxfT- Lc&fref=nf&__xts__\[0\]=68.ARACexgXzVp47BKwH44hJv3m1L0Y7QT- kSAJwq9MwqHbnnVKQThKLnR25e_D8mhpcBsB3XTw15wOCaiXyDx2cey4sf4rj5DnVJoHUjgmxyW4qiLSCEsbzZQNrylB7KGAFHqe89PB7bcdlvUW_JatnpyulUW53Ex4udzVPfRfY_e3CAXB2_j9VMkmC5t7RmemwCAduegsyZi- ku6kjtTQYYoNfmkJSK_vqbjVnCzgDO9W-r2o4KQxfoOf1nurA_M- lu35jBht9BTzvV_0nKkVgvAFK0GDQ5NzFMVLBxVcmfgqfXod3rC6DVHYADrEyUP9J59LQmULbHsd5_SSGd9EJ6i-3g)

<comment><USER2> Same thing happens in France where police are filmed gazing and beating some people out (even old people)[1]

Someone already lost an eye few months ago.[2]

President guard is disguised as a policeman and beat some people on the streets. [3]

And on and on. The issue is that people are starting to lose trust in how the police and the gouvernment operate and are seeing that some actions don't seem fair to them.

[1] : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDom3fi67ew](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDom3fi67ew) [2] : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMXeosboyjg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMXeosboyjg) [3] : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benalla_affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benalla_affair)

<comment><USER3> Are we seriously trying to compare what is happening in Honk Kong (and rest of China, that doesn't appear on TV), with the almost infinite patience that the french police shows, with the permanent protests in France about anything they feel like protesting violently against that particular week?

I still remember French setting fire to dozens of cars in several different protests, while the police was too afraid to intervene, or be accused of curtailing those "peaceful" citizens rights to express themselves as they see fit.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChFHvi3ldec](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChFHvi3ldec)

[https://www.dw.com/en/protesters-burn-cars-in-north-paris- su...](https://www.dw.com/en/protesters-burn-cars-in-north-paris-suburb-on- third-night-of-unrest/a-19422227)

[https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/french-rioters-set-fire-to- cars...](https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/french-rioters-set-fire-to-cars-during- gaza-protest-in-paris-1.1922772)

<comment><USER4> > the almost infinite patience

Well, not that much, the protests in question could probably be far more peaceful if the CRS had a a lighter hand on the tear gas grenades, the flash ball guns, the sticks and everything.

Just to illustrate, the last year protests saw the reappearance of the "Voltigeurs" (cops on motorcycles with sticks and flash ball guns), these units were disbanded in the 80ies after the death of a student.

And the casualties list is pretty significant, 2 deaths, several hundreds injured (including a few lost eyes and hands).

Are these protests borderline riots? yes. But the Police response is also quite bad. I'm personally wondering if it's a conscientious political decision to have an heavy hand to breed violence in order to then 1) discourage other people from protesting 2) discredit a movement.

Granted, France is not yet at the level of China, we don't see opponents to Macron being jailed or disappearing (even if some developments are quite worrisome).

The State has a legitimacy for violence through its police and military forces that individual citizen don't have, and that's a good thing. But it also mean that the State must be extremely cautious about its use of violence to keep a moral high ground, specially in the context of a Democracy.

Lastly, History is generally not very kind on violent repression of protests and riots, even when at the time, the vast majority agreed with said repression.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The title is incorrect, they were not firing rubber bullets but rather they were using compressed gas pepperball markers.

<comment><USER6> This reminds me of my young son recently. He was standing beside his friend who was playing a tennis game with the Apple TV remote. The remote had come flying out of her hand on a full swing, and cracked the TV screen.

      "Did you throw it?"
      "No! Tilly did!"
      "Did you bump her when she was swinging?"
      "No!"
      "Did you touch her at all?"
      "No!" (he's holding a tiny 80s troll figurine in his hand)
      "Did the troll toy touch her while you were holding it?"
      "Yes..."

<comment><USER7> My kids are letter of the law literal too. It's hard not to smile at the wrong time.

This reminds me of mobile robots I do cartography and "city planning" for. You can draw all kinds of complicated road networks of one-ways and no-gos and speed limits but the robot will still find that little sliver between two polys and barrel down it at full speed going the wrong way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Maybe if the protestors werent so intent on disrupting everyday life and kept things peaceful in the first place the police wouldn't have to clear them out using such means. These protests are a serious nuisance and everyone is paying the consequences for the protestors actions

<comment><USER9> Are you seriously defending the police here? This is way beyond the reaction you'd see in pretty much any western democratic country.

Protests (again, in western democratic countries) can be peaceful, and typically _are_ peaceful provided the police don't escalate things.

<comment><USER8> No I don't agree with the police beating the protestors here but neither do I agree with protestors throwing bricks at police and setting off petrol bombs or breaking off a policeman finger. You can't exactly expect them to be sitting ducks, it's a natural reaction so stop complaining and making a fuss, it's what your gonna get right or wrong. I for one would like to be able to spend my weeknights outside without the fear of getting hurt. And also for Hong Kong not to be some sort of safe harbour for criminals but that's probably going to just set off more fireworks so I'll just be happy with peace on the streets again

<comment><USER10> On the other hand, the HK police had their chance to be competent and impartial, and demonstrated themselves not to be a professional constabulary, but the tools of the state.

"Natural reaction" it may well be, but they're meant to be a professional police force; not a street gang.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Covid-19 Futures, Explained with Playable Simulations - <AUTHOR> https://ncase.me/covid-19/ <comment><USER2> This is one of Nicki's best explorables yet. I wish that this had had more upvotes.</comment>


Acting Navy Secretary blasts USS Roosevelt captain as 'too naive or too stupid' - <AUTHOR> https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-secretary-blasts-fired-aircraft-carrier-captain <comment><USER2> Through friends in the accounting world, many of the people who had to work for Moldy at PwC note that he was a temperamental manager with little ability to lead and was exceptionally quick to throw his employees under the bus whenever shit hit the fin.

So he's just acting in character.

<comment><AUTHOR> Short tenure.

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/07/coro...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/07/coronavirus- navys-modly-out-after-mishandling-virus-plagued-ship/2963986001/) (Acting Navy secretary Thomas Modly has resigned after mishandling the firing of the captain of the COVID-19-stricken USS Theodore Roosevelt, sources with knowledge of the decision have confirmed.)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Related: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22765435](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22765435)

Posted as an example how not to manage/lead (re HN relevance).</comment>


Apparently, tweeting police scanner data is a no-no. - <AUTHOR> http://gothamist.com/2009/10/05/fbi_raids_queens_home_in_g20_protes.php <comment><USER2> Not to be missed, from the comments there:

 _The irony is thick enough that I'm about to smear mustard on it, put it between a couple slices of bread, and eat it for lunch. This is the exact same type of criminalization of dissent that we condemn the Iranian regime for, and rightly so. The State Department was happy to provide TOR bridges and proxies and satellite technology for Iranian dissidents to avoid the crackdowns on them, and allowed them to use Twitter in to express their views.

But here in the US? Nope, you're a criminal if you tell people where riot police are marching. Unless this guy is guilty of something beyond what's reported here, this is a travesty. With all the well-documented examples of provocation, wrongful arrest, and police brutality the people need information on what the police are doing. Lawful protesters must be allowed to voice their dissent, or we become no better than the current and historical regimes to which America was meant to be counterpoint._

</comment><comment><USER3> I feel like I should point out that according to federal law, it is an illegal use of a police scanner to "use information received to aid in the commission of a crime, or disclose information received to other persons."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanner_(radio)#Legal_issues_in...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanner_\(radio\)#Legal_issues_in_the_US)

There are ethical and legal considerations concerning whether or not the protests were illegal, but I think as it stands now the defendant is very close to being on illegal footing.

<comment><AUTHOR> From his "about" page:

Who We Are:

Tin Can Comms Collective is a collection of communication rebels seeking to provide useful free tools for activists fighting the State and Capitalism. We are an anarchist group that has come together to help with the communication infrastructure for the the Anti-G-20 protests this September in Pittsburgh, because: People and Information want to be Free!

<comment><USER3> What are you talking about?

I gave a link to Wikipedia (which lists the actual legal sources). I wasn't passing judgement, just saying that what he did seems to be illegal if you accept the fact that the protests were illegal.

<comment><AUTHOR> And I wasn't passing judgement on you. I figured that everyone hadn't seen his site, and that his own declared intent would help provide context to if he was aiding crime or not, since that's what he's being charged with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> As someone who was basically live-blogging the protests via Twitter, I'll admit that this story hits pretty close to home. I'm definatly still following this guy on Twitter, and I re-tweeted several people who were tweeting scanner information.

Kinda sucks. Public information is public, I'm interested to see how they plan on proving the charges.

<comment><USER4> "Public information is public, I'm interested to see how they plan on proving the charges."

Well, I think they intend to prove that he was not merely making public information public, but also directing people in how to evade arrest for what was -- rightly or wrongly -- illegal behavior.

I should note here that I don't particularly care what people think about whether it _should_ be illegal to continue protesting after the cops order you to stop, all that matters in this case is that it _is_. I do, however, feel obligated to point out that going to jail has always been a part of civil disobedience, and people who refuse to face up to that strike me as a bit cowardly.

<comment><USER5> _I do, however, feel obligated to point out that going to jail has always been a part of civil disobedience, and people who refuse to face up to that strike me as a bit cowardly._

So all those Iranian protesters should have simply courted arrests? No. There is a particular type of civil disobedience that requires not evading of arrests. Then there are some whose explicit purpose is to fill up jails (jail bharo andolans, literally "fill the jails protests" are an occasional feature in civil disobedience in India, a relic from the British era). I do not agree with your sentiment. I think you decide whether or not you court arrests based on the goals of the movement and the perceived progress of that goal based on doing so.

<comment><USER4> I wasn't saying they should actively seek to be arrested. I was saying that engaging in an illegal act -- even if you believe that act is justifiable and that your actions will help to bring about the end of something you view as evil -- carries a risk of arrest and jail time. People who aren't willing to accept that shouldn't engage in such acts, because in the real world there isn't always (and in fact often isn't) a happy ending.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article is slanted so heavily I had to turn my laptop at a 45-degree angle just to read it.

Let's review: _political_ speech is protected speech in the United States. That means speech about how government and the politicians work. That's sacred.

Once you move away from purely political speech, you don't have an iron-clad right any more. There are limits to what you can and cannot say.

I don't think you can make a case that this speech is purely political, even though it involves political protest. So all the "I thought this could only happen in X nation" comments are way off-base. Don't be manipulated by people writing quasi news articles that have an agenda.

I'm sure the government has made the case to the judge that this type of speech is enabling people to commit a crime. I have no idea if _that_ argument is sound or not, IANAL, but I'm pretty certain that the free speech argument here is bogus. He could have tweeted all day long about his political opinions without a problem.

Having said all of that, as a libertarian I'm really concerned about governments trying to control communication around protests. This should be an instructive legal case for those people, like me, that don't understand where the lines are currently drawn.

<comment><AUTHOR> People tend to see it as a free speech issue because he's simply re-sending out public data. Each individual person could have just as easily listened in on a scanner. It's a bit counter-intuitive.

The real issue is that scanner data isn't really public. You're allowed to listen to it, but not if you intend to commit a crime.

<comment><USER7> He's not being prosecuted for the speech, he's being prosecuted for the action. You can say whatever you want. You can't intentionally help people commit crimes.

<comment><AUTHOR> His actions were speech. I was trying to comment about people's intuitions, not the legal definition.

You can say whatever you want, as long as what you're saying isn't helping someone commit a crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is not the first story of this kind to come up on HN, and last time I commented that I'm pretty sure there was a supreme court decision that established that trying to forbid people from warning others about speed traps over CB radio was a 1st amendment violation. I still can't track down the case. Help, someone?

<comment><USER9> All I can find is this:

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1493749>

which relates to headlight flashing and didn't involve any Supreme Court.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It seems to me that they could have pretty easily hidden their location/who was carrying out the tweets with a few changes to how they setup the whole situation. That being said it was likely they were either being watched beforehand or were at least on someones radar prior to G20.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'd really like to know why they had a pound of liquid mercury. Samurai swords I understand - who doesn't want a few of those? But a pound? Of mercury? (Come to think of it, mercury is pretty heavy - how much volume is a pound?)

<comment><USER12> 33.48 cm3 or so at 20 degrees C - less than the size of a golfball: [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_volume_of_one_pound_of...](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_volume_of_one_pound_of_mercury)</comment></comment>


Don't listen to VCs. Build something that lasts - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@khash/focus-ad0024338b9 <comment><USER2> Great article. None of the usual hipness or romanticism BS, just cut & dry. I love it.</comment>


A Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Just Solved Time Travel - <AUTHOR> https://www.physics-astronomy.org/2020/04/a-nobel-prize-winning-physicist-just.html <comment><USER2> tl;dr If we had a time machine we could travel back and forth in time.</comment>


Guide to CSS support in email clients (2008) - <AUTHOR> http://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/

<comment><AUTHOR> A recent submission [1] reminded me of this useful study.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=657602></comment>


Takata's Deadly Airbags: An Engineering Omnishambles - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2019/06/10/takatas-deadly-airbags-an-engineering-omnishambles/ <comment><USER2> Ammonium nitrate is the superior propellant. It is the only one that is non- toxic. You get nitrous oxide (laughing gas) and water vapor in a 2-to-1 ratio.

Yes, it can detonate. There are ways to deal with this. Stronger containment is the obvious choice. One might try to ensure detonation to make performance more predictable. Another option is to locate the propellant at a distance from the user, ensuring that shrapnel goes away from the humans.

Every other propellant choice is horribly toxic. Air bags perform their intended purpose many times every day. Those people are poisoned. Perhaps they will die of cancer. Replacing the detonating airbags with toxic ones may end up killing many more people than we save.</comment>