The Quiet Wikideath of BBS History - <AUTHOR> http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/3826 <comment><USER3> As I've said on HN before, Wikipedia is a lie.

The façade says "come and contribute!"

The actual operation of the site is no longer like that. There has been a total inversion of the premise.

Wikipedia should have an anti-deletion bias.

There. I said it.

It should take a massive number of people to delete a page. Hundreds. Thousands maybe. Some particular amount of registered users (5% say, or double the square root. Whatever).

<comment><USER4> This is a series of radical assertions each presented without evidence.

Anyone who spends serious time on Wikipedia could tell you immediately what the site would be like if it required "hundreds" of people to delete a page: completely overrun with spam and vanity pages --- not about BBS door games or individual BBS's or open source authors or even bloggers, but about individual local little league teams, bands that have never played gigs or released tracks, marketing professionals, individual episodes of fake TV shows, attempts at defaming individual high school girls, 6th place finishers in city council elections, political parties with one member, "microbrew" beer pages for each of some guy's homebrew projects, made up cities in made up countries as part of some guy's counterfactual world history, repeat all previous entries in this list for each of Japan, England, Belgium, and South Africa, amateur open-mic-night standup comedians, individual bootlegged videos of concerts, "one of the 100 most influential Chinese-Canadians in British Columbia", individual unpublished short stories, as-yet-unreleased new energy drinks from as-yet-unstarted startups, 9000 pages about individual aspects of the Ron Paul campaign, film festivals from towns in Nebraska with fewer than 5000 people, repeat all previous entries in this list 10 times over the course of a year with slightly permuted names, fake professors at real universities, real professors occupying fake posts at fake universities, 46 different theories of cold fusion, fake cancer cure, fake cancer cure, fake cancer cure, fake cancer cure, fake cancer cure, world championship players from nonexistant Starcraft leagues, aspirational pages about made-up video games, individual authors of self-published ebooks, and of course, 1-5 pages about every single company incorporated in every US state.

In other words: _exactly what you'd expect_ from an "encyclopedia that anyone in the world can edit". The site would be every naysayer's 1999 prediction for what Wikipedia would become.

<comment><USER5> Aside from spam and pages that exist merely to advertise products/companies/etc, it seems like most are those examples aren't necessarily bad, and if no one is using the articles, it's not like a huge number of static text/image pages are going to be a massive drain on resources.

Perhaps the answer to this is to allow for "personal" wiki pages that can be approved for inclusion into the main body of Wikipedia.

From my perspective, I would rather have lots of extra fluff in Wikipedia that I will never see rather than whole subjects being deleted from the site on the whims of a few jerk admins.

Edit: And you seem to be defending the deletion of BBS history under the guise that "Else spam would be everywhere!" which isn't an argument I agree with.

<comment><USER6> The problem with the unused articles is slightly subtler than "it will use up our hard disk space!"

A friend of mine recently created a Wikipedia article for one of her own economic theories. She is not an economist, and as far as I know has never studied economics. The theory is loosely based on the work of one economist, but the sources she listed included her own blog, that economist's work, and newspaper articles--not articles about "the XYZ Theory," but articles about events she believes are relevant to her theory. But the end result was a reasonably well-written article, with plenty of linked citations (which would appear relevant to anyone not paying close attention), about a theory that does not exist. And because the article got so little traffic, she was the only one editing it.

The thing is, when she linked to that article from her blog and social media profiles, and from other tangentially related Wikipedia articles, suddenly that theory seemed to have some validity that it hadn't had before. And googling "XYZ Theory," which would have gotten 0 results the day before, now got a handful of results. All of them were related to that article or her blog, of course, but someone casually searching for information might just click through to the Wiki article without noticing.

The point is, articles about non-notable topics aren't just irrelevant. They're of much lower average quality than the rest of Wikipedia because they have much less traffic and many fewer potential editors knowledgable about the topic. They're more likely to have factual inaccuracies, more likely to be biased, more likely to just suck. And it'd dramatically reduce the confidence one could have in any Wikipedia article about anything one hadn't heard of before, because you might be its first viewer.

<comment><USER7> Wouldn't it be a good thing as that would open our eyes to the fact that Wikipedia articles are really not reliable at all? I don't see how a fast deletion mechanism makes the articles more reliable.

The proper solution seems to be to let the articles stay, and learn that they don't have much weight.

And if deletionism is a reaction to SEO optimization, as the other comment states, it is even more of a tragedy. Really, we have to delete articles for fear of somebody getting an unfair SEO boost? Again the solution seems to be to just lower the impact of links from Wikipedia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't really know why they do this either. A friend of mine is a (light) sci-fi author with a few books published, not self-published, each one launched in a bookshop in Notting Hill in London, carried nationally in Waterstones etc etc.

His page, written by someone else, was deleted too, on vague notability grounds, and he was accused of vanity driven self-publisher by some or other wikipedia insider who decided it had to go. Never mind that the label he was published by had booker-prize nominees, never mind the mainstream availability, it has been decided by me and my two buddies that you're out. I guess it probably saved them ~5k disk space in text, ~50k for an image and all of half a megabyte a month in hosting costs.

\--edit-- this is not to say that my friend is as important as retaining the history of BBS and other pre-internet computer culture BUT it was the day I realised that something weird and tragic was afoot inside wiki. Before that I assumed the only thing deleted from such a place was spam and blatant self promotion.

<comment><USER9> Prefacing this, I'm largely with Jason Scott on this (and most issues). That said:

The deletionist argument is not and has never been been that it's going to save storage or bandwidth. (Generally, it's about it being difficult to keep up the average quality of the encyclopedia when there's a lot of less notable stuff. Which is absolutely true.) You should at least try to understand the argument for the opposition before you make up your mind.

Policy debates should not appear one sided, etc, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This article motivated me to go and investigate if wikipedia had got any better.

Started writing an article about a technical topic I consider important which was not present. When it was only 2 short paragraphs long, only 8 minutes after I had created it, gone without warning or comment. So, nothing has changed at all.

<comment><USER11> Would you mind saying what the topic of the article you started writing was? Also, did you do it in a sandbox on your account page or just out in the open?

Without more context your statement creates an extremely biased view against Wikipedia.

<comment><USER10> Why is it a extremely biased view against Wikipedia? I just stated exactly what happened, when I tried to make a new article. Now, you can argue that I shouldn't just start making an article, but that's another discussion.

I started writing an article about 'C++14', the new C++ standard. I was writing a nicely referenced list of the new features which have already been voted into the standard, when a box popped up telling me there was a conflict, as someone else had wiped the page clean. So I threw my text away and left wikipedia again.

<comment><USER12> Looking at the revision history of the page - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B14&act...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B14&action=history) \- your contributions were not deleted, but were merged into the main C++ article by another contributor. Other articles about individual C++ standards already redirect there - <USER2> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B98&red...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B98&redirect=no)

I think your experience suggests that Wikipedia's tools are not as user- friendly as they should be to new or inexperienced editors, rather than that contributing to Wikipedia is useless, because your contributions will be deleted.

<comment><USER13> That's a problem though, it got merged in as a blurb, but the article itself hadn't had a chance to be fleshed out (where it could've been enough to justify its own page) after just a few minutes.

<comment><USER14> But that's not exactly a "final" decision - if the section grows, it can easily be factored out into its own article again.

With any dynamic process, an individual snapshot (or even a few) might not be representative of the larger outcome or trajectory.

<comment><USER13> I understand it's not final, but it's offputting to novice contributors, and the promptness (literally minutes in this case) means that the contributer will be left confused (in this case thinking the content was completely deleted). Even if this speed is not representative, that it can happen will turn people away. How a community presents itself is incredibly important to growing it. Since that's a goal for the Wikimedia Foundation it's something they need to actively work on improving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The fact that all it takes is _3_ people to try, decide, and kill an article has always baffled me. The internet isn't exactly known for it's lack of sock puppets and mini-gangs, so the fact that Wiki allows 3 people to be the arbiters of article deletion is bizarre.

I'd say culturally BBS' are massively important to the idea of Wikipedia, to lose their history is to turn a blind eye to the roots of where it came from.

<comment><USER16> Yes. Wikipedia is fundamentally broken. As a Wikipedia admin since 2003, trying to make basic, intelligent changes to articles that are 'protected' of late has just baffled me. It is very sad that this has occurred to what was previously a strong community. The notion of 'notability' is basically obsolete in these internet days, and should be dropped from Wikipedia's (many and spurious) policies. People that spend their days deleting others' contributions should have to write three times as much accredited content to delete something.

<comment><USER17> Meta is killing wikipedia. Look at the number of username boards there are - it's bizarre. Just push a list of unaccepted stuff to developers and hard code what isn't allowed. (eg, dotted quads used the be usable as names, but are not any more.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why care to participate if contributions can be deleted at any moment?

In WikiMedia's "Movement Strategic Plan Summary" they have an interesting graph to show.

[http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strate...](http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Increase_Participation)

So something must have happend around '07. What was it?

<comment><USER3> There are a number of things at play.

1\. The rise of deletionism.

2\. The tendency for many pages to attract zealous guardians. I've had _spelling errors_ immediately backed out. I expect that 99.9% of potential contributors quit at this point and never return.

3\. Diminishing subjects to cover. All the "major" ones are done, all that's left are the billions of pieces of harmless trivia that deletionists decide, apparently at random, to do away with.

Note also that half the editors are under 22. This is probably why you can find vast articles on Pokemon and deletionists go around flushing articles on anything that happened before 1990.

<comment><USER19> > Note also that half the editors are under 22. This is probably why you can > find vast articles on Pokemon and deletionists go around flushing articles > on anything that happened before 1990.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Vast articles? No, the Pokemon articles were purged pretty early on; look at lists like <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_characters> or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_%28202%E2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_%28202%E2%80%93251%29) which devote a few lines to main characters or major pokemon, and just compare some with their respective entries in Bulbapedia (where the Pokemon Wikipedia editors ultimately fled to escape the deletionists, much like the Star Wars editors earlier fled en masse to Wookieepedia).

Even the Pikachu article has been eviscerated: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachu> (Hope you enjoy a list of awards and mentions... It's 'out of universe' material donchaknow)

<comment><USER3> Good point, they reduced it to _only_ thousands upon thousands of words _enumerating every single character that has ever appeared_.

Phew, what a useful compromise. Good work team. High fives all round.

<comment><USER20> Of all the things to complain about, you're going after the fact that wikipedia has 15 printed pages about important characters in a cartoon with over 750 episodes? This is a list of important, plot-affecting characters; you're just failing to appreciate the sheer scale.

At the very least complain about the species list if you want something ill- fitting for an encyclopedia.

<comment><USER3> The point is that "notability" seems to be a 1-to-1 proxy for "the popular culture and nostalgic recollections of < 25 year olds".

Which is ... daft.

<comment><USER20> That's a fine point but a bad example. We're looking at a couple dozen words about characters per _hour_ of footage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Is Wiki server space scarce? I should be able to post an article about the tree in my back yard if I want. "Notability" is simply not something an online encyclopedia should be worried about.

Not that BBS history isn't notable. I'm just saying it would be wrong to delete it even if it wasn't.

<comment><USER21> while I'd like the "everything inside wikipedia" approach to work, the problem with it is that every new page makes it less maintainable, disambiguation pages grow larger, category listings grow larger, search results and suggestions multiply etc.

And the notability argument is that you can already post an article about that tree, on the larger internet.

<comment><USER5> _while I'd like the "everything inside wikipedia" approach to work, the problem with it is that every new page makes it less maintainable, disambiguation pages grow larger, category listings grow larger, search results and suggestions multiply etc._

This argument doesn't seem helpful. All of those problems will continue to exist regardless of whether some articles pass the "Notability" requirement or not.

<comment><USER21> absolutely, I see it as a band aid measure, but that doesn't mean it's void of usefulness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Every time this comes up I'm reminded of a very simple idea: fork Wikipedia, in a way that articles still get synced from the original but at the same time deleted articles just stay in the database. If you want to make it really fancy, put in some code that tries to detect whether _parts_ of an article have been deleted and, when in doubt, keep the old version it live. Maybe there could even be some neat UI that makes it easy to navigate different versions of articles (no, the Wikipedia UI isn't it). I think in time a project like that could become very successful. Keep using Wikipedia as a source, but give new life to the underlying idea that is no longer being taken seriously over there.

<comment><USER23> a killer feature for me would be coloring text in articles by its age. under the assumption that old = unchanged = good. might be interesting.

<comment><USER24> Here are some people fooling with history visualization:

<http://waxy.org/2005/06/wikipedia_histo/>

(I have no idea if anything still works, just had some vague memory of it floating around)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Wikipedia seem to "suffer" from the same issues that plague Google making their "community" do their support for them

In essence, the "most popular" community members think they own the services, not only because of unchecked "work"

<comment><USER26> Do you "think" you could "use" more "quotes" in your "post"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It appears to me that Wikipedia needs to come up with a measure of notability for each article - NotabilityRank if you will.

An arbitrary watermark is bound to cause all sorts of issues

</comment><comment><USER28> "... the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." but we can delete what we want.

</comment><comment><USER29> Tangentially related, I've suffered a quiet death of my own BBS history because nearly a decade of 90's data is jailed on old 250MB+ QIC tape backups that were recorded with various unknown programs running from DOS to Win 3.1/95 days. Has anyone had a positive experience with using a service to migrate data from media this old and unknown backup programs at a _reasonable_ cost?

<comment><USER30> The author of the article runs an archive service. He might be happy to do it for free and send you a copy?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm assuming someone may have already said this, but content isn't locked into Wikipedia. It's Creative Commons-licensed, meaning that if someone cared about curating and maintaining this history, they could have moved those articles over to another wiki. There are even wiki hosting solutions that make these kind of moves relatively easy.

The problem is not that the Wikipedia community was curating their content, but that that batch of content was not being actively curated by someone. This is how history works. Someone has to determine something notable and worth preserving. If no one stands up for a piece of content, then it eventually dissipates into the ether.

<comment><USER32> > Someone has to determine something notable and worth preserving. If no one > stands up for a piece of content, then it eventually dissipates into the > ether.

His entire point is that this process is broken and heavily biased against the person who wishes to stand up for the content. Did you have a specific reason why he's wrong about that?

<comment><USER31> My point is more that if the community has an issue with the content, then take it someplace else. There are more wikis than Wikipedia. If you imagine that all knowledge in the world is a library, then Wikipedia is only the two or three shelves of big, heavy encyclopedias. If you don't think there's a wiki for your domain, then start one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Let Wikipedia be some weirdly curated thing that is often useful but not the primary source for everything. I agree wholeheartedly with the article: if you care about something, cover it and protect it separately from Wikipedia. It'll get found through search anyways.

<comment><USER34> > _It'll get found through search anyways._

If I could actually make this guarantee for any page I created, I would be richer than Gates.

<comment><USER33> It'll get found by anyone who's looking for it... that, anyone can do.

<comment><USER34> Looking for that specific page, which they already know about? Sure, they'll just enter the URL or click the bookmark.

Looking for some page containing similar keywords to mine? Again, if I could reliably cause people with relevant interests to come to any page I create, I'd be in a great place financially. I'd just start an online poker site, then go out and buy myself a pony made of diamonds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> nuckin-futz Perhaps not what you were hoping for, yet never-the-less: its up to - you - Mr. Scott. Keep your remembrances of that era alive at your site. If not you, who will?

</comment><comment><USER35> wikipedia should be like github. I should be able to clone it, write whatever I want in my branch, and you can merge it into your branch if you want, or not if you don't. End of story.

</comment><comment><USER36> Its a noise to signal ratio problem; when you search for any person you don't want a list of one thousand people; you probably want to read about the few popularly know ones. Same thing happens with acronyms, dates and abbreviations.

Plus the big problem of sources curation, those are more unreliable in unpopular articles for the lack of eyeballs on them. The amount of work mods have to do would grow exponentially if they didn't take notability into account.

Of course Wikipedia could do better, but it is a hard problem, not an easy one.

<comment><USER3> > _Its a noise to signal ratio problem; when you search for any person you > don't want a list of one thousand people; you probably want to read about > the few popularly know ones. Same thing happens with acronyms, dates and > abbreviations._

Just recently (only last century) some clever fellows came up with a workable solution for this. Look up www.google.com in your web browser and see if works for you.

<comment><USER36> They came out for a solution for themselves, or do you happen to have the link to their github repo? Otherwise you may want to donate a few million dollars so they can come out with a similar solution.

<comment><USER3> Sarcasm doesn't work like it used to.

My point

Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit".

Google aims to "index all the world's information".

These are _different_ but _complementary_ goals.

That the Wikimedia Foundation hasn't improved a user interface that was slapped together in the early 2000s is not somehow a mathematical, universal constraint on the growth of the subjects that are covered. It just isn't.

I am prepared to bet honest folding money that almost nobody uses the internal mechanisms of search and navigation that Wikipedia provides. Apart from clicking an in-text link referring to another subject, I am prepared to bet that traffic to Wikipedia is dominated by search engine referrals by at least one order of magnitude. Probably two.

Google so dominates the _actual usage_ of Wikipedia that it is _ridiculous_ to advance the poor UI of the Wikipedia platform as some kind of serious argument in favour of deletionism.

It'd be like walking into a library circa 1950 and saying "All these index cards are a schlep, let's start throwing away books".

You'd be committed to a loony bin. And now we have unlimited search and retrieval capability and you suppose that a poor interface _is the killer blow for deletionism?_

I believe I am having a Mugatu Moment here.

<comment><USER36> "Use google please, our searching and listing algorithm is not as good as theirs".

Most people don't return to Google after the initial access to the website, they keep using the Wikipedia interface when they need to search related subjects.

And I will surely throw away some books from the library if random people were allowed to put their books in there.

And the killer blow is the second part.

<comment><USER3> ... huh?

Edit: since you added this --

> _Most people don't return to Google after the initial access to the website, > they keep using the Wikipedia interface when they need to search related > subjects._

I'll bet you $100, AUD or USD, to be donated to the charity of your choice, that this is not so, by a factor of at least 10 to 1.

As I said, this does not include following links in articles. I am talking about the wikipedia search engine and category pages. I am talking about search engines generally, though I expect google to be the dominant one.

<comment><USER36> I will gladly accept the bet if you can find a trustful way of getting that data, because honestly I can't think about one.

And you overall do have a point, but is not as strong as you think it is.

<comment><USER37> How are you so sure most people don't return to Google? I do it more than half the time, and just add Wikipedia as a search term to narrow the results. For years I've felt it made my search more fruitful than using Wikipedia's search. Maybe my feelings are wrong, but if I feel this way, then a lot of other people could, too!

<comment><USER38> You can tell from auto-complete many people add 'wiki' or 'wikipedia' to searches at Google. And with the growth of Google-search-from-browser fields, I would also strongly expect that most people who type reformulated queries during an extended Wikipedia session do so through Google, not Wikipedia's much weaker onsite search.

<comment><USER36> A little test show otherwise: <http://imgur.com/hBuzt> (Unlogged-in / Cookieless)

Perhaps is related to the kind of subjects you are searching for; or it may just personalization by google.

Or maybe we are both biased for ultimately silly reasons and the truth lies somewhere in the middle but the lack of available data reduces everything to mere speculation.

<comment><USER38> This 'little test' on 3 arbitrary early-20th-century historical names, only looking at the top 4 suggestions, doesn't 'show otherwise'. I said 'many people', not 'most'.

Turn off 'instant' so you see the top 10 autocompletions, and watch over all your queries. You will very often see "wiki" as a suggested suffix.

Or better yet, just add " w" to the end of any of your own tests: " wiki" will be the top suggestion, which demonstrates that 'many' people add it as a suffix on Google.

Everything on this question is not reduced to bias and 'mere speculation'. I've observed many peoples' search behavior, not just my own, and habitual recourse to browser-based search boxes or always-requery-at-Google is growing over time (especially with the rise of Chrome and its 'onebox').

Wikipedia also did usability studies in the 2009-2010 timeframe, from which Wikimedia director/developer Erik Moeller reported: "our test subjects tended to resort to common web search engines to navigate Wikipedia instead of using the site's own search" [1]. (Wikipedia has since moved the site search box to help it be found, and I suspect that's boosted its use, but it's still subtle compared to the always-available, always-familiar in-browser Google-powered search.)

[1] [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/06/15/usability-why-did-we- mo...](http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/06/15/usability-why-did-we-move-the- search-box/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Wasn't there an article on HN recently about fishing old games for gaming concepts? I wonder if someone took up that idea and thought that the next best course of action was to conceal their source before blatantly ripping off every classic game mechanic from the last 30 years? After all "Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal" I really can't imagine any other reason to target BBS games specifically. Also, the deleter happens to be a programmer as well.

/conspiracy</comment>


Silk - <AUTHOR> http://weavesilk.com/ <comment><USER2> To me the most interesting part about this is how looking at the comments here it's apparently a great Rorschach test. "Whatever I draw always ends up lookiing like a uterus.", "everything I try ends up looking like some kind of bug", "Any image I make with this one looks like e-cigarette packaging", etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not sure why this re-surfaced, but it might be good to read the original announcement from January 2011 on [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2089615](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2089615).

</comment><comment><USER4> Whatever I draw always ends up lookiing like a uterus.

<comment><USER5> [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=nik105jwu5j](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=nik105jwu5j)

Try playing with the rotational symmetry.

<comment><USER6> [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=krk1066d489](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=krk1066d489)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The aesthetics of these "interactive art" apps always leave much to be desired. Any image I make with this one looks like e-cigarette packaging.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is the coolest thing I have seen whole week:

[http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=hhl105bpk73](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=hhl105bpk73)

Can anybody please explain how does it work?

<comment><USER9> "Moth cave" [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=rya105c4jxy](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=rya105c4jxy)

<comment><USER8> Human: [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=ugu105c8448](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=ugu105c8448)

<comment><USER9> Rocket launch: [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=jpw105cfr2t](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=jpw105cfr2t)

<comment><USER10> Summoning: [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=ryv106dnrlk](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=ryv106dnrlk)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why is the page trying to load a bunch of resources from my localhost? Looking at the console, I'm seeing (obviously failed) requests like:

> > [http://127.0.0.1/Silk%20Static/Silkura%20-May%2002%20-loop.m...](http://127.0.0.1/Silk%20Static/Silkura%20-May%2002%20-loop.m4a)

<comment><USER12> The link in question is actually "[http://yurivish.com/Silk%20Static/Silkura%20-May%2002%20-loo...](http://yurivish.com/Silk%20Static/Silkura%20-May%2002%20-loop.m4a") \- yurivish.com seems to be a loop to localhost (maybe broken DNS or something, I don't know). Apparently it's supposed to have some music playing in the background, as is also indicated in the message when you click the question icon in the top right corner.

<comment><USER11> Hmm... is there an archive for DNS entries, like the Internet Archive acts as for actual content?

Edit: Apparently there is dnshistory.org. Looks like the registration expired for that domain in 2013, so I don't know why it's resolving to anything. But the A record used to point to 126.96.36.199, which seems to still be listening on port 80 but is just 404ing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hrm. I can't draw, but it seems everything I try ends up looking like some kind of bug: [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=lwe105ew7vm](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=lwe105ew7vm)

<comment><USER14> Looks like e-cigarette packaging to me!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> When things like this webpage is made into an app, does the app utilize the same technology or is it reimplemented in the native language? In this case the canvas tag v. the iOS app

</comment><comment><USER16> It's really impressive that this kind of stuff can now be done in a browser, even if it makes the fans on my i7 rMBP scream :)

</comment><comment><USER17> Challenge: Try and draw something that actually looks like something!

<comment><USER18> Rose: [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=fel105ri3yo](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=fel105ri3yo)

<comment><USER19> that's cool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is simply jaw droppingly amazing. Put's my projects in their place...

</comment><comment><USER21> What a great tool. I wish it was more customizable [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=ssa105e6rw0](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=ssa105e6rw0)

</comment><comment><USER22> Am I off in saying that this is not new? I swear there was something exactly like this back in the good ole Flash days, possibly even named the same thing. Anyone else recall it?

<comment><USER23> You're right. I've had this saved in my Delicious bookmarks for years. I think it was mentioned in a popular subreddit recently, so here it is again.

<comment><USER24> Yeah, I remember this from Reddit a while back. Everytime I see it I waste hours on it though...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Incredible pictures from something so simple.

It's a shame about the single-step undo.

[http://i.imgur.com/NWSYgfz.png](http://i.imgur.com/NWSYgfz.png)

</comment><comment><USER26> Samurai: [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=gqm106exzb0](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=gqm106exzb0)

</comment><comment><USER27> Tried to make a face, failed. [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=ejh105uw8ug](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=ejh105uw8ug)

</comment><comment><USER28> This brings me back to spending hours staring at WinAMP plugins.

</comment><comment><USER29> Reminds me of Doc Bailey's work: [http://www.imagesavant.com/](http://www.imagesavant.com/)

</comment><comment><USER30> This is very cool looking. Can anyone explain how these images are created? Or know if the source code to something similar is available on Github?

<comment><USER31> > Can anyone explain how these images are created?

It's using JavaScript (D3) and Canvas. There's an interesting mix of JavaScript libraries included in addition to D3: jQuery, Underscore, Knockout...

<comment><USER32> Most of is is handwritten. D3 for example is only used for the colour picker.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Wow, so cool, Anyone introduce for me some information of this tool (maybe some keyword technical, some infomation about Art, ...)

</comment><comment><USER34> How do you save the URL to share it, if using the desktop version? Can't find the way to get the link to share :(

</comment><comment><USER35> There is something inherent beautiful to things that are symmetrical.

<comment><USER36> There is nothing _inherently_ beautiful about symmetry (or anything else for that matter.) Most things that are symmetrical look artificial, manufactured and fake. What you are probably drawn to is contrast, color, flowing lines, and other things that have nothing to do with geometric symmetry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Been trying to make Darth Vader for the last twenty minutes to no avail.

Nice!

</comment><comment><USER38> Drag a color pot to another color - very cool effect.

</comment><comment><USER39> What does this look like? [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=shn105pimk7](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=shn105pimk7)

<comment><USER40> A big cat's face (Tiger?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=zxp105bs3n5](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=zxp105bs3n5)

<comment><USER42> [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=hoq105j3r97](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=hoq105j3r97)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is so cool!

</comment><comment><USER44> [http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=nzj105e6ugn](http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=nzj105e6ugn)

</comment><comment><USER45> Unsure as to why this is getting so many up votes:

\- it's not new.

\- it hasn't even been updated for years.

\- it's low resolution.

\- everything comes out looking tacky - I'm not sure you can call this 'art'

<comment><USER46> It's the weekend.

This thing is fun.</comment></comment>


The 10k-Year Clock Is a Waste of Time - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/the-10000-year-clock-is-a-waste-of-time/ <comment><USER2> An article in WIRED that opines that the 10,000 Year Clock being built in association with The Long Now Foundation is a waste of time. Ho hum, you think. But on a social ecology level this story is massive. I've been following the Whole Earth / Stewart Brand / Kevin Kelly / Wired phenomenon since the 1970's. For WIRED to publish an article ridiculing the 10,000 Year Clock is like Planned Parenthood opining that New York's new abortion law is an offense against the sanctity of human life.

The only sense I can make of this is that the animus against Jeff Bezos trumps everything.</comment>


On rumors that the next Mac Pro will be "really different" - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2013/06/05/future-mac-pro-rumor

<comment><USER2> I wasn't aware people actually purchased Mac Pros with great regularity. I don't know of a single person who owns one. The lack of customization, absurd cost, and plethora of superior competitors seems to discourage most people from this particular market.

<comment><USER3> I think Mac Pros tend to be purchased by organizations rather than individuals.</comment></comment>


Apple removes several apps that could spy on encrypted traffic - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/apple-removes-several-apps-that-could-spy-on-encrypted-traffic/ <comment><AUTHOR> The official announcement from Apple is baffling:

[https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT205347](https://support.apple.com/en- au/HT205347)

 _If you have one of these apps installed on your device, delete both the app and its associated configuration profile to make sure your data remains protected._

... but they aren't naming the affected apps. How is a user meant to follow their instructions?</comment>


Ask HN: Attending Conferences - Is more of your focus on learning or networking? - <AUTHOR>

I'm interested in the feedback for those who attend conferences and also those would like to but are prevented by some hurdle/conflct.<p>Is a conference for you more of a social event or an opportunity to learn?  Or perhaps something else entirely? <comment><USER3> Years ago it was primarily to learn - both technical info at sessions and learn who the players in a particular industry and/or region were.

For most tech/net related events for me these days it's mostly social - personal and networking - and very little about actual _tech_ issues - <USER2> 10% of the sessions are of keen interest in that they'll impact my day to day work/life.

Another aspect is speaking - I enjoying presenting on certain topics at conferences.</comment>


Infospace and the Great Shareholder Robbery of 2007 - <AUTHOR> http://billburnham.blogs.com/burnhamsbeat/2008/05/infospace-and-t.html

<comment><USER2> I didn't even know Infospace/Dogpile/Metacrawler still existed. I think my dad kept using Dogpile for a few years after Google came along, but I never saw anything of value in any of those products--an aggregate of bad results is still bad results, and an aggregate of mostly bad and some good results is pretty much bad.</comment>


Hans Rosling: Why the Statistics Point Toward Progress - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_34/b4144064844053.htm?chan=magazine+channel_special+report

<comment><USER2> It's great to see a moderate, experienced voice weigh in on things. Several months ago, a lot of doomsayers were getting more credence than they should have from the geek community (the US is going to descend into chaos within 6 months crap, etc - give me a break) but as always, the "middle way" proves right. Even if we've lost a stackload of wealth, we're still better off than 99.9% of the rest of humanity who came before us.

<comment><USER3> A lot of statistics say that we are getting less happy over time. Sure, numerically, we are living longer, infant mortality is declining, but we are less happy.

Isn't happiness the goal? Are we really better off if we are unhappy?

<comment><USER4> I think I was 10 or 11 when I realized that things can only make the tiniest and most temporary changes in one's level of happiness. (No kidding; it's not an especially novel idea.)

Anytime you're dealing with "doomsayers", you can almost bet that that person actually _wants_ their variant of doom to occur, often for the tremendous corrections required. The effect of a real economic collapse would be:

1\. A great reduction in "things" (read: toys) available.

2\. A greater day-to-day struggle for necessities.

3\. A replacement of humanity's highly variable yet trivial problems with one big, common problem.

There's every reason to believe that the above three things, if not taken too far, are actually a prescription for happiness. There's a forth one, of course:

4\. A fundamental change in the ruling class.

That, of course, could be bad or good, but it explains why the government is happy to spend 100s of billions to fight every dip.

<comment><USER5> _Anytime you're dealing with "doomsayers", you can almost bet that that person actually wants their variant of doom to occur_

That is an excellent observation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you haven't seen his TED talk, it's here:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_y...](http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html)

<comment><USER7> He's actually given three talks at TED and one at the US State Department which is accessible from his TED bio page, <http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html>. The software is using is available at <http://www.gapminder.org/>, which was bought by Google about 2 years ago.</comment></comment>


Mozilla is financing the open competitor to Facebooks free-internet - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/10/13/bringing-the-power-of-the-internet-to-the-next-billion-and-beyond/ <comment><USER2> Current submission title is editorialized.</comment>


Ask HN: Any Tools to Verify an Email Address? - <AUTHOR>

I use gmail plugins Discover.ly and Full Contact. I've also used this web based tool: http://mailtester.com/testmail.php<p>Any others? <comment><USER2> Mailgun wrote an address validator (not verifyer) and discusses some challenges [http://blog.mailgun.com/free-email-validation-api-for-web- fo...](http://blog.mailgun.com/free-email-validation-api-for-web-forms/)

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://findanyemail.net/](http://findanyemail.net/)

[https://www.voilanorbert.com/](https://www.voilanorbert.com/)

[http://toofr.com/](http://toofr.com/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks guys!</comment>


Internet Radio is Saved - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/07/breaking-news-o.html <comment><USER2> Does this really belong in Startup News?

<comment><USER3> Yes. Yes it does.

<comment><USER2> Problems with this submission:

1) Sensationalist headline. The headline is just plain _wrong_. Internet radio is not yet saved since no reforms have been made.

_"However, the source said the big question right now is whether webcasters not part of the CRB hearing might still have to pay the rates set by the board, minus the minimum fees."_

2) Incorrect news site. Some appear submit articles without thinking, "How much does this contribute to the startup community? Would I find this in Digg, Reddit, or PG's anything-news site? If so, is it better suited there?" Which wouldn't be such a big deal, but..

3) No downvoting articles. I think this is a good decision by Paul, at least for the time being, since it removes the incentive for people to form mobs. But if anyone disagrees with the frontpage-worthiness of an article or the quality of the headline there's nothing they can do about it. Which can be bad when coupled with..

4) 2 points to hit the front page. Do you think it's time to up it to 3 or 4? Looking at the 'new' page, a lot of articles with 2 points are DOA, whereas if it has 4 points it's much more likely to have at least one comment. I wonder if it would still have 4 if it required 3 to get to the front page.

The quality of the submissions and comments at News.YC are excellent, but I wonder if it's worth fighting to keep that peak performance. Whenever you dispute the quality of something that everyone's looking at people will get angry at you, and maybe the problem will just fix itself. But I feel that fighting to keep the quality level near-perfect is a good thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Old media passes rules with the help of the government in order to crush new media outlets. Users of new media outlets mobilize, and there's some temporary resolution.

How is that not relevant?

Another point worth making is that it seems that the philosophy taken with this site is that things that are obviously off topic (will it blend, articles about bush being a nazi, blatant spam, etc) are forbidden, and the community chooses what they find relevant from what's left.

Seems like a great policy to me, and it requires a lot less hands-on work.

<comment><USER2> It's only tangently relevant, and the headline is inaccurate.

That's not the (specific) point though. You and I can debate whether or not it's relevant 'til the cows come home. The problem is, if anyone disagrees that it is relevant, they have no way to express that except in comments, which is a costly affair that doesn't really change anyone's mind.

For example, you can argue that the other article that hit the front page, aptly titled "Google the Pimp Strikes Again with More Porn!", is also relevant to Startup News; after all, it's talking about Google, and Google was a startup. But if Joe thinks it's a waste of time, or even a detriment to the community, he has no choice but to ignore it (News.YC doesn't have a 'hide' feature) or comment on it, which throws him into the arms of anonymous downvoters.

 _"...the community chooses what they find relevant..."_

Well, in theory. Back when the community was small, yeah. But right now, it only takes one other person to agree with you for your article to be featured front and center. Someone else thought that finding porn with random Google keywords with SafeSearch blatantly off was hilarious and relevant, but alas, not everything that's hilarious is Startup News worthy (Will it Blend, etc), and things that are only tangently relevant will probably find a happier home in Reddit.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Art of Illusion: Open source 3D modeling and rendering studio written in Java - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ar-/art-of-illusion <comment><USER2> It would be nice to see something beyond a github repo with an empty readme. A demo perhaps? A video, or a gif?

As it is, this is not very inviting to the reader, you know?</comment>


What's so bad about Scientism? - <AUTHOR> https://philpapers.org/rec/MIZWSB <comment><USER2> Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence. Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will serve only to undermine the credibility of science as a whole. The ultimate outcome will be an increase of radical skepticism that questions the ability of science to address even the questions legitimately within its sphere of competence. One longs for a new Enlightenment to puncture the pretensions of this latest superstition. [http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of- scie...](http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism)

<comment><USER3> > Strong Scientism: Of all the knowledge we have, scientific knowledge is the > only "real knowledge."

Stupid question. What is an example of a hypothesis that is not falsifiable by experiment but should still be considered "knowledge"?

<comment><USER4> 1+1=2

And no, apples are not the same things as numbers.

<comment><USER5> That's an axiom. It doesn't say anything about the real world, it just introduces a framework of thought.

In other words, if you can imagine a reality where 1+1=2 for some meaning of '1', '2', '+' and '=', then a series of conclusions will hold true.

<comment><USER6> It's not an axiom, it's a theorem (or maybe a definition of "2"). The more usual definition of "2" is "S(S(0))" (the successor of the successor of zero). "1" is "S(0)". "S(0) + S(0) = S(S(0))" is a _theorem_ , a consequence of the axioms "for all x and y, x + S(y) = S(x + y)" and "for all x, x + 0 = x".

<comment><USER5> I called it an axiom for the sake of brevity. I felt that reciting the Peano axioms would only cloud my point.

Was I 100% precise? No. Did you add something meaningful to the discussion? That's for you to answer.

<comment><USER6> "axiom" is two letters shorter than "theorem", so no, brevity doesn't cut it as an excuse. The difference between an axiom and a theorem is, undoubtedly, germane to a thread about the different ways we can know things.

<comment><USER7> I would go further: is "Axioms exist" true? You don't find them lying around in nature. They exist only in people's minds. I would argue that this is an inherent metaphysical question.

The scientismist's (?) standpoint could be that it exists because it is manifested as a concept in human brains. But by the same argument, wouldn't they then need to acknowledge that God exists?

The crux of the matter is to do science, you need formalism to express your theories, to interpret measurement results etc. Those formalisms are what we usually call "math". But any mathematical system has axioms, i.e. something we need to just "believe" in in the first place, and those believes are not themselves provable by science.

<comment><USER8> Axioms can be shown to be useful or not. This is why some mathematicians reason with or without axiom of choice. Likewise, systems of axioms can be shown to be consistent or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Science vs Philosophy" is a misguided debate. The scientific method answers questions about how the world works. Philosophy discusses how best we should act in the world as it is.

Do they sometimes try to answer the same questions? Yes, and it's usually in the case where philosophical ideas can be, and have in the past, been the best model for explaining phenomenon that we didn't have the tools to measure with science.

Now that that's out of the way...

There is, of course, nothing wrong with the scientific method for examining the world, but Scientism has many pitfalls:

\- Biased scientists that only publish research whose results are favorable to their own idea of the world.

\- Advocating for blowing up real-life systems in favor of new "scientifically proven" ones, because unintended consequences are a given in complex systems.

\- "Scientists" promoting their research for their own monetary gain, regardless of known consequences.

\- A culture where anyone who disagrees with the "general consensus" is labeled as an "idiot," even if they back up their claim with showing flaws in the research process.

\- Even with good science and valid results, often the recommendation about what to _do_ about the findings is not based in science, but followers of scientism will conflate the two.

Anti-scientism is not the same as anti-science.

<comment><USER10> Given the reproducibility crisis in science (esp. in fields like psychology, where an estimated two-thirds of papers aren't replicable), it's good to be skeptical of new work instead of saying "scientists showed this! now let's redo an entire part of the world".

An important real consequence of scientism: the war on fat circa 1960, overconsumption of sugar, and resulting diabetes epidemic.

(Spoken as a practicing scientist.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> By "scientism," Pigliucci (2010, p. 235) means, "the intellectual arrogance of some scientists who think that, given enough time and especially financial resources, science will be able to answer whatever meaningful questions we may wish to pose—from a cure for cancer to the elusive equation that will tell us how the laws of nature themselves came about"

Hm. Is it possible to construct a (sensible) physical correspondence to the incompleteness theorem or to an undecidable problem?

</comment><comment><USER12> A little bit of philosophy bashing? Ok, why not, let's start with a old joke from former soviet Eastgermany :

A mathematic, a biologist and a physicist are flying in a hot air balloon, but got lost. Then they see a men jogging under them, so they get lower and the biologist shouts to him: "Hey you, where are we?"

The man looks up, but does not answer.

Then the physicist shouts: "Hey you, can you please tell us, where we are?"

Still nothing, but then finally he shouts back: "you are in a hot air balloon!"

"Ah, a philosopher" says the mathematician. "How do you know?" ask the others. "Well, a) he took very long for his answer, b) it fits with objective reality and c) it is totally worthless for us."

(the main job of the philosophers back then and there was to defend the Marx- Lenin Philosophy to the people, where they tried to prove them, that the people are on the way to the best of every possible society, but people still complained about not having toilet papers)

Then a line I remember from Thureau: "We have Professors of Philosophy, but no Philosophers."

So, to get more serious and a wildly speculative hypothesis: maybe Philosophers got so bad overall, because they tried too hard beeing regarded as scientist, when maybe their field is not really approachable with scientific methods. At least not main parts of it.

Because there is a big, maybe infinite world, which we can't (yet) explain properbly with math. And maybe there are some areas, which you can never describe with math. To get a bit esoteric:

The Tao that can be told, is not the eternal Tao ...

This is in my opinion the purpose of Philosophy. Think freely and create modells about those areas. Philosphy as the art of wisdom. Trying to understand complex worlds, which you cannot put in (finite) numbers.

Humans for example.

Because we are more than just some numbers and can't be reduced to them, which is, what is sadly more and more happening. And philosophers trying to be, what they are not, might be a cause to it.

</comment><comment><USER13> I didn't read the whole article; I hope to be able to return to it tomorrow. However, from a brief skim, it seems it started out well and then quickly went downhill. A better title might be, "A strawman in defense of Scientism".

The gist of it is that the author starts with a decent argument about why philosophers against scientism might want to attack a weaker (i.e., more easily believed/more likely true) version of scientism, since that would give more weight to their arguments. But then the author goes off the rails by choosing to defend that weak version of scientism with some rather silly arguments, essentially arguing that since the term has been redefined, none of the work which has gone before (which has shown that these silly arguments are silly) applies any more.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that the first part was the strong part of the paper (and was the reason I decided to link it on HN), and e.g. statistics about differing word usage in different fields isn't what I'd call conclusive evidence.

But are you postulating that all arguments (for a weaker version of) Scientism (either all arguments there are or even only the all arguments the author presents), are silly? That's something I'd disagree with.

For example, while science isn't the perfect process like in the textbooks portrayals, a model that produces testable predictions (and thus can be evaluated) seems the very good way to characterize how we get new knowledge about various phenomena of the world _and_ can convince others that it _is_ knowledge and not just an esteemed opinion.

Also the bit "vicious circularity" resonated with me: in my opinion, (looking at what we know of the evolutionary history our species[1]) it's quite reasonable hypothesis that humans could develop logic and mathematics in the first place because of the physical world we observe is regular and predictive enough so that human cognition had a chance to develop.

[1] Not in the evo psych sense, just that we descend from the same great- great-*-parents as our cousins (the other) apes, and during the history we ended up being the ones with wider cognitive capabilities. Even though our cousins are relatively bright.</comment></comment>


How the iPad Went from Massive to 'Meh' in 5 Short Years - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/01/ipad-went-massive-meh-5-short-years/ <comment><USER3> Saturation and people are satisfied with what they have.

Take my mother-in-law (please) for example. She does _everything_ on her iPad. Banking, email, surfing the web. She literally (yes, literally) hasn't touched her desktop computer in years.

But, she's still only on an iPad 2. She'll run that into the ground before she'll get another. She loves it, but isn't on any "upgrade cycle", the same for many people.

Now, it would be different if iPad sales were down 18%, yet Android or Windows tablet sales were rising to fill in that gap. As it is, _all_ tablet sales are down.

<comment><USER4> Yes, clearly a factor in the tablet sales slowdown is:

Frequent computer users do not feel comfortable replacing their laptops with tablets. They bring their laptops with them. And then they say, "Do I really want to tote around a tablet as well?" The answer is no, their tablets languish at home, and they don't upgrade.

Very casual computer users may largely or entirely replace their computers with tablets... but they're very casual users. They don't want to be on an upgrade treadmill, and their needs are modest. An old tablet works fine.

<comment><USER5> When I go on a trip, I always take my tablet instead of laptop, just because its smaller and I won't be tempted to work.

My tablet can't replace my laptop at all, but it's a great device for traveling, reading, and watching videos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am a father of 2 year old. I did not experience being a parent before iPad arrived but I suspect it changed the parenthood completely. These days I see all kids of all ages interacting with tablets. My son started using one before he was 1 year old, now he is experienced user, able to start, launch games he likes and videos he wants to see on youtube. Its so powerful as it is scary. Everyone from parents is scared what it will do to kids. Parents are split on this, I embrace it (because its so easy to have a break from hyperactive son) but some fight it furiously and swear by it. How many parents are there in the world, how many kids are there? Is there a way for Apple to serve this market better?

<comment><USER7> I'm in the same boat, my tablet gets most use from my son. For kids it's a great hing. Before reading age, though - once he can read he'll get a proper computer and I'll teach him programming...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article misses a more likely reason for the declining sales: maybe sales of the iPad are declining - not because the iPad has lost its appeal - <USER2> because the market is saturating and most people who wanted an iPad, have already got one. Folks who have iPads that are 3 or 4 year old are not in the market for newer models - as the old ones are working just fine.

<comment><USER9> Indeed. I use an iPad to make drawings for online lessons. It made drawings well when I got it in 2012, and it continues to make drawings well.

I won't ever upgrade unless it breaks or software updates junk it. Why would I?

It would be a mistake to view my reluctance to upgrade as a bad thing, from apple's perspective. I've bought two MacBook airs since (I needed an upgrade for work projects). The fact that the iPad is so reliable is one of the reasons I buy apple products without much though. So far, they work, and they last. I'm writing this message on an iPhone 4 from 2010. Still works wonderfully. (only because I'm running iOS 5 though)

<comment><USER10> > Indeed. I use an iPad to make drawings for online lessons. It made drawings > well when I got it in 2012, and it continues to make drawings well.

What all tools/apps/stylus you use? What's the entire process is like? Can you show some of your videos?

<comment><USER9> They're just drawings to illustrate what I'm talking about, nothing fancy.

I use jotwithme, a whiteboard app, and an alupen stylus.

I'm actually planning to use these to make some online videos. I tried a Wacom tablet but ha no drawing skills with it. I haven't found a better drawing app that lets me project to the screen. It's a little messy, but I think in my niche (education) it actually goes over well.

Btw, bought my first iPad the year I started my business, when money was short. But it let me teach people online, so it paid for itself in a couple months, and then is pure profit. The ROI to owning it for my limited use case has been astronomical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's crazy how out of whack people's expectations for Apple have become.

I mean after the string of iMac => iPod => iTunes => iPhone, people were just expecting iPad to split the earth in half or I don't know what. Not that the article's reasoning is wrong about the ultimate utility of an iPad, but I find it really hard to describe it as a "meh" product. Remember tablets before the iPad? There were a lot of them but you probably don't remember any because none got any market traction whatsoever.

<comment> semi-extrinsic I'm not convinced that the iPad was all that revolutionary, I think that 2009/10 was the year when the hardware needed to build a successful tablet became cheap enough to build a profitable one. The equally successful Galaxy Tab launched just half a year later, and Samsung obviously didn't start working on it after the iPad launch. It really was an "obvious" thing given the wild success of smartphones (not that the engineering/software/UX work was in any way trivial).

<comment><USER5> you might want to google "equally successful" ([http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/11/exclusive-apple- vs...](http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/11/exclusive-apple-vs-samsung- docs-reveal-galaxy-tab-was-a-flop-and-samsung-knew-it)).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think thats just natural maturity of the product. Novelty has worn off but there's still enough utility to drive steady mainstream demand. 'Meh' is a bit harsh. It's just become a standard piece of your house like a TV or coffee maker that you now assume is probably going to be present. Not a bad place to be for Apple for a five year old product.

</comment><comment><USER13> As others have said, a lot of people already own iPads and there's nothing about the current concept/design that encourages especially upgrade cycles. Not that there's anything wrong with that from a consumer perspective. It does what it does pretty well and doesn't really call out for incremental improvements to battery life/resolution/processor power/etc. although those do naturally come about with each iteration. And, of course, the carriers don't subsidize upgrade cycles as they do with phones.

Being able to share data plans with phones at nominal cost would be one interesting upgrade driver but that's really in the hands of the carriers and is unlikely.

The other interesting possibility across both Macbook and iPad lines would be some sort of reconvergence of tablet and laptop experience but Apple got to where it is by doing the precise opposite so I'm not sure Apple feels a big impetus to shift up the playing field right now. (Microsoft OTOH has been trying to parlay its desktop strength with tablets that are more tightly coupled but with somewhat limited success--to say nothing of the fact that Windows 8 was largely a product of this thinking.)

<comment><USER14> Anecdotal data point: I'm typing this reply on an original iPad I bought on release day, and haven't yet felt the need to upgrade.

And in response to the last snarky line in the article - who buys magazines that pile up on the coffee table any more? I used to have a $60 or $70 a month magazine habit - its been years since I bought a magazine. About a grand for this iPad (Australian price ing), plus maybe another $900 in 3G connection, I reckon I saved all that in under two years of iPad ownership in savings from not needing to buy 5 or 10 magazines a month to have something to read over lunch.

<comment><USER13> I gave my original to my dad--who loves it and this is someone who could never really use a computer. Given that I'm tech support, best present (for me) that I ever gave :-) If I hadn't given it away I suspect I'd still be using it and just thinking about upgrading.

I do still buy magazines--but very selectively. Partly because, oddly, I can get some paper magazines cheaper than I can get digital subscriptions. I also just prefer flipping through some magazines than sitting down to read them digitally.

<comment><USER15> If you subscribe to several magazines, paper or digital, check out "Next Issue".

I agree paper is cheaper than digital when you subscribe at those sweepstakes type rates. Next Issue inverts that again, brings 150 magazines for $10-15/month and a lot less clutter.

<comment><USER13> Thanks. I'll check it out. Invariably I go through these cycles where I'm tempted by $5-10 subscriptions and the stuff just piles up unread especially when I travel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> 68 million devices last year is meh? It's not a big deal because everyone in the world doesn't want one? A decade ago Apple was only selling 4m-5m Macs a year. Now hundreds of millions buy Apple "computers" creating a massive ecosystem. When they only sell 5 million watches in the next 12 months, I hope we don't waste too much time with the meh's.

<comment><USER17> In business, number of units sold is not as important as number of units more sold.

It's meh because it isn't increasing in sales, not because its sales are low. If they sold 20 million last quarter, but had an constant year-over-year increase in sales, it wouldn't be considered meh.

I'm not sure I agree with this thinking either, but that's the explanation at least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I waited in line for the iPad, and I bought two iPad 3s (because I lost one of them)....I really enjoyed the iPad, and it did feel revolutionary.

But in a twist of timing, shortly after I bought my first iPad, I also got a Macbook Air...and that was both so portable and such a delight to use that the iPad was relegated to novelty and gaming device. I barely use my iPad 3 anymore, except as a time-waster for reading websites...and it's not bad at that (in fact, I'll sometimes stow it away, as it's too tempting to just take it out and read in bed)...it's just that it doesn't fundamentally change how I interact with the world. It's simplicity was beautiful...but it ended up being too simple for me...and I'm pretty relieved that it hasn't taken over the world. There are just too many things in computing and in the general work of creation that require more than multi-touch gestures. I hope the keyboard is here to stay for a long while.

<comment><USER19> I think people have different expectations. I use my iPad for couch surfing, checking the news, reading email, Facebook, simple stuff where I do not need a computer. It's perfect for that. I don't fool myself thinking it can be used seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> In my opinion the problem with iPad is iOS. Not saying that iOS is bad it's just not as good enough for tablets. The iPad Air 2, for example, has a huge amount of power in it's CPU and it's not by far being used on OS level functionality like multitasking. Until Apple makes iOS more appealing and functional for tablets people will find it boring or "just another version of an iPhone/iPod with big screen". Also there are some good and cheaper Android tablets in the market. For these reasons people don't feel excited about iPad as they were before.

I owned an iPad 3 and now an Air 2 and i can say that the hardware is top notch and it still continues to be probably the best tablet of the market overall. I also use an Android Phone. :)

<comment><USER21> I agree, but I also think this falls into the category of "good problems to have". The unfortunate reality is that all software has the tendency to accumulate "features" like a katamari. Apple knows this, and so I think they are being deliberately slow about introducing new features to iOS. Remember how long it took to get copy/paste? The introduction of extensions, notification center widgets, custom keyboards, etc. in iOS 8 shows that Apple knows they still are light on features and are willing to add them, even if the pace of addition is glacial...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I was just discussing this with someone the other night. I got the first iPad and for the first 2 years, I was a junkie for new apps. Little pieces of software that specialize in 1 thing? GREAT!

Nowdays though, even with the newest iPad, I barely use it for anything beyond browsing, video, and books. I know they keep pushing it to be a tool, but when I want to do real work, I go to my computer.

</comment><comment><USER23> It's good for light gaming, I play driving games all the time on it, but I would never bother with driving games on my PC.

It's good for light computing, I see my husband on the couch with his iPad air all the time writing emails, reading the news, browsing Youtube etc. Yes he can do that in front of his computer, but the couch is much more comfy.

</comment><comment><USER24> I got an iPad soon after they were released. I never really used it much, and for a few years I pretty much ignored the tablet scene.

Then I took a long overseas holiday. It was great having something bigger than my phone, but easier to transport than my laptop. I soon bought the new iPad Mini, and I've combined it with a Wacom Creative Stylus 2. Now I can draw and take notes on my iPad. It's really changed the way I work.

I would suspect market saturation has been reached though. Also there are few new features that would compel an upgrade. That's been true of a lot of tech though - my laptop is three years old and I don't intend to replace it this year.

</comment><comment><USER25> "Meh!"? Really?

Apple has a product portfolio. I agree iPhones are doing much better right now in terms of growth, but I have no doubt that the completeness of their portfolio (from macs to ipads to iphones) is what keeps sales for all product categories going just a bit more.

I bought an ipad first, and then bought a macbook. The next phone I buy might be an iPhone - which I never would have, if I had not bought the iPad.

And amongst tablets, I don't understand which other tablet is better than an iPad.

For a category defining product that still sells millions of units per year, I think calling it "Meh" is just passing an opinion for journalism.

</comment><comment><USER26> iPads are still massive for music production. Having a standalone piece of hardware that can act as multiple synths & effects, a vocoder, even a DAW, at an acceptable latency, is a huge boon.

</comment><comment><USER27> I wonder what the sales numbers look like if isolated solely to commercial/education/government purchases. The small business I work for is one of a number in the area that has transitioned to an iPad solution (Square stand) for all our POS needs in the last year, and there are a lot of other business use cases where tablets make far more sense than the alternatives, much more so than for people at home.

</comment><comment><USER28> There is definetely some truth to the article that the IPad does not really serve any very useful purpose. I have 3 IPads lying around at home, so I just made a "family calendar" web application for IPad and put it up on the wall. The app shows the weather forecast, today's events from the Google family calendar, a notice board, and also serves as light switch for Phillips Hue scenes.

</comment><comment><USER29> You can only be _avant-garde_ for so long before you're just _garde_. But it's still a fine tablet, and the iPad really opened up the tablet market for the first time.

</comment><comment><USER30> Doesn't even need an article.

Year 1: Apple fans buy it because they always buy everything apple sells.

Year 2: Some other rich people buy it, because they were shown it by apple fans.

Year 3: People buy it because other tablets aren't as mature; people start realising that doing normal day to day tasks on a tablet sucks.

Year 4: "Everyone has one", while at the same time most are actually shoved into cupboards or buried under desk clutter.

Year 5: People have realised tablets are impractical. For serious tasks, a computer is better, while for portability, a phone is better. Sales are now driven by replacement with new models and the 2nd world consumers buying their first, while most ipads are sitting in a cupboard or on a shelf somewhere.

<comment><USER13> Or they're sitting on the table in their living room and they still work perfectly fine on a daily basis. Personally I carry both my computer and a full-size tablet (though sometimes just an e-reader) and a phone when I travel on business. OTOH, I just take the tablet and phone on vacation. Each has their uses even if the tablet is the least necessary of the three.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The vast majority of the app i'm now developping for the ipad are professional ones. I think the pro market still has a huge growth potential.

</comment><comment><USER32> The price points don't allow most of their customers to purchase the new versions so quickly.

</comment><comment><USER33> iPad and iPhone were once pretty different. But with iPad mini and iPhone biggy, they're all but the same product line now.

I'm almost certain that Apple knew a big iPhone might cannibalize some sales of the iPad mini.

</comment><comment><USER34> I think most people don't have the need to push their iPad particularly hard and so hardware as old as the iPad 2 is probably good enough.

Myself, I upgraded from 'The New Ipad' (whatever number that one was) to the latest iPad Air 2 for the massive performance boost. I'm a software developer and use my iPad for the Omni tools (OmniPlan, OmniFocus, OmniGraffle) and also for Keynote. My older iPad was having trouble switching apps because of its limited RAM.

BTW, if you're thinking about getting the Omni tools be prepared to spend some money. They work best when you have them on all three devices - laptop/desktop, iPad, and iPhone. Each has a different UI devoted to that platform and somewhat different functionality.

Sometimes when I fly I don't even break out my laptop. I instead do planning on my iPad using my logitech bluetooth keyboard.</comment>


Attackers Demand $2.5M After Coordinated Ransomware Attacks on Texas Government - <AUTHOR> https://cyware.com/news/attackers-demand-25-million-ransom-after-coordinated-ransomware-attacks-on-texas-government-entities-79af8a80/ <comment><USER2> All of those managed service providers do the same thing. 4 full time employees and an outside sales guy just answer phones and regurgitate what they read on CNET while outsourced Indian contractors manage all their systems with minimal security, minimal oversight, and like 2 passwords between all of their clients.

Any "automation" they claim to have behind their "help desk" suite is literally 14 Indians working odd hours to install Windows Updates via RDP.

I had one of these places chide me for not having a WISP (Written Information Security Program) a couple years ago. When I found evidence that their outsourced Indian labor was accessing export controlled data I asked them to provide me a copy of their WISP. Guess who didn't have one either.

</comment><comment><USER3> Would it be inappropriate to see the irony in having the State of Beto O'Rourke, a former hacker from the infamous Cult of the Dead Cow, victim of hacks?</comment>


Show HN:Backwards Compatible jQuery Web Tour - <AUTHOR> http://www.crimson-cardinal.com/crimson_tour There are quite a few jQuery web tour applications out there, but I found that when working in a corporate environment many of them didn't work ... or just didn't work right in IE7/8. I put together this web tour jQuery application and have successfully used it and had no issues with older browsers. It doesn't look as 'pretty' since it relies on CSS3 to pretty it up a bit. But it's pretty light weight. It was my first foray into Javascript prototypes, and while I'm sure there are bugs, although I haven't encountered any game breaking ones myself.<p>The GitHub is up at https://github.com/drazion/Crimson-Tour - if you notice any irregularities or issues, any and all tips or suggestions to improve it would be appreciated. <comment><AUTHOR> There are quite a few jQuery web tour applications out there, but I found that when working in a corporate environment many of them didn't work ... or just didn't work right in IE7/8. I put together this web tour jQuery application and have successfully used it and had no issues with older browsers, because of that it doesn't look as 'pretty' out of the box since it relies on CSS3 to pretty it up a bit for the newer browsers, but it works.

It's pretty light weight and was my first foray into Javascript prototypes, and while I'm sure there are bugs, although I haven't encountered any game breaking ones myself. The GitHub is up at <https://github.com/drazion/Crimson- Tour> \- if you notice any irregularities or issues, any and all tips or suggestions to improve it would be appreciated.</comment>


Ask HN: What are my chances of getting accepted to YC? - <AUTHOR>

I was just introduced to this wonderful site a couple weeks ago. I gotta say this is such an amazing resource and thanks to everyone for sharing their insights.
I'm a designer working in the entertainment industry, but I've always been an entrepreneur at heart since I was a kid. Like most entrepreneurs, I'm really good at what I do, but I've always felt confined working for someone else on someone else's projects.
A couple years ago. I stumbled across an idea that I just couldn't resist passing on. With very little knowledge in hacking, I knew I couldn't do it myself and had to hire some help. Long story short, I took a good 2 months studying the structure and the knowledge I need to communicate with hackers and designers. After that, I went on to an outsourcing site and hired a phenomenal team to build my product together. It was a great experience, learning all aspects of the trade from doing the actual design to managing a small team of developers remotely. After months of development, we're almost ready to push the product out to closed beta, and I'm very excited with the work that I've done so far.
So I guess my question is, does YC accept founders with no programming / business background? What if I have a working prototype and a good profit model to prove that I can put a project together from start to finish?
I know eventually I will have to find a technical co-founder or hire a local hacker but that's really out of the question until i can secure more funding. <comment><USER2> Every 6 months, there's a flurry of posts to HN from people who were surprised that they were not accepted into YC. A few months later, as YC companies announce themselves, there's a flurry of stories about how people were surprised that they were accepted.

Moral of the story? It's really hard to predict which startups will be accepted. You might as well apply; from what you've said there's certainly nothing which definitively rules you out.

</comment><comment><USER3> _I know eventually I will have to find a technical co-founder or hire a local hacker but that's really out of the question until I can secure more funding._

Why do you think it's out of the question?

<comment><AUTHOR> oh, i mean it's out of the question to hire someone local because of the bootstrapping situation now. I've been funding development out of my own pocket until this point. I'm starting to look for a co-founder now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As others have stated, it's not absolutely mandatory to have a technical co- founder but it will certainly increase your odds of being accepted and successfully executing your project.

It sounds like you're making the assumption that a technical co-founder requires capital. In most cases, founders split equity and money doesn't enter the equation until you're funded. Have you attended local meetups (some communities have "co-founders wanted" gatherings) or gone to networking events to search for a founder?

Also take a look at this similar question that was asked on Quora: [http://www.quora.com/How-important-is-it-to-have-a- technical...](http://www.quora.com/How-important-is-it-to-have-a-technical- cofounder-in-order-to-get-funding-from-a-VC-or-an-incubator-seed-program)

</comment><comment><USER5> It's free to apply, so you should. Just filling out the app will force you to think about some things you may not have already.

Get a technical co-founder lined up, this increases your odds of acceptance (and overall success) significantly.

</comment><comment><USER6> Applying is free and can't hurt. But if you get rejected just remember that YC seems to use a kind of mold to decide if a company fits with their program. YC typically does not invest in pure technology or software companies (the kinds of companies that could be the next Google/Microsoft), generally preferring web-based apps that can be launched in 3 months or less. You can see the list of companies that YC has funded in the past at <http://yclist.com>. From that you can gleam whether you fit the mold.

<comment><USER7> Is this even true?

Clustrix, Heroku, Cloudant, RethinkDB, dotcloud...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What do you have to lose? Nothing.

I guess this could be analogous to applying for college. Everyone wants to know what their chances of getting in are, etc. The best thing to do is just apply and let things fall into place.

You never know, getting into Y Combinator could be the best thing that ever happened to you, but on the other hand, not getting in could lead you on a path that turns you into a billionaire. You never know.

I'm applying for this next round as well.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the advice guys. Good thing my site is already designed around a lot of the questions asked on the app. I'm working on a project that i believe will bring e-learning to the next level. If anyone's interested in working together please feel free to contact me:)

</comment><comment><USER9> Mathematically, you have a 3 - 4.5% chance or less, based purely on numbers.

</comment><comment><USER10> Even if you don't apply, I encourage you to start filling out the application as a mental exercise. Starting to fill it out may also give you a better feel for whether or not you really want to apply.</comment>


Adam Orth leaves Microsoft following 'always-on' console controversy - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/10/4210870/adam-orth-leaves-microsoft

<comment><USER2> _Microsoft later issued a statement apologizing for Orth's tweet and clarifying that he was not a company spokesperson._

Wish it could be left at that. People make mistakes sometimes.

Besides, if Microsoft's upcoming console ends up requiring always-on Internet, it's not like there's going to be a particularly delightful way for them to deliver this information.</comment>


WhitespaceBot spamming GitHub accounts - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/search?q=This+is+WhitespaceBot+from+Gun.io <comment><USER2> Just trying to be playful, sheesh.

It's funny how polarizing this has been. Some people love the robot and invite it to fix more of their repositories, and some get offended and call it a spam bot. I tried to minimize the spaminess - it's open source, it does something marginally useful, and it never contacts you again. If that's not enough for you well then.. tough cookies, I guess. Welcome to the internet.

<comment><USER3> When you create something polarizing, usually that's a sign you're onto a good thing.

I wonder how the people who've felt spammed would feel if it were a human GitHub user that had contacted them with the same changes.</comment></comment>