The Google design, turned up a notch - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-design-turned-up-notch.html <comment><USER2> The reason the new design is so much worse is that it uses the most valuable space on the screen, the left side (since we read left to right), for stuff users don't care much about. What users care about most on a page of search results is the search results. Those should get priority. Instead the prime space is given to stuff that's boilerplate, or only tangentially relevant, or both.

I'm surprised Google would make a mistake of such magnitude. Anyone who's read Tufte would know not to do this. They've effectively reduced the data-ink ratio of the page, when you weight each pixel by its proximity to the upper left corner.

<http://www.infovis-wiki.net/index.php/Data-Ink_Ratio>

[http://inspiredimpressions.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/Googl...](http://inspiredimpressions.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/Google%20heat%20map.jpg)

Oddly enough, it would actually be better if the left bar were entirely boilerplate, because that would make it easier to tune it out.

[http://www.useit.com/eyetracking/eyetracking_corporate_site_...](http://www.useit.com/eyetracking/eyetracking_corporate_site_about_us.png)

Then the new design would merely waste space. Filling the left side of the page not merely with crap, but with _changing_ crap, is the worst case scenario.

<comment><USER3> Google actually tested this, you didn't. So while the reasons you listed might be valid and a good reason to scrutinize the redesign with the literature in mind, I have a very hard time believing that Google didn't do just that.

I would argue that there are consequently very good reasons to believe that the problems you described are not a issue with the redesign or that there are certain advantages to the redesign which make up for other disadvantages.

<comment><USER4> "Google actually tested this, you didn't. So while the reasons you listed might be valid and a good reason to scrutinize the redesign with the literature in mind, I have a very hard time believing that Google didn't do just that."

And yet it moves! (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!>).

Google "testing it" isn't an iron clad guarantee that the feature doesn't suck.

Anyone who has worked in a large company can well imagine how "tests" can support predetermined positions of higher management (say). I suspect the reason is simpler - these days Google is fat and slow and infested with mediocre MBA types who love nothing better than to "launch an initiative" like this. Never attribute to malice etc.

Irrespective of how well Google tested this, if enough users say "And yet it sucks", then that's that.

You could argue about how many users are "enough", but "Google tested it so they have to be right and everyone else is wrong" is a very fragile argument.

<comment><USER3> I never said anything about anything being "iron clad". PG could be right but I think there are good reasons to believe that this redesign might work. Probably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find the sidebar annoying, but perhaps more so because we have used google without it for so long. I tend to agree with techcrunch that there is redundancy in the side and top bar. New logo is good, search box is ok...but this modern style of it and the buttons seems out of place and more distracting then anything.

The search features on the side are nice...but I used them so rarely in the past and don't see myself using them any more now. It seems like google wants me to spend more time searching then clicking links, when in reality I usually use google as a quick 10 second shortcut to finding info. The last time I clicked "next" on a search was........a long time ago.

<comment><USER6> I use the time-based filtering all the time now. I didn't really expect to when I first started in the beta. It's incredibly helpful when searching on topics that undergo wholesale changes often (e.g. the vast majority of technology). Without using the filtering I get frustrated with Google results with high PR that end up being horribly outdated.

<comment><USER7> I've been using it for the opposite reason: I'll see something in a news story and want to search on it for some background, and all I get are 500 copies of the same news story or commentary on it. Being able to exclude anything from the past week or so makes it easier to filter all those out. It is slightly more awkward to use it that way UI-wise, though: there are quick links to press for "last X hours/days/etc.", but no quick way to get "older than X" without typing stuff into the "custom range" thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _we tried to take all the things we strive for at Google and make them better: powerful technology, snappy results, simplicity and a fun and quirky personality_

Yes! This is totally what was missing for me. I had great search results from Google every time, but where was the _fun_? Where was the _quirky personality_ damn it?

<comment><USER9> I thought we'd done away with Quirks mode, but looks like Google has brought it back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is there a way to hide the left hand column? I actually find it really distracting.

Also in FF 3.6.3 the text is not centered vertically in the search box. It's an FF CSS issue. I've seen it a few times before.

<comment><USER11> Yes, we had several people at my office say the same thing so another programmer and I wrote a couple of plugins to hide it (FX and Chrome only): <http://www.seotools.com/hide-google-options/>.

I personally like the sidebar, I think the date-based filtering is great.

<comment><USER12> The tool does not do the trick for me... Chrome 5.0.375.29 beta on Windows Vista.

Screen shot here, the Extension seems to be enabled.

<http://asmo.kortis.to/misc/shot_07052010_125200.png>

I guess it's time to start using duckduckgo.com for real.

<comment><USER11> Right now, it's only enabled for google.com -- we'll be adding all the google search properties in today.

<comment><USER12> Got it, thanks! I hadn't even noticed being redirected to the local page..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The biggest change in their redesign has nothing to do with the new logo, redundancy in navigation (because that can't be an issue) or making the different search tools more discoverable.

The biggest change is the top left position of the first search result relative to the top left position of the document. In other words, the average scanning pattern has completely changed with the addition of a fixed side bar.

It will take a lot of people a long time to adjust and its effectiveness can't be judged by a couple of hours of usage. It's not unlikely to assume Google is very willing to take a slight hit in this area and win in the discoverability of their different ways to use Google, hopefully, eventually improving a person's overal searching efficiency.

Time will tell, but we all know Google tests these things through and through.

<comment><USER14> > It's not unlikely to assume Google is very willing to take a slight hit in > this area

What hit are you talking about? Are people willing to leave Google to use another search engine and get used to their UI?. Unless they royally screw up with the design (which they didn't IMO) they have almost nothing to lose.

If you compare this with bing, you will see that they have a lot of similarities.

<comment><USER13> A hit in efficiency of the user when scanning the search results.

And you're right. People won't leave Google over this. But Google has done extensive testing on page speed in the past and measured its long term impact on pageviews per search. I'd argue that a change in scanning patterns like this one affects the perception of speed of the interface and might impact the aforementioned metric.

Overall, it should be a change for the better and i'm sure that Google wants to increase the efficiency per search to increase the overal number of unique searches a user might do -- while caring a bit less about the number of pageviews per search.

As for Bing, in interface design for a company like Google --a company that effectively dominates the market and sees marginal loss of users-- the competition is irrelevant. Especially for simple UI changes such as this one.

When doing a change such as this one Google is its own competitor. It needs to find a way to transition their user's habits to what they believe is a more usable one. This is by far always the hardest part and really what we are discussing right now :-)

It's awesome to see though. I'd imagine it's incredbily hard to convince a board of such changes, especially in an engineering minded company such as Google.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I hid the left sidebar and expanded the results column by adding the following snippet to 'userContent.css' in my 'chrome' directory (for Firefox).

        @-moz-document domain(google.com) {
         #leftnav {
          display:none !important;
         }
         #center_col {
             margin-left: 0 !important;
             margin-right: 0 !important;
         }
        }

I think the ads to the right were already hidden by adblock, so you may need to tweak this if you want to preserve ads for some reason.

</comment><comment><USER16> They removed the trademark ((tm)) letters from the logo.

I'm wondering why corporations keep plastering those all over their designs.

<comment><USER17> I was under the impression that it was good practice to use those marks, primarily to make sure people _know_ you're presenting a trademark (registered or not). Obviously Google's big enough to not need that. Legal hounds: Is there a time when one does or doesn't need the ™/®?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just noticed this redesign removed a feature I used all the time - you used to be able to type a word into Google, and then hit the "definition" link. As far as I can see, they removed that.

<comment><USER18> define: word still works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I honestly can't stand it. I want my 100% screenspace back.

Why can't I hide this fucking left panel?

</comment><comment><USER20> The search box on the left is dreadful. Why can't this be hidden the way it could (for me) yesterday? It's almost headache inducing (although that sounds crazy), it's like my eyes don't know what to do...they've had almost 10 years worth of training showing them to look in that _exact_ spot on my screen, and now it has changed...

It's really, really distracting. If I can find out a way of hiding it, I absolutely will.

<comment><USER21> "Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens." Seriously, these threads are sounding like a bunch of angry grey-back gorillas. Our minds need to stay limber. Break up the routine. Tie the other shoe first, go to the other coffee shop, pull off the road somewhere you've never stopped before and write a poem about what you see, etc. Keep those neurons plastic and alive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> From a visual standpoint, I think the most interesting change is the shading on the search bar, which makes it look raised on the page. It looks a little awkward to me, I'm sure because almost all form inputs are either flat or sunken into the page. I do think being sunken into the page is a more appropriate metaphor... I wonder how they came to that decision.

<comment><USER21> What more appropriate metaphor is that?

Writing on a piece of paper underneath the top one that I can only see a little bit of through a little window? Putting words on a shelf and the shelf needs to look like it is deep enough to hold the letters so they won't fall out the front and down the page?

<comment><USER22> Well, more like, you have two sheets of paper, the top one has labels with boxes cut out so that you write your answers on the bottom one. when you lift the top sheet off (click submit), you're left with only the raw data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> heh cool the first image result in there was made with my software :)

<comment><USER18> The results were made with my software. ;-)

(I've been on the team that did this since we staffed up engineers, and did the first functional demos of the new design.)

<comment><USER4> "I've been on the team that did this since we staffed up engineers, and did the first functional demos of the new design."

So do you think you could get us a user setting to turn off the new design and get back the classic minimalist one? Right now you have to install browser extensions etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Disneyfication.

<comment><USER25> c'mon it's a much needed and a good redesign, I suppose the top navigation bar is kept unchanged for further testing, it might eventually include only non duplicate function; gmail, docs, calendar etc.

<comment><USER19> Why was it much needed? What reflected this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I really like the color change on the homepage. I've been on the beta for this for about a month and I've enjoyed it for the most part.

</comment><comment><USER27> As screens are now coming in a wider format i.e 16:9, there is generally a large amount of wasted space at the sides in a lot of webpages. Adding the sidebar is making better use of that space.

</comment><comment><USER28> Stylish plugin to the rescue!

First I hide all the left column sidebar nonsense with adblock.

Then I do this:

          #center_col {margin:0 !important;}
          .gl,.sla    {text-decoration:underline !important;}
          .tsf-p      {width:65% !important;}

Problem solved. Back to wide.

</comment><comment><USER29> TechCrunch's take: <http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/06/google-redundant-ui/> (tl;dr side bar + top bar = redundancy)

</comment><comment><USER30> I really like the left side bar. I prefer it to the top bar when it comes to focusing my results - its closer and has more options. As for the design — it feels cleaner, but thats subjective.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm feeling too much blue! Cached and similar links for example could have been gray instead of the blue variant. IMHO, those links need not be so prominent.

</comment><comment><USER32> I was actually a fan of the "horizontal bars" design they prototyped... Guess that one didn't have enough _personality_

</comment><comment><USER33> The single biggest change is the top ads are now barely delineated, this whole redesign is a cash and "stickiness" grab.

</comment><comment><USER12> (Google Chrome): Right click on address bar / Edit Search Engines... / select Duck Duck Go / Make Default

Fixed!</comment>


How I Learned to Let My Workers Lead - <AUTHOR> http://people.wku.edu/rich.patterson/CFS-452/Readings/stayer.htm

<comment><USER2> Good article, and kudos to him for making it work over the long run.

However it does seem odd that in his search for reading he did not stumble across _Up The Organization_ by Robert Townsend, who wrote in 1970 that "people want to work". He also abolished the HR department.

Good thoughts, however, for a startup.</comment>


Diehard Coders Just Rescued NASA's Earth Science Data - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2017/02/diehard-coders-just-saved-nasas-earth-science-data/ <comment><USER2> Which data was rescued? Was it the original raw data, or the "corrected" data?

<comment><USER3> I hope they saved both.

It's very important to make a copy the original raw data and all the metadata to know how/when/where/under what condition/by whom/ ... take the raw data. Just in case it's necessary to analyze it again, verify the correction code, use better interpolation techniques, or whatever new analysis is deem necessary in the future.

And also it important to make a copy the processed data because it's necessary a lot of time and knowledge to process them correctly and sometimes it's enough to get the processed data make further analysis.

[For a totally no controversial topic, if someone decides to make a backup of the LHC data used to discover the Higgs boson, I hope that they also save both version of the data.]

Anyway, the title is misleading. They didn't rescue anything. The data were never lost or at an imminent risk. They are still in the original source. They only made a backup in case someone decides to erase them. (Can we classify this as a fake new?)

<comment><USER4> They mention that they already have come across sources that had been emptied of all the data... So No... This is not a just in case; there seems to be a concerted effort to destroy data that proves inconvenient things...

<comment><USER3> From the article:

> _They can't be sure when this data disappeared (or if anyone backed it up > first)._

It probably means that is was deleted a few years ago, not during the last 25 days. Perhaps it was some internal reorganization and the data is hopefully available in other URL. Perhaps it was a disk failure and a bad backup. Perhaps the main researcher got a better job at an university and moved the whole group and the links/server just rotted. Perhaps some moron sysadmin decided to save a little of disk space. It looks ridiculous, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes)

There is no evidence of a concerted effort.

\--

To get an idea of the problem, imagine that in 10 years someone decides to make a backup of all the ancient open source projects. And they are horrified to discover that 20% of the links go to SourceForge and there is a 5% of links with apparent relevant information to ExpertsExchange! After some time you get link rote, without an evil external force.

That's why I think it's important to make an organized effort to keep information alive, like the work of [https://archive.org/](https://archive.org/) . I just don't agree to use a normal sloppy human behavior to support political activism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What a load, if you access a system without authorization it is still considered a hack, especially when you move data off that site. Punishable under federal law.</comment>


Ask HN: What will you choose for $9.99/mo, Spotify Pro or Apple Music? - <AUTHOR>

EDIT: Added Google Music<p>I hadn't added Google Music to restrict it to what I initially felt would be major players. I was trying to avoid adding every service that exists out there. TIDAL, Rdio etc <comment><USER2> Since I don't have an iPhone I would choose Spotify. I'm curious why you didn't include Google Music as an option as well.

All of these music services include more or less the same functionality, music availability, and services. The argument that one service doesn't have "Artist x" doesn't really hold seeing as you can now include your own library on "Offline Mode" on Spotfiy and a similar feature in Google Music.

Also, as a student Spotify gives you half off, so it is more of a reason to purchase in my book.

<comment><USER3> Note they are bringing an Android app out in fall.

[https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/06/08Introducing- Apple...](https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/06/08Introducing-Apple-Music- All-The-Ways-You-Love-Music-All-in-One-Place-.html)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the information! Is there a benefit of choosing their service over the other available ones though?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I already pay for Spotify Pro and will continue to do so. Nothing about Apple Music really stands out as a better service for my uses.

</comment><comment><USER5> I use Google Music for 7.99/mo (introductory price).

<comment><USER6> I've also been using Google Play Music All Access since it released. I prefer the interface to Spotify's (specifically in the ways you can browse, Spotify is based primarily on search where Google gives browsing and searching equal footing.)

I will likely not get Apple Music based on my experience with iTunes Match. Google will consistently stream as long as I have signal on my phone, and does a fantastic job of predictive buffering. iTunes Match on the other hand is basically unusable while driving and the vast majority of the time won't even start playing songs unless they have been downloaded ahead of time over wifi. Apple's infrastructure can't have gotten that much better in such a short time. I might give it a trial run, but honestly I'm not sure as I'm so happy with Google's product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've chosen Google Play Music because of how nice the web interface is.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm planning to switch to Apple Music, specifically for the family plan.

My family of five would cost $30/month on Spotify as compared to $15/month on Apple Music.

</comment><comment><USER9> Personally, I like Rdio, which I subscribe to.

</comment><comment><USER10> What I already chose is Google Play Music All-Access. Don't see a real compelling reason to change.

</comment><comment><USER11> Google Play Music seems to be the write-in candidate that's winning.</comment>


Motivating Minds (The Economist on why TDD makes you work harder) - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12971028

<comment><USER2> This doesn't really apply to TDD in any way that can't be applied to other methods. This article is just about how too many choices cause paralysis when making a decision.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's a pretty deceptive title. It's friism's conclusion that TDD makes you work harder, not The Economist's. I'm not saying I disagree with the notion, but half the reason I read the article was to find out why The Economist might be talking about TDD.

<comment><USER4> That's why the interpretation is in parentheses.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the conondrum of how to sum up the relevance of an article in a headline. I didn't mean to deceive, merely to give an edge to original titel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's because breaking an abstract task into concrete steps is a task in itself. So, people with an abstract task have more to do than those who just have concrete steps.

<comment><USER5> Often the most difficult task, I would say.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Actually it explains why breaking up tasks into smaller tasks makes you more efficient. TDD is just one way to do this.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're absolutely right.

I still think the article is uniquely relevant to TDD however, in that TDD explicitly mandates chopping tasks into small chunks and this research seems to validate that approach.

<comment><USER7> I think you may be introducing some bias to your conclusions. The article could also be seen as concluding that giving someone abstract tasks is less efficient then giving someone a concrete task...the former leaves a lot open to decide, the latter makes your problem space much smaller so I'm not sure if they are fair to compare ( the former does actually involve quite a but more work ). It's like sitting down with someone and you say "Write a ten page story." instead of "Write a ten page story about a green monster living at the top of a snowy mountain." People given the second choice will almost always start writing immediately, and those given the former will sit around and think for hours about what to write. And when you look at the conclusions of the article like this, you can make a strong counter-point against TDD and that is simply that you can't get much more abstract then by being asked to write tests for code and functionality that doesn't even exist yet. (Note: I'm a fan of TDD, but for the million other reasons)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> FWIW, psychological research (into the area of manamagent quality initiatives, self-help techniques, etc) has shown that adoption of any system works because of the attention applied to the situation, and I'd stretch that to include code, too.

</comment><comment><USER9> Terrible. This is not science. I do not at all agree with the conclusions. There is only a correlation, but the cause/effect relationship they infer is shady at best.

<comment><USER4> I haven't seen many studies not based in the physical sciences where this isn't true.</comment></comment>


Coalesced Hashing - <AUTHOR> https://programming.guide/coalesced-hashing.html <comment><AUTHOR> Another article on hash table collision resolution from Programming.Guide.</comment>


My Google in Facebook chrome extension, take a look - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hhpfhdhkcdkngbomgbfbocoflbflfcac

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be glad to hear feedback / talk to hackers in the extension space</comment>


Sex and gender diversity is growing across the US - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/sex-and-gender-diversity-is-growing-across-the-us-98610 <comment><USER2> I would think so. When I was a child we had only two genders. Sometimes we'd say "sex" rather than gender, and then we'd blush or giggle.

But it's great that people are more free to be themselves. Watching "A very British scandal" currently, and it's sad to see in 1960s England, being homosexual was a thing that could end your career, put you in jail, or drive you to suicide. Alan Turing RIP.</comment>


Can white light traveling through a prism create Microwaves and/or RF? - <AUTHOR> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/482210/can-white-light-traveling-through-a-prism-create-microwaves-and-or-rf <comment><USER2> It would seem to me that they don't, because it disperses the light without altering its frequency/wavelength, but I don't really know. I also don't know how well it can disperse electromagnetics other than light, though.

<comment><USER3> But why it disperses? Due to difference of wavelength of the constituents they are refracted at different angles.

If this holds for all wavelengths then it's seems logical to assume that it can also create electro magnetic waves if and only if the original wave entering prism had some component of this.

Maybe I am wrong I don't know.

<comment><USER2> Yes, that makes sense to me, it does seems logical. But white light is light, not radio, I think. Radio and light is both electromagnetic, but different frequency.

But I don't know how opaque it may be to some wave lengths.</comment></comment></comment>


Delegation Is the Cornerstone of Civilization: Sharing in Sandstorm.io - <AUTHOR> https://blog.sandstorm.io/news/2015-05-05-delegation-is-the-cornerstone-of-civilization.html

<comment><USER2> Capability-based access control is fascinating. Here's an interesting article about capabilities vs. ACLs: [http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/duals/myths.html](http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/duals/myths.html)

I'm also a fan of Macaroons for this purpose, which I was disappointed to see weren't being used here. But for an example of using macaroons as capabilities in practice, see: [http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/11/23/macaroons-in- hyperd...](http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/11/23/macaroons-in-hyperdex/)

<comment><USER3> This particular article was discussing user-to-user sharing, which generally happens through the user interface between authenticated users interacting with the live Sandstorm server. Since all the actual work happens inside the Sandstorm server, there isn't much need for Macaroons.

App-to-app sharing is a different matter. We are working on allowing an app to receive a capability to access another app, and it should of course be able to delegate that capability to other apps. (Delegation is even more important between apps than it is between users, because we want to be able to write small, modular apps that work together rather than monolithic apps.)

At this level, Sandstorm sharing is based on Cap'n-Proto-style capabilities. Cap'n Proto has concepts similar to macaroons but takes a different approach in that we prefer that all sharing must happen "live" so that the server can keep track of who has what.

When you have an open Cap'n Proto RPC connection and have received a capability (object reference) over that connection, that's called a "live ref". Cap'n Proto allows live refs to be passed from machine to machine (delegated) in RPC messages. But if the connection dies, all live refs are lost. So, to keep it long term, you want to convert it to a "study ref", which is a byte string you can save to disk.

A sturdy ref, however, can only be restored to a live ref by the same entity who saved it, where "entity" is some course-grained authenticatable identity. The idea here is that if a hacker manages to obtain a raw copy of your database, you don't want to have to revoke every sturdy ref contained therein. A course authentication component prevents them from doing anything with any of those tokens.

Macaroons are also a byte string that grant access to a resource, with a format that allows you to attenuate the capability offline. That is, if I have a macaroon allowing read-write access to a document, I can create a new macaroon that gives only read access, and then pass that to someone else, all without consulting the document's server.

For Sandstorm, we actually don't quite want that, because we want the document owner to be able to see how their document has been shared. So, to share a sturdy ref, we require you to restore it to a live ref and delegate that. The recipient can save a new sturdy ref tied to them.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the detailed comparison! Sounds like you are doing some really interesting things and sandstorm.

I've looked at Capnproto in the past but did not read through the documentation thoroughly enough to see the bits about capabilities (or the link to the pdf version of the same myths article I linked above!)

>For Sandstorm, we actually don't quite want that, because we want the document owner to be able to see how their document has been shared. So, to share a sturdy ref, we require you to restore it to a live ref and delegate that. The recipient can save a new sturdy ref tied to them.

@bascule alluded to this, but this can actually be very nicely modeled with macaroons! The idea would be to create a capability-granting macaroon but attach a "third party caveat" that asserts the grantee must be able to prove they are the "authenticatable identity". You end up with the same properties as the live/sturdy refs, if I understand properly.

Mostly it's just cool to see different implementations of capability-based access control.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> From their homepage, "this is the only way to make Open Source web apps viable." What does viable mean in this context? Why is this service different from hosting on heroku or my own free Amazon instance? Is it just convenience or is there something more?

<comment><USER3> Basically, heroku or random IaaS providers require some level of technical expertise and time commitment to run. That drastically limits who will use them, leading proprietary SaaS providers to dominate the market. If open source and federated web apps were easy and safe for everyone to run, they'd have a wider audience. Sandstorm aims to make that the case.

Longer version: [https://blog.sandstorm.io/news/2014-07-21-open-source-web- ap...](https://blog.sandstorm.io/news/2014-07-21-open-source-web-apps-require- federated-hosting.html)

<comment><USER4> Thank you for answering. After reading that, it sounds very cool and is a great vision. Please take it as constructive criticism that I had _no idea_ based on the homepage that the product was anything like what is described in the blog. I get that it's not necessarily easy to describe a new paradigm in a few tag lines, but there's probably room for improvement.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I think we need to convince more people to try the demo, or maybe just throw a video of the demo on the front page. Out of curiosity, what made you not try it at first? Did you expect it to take a long time? What might have convinced you to try?

<comment><USER4> Actually, one of my first actions was to click the demo button in the top nav, then I got the page with the big blue button that said "Start Demo," and at this point I was already a little skeptical because typically I expect "Demo" in a web app to take me right into some app I'm about to use. But I clicked the big blue button and then saw this page: [https://demo.sandstorm.io/](https://demo.sandstorm.io/), which felt like an admin panel that was going to take some effort to understand -- at this point I gave up.

This is, of course, totally unfair to you, and was based on assumptions that don't apply to your product, but there you have it. It's even worse, because I'm a developer and with just a little effort could have understood everything, but since it wasn't immediately obvious, I made the assumption that the business model itself was vague, or didn't apply to me, as is often the case with SaaS products.

Pretty standard Steve Krugg "Don't Make Me Think" stuff, but accurate to my experience when I'm just casually checking something out.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, that's great feedback. Yeah, I guess we need some way to show that clicking "install apps" will be easy and fast.

<comment><USER4> To offer a couple of hopefully useful ideas, you could:

1\. Have the demo take you directly to the page where you choose an app, rather than to the admin page which manages your installed apps.

2\. Focus even more on the "like installing phone apps but for websites" metaphor. I think that metaphor works very well as soon as you understand it, and elicits a "Yeah... why _don 't_ web apps work like that?" epiphany.

3\. Continuing 2., you might consider focusing the home page advertising on the most popular apps themselves (more than you do currently), rather than the conceptual idea that you can install your own apps (which is harder to grok, or at least to differentiate from heroku et al). Ie, "Run your own X in 10 seconds", where X is something I already know and think is cool, might be easier to understand, and more motivating. Just as most users think of their phones as indistinguishable from the specific apps they love and use every day, rather than as an abstract platform for running those apps.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Musk Faces U.S. Contempt Claim for Violating Accord with SEC - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/elon-musk-faces-u-s-contempt-claim-for-violating-sec-accord <comment><USER2> Earlier thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19250552](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19250552)

</comment><comment><USER3> In fairness, musk is obviously contemptful of the sec, and public market norms/institutions generally.

He should probably find a way to exit as Tesla ceo, imo. Being a public company CEO doesn't suit him.

He built a car company from a cold start, made good cars, and pushed EVs forward by a good many years. We're now at the point where most major manufacturers make EVs. People are willing to buy them. Range is getting sufficient. Plans to start banning ICE cars next decade are getting serious.

Job done, and done well. Get a CEO that does platitudes to run Tesla.

Go do spaceX, boring companies, hyperloop... plenty of stuff to do. Plenty of money. Plenty of private investors willing to fund muskco projects.

This Elon Musk Vs the stock market stuff is not going to be fun for anyone.

<comment><USER4> > Plans to start banning ICE cars next decade are getting serious.

This made me think: many cities already ban cars from their centers, but perhaps a better policy would be to ban ICE cars? Air quality and noise levels could improve dramatically, but the impact on commerce wouldn't be as harsh perhaps?

<comment><USER5> A lot of air quality problem in cities comes with tyres and brakes. This is why the air quality is so bad in metro stations even though thzy are fully electrical as well.

In addition, the policies against car are not only pollution related but quality of life related and urbanism. This is why in many places in Europe you can't build open air parking in cities anymore, it just takes too much of the public space and if yoj want life in the cities you need to be able to walk easier.

<comment><USER6> Electric cars hardly use their brakes at all due to regenerative braking, so that problem is solved too.

<comment><USER7> They use them less and regen primarily alleviates the need for brakes to perform speed modulation when cruising. They're still used for stopping and a bad driver or rapid deceleration will still put excessive wear on brakes.

<comment><USER6> > regen primarily alleviates the need for brakes to perform speed modulation > when cruising

This isn't true for me. Maybe it depends on the strength of regen in your car, but 90% of my deceleration when stopping is handled by regen. I only use brakes under 5 MPH in most circumstances. And I wouldn't say I'm a timid driver.

<comment><USER7> How do you know when your car engages the brakes vs using regen? Are you taking your foot off the accelerator and then waiting until the very last moment to step on the brake pedal?

I know that Tesla's have aggressive regen, I own one, but it doesn't bring you to a complete stop so you're using brakes at every full stop.

<comment><USER6> Yes, I normally do not press the brake pedal until I have already decelerated to about 5 MPH, when regen basically stops. I know that some cars automatically apply the brakes as part of regen to make the transition smoother but I'm pretty sure the Model 3 does not.

<comment><USER7> That's a long run out. I try to avoid annoying people behind me by doing that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Matt Levine: [https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-26/elon-m...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-26/elon- musk-keeps-tweeting)

"You can't put Elon Musk in jail; he has a whole company for drilling tunnels! Let's be fair to Musk: On the one hand, absolutely, he has been going around saying that he does not respect the law and is going to ignore the SEC and a court order, but on the other hand he has also been going around saying that he's got a big drill. Also rocket ships, submarines, flamethrowers, possibly flying cars, basically the whole arsenal of supervillain technology. The message is not just "I do not care about the law"; it is also "and you can't stop me bwahahaha."

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't see how he can reasonably defend himself in this situation. His tweet was both material and inaccurate. Tweeting material information without clearance is obviously against his settlement. Yet, if TSLA's price signals anything, it'd be that he's in no danger.

<comment><USER10> > Yet, if TSLA's price signals anything, it'd be that he's in no danger.

Or Tesla is in no danger. Musk still might be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seek counseling for your twitter addiction. Delete it. You don't need it. You will be better for it in every way, Mr. Musk.

<comment><USER12> Your comment is slowly graying out, but this is the simplest and most obvious solution. Of course, once Twitter is eliminated I think we'll discover that it was the symptom and not the cause.

<comment><USER13> I feel that way about all social media, not just isolating Twitter. Social seemed to make narcissism accepted as the norm, and encouraged it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is a partial transcript of the Q4 2018 earnings call. There is a strong case to be made that the information was not market moving.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question is from Colin Rusch with Oppenheimer.

Colin Rusch

Thanks so much. Can you talk a little bit about the geographic dispersion for the guidance for 2019, where you're expecting the Model 3s to sell through as well as the other models?

Elon Musk

Well, I think we did, actually. Yes, it's clear in our letter.

Deepak Ahuja

We indicated in Q1, we will start delivering Model 3s in Europe and China. And we also shared a chart showing the potential market size for midsized premium sedans in North America, Europe and Asia, suggesting those markets could be even bigger. So I think that gives a good sense of where we'll be. And we'll launch the right-hand drive version at some point to go to the other markets.

Elon Musk

Yes. Maybe in the order of 350,000 to 500,000 Model 3s, something like that this year.

</comment><comment><USER15> What generally happens moving forward? Let's assume he's "guilty" across the board. So two instances of misleading the market, along with violating a settlement.

Is there a fine? For him and the company? Does he get removed from the board? I don't think jail is likely but, maybe?

<comment><USER16> It will depend on the judge and circumstances, but given that Elon didn't seem to be fazed by a $20 million fine last time, I could easily see a much larger fine this time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It seems that the more a high-profile individual spends time in social media like Musk the higher the odds of making a misstep. Shareholders may want to keep a closer eye on highly 'media' active CEOs.

</comment><comment><USER18> Was curious what their take was but had to bail on the site- what a horrible experience even with uBlock

<comment><USER19> I thought this comment was being overly-dramatic but after clicking on the link it is exactly that bad.

<comment><USER20> [https://outline.com/tHvr8P](https://outline.com/tHvr8P)

(I got "We've detected unusual activity from your computer network" with a captcha.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This one feels a bit witch-hunty, the "500k" number he tweeted wasn't meant to be some new accurate prediction, but a reiteration of their public position, to make a general point about how quickly they've grown over the years.

<comment><USER22> One of the burdens for securities fraud is "materiality" \- whether a "reasonable investor" would have viewed the relevant information "as having significantly altered the total mix of information made available."

Analysts were generally projecting 400k cars delivered. Musk, the CEO, the ultimate insider, suddenly reveals that Tesla will sell _25% more cars_ than people outside expected. I think it's fair to say that if that came as a press release from the company, the mix of information _certainly_ would have changed and people would buy the stock.

The SEC agreement was that he would pre-clear any material tweets with a lawyer. He said in a TV interview that he wouldn't get his tweets pre-cleared, and said "I want to be clear. I do not respect the SEC. I do not respect them." And then he tweeted material information on Tesla.

I think it's pretty fair to call that contempt of court!

<comment><USER23> Keep in mind that both the statement and the correction came while the markets were closed. This isn't about market manipulation.

This is about whether or not he intentionally crossed an arbitrary line by vaguely restating previous official company statements in an unofficial manner without complying with company policy on said utterance.

<comment><USER22> Right, this is about contempt of court, not actual fraud, good point.

It sounds like you think "contempt of court" shouldn't matter. I think it should. It's hard to have a society with rule of law if people ignore court orders, even cool people like Elon.

<comment><USER23> Contempt of court matters, but it is also a high bar. It remains to be seen if the court will determine that a fellow saying "I love the courts, I'm sorry about the things that I said outside of trading hours" is in contempt.

My guess is that the SEC's definition and the court's definition will not agree.

Before disagreeing with this, go back and read the terms of the original settlement. A lot of people are talking smack (on both sides) about things that aren't even in that agreement.

<comment><USER22> I've only read the SEC's motion ([https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ragxTxYi...](https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ragxTxYirOxo/v0)). I haven't been able to track down the court's final judgement document in the settlement. That said, I don't agree with your portrayal here. The SEC's claim is just that Musk didn't pre-clear the tweet, which was a court-backed requirement in the settlement, which makes him in contempt of court.

The other stuff, like about the TV interview, is evidence that he's not acting in good faith, so the court shouldn't cut him slack here - or, in the motion's words, that he "has not made a diligent or good faith effort to comply with the provision of the Court's Final Judgment requiring pre-approval of his written communications about Tesla. Less than two months after the Court entered its Final Judgment, Musk publicly indicated that he was not serious about compliance with this provision."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I got a feeling we are going to find out Elon does a lot of lying.

<comment><USER25> I'd say he does a lot of bullshitting. That's pretty typical for any CEO type person.

<comment><USER12> Most CEOs bullshit by talking in broadly general terms so as not to get pinned down on any particular issue. Musk seems to make stuff up on a whim just to see what the Twitter feedback would be. Shocking to think that this is coming from a nearly 50-year old man.

<comment><USER13> >Shocking to think that this is coming from a nearly 50-year old man.

Is it though? Personality types are not something that changes with age. Maybe it gets toned down or more mellow with age, or it could get more extreme as they become more comfortable/confident in doing what ever trait it is. Pre- social, it might have only been notice by those in direct contact with an individual. Now, it's made visible to the entire online world. Musk is still younger than Trump, and he's not slowing down at his age either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I guess the critical question will be: "If a public earnings report lists a number range, then a tweet mentions a possible number within that range (using 'may'), is that 'material information to investors'"?

I can see arguments to both sides. If anything though in the modern world of social media and the public's thirst for transparency, these kinds of stories can be seen as just an additional thing to think about before going public (obviously a very minor thing of course when making the decision, but still notable).

<comment><USER27> > _s that 'material information to investors'"?_

The guy went onto national television, implied he would not follow the court order, said he does not respect the SEC, then went ahead and broke the order. How is this even debatable?

And let's not pretend that Tesla isn't already under scrutiny for absurd forecasts (under the guise of uncertainty) that they do not reach.</comment></comment>


Make Facebook liable for content, says report on UK election intimidation - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/13/make-facebook-liable-for-content-says-report-on-uk-election-intimidation <comment><USER2> This is a much better approach than telling FB how to stop abuse. Instead it's telling FB what to stop and letting FB (which knows its medium far better than anyone else) develop a mechanism to do so. Politicians and government bureaus would flounder around attempting to interfere in how FB works.</comment>


Perfection Salad (1988) - <AUTHOR> https://meaningness.com/perfection-salad <comment><USER2> This sentence from the beginning tripped all kinds of sensitivities in me:

 _Here at the end of the twentieth century, it seems mostly absurd to think that science has anything much to say about cooking, and we thus have a degree of distance on a particular manifestation of a group of connected twistednesses that still dominate the way we think about most things._

It seems to argue that cooking is somehow "exempt" from being analyzed by science? That's so absurd I didn't know what to think, but the rest of the piece (as far as I made it) didn't seem to be satire either.

A very strange essay, basically.

<comment><USER3> I think it has valid points about over rationalization and getting too far over our skis on very tentative experimental results but the idea that it was pushing that science had _no place in cooking_ is ridiculous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Former neuroscientist here.

It's indicative that this was written in the 80's. Brain/mind scientists have always adopted the science/technology of their time as analogies, for better or worse. (Think of Freud's "pressures" and "venting" in the era of the steam engine.) The first cognitive scientists were borrowing from then-nascent computers and casting brains as information-processing modules.

Unfortunately, this particular essay does a poor job of showing that cognitive science is as unsound as "domestic science". The value of an analogy or model is in its explanatory power, and cognitive science did not do too badly there.

E.g., the hierarchy of the visual system: as it passes from one module to the next, retinal input gets turned into lines, line junctions get turned into corners, edges are combined into shapes, etc. One virtue is that, like any sequential process, this explains why damage in an earlier area stops later processing; if you damage V1, the later color area has no information to work with. (You can imagine an alternative where every visual area receives all retinal input, so you'd lose the ability to see lines/edges, but not colors.)

The author seems to be writing a much larger treatise on our mistaken theories of the nature of mind, but this particular essay is unconvincing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nutrition science is on fairly sound footing today, I think hopefully to myself as I squirt 15 ml of MCT oil into my morning coffee.

The point I took away is that scientific disciplines act like they're sound long before they actually are, so you can't evaluate the soundness of a science based on its own confident pronouncements.

Certainly the history of cognitive science involved making strong claims before they were valid. While some parts of the brain, like the early visual system, were understood correctly early on, the role of the cortex in cognition is still poorly understood.

That doesn't stop people from confidently promoting mental disciplines to optimize learning, memory, or happiness. And we should be skeptical.

<comment><USER4> Oh for sure. Part of the reason I left academia was I felt everyone's claims from fMRI and EEG were stronger than the data warranted :)

My point is that while there are legit criticisms to be made, this essay isn't a particularly good one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The essay puts the similarities between cognition and cooking well, in an entertaining and convincing way: "Although there was a great deal of repetition in the daily menus within each household, she told her colleagues, the variety from house to house was dizzying."

However, knowing a few cognitive scientists, I believe they are much better aware of the limitations of their discipline than credited by the author.

<comment><USER6> It seems to me that the author's main criticism isn't that the people practicing cognitive science are unaware of the limitations, but that they pretend the limitations don't exist when making policy recommendations:

> Science genuinely relevant to food had yet to be invented. So domestic > scientists applied irrelevant science, and prescribed scientific-seeming > rituals to be adhered to when cooking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reads to me like "hey, Cognitive Sciencs, do you know how dumb you are?"

"How dumb am I?"

"You're so dumb you're as dumb as household science!"

The connection between the two amounts to two paragraphs at the end broadly claiming cognitive science is just the same.

</comment><comment><USER8> Admittedly, I haven't read the entire article. From what I gather it's debunking various sciences. The same could gave been said of medical science, but has progressed into many beneficial areas. So yes some of the named fields may be immature but give them time and a method for improvement.

</comment><comment><USER9> For some reason it really bothers me that there's no pejorative for a person who spouts Scientism, eg that one Facebook friend who constantly posts euphoric Atheist memes taglined 'SCIENCE!'

I humbly propose "tizzer".

<comment><USER10> I'm irrationally irritated by people wearing t-shirts with slogans such as "Stand back, I'm going to try SCIENCE".

It makes me think of the kid who stands behind the school bully, egging them on, enjoying jeering at the person who happens to be on the wrong side of the power balance but not capable of doing the ugly business themselves.

Maybe some of these people are genuine scientists. Although none of the scientists I work with dress like that.

<comment><USER11> Why does it conjure up a "bully" scenario though? Who does science bully?

The "power balance" of willful ignorance? Who gets on "the wrong side" of science without promoting a position they are incapable of verifying?

<comment><USER10> Really? Go to any science-related forum. Anybody who demonstrates ignorance risks ridicule and vitriol.

> willful ignorance? Who gets on "the wrong side" of science without promoting > a position they are incapable of verifying?

This smacks strongly of "stop hitting yourself".

What constitutes bullying is in the eye of the victim, not the perpetrator.

<comment><USER11> > What constitutes bullying is in the eye of the victim

So anyone has a right to feel opressed? Smacks of privalige..

You want vitriol? Try being on the wrong side of religion.

<comment><USER10> Nobody mentioned the "right to feel oppressed", that's an odd strawman.

The point is quite straightforward, not controversial:

If you listen only to the bully you clearly won't hear the victim's story.

If you refuse to consider that a person who says they are a victim of bullying is indeed a victim of bullying then you perpetuate the silencing of that person, and enable the bully.

I doubt you'd disagree?

Do we disagree on whether proponents of science can be bullies? It would seem remarkable if they were immune.

Comparing science vs religion to determine who is worse regarding vitriol is a complete waste of time, and another strawman.

<comment><USER11> > Nobody mentioned the "right to feel oppressed"

You said "What constitutes bullying is in the eye of the victim". So anyone can decide that they are a victim.

> Do we disagree on whether proponents of science can be bullies?

Thus is a actual straw Man. How does this relate to a kid wearing a slogan t-shirt?

> Comparing science vs religion to determine who is worse regarding vitriol is > a complete waste of time, and another strawman.

No it isn't; _you_ are the one who talked about vitriol, and balances of power; Just because you don't like a point, doesn't make it a "strawman".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


One of the worst patents ever just got upheld in court - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/24/one-of-the-worst-patents-ever-just-got-upheld-in-court/ <comment><USER3> Ah, this decision is from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Totally expected, and we need to get rid of that court.

For those unfamiliar with the history, that is the court that all patent cases go to. They've been co-opted by patent lawyers, and decide very much in favor of patent holders. Every so often the Supreme Court takes the time to review one of their decisions, and inevitably overrules them. So in their next ruling they find a way to pay lip service to the Supreme Court while ignoring what that court said.

So the rhythm goes like this. You go to your local court, and win or lose based on the jury. Then if the patent holder does not like the decision, you go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And pretty much inevitably will win. If the challenger is very, very lucky, the Supreme Court will have time to hear the case. And you'll get a balanced decision for the challenger. (I mean that literally. The Supreme Court does not have time to hear many of these, so they just pick the most egregious, and issue a balanced decision. But since they picked egregious cases, the patent holder always loses.)

If we could just replace the one court in the middle with one that actually listened to the Supreme Court, then patent trolling would be dealt a fatal blow. I shudder to think of how much its existence costs legitimate business in this country every single year.

<comment><USER4> That isn't what the article says, though: 'As patent scholar Mark Lemley put it on Twitter, "we've got two Federal Circuits on this issue, and it seems to depend on the luck of the draw"'. Mark Lemley is a high profile (sceptical) patent scholar. If he is correct, then there are some voices of sanity on the Federal Circuit. The question is, is the influence of the voice of sanity increasing or decreasing?

<comment><USER5> It's about the same. At least one of the newly appointed (in the past 3 years) judges is rabidly pro-patent

In this case, the decision is by chief judge radar, who believes the court's goal should be to strengthen intellectual property protections.

How do i know this?

He told me (and the rest of the class) this, when I took his class on the federal circuit in law school many years ago.

Silly me, of course, always thought courts were there to decide law, not have policy goals.

In any case, this is one of a long line of the federal circuit giving the middle finger to the supreme court. Judge radar and others basically believe the supreme court is not helpful to them when they are trying to create rules practitioners can follow, so he tries to ignore them when possible.

He also cites his completely ridiculous reasoning from CLS Bank:

      At bottom, with a claim tied to a computer in a specific
      way, such that the computer plays a meaningful role in the
      performance of the claimed invention, it is as a matter of
      fact not likely to pre-empt virtually all uses of an
      underlying abstract idea, leaving the invention patent
      eligible

I'm not even sure how he can say this with a straight face.

<comment><USER6> Couldn't such words as what he said in your class be evidence that he is in some form of contempt of court for not ruling unbiasedly?

<comment><USER7> There is nothing unbiased about having a judicial philosophy. "Bias" means you unfairly favor one party in a particular case over the other. Lack of bias does not require that you approach each case as a tabula rasa.

For example, I imagine lots of people on this website would be happy if a judge took an expansive view of the 4th amendment and asserted that was important for courts to strengthen 4th amendment protections. And that would be totally okay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The first few lines of the article speak to the closest snake to kill for patent legislation: You don't have to patent an _invention_ , just an _idea_. This goes above and beyond the typical patent trolling of, "Well we bought the patent for x from whomever built it first, even though that technology is ubiquitous..." to "Let's see what general concepts are so obvious that no one has bothered to patent them."

My brother was starting a real estate app company and was sued for breaching the patent that allowed one to "find an address using a mobile device." The patent was filed in 1989, with no technology behind it whatsoever, just someone saying, "You know, I bet in the future someone will..."

You could patent "a car that flies in the air without touching the ground" today without having any idea how to build it (except I'm sure that's been patented). That should be step one for legislators to kill.

<comment> alok-g A patent is technically also required to teach to a person skilled in the prior art on how to build the invention.

Here is an excerpt from [1]: "Second, if the inventor did possess a best mode, it must be determined whether the written description disclosed the best mode such that a person skilled in the art could practice it."

I have heard that the recent changes to the US patent laws have weakened this [2], though I have never read the details.

[1] [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2165.html](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2165.html)

[2] [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/05/best-mode-only- mostl...](http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/05/best-mode-only-mostly- dead.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This problem won't be solved until software engineers organize, go to Washington DC, and demand reform. If we don't do that, our competitiveness over the next decade is going to take a hit. Its not like everyone in the world is loaded down with the same kinds of legal costs that we suffer here in the states. Chinese, Indian, Australian, New Zealand, Latvian, Estonian, and Brazilian startups are not a huge threat to us now ... in the future they will eat our lunch if our country fucks us in the ass like this moving forward. Why is an investor going to give me money in Silicon Valley, knowing I'm going to get taxed by a dozen or more trolls. He's going to take his money and shop for a foreign team first ... not now ... but in the future when economic incentives bring those teams into existence abroad. Little things like this start the snowballs rolling down the mountain that turn into an avalanche. We think we are the center of the world right now. We sleep on our success, tomorrow someone else will eat our lunch.

Right now these patent laws are being used to tax engineers in order to pay lawyers. The lawyers produce nothing. The laws are set up so we can't do business without shelling out thousands and thousands of dollars to them monthly. This makes it so its harder for us to bootstrap. When we try to get to MVP our attention is divided from the things that matter to all this other bullshit that the lawyers have cooked up. If you are lucky to get a good lawyer, maybe you don't have much of a headache.

But even with the best lawyer, if you see some modest success, the leeches come out of the swamp to suck at your blood ... I mean the patent trolls, and various other lawsuits. The laws make you a criminal no matter how honestly you do your work. You could sit in a clean room and make something all on your own. When you emerge, the leeches will still be granted a right to suck at your revenues. That's how this blasted patent system works today.

Are we going to organize ever and reverse this trend? Probably not. We are all too busy trying to run businesses. You know who isn't busy? You know who has every incentive to spend every waking hour in Washington DC to make sure nothing changes? The patent trolls and the patent lawyers.

As we say after playing a game of Starcraft: GG.

<comment><USER7> Appealing to the "engineers versus lawyers" dichotomy is a predictable play, but not really one rooted in reality. To use copyright law as an example, it wasn't the copyright trolls that created the modern "copyright infringement is a crime!" regime--it was Adobe and Microsoft and all the engineering companies that lobbied to get software pirates treated like arms traffickers. Similarly, it wasn't patent trolls and patent lawyers that created the modern patent regime--it was the IBMs and GEs and Mercks of the world.

I do agree about your general point, which is that the new generation of engineering companies should lobby for reforms that they think necessary. Though I'd be interested to see if they have the same sort of principled objections to the trademark regime that is the bedrock of the advertising industry that is now their lifeblood.

<comment><USER10> Trademark? Why would that be a problem? Sure, any complex system has some bad cases, but we don't see thousands of innovative companies shaken down and destroyed for the corrupt benefit of trademark litigators.

Likewise there are problems with copyright, but -- unless you're really an infringer -- not on one thousandth the scale of patents. And boat hull registratons, trade secrets, plant breeders' rights, design patents, and trade dress are similar. It's only utility patents that are rotten and systematically corrupted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> That the court doesn't find these claims any more broad or abstract than any other is more a condemnation of the status quo for these kinds of patents.

Because, truly, this one _isn 't_ egregiously bad in its phrasing. It's at least as well-defined as any number of such patents that have held up under re-examination.

And therein lies the larger problem.

<comment><USER12> Exactly. This is a typical "business method" patent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wait? I thought patents required a working prototype. If that's not the case I'm going to patent everything, but with quantum computers. And then everything, but with nanotechnology.

<comment> alok-g Note: IANAL

>> I'm going to patent everything

See my comment here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5934890](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5934890)

The following are the requirements for filing a patent:

1\. Usefulness

2\. Novelty: The invention must not have existed from before

3\. Non-obviousness: The invention must not be obvious to those skilled in the prior art.

When filing a patent application, you are required to describe the invention in full, including the best mode.

So while a working prototype is not required, satisfying 1, 2 and 3 above is still theoretically hard and requires a lot of work for filing a good patent. The issue is that the system is abused as each one of 1, 2 and 3 are subjective more or less.

While not explicitly stated, I believe the concept described in the application must be correct [1]! Since a prototype is not required, it is sometimes the case that things that do not even work the way inventors thought get the patent granted anyways.

Finally, just for completion sake, there are things that cannot be patented like laws of physics, theorems in mathematics, and material that is a subject for copyrights instead.

[1] I am not sure of this. There may or may not be specific legal criteria on this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It sounds like this court is saying:

A. Abstract and not patentable: "Instead of charging your audience for your service, allow others to advertise to them via your service and charge the advertisers."

B. Patentable and not abstract: "Instead of charging website users for the use of your website, allow others to display advertisements on your website and charge the advertisers."

There is something about patents that seems to melt the brains of certain judges.

<comment><USER15> A can apply to anything, like car wash or cinema. B is limited to websites.

Not that this patent makes sense even then, but B is much more limited.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> So, let me preface this by saying I'm well aware this isn't the most important issue here, by miles.

Having said that, is anyone else bothered by the (to my ear) misuse of "let alone"? The phrase "Not X, let alone Y" is supposed to have Y be more extreme than X, right? Implying "certainly not Y, because not even X, so we can let Y alone and not even talk about it."

<comment><USER17> Yep. People hear idioms, like the way they sound, and repeat them without stopping to understand what they mean. In this case it's clear what he meant, but sometimes people will string together a bunch of these occurrences and it can become extremely confusing. I've read comments on HN where people are mistakenly arguing the exact opposite of the point they're trying to argue, because they're using their idioms the wrong way around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Normally I'd be upset that another patent troll was winning in court - <USER2> come on, this is about a slimy patent troll that will be suing even more slimy advertising scum. I have to say I'm on the fence on this one.

<comment><USER19> Except WildTangent isn't scrappy ad farm, it's a games company.

<comment><USER20> Regardless, I don't side with advertising models, they're what got us into this whole collecting data as a business hole, so if these scumbags can prevent companies from getting revenue from ads and thus encourage them to seek actual decent business models (as a non-intended adaptative collateral effect), I'd think it's one evil doing us good.

<comment><USER21> Every TV show, magazine or newspaper you liked, watched or read is the result of advertising. The internet is no different except that it is a larger market where you make less with advertising. Yes old model ads suck even on Hulu Plus you get them, but content costs are high without them or may not even exist. Many a good shows would have not existed. Advertising has been an engine to creative entertainment + information.

<comment><USER20> I haven't read newspapers or magazines in a long, long time, and TV shows I could easily live without (don't watch any in close to a year), especially if we had indie shows with interesting business models to replace them. I'd gladly pay for my content, but I think there's other models to be explored without appealing to ads. Ads are everywhere because they're easy to put to work, and the payout is potentially really high (if you're ok with helping big corps, their investors, and the centralization of wealth.)

<comment><USER22> There have been a lot of indie shows popping up via Kick starter funding. Here are two off the top of my head:

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/freddiew/video-game- high...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/freddiew/video-game-high-school- season-two)

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pemberleydigital/the- liz...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pemberleydigital/the-lizzie- bennet-diaries-dvdand-more)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What about this? Why not only grant a patent if you can prove that you invested a considerable amount of time and/or money to come up with the invention? This protects the often cited expensive research done by pharma companies and puts a stop to all the patents on problems with trivial solutions once you have to deal with the problem. And you still have the first-on-market advantage if you are the first to come up with a trivial idea although you have no patent for it.

Can you think of good examples where this will not work, where we really should grant the patent but coming up with the invention was neither time consuming nor expensive? Of course, proving how much the invention cost you and that it could not have been done with considerably less effort is a non- trivial problem on its own.

</comment><comment><USER24> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the equivalent of a bicycle with no wheels or chain: completely useless and I think we need to get rid of it. For those who are familiar with the Court of Appeals in this instance, this decision will hardly surprise you. Comedic incompetence at its finest here, folks.

</comment><comment><USER21> When newspapers + magazines used to fund content by showing ads before TV existed, imagine showing TV ads as a patented innovation and how that would have destroyed lots of content. It was an obvious progression to fund content online supported by ads. This decision is absolutely wrong. Greed over real innovations.

</comment><comment><USER25> Suppose I wanted to create a startup and not have to worry about infringing software patents. What would be a sensible way of going about it? Or would I have to move to a different country?

<comment><USER26> Sell out the the first big tech company interested?

Make sure one of the co-founders is a kick-ass patent lawyer?

Don't?

Moving to another country is problematic. Other countries have their own software patent quagmires too (though, admittedly usually less developed ones). You're also probably going to want to sell to US customers at some point and then...

In the past, I'd have said don't make money, but in a world where patent trolls target end users of things like scanners, I no longer think that's enough.

More seriously, there's just too much risk and uncertainty with software patents. I think the only realistic option is to accept that risk and move on with the rest of your startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> how long until building a site is patented?

<comment><USER28> That's why it's so good the vast majority of web technologies are open/open source. I can't imagine an Internet where most of the technologies would be proprietary. It's for the same reason why I'm so up in arms against proprietary video codecs, and why I hope we'll move to an open source one sometimes soon.

<comment><USER29> That may be a good thing, but open source doesn't mean non-patent infringing.

<comment><USER30> It often does. When an OSS establishes a new system/standard, prior art invalidates any future patent on it.

<comment><USER31> If one is careful you can even take steps to actively invalidate prior art. You don't need to just make a new standard either, we've already seen people get away with patently new ways to do the same old thing.

Look up Open Invention Network when you get a chance. The idea is to simply publish the general techniques you use to solve a given problem in a fashion that's easy to search, as a defense against people later trying to patent the same idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Okay, here's my argument against computer software patent trolls. Since IANAL, attacks from knowledgeable readers are requested although I can't promise a good response because I know next to nothing about patent law although am learning and if my start up works may have to learn.

Dear Patent Court Judge:

Don't worry, I'm not going to throw rotten tomatoes at you now. And, no, I didn't slash the tires on your BMW 7 Series.

But here's what's wrong with likely most software patents (or patents on devices consisting of routine computer hardware but with some new software).

We start with three parts: (1) Real problem to be solved. (2) Some "abstract" ideas for how to solve the problem. (3) Using the abstract ideas, some software to solve the problem. The users/customers use the software.

Okay, now we understand that solving real problems (1) is important but that we can't patent abstract ideas (2).

For more clarity an abstract idea might be just how to manipulate some data in a way a clerk could be taught to do. We can't patent the clerk or their work, right?

Well, for more, the abstract idea might be some applied math or some of the math of physics or engineering. Since that's abstract stuff, we can't patent it, right? Moreover, before computers, mathematicians and scientists commonly did such mathematical manipulations by hand arithmetic, that is, with paper and pencil. No opportunity for patents there, right?

So, on to the software (3): Assume, as is usually the case, the software is just something routine (for software) to have a computer do the data manipulations specified by the abstract idea, what we could teach a clerk, what's in the math, or what the person with the abstract idea 100 years ago likely did with paper and pencil. That is, the person with the abstract idea 100 years ago could tell a clerk how to do the data manipulations and not get a patent but now can tell a computer how to do the same data manipulations but get a patent? Something's fundamentally wrong here.

In particular, assume that without the abstract idea, the clerk would have no idea at all how to do the data manipulations and the computer programmer would have no idea at all how to write the software. So, all that's crucial or original is just the abstract idea and not the routine software. That is, between (2) the abstract idea and (3) the computer software, only (2) is crucial or original and (3) is routine.

So, with this scenario, why the heck grant a patent on the computer software (3) when we can't get a patent on the abstract idea (2)?

But not all software is like that. Instead, some software is tricky stuff. E.g., how the heck to backup a relational database while it is being used and changed? One might argue that just how to do that could be, and really should be, written up as an abstract idea and maybe even some form of math and, thus, not be patentable, but sometimes all there is is the computer software. So, maybe, maybe, I'm not fully sure, such software, or a computer with it, could deserve a patent.

Generally, then, I conclude that most software patents have to be based on bad thinking when we can't patent the crucial, logically prior abstract idea.

Finally, let me be helpful: When you get a case of a software patent, just rule right away that the patent is invalid and take a nice long vacation with the time you would have spent listening to nonsense about that case! Take along some good hiking shoes or a good book!</comment>


AWS Inter-Region Latency Monitor - <AUTHOR> https://www.cloudping.co <comment><USER2> The thing that's always fun to see on such graphs is comparison to theoretical latency based on the speed of light in fiber. Gives a sense of how circuitous a particular route is.</comment>


Ask YC: Opinions on PowerDNS or other DB-backed DNS servers? - <AUTHOR> I'm in charge of a web-based interface for adding and removing DNS entries for virtual hosts.
Right now we're using a kludgey system of having a webserver hit an inetd script that copies and fills in a template zone file, rsyncs it across servers, and reloads named. This is slow and somewhat unreliable.
It would be nice to be able to write to a MySQL server with slave or two instead and simply have the changes show up in subsequent DNS queries.
PowerDNS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerDNS) is one such server, which can use a variety of backends including RDBMSes. Do any readers have experience with this or a similar product? If so, what is the reliability and resource-intensity? <comment><USER2> I am a little biased since I worked on PowerDNS :-)

With that out of the way, PowerDNS absolutely is a great match for what you are trying to do. Setting up a master/slave situation is very simple. And having your records just there in MySQL is great if you want to put some PHP/Java/RoR/Python/Whatever web frontend on it.

PowerDNS is highly reliable. I've seen it running for large setups. Including large registrars and even top level domains like .TK.</comment>


Why Has It Taken California So Long to Count Ballots? Because All Votes Count - <AUTHOR> https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/11/why-has-it-taken-california-so-long-to-count-ballots-because-it-actually-wants-every-vote-to-count/ <comment><USER2> All valid votes should count. I just registered to vote in California and at the DMV there was a question about getting ballots by mail even if you intended to vote in person. While I know the intent of that, the reality is that you will inevitably have people voting twice. Of course only one of those votes would be valid, but what if they are conflicting votes? Which one has precedence? And voting twice is a crime, so should both votes be thrown out and the person arrested. Are counties cross-checking that someone moving from LA didn't vote by mail with that ballot, then vote in person in San Jose?

How many votes by mail were cast by people that received the ballot for someone else in the household? Voting by mail is such an easy fraud vector that it makes no sense to allow it. If you are overseas, vote at a consulate. Extend in-person early voting to allow for contingencies that prevent Election Day voting.

There should be a voter registration number tied to a social security number instead of doing subjective things like "comparing signatures." That voter registration number should be in a national database and validated on the federal level, something like e-verify for voting.

When a candidate is up by 8% on Election Day and then eventually loses, and especially when that candidate is in the opposite party of those in charge — there is certainly some room for a reasonable person to question the system.

<comment><USER3> > When a candidate is up by 8% on Election Day and then eventually loses, and > especially when that candidate is in the opposite party of those in charge — > there is certainly some room for a reasonable person to question the system

More than half of Californians vote by mail, and the majority of those arrive on or after election day so they're not counted until later.[1] So, no, it's not even facially suspicious. I _am_ skeptical of the new rule which allow someone to deliver sealed vote-by-mail ballots on the behalf of multiple people, but so are some legislators, including Democratic legislators. As I said, California is _also_ continuing to improve auditing and other safeguards. Easier voting and the integrity of elections are not mutually exclusive.

[1] For example, "In Alameda County only about 5 percent of vote-by-mail ballots arrived before Election Day." [https://www.kqed.org/news/10347248/mail-in-ballots-will- soon...](https://www.kqed.org/news/10347248/mail-in-ballots-will-soon-require- only-a-postmark-by-election-day)</comment></comment>


Potential Covid-19 vaccine has re-energized anti-vaccination groups: experts - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/covid-19-vaccine-public-health-1.5627376 <comment> event-horizon I think its the fact of a potentially rushed testing phase that provides the most fuel for angst in this situation. That one could snag more than just the usual anti-vaccer types.

I consider myself pretty rational but would want to be fully informed about the risks of a shorter testing phase etc.

</comment><comment><USER2> The use of the term "experts" almost guarantees that the article (and the effort) is shite. The mention of anti-vaxxers moves it into the trashbin.</comment>