Electric cars are no longer held back by crappy, expensive batteries - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2016/02/electric_cars_are_no_longer_held_back_by_crappy_expensive_batteries.html <comment><USER2> I'm all for electric vehicles, but there are a few things that have bothered me about its mass adoption.

Right now, electrics comprise a tiny part of the automobile market share. Yet Tesla is already running into supply issues, particularly with lithium as there are only 3 companies in the world that do industrial-scale lithium mining, that too in a handful of mines around the world.

Secondly, I suppose we're currently in the honeymoon period for electrics. But what will happen 5-8 years down the line, when all the early mainstream adopters of electrics will have to replace their batteries? Is it feasible to recycle all those batteries?

<comment><USER3> This is a real problem and a real concern.

An EV essentially is a car with a very expensive fuel tank (the battery), made out of specific materials and properties. While it is efficient in energy use and can make use of fungible electricity, lithium is rare, limited to specific areas of concentration, and can (as any material) only be partially recycled.

There's lithium _elsewhere_ on Earth, or more precisely, in seawater, but processing seawater for minerals (uranium is another which might be extracted) is expensive in the sense of requiring a lot of energy (arguably the ultimate definition of _cost_ is energy requirements).

At US rates of auto ownership scaled to the world and future populations, known lithium reserves would quickly be exhausted -- a few decades, if that. With recycling, yes, some of that would be re-used, but even at 90% material recoverability (and references I have suggest 30% is far more common), you'll lose ~50% of your original material in 7 generations. (The formula: remaining material = (portion recoverable)^generations. So: 0.47 ~= 0.9^7.)

Other options include other forms of energy storage (including possibly synfuels), other battery components, or we all just start walking a lot more.

<comment><USER4> There's someone in Halifax researching Sodium Batteries, which would be a fair bit easier to find than lithium, though less effective.

<comment><USER5> Sodium batteries have been around since the 1960s.[1] They're a high- temperature battery, 90°C and upwards. Ford built some experimental vans with sodium-sulfur batteries in 1991. Two of them caught fire. That technology was abandoned for mobile applications.

There's still interest in this for stationary energy storage on power-grid scale. But not for mobile. Sodium catches fire if exposed to air.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium%E2%80%93sulfur_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium%E2%80%93sulfur_battery)

<comment><USER6> Sodium-ion batteries aren't necessarily the dead end you might think.

Faradion has been working on portable batteries w/ decent energy density (~150 Wh/kg), excellent charge-discharge performance (93% capacity after 1000 cycles) and competitive costs: [http://www.faradion.co.uk/about/news/2015/05/489/](http://www.faradion.co.uk/about/news/2015/05/489/)

Recent formulations for sodium rechargeable batteries are room-temperature and non-flammable: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4525335/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4525335/)

Here's a a short article progress being made getting Na-ion batteries into an 18650 form-factor (their current prototype has an energy density of about 90 Wh/kg): [https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/a-battery-revolution-in- motion](https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/a-battery-revolution-in-motion)

While energy density is lower than Li-ion, there's probably a good argument for longevity, safety, and material costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The reality here in second-tier Chinese cities is that most people already get around, if not always then at least often, by electric vehicle.

They've either never had cars, have bought cars but have problems parking them or getting anywhere due to traffic (many cities were not designed for cars, and now have millions of them clogging every available space on and off the road network), or just jump on the back of black-market 'taxi' e-bikes to zip about. E-bikes already carry a large proportion of people in Chinese urban environments. There is no way that e-bikes, subways and buses combined are not the dominant people-movers in the country, today. While I did see some e-bikes in Japan, they were nowhere near as numerous. China is leading the way.

Typical Chinese e-bike cost new is USD$500 or less. Battery replacement (good for 1 year or so) is currently about USD$150 or less. They do get stolen a lot, unfortunately.

<comment><USER8> True statement. Having been visiting China annually for the past 10 years and seeing the transportation transition from mopeds to E-bikes first hand, I can attest to that. And the price has really been going down significantly because of the mass production and economy of scale (exports are a major contribution). Typically e-bikes with traditional car batteries are starting at around 2000 RMB. Some newer ones with Li-ion batteries are priced slightly higher.

However, e-bikes are seeing a decline and/or full ban in top-tier Chinese cities due to new traffic regulations and new road design. It is still the predominant transportation tool in 2nd-tier and small cities where public transportation is scarce and downtown areas are smaller.

<comment><USER7> _However, e-bikes are seeing a decline and /or full ban in top-tier Chinese cities due to new traffic regulations and new road design._

I'm not sure what you identify is a trend as you suggest, rather I think it's just some exceptions. IMHO such regulations are generally for a small area, the equivalent of a pedestrian only mall zone or a few central downtown blocks. Often the motivation is to show off how "modern" the city is (as upwardly mobile Chinese city mayor / party member assumes modern exists in foreign perception, after publicly funded junket to Europe/Singapore/etc.).

I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, we see such exceptions reversed. After all, old people have to get around and there is tremendous acceptance here of e-vehicles to cater for that market. (Theirs are often covered with a passenger area at rear, and lockable.) This factor alone adds reasonable weight to allowing smaller e-vehicles in the heart of all cities. What _has_ been banned in the heart of many cities is motorbikes, and for good reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting article but the timelines seem way to conservative to me.

For example if batteries continue to improve over the next four years as they have over the past four years, according to the article then in 2020 the batteries will weight 1500 lbs, travel 1142 miles on a charge and cost about $10k. (Or a 500 mile battery for $5k) And the cost of electricity will be, at today's rates, $1 per "e-gallon"

Who wouldn't want that? Project this to 2040 and the numbers become just ridiculous but the article suggests just 35% market share by then. I don't think so. By 2025 the market will almost certainly be strongly in the favor of electrics.

<comment><USER10> Fuel engine are improving too and oil price doesn't seem to want to go down any time soon. I'd say we have an interesting 10 years ahead. Electric is probably going to win, but time estimates are very hard to do. Don't forget that replacing a car fleet is expensive and takes years. A modern car can easily last 15-20 years, so even if we started replacing fuel with electric today (which we are not), replacing the whole car fleet would require 15-20 years. I don't see the 35% so far fetched in 2025...

<comment><USER11> And don't forget that there are millions of people who have a car right now, but who wouldn't have a place to charge an electric car. People living in apartments, terraced houses, especially in the UK it's very common to see rows upon rows of houses, none of them with their own driveway.

<comment><USER12> I know what you're getting at but I don't think the above comparison is entirely fair. Those houses don't have petrol pumps outside them either

<comment><USER11> Yes, but I go to a petrol station once a month, takes me 10 minutes to fill up and the whole tank lasts me for the whole month. With electric cars there are two ways out of this, either build enough electric charging points that you can charge while you are at work, or make every single car supercharger- compatible. I personally don't think the first option is likely, I don't see why my work(or any other) would have literally every single parking spot wired for charging(there's over 1000 parking spots at our office), and as for the second option, even 30 minute charging is excessive, it's fine o long journeys so you can go an have a coffee and stretch your legs, but if you want to quickly "fill up" after work 30 minutes is not acceptable. That's why I said that for majority of people charging at home is ideal - but a lot of people don't have private place to charge at home.

<comment><USER12> Yeah I understand what you mean and I think you're right. 1000 charge points is unacceptable but do we really need that? Given the current generation Tesla can already self navigate pretty well what's stopping the cars navigate the car park in your absence and charge themselves at a few central charge points.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uMM0lRfX6YI](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uMM0lRfX6YI)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What about making the battery packs "hot swappable". You pull into the station, the current pack is unloaded and a new one is loaded. I It can also have interesting effects on the battery upgrade you need to do every X amount of years. The packs could be owned by the gas station chain, so you can stop at any of their establishments and get a new one refiled.

These battery pack charging stations could then also be used as power offloading for local power generation.

<comment><USER14> The french car maker Renault tried this : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Fluence_Z.E](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Fluence_Z.E). (<\- the point is in the link)

It didn't work.

<comment><USER15> Sounds like it wasn't profitable, at least in 2013: "The company's financial difficulties were caused by the high investment required to develop the charging and swapping infrastructure, about US$850 million in private capital, and a market penetration significantly lower than originally predicted..."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've been shopping for a used car in the Bay Area, and it looks like used electrics are even easier to buy (and harder to sell) than former rentals. That's not a good signal.

<comment><USER17> Like any 1.0 product. The technology evolves so rapidly it loses 90% of its value in a few years.

It reminds me my first digital camera, 2000$ and 3 years later you could get better for 500$.

<comment><USER18> I own a 2014 Nissan Leaf. Except for the battery and motor, almost every technology in the car is what you'd find in a regular vehicle. Any obsolescence can be dealt with by a battery upgrade (motors are a century old technology, I doubt that'll improve much in 5-10 years).

<comment><USER19> ahhh gotcha, so just the internal energy source and the part that locomotes it. Nothing too important then, eh?

edit: yes, it was a joke. However, not for nothing, this is still a bizarre comment indicating that only the highy technical nuances in the car are nuances and that it should be trivial to swap them out. The battery is tied to the drive train each having a highly specialized and proprietary function. The power train uses a "centuries old technology" a synchronous electric motor.

I am just jokingly pointing out that all cars use technology for motors grounded in history. Leaving aside considerable differences in size, weight, calibration, horespower or interconnection as well as subtle differences converting the imperial system into metric, sure, I guess you could argue motors are a commodity.

As for the battery, the leaf's is great. Slated to hold 70-80% of its charge for around a decade. However, again, this was a limited production run-rate and can't really be decoupled from the drive-train without a significant degree of knoweldge and tooling making it highly unlikely someone would do this for any other reason than to learn a massive amount and have a really cool project. The battery is a 24kWh supercell constructed out of 192 subsells with a cooling stack and whatever battery chemistry they are using[0]. So yeah, I was having a playful joke here.

I don't think anyone was arguing that EVs are overtly complicated due to the new radio & blue tooth technology they have to interface with the stereosystem...it's all about the powertrain/motor & energy source interface. jeez...

[0] Googled it, fairly standard: lithium ion manganese oxide batteries, like the kind grandma used to bake.

<comment><USER18> This is wrong. The battery is not tied to the drive train. Given the same electrical interface, dimensions and a compatible BMS, swapping out for a lighter, cheaper battery IS trivial. Even cell level replacement is possible -- it's actually happening commercially where I live.

<comment><USER19> Again, this isn't my area, but conventional ICE vehicles are typically a total loss if they need the entire engine & gas tank replaced. So, again, I am sure I am not totally correct/wrong here in the entirety but my point was just that:

> Except for the battery and motor, almost every technology in the car is what > you'd find in a regular vehicle.

This statement I found funny because it was stating that the core technological difference between ICEs and EVs was the energy source and the motor. Again, I didn't mean to be insulting here, it's just like, no one thought it was the windshield wipers, so I made a joke about it. However, this second part:

> Any obsolescence can be dealt with by a battery upgrade (motors are a > century old technology, I doubt that'll improve much in 5-10 years).

I am highly suspect of. Again, I have no reason not to believe you, but realistically you would have to get the battery from Nissan as it would be prohibitively expensive from a 3rd party and likely void the warranty. Hence why I said a fun software project but not something an average user would employ as the core battery pack[0] is buried under the entire enterior and interfaces through wht are almost certainly proprietary connections and closed API/systems.

Also, and again this is going on statements made by Nissan which are self- serving[1] Nissan is swapping 5 batteries a year and recycles 15-20. So I was simply pointing out that if we back out the 2016 statistic back to when Nissan launched the leafin Dec 2010, they would be somewhere around 6y * 5 = 30 replacements span of the fleet. So, I was just poking a bit of fun in jest at what you sort of intimated was just a casually routine procedure.

Again, you are correct[2], like they do have a battery replacement program and you can rent/pay to be in it as of 2014. I am just pointing out that these are the core differences between ICEs and EVs.

> Given the same electrical interface, dimensions and a compatible BMS, > swapping out for a lighter, cheaper battery IS trivial.

Again, after reading this, I realized you could be trolling. Like, of course that's correct, if you take away the _proprietary elecrical interface_ which is likely hardware/connections AND software based, found/built a _compatible BMS_ , e.g. the core Battery Management System of the deeply integrated cell chemistry with the electrical internals that support it and likely interface with a larger system at the pack and vehicle levels...and you take apart the entire interior of your vehicle to get at the battery which is under all 4 seats and the carpet...disconnect all the wiring which runs throughout the entirety of your car...then remove the 480lb pack and get at the 192 subcells...

then yeah, it's like super trivial. So easy a caveman can do it. But again, I was just sort of having a laugh (not at your expense might I add) at how you just sort of casually imply that except this super (unique/difficult/X) stuff then Y is essentially trivial. But it's not a _big_ deal, I just wouldn't imply it is as common place as you did.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#/media/File:2013_N...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#/media/File:2013_Nissan_Leaf_cutaway_\(2\).jpg)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#Battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#Battery)

[2][http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/20/nissan-leaf-battery- repla...](http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/20/nissan-leaf-battery-replacement- will-cost-100-month/)

<comment><USER20> > This statement I found funny because it was stating that the core > technological difference between ICEs and EVs was the energy source and the > motor.

Have you ever looked at the e-Golf? It's just a normal golf except it has a battery and a electric motor. The rest of the vehicle is exactly the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> According to the article, we are now held back by expensive, non-crappy batteries.

But the price is dropping, and eventually will be affordable.

</comment><comment><USER22> Forget the batteries look at the cost of replacing aluminum quarter panel which is welded on. For the Model S it's supposedly $15,000+ just for the part then fixed at a Tesla approved bodyshop. That's nuts!

I did the math and for comparison on a $3 million Enzo Ferrari a hood (couldn't find a quarter panel) unpainted and used is about $10,000. [http://www.ferrparts.com/en/usd/diagrams/front-hood-and- open...](http://www.ferrparts.com/en/usd/diagrams/front-hood-and-opening- device-23f01bca-50c3-48e2-ae63-e4ebfc5a08db)

I like electric but I can't own a car that will cost so much to repair. A $15,000 bill not including labor on a $70,000 vehicle 20% of the total vehicle cost is not worth it.

<comment><USER23> You're talking about a $60k+ (realistically probably more like $80k) vehicle. Aluminum body panels for luxury cars in that class have long been similarly priced. If you bought an all aluminum Audi A8 in 1999 for a similar price, you'd be in a similar situation. If you balk at that kind of repair bill, you shouldn't be considering a car in that price range.

Your comparison of the _used_ Ferrari hood is hardly applicable at all. First it's a used part, second it's a carbon fiber part, not aluminum.

Additionally, why would you expect to pay the price for the part yourself? That's what insurance is for. In reality, Tesla is doing you a favor by making their body panels so expensive because that means it's easier for your car to get declared a total write off in an accident and you can get a new car instead of a busted up repaired car that will never be the same (as anyone who's had a car repaired from a major accident can tell you.)

Lastly, I'd imagine the cost of Tesla body parts has a lot to do with the fact that they are in extremely high demand right now because there's still a waiting list. Any body panel Tesla sells you can't be used to build a car.

<comment><USER24> > In reality, Tesla is doing you a favor by making their body panels so > expensive because that means it's easier for your car to get declared a > total write off in an accident and you can get a new car

I think the chance of getting new value for your totalled car is pretty slim, unless it was written off in the first year or you're paying extra for GAP insurance.

My car got written off by an insurance company last year after someone drove into me. I ended up taking a settlement and getting the car fixed myself, there was no way their write off settlement would by me anything like the car I was about to lose. I also hate "throwing away" something mechanically sound over a few body panels, some panel beating, and some paint. And it is certainly not the 'green' choice either!

<comment><USER23> If your car gets hit to the point where you have to replace body panels it's not as mechanically sound any more as you might think. Only weird, edge case accidents can result in a body panel being destroyed to the point of replacement where the actual structure of the car hasn't been bent or warped in ways that will permanently alter the handling and behavior of the car.

As for being green; when you write off a car it's not like it just gets buried in the ground whole. It gets parted out and the parts all get sold. It's actually quite green. :P

Your insurance will give you replacement value for the car that was destroyed. No that's not original MSRP but it's what the destroyed car is worth. If you're really intent on repairing it, you usually use that money to buy the written off car from whoever the insurance company ends up selling it to (usually whatever mechanic or storage place the totaled vehicle is physically located) and then pay to have it repaired. If the total of that procedure is higher than what the insurance company gave you, then it's a bad idea to do that. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Now they'll just be held back by lack of a widespread charging infrastructure.

<comment><USER5> The next big problem is the lack of a unified charging infrastructure. Yes, you can buy a trunk full of adapters.[1] Teslas use their own plug, for which there are a CHAdeMO adapter, a J1772 adapter, and adapters for standard 120VAC and 240VAC outlets. A full set of adapters is about $700. [2]

The Chevy Bolt uses Combo Cord, which supports J1772 and CCS.

Looking around Silicon Valley, almost all charging points have J1772. Some are free, some require payment, and some require membership in a charging plan. Higher power stations are mostly CHAdeMO.

There's a big retail markup on electricity. $0.59/KWh at some stations. And there are payment "plans", which look like cellular phone plans. Tesla's "Supercharger" is supposedly unlimited once you've paid your $2500, but apparently if you use ones near your residence, they send you nag messages saying it's really for travelers.

[1] [https://www.evseadapters.com/](https://www.evseadapters.com/) [2] [http://shop.teslamotors.com/collections/model-s-charging- ada...](http://shop.teslamotors.com/collections/model-s-charging-adapters)

<comment><USER26> Yes, but you don't need chademo. Your car comes with 120 and 220v, plus j1172, plus you don't need an adapter for superchargers. So $0 additional cost. Plus it comes with the wall charger. So you might live in a place with Chademo, but its only useful if it exists, and there is no high power charger. So the extra set would $450, but you actually need $0 extra - and it fits in the corner of the trunk. I've owned a tesla since 2012, and I don't have chademo. I've spent exactly $0 extra on the plugs you suggest. I have been from seattle to portland, eastern washington, Vancouver BC, Whistler, Banff. Just using regular j1772 and superchargers.

<comment><USER27> I live in an area with a lot of CHAdeMO chargers, and I've never been tempted to buy the adapter... near-home charging (I have an apartment) and superchargers have done the job, even for longer trips.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> And if we go the Hydrogen route, then batteries definitely won't be what holds it back. But certainly other factors will.

</comment><comment><USER19> obviously Tesla is the front runner for spearheading the insudtry by virtually every metric & subsector (except maybe price). Look, I love Tesla and have been bullish on the company for a pretty long time, so I am biased, but why can't other car companies have quality cars _and_ aesthetics.

* Fisker Karma: The car looked super sleek, was super sexy and from an engineering standpoint it was a heap of shit.

* Chevy Volt: Was an ICE car that had the worst of both worlds. Not particularly attractive.

* Rimac Concept One: Ok this car was fucking brilliant but it was like $1M USD.

* Prius: Pretty decent as far as hybrids go. Aesthetics are lacking what many might consider: _the ability to not look like a cross between a golf cart and a mobility scooter_.

* Chevey Bolt: Seems to have pretty amazing specs. Aesthetics are sub-par for sure.

Yes, Tesla's _thing_ was making a compelling electric car, however other manufacturers seem to be doing alright in actually making the car. They just need to bend the metal in a way that doesn't look fucking horrible and Tesla will have a bit harder of a time of it.

Edit:

Here is a quick album I made. Nearly every car looks the same:

[http://imgur.com/a/HEsyf](http://imgur.com/a/HEsyf)

edit 2:

Here[t] you can see Tesla's offerings. The roadster is omitted. However, of the 4 cars, they made: roadster and the models s,3,x,y* you would be hard pressed to confuse them for any of the cars in the above album. However, those in that album are very close to one another aesthetically.

[t][http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2016/05/2017-Tesla-...](http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2016/05/2017-Tesla- Model-3-2016-Tesla-Model-X-Tesla-Model-S-charging-stations.jpg)

* they haven't made y yet....

<comment><USER29> It's too bad about the Volt. I drove one a few times... It isn't a terrible car at all, and bypasses the gaping flaws in a pure electric vehicle.

<comment><USER19> What do you see as the 'gaping flaws' of a pure electric vehicle? I would never want a hybrid, as I would optimize for either an ICE or EV but there doesn't seem to be space in a consumer vehicle to have a workable hybrid that is better than either of its pureplay counterparts.

<comment><USER29> A few:

\- Road trips. Range needs to accommodate the 95th percentile trip, not the mean.

\- Apartment living

\- Unknown depreciation curve

The other inconvenient fact is that you need to drive a lot for the TCO of an electric car to be lower than a similar gasoline car.

<comment><USER30> Median daily distance is actually close to about 30 miles in the US. I'd be surprised if the 95th percentile (equating to more than once per month) wasn't already within the range of a Tesla, though the report doesn't have that figure.

[https://www.aaafoundation.org/american-driving-survey- year-o...](https://www.aaafoundation.org/american-driving-survey-year-one)

<comment><USER29> I travel regularly to NYC from Albany (about 150 miles). Many other people do as well, based on the NYC->ALB traffic you see on weekend evenings.

It's a trip that is definitely in the range of a Tesla from a point A to point B point of view -- but you end up with lots of overhead. Did I fully charge before the trip? Will I do a side trip? Will I drive around when I get there?

The electric car adds a lot of complication, and doesn't really solve any problem right now.

Its similar to the decision process of common carrier vs. car for any moderate/long range trip.

<comment><USER19> I want to say straight out, I agree that range-anxiety is real. People need to be comfortable that the car will be able to go wherever they need to go, whenever they need to do there. That is, at least in America, the cultural equivocation that driving === freedom.

That said, this statement:

> The electric car adds a lot of complication, and doesn't really solve any > problem right now.

leaves me obligated to point out a few things. I will reason from analogy for point:

1\. I just quit smoking, it wasn't obvious that it solved a problem right now, but I hope it will eliminate some later ;).

2\. It doesn't matter, at least by Tesla's conception, that electric cars solve anything. Obviously, it is a mission driven company but that mission doesn't/shouldn't matter to the end user. Electric cars should be great for their own sake, and as good or better than a comprably priced ICE.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > There is no Moore's law for battery storage—the power of batteries doesn't > magically double every two years.

> Put another away, the battery pack in the 2017 Volt will cost less than 10 > percent more than the one in the 2012 Volt. But it will be more than four > times more powerful.

Intel wishes its chips still quadrupled in performance every 5 years.

> We're moving toward a world where more and more cars will either run > primarily on gasoline but with an assist from powerful batteries or > primarily on powerful batteries but with an assist from gasoline.

He's saying that in article talking about how cheap batteries have become and how in a few years they'll be $100/KWh? Within 10 years all EVs will have 100-150 KWh batteries. That's 400-600 mile ranges.

The only place where you'll see "hybrids" is some niches where batteries alone couldn't possibly make sense, but I have a hard time coming up with ideas for vehicles where batteries alone wouldn't be enough in 15 years and they're smaller than say a train or an airplane. Even buses should do just fine with a 200KWh battery for a 16-18h work-day.

> Earlier this week, Bloomberg New Energy Finance released a report arguing > that by 2040, 35 percent of annual vehicles sales will be electric.

It will be at least twice as much by 2030. By 2025 few will want a car that _isn 't_ an EV, and the car makers will have no choice but to start competing in EVs as their primary cars.

<comment><USER32> I just find it funny, that they think that moore's law means that chips magically improve, that it is not dependant on the hard work of people.</comment></comment>


The world is getting hacked. Why don't we do more to stop it? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/opinion/the-world-is-getting-hacked-why-dont-we-do-more-to-stop-it.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0 <comment><USER2> last time i was in a hospital a mere few months ago i saw quite a lot of machines still running XP which i thought was kind of beyond a joke in 2017, maybe now theyll actually upgrade them

</comment><comment><USER3> yes, why didn't the nhs budget for replacing eol software?

<comment><USER4> This could have happened with up-to-date windows too, if the NSA leak was different. The fault is with running fundamentally unsafe software in safety- critical applications.</comment></comment>


List of security links - <AUTHOR> http://www.troyhunt.com/2015/09/troys-ultimate-list-of-security-links.html <comment><USER2> I wish this was on GitHub where contributors can create pull requests.

<comment><USER3> what's stopping you from putting it on github then posting it here and in the comments of this post?

<comment><USER2> duplicating efforts

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You forgot to include Tinfoil Security in your list of scanners ;)

Great list though. I have a similar one I'll publish soon.

<comment><USER5> I especially like how Tinfoil Security quickly makes vulnerability checkers etc. available: [https://www.tinfoilsecurity.com/poodle](https://www.tinfoilsecurity.com/poodle)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice list, thanks! btw, number 1 on the section DDoS is just great :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Excellent. Lists like these are fantastic!

</comment><comment><USER8> Excellent list, thanks for sharing</comment>


Ask HN: What do I do with my unpaid internship? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,
Context: I'm an experienced web and iOS developer, from a third world country. I've been freelancing for over three years now, and since I've taken up iOS development - it's been difficult to find work in that domain.
So, I ended up combing through Angel List, and found a startup that was hiring for iOS. It was based outside of my country, in a first world nation, and ended up interviewing with them. What they mentioned was an 8-week unpaid internship, which I wasn't okay with. This was similar to spec work from clients, and I'm aware of how toxic it is both to the industry and to myself.
But without much options, since the startup claimed that there is a full-time opportunity at the end of the internship, I decided I'll take it up, although reducing the term to 6-weeks instead. I'm in a place where leaving the country is my priority, so this seemed like a possible solution at the time.
Problem: 3 weeks in, and I feel no drive to continue working for no money, I could instead work on my pet projects. I brought this up to the founders, and they said that bringing that up was already a flag because I was enquiring about finances. I know I'm being played for work here. But There are 3 more weeks left before which they could potentially make an offer, which I presume is largely going to be based on equity from what I've gathered so far. Now, I'm not interested in that at the moment. I need the money to pay my bills, and I've burned 3 weeks already.
I have signed a contract with the company for 6 weeks, but have no drive to continue work with them.
I've learned a lesson here. But should I wait it out for 6 weeks before I get out, or what kind of consequences will there be if I choose to get out before that?
Any advice is appreciated.
P.S: If you're a company looking to hire interns, and not pay them/pay them in equity -- Please don't. <comment><USER2> Are you sure this 6-week contract is valid at all? Because in the US (since you never provided any information about where you are, I assume typical US arrogance) I hear that a contract is only valid if both sides get something out of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's outside of the US. I'm sorry, but I don't want to disclose the location.

<comment><USER2> Dude, how the heck do you expect _any_ sensible advice on your contract if you don't want to disclose what laws are you subject to?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, that makes sense. It's Scandinavia if that helps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I took an unpaid intership, did my best and they started to pay me some bonuses (we were 4 doing the intership and only I got paid), at the end (after 270h) I got a 6 month contract and Im still working there.</comment>


5 Badass Scientists You've Probably Never Heard of – But Should Have (Part 1) - <AUTHOR> https://shecancode.io/blog/5-badass-scientists-youve-probably-never-heard-of-but-should-have-part-1 <comment><USER2> +1 for the ladies on Manhattan Project and inventing spread spectrum. I didn't know about them.</comment>


Adoptoposs.org – an open source app to find co-maintainers - <AUTHOR> https://adoptoposs.org <comment><USER2> I'm convinced that this is a good thing, and hope there are going to be enough potential maintainers on the supply side.</comment>


Ask HN: Does this exist? A service to auto-enroll your username in new launches? - <AUTHOR>

Would be nice to see a list of upcoming launches with the option to auto reserve your handle when registration opens <comment><USER2> I can see how this would benefit the user, you get to reserve your preferred name, but how is this good for developers?

Having users auto sign up would ruin any value in there uptake / usage data. How many of those users are interested in the product and how many are just squatting on the username?

Maybe this is over my head =/

<comment><USER3> I feel it's a legit idea. Some of us are really interested in new services. Most importantly, a service should not judge it's success by the number of sign ups (like G+ does) but on the number of interactions/service calls that it's users do over a period of time (twitter way of accounting itself).

<comment><USER2> If accounts added in this manor where removed after a set period of time due to inactivity i can see it being feasible.

It would be a good way to offer the service in bulk and then reduce the numbers down to just the users who will truly help grow the service by using it.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should my company name specify the type of service I provide? - <AUTHOR>

I'm about to register a limited company, get a company bank account etc, so I need to get my company name right.
I'm building a SAAS product, which may be the first of many, so I have one company name under which all of my products will be sold (obviously with a seperate website for the product so it can be properly marketed).  This is the sort of thing I want to do going forward - build my own products and sell them.
So my question is should I register my company name as "CompanyName" or should I add "Software" afterwards so it's clear that i'm in the business of selling software?  I.e. I would instead register "CompanyName Software"?
I noticed Patrick from Kalzumeus has registered with the "Software" addition, as have others.
I'd prefer to just register as MyCompany as it's shorter, snappier and allows me to change direction in future.  Adding Software does however create less ambiguity over what my company does currently...  What's the best move? <comment><USER2> Most people dont realize that the actual registered name of a company is different than its domain name or brand/product name. This is not a big issue from this perspective

If you think you will have other products than it could make sense to have a more generic name using "softwares" that will cover all of your activities and not use a company name similar to your current product. Again, no decision on the registered name will prevent you from doing anything in the future as a bad decision on a brand/product could have

</comment><comment><USER3> I had no problems just registering the CompanyName in my country. There was no other companies using any other variation of the name I chose though, so I didn't have to worry about differentiating/separating myself from anyone else.

If your CompanyName is unique and not like anything else registered, you'd probably be fine to do the same.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why not both domains and make up your mind any time you want :)

You can point them both at the same website, so you are able to market both names and see which people respond to, but even if you like one more than the other it will still go to your site.

<comment><USER3> (S)He's talking about the actual registered company name, not the company's domain name.</comment></comment>


Firebug 3 and Multiprocess Firefox - <AUTHOR> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/12/firebug-3-multiprocess-firefox-e10s/

<comment><USER2> Firefox own developer tools won't log ajax calls in console. Firebug does. This and the fact that you need to open the settings tab to enable preserve log are my problems with Firefox tools keeping me on firebug.

<comment><USER3> Hmm. What's the use case for ajax calls in the console instead of just switching to the network tab? Convenience?

<comment><USER4> Yeah. Why make people switch? Almost every app does ajax calls, so it's very useful to have that information there for almost every developer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> i am curious, what is the advantage of using Firebug instead of the built-in developer tools?

<comment><USER6> I think Firefox Dev Tools may have reached parity with Firebug. Up until recently (~3 months), Firebug was superior in network, more informative in console when using console.log for objects, resizing, etc. Still, Firebug does have add-ons

<comment><USER7> Firefox Dev Tools still has some gigantic bugs that make it unusable for a lot of scenarios. For example, it doesn't show evaled code in the debugger. Which means anything that dynamically creates code (common in development) can't be debugged. Shumway (the Firefox flash compiler) for example.

<comment><USER8> That's fixed in Firefox 36, which will be released to the Developer Edition channel this Friday. (You can test it on the Nightly channel now.)

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=865313](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=865313)

[https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/channel/#aurora](https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/channel/#aurora)

[https://nightly.mozilla.org/](https://nightly.mozilla.org/)

<comment><USER7> Believe me I've been following this issue closely for a long time and know the status. While the large work that was needed has been done, it hasn't been fixed completely. In my case I get evaled items to show up but they 1) don't have actual names just foo.js -> eval and 2) don't have the actual source shown. I think this might be the issue that is blocking me: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=833744](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=833744)

So while this is "on the road" to being fixed, it's not fixed completely.

<comment><USER8> You can give scripts names using the sourceURL pragma: [http://fitzgeraldnick.com/weblog/59/](http://fitzgeraldnick.com/weblog/59/)

And I'm not sure what you mean about the source. I see the correct source when I debug evaled scripts in Firefox Nightly.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Old World metals traded on Alaska coast hundreds of years before Europeans - <AUTHOR> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-06/pu-owm060716.php <comment><USER2> And they wore silk in Rome before Rome had ever heard of China. Trade doesn't have to go halfway around the world on one camel. It can go from neighbor to neighbor 'diffusely' with the same result. I'd not be surprised if native Americans had traded old world items 10,000 years ago.

<comment><USER3> While what you said is true, the Beringia straight closed 10,000 years ago. Any contact/trading/migration after that event is always interesting to find out.

What is interesting about this is that some sort of trading/contact was occurring across the Pacific Ocean around 1100-1300 AD. While anticipated, this is a significant find.

<comment><USER4> Trading across the Bering Strait with inuit ships 900 years ago is quite impressive. I've watched Deadliest Catch!

I suppose it's also possible things can have drifted over on ship wrecks or in stray boxes.

<comment><USER5> Its not really that bad all year long, there are seasons. A lot of cruise ships go up there during the summer and they wouldn't risk those (although there is a video of a bad docking recently but that wasn't weather related).

<comment><USER6> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEPNfLmcUO0&sns=fb](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEPNfLmcUO0&sns=fb)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The coast of Brazil and the Cape Verde Islands are not terribly far (relatively speaking). I think a lot of Americans underestimate how close the Americas are to the Euroafrican landmasses.

Also, this is neat reading:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans- oceanic_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans- oceanic_contact_theories)

<comment><USER4> The Cape Verde islands were uninhabited until the Portuguese discovered them in 1456.

<comment><USER7> Cape Verde Islands are closest, but the coast of Africa itself is not much further from Brazil. It's really easy to conceive of trade getting to the Ivory Coast and then traders making the trip to the Americas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Time to update the good, old and increasingly holey [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans- oceanic_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans- oceanic_contact)

<comment><USER9> That is terribly interesting. Thanks.</comment></comment>


ProblemsPeopleHave - <AUTHOR> http://www.problemspeoplehave.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be interested in your opinion. I had the idea over the weekend. I'm thinking of it as an art project or maybe as something that could evolve to become a funny or serious site.

</comment><comment><USER2> A similar concept was tried by Seth Godin - It is Broken or something like that. little different though.</comment>


In 1997 David Bowie shorted the music industry by issuing "Bowie bonds" - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/590977/david-bowie-was-as-innovative-a-financier-as-he-was-a-musician/ <comment><USER2> Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_bond#Bowie_Bonds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_bond#Bowie_Bonds)

The _Financial Times_ : [http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ad21c6e2-b851-11e5-b151-8e15c...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ad21c6e2-b851-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb.html#axzz3xQ80YkLc)

Google of it's title: [https://www.google.com/search?q=Bowie%20Bonds%20blazed%20a%2...](https://www.google.com/search?q=Bowie%20Bonds%20blazed%20a%20trail%20through%20capital%20markets)</comment>


OpaLang: Concise language for writing distributed webapps - <AUTHOR> http://opalang.org

<comment> saiko-chriskun this is seriously the coolest language I've seen come out in a long time. super excited :D</comment>


Ask HN: How would you spend a company provided learning budget? - <AUTHOR> My company this year instituted a learning budget where they will 100% reimburse me for expenses up to a non-trivial amount of money. I can use this to do pretty much whatever (e.g. take classes online, take university classes, attend conferences, etc...). And this money is use-it-or-lose-it, so it's not like they'll just cut me a check for whatever I don't spend. Just curious what the HN community would use the money for.
In particular, I'm looking for things that will actually make me more effective at work as opposed to resume padders. For context, I live in Chicago and work for a trading firm doing a mixture of C++ and Python development. My list so far includes the following, but I'd love to hear the community's ideas:
- attending CPPCON specifically with an eye towards getting a better handle on some tools that I'm not as proficient in as I'd like to be (GDB and perf spring readily to mind).
- hiring a private tutor to better learn linear algebra and stochastic calculus
- signing up for Coursera courses on machine learning
Let me hear what you've got. <comment><USER2> No date announced yet, FTX18 in Chicago should be on your agenda> [http://www.fintechchicago.com/](http://www.fintechchicago.com/)

If you aspire to a leadership role, an executive coach might be a smart play> [http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4853.html](http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4853.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Both good recommendations, thanks! I hadn't heard of FTX. I'll likely be in attendance.</comment></comment>


Customizing Your Shell - <AUTHOR> https://blog.balthazar-rouberol.com/customizing-your-shell.html <comment><USER2> I've seen a lot of Animal Crossing screenshots recently; people will spend an incredible amount of time working on something to make it look nice. They can spend hours to make simulation-life more productive in a way that gets such a marginal return, they won't make the hours back.

Meanwhile, I've recently spent an equally unreasonable amount of time unifying my bash environment across all machines so that I get a different color for each host name. So now my bash prompt is color coded by machine. I was lying to myself about it being more productive or whatever. I did it because I thought it would be neat, and it looks cool, and I felt pretty clever implementing it. One of my customers is a lawncare website and I get some satisfaction seeing the @host turn from blue to green when I ssh into their server. I think this is the same human satisfaction of organizing your toolshed, or customizing your town in Animal Crossing.

<comment><USER3> I genuinely get so much enjoyment over tinkering around with my tools, apps, shell, you name it. When everything is tweaked to look nice to me, work nicely, scripts automating things and when everything just clicks.. it's amazing.

I used to re-arrange my bedroom every few months when I was a kid, I feel like I do the equivalent with my dev machine. Look at tweaking themes, switching out plugins/tools, updating things, change things around a little bit and I always love it afterwards.

I also play Animal Crossing and I find it an interesting comparison. I'm playing with my GF and we made a plan of how we want the island to look and the timeline is 3-4 weeks with everything (because of how artificially they slow down a lot of things). Each individual thing sounds tedious and boring (dig up that whole hill, place all the paths, etc. etc.) but it feels good in the end for some reason. It turns into what we imagined, what we wanted it to look like and work, the same way I guess my dev setup right now.

I've spent so much time just tinkering and it gives me great joy!

<comment><USER4> I feel exactly the opposite, I like to stick with the defaults and change only if there's something that really bothers me with it, like urxvt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a newbie I was quite confused with the difference between shell, terminal and console, finally it's a super user post [https://superuser.com/questions/144666/what-is-the- differenc...](https://superuser.com/questions/144666/what-is-the-difference- between-shell-console-and-terminal) that helped me in this regard, I find it really interesting that the author shed some light on it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Personally I'd recommend not customising your shell and just learning to live with the defaults on whatever operating systems you tend to use. Makes it much quicker to be comfortable on a new machine because everything is already same as you're used to.

<comment><USER7> This is addressed in the first paragraph of the article.

> "I feel that sharing files between different computers is now a solved > issue, and the benefits I get from having personalized my work environments > are so great that I gladly pay the small price of synchronizing that > configuration between my computers."

<comment><USER8> The issue is not solved when you sh into a container for a quick debugging session.

Or when you work in an airtight environment, like in banking.

It is 'solved' when the only computers you connect to is small enough to be be described as 'my computers', which seems like a pretty narrow use case to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're stuck on Windows, the new Windows Terminal by Microsoft is somewhat promising: [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/windows-terminal- preview/9...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/windows-terminal- preview/9n0dx20hk701)

<comment><USER5> Previously discussed here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22614690](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22614690)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd recommend against using ligature fonts in your shell. If there's one place you don't want any ambiguity about what glyph you're using, it's in the middle of sed, awk, or grep.

 _Programming code has special semantic considerations. Ligatures in programming fonts are likely to either misrepresent the meaning of the code, or cause miscues among readers. So in the end, even if they're cute, the risk of error isn't worth it._

[https://practicaltypography.com/ligatures-in-programming- fon...](https://practicaltypography.com/ligatures-in-programming-fonts-hell- no.html)

<comment><USER11> I have been using ligatures in my shell and editor for a few months and haven't had any issues.

I do recommend it; the only issue is now I'm a bit lazier. For example, instead of making proper arrows like →, I just type ->, which looks good to me in monospace font, but looks different to everyone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Not trying to extract the bad parts here – this looks like a lot of effort went into it and it certainly is useful – but there are a few wrinkles:

      [[ $? ]]

is always true, even if $? is non-zero; it only checks if $? is non-empty. A working check for successful exit status would be (for Bash)

      if (($?)); then
          echo "not successful"
      else
          echo "succesful"
      fi

For prompt configurations: the article hardcodes the "$" sign. A useful feature is to indicate when the user is root by switching to "#"; this can be achieved by escaping the "$".

      $ declare -p PS1
      declare -- PS1="\$ "
      $ sudo bash
      # exit bash
      $

And lastly, the examples should be careful about quoting. This

      function mkcd {
          local target=$1
          mkdir -p $target
          cd $target
      }

breaks when called like

      mkcd 'has space'

because $target expands unquoted. Or

      mkcd '*'

would expand to all files in the directory.

The colour section doesn't mention true colour support; many terminal emulator come with it these days, see [https://gist.github.com/XVilka/8346728](https://gist.github.com/XVilka/8346728).

</comment><comment><USER13> Related: [https://danluu.com/term-latency/](https://danluu.com/term-latency/)

While it's great to use other terminals and customize the terminal visuals to your liking, don't forget about the additional latency it adds; this is one of the main reasons I still use macOS' default Terminal.app

<comment><USER14> Perceived latency is why I stuck with Terminal over a decade ago. Since then, Terminal has gotten better. Maybe I should re-evaluate, but it's serving me well and I prefer using default applications where I can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Shoutout to yakuake (Quake-style dropdown terminal with tabs, for KDE). I do all my console work in it; the convenience of having access to your console at any time with the press of a button is hard to overstate. guake is the gnome version, and I am told ConEmu supports someting similar for Windows.

<comment><USER16> iTerm supports this on mac (google "iterm hotkey window"). Been addicted to that since guake!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I used to customise the hell out of tcsh, zsh... until I started using fish, which just has sane defaults.

<comment><USER5> What makes me reluctant to use fish is the fact that it's syntax is totally incompatible with bash and zsh.

<comment><USER18> I use fish but only interactively. For scripts I still use bash. The amount of fish-specific syntax I use interactively (and, string interpolation etc.) is so small, it doesn't really bother me.

Addendum: I did write my entire prompt (which is 81 lines right now) in fish (my rationale was "maybe it's better performance-wise"), which was hell and I hated it but that's the only piece of fish code I've ever written.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Regarding the prompt part, if you switch between different shells, you may prefer to take a look at [https://starship.rs/](https://starship.rs/) so you only have to configure your prompt once.

</comment><comment><USER20> I used to use oh-my-zsh but I found that it added too much latency to my shell startup. I removed oh-my-zsh and realized I don't need the majority of what it provides.

The only major modification left is my shell theme, which tracks the amount of time between commands, and is green/red like the OP for successful/failed commands.

I also do not source things like nvm, rbenv, etc by default, instead just sourcing them as needed.

My .zshrc for reference: [https://git.andrewzah.com/andrewzah/dotfiles/src/branch/debi...](https://git.andrewzah.com/andrewzah/dotfiles/src/branch/debian- desktop/.zshrc)

</comment><comment><USER21> Summary: Install Oh my ZSH and never look back (Did it already)

</comment><comment><USER22> If anyone's interested in a decent colour scheme, a friend of mine put some time into developing one:

[https://github.com/jan-warchol/selenized](https://github.com/jan- warchol/selenized)</comment>


12 Year Old Steve Jobs Meets Bill Hewlett (of HP) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.eladgil.com/2011/09/12-year-old-steve-jobs-meets-bill.html

<comment><USER2> Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers has this story and others of that generation of computer billionaires.

</comment><comment><USER3> I love that Jobs story.</comment>


Daring Fireball on Apple's Rejection of Google Voice Apps From App Store - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2009/07/google_voice

<comment><USER2> _What if Google Voice were instead Microsoft Voice? And what if Windows Mobile were as modern and competitive as Android? Would you be as surprised then that Apple is discouraging iPhone owners from using the service?_

Apple is not "discouraging" iPhone owners from using the service. It is outright preventing them.

And no, I wouldn't be surprised, just as I'm not surprised by this. I do feel bad for iPhone owners, but as an Android owner with GV I can't say I'm not enjoying this rare feeling of smug superiority.

<comment><USER3> I'm probably going to be buying a smart phone in the next year. I'm finding myself leaning more and more towards an Android phone as the applications at least seem more open. I like a lot more control over my device than Apple seems to want me to have.

As I recall though, you still can't get root on any of the Android phones without trickery, right?

<comment><USER4> If you call it trickery to install a older version of the G1 firmware via a raw system image (.nbh), and from there move to a more "enlightened" firmware. It's really not that hard.

Not sure if anyone has achieved this on the HTC Hero or Magic, however, and from what I have seen, there is much to like in the Hero.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Now that Apple is rejecting apps from huge software companies (even business partners in the case of Google), they're destroying the credibility of the platform. The technology and tools they provide developers are first class, but the increasingly erratic and anti-competitive app rejections will drive away business interest.

I really hope Apple smartens up. They have a game-changing device, mobile OS, and distribution platform, but their bullish business tactics are destroying innovation.

<comment><USER6> In a way, I am glad that Apple is now rejecting apps from huge software companies and their business partners.

In the near-term, you are right that this might create uncertainty for the viability of businesses leveraging the platform. But nothing will hasten Apple smartening up than having large companies with deep pockets clamoring for change in the App store approval/rejection process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Gruber updated his post. It was AT&T all along.

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/07/28/att-app-store>

<comment><USER8> My earlier statements about the carriers still apply. They're just prolonging the inevitable, which isn't so surprising. I think the fear that people will be able to SMS for free is a big deal to them, though things like AIM on the iPhone offer something similar, too.

As for the Voice revenue, we would still be using our minutes. I had just been considering using GV on my iPhone (through the GV website), but I've now realized that I would lose the benefit of free AT&T-AT&T calls since they would all forwarded through my GV number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Apple should be perfectly allowed to do this, but if they insist on continuing with such behavior, you can be sure that when my contract is up for renewal, an iPhone will not be my next device.

<comment><USER8> In many ways, it's unavoidable with any US carrier. The whole text messaging racket just bothers me so much. It's such an abuse of the customer, and all of the wireless companies seem to collude to keep those rates exorbitant. It also bothers me that I can look overseas and see such low rates, which INCLUDE tethering.

When will we finally reach a better wireless marketplace? Five years, I bet. It's sad, too, because Google has really been trying to break up the death grip of these carriers (spectrum auction, open-source mobile OS, Google Voice), but they're up against multiple 1,000lb. gorillas.

<comment><USER10> In this regard (fighting the gorillas) I really respect Google for its consistency: they're once again fighting for Net neutrality, this time wireless networks and not just the (my) traditional definition of the Internet.

I have an iPhone with 50 voice minutes and a 6GB data plan (I live in Canada). Clearly I value data much more than voice. I understand why the carriers are anxious about customers like me, but their business model has to change.

My 50 minutes cost $15/month. My 6GB cost $30. I have the voice because the contract stipulates I must. Why I should be prohibited from using a portion of data for voice remains a byproduct of history.

The VP of Credit Cards in any bank hates the VP of Debit Cards for eroding his revenues (and thus his personal annual bonus).

The VP of Voice in any wireless carrier hates the VP of Data for similar reasons.

The winner, of course, will be Google and any wireless carriers who structure a business purely around data delivery.

<comment><USER8> Yikes, and I thought I had it bad. Only 50 minutes?! Granted, I only use about half of my 450 (lowest you can go with AT&T).

I just wish the market would move more towards generic data access like an ISP. Voice, SMS, wireless Internet...it's all just a data pipe to me (and them), so charge me like an ISP (with speed and bandwidth caps, if necessary).

<comment><USER3> I had 450 with AT&T. It cost $35/month or so (I can't remember the intro and long-term rates). I'd gladly take 50 for only $15.

<comment><USER10> Yes, I took 50 because that's the least I could take.

Truth be told, I've constructed a plan I shouldn't have been sold. I should have had to buck up more than the combined $45 plan that I'm on.

Rogers and Fido offer slight variations on the same theme: $60 and $75 plans containing 250 minutes and up to 6GB of data . . . plus other overpriced amenities like visual voicemail, texting, and caller ID.

I was able to purchase what I have because their systems don't actually enforce their business rules. The iPhone is just another phone to the guy at the kiosk in the mall. This may have changed since December 08, but I've kept my paper copy of the contract :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anyone who thinks this is about protecting the cell phone carriers needs to explain why Fring and Skype are still in the App store. They are more robust replacements for actual cellular service than GV is.

I disagree with the assertion that GV being bad for cell phone carriers means it is bad for Apple.

Apple doesn't sell cell phone plans, they sell the hardware. How is it going to hurt them if people buy the hardware and use GV? It won't. As long as people need and want the device that Apple is selling, no matter what the use, then Apple should be happy. All they are doing here is turning there backs on a user base.

Anyone who

<comment><USER2> The post at least claims that Apple gets an extra subsidy from cell carriers based on expected revenues from voice and sms plans. So it could hurt Apple as well.

You're right though that the Skype app is a bit of an anomaly in light of this GV rejection.

<comment><USER12> Skype is WiFi only...perhaps GV will ultimately appear as a similarly limited app (thus protecting the frequently mentioned voice and SMS revenue, at least temporarily).

<comment><USER13> Google Voice is not a VoIP client, so I'm not sure what there is to limit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> No matter reading this and analyzing it, turns out it was AT&T:

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/07/28/att-app-store>

</comment><comment><USER15> _What if Google Voice were instead Microsoft Voice? And what if Windows Mobile were as modern and competitive as Android? Would you be as surprised then that Apple is discouraging iPhone owners from using the service?_

This is a BS argument. It's the same as saying that MS has every right to block iTunes, Firefox, Netscape, Safari (and every other product that competes with a MS product) from installing on Windows.

Imagine where Windows would have been, and Mac OSX for that matter, if the only products that were allowed on PCs, and Macs, were the ones which didn't compete with the OS vendor's products.

And BTW, the fact that GV is available on Blackberry etc. tells me with no doubt that AT&T had absolutely nothing to do with this.

</comment><comment><USER16> Alright, then Apple, can you please provide a comparable service to GV??

</comment><comment><USER17> _Don't think about it in terms of Apple's relationship with its carrier partners, but instead think about it in terms of Apple's competition with Google._

I rather find myself thinking about in terms of Apple's irresistible anti- competitive urges.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's important to keep in mind that this doesn't prevent you from using Google Voice. You can call your Google Voice number, or you can issue an HTTP request and Google Voice will call you. As long as you can make phone calls, you can use GV. As long as you can use the web, you can have all the advanced features.

So really, Apple and AT&T aren't stopping anyone. (I am happily using the Android GV app on my AT&T phone. Turns out you can reboot their locked Windows Mobile devices into Android. Hah!)

</comment><comment><USER18> Anti-competitive behavior. Just sayin'.

</comment><comment><USER19> Gruber is a tool.</comment>


Build 2015 Announcements - chris-at http://www.tobiahmarks.com/2015/04/build-2015-announcements/

<comment><AUTHOR> One thing I didn't see mentioned much at all during the presentation was info on Windows 10 IoT editions (like Raspberry Pi 2 support). There was a good presentation on it at WinHEC ([http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/WinHEC/2015/IOT201](http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/WinHEC/2015/IOT201)) that said more info and preview releases would come at build. Is the IoT stuff coming out later in the week?</comment>


Over-regulated America - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/21547789

<comment> socially-distnt If Moses had been a government instead of a person he would never have made it down from the mountain with the Commandments. We really need to reset government. Or maybe mandate that every law has an expiration date, no more than x years in the future (x being some value shorter than a legislators term).</comment>


SGX malware PoC released - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sgxrop/sgxrop <comment><USER2> A better article to look at might be this: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/12/intel_sgx_hacked/](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/12/intel_sgx_hacked/)

What it boils down to: Intel SGX is for Digital Restrictions Management software to run "securely" and prevent the user and owner from interfering with as an actively hostile act against ownership.

However, since the SGX enclave is not analyzable by the user by design, since it designed to be hostile to the user and owner, malware can easily hide here. The proof is that they can load malware into the protected SGX area, then escape the supposed sandbox of SGX to attack the rest of the user's system. Since SGX software is, again, fundamentally hostile to the user and the owner, malware can reek havok once it gets to play inside the user-hostile workspace Intel has provided to the copyright cartel.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is the paper which explains the research: [https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/02/12/sgxmalware.pdf](https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/02/12/sgxmalware.pdf)</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a way to make Google web search work like it used to? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN community.
I, the same, as pretty much everyone, used to very much enjoy Google's way of doing web search. With that I mean the old way of only listing results that contained all the words one had searched for. This started changing a couple of years ago, and has made my work as a Sysadmin harder when searching for error messages (you can sometimes get around this by using quotes or adding plus signs before each word, but not always).
For an example of this sad, sad behaviour I challenge you to do a web search for "linux notebook basketball", visit the first result and find the word 'notebook' anywhere in the page.
So: do you know of a way to make Google default to the older and in my opinion saner behaviour? Alternatively: is there a better option available for the times when you really do know what you want to search for?
Thank you for your time. <comment><USER2> The first result I got was this:

[http://linuxonnotebooks.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/basketball-...](http://linuxonnotebooks.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/basketball- notebook-pondexter-oliver-parted-on-bad-terms-seattle-post-intelligencer/)

That has all three words quite prominently placed.

You can always try DuckDuckGo: <http://duckduckgo.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Bad example then, Google shows me this as the first result:

<http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=933508>

DuckDuckGo is nice but not for this. The same keywords yield a first result which includes 'notebook' and 'linux' but not 'basketball'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't think you can change the default, but you can use + to force the word to be present in the result pages: +linux +notebook +basketball</comment>


Subject: Airbnb (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/airbnb.html <comment><USER3> I'd love to see more of these genuine, high-level business conversations. It can be difficult to learn and understand what really goes on "at the top", because probably every top exec is under some pressure to appear superhuman.

<comment><USER4> Most of the time I've had access to these conversations it seems like 10-20% of the time there is some really insightful and/or groundbreaking discussion going on.

The rest of the time, it's something like this:

      A: I've always found that business is about increasing revenue and decreasing costs

      B: I've also always thought that way

      A: Great! I'm glad we're on the same page

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is interesting to see how PG is selling this to Fred. This is exactly the kind of people you want to work with in a startup. People who believe in you and are not afraid to show it.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I don't know much about PG's communication style, but in intra-VC communication, this is 100 max over the top support, hair-on-fire. Good for PG, and his words were prescient in '09, prescient in '11 and still prescient in '18. Not many times my you can say that.

Ps funny on the eBay name drop. The original marketplace model, and still doing well, but dot think vc's reference it as often anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This pg quote has an r/LateStageCapitalism vibe to me: "They just arrived back from NYC, and when I asked them what was the most significant thing they'd observed, it was how many of their users actually needed to do these rentals to pay their rents."

<comment><USER8> For me it was how PG pushed the investor with the "they WILL get hotels" line. Expected more data and less gut feeling from Ycombinator.

<comment><USER9> I dunno, PG's always had a great gut instinct about startups. That's why people love his posts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >So I think it can scale all the way to the bed and breakfast market

> But I am not sure they can take on the hotel market

Not an inaccurate assessment.

<comment><USER11> For my own usage, they've taken the hotel market for personal travel. I don't think their hold is as strong in business travel yet.

<comment><USER8> until you find yourself in customer care hell.

I've rented a fake room (lied about size, noise, etc. and had three honest- looking reviews) and I was talking to a rep in the US, in english. Meanwhile the host was talking to a service rep in the country i was in, in french.

In the end, the US rep promised me a credit and help. But then the France rep flagged my account. Now i could not book anything until i reactivated a credit card. Even the US rep now couldn't help me until I did that. It was a Saturday. I needed until Tuesday to validate any credit card via their statement methods. Twelve international calls later, and there was nothing they could do. at all. And I was a several-year long customer with 5star reviews all around.

Ended up on the street, with three bags, hunting last minute hotels and paying counter price. Never used airbnb ever again. The savings is not worth the risk.

<comment><USER11> Luckily I have not experienced any international issues.

I have experienced one issue where the host cancelled hours before arriving while we were already en route, but Airbnb upgraded us to a much better place as everything comparable was sold out (New Year's Eve in NYC).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is just from memory. Correct me if I'm wrong.

2005: mobileride.com in Boston, phone-based ridesharing with voluntary cash exchange, shut down in 2006 with regulatory warnings

2006: zipcar hires some of mobileride team and enters rideshare business with shared zipcar rentals among BU students

2007: zimride starts with pre-arranged rideshare at Cornell, works with campus transportation directly to keep it legal.

2007: google rides opens as a platform for several tiers of ride hailing services, dominates the market and then shuts down in 2010

2010: Uber starts in NYC as high-end livery, not sure if they got the license or not, but tweaks business model to have many on-demand part-time drivers instead of full-time, but pays much better portion of fare.

2012: Sidecar in San Francisco allows anybody to accept rides and mobile payments but calls them gratuities instead of fare. Regulators show their will to inaction. Uber responds with massive push into taxi services, completely flouts regulation, and Zimride births Lyft to do the same. CALPERS is rescued from bankruptcy by investment in AirBnB and Uber.

<comment><USER13> > CALPERS is rescued from bankruptcy by investment in AirBnB and Uber

I would like to know more.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, this is one of the real secrets of Silicon Valley. The biggest unicorns of the post-Facebook era were all created because of regulatory capture, not despite it.

Here are the pre-2010 VC investments: [https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/investments/asset- classes/pr...](https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/investments/asset- classes/private-equity/pep-fund-performance/fund&id=4)

And then in 2012, they moved into managed VC/PE through Blackrock, so it's a lot harder to trace, but... [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-uber- idUSKBN0EH21I20...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-uber- idUSKBN0EH21I20140606)

CALPERS didn't 'start' Uber/AirBnB, but they did make huge bets on them at right about the time when regulation was threatening their existence, and then magically they became legal.

Not to mention all of Elon Musk's companies. He may not have needed the money, but easy passage through regulatory barriers definitely secured success.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Our two junior team members were enthusiastic

> The three "old guys" didn't get it

I think that's the main reason why they passed on Airbnb. The VCs themselves were too far away from the initial target market, and could neither relate with the "airbed and breakfast" user base, nor see how it could scale.

<comment><USER15> I imagine that if the same group debated the appeal of staying in hostels the outcome would have been similar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> While this is an interesting post to read, it is also about 7 years old.

It's quite cool how the transcript goes to say "There's no reason this couldn't be as big as Ebay. And this team is the right one to do it."

Turns out that literally was the case! Good call Paul!

</comment><comment><USER17> Why didn't VRBO/HomeAway become AirBnB?

It seems there was already a marketplace for short term vacation rentals....

<comment><USER18> Because they didn't do rooms in an already occupied house (and still don't). AirBnb started with renting couches or spare beds. They only moved into whole houses later, after they built up a reputation, and more importantly, built up their system of tracking the reputation of the renters.

<comment><USER17> What % of AirBnB business is single room in otherwise occupied house?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Note there is a survivor bias here. Might be even more interesting to see PG's email exchanges with other VCs on some then successful but later failed startups.

</comment><comment><USER20> I would be very curious to see what barriers to entry AirBnB has developed vs. say, Uber. While both are marketplaces, Uber benefits tremendously from understanding traffic patterns, from seeing how people ride, from being able to give drivers the option of traveling certain directions, etc. All of that data is worth billions of dollars and not easily discovered, and technically quite challenging to gather and exploit.

From what I can tell, AirBnB has a _brand_ and a web application. Technically, I can't imagine the latter is more complicated than the average e-commerce site delivered at scale. I am having trouble understanding how big data can create an advantage (maybe to help owners price their rentals?). If a competitor pops up, there's no reason owners can't list on multiple sites without facing any penalties.

AirBnB is not a company I'd invest in for the long term, while I would invest in Uber/Lyft. So, what am I missing?

<comment><USER21> Airbnb has a global network effect: If I booked my last two holidays on Airbnb, I am more inclined to do it also for the next one out of convenience. I'm already verified anf signed up and I know the interface etc... This requires a global network of hosts. Any competitor has to build a global network of comparable density to be compatible.

On the other hand, Uber's network effect and synergies are mostly localized to cities. If I move to a new city and there is a competitor with lower prices, chances are I'll install their app eventually, even if it takes me a few weeks.

<comment><USER22> In addition to that, AirBnB takes a lot of the headache out for hosts in regards to local laws.

In San Francisco for example, AirBnB collects and remits the local hotel tax on behalf of hosts, making that a non-issue for hosts. But when I used AirBnB in Italy I had to meet the host and they needed to charge me the tax, print a receipt, and had me sign something...all which I imagine was because at the time or in that locale AirBnB had not set up that convenience for hosts yet. And in SF, they only do this if AirBnB is the sole platform you use--if you use multiple then you'd have to collect/remit taxes yourself I believe. Probably not an issue for someone who rents out multiple units and treats AirBnB as their main job, but for the little guy that just wants to make a few extra bucks from an extra couch, room, etc. here and there AirBnB navigating the tax stuff is huge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Airbnb, like Uber, took advantage of regulatory inefficiencies instead of market inefficiencies. The model is do something (in the minds of regulators) illegal, quickly enough that you can become large enough to get a seat at the table when the regulations are reworked.

The counter example to these companies are the ones that quickly raised capital to dump scooters on public streets before they could be shut down by cities. None of the players were able to grow large enough to have a say in the reforming of the laws that regulate them (SF learned its lesson from Uber and moved quickly, limiting their participation to asking for proposals).

This is framed to present a VC as "missing out" in the financial sense. Ultimately a VC is liable to its capital partners in far more ways. If Airbnb had all of its assets seized by the federal government as an illegal enterprise (just as an example), we would be applauding their foresight and brilliance in avoiding this otherwise lucrative opportunity.

<comment><USER24> Great observation.

 _> The counter example to these companies are the ones that quickly raised capital to dump scooters on public streets before they could be shut down by cities._

I live in NYC, and I'm frequently in Westchester (the county immediately north of NYC, for those not familiar with New York). There's been a large influx of Lime bikes in the past several months. My opinion on Lime - the bike/scooter company - has quickly evolved from idle curiosity, to weak dislike, to outright disdain. That evolution started happening when I saw Lime bikes being parked in arbitrary places that blocked pedestrian foot traffic, but I think the straw that broke the camel's back was when someone parked a Lime bike directly in the spot I usually place my garbage.

Sometimes the hustle of skirting regulation seems to be a net positive. Company culture notwithstanding, I'm happy overall that Uber exists as a concept. I don't have a savvy opinion about their future, but I enjoy Uber rides significantly more than yellow cabs. Likewise I've stayed in Airbnbs before and enjoyed the experience, though I wouldn't say it's changed my day to day life as much.

But other times it seems like companies are being actively negligent in their awareness of the legislations they're flippantly ignoring and the consequences of doing so. I don't have a lot of sympathy for a system being disrupted which depends on the artificial scarcity of taxi medallions. On the other hand I find it very frustrating when my sidewalk or park is "disrupted" by a random bright green bike that yells at you if you try to move it without paying.

I wish there were a way to easily categorize the behavior of companies - between those whose cavalier approach to disruption mostly impacts existing incumbents, and those whose approach is actually a pain to end users. Sometimes the laws are legitimately outdated or very inefficient, and disregarding them vastly improves the user experience. But other times - <USER2> with Lime - it feels as though companies are pointing to those examples so they can get away with a "product" that automatically opts you into a "new normal" just because a subset of people use it.

<comment><USER25> > but I think the straw that broke the camel's back was when someone parked a > Lime bike directly in the spot I usually place my garbage

Granted that's a problem and hopefully they're working to discourage bad behavior. But traffic and pollution are bigger problems that bikes and scooters help with. Does the fact that they're sometimes misplaced mean it's a net negative?

<comment><USER26> The scooters might be good for this, but Uber is likely encouraging more people to either drive around looking for fares or hail a ride when they would normally use the train or walk. So the brave new world of no regulation doesn't necessarily trend toward a greener world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wonder what was the redacted phrase that was strategic to what AirBNB was doing (I'm sure we might know by now, but not know it was being discusses)

<comment><USER28> Maybe related to their craiglist activities? ([https://growthhackers.com/growth- studies/airbnb](https://growthhackers.com/growth-studies/airbnb))

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Something I often notice when people complain about AirBNB being a problem in their city- Their city has 'peaked' like a star Quarterback in High school.

In my city which is experiencing growth, I find my AirBnB guests are often business travelers who are infulencers in their respected communities. There are some exceptions like college kids on summer vacation trying to hook up away from their parents house- but mostly business people.

I see complaints from Europeans about Tourism, but that should be a reflection on the achievements of their ancestors rather than the achievements of the current and recent generations.

<comment><USER30> Right. New York, London, Paris and Tokyo have all "peaked".

<comment><USER31> Manhattan, London, and Paris all peaked in the early- to mid-20th century.

Manhattan: [https://urbanomnibus.net/2014/10/the-rise-and-fall-of- manhat...](https://urbanomnibus.net/2014/10/the-rise-and-fall-of-manhattans- density)

Paris: [https://www.parisinsidersguide.com/population-of- paris.html](https://www.parisinsidersguide.com/population-of-paris.html)

London: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07/chart- londons-population-is-finally-about-to-return-to-its-1939-peak/)

City of London: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Populati...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Population_of_the_City_of_London_over_time.png)

Tokyo is probably approaching peak: [https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fjapanpropert...](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fjapanpropertycentral.com%2Fwp- content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F04%2FTokyo-Population-Chart-2010-2040.jpg&f=1)

Tokyo Core: [http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox- tokyo-1.png](http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-tokyo-1.png)

<comment><USER30> Pedantry. If you honestly believe that Manhattan "peaked like a star quarterback" in 1910, I don't know what to say to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Did PG make an angel investment in Airbnb?

</comment><comment><USER33> I wish AirBnB took more responsibility for the damage they are doing to the NYC housing market

<comment><USER34> Well, we don't all agree that the changes are tantamount to "damage", first of all.

For my part, having lived much of my adult life in New Paltz, AirBnb has greatly increased the availability of NYC housing for me, as I typically only live in NYC for 3-10 days at a time.

I can understand that, if your desire is to live there perpetually for years, you might have a different perception.

Perhaps living in a single place in perpetuity (especially near the center of a major metro/cosmopolitan hub) is just not as sustainable in an environment where smallish organizations like AirBnb (or the decentralized versions to come) can easily subvert statutory attempts to force a particular market outcome.

Also, in NYC in particular, the role of "rent control" is worth taking into account.

<comment><USER35> > if your desire is to live there perpetually for years

You mean like 99% of people? When you work in the city, grew up in the city, have met almost everyone you know in the city, to then be forced out of the city because people want to rent their apartments out for 3-10 days at a time instead of 1-3 years means that people who need the stability of a permanent address now have to either shell out much more cash than a land lord can get (illegally) on airbnb, or move out of the city and abandon the thing they have known their entire lives.

I'm not saying I have a good solution to it, other than the typical protectionist idea of tax the things that are destroying us, but at least that way there is money in the treasury to try and save a portion of the people affected by it.

<comment><USER36> But the solution _is_ simple: build more apartments. There's no reason there shouldn't be enough housing for way, way more people other than that it's the policy of local government and the preference of many voters.

<comment><USER35> This is a solution in places like queens, brooklyn and statan island, but manhattan is quite nearly fully developed, and without displacing people to build new high-rises (which kind of exacerbates the issue), there isn't much that can be done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is bullshit. I fund my startup by consulting 1-2 months per year at 40k/month. Zero people think it is impressive. But $25k of Obama cereal makes a better story.

<comment><USER14> 2008 Democratic National Convention was 10 years ago. At the time, startups, as we know them today, were a rarity. Funding yourself to start one, even more so. Hacker News itself was only 1 year-old.

<comment><USER38> " At the time, startups, as we know them today, were a rarity. Funding yourself to start one, even more so. "

Come on! Never heard of the dotcom bubble? It was all about startups.

And people have been self funding businesses throughout history.

Airbnb did what a lot of other people had been doing since eternity. Nothing new.

<comment><USER14> I am writing from a European perspective, but my impression is, that even in 2007 starting a startup or working for one was still not as common as it is today for a recent graduate in the US[1].

[1] [http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Android Makes Me Sad - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dweekly/android-makes-me-sad-13e45fb372

<comment><USER2> "But it's not. And it's not really HTC's fault as much as Google's. It's been awful being on Android."

Then proceeds to list issues, many (if not most) of which are related to HTC's customization or hardware.

</comment><comment><USER3> You loaded a first-release beta build of iOS, weren't impressed with the volume of changes to the OS, even though most of the "new" features were disabled in the first releases, then, disillusioned, abandoned the platform for an Android device.

Fickle much? I should value your opinion about technology, because...?</comment>


Three hour TSA lines at O'Hare - <AUTHOR> http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Long-Security-Lines-Leave-Chicago-Passengers-Stranded-379622321.html <comment><USER2> Why do I need JavaScript to scroll?</comment>


Stanford Undergrads build AI-based drawing prediction system - <AUTHOR> http://seoi.net/penint/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a fascinating case study in AI. What do you think is the most common thing a person would start to draw on this system? If you said a penis, it looks like you'd be correct. By the time I came across this site, anything I started to draw (a sun, star, basketball hoop) was magically transformed into a penis.

<comment><USER2> Wait, so it's actually trained on user drawings? I honestly thought it was someone trying to play a prank on us.</comment></comment>


Niklas Zennström on competing with larger companies - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobinode.com/2011/01/09/skype-founder-niklas-zennstrom-words-for-young-entrepreneurs/

<comment><USER2> So exactly how do you turn "this" into a process? Actually, what is "this"? Because according to that article it seems that a startup will win over a enterprise simply because of its small size and "one brand can be associated with one idea only", which I don't really buy. Not seeing a lot of wisdom here.</comment>