Illegal Production and Use of Banned CFC-11 in China's Foam Blowing Industry - <AUTHOR> https://eia-global.org/reports/20180709-blowing-it-illegal-production-and-use-of-banned-cfc-11-in-chinas-foam-blowing-industry <comment><USER2> This kind of "on purpose" behavior is making me very upset. I keep thinking that there should be some kind of mechanism for the perpetrators to have a feel of their own medicine.

Like every time a vehicle in front of me releasing thick black smoke from tailpipe, I feel like it must be required by law for them to channel some of the smoke to go inside their own vehicle, so they know, "Oh, apparently it doesn't smell nice and it can kill me, I should send my car to workshop so I don't hurt others."

Smokers already feel this. In many buildings, when they want to smoke, they must go to some room with other smokers. Although, I still don't understand why they still keep smoking. At least, they can only hurt themselves.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. "Rolling Coal" should be treated as a violent assault on others, especially cyclists, that I should be able to defend myself against like any other assault.

<comment><USER4> This seems like a question that has to be left up to the courts, somehow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> No doubt this publication will result in a crackdown. Good job EIA. Background on EIA @ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Investigation_Ag...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Investigation_Agency)

<comment><USER6> The question is what kind of pressure will China respond to

<comment><USER7> It seems like China is going in the right direction with regards to enforcing environmental standards, so I have no reason to think that this won't result in crackdowns from government.

<comment><USER8> I sure hope so. But China's wasting its energy on:

\- cracking down dissidents (no election - no real 'authority', officials don't have any incentives to listen to "the people"^TM)

\- handling local politics (again, no election - same PRC ppl)

\- deporting N.Korean refugees back to N.Korea (continuing just because Chinas has been doing so - just like PRC praising Mao for Cultural Revolution that killed millions)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This explains the mysterious increased measure of atmospheric CFCs. Hopefully this will help stabilize ozone hole again. Can't believe that China would allow this given all they have to lose. Causing further damage to the ozone will intensify other environmental issues the country and planet experience.

<comment><USER10> China doesn't have as strong a government as many people would think. A lot of enterprising individuals and even local governments will do whatever they can get away with to make a few more yuan. They'll only stop when the central government gets serious and cracks down.

But the same could be said for any hyper capitalistic society without rule of law or strong regulatory enforcement. That just happens to mainly be China right now, but could also be the USA in the future if the EPA is dismantled and Trumpism reigns.

<comment><USER11> Given the tremendous quantity of illegal explosives and fiery flying projectiles (fireworks and skyrockets) discharged in suburban streets over the last week in my fire-prone, drought challenged US city, one might conclude that the US doesn't have a very strong government either.

<comment><USER10> Chinese New Year in Beijing a few years ago was like a war zone during the Gulf war (actualky probably much worse). It's gotten better recently, but I'm sure even minor fireworks during CNY in a rural area blows anything in the USA completely away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Demilic, BASF, Lapolla, etc have all phased out CFC-11 in their Open and Closed Cell Foams since around 2009. It's not surprising that the Chinese still use the old style spray foam. It was less costly to produce, had better cell structure and a better rise from what I remember. But not so good for the environment.

The only positive is where ever they use it as insulation, will reduce energy needs to heat or cool the structure.

</comment><comment><USER13> For reference, trichlorofluoromethane (also called freon-11, CFC-11, or R-11) [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichlorofluoromethane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichlorofluoromethane)

</comment><comment><USER14> See [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Dome_(film)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Dome_\(film\)) for China's inability to regulate their out of control pollution.

<comment><USER8> > By the end of March 1st, 2015, all reports and reviews about the documentary > Under the Dome were withdrawn from online websites

> The reason of banning was said to be the pressure of public perception of > smog and the fear of collective action of the people

it's not 'inability to regulate', but reluctant to regulate. Just make those environmental groups shut up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is the problem with growing an economy at any cost.

<comment><USER16> If you read the guardian on the subject: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/09/mysterio...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/09/mysterious- source-of-illegal-ozone-killing-emissions-revealed-say-investigators)

It seems to me like there is laws against this, there are inspectors, but local corruption and small fines is making it ineffective.

Of the numbers at the end of the article are just somewhat correct, we're talking about maybe 10 factories (give or take). So this is certainly something that can be fixed.

At it's so far clear that the government is not condoning this behavior.

<comment><USER17> China has realized that given their population, climate change will disproportionately affect them. So the government has good reason to actually enforce environmental laws; they're just too big to do it effectively.

<comment><USER15> >China has realized that given their population, climate change will disproportionately affect them.

Not entirely sure about this, time and time again there seems to be a disconnect between what China says and what China does.

>So the government has good reason to actually enforce environmental laws; they're just too big to do it effectively.

When they want to, they are capable of blocking the entire internet, monitoring all residents, manipulating global raw materials. Why else run a dictatorship?

<comment><USER18> From speaking with people who have lived in China, the environment is a huge concern for the people living there. Unlike in the US, there is a very clear expectation that it's the government is both capable of, and is responsible for dealing with it.

Chinese people aren't some mindless propagandized drones. They have the same capacity of looking out the window as you or I.

<comment><USER15> You misunderstand me. I'm not calling them idiots, the average person is probably fully aware that all of this environmental damage turned the sky yellow and made it hotter.

The people making the foam 100% know it's illegal (as they demonstrated) and why it's illegal - yet they still do it. The money is more important to them than the ethics.

Besides, if the Chinese government and the Chinese people didn't think differently, all of this censoring and covering up wouldn't be needed.

<comment><USER18> > The money is more important to them than the ethics.

This is a problem in every country. There's nothing unique about China in that respect. Unethical people will tend behave unethically when money is on the line.

Maybe the cover-ups are done in order to save face, or because some particular agent in the department responsible is getting kickbacks. The CCP as a whole does benefits from the first, not the second.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Another article at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17488344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17488344).

<comment><USER20> That article has the title "Mysterious source of illegal ozone-killing emissions revealed, say investigators", which is an interesting angle that I didn't get from this article. I'm glad I read both.

<comment><USER21> Yeah I read the context a while ago (about there being a new source of CFCs around but nobody knew where from, yet).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is this an instance where evidence can be collected by the relatively new EU Sentinel-5P satellite?

[1] [http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/13/environmental- satellite-r...](http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/13/environmental-satellite- ready-for-blast-off)

<comment><USER23> As far as I know no CFC products are being proposed for Sentinel-5p ([http://www.tropomi.eu/data- products/level-2-products](http://www.tropomi.eu/data- products/level-2-products)) but it will certainly report ozone levels and profiles. In the original Nature paper reporting the detection of unreported CFC production, they used flask samples and numerical back-trajectory methods: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0106-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0106-2)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The Chinese firms told the EIA they will continue to use CFC-11 because it's "superior chemical for foams in house construction." The EIA estimates China's CFC emissions exceed 2,645 million cubic pounds since 2004. I guess the 1989 CFC treaty they signed was a joke.

China also produces radioactive sludge from rare earth mines and grows world trade food crops not even 1/2 mile away.

Photos [https://imgur.com/a/lsVb6X0](https://imgur.com/a/lsVb6X0)

When you constantly pollute at the cost of everyone's health your culture is literally toxic. As a Chinese-American I'm sad to say I'm disgusted by the "worlds oldest civilization."

</comment><comment><USER25> Enjoy your Nectar foam mattress made in China!

</comment><comment><USER26> We need to boycott China. Their environmental negligence is going to harm generations to come. This is just selfish and short sighted.

</comment><comment><USER27> Of course it was China.

<comment><USER19> Could you please not post unsubstantive comments here? Especially not nationalistically divisive ones.

<comment><USER27> Im sorry, it wasn't meant as such.</comment></comment></comment>


The iPhone and Apple's Services Strategy - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2019/the-iphone-and-apples-services-strategy/ <comment><USER2> Not announced in the event but mentioned in the article; this is a very telling indicator as well of Apple's service strategy..

AppleCare+ monthly plans switch to subscription model

[https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/10/applecare-monthly- subscriptio...](https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/10/applecare-monthly- subscription/)

<comment><USER3> How will the subscription work in relation to credit card company's automatic extension on manufacturer's original warranties is a question. AppleCare is not like an extended warranty from another party, it's direct from Apple. This is a big deal when it comes to credit card warranties.

When someone buys an Apple device with a major credit card they can get the time Apple offered the warranty and then an extra year (2 years for American Express) after the conclusion of the original warranty. With a subscription, I suspect the credit card warranty may become voided or would only extend the original default warranty of the device.

Amex has refunded me money to repair multiple MacBook Pros and an iPhone when the devices failed after AppleCare expired but before the automatic extension had expired.

<comment><USER3> There are numbers in the article.

So pay up front on the more expensive phone is $149 for 24 months or $7.99 monthly. 24 x $7.99 = $191.76 (42.76 more than up front). But what for the American Express customer, buying the phone. He or she gets the Apple 2 years plus 2 years from Amex so 48 months of coverage for the original $149 vs $383.52 paid via subscription (a $234.52 savings).

Someone keeping the phone the full 60 months it receives support from Apple would pay a total of $479.40 in AppleCare+ premiums. They did get an extra year of support from Apple vs that of the American Express customer paying up front at an effective aggregate cost of (479.4−149)/12 = $27.53 per month in the final year for coverage.

The American Express customer must of course also be saving for the replacement of his or her iPhone in 48 - 60 months. Presuming he or she wants to have the cash ready if the phone dies in month 49, they must be setting aside (999 × 1.08) ÷ 48 = $22.48/month for 48 months and then can coast for the final 12 months maybe earning a little interest before buying the new phone released in September 2024.

<comment><USER4> Are you sure that the Amex coverage actually stacks with the extended coverage purchased through Apple care in your scenario? (ie does it kick in at month 12 or 24)?

Edit: found a link with some information [https://www.uponarriving.com/amex- extended-warranty/#Warrant...](https://www.uponarriving.com/amex-extended- warranty/#Warranty_less_than_two_years)

"The question gets a little tricky when you're talking about Applecare. Amex should provide you with two additional years of coverage with Applecare since plans are usually 2 to 3 years. The issue is that some have reported they were denied coverage since Applecare was considered secondary coverage"

<comment><USER3> That is interesting. I've not had my claims denied. I even had it approved by showing that I bought AppleCare 11 months after buying the MacBook Pro in 2011. I attached scanned copies of both receipts with the claim and was approved.

<comment><USER4> Reading the Amex coverage, it does address this issue [https://www.americanexpress.com/content/dam/amex/us/credit-c...](https://www.americanexpress.com/content/dam/amex/us/credit- cards/features- benefits/policies/pdf/EW%20Benefit%20Guide_Tier%201%20Rev%2007-18.pdf)

"If the item is also covered by a purchased service contract, the Extended Warranty Period begins at the end of the purchased service contract and extends the original manufacturer's warranty for a period of time equal to the warranty, up to two (2) additional years."

So yes I think Amex extends the warranty after (prepaid 2 year) AppleCare expires for a term of one additional year, taking coverage to 36 months.

<comment><USER3> Amex coverage is now 2 additional years, but yes. It was one year for a long time.

<comment><USER4> I'm not so sure that's the case, when combined with an extended service contract. The "original warranty" was only one year, and this language seems to say that the length of the extended warranty offered by Amex after the service contract is equal to the length of the original warranty, not the length of the service contract. Although I admit, the language is ambiguous and you might luck out with the right Amex agent (when attempting to make a claim in months 36-48)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really like how Ben framed Apple's announcements through the lens of a services strategy, i.e., it's not about the hardware anymore. Instead he presents a solid argument for how keeping lower-priced cost-optimized SKUs around increases the addressable market for Apple Services. Aggressive promotion of Apple TV+ as a way to drive new subscribers to other services (an aggregation theory play) is going to be a fun thing to watch over the next few years.

The only quibble I have with this piece is where Ben got the information about the Apple Arcade games being a fixed cost: "the company is paying a fixed amount for those games overall".

<comment><USER6> Here's an article saying something similar about how Apple is financing the games. It doesn't list its sources, though. [https://9to5mac.com/2019/04/14/arcade-500-million/](https://9to5mac.com/2019/04/14/arcade-500-million/)

<comment><USER5> Thanks, but there's this quote in the article that you linked:

"it is believed that game developers will receive ongoing revenue based on how much time users spend playing their games"

So it looks like they're paying advances (significant - $1-$3M) against some kind of royalty agreement based on time spent playing their game. So not a fixed cost (but perhaps not everyone gets the advances against royalties deal?)

Edit: I just looked over at the Stratechery forums and it seems like others are questioning this as well

"For it to truly be a fixed cost, the participating game developers must be commoditized. Otherwise, they will demand increased payments as Apple's revenues go up.

That may well be the case for games, but I think it's worth noting because Ben has repeatedly made the same claim respecting Netflix, where talent is not commoditized, and has a history of negotiating a fairly consistent share of revenue over time. There, it's not reasonable to characterize Netflix's costs as fixed, in the big picture. So it's importantly to look more closely, rather than to assume that outright purchases of content translate to a long-term fixed cost structure independent of subscriber count/revenues."

<comment><USER7> For better or for worse, and it hurts me on a personal level to say this, but from Apple's perspective, the talent creating these games _is_ a commodity. Those rates are insanely high, there's not a remotely similar substitute available in the market, and you get the halo of Apple for the rest of your career.

Apple's "services" strategy amounts to "commoditize complements; charge using monthly subscriptions". There is a fair distance between this and how other companies use "services". Trade carefully.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Its smart. A lot of people didnt upgrade to the X, and the lower price makes it very appealing to get the 11. Apple tv+ seems like a great deal at only 5 dollars, and should attract tons of new customers, even though the service really doesnt have a great width of content, but apple is good at hiding that, marketing it as a viable alternative to netflix. Shareholders will be very happy at the next earnings call, and the stock has already been showing that.

</comment><comment><USER9> The service is not the weakest part of Apple. Instead, is the complete lack of innovation nowadays. They lost everything since the death of Steve Jobs. Unfortunately.

</comment><comment><USER10> Did anyone notice that nowhere in their keynote address they mentioned macbooks/laptops?

Maybe I missed something, but that is crazy to me. Sure they make their money with iPhones, but their macbook lineup is what I am interested to hear about.

<comment><USER11> They'll have another event in October for that.

<comment><USER10> Ok right, then it makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think stratechery has some good analysis, but too much of it is framed from an Apple fanboi perspective. It reminds me of what a grown up, financially focused, version of RoughlyDrafted would look like. And after having been an Apple fanboi for a few years but not anymore, it's hard for me to read.

As an example, this article itself justifies Apple's 2016 keynote as being innovative because accessories revenues have doubled since. Doubling of revenues could mean and imply many things, but innovation is hardly one of them.

</comment><comment><USER13> That stil doesn't explain why the keynote was so boring. For the first time, I had had enough and closed it and walked away. Usually, Apple's iPhone announcements are pretty exciting. This time around, even the presentation itself felt like a giant corporate presentation sprinkled with keywords like "innovation" to make me believe they were innovating. There was nothing innovative about the keynote. The iPhone is a laggard at this point and there are far superior offerings at this point.

A few years ago, I wouldn't have said the same and would have even ridiculed if someone claimed Android phones were better, but after playing with an S10+, iPhones really don't impress me anymore.

"But it offers more privacy?" Nope. Didn't you read about the part where all your personal siri recordings were played out by contractors? Including sex acts and arm deals? What happens on your iPhone does NOT stay on your iPhone because it's proprietary software. Duh.

I'm done with Apple. But I'm also looking for something beyond Android at this point. Wish there was a truly 100% open source phone I could trust.

<comment><USER14> Pretty much all the voice assistant companies have been caught having people listen in at this point. Amazon, Samsung and Google for sure at least. It is pretty disappointing to find Apple in on the act as well though.

<comment><USER15> There is literally no other way to apply machine learning to such a large problem. The system must have training data to learn from; as you expand the scope of your ML system, you must expand the scope of your training data.

Every large commercial ML system works this way. Google for years has paid people to manually score and categorize search results pages, to provide training data for ML web search systems.

It would have been better if companies were up-front about this when talking about "artificial intelligence" in their voice products, so it doesn't look like a nasty surprise.

And in the long run, everyone will benefit from some consistent regulations on ML data scoring, like HIPAA for health care (another industry where for-profit companies handle very sensitive customer data).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Apple's strategy is holding on to the brand, while competitors slowly chip away at their market share, awaiting a mortal blow to their entire hardware- centric business strategy from cloud-first computing.

Once most business software has a cloud equivalent that can run via an internet connection (Google is already trying to roll this out for gaming, wrong direction of course), Windows and Mac are finished.

Once Windows and Mac are finished, it'll only be a matter of coming up with a new phone os that can run on 50-100$ devices (or android, yuck) and then Apple is really finished.

Who's going to spend 2k on a macbook, 1k on an iPhone and 500$ on a watch, when you can have a 200$ computer, 100$ phone and 50$ watch that do nearly the same thing. Oh, and a 200$ point-and-shoot camera that'll forever beat any phone-camera due to camera size limitations inherent to phones. In fact I predict the next big consumer hit will be a point-and-shoot camera with a phone os.

Microsoft knows this, Google knows it too - they're building out planet-wide infrastructure for cloud-first computing that's coming. Apple is jerking around with 0 progress on all of its platforms, milking brand loyalty, producing pretty, severely over-priced trinkets (awful battery life, awful keyboards, awful screen burn-in, insane ssd prices, awful ports requiring insanely over-priced adapters) to signal allegiance to a middle-class or up caste, and making their shareholders short-term rich, while long-term poor.

<comment><USER17> > Once most business software has a cloud equivalent that can run via an > internet connection (Google is already trying to roll this out for gaming, > wrong direction of course), Windows and Mac are finished.

The desktop software I use day to day (IntelliJ, Zoom, Slack) already runs on Linux. The rest is already in the cloud.

And yet, of my coworkers, we have about 1 in 50 folks running Linux instead of Mac. It's been this way for the last 6 years - I was actually on Linux in 2013, but have come back to Mac because it's still just all put together a bit nicer in both software and hardware. My last job even discontinued Linux support in that time period.

At my partner's job, they also run on google docs and gmail, but since it's not a software dev job, it's 100% on Mac, without even that small Linux fraction.

<comment><USER18> Running crap on cloud works great until you're above the cloud or really below the cloud. Powerful edge devices will always be valuable. iPhone is prolly one of the most powerful edge devices out there</comment></comment></comment>


Using Keras and Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient to play TORCS - <AUTHOR> https://yanpanlau.github.io/2016/10/11/Torcs-Keras.html <comment><USER2> This is cool, but unlike some other recent neural game players [1] [2], it doesn't look at the screen at all. It also has an objective function which is tightly coupled to this game. Therefore this work is not easily generalizable to other video games, nor would it be useful for a real-world self-driving car.

[1] [http://vizdoom.cs.put.edu.pl/](http://vizdoom.cs.put.edu.pl/) [2] [https://deepmind.com/research/dqn/](https://deepmind.com/research/dqn/)

<comment><USER3> It is quite easy to change the input features as pixels and fit into convnet under Keras (That's why I love Keras so much). However, gym_torcs only support 64x64 pixels and it is hard to see by human eyes, IMHO.

[https://github.com/ugo-nama-kun/gym_torcs/issues/4](https://github.com/ugo- nama-kun/gym_torcs/issues/4)

<comment><USER2> Interesting, yeah that seems a bit small. Would be a fun project to fix!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Projects like these reminds me of why I got into AI research in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very interesting.

Given enough training, would the car learn to find the apexes of turns?

<comment><USER6> No, the function rewards staying in the middle of the track.

<comment><USER3> Staying in the middle of the track is not a necessary requirement in the reward function. The reason I include it is to speed up the learning time in the beginning. You can remove it once you learn a reasonable policy and see it the agent can find the optimal apex path. I will do a test tonight.

Just like in human world : You first learn how to drive before you learn how to drift the car.

<comment><USER5> Any news on the test? I'm curious.

<comment><USER3> Please find the result below. I modified the reward function such that staying in the middle of the track is no longer required.

[https://youtu.be/Tb5gASEJIRM](https://youtu.be/Tb5gASEJIRM)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. teens are spending less time with their friends in person - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/teens-have-less-face-time-with-their-friends-and-are-lonelier-than-ever-113240 <comment><USER5> Part of the issue, I think is that teenagers are more restricted by parents, laws, and business owners than they used to be.

As with younger children, parents are less likely now than in past decades to allow their teenage children to travel alone or hang out in groups without adults present. Legal restrictions compound the issue, with curfew laws being increasingly common, as well as increased driving ages and graduated licenses. Finally, businesses that used to be popular hangouts for teenagers, such as shopping malls have become less welcoming, often having limits on when teenagers are allowed on the premises without a parent.

<comment><USER6> So true, in essence driving them into online friend interactions.

Makes you wonder what life will be like for children 50 years from now, and how that would compare with today.

After there was a time when making explosives was a childhood right of passage along with chemistry sets, making fires, even having a pocket knife. Today, such common activities would not end well at all, however innocent the intention. These are activities people still alive today will recall.

With that, online is still in part a wild-west and new playfield, open, less restrictions compared to real life and with that, perhaps the logical outlet for teenage freedom.

But even that is slowly being eroded away with the same mentalities that drove children into 1984 style parenting.

With that, todays children may very well in their 50's look at the children of the time and feel how restricted and curtailed they are compared to the freedoms they enjoyed in their time. That would not surprise me, but equally, when do laws, rules, restrictions reach a zenith when no more need be added or changed! Until then, the lamentations of life march on.

<comment><USER7> Surely kids still try to make gunpowder, what are you talking about? And for who but kids are pocket knives and chenistry sets made?

> there was a time when making explosives was a childhood right of passage > along with chemistry sets, making fires, even having a pocket knife.

<comment><USER6> In the UK, both are now illegal, can't even sell a knife to anybody under 18, same with glue and many things above and beyond alcohol and tobacco. Equally, having a knife in public, would be mandatory jail in the UK in the current climate. For a child, they would be taken into care and some serious nightmares for the parents from social services and the police.

As for explosives, all the above, but far worse. By default you would get classed a terrorist until proven innocent style justice on that one, again the current climate.

<comment> frosted-flakes What kind of knives are we talking about? Are even mini Swiss Army knives with 1.5" blades banned? What about a multi-tool like a Leatherman Wave, which has three 3" blades along with pliers, etc? I carry my leatherman everywhere I go, and wouldn't blink if I saw a 14 year old with one. Ontario, Canada.

<comment><USER6> The official line is:- [https://www.police.uk/crime-prevention- advice/possession-of-...](https://www.police.uk/crime-prevention- advice/possession-of-weapons/)

However, interpretation of what threatening is varies and for some people say walking a dog, the sight of a knife of any form would be a call to the police - however legal or not. This and the internet has demonstrated time and time again, that whatever is said or done - their will always be some who will take offence.

Take a look at - [https://www.knifefree.co.uk/](https://www.knifefree.co.uk/) which is linked upon that page. Can see what type of message they are putting out regarding knives, do recommend doing that quiz. Also interesting is the boss button on the right (quick exit from site onto google).

But then the UK is very London centric in how laws and rules get driven and more so - enforced. Compared to Canada, in which you have more wilderness, the social culture is more at ease and as such the law/system - less reactionary. Equally you have whole area's in which people don't lock their doors. Unheard of in today's times in the UK alas (though I'm sure there are small hamlets of hope). Though was common in the past, even in London.

<comment><USER8> Wow, so if I, say _buy_ a cooking knife and get "caught" carrying it home from the store, "A court will decide if you've got a good reason to carry a knife if you're charged with carrying it illegally."

Or if I take a chef's knife to a friend's house to cook dinner with them, the same court will intervene? Presumably following an arrest?

That second link is just so creepy to me (pacifist American). I can see how it uses language in such an incriminating way. It's so absolute: "When you carry a knife, you're risking everything." That's a sublime exaggeration. Worst case, I'm risking one life. Not trivial, but a far cry from "everything."

"knife crime has devastating personal effects on you, your friends, and your family." Meh, it may. But mostly it sounds like the effects are all visited on me by the government. Icky, over-reaching and emasculating.

I can see how it gives people who are already good the warm fuzzies, but actual criminals will mock and sneer at this "effort." ...and it looks like "knife crime" (as opposed to say "burglary" or "homicide", actual crimes, not crimes directed by a specific weapon (again with that authoritarian language)) has nearly doubled in the last 5 years, so great job with your authoritarian campaign, UK! /s [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089)

<comment><USER9> You've been given misinformation.

If you're carrying a cooking knife there's no reason to stop you or search you. But if somehow there is a reason to stop and search you, and you have your new knife in its packaging with a receipt the police will say "what's this?" and you'll say "it's a cooking knife I've just bought and am taking home" and they'll say no more about it unless eg you have a conviction for stabbing people or you have a restraining order against you because you've threatened to kill someone.

<comment><USER10> So convicted criminals and people with restraining orders have to have someone straw purchase the items required to have a properly outfitted kitchen?

In one of the Chinese social credit comment threads someone said "well of course people who haven't run a foul of an authoritarian system generally approve of it" and I think that applies here too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Idk if this is specific to my generation, but us young people suck at hanging out. People never confirm whether or not they're going to an event. They flake all the time, often without warning. If they're not flaking, they're perpetually late, often absurdly (nothing like getting to a place and getting a text about just leaving). It drives me nuts. But it's so ubiquitous, it's hard to take a stand against it. It's like people forgot how to hang out with friends.

<comment><USER12> When I was a kid, which is getting to be a long time ago, we never really scheduled anything. People in our peer group tended to hang out in maybe 6-10 different locations - one being a particular bar, one being a particular corner, one being a particular house, etc. Sometimes a location would disappear, sometimes you'd hear about a new location.

On your downtime, you would go to one of those locations and join the group already there, or loiter a little while until someone you knew showed up. If nobody showed up, you'd drift to one of the other locations and do the same thing. One out of 20 times you'd go home without seeing anybody that you were interested in hanging out with.

That's how a commons works, I think. The problem is a lack of a commons, and a suspicion of people in public who aren't currently in the process of shopping. The idea that in this alienated time I'd go to a particular restaurant where people go, drink coffee and just wait for somebody to show up that wanted to hang out almost sounds utopian or suspiciously foreign, but it was my life from probably age 12 to 24.

<comment><USER13> The commons thing does sound pretty magical the way you described it. For me, there were often anti-social people at those common areas. People who you sometimes didn't want to run into, who were really certain subcultures and they didn't always mix.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I volunteer at STEM after school program at a Northern California suburban public school in a very affluent county. Engineers from the local companies work on projects with hacker kids.

It's a pretty dreamy albeit "canned" town, I never lived in a place that nice. Lots of cul de sacs and "mini malls" and "canned fun" places that are very walkable (unlike the poorer suburbs where kids have to cross 8 lanes of traffic to meet at a Shari's).

I noticed that before I show up at 5PM (I get to leave work early two fridays a month, yay!, the kids are sitting around on their phones. And when I leave at 7pm, kids just go home with their parents. First: few of them drive. WTF?! Then the weird part: there's a frigging movieplex down the street with a bunch of restaurants and TWO parks on opposite sides of the main E/W street... and they just ... go home. WTF.

Maybe they are lying to the adults in the room, but the parents claim they go home and text or play computer games all night.

<comment><USER15> > few of them drive. WTF?!

Rad? I didn't need to drive in High School, and I still found plenty to do back in the 90s. Kids today have even more options.

> there's a frigging movieplex down the street with a bunch of restaurants and > TWO parks on opposite sides of the main E/W street... and they just ... go > home. WTF.

First, movie theaters are awful. Second, there's so much cool stuff to do once you get home! I can go home and play a space marine with my friends, or build castles, or ride dragons, or be the last one standing in any number of variations on king of the hill. I can jump online with my crew and be literally anything you can imagine. With tools like Roll20, I can tell stories and roleplay. I can watch Netflix with my friends online.

Restaurants are expensive. Parks are fun for a bit, but it seems pretty out of touch to say, "What The Fuck."

<comment><USER16> Is being so boring and antisocial a norm these days ? :D (Just busting your balls haha)

I think a lot of us deeply care about the future society that will cater to the people that are currently young. And it seems remarkably boring, superficial and for the lack of a better word, just devoid of anything fun.

In the end noone cares if this is a subculture (there were enough subcultures when I was in school i.e goths, metalheads etc), its more of a problem if this behaviour becomes uniform across all cultures and mainstream.

<comment><USER15> My argument is that it's not anti social. It's maybe less visibly social, but being in a group voice or video chat while playing board or video games is definitely a social activity. Or building something together - <USER2> enable us to engage in storytelling and art in ways our ancestors could only dream of.

Yeah, sure, they aren't social in the same way you were. But you weren't social in the same ways your parents were either. Calling the younger generations antisocial because they've fully embraced technology as a core part of their identity smacks of patronism to me. Kids these days with their rock and roll, so antisocial!

<comment><USER17> So then, how does sex happen? (Or any intimacy.)

That's the bit the old people don't understand.

Board games are fine, as would be video games in the same room as the other players. But online?

Note that the same worry would apply to a youth who spent all their free time reading alone in the past.

<comment><USER18> It does not. That's why we have a massive drop in teenage pregnancies.

<comment><USER19> I disagree, kids have more access to sex education than ever now and tinder is a really good tool for hookups. They just know to use a condom. I remember my dad thought that if the woman was on top and you came inside her she wouldn't get pregnant because of gravity, 9 months later I showed up. Thank you catholic school for only teaching abstinence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There's also the fact that when you're in the suburbs, you need a chauffeur until you can drive. American adults are working more and more, and thus less available to take children to outside activities, which these days are also further and further apart.

<comment><USER15> I grew up in the suburbs. We took this thing called a 'bus' into the city when we needed to.

<comment><USER21> We had a bus in my suburb. The bus stop was an hours walk away so you had to be driven there and it leaves once an hour and doesn't go to anywhere your friends are so if you wanted to visit a friends house you would have to take 2 bus trips in each direction which would probably add up to about 5 hours travel time in a day.

Or you could just invite them to an online game and have fun right away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > It turns out that today's teens are socializing with friends in > fundamentally different ways – _and also happen to be the loneliest > generation on record._

This is a very sad observation.

(as I sit at a computer, not looking at anyone, and type these words)

</comment><comment><USER23> All the sillhouettes of kids in the banner have undercuts and it makes me shivver. Hate that style. I guess I'm an old man now.

Anyway, I'm hardly surprised that kids aren't spending time with friends in person, because nobody likes spending time with people in person as default. In my childhood in the 90s, I did it only for events that require it, like board games or sports, or when the alternatives are boring or unavailable, like when I haven't had a new game to play in a while, or my sister was hogging the internet.

The separation has only increased as at-home activities have gotten less boring and more available, and as physical presence became less neccessary for social activities like games.

AIM was great, we could chat without having to be physically together.

Battle.net was great, we could play games without having to be physically together.

Xbox Live was great, we could play games AND chat at the same time without having to be physically together. (many fond memories of high school nights quizzing each other on history while blowing each other up in Halo 3)

Facebook was great, we could share stories and media without having to be physically together, and asynchronously as a bonus.

I am not convinced that face-to-face interaction is an inherent good. The last several decades of technological development have been the story of people striving to spend less time with each other physically. Especially given the article's proposed explanation that "friend groups meet on instragram now, and kids without instagram are lonely", the barriers to telecommunication are lower than ever before.

Or maybe we should cut this thread short and save the discussion for Linuxfest Northwest.

<comment><USER24> > _" because nobody likes spending time with people in person as default."_

That's very far from true.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, I'm not quite sure where he got this. I'm an introvert, and I still really enjoy spending time in-person with close friends. In fact, I don't do that well relating to people over the internet (at least not emotionally speaking).

<comment><USER26> Sounds a big like they are from the planet in Asimov's The Naked Sun in which people live miles apart and only see each other through holograms, never in person.

<comment><USER27> If I recall correctly, the fate of that planet in one of his later books was basically a small population of androgynous people who reproduced asexually and lived on robot-run plantations.

It's something I think about from time to time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> For the less socials teens, it's much easier for them to play an online game with each other than to actually meetup in person. I would know, because I used to be one of them.

Meeting together in person used to give me tremendous anxiety and as a result I would always vouch for taking the easy way out. In hindsight, I wish I had actually made more of an effort to hangout during my high school years because deep down I did enjoy those personal interactions. Nowadays I'm a lot more social than I was in the past and a lot more happier as a result too.

</comment><comment><USER29> "Tech" corporations have successfully conned a large portion of the population into believing that clicking a thumbs up icon under a photo of someone's breakfast or mindlessly scrolling through useless reposted memes qualifies as "staying in touch".

Even when people do venture out, it often seems to be for the sole purpose of collecting carefully planned and staged selfies that they feel will gain them more thumbs up clicks.

It's a sad situation, and I feel bad for the kids who are growing up in a world where this shit has a death grip on all of their peers.

</comment><comment><USER30> I wonder if one of the biggest drivers of loneliness isn't necessarily that kids are spending more time on their phones or even that they have less face time with their friends, but that their social media can tell them more about what their friends are doing when they aren't together. First, everyone knows people curate their social media presence so that they look cool and that they are doing fun things. Second, if two of my friends in my group of friends hung out, I wouldn't necessarily know about it until after the fact. I wouldn't be able to see fun images of my friends or even people who were like the "cool kids" hanging out. Essentially, that limited the amount of FOMO you could experience because you just didn't have that ability.

I definitely think some of it also has to do with the level of control and protection we try to place on kids as well. It's just probably discouraging to kids or, worse, they sense their parent's fear that something will happen to them so they become afraid and ultimately pull themselves back from social interactions.

I wonder if kids also tend to feel more lonely because parents have also increased their smartphone usage. When I go out to restaurants, I feel like I am more likely to see entire families on their phones sitting around the table instead of talking with one another. That can't help either.

</comment><comment><USER31> Interesting how 12th-graders are as lonely as they where in the 70s & 80s (almost no difference). What happened in 2006 that made loneliness drop so much?

<comment><USER32> Probably advent of instant messengers made them feel less lonely, culminating around 2006-2008 when modern social networks really took off, but peaking in today's result of every post on fb/twitch/instagram engendering social anxiety and thus 'loneliness'.

<comment><USER33> I reckon you're right. This was peak Yahoo Instant Messenger time, and it launched in 1998, just before the graph starts moving downwards.

<comment><USER34> Really? I feel like peak instant messenger time was around 2001 or so... I wonder if it has to do with how old we are?

<comment><USER35> Peak for _you_ was likely when you were a teen.

But overall? In 2001 computers weren't ubiquitous nor portable. Middle-class kids were on IM on their desktops and maybe laptops for max a few hours per day.

Now kids have phones for IM all day and night.

<comment><USER34> The grandparent comment was saying that 2006-2008 was peak instant messenger, and people using messengers on phones were certainly not common during those years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> There may be a fear element that also affects adults -- some time ago, I was at a work party at a bar in a major city. (Nice bar, ritzy area) Everybody else either came in groups by car or had a hotel within walking distance; mine's quite a way out. Shortly past midnight I'm tired of watching people act stupid and tell folks I'm walking back (alone). Most of them were surprised I was willing to do that!

But in my youth, also in a major city, I'd walk back from the movies or wherever with other kids around 1-2am all the time. You had to know which areas were lit and not stare strangers straight in the eye, but that's kinda normal, and certainly no one then felt walking was inherently dangerous. What world do we live in that a bunch of semi drunk adults can't handle the night for 2 miles?

No wonder their kids are spending their lives' quietest hours in front of a screen if that's the risk tolerance calibration of the parents.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is a very poorly written article, if not poorly done science. (See Criticism section of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Twenge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Twenge))

Showing two graphs with opposite directions and claiming one is the cause of the other is not how one should present their claims.

It could be just the case that because of some other reason(s) teens spend less face-to-face time with their friends, and they spend more time on social media.

Beside, the second graph already shows high loneliness rates in 80s, too. Is this also because of social media which did not exist in 80s?

There can be so many other reasons for teens to feel depressed: economy, global warming, the increasing gap between rich and poor, mortgage crisis, and now student debt crisis, so on and on.

Please do not divert our attention to wrong reasons, or please make sure that you are really on top of your game.

</comment><comment><USER38> The sense of community is gone. And it really takes a village to raise a child but that's disappeared in the US outside of small rural communities.

<comment><USER39> No, sense of community is actually stronger than ever I think. But those communities are less geographic and much more ideological. The communal bond these days happens more in ideas and beliefs than in physical proximity. Social media made it so, and this shifted sense of community has given rise to increasingly radical and extreme ideologies — but also much stronger bonds in my opinion.

<comment><USER40> That's a slightly different sense of community though -- there are things that local (geographically) communities can provide that online communities simply can't. Some of those things are probably pretty important.

<comment><USER39> This is an important conversation, but being on HN I cannot resist...

> there are things that local (geographically) communities can provide that > online communities simply can't

Identify this delta! It may just be the seed to the next big social network. :)

<comment><USER41> You've never heard of Meetup.com?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Juvenile violent crime rates are falling in sync with teens spending less time with others. Compare the chart in [1] with the parent article.

Maybe the rate of violent crime is roughly constant for time spent with others.

[1] [https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2019/vanishing- violence/](https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2019/vanishing-violence/)

</comment><comment><USER43> I think it's just an indication of how much more addicting technology is than people care to admit. To say that there was nothing fun to do back in the olden days would be false. These days there are way more options that are much more addicting and gratifying. Why play in the park when you can blast people online. Games are designed to build addiction and sure enough it works - <USER3> would rather fame than do anything outside.

I don't know if there is any easy way around this. I personally struggled with gaming addiction for the longest time and kept lying to myself that I was in total control. Looking back I feel sorry for all the kids who are sucked into the world of gaming now, especially when adults who grew up gaming themselves are nothing wrong with it. I tuned into a random twitch stream one time with this grown ass guy playing some mmo and his little kid came in the room and asked daddy to play with him. He just dismissed the kiddo and told him to go find mommy. Really fucking sad.

<comment><USER21> >To say that there was nothing fun to do back in the olden days would be false.

I think people are saying the opposite. When I think back at all the most fun things I did as a kid, a large chunk of them are totally unavailable to most kids now.

What is there for a kid to do outside now? Most of them could go outside and walk for hours in any direction and not find anything but rows of houses and roads. Likely all of their friends live so far away that walking there isn't an option.

Why play in the park when there may be no park you can get to without your parents driving you there and when you get there you find no one your age or that you know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> According to some experts, spending more time on social media and less time face to face, might result in emotional under development as the conditions for the formation of the brain circuitry in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) are not adequately met. [1]

The OFC is not well understood, but it has been implicated in mental disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, addiction, etc.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2YdpvnwtGc&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2YdpvnwtGc&feature=youtu.be&t=704)

</comment><comment><USER45> From my experience, the feeling of loneliness has little to do with face time with friends. You can feel "lonely" even if you're constantly surrounded by friends/family.

</comment><comment><USER46> "the generation I call "iGen" that's also called Gen Z"

I am judging this author very harshly for making up their own label for something everybody else already has a name for.

</comment><comment><USER47> The irony is not lost on me that this is currently the top post on a "social news website".

<comment><USER48> HackerNews is a content aggregator. There's nothing social here; you and I aren't going to look at or remember each other's usernames.

<comment><USER49> Communicating with who I presume are other people seems kind of social to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The competitive nature of the world, as felt by youth in particular, might have something to do with it. Spending time "just hanging out" might seem like a waste of time when you see people your age making millions of dollars online. I guess this is another side of the "comparing your life to other people's" problem.

</comment><comment><USER51> Eventually kids today will experience life not too unlike Brandon Fraser in the film blast from the past. In total isolation until adulthood. Majorly unprepared for what life has to offer them. But he is smarter than average in that film, but the depth of his social isolation will be reality.

</comment><comment><USER52> This article is pretty interesting. However, if you read closely you'll see that they fail to justify their implication that digital media access is causing young people to feel more lonely. It's speculation that appeals to readers "common sense".

</comment><comment><USER53> It's more difficult to find interesting people nearby than it's to find interesting people in the internet. It could be also, that it's easier to develop online identity than it's to develop an identity in real life. If people feel they can connect with other people the way they are able to connect in real life, it's easy to see why making connections face to face decreases: your looks don't matter, your speech impediment don't matter, your disabilities don't matter; if you're strange, you find similarly strange people online; if you have rare interests, you find company, etc...

</comment><comment><USER54> tl;dr: technology in the late 90s and mid 00s gave power to users to be more social on their own terms, technology in the late 00s took power away from users and gave it to platforms to dictate social interaction with notifications

It appears that this dip in loneliness started as early as the late 90s when internet and cell phone technology was connecting us and enabling us to be more, deliberately, social. Perhaps in the late 90s to mid 00s we found the sweet spot for balance between social technology and loneliness. After the mid 2000s, Facebook became a thing, smart phones became ubiquitous, and user behavior was increasingly driven by non-deliberate means: notifications.

Notifications are making people miserable because its turned social into a fucking chore. You are less likely to have the social engagement you decided upon, and instead to have one generated for you by an algorithm.

<comment><USER55> _Notifications are making people miserable because its turned social into a fucking chore._

It always was a chore, though, at least for anyone at all introverted. Even in the days before cellphones, I would sigh a sigh of relief when I could put down the phone. It was the same sigh when I closed the door after a visit from a salesperson or a service person. It's the same sigh of relief when I get home from a function at the city club.

Not every place you go in public is a place you feel at home to be your real, unguarded self.

<comment><USER56> I don't know - I kinda see it like the show stranger things. That's how I grew up. We'd bike, walk, or whatever show up to our friends house. Parents didn't have instant communication back then, so the expectancy factor wasn't there. All that mattered was that when the sun was dimming, we'd have to be home for dinner.. Any time after school and before the dimming was our time. Like the goonies.

Damn. Damn no really damn, the current generation doesn't fucking have the goonies. That's just so sad.

<comment><USER57> I hate to be silly but they really should be and probably are retreating to their homes when dusk comes around to avoid the creepers and such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Outside of virtual settings replacing physical settings, perhaps one possibility is the version of ourselves we present online is collectively making everyone lonelier.

What I mean by this is that in order to seem like someone that others would want to hang out with, we present our best selves, making us appear more social than we are, thus those are the only versions anyone ever sees. People simultaneously know that they're not as social as they present themselves, while forgetting to assume the same about the version others present, thus they assume everyone is having fun without them.

That or I'm just projecting ...

</comment><comment><USER59> Similar things are discussed in this year's World Happiness Report – [http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/the-sad-state-of- happin...](http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/the-sad-state-of-happiness-in- the-united-states-and-the-role-of-digital-media/).

Specially figure 5.4 makes it pretty clear: more internet hours = less happiness.

</comment><comment><USER60> The Machine Stops is getting closer and closer.

</comment><comment><USER61> > the drop accelerated after 2010 – just as smartphones use started to grow.

Does anyone think not giving them access to phones till they go to college and encourage them instead to play sports with neighboring kids help? (assuming both neighbor parent agree to this!) Is that any practical anymore?

<comment><USER62> I think that's a good idea. Of course, I was a teen right up until that dip (was 20 when the iPhone came out) and didn't have a cell phone until college. But I was a computer geek, gamer, and script kiddie since middle school. But every other night in high school I was sneaking out to hang out with friends and girlfriends. Played sports every day. Our college years were also when binge drinking was more accepted and there were far more parties - <USER4> have cracked down hard on that.

Teens today seem very well behaved in comparison. But it seems like they don't have much fun. We've given them outrage culture, a nanny state, and more restrictive schools though, so is this really surprising?

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I wonder how this differs by location. I grew up rural, and my childhood experience was wildly different from suburban and city kids.

While I loved video games, I also rode horses or ATVs to see neighborhood friends and the area kids had large open spaces in which to explore and get up to mischief in.

</comment><comment><USER64> But more time with their friends online.

My 9 year old son (admittedly not a teen) had a friend over, but at some point the friend went home because the two wanted to play together.

That sentence would have made no sense when I was a kid, but it's apparently how things work now. Blew my mind a bit.

</comment><comment><USER65> I think that there is less time spent with friends is also a reason there is more mental health issues. People need to see friends in real person not just via online mediums.

A lot of more online possibilities also leads to a world where people do more things on their own.

</comment><comment><USER66> It maybe be a good development, like a preparation for lonely future life in space exploration where most people will live in harmony with robotic beings and drive avatars, rovers and drones in a game like environment.

Also it will cease epidemics easier and social anxiety.

</comment><comment><USER67> They are also using drugs less and getting pregnant at a lower rate

<comment><USER68> I guess sex, drugs and rock-n-roll is the ultimate path to happiness :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> teens? hell most millenials might be like that, too.

i see my friends every other month if im lucky, but i play video games with them nightly. Friends i met in college that ended up moving away, but we still hang out and keep in touch online.

i used to have one friend that lived close by but he recently moved thousands of miles away, too. so now, 90% of my interactions with my friends is online.

</comment><comment><USER70> wasn't the whole point of communication networks reducing transportation costs?

</comment><comment><USER71> Wow, groundbreaking. How much did that study cost?</comment>


Problems in Open Source - <AUTHOR> https://geoffg.net/OpenSource.html <comment><USER2> This is a sad tale.

At best, the competitor has behaved very poorly. Their removal of copyright claims in particular is a clear indication of malign intent.

But the author is correct in their assessment: the primary purpose of the GPL, and Free or Open Source licenses in general, is to provide a right to modify and distribute to anyone who obtains the software. There is no special protection for the original author(s).

Many projects have had a similar experience. Retaining a trademark on the project name gives the holder some parallel rights. Even projects as significant as Linux have had to deal with this.</comment>


Delivery for Mr. Assange - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/bitnk/ <comment><USER2> Can be followed on twitter as well

<https://twitter.com/bitnk/>

also, e-mail sent to Assange informing him of the parcel:

<http://pastebin.com/44m5UViP>

<comment><USER3> I didn't get this part ...

> There are over 9000 identical parcels! So, if the first parcel fails to > reach you, we will undertake a second and third attempt.

Surely they haven't made 9000 camera parcels?

<comment><USER4> "Over 9000" is a meme, so don't take it literally.

<comment><USER3> Ok thanks!

<http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-over-9000>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You may want to follow this on twitter instead of using the IP Address given in the link.

I only say this in case it's just one server behind this IP address, and the camera / phone is posting it's images to it as well. Viral traffic could potentially ruin the entire experiment.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can no longer edit the post, but if a mod wants to switch it to a Twitter link I agree that would be a good idea. I didn't expect this to be so popular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How does it holds internet connection? Police will definitely notice it for Julian - and will x-ray it. Then they'll see wires and circuitry inside. Bomb? Would be interesting to see progress...

<comment><USER7> Alternatively, it _is_ a bomb, and one cleverly prepared to maximize the likelihood that it is opened by its intended target. (Somehow I imagine Mr Assange is careful about opening unsolicited packages these days -- but if he becomes aware of this one, he might relax that standard).

Perhaps my tinfoil hat needs adjusting.

<comment><USER8> Does not. That's the first thing that came into my mind when I saw it.

At least now we all know who gave this crazy idea to some secret agent agencies if this indeed happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hmm... sending a device into an embassy, that is recording data (video), possibly sound, and transmitting it.

Isn't this an act of espionage? While cool, this seems like a bad idea to me.

<comment><USER10> I agree, very ballsy art. I don't believe I have ever explicitly seen a law here in the US (I know this is UK, just comparing) forbidding cameras within a package, but I would think there would be some law on the books somewhere they could apply (not saying that is a good thing, esp in light of recent events).

<comment><USER11> CFAA, wire fraud. It fits any crime.

<comment><USER12> General espionage / covert surveillance should cover it better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Anyone else want to see assange giving a thumbs up and rapping at the end of this?

<comment><USER14> Knowing the internet, he'd probably sing "Never Gonna Give You Up"

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wow, I was just thinking how cool it would be to watch a package be delivered online. Anyone know how the images are being transmitted?

<comment><USER16> Probably a cell phone

<comment><USER17> Copy that. I wrote something like this over bonded GSM links (1G) in Australia circa late 2000/early 2001. Also carried a GPS feed. 10 seconds was about normal then for a CIF JPEG over 2 x ~8kbps links (very lossy and unreliable though). This is higher res, but then data speeds have improved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Interesting experiment. Some of the Twitter posts say where the parcel is, but there is no EXIF data on the images posted. I would guess that either the images were geotagged but are processed to remove it, or the author separately uploads GPS data along with images.

Any chance of providing a time series of the parcel's location?

<comment><USER19> >Any chance of providing a time series of the parcel's location?

Let's do that /after/ it arrives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's going to get opened...

You've only got to look at the xray image on the bottom of this site to see why - <http://archive.is/lIwe8>

</comment><comment><USER21> Doesn't load for me :(

Edit: Seems a bit overloaded and only slowed down.

<comment><USER15> Here's a saved version: <http://archive.is/lIwe8>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This looks straight out from a Hollywood movie. Now, this makes me curious. Who is behind this?

<comment><USER23> Google for !Mediengruppe Bitnik. They are a "media collective" based in Zurich[1]. And this is not their first hack.

[1][https://sites.google.com/site/kabkinteractivemediadesign/opp...](https://sites.google.com/site/kabkinteractivemediadesign/opportunities/workshopmediengruppebitnik)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Pretty Awesome little technique. Any chance we could do this for presidents?

</comment><comment><USER25> Awesome! But I hope they have some plan to fix this:

"!Mediengruppe Bitnik @bitnk moving again. but: USER IS over daily photo limit: bitnik!"

edit: Nvm, seems it was only a photo limit on the pic.twitter.com service.

</comment><comment><USER26> It appears the ec2 instance has died. They should put an ELB in front of it (I assume you can get static ips for elbs).

<comment><USER27> ELBs are accessed via a CNAME as it's on scalable/changable infrastructure - you can't get a (reliable) static IP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Also audio feed would be interesting as well. Is there somewhere array of saved images kept?

<comment><USER28> Example URL: [http://126.96.36.199/public/ASSANGE/2013/01/16/20130116204737...](http://18.104.22.168/public/ASSANGE/2013/01/16/20130116204737.jpg)

The filename s in the form YYYYMMDDHHMMSS.jpg - you could probably guess the path to past images if you wanted to, or even knock up a script that would download them all.

<comment><USER29> "knock up a script that would download them all"

That doesn't seem to end well for people lately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Can anyone explain the URL to me?

<comment><USER31> Its not an URL. Its an IP.

<comment><USER32> "a URL". One doesn't say "an uniform resource locator".

<comment><USER33> People who pronounce "URL" as "earl" say "an URL".

(One of my coworkers does this, Australian if it helps.)

<comment><USER34> Although it's not correctly pronounced as earl. (You sound each letter separately.)

So using "an" would be yet another mistake.

<comment><USER35> Lol.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Definitely think this is a bad idea. If the Royal Mail find out they might destroy the package.

<comment><USER37> And that's a bad thing? I don't think they're concerned about property damage. They're doing it to see what happens.

<comment><USER36> I'm not 100% sure but it does sound to me like it might be illegal as it's passing through and taking unauthorised photographs of Government offices (the Post Office) and the Ecuadorian Embassy.</comment></comment></comment>


Functional Programming for the Web. Lean by solving practical problems - <AUTHOR> https://leanpub.com/purescript/read

<comment><AUTHOR> Would be interested to hear what a seasoned Haskell programmer made of Purescript and this book. To me, it looks like a fairly seamless transition, but I'm a long way from an expert.

</comment><comment><USER2> This book is pragmatic, fun, and thorough. It also provides a nice introduction for people new to thinking in a functional way and applying it to the real world.</comment>


21% of Windows users plan to switch to Mac, says survey, vs. 2% Mac to Windows - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2017/06/28/21-of-windows-users-plan-to-switch-to-mac-says-survey-against-2-mac-to-windows/ <comment><USER2> (What follows is entirely personal and in no way an attack or attempt to demean anyone else's personal choices.)

I'm a longtime Mac user currently considering switching away from the Mac. I'm a little sad about it and I don't feel entirely like it's by choice, but it is what it is.

This switch is partly in response to the direction Mac OS is heading, but mostly due to hardware cost.

I genuinely dislike Apple's emphasis on thinness in their laptops. I genuinely can't afford to spend a minimum of £1,200 on a 13" laptop that's essentially glued shut and has no upgrade path at all.

Previous Macs have given me ~10 years of use each because I've been able to buy a configuration I could afford then gradually upgrade the RAM and replace the hard-disk as I needed.

Add to that the fact that the cheapest 15" laptop (the size I prefer) is £1,900 which is totally galling and puts it way, way out of my price bracket.

As a result, I'm actively looking for where to move when my current MacBook, a 15" from 2009, eventually dies. So far the best options seem to be a modern- ish ThinkPad, which I can get relatively cheaply second-hand and upgrade as I see fit. The ThinkPads are definitely not in Apple's league in terms of fit and finish but they're pretty hardy and give me options within my price range.

I'll be sad when I finally leave the Mac, but not heartbroken. There are lots of things I'll miss, but getting to know a new OS -- and hopefully switching platform for the last time -- will be an adventure.

<comment><USER3> Why don't you buy a used mid 2012 MBP instead? For 5-600 pound you can get one with a still good quad core i7 cpu and you can upgrade/replace everything, removing the ODD gives you extra space for additional HDD/SSD, can handle 16GB ram, easy to replace the battery (I just did, it was about 30 quid from amazon), it's perfect. I'm still using mine and not planning to replace it until it dies.

<comment><USER2> That's an option I've considered, but it's only really a temporary solution and might not be a viable one when I come to need a new laptop.

My 2009 machine probably has another year or two in it, meaning that a 2012 machine will likely be a minimum of six years old when I get it, which means it may only have a usable life of three or four years from that point on. Even being optimistic and assuming the hardware lasts 10 years from when I buy it, Mac OS support certainly won't.

The real kicker is that those are the last machines that I'll really be able to buy that meet my needs and preferences. Come 2022 or whenever it's time to upgrade again, I don't know where I go from that 2012 machine. I certainly don't expect Apple to have backtracked on their sealed-box design.

There's no easy answer really, and all of them involve compromise somehow. I'm now treating it as a matter of 'when' I switch, rather than 'if'. Maybe it's best to get it over with sooner rather than later?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Apple's market share in computers is under 10%. If 20+% of Windows users switched in the next two years, Apple's Mac sales would have to grow by an enormous factor in that period, far more than doubling what they sell now. This seems unlikely.

I assume that either the survey results are nonsense, or planning to switch has little correlation with actually switching.

<comment><USER5> Yeah these numbers definitely seem fake to me. I would bet my house that at no point in the future will 21% of Windows users switch to Mac.

I mean, if 21% of Windows users became Mac users that would usher in a very real revolution in the Mac platform because suddenly Apple would, for one thing, most likely actually invest seriously in developing Mac!

But that's not happening because there's no way 21% of Windows users are going to switch to Mac, because Americans would sell their mother for a lower sticker price. People are only willing to pay money for things you can show off, like cars and clothes and phones. A laptop or desktop computer is possible to show off, but it's not something you drive around in, wear, or hold in your hand all the time.

<comment><USER4> I suspect a lot of people want to switch to a Mac when they're at home idly thinking about it, but give up the idea instantaneously when their money is on the line.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, my thoughts exactly re: these alleged 21%.

I don't know many people, so my sample size is extremely small, but I don't know anyone who's on Windows and wants to switch to Apple. All Windows people I know resent Apple and think it's stupid. I only know people who want to switch away from Apple, as is the majority of the comments on this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really want to switch away from Mac, but there doesn't seem to be anything that fits in the intersection of "easy to use UNIX GUI" and "well built hardware." With the new Windows Ubuntu subsystem, I've been really tempted to get a Surface.

Also, I'd be interested to see how this changes when we look at businesses. Windows has thrived historically by being the default for the enterprise, and I doubt that Mac has the same level of penetration there.

<comment><USER7> > With the new Windows Ubuntu subsystem, I've been really tempted to get a > Surface.

In my experience, it is far, far away from substituting the UNIX experience you get from macOS/Linux/*BSD

<comment><USER8> I work on WSL, so I'd love to hear what some of the limitations are that are holding it back from being as good as the experience elsewhere.

<comment><USER9> I use WSL all day every day. There are two things holding it back from being a better *nix experience than OSX:

1) the terminal sucks.

2) WSL should be a service. Or at least we should be able to choose to have it always-on regardless of a terminal being open. We need to be able to have WSL start at boot.

(Now wondering if anyone has made some sort of WSL System Tray app)

<comment><USER10> Mac user here, but in Windows all day on Parallels and servers.

For #1, this is a tremendous help: [https://conemu.github.io](https://conemu.github.io) It's the first thing I install on Windows. Comes with build-in profiles for bash/WSL, powershell, cmd, and Admin sessions of the latter two. Still not as good as iTerm or stock Terminal, but a massive improvement over cmd.exe.

#2: Totally agree, but I think things are moving this direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Considering the used a 'smart poll' or internet poll I think would be the correct term, there might be a very high bias toward the 'already wanting to use osx' group by selection bias (educated, more heavily internet using).

Also, the summary says nothing about numbers (I don't think they got a lot of 150k+ responders considering the exact 20%, e.g. 1/5) so basically this is a 'look at us, we have new "data" ' poll for marketing purposes without statistical significance.

Opinion wise: As a forced osx user (other machine uses debian and xmonad so you can guess the type of user) I would rather switch to Windows than the other way around. But my sample size is just one.

<comment><USER12> I can never go back to Mac. Our last MacBook was a giant turd and huge money hole. Bought a cheap windows laptop and I couldn't be happier

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you're used to Windows you'll find OSX very limiting. Everything is dumbed down and hard to customize (which some see as a benefit). Simple things like not being able to copy/edit the current folder path from Finder or missing basic file operations like say, cutting and pasting a file are very frustrating. Compared to Explorer, Finder just lacks so much, you can install Double Commander which helps, but the UI is ugly and doesn't match OSX. Spaces is much less intuitive than the Windows flavor, I had to install a 3rd-party app for tiling windows (Snap in Windows). I'm not sure there's any way to sync OS settings across machines, like Windows.

This is all on top of the lack of choices in hardware, the same reason I'm on Android instead of iOS.

<comment><USER14> You've clearly done zero research into your complaints before writing them up and posting them here.

<comment><USER13> I use OSX daily in my current development job? In that way I was forced to switch from Windows. These are all personal shortcomings I've experienced. I think OSX is great for people that want to open the box, turn on the machine and use it as is. I'm a tinkerer and consider myself a power user, compared to Windows it falls short of my preferences. I like the Unix base but with Windows' WSL that edge is fading.

Strange my ignorance is so "clear" but you've provided 0 reasons why.

<comment><USER14> Because I don't want to start a point by point reply chain to try to convince you. I don't really care that you prefer Windows, only that you're evangelizing ignorance.

I get it, you want macOS to be a Windows clone and it not being the same frustrates you. You could actually tinker, poke around, explore, Google it, ask for help, whatever, and be that power user you profess to be, or you can choose to complain.

> Strange my ignorance is so "clear" but you've provided 0 reasons why.

Here:

"copy/edit the current folder path from Finder" Completely doable through the UI with just a mouse. You can literally get the answer to this with Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" on the bit I quoted from you. Also achievable in a more than a few "power user" ways too.

"missing basic file operations like say, cutting and pasting a file" Drag and drop does exactly this. Also available as a keyboard shortcut or through the UI with a modifier key, but under the unixy name of "move". Also doable in other "power user" ways.

<comment><USER13> >You could actually tinker

I have. I've installed the kernel extensions. Installed Spectacle for tiling windows. I installed Karabiner, it worked, then I updated the OS and it didn't. I think it does again now?

>Completely doable through the UI with just a mouse.

I know the dance you have to do to do this, because I _have_ googled it. Here's the suggested solution:

>To do this open a new Finder window by pressing Command-N, and then press Shift-Command-G to reveal the Go to Folder panel for the new window. Then drag a target file from another window to the Go to Folder text field, where it will be converted to a full text path that you can select and copy.

The same thing on Windows? ctrl+L

>Also available as a keyboard shortcut or through the UI with a modifier key

Which is counter-intuitive when ctrl+X does nothing, and the UI entry for Cut is greyed out. This wasn't even an _option_ until 10.7!

These things are frustrating when moving from Windows, that was my point.

<comment><USER14> >I know, because I have googled it. Here's the suggested solution:

Sigh. You just copied the in-line Google result page summary to me. Did you even click that link and read the _other three ways_ to do this? One of which is just two right-clicks. It's not a single keyboard shortcut or menu option like Windows/Explorer out of the box, but a power user could also make that happen and could even map it to Cmd-L if they wanted. Probably takes 5 minutes to solve once and forever. But nope, the OS is dumbed down and not customizable at all, right?

This is exactly why these point-by-point reply chains between operating system differences are a waste of time. If it's not exactly the same as what you already know, you're not interested.

<comment><USER13> >It's not a single keyboard shortcut or menu option like Windows/Explorer out of the box

That was my point?

>a power user could also make that happen and could even map it to Cmd-L if they wanted

I've even seen Applescripts for it! They took longer than 5 minutes to develop. I want to spend my time tweaking in-depth parts of the UI, not very basic features that exist already in another.

OSX being dumbed down is a _feature_ , if you want to sync your podcasts it's a great system for it.

<comment><USER14> [https://imgur.com/a/7ZO2O](https://imgur.com/a/7ZO2O)

There. That's the Automator script that adds it to Finder's right-click menu. That's it. Add another 20 seconds to go configure your Keyboard shortcuts in System Preferences and someone who's actually a power user can make this happen in about 40 seconds. 5 minutes was being generous to a novice.

Edit: For funsies, here's the fresh out out of the box, mouse only macOS way too: [https://imgur.com/a/Wce61](https://imgur.com/a/Wce61)

Edit2: "OSX being dumbed down is a feature, if you want to sync your podcasts it's a great system for it." Sure, just like "Windows is a great system for playing games, but if you want to do real work, you use a Mac". See how stupid that sort of ignorance sounds?

<comment><USER13> Much of the configuration in OSX is hidden, compared to Windows; some of this being a result of Window's dominance at the Enterprise level. That's why you need Terminal to Show Hidden Files.

OSX has a different strength: simplicity. It's why I told my dad to buy one. What you paint here is a false equivalence.

<comment><USER14> We can all cherry pick complaints. Try remapping your capslock as another control key on both systems and use that as a gauge for which OS hides settings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> After 15y with only Macs I've bought a very expensive Dell (maxed out XPS13) last year.

The quality is unbelievable terrible I'll never buy another Dell, so my next computer will be again a MBP/iMac.

<comment><USER16> You should try a surface book, I've been extremely happy with the quality.

<comment><USER15> I've decided against a Surfacebook b/c the version last year had that gap when folded. Today I'd buy a Surfacebook if it wasn't for a MBP b/c there I also have issues with Windows 10, e.g. the dock that sometime just doesn't hide.

<comment><USER16> Help me understand what you believe the problem is with the gap that exists when the notebook is closed.

<comment><USER15> It's just me, I don't like it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would argue that 21% of Windows users are saying they'll consider getting a Mac, not necessarily plan on switching. Apple might be able to get 10% of those considering to switch (a SWAG) which means they might capture 2% of the Windows market. That seems much more reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER18> I made the decision to move away from Mac at the start of this year.

I just can't justify spending the amount of money it costs for essentially a shiny linux box. I spend the vast amount of my time in iTerm/browser/IDE anyway, and having dumped iPhones a few years ago I no longer need the single ecosystem. (I do need to look into running OSX as a VM for the /very/ occasional use of XCode)

My 10 year old 13" Macbook is still chugging along, but it's basically becoming useless for development work nowadays, it just gets far too hot now trying to compile things - that will most likely be replaced with a Dell XPS 13 (When I can afford to)

My 8 year old iMac was on it's last legs a couple of months ago, so I spent ~£800 on building a new PC that should see me through another 10+ years of use easily. Running Mint on it, and it's handling everything I need and more.

I was /very/ tempted to just jump over to Windows 10, but the licence cost was 1/4 the cost of the build, and that just didn't sit right. Shame, as I've been setting them up for as a trial for rolling out 'proper' desktop/AD setup at work and it works just great - with the linux subsystem as well.

<comment><USER2> I'd be interested to hear more about how that switch went and what obstacles you faced whilst carrying it out. I've posted elsewhere in this discussion that my intention is to do the same, for similar reasons.

<comment><USER18> A lot better than I had anticipated. I'd expected there to be teething issues, but it was nowhere near as bad :)

One thing that did (does) annoy me is that I couldn't get the Apple Bluetooth keyboard to work properly, it would just randomly disconnect and not work until I rebooted. This is the most annoying thing I've found, as I still use a Mac at work (and obviously still use the Macbook), so I'm trying to add onto existing muscle memory and it gets frustrating at times. I do need to look at making it work, or swapping to a new keyboard at work so that keys are in the same places!

Software wise, pretty much everything I use on the Mac I've found suitable replacements for on Mint. There are things that aren't quite as /nice/, but functionally they work: \- Transmit \- Alfred

However, I still haven't found an email client that 'clicks' for me. I've used Outlook for many many years now, and it works just fine for what I need, so Evolution seemed to be the nearest thing, but it just ... well, sucks. I've opted for just using the online version (I have office365 for my email) so that isn't /that/ major.

But then being able to install tooling for work from just the standard package manager is nice, yes I have homebrew on the Mac, but that's an addon to make things work, and I have to remember to do brew update && brew upgrade every now and then.

Oh, and as an added bonus, because I built the PC I got to spec it as I wanted it - so for the first time in 33 years I own a graphics card! I figured I might as well, add to the lifespan of the machine, got a GeForce GTX 1050 2GB so now I can play games on there as well - in high def.

So basically I've ended up with a much better spec machine, added the ability to do decent gaming, saved a small fortune, can put whatever OS I want on it, all for the downside of not being able to use the keyboard I want. (But I /will. be revisiting that!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The problem from me switching to Windows from Mac is iOS development tools.

Ubuntu on Windows is really great.

<comment><USER20> It's absolutely laughable that Apple forces people to buy a Mac in order to compile iOS applications. My company recently started using Xamarin, and to our surprise we can't run automated builds for iOS on our Linux servers. It's really weird. We don't have any macs anywhere, so it looks like we're going to have to get an overpriced mac just for this single build.

<comment><USER21> Since iOS is still _essentially_ macOS, albeit a heavily customized version, making iOS tools work on Macs ought to be wayyyyy easier than releasing them for an ecosystem as different as Windows. They may benefit from developers buying machines but the Mac market is still much bigger than developer purchases. Many iOS technologies are either identical or similar to Mac SDKs, enticing developers familiar with their machines to create Mac versions. Mac versions are useful for development too: even if you are targeting iOS for example, it is often possible to create a "Mac game" of your iOS game and test it _way_ more efficiently by running directly on the Mac without a simulator.

This approach is not "absolutely laughable", it's actually just about the smartest thing they could do.

<comment><USER19> Well, fair enough. But it's really the last holdout of the Ballmer-era platform lock in going. Even MS makes a load of dev tools for Mac and Linux now.

I'm not saying they need to port XCode to Windows. What I am saying they could and probably should do is make it easier to CI iOS apps on Linux (some of the build tooling, as a start) and maybe even allow OS X to be bought & installed trivially on VMWare etc - even as a "developer edition". It would make so many Devs lives easier rather than all these ridiculous and unstable Mac mini hacks everyone ends up doing for iOS dev. I genuinely don't think a OS X for VMWare would tarnish the brand or margins. It's just a EULA change!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I am surprised that 2% is not higher. There are very few alternative to Mac if you want a GUI _and_ a UNIX like system. I really hope Apple invests in Mac. It used to be that Mac hardware was very innovative compared to Software but now, I like their Software (uniform experience on multiple devices) but the Hardware is lacking. Especially the drop of MagSafe and limited Memory and processor support on their New Macbook pros. But I haven't given up on Macs yet. Remember, 'An Apple a day keeps Windows away'.

<comment><USER15> Ubuntu on Windows really works nicely for me.

<comment><USER23> Seems like most people use Linux because they value their privacy. Using it through windows kind of defeats the purpose of using Linux. Also, to me it seems that by implementing a Linux sub-system, Microsoft is basically admitting that their OS isn't good enough for developers on its own.

Personally, I don't know anyone who chooses to use windows, just people who need it for some reason. It's a privacy nightmare and anyone who considers themselves a "hacker" and still chooses Windows when all they need is Linux, isn't really a "hacker" imo (or at least, they haven't given much thought as to why they should value privacy and freedom).

<comment><USER15> Seems like most people use Linux because they want to develop software like NodeJS in a shell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What everyone seems to be missing is that a large cohort of Windows users is on crappy $500 plasticy Windows laptops with 1366x768 screens, 5200RPM HDDs and 2-4h batteries. Of course the Macbook looks like absolute bliss when compared against that. If people were on, say, a Dell XPS 13, the number would be much lower.

On a personal level, I love my Macbook mainly for macOS. It's the perfect intersection of stable, beautiful GUI/UX, UNIX and corporate (= 3rd parties like Adobe) support. Add to that the fact that Apple goes the extra mile when engineering Macbooks (terraced batteries, the hinge is perfectly balanced so you can open it with one hand but its still stiff, fans that have a different pitch per blade to distribute fan noise across the audible spectrum, MagSafe, Force Touchpad, etc.) and you have a winning combo.

</comment><comment><USER25> Interesting timing on this article.

Just last night I was doing more research regarding what OS my wife's photography business should use after Windows 7.

As mentioned in earlier discussions, a few of my primary sticking points with Windows 10 are:

\- Forced updates (because of potential downtime)

\- Telemetry (although this is more of a preference, because I doubt it represents a genuine risk to her business).

When I looked at the mechanisms people are using to control those aspects of Windows 10's behavior (WSUS, etc.), I kept thinking how I really don't have the time or interest needed to set up that infrastructure and stay on top of that.

From limited time-is-money perspective, a modern iMac is looking more and more like the right choice, despite the higher hardware cost, and despite the fact that I likely can't fix it onsite myself.

<comment><USER13> Forced updates: select Defer Feature Updates

Telemetry: install Spybot Anti-beacon or run a PS script like Debloat Windows, takes about 2 minutes. The same telemetry is in your current install of Windows 7, btw.

<comment><USER25> Thanks for the tips!

> Forced updates: select Defer Feature Updates

My understanding is that unless I'm running WSUS, I can only defer updates for a while (maybe 35 days max?).

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think that means ever 35 days or so, we have to accept all update that Microsoft wants to force-feed non-enterprise users. Even those updates which are much younger than 35 days old.

If I'm correct about that, then I'm not sure it reduces the risk enough for our business needs.

> Telemetry: install Spybot Anti-beacon or run a PS script like Debloat > Windows, takes about 2 minutes.

My understanding is that (a) Microsoft treats this as an arms race, and/or (b) it's hard to be certain that these are catching all of the telemetry. Am I mistaken?

> The same telemetry is in your current install of Windows 7, btw.

Actually, it's not. I've done what's necessary to avoid having that patch installed. Which unfortunately puts me in a more precarious position, security-wise.

<comment><USER13> Max deferral is 365 days. If you're running a business, switch to the business branch. If you don't like a feature, uninstall it.

>it's hard to be certain that these are catching all of the telemetry. Am I mistaken?

Not with Wireshark. Anti-beacon updates itself, and updates what it's blocking. It's a very nice piece of software. Besides, if we are to believe Msoft is only collecting the data they have told us they are collecting in 10, it isn't that scary. (They haven't released any such statement for 7.)

>Actually, it's not. I've done what's necessary to avoid having that patch installed.

I thought you didn't have time or interest for that? Blocking telemetry in 7 was much harder for me, it involved memorizing a list of _KBXXXXXX_ numbers and making sure I didn't accidentally click one every time I updated.

<comment><USER25> > Max deferral is 365 days. If you're running a business, switch to the > business branch.

Thanks for the tip about the "business" branch - I hadn't encountered that concept before.

Assuming that [1] is talking about the same thing you are, it sounds like the "365 days" number you quoted applies to what Microsoft calls "upgrades".

"Another thing to keep in mind is that when you enable "Defer upgrades" in the Settings app, Windows 10 will automatically defer upgrades up to 4 months, and if you configure Windows Update for Business, you can further delay upgrades up to an additional 8 months. As such, you can postpone Windows 10 upgrades up to 12 months (4 + 8)."

But I'm just as concerned with the patches that Microsoft _doesn 't_ call "upgrades".

According to [2], "quality updates" can only be deferred up to 30 days, and I have no control over "non-deferrable updates".

I'm still evaluating whether or not the liability of those forced updates justifies the cost of moving her post-processing systems to Apple.

P.S. I should mention that we don't have access to Windows 10 Enterprise, and even if we did, I could never justify the time investment in becoming competent to use it just to defend her workstation from Microsoft.

[1] [http://pureinfotech.com/defer-windows-10-upgrades- updates/](http://pureinfotech.com/defer-windows-10-upgrades-updates/)

[2] [https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/deployment/update/w...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/deployment/update/waas-manage-updates-wufb)

<comment><USER13> The vast majority of Wannacry victims were running unpatched Windows 7, I'm not sure why you'd want to avoid security updates. If 1 year isn't long enough to defer feature updates maybe the business cost of switching your entire workflow to a new OS is justified.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm one of unlucky macbook user. I bought macbook pro 13" 2013 and have display problem after 2.5 years. I only used my macbook 2 or 3 hours daily at HOME. It's my first mac and feels a bit sad of its quality.

Actutally, I always hear from my designers' friends about their Mac is down and send back to Apple to fix. However, I've seldom seen such of comments on the web. No idea why...

</comment><comment><USER27> If you follow the links, there's 0 details about the poll... only that's a "Smart Poll"... "Uhhh... smart. It must be true then."

</comment><comment><USER28> If Microsoft ever makes the OS that doesn't hang NO ONE will move out of Microsoft!

<comment><USER13> I had lots of hanging and bluescreens on 7, 10 has been incredibly stable for me, granted I'm pretty judicious about uninstalling packages I don't use. End Task _actually_ ends a task now!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've been a happy Windows user since forever and I've never really understood all the complaints.

The crashes and issues are usually years apart.

I've recently installed xubuntu on a netbook that had Win10 on it (Win10's size is ridiculous) and get constant prompts and errors. Before this I tried Lubuntu and was prompted for restarts twice a week (that thing you don't have to do on Linux)

I'll continue to be a happy Windows user on my main machine. For me it's been awesome all the way. *nix systems seem either buggy or expensive.

</comment><comment><USER30> I was very unhappy with the traditional windows notebook experience (terrible hw quality, somehow questionable software quality).

I own various Macbooks (old macbook pro, macbook pro 15 and macbook pro 13) and I absolutely love the build quality and the software. However in my current job I have to deal with a lot of MS technologies (.NET and the rest) and I am also using some thinkpad with Windows and it's a solid experience. Working with W10.1 is a joy and something tells me that Surface book is comparable in build quality to mbp. With MBP becoming ever more expensive I see myself trying out the new Surface pretty soon.

</comment><comment><USER31> Too bad, many recent Apple decisions proved their disinterest in the PC market. IOS 11 on iPad, wich is an amazing multitask experience is the last nail to the coffin of OSX.

Power-user machines will become expensive niche products again, and this is really bad news for HN people.

<comment><USER32> Did we watch the same WWDC? They had speed improvements for the 3 MacBook lines and the iMac, and previewed a new higher-spec iMac. They also introduced a macOS upgrade focusing on speed and refinement, a la Snow Leopard. Not to mention the behind-closed-doors Mac Pro conversation with the media several months ago.</comment></comment>