Is having a '.name' email address a good idea? - <AUTHOR> http://waleedkhan.name/blog/dot-name-email-address/ <comment><USER2> I used to run a minecraft server for my friends on $NAME.com and still own the domain. There's apparently a construction company also called $NAME, and they own $NAME.net. $NAME.net is on all their branding, emails, contact info. As far as I know, they've never used $NAME.com.

I routinely get email meant for them sent to to $NAME.com, sometimes including personal information, and sometimes from employees at the company. I guess their clients assume that businesses always own the dot-com for their name and don't think to verify the actual address (I'm not sure why the employees don't know their own email addresses).

Because of that experience, I try to own the dot-com for any project I start.

<comment><USER3> I have a common first initial last name gmail address and similar lastname.com domain addresses.

The mail I get is astounding. I've received:

\- A word document containing most of somebody's online passwords, including work passwords and the vpn client for the persons work.

\- multi-angle Video of an accident investigation involving a bus flipping over a highway medium

\- a series of swimsuit modeling and sexy emails from some lady to her boyfriend, followed by angry emails about his lack of attention

\- football and soccer pools

\- emails from some guy who test drives various luxury cars every 3-4 months

\- legal papers from various people

\- fan mail to a niche celebrity

<comment><USER4> I have a email@example.com email address. At first, I was super annoyed that I kept getting emails meant for firstname.lastname@example.com and was upset that Google kept sending those emails to me. But as I later understood that Gmail is simply trying to avoid creation of multiple email accounts that are too similar, I realized something else. People are just ignorant and stupid. It's not Google's fault if those people don't know the correct email address of the person that they're trying to contact.

So people will continue to email the wrong person, and I will continue to receive those emails. Although I don't know why nobody ever emails email@example.com as the wrong email. It's always email@example.com. But whatever.

Because of people's ignorance and stupidity, I am changing my email address to a custom domain hosted by fastmail.com. It's just worth it in the end. Besides that, I'm currently living in China, and Fastmail is accessible here without VPN, while Gmail isn't. So two birds with one stone.

But it was not wanting to deal with ignorant and stupid people that was the driver for this move. The number of such wrongly directed emails seem to be increasing. Grr.

<comment><USER5> FYI, Gmail ignores dots before @.

firstname.lastname@example.com, email@example.com, and email@example.com are all the same address.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I know. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I used to have all kinds of trouble communicating my personal email. My solution was to get the shortest unpronounceable domain name I could manage, paying as much attention as I could to visually unambiguous characters (though this was frustrated considerably by availability), and hooking it up to a catch-all domain mailbox. If I'm going to have to spell it anyway, why not make it as easy as possible? It makes it less cumbersome to use the NATO alphabet too, which I establish by starting with "b for bravo". Yes, this was a reaction to getting a few emails to "bravo@..."!

I had to go with the .net TLD, but .net is WAY less confusing to people than my old .org. This process has not needed refinement for years.

</comment><comment><USER7> I was following the .family domain, set up a calendar date for the public release, etc.

Ended up learning a lot about these new private TLDs. They are controlled by a company, essentially, who can sell them for whatever they want and even raise prices on specific domains. ie. you can buy randomblah.family for the default $30, but for smith.family you're going to have to pay $5000 or whatever they set it at. My family name was set at $1300/year.

I emailed the holders of the TLD and complained to them, seeing as it's not my fault I was born with a semi-common last name. Eventually, after the domain didn't sell, they emailed me offering to sell it at a one-time $1300 price but the renewal would be $30/year, forever. Not bad, but I'm still not paying $1300. So I'm sticking with the crappy domain I currently have.

</comment><comment><USER8> I find even having a _.org_ email address to be a pain when stores/customer service/similar ask for it. They're expecting a .com or .co.uk on the end, I find, and I have to clarify what I said was right. Tempted to get a separate "easier" address to forward on :-)

<comment><USER9> Hell, even using an email address that's not a popular webmail host tends to throw people off. Mine is email@example.com; I can't tell you how many times I've confused call center operators with it. I even had one think I meant firstname.lastname@example.com.

<comment><USER10> I run with the pattern 'iam@<my domain>'

This works well for everything except my personal domain. My first name is Eoin, pronounced like Ian. Several people have tried to correct the words I just explicitly spelled out to them. I've resorted to having people spell that one back.

<comment><USER11> Using iam@domain when your name sounds like Ian seems like it's just asking for confusion.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely.

It was a naming scheme I adopted on other domains first and, being used to ian spelled my way, didn't notice as quickly as I should have.

It's relatively low traffic and has a catch all however, so more just trivia at this point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ha! You think that's bad, you should try having a Chinese domain name.

None of the major webmail platforms would even acknowledge that it was a valid email address [https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2014/01/poor-idn-support-from- major...](https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2014/01/poor-idn-support-from-major- webmail-providers/)

That was 2 years ago, time for an update!

</comment><comment><USER13> After reading this thread on HN ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12247401](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12247401)) I made the move away from gmail to fastmail with my own TLD.

I used a `.me` TLD. I love it. Works great and haven't been confused yet. Still trying to work out what to host on the domain other than my mail... maybe a resume or something.

<comment><AUTHOR> I host a résumé (and most recently, a blog). I used to be pretty discoverable on Google by linking my StackOverflow, LinkedIn, Github, and website together, which seemed to have worked well. I think it was something like three of my links in the top five results, although I don't remember.

(Then another Waleed Khan made the news and I'm still struggling to regain my search result spots.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I gave up my .name domain a few years ago, primarily because people didn't understand it. I was wondering if the recent explosion of TLDs might help everyone collectively realize that there's more than '.com', but it doesn't seem to be happening yet.

</comment><comment><USER15> I owned internets.computer for a year, then the novelty wore off. It was a tongue-in-cheek parody of branding and new TLDs, and great for catching certain tech-savvy people's attention, but ultimately not worth the several- times multiplier of a regular domain name.

</comment><comment><USER16> I use a .name domain, but redirect .com to it. I also ended up using the .com for my MX record after experiences similar to those outlined in OP. This approach seems like the best of both worlds.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have $lastname.co and used $first@$lastname.co for a while... I should have known better. Obviously people would end up sending it to $lastname.com, because they thought it was a typo or I've even seen people just add the 'm' from muscle memory. Then I bought $lastname.xyz, and people just think I'm giving them a completely fake email.

<comment><USER18> Have you tried $lastname.sexy?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I tried using $NAME.co, but everyone seemed to think it was a typo. I Recently switched over to $NAME.io and haven't had any issues. It's short, looks nice, and I've had generally positive reactions to it.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've had a .name email address since the TLD was released. Never had any problems with validators.

'Name' is a surprisingly easy word to mis-hear over the phone if it's not expected, though.

<comment><USER21> We definitively had problems with validators early on (I co-founded the company that pivoted into the .name registry; not been involved in it for over a decade - and it was sold to Verisign years ago), but we spent a lot of time harassing site owners with stupid validation, so most of the high profile ones were fixed very quickly. It helped that there were a number of other longer TLD's launched at the same time, like .info (there were a few that used lists of valid TLDs, as well, but mostly people just assumed the TLD couldn't be longer than three characters).

".name" was a pivot from offering an e-mail service (Nameplanet) were we let people register <something>@<lastname>.<various tlds> \- we negotiated bulk deals with a range of TLD operators and so had 50k-60k domains or something like that.

Problem with giving people a ".name", I think, is that people often don't get right away that you mean it literally. Especially if you have an unusual firstname/lastname that they know, and you try to avoid spelling out the e-mail address by going "my firstname at my lastname dot name".

I've since gone back to just using my .com - discussing our respective <lastname>.<tld> and how there must be more people who'd like that was actually how it started.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> A .name email was what I went with after I graduated University, but I made the mistake of going for a email@example.com email address, instead of just buying the last.name domain directly.

Even at the time, it was hard to find a provider, and I can't imagine how many there are now, but it must be a real small number.

So, I've still got my email@example.com, but now I also own last.us, so email@example.com is my primary.

</comment><comment><USER23> I currently have a <lastname>.so domain for private email etc. Its working good, just a few people ask to clarify in the last 4 years of usage. However, I do worry that I could loose it as its a country TLD? For example, if someone from the country of origin would start a company for example, could they claim it? Does it depend on the country in question?

<comment><USER24> Yes, each TLD is operated uniquely so it would depend on the country you're dealing with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I use a .name address for all of my personal email. There are occasional problems but mostly it works just fine.

</comment><comment><USER26> I used to do .name about 10 years but too many sites didn't allow "unconventional" TLDs and are/were hopelessly pathetic. Given that there are many more gTLDs and still sites can't manage a proper email "validation" regex, it's too hipster to bother with.

</comment><comment><USER27> Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I've used a few novelty TLDs for e-mail, and never ran into any issues. My current go-to addresses are firstname.lastname@example.com, for more professional settings, and <one letter>@<two letters>.<two letters> for quick throw-aways.

</comment><comment><USER9> A rare occasion where Betteridge's law[0] apples in a non-cynical way.

.com was part of the zeitgeist of the late 90s and its cultural ties to the web and technology in general haven't faded since.

Even using a .net domain makes you look a little off; I don't see much utility in attempting to use any of the countless TLDs that have proliferated since then.

I get the impression that ICANN is _trying_ to undermine the ubiquity of .com. I think it's a noble goal, but it hasn't been successful so far and I don't see any reason to believe things will change.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

<comment><USER21> I was part of setting up .name - I'm named in the ICANN application - and I kinda agree with you. I've gone back to using my .com, because I had my <lastname>.com for years before we started .name and it's just simpler to get people to understand.

But I think .com is being undermined quite effectively simply by it being "impossible" to find good names. I get .com's when I can find something reasonable, but otherwise look at other alternatives. It will just take a lot of time. I also think this is more apparent outside of the US, where we're used to using ccTLDs a lot more often, and where ".com" in many cases implies "foreign, like US" which may or may not be what a company would like.

What's interesting to me is what "works" and doesn't as alternatives to .com.

E.g. I hardly ever seem to visit ".info" or ".biz" (who launched at the same time as .name) sites, even though at the time (I have _no_ idea what the relative counts are like today) they were vastly more successful than .name. I don't see that many ".name"'s either, but still far more than many of the other early new TLDs. While many of the ccTLDs have managed to build some level of popularity (e.g. ".io") and others seems to have faded into obscurity (".cx" used to be quite popular in tech circles, but I rarely see it any more).

<comment><USER9> I think one of my favorite things about Hacker News is that you can comment on a technology and have a nonzero chance of someone who actually had a hand in it piping in.

Also, I realize now I forgot to mention domain hacks, which I think do give non-.com TLDs a lot more value than they'd otherwise have.

> But I think .com is being undermined quite effectively simply by it being > "impossible" to find good names.

In my opinion, a "just okay" .com is better than a good domain with some other TLD. I suspect this is a pretty common opinion.

> I also think this is more apparent outside of the US, where we're used to > using ccTLDs a lot more often

I thought about this when I wrote my comment, but as an American it's not something I'm especially familiar with. Our own ccTLD .us isn't commonly used.

> I hardly ever seem to visit ".info" or ".biz" (who launched at the same time > as .name) sites, even though at the time (I have no idea what the relative > counts are like today) they were vastly more successful than .name.

I think the only reason these were ever popular is because they were priced so cheaply. It seems like .info is/was mostly used for throwaway domains, and .biz is just a terrible name. It's supposed to be for businesses, but it sounds like it'd only be used by shady used car dealerships. Nevermind that .com is officially for commercial entities anyways.

> While many of the ccTLDs have managed to build some level of popularity > (e.g. ".io") and others seems to have faded into obscurity (".cx" used to be > quite popular in tech circles, but I rarely see it any more).

I think .io is a fad that's going to die along with infinite scrolling websites. The fantasy notion of a "startup" is trendy and sexy right now even outside the industry, just like a "dotcom" was two decades ago. It'll fade away just like .tv did after the novelty of TV services on the web went away.

Side note: would .tv still be big if Netflix used netflix.tv instead of netflix.com?

<comment><USER21> > In my opinion, a "just okay" .com is better than a good domain with some > other TLD. I suspect this is a pretty common opinion.

I agree with that, but finding even a "just okay" .com is getting pretty damn hard. I use .com for most of my projects, but I've also got some .io's and was looking at .ai (which looks like a massively missed opportunity right now - you need to pay $100 just to register to be able to buy the domain, and then $100 per domain; if they made it a bit easier/cheapr, it'd seem the perfect time to profit from lots of deep learning / AI tech projects...)

> I thought about this when I wrote my comment, but as an American it's not > something I'm especially familiar with. Our own ccTLD .us isn't commonly > used.

Yeah, .us had a very brief period of limited popularity, but was effectively stifled by the silly policy of geographic subdivision.

> I think the only reason these were ever popular is because they were priced > so cheaply. It seems like .info is/was mostly used for throwaway domains, > and .biz is just a terrible name. It's supposed to be for businesses, but it > sounds like it'd only be used by shady used car dealerships. Nevermind that > .com is officially for commercial entities anyways.

Yeah, it really got off on a bad start by effectively feeling like cheap knockoffs of .com, to the extent that at some point it was a clear signal that you were probably a small two-bit operation or a scammer if you had the .info/.biz and someone else had the corresponding .com. And if you had a name that somebody didn't have on .com you'd be an idiot not to buy the .com anyway. This is very different from e.g. the ccTLDs, where someone might very well choose to have the ".co.uk" (you can get ".uk" too now, but they're not common) and not bother with the ".com" if they're genuinely geographically limited to the UK (personally I'd snap up the .com anyway, and redirect it, just in case, but a lot of businesses don't).

> I think .io is a fad that's going to die along with infinite scrolling > websites.

Maybe, maybe not. I think .io makes a lot of sense as a "easy way to get a decent name" for projects that are not necessarily intended to be directed at the general public. If you're aiming for a tech savvy audience, the .com isn't so important. So <some random project on github>.io might very well persist. I agree that most who use .io for public-facing projects will probably end up moving to .com's as/when they find/can afford to buy suitable alternatives, though.

> Side note: would .tv still be big if Netflix used netflix.tv instead of > netflix.com?

That's an interesting question. I think a lot of these domains come and go largely based on how good the registry's are at marketing them. Part of the challenge is that the individual TLDs for the most part are not huge money- spinners, so don't have the budgets to try to turn it into valuable brands.

For .name one of the challenges we faced was exactly that: We were contracted to sell at a relatively low price (the market wouldn't have been prepared to bear a higher price anyway for .name at that point, but for others, possibly), and we were dependent on registrars that in most cases had no clue, and the ones that had a clue had little incentive to invest hugely in it because to them we were just one of a bunch of other TLDs, and we couldn't give them anything extra of value (like exclusivity) compared to the other registries.

So unless you make it big, or can show projections that you will, the revenue potential drastically limits the amounts you can spend building a brand around the TLD. Which again limits the growth. And around in circles we go.

The painful irony is that we'd probably have done far better if we stuck to our original business (vanity hosted e-mail) - the e-mail service was bought by a company backed by Marc Cuban; I don't know if I can mention the sales price but it wasn't huge (we had ~2 million registered accounts; the sale happened after the .com crash) but as far I know they made the purchase sum back in 6 months by converting the accounts to paid accounts and ditching any user that wouldn't pay (a shame, but it was that or closing the service down entirely).

Our original business plan was actually to stick with paid accounts like they did, and we identified them early on as our only realistic competitor, but then we got seduced by the potential of building up a huge free user base and sell, with the enthusiastic agreement of the VC's we spoke to (this was at a time where there had been crazily ludicrous transactions selling free users for amounts accounting to decades of actual revenue per user, in the expectation that you'd be able to sell to someone else who would find magical ways of monetising them better).

Based on the .name registrations in early years I think it's safe to say that it took many years to get to the same revenue numbers as they did basically over-night. But we gambled on registration numbers for .name several magnitudes higher than that, and that's the price you pay sometimes.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for this writeup. You've given a lot of interesting thoughts and insights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have a .name domain which I don't use - I think ".name" just sounds... ugly. I use .id.au now, which I personally find much more aesthetically pleasing.

</comment><comment><USER29> I used to own $lastname.email, but I ran into issues with other people's accounts flagging me as spam.

<comment><USER30> I'm not surprised. I tend to rate most of these new gold-rush TLDs as spam havens; I've certainly never anything but spam from a .club, .work, .rocks, .download, .stream, or other such address.</comment></comment>


My Last Day of Social Skydiving (I made it) - <AUTHOR> http://socialskydivingwithjustin.posterous.com/social-skydiving-day-30-wrapping-up-the-daily

<comment><AUTHOR> As an aside... I still need to finish my final project/exam but that's set to take a couple weeks.</comment>


I'm wondering if there's bad writing on Twitter's wall - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jeffvyduna.com/im-wondering-if-theres-bad-writing-on-twitter

<comment><USER2> As a corollary, I thought it naive that the author thought that there shouldn't be some kind of rate limiting in the UI.

If there wasn't, one could reverse engineer the API calls that the UI makes, in order to gain access to un-limited calls.

A good lesson for developers - even though you may have a developer API, you should still consider your public interface as an API, because it can (and will) be reverse engineered.

Even better - use exactly the same, publicly accessible APIs in your front- end!

</comment><comment><USER3> Some good points made here, but I think the gloom and doom is a little overstated.

Facebook went through the same thing for awhile and then created facebook lite, then rolled more simplicity back into their main app.

A company like twitter is going to have a hard time pleasing everybody, and has to figure out the boundaries with its APIs as time goes on. In UI rate limits? They are probably battling spammers gaming the regular frontend like crazy, and are still hammering out the kinks for the real users.

As far as Dick Costollo goes, if there is anyone who I think would be pretty adept about balancing core ideals, while actually making money, he seems like the guy.

<comment><USER4> #newtwitter is now an API client. Like any other client, we are subject to rate-limits. The fact that the JavaScript API upon which #newtwitter is built can make authenticated, fully client-side API calls, rate limits are necessary.

<comment><USER5> Yea, but users could give a crap about that. It's their official product and the default way for people to use the service. It shouldn't have rate limits on how much you can use their website. They need to fix it.

<comment><USER6> There is no problem with it being rate limited. Provided that rate is above the rate which a user could reasonably be using twitter at.

<comment><USER4> This is the intention, but there are probably some limits that we could afford to refine. As people switch over, we're starting to get some good data around usage patterns and will certainly tweak if necessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like someone's a little bitter about an API usage dispute and a poached employee.

He brings up legitimate, but minor issues that are just a part of Twitter's growing pains. Let's be honest, the background customization has never been a huge selling point for Twitter. Sure its fun, but most people use Twitter via mobile clients & txt messaging and never see the backgrounds. I think I've seen the backgrounds of maybe 10 of the people I follow.

The #newtwitter rate limiting is an annoying issue they need to resolve, but they'll resolve it. They're still ironing out the #newtwitter kinks.

<comment><USER7> How is your application dealing with the changes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Twitter is dying because Twitter doesn't like my spam operation."

Yeah, OK... sure.

<comment><USER7> As a co-founder of Poll Everywhere, you might do your homework first before publicly humiliating yourself demonstrating a lack of basic background research and fact-checking. Poll Everywhere is in no way a spam operation whatsoever.

<comment><USER8> Does it send machine-generated messages to Twitter?

Then it's spam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It seems to me that, as Twitter goes the monetization route, these kind of changes only make more sense. They could have taken the option to charge developers for accessing their API's. But that would slow innovation.

So, it was only natural that they would look to create a larger piece of the pie for themselves while also trying to make it possible for developers to continue to be successful. Yes, that means that we, the developers, are now being forced to compete with them which seems like a non-starter. However, they are still providing an API for us to use which allows us to continue to compete.

In the end, dare I say it, they become Microsoftian in their API evolution; they use the API without releasing it to us and develop such a headstart that it is impossible for us to compete when the API is made public. If that happens, oh well. It was free and fun while it lasted.</comment>


MemeMixr: Aggregating HN, Reddit, and Slashdot - <AUTHOR> http://www.mememixr.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I like to read HN, Reddit/Programming and Slashdot/Developers. After DHH's and PG's take on releasing flimsy things quickly, I decided to just whip this out and see what happens. What do you think?

The basic idea is to have a single stream of things instead of multiple streams. A single stream could lead to serendipitous connections becoming apparent between news stories, or might lead to new ideas.

<comment><USER2> If all you're going for is a stream w/ all the information, it's good.

However, I think 250+ posts listed on any given day has a high tendency to lead to information overload. Part of the value of the sites you listed is the community helps bring the better content to the top without the distraction of the second-rate posts and articles.

It's a great start to the site though and if you're able to offer sorting options or search in the future (by topic, keyword, whatever), it could become a site worth using on a regular basis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Gee, that's like a third level of aggregation... Is there not a practical limit on the number of effective aggregation levels?

<comment><AUTHOR> In fact I was thinking of implementing persistence by making mememixr aggregate itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> if you'd like a serious implementation of a collabroative RSS reader thats highly customizable, join the alpha test:

<http://news.80concepts.com></comment>


Does Google Knol encourage and profit from plagiarism? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.regehr.org/

<comment><USER2> Why not! Youtube did so knowingly, according to court documents, and look how it worked for that Google division.</comment>


Apple in 2017: Report Card - <AUTHOR> https://sixcolors.com/post/2018/01/apple-in-2017-the-six-colors-report-card/ <comment><USER3> This seems pretty fair. I think that most of the big 4 tech companies are batting about a b/c grade in most areas. Ive an iMac pro and Im pretty happy with it, I skipped a macbook pro update to go with the iMac pro as my home computer. I am aware of most of the complaints about it, but for what I do(write code, play music) its pretty much the perfect machine. Hopefully they will continue improving the mac lineup and cater more to their pro users on the other form factors as well. The iPhone 8 was a good upgrade for me. I dont want to use my face to unlock the phone and I like the home button, so the iPhoneX isnt for me. The iPhone 8plus has proven to be a great incremental improvement from the 6plus I used previously. Apple did, however have a pretty weak year in software, I would call that a d to d-. Lots of bad bugs were released, and I think most people noticed a palpable decrease in code from apple in the past year or two. They have somewhat redeemed themselves with Logic 10.4, as it is a really really really good update.

<comment><USER4> macOS has just been killing me recently. XCode as well. Builds lock up my Mac for almost an hour without resources even being utilized according to top or Activity Monitor. If the software reliability of the Mac hadn't declined so sharply in the past couple years (in my experience at least) I would have bought an iMac Pro as well.

<comment><USER3> I can relate. Luckily for me most of the code I write is .net so I'm not messing with Xcode for anything other than hobby projects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This seems to confirm my suspicions about Apple's software quality: it has fallen off a cliff over the past 2 years. I'm not sure what's even happening. iOS used to "just work", and now I have daily crashes and freezes on a brand new phone. I literally cannot use Snapchat and Tinder at the same time - <USER2> causes them both to crash. Turning off wifi and bluetooth no longer actually turns them off, and so I have lost all control over my own device's power usage.

I have been a faithful iOS user since the 3G, and yet the SE I just bought will probably be my last iPhone. Everything since iOS 8 has just been a travesty. Can anyone explain this?

<comment><USER6> I find this to be one of those things in life where people with negative experiences are just significantly louder than people with positive ones. It's like hunting for an apartment - you're only going to find bad reviews, because when something works as expected people don't usually feel the need to praise it.

I've had a generally rock solid experience with iOS11 so far (and I have a 6+ with a degraded battery to boot - things still operate fine, never needed to reinstall fresh or anything).

I _will_ say that Tinder has a huge issue in their app, where whatever the hell they're doing in the background balloons out of control and seems to cause some kind of memory pressure on the device. I don't use Snapchat so I can't comment if it's the same issue there, but on my phone it's Tinder- specific: literally no other app has this issue, but the simple act of opening Tinder and swiping through a few will cause the device to go crazy and silently kill other apps in the background for some reason.

I originally thought this was just my 6+ (i.e, maybe the degraded battery or something), but I've tried it on some development devices I have and it exhibits the same thing for me. My best guess is that the crowd that uses Tinder is willing to ignore that kind of issue because... well, it's Tinder, people are on there for a reason.

Re: wifi/bluetooth, I actually vastly prefer the way it is now. It took some getting used to but it just makes more sense.

Of course, your mileage and experiences may vary, so what do I know.

<comment><USER7> Well it can go either way. I'm fed up with misguided developments in both hardware and software of smartphones – both Apple and Androids – and have lost all excitement I used to have about that. Same goes for some of my family.

I am not loud about that because I don't care anymore because none of the devices on the market suit my needs, and I gave up on that ever changing.

I think my case is more common than any loud opinions out there.

<comment><USER8> > [I] have lost all excitement I used to have about that. Same goes for some > of my family.

I actually think this is a part of the problem. We watched essentially a completely new product category invented in front of our eyes and watched it mature. The lowest hanging fruit were picked _years_ ago (by 2012, in fact![1]). Android caught up to iPhone in a very serious way. What's left to do?

I feel like both platforms are in a state where they're 'innovating' just for the sake of it, for marketing, because people still expect the giant leaps that we had in the earlier years. Everyone knows this (Apple made a whole ad about 'not much has changed'[2]).

[1]: [https://daringfireball.net/2012/05/ios_low_hanging_fruit](https://daringfireball.net/2012/05/ios_low_hanging_fruit)

[2]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwQjHZp9I6w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwQjHZp9I6w)

<comment><USER9> I still think a awful lot of things are left to do that are not moonshots.

Phones physically break a lot. There should be better ways than rubber cases or glued rings to help people not drop the gigantic phones we have now.

Wearable integration is limited and uninspired. Aside from bulky watches and bracelets nothing got attention.

Bluetooth connectivity still seems like a dumpster fire, things like airpod are coming, but it's far from a solved problem in my opinion.

In the same vain communication among devices owned by the smae person is still primitive. We now have computers, phones, tablets, speaking cylinders, NAS and media serveds and short of buying every single one of them from the same company they won't speak together.

<comment><USER8> > Wearable integration is limited and uninspired. Aside from bulky watches and > bracelets nothing got attention.

I actually think this is a symptom of the same problem. 'Wearables' were/are an attempt at creating a next 'iPhone' \- new device category to get big wows for every year. Unfortunately, the market need wasnt/isnt really there for it, apart from some fitness accessories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I had been using Apple phones and computers since 2008, and in the last few years everything got so crappy that I'm using XFCE4 on a Chinese Thinker i35, and I couldn't be happier. I can use the extra money to take my girlfriend on a trip.

<comment><USER11> XFCE really has improved over the last few years. After the Windows 10 debacle I went completely gnu/linux and settled on Manjaro-XFCE as my daily driver... and I am loving it, but I do remember XFCE back in the early 2000's, which at the time drove me to KDE.

When I do harder work I tend to drop into awesome, but not everyone can handle a tiling window manager.

<comment><USER12> I always dipped between GNOME and KDE because XFCE and LDXE never impressed me, but for the last half-decade of development or so XFCE seems to be doing very well.

I've moved all of my systems over to it and couldn't be happier.

I would like to use a tiling WM for development but Sway (understandably) still has a long way to go. Not really interested in awesome or i3 at this point with Wayland on the horizon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think iCloud cheated on its end of semester tests! It didn't deserve such high grade... the only thing it can always do correctly is iPhone backups, just that, like someone said there. It's slow, expensive and clumsy.

<comment><USER14> just a point from the other side. I use iCloud and it is quick, cheap, and seamless. $9.99/mo for 2TB is a great deal. And the file/photo/video syncing is painless and automatic.

<comment><USER15> iCloud photo library syncing is a mess, to put it politely. The number of things you can do that accidentally trigger a full re-upload of your entire photo library is a minefield. Don't get me started on photoanalysisd either... Having re-uploads/photoanalysisd run repeatedly on large libraries is not fun.

[http://tidbits.com/article/17757](http://tidbits.com/article/17757)

Increasingly the Google Photos iOS/desktop uploader apps offers a significantly more robust sync experience for me on my Apple devices.

The pricing is fine until you hit the 2TB cap (very easily done if you use Family Sharing especially), at which point you are hosed. Even offering the ability to pay $x per GB over this cap would be a lifeline. Again Google have much better options for this. That the default free amount of storage hasn't changed in years from 5GB for all your devices is arguably pretty mean in 2018.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Current Macbooks are not so great, but there has never been a better time to get an iMac.

I don't know about Final Cut, but Logic has been getting constant and significant updates. Today we received 10.4 which included new plugins and features for free.

To be honest I'm starting to fall in love with the Mac again after a couple of years of frustration. Hopefully this is only the beginning.

</comment><comment><USER17> It's hard to take a 4.0 on hardware reliability seriously when individual specks of dust can still take your laptop out of commission for 5+ days while Apple completes a $400 repair. The keyboard has to work, and it still doesn't.

<comment><USER18> I haven't had this problem so bad it needed a repair. When stuff gets stuck under a key, I just mash it a few times and it fixes itself. I should probably used canned air, but I don't have any at the moment, and the mashing trick works.

<comment><USER19> That didn't work for my new MacBook Pro. I have a b key that either types 0 b's or 2 b's. Took it to the Apple store and they blew air under it which did nothing. I now have to find time to send it in. I just am at a loss how they could design something with such a poor feel and so fragile. I guess I should be happy I use an external keyboard at work.

<comment><USER18> Hopefully you just got a dud keyboard. My down arrow key went stiff earlier today and I mashed it a while and it didn't help. Then I blew into the key (from the side) with my mouth (still no compressed air) and that fixed it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Long time Apple customer and 2017 was easily the worse year in over a decade. Not only quality and throttlegate but faliure to release the HomePod for Christmas and still not improving Siri.

</comment><comment><USER21> touch bar: your armor turns to dust as a hoard of orcs appear from the walls.

</comment><comment><USER22> > "I wear my Apple Watch about 23 hours each day and I love it," wrote Dan > Frakes.

Interesting. Apparently Dan has figured out how to recharge the woefully inadequate battery while the watch is on his wrist.

<comment><USER23> My own experience with the Apple Watch battery life is that its just fine. It could be longer, sure.

Wearing the watch for 23 hours a day is manageable if you are diligent about when you charge it [1] and when you use flight mode [2]. Personally I do not bother with this but if you were someone who valued sleep tracking via your Apple Watch then you can find ways to make it work.

[1] [https://www.sleepwatchapp.com/charging-apple-watch-for- sleep...](https://www.sleepwatchapp.com/charging-apple-watch-for-sleep/)

[2] [https://pillow.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/1197217-...](https://pillow.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/1197217-does- airplane-mode-affect-sleep-tracking-when-i-us)

<comment><USER24> Apple Watch series 3, no cellular: Usually ~75% charge remaining after wearing it for 16 hours. Maybe the cellular ones are a lot more power hungry, but I could charge this one only every other day with no problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In the world of software, Apple should be getting a D or F. Their recent security issues are perhaps the worst of any large corporation ever. When such gaping security issues exist, it's simply not reasonable to presume other areas of lesser importance are better maintained. Any person who has used OSX over the years is well aware of the drastic drop in quality and corresponding increase in issues. With such a limited amount of hardware there's no reason for their hardware issues.

<comment><USER26> That's just all the hyperbole Apple gets. Security is one of the biggest strongpoints of Apple. Look at recent Meltdown/Spectre issue, macOS, iOS, tvOS all got fixes deployed immediately, just press a button to install. Meanwhile how many vulnerable Android phones and unpatched Linux boxes are out there.

Vulnerabilities come and go on every system, but Apples is actually very good at mass deploying fixes to their whole product line very fast.

<comment><USER27> People really don't understand just how many miles ahead iPhone security is from Android. It's almost a joke, really.

<comment><USER28> A few years ago, I was thinking about switching to an Android phone, to try out android app development. I changed my mind when I read a serious article titles something like "which anti-virus software packages should you run on your android phone".</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Good, the Bad, and the Weird - <AUTHOR> https://blog.trailofbits.com/2018/10/26/the-good-the-bad-and-the-weird/ <comment><USER2> Describing Weird Machines to non-practitioners is almost as hard of a problem as actually finding them. I think Sophia did a good job explaining them and laying out a path to automatically identify them.</comment>


Apple's A12Z Under Rosetta Outperforms Microsoft's Native Arm-Based Surface ProX - <AUTHOR> https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/29/apple-rosetta-2-a12z-beats-surface-pro-x/ <comment><USER2> "and though forbidden, the first thing some developers did was benchmark the machine."

That's why Apple is saving the new chips for the new Macs.

<comment><USER3> surprising absolutely no one :D</comment></comment>


How AI Can Predict Heart Failure Before It's Diagnosed - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/04/11/predict-heart-failure/ <comment><USER2> I am curious to know in which part of the analyzed datasets the heart failure information was hidden. I would have expected that they reanalyzed heart time traces but it was not mentioned explicitly, was it?</comment>


Is it possible to actually unblock my little mismanaged mailserver from hotmail? - <AUTHOR>

I run a little mail server that hosts about 8 accounts.  One of my users had their password guessed and someone in Russia used my server to send out a bunch of spam.  The server wasn't compromised  and the spam stopped as soon as the user's password was changed.
Now, however, hotmail and whatever other mail services Microsoft runs are blocking my server because it is supposedly harvesting email.
Back in the day, I could've sent a note to firstname.lastname@example.com and an admin would've helped me out.  As it is, that account for hotmail is just an autoresponder that aims you at a wealth of unhelpful web text.
There is a form at support.live.com/eformpost.aspx that seems like it could be helpful, but when submitted, there is no indication that the form submission was successful and it's been a week since the last time I submitted it so I'm thinking it's either broken or just as unmanned as the postmaster address.
So, my question is, does anyone have any experience dealing with these guys or is this ip address permanently spoiled as a mail server as far as microsoft is concerned? <comment><USER2> You might be listed in a blacklist provider such as Spamhaus. Try your server's IP and hostname at [http://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/](http://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/). If it is just an IP that's blocked, it may be quicker to get a new IP address from your hosting provider.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, I'm not listed in the spamhaus lookup and I checked another list that microsoft indicated they made use of on one of their so-you've-been-blocked pages and I wasn't on that either. Best I can tell, it's just MS that has an issue with it.

I'm starting to agree that it's likely quicker to get a new ip address, but I hate that that's where I'm at. I wholly admit that I as the admin of the server should've caught it before I got blocked, but there's an admin (or more likely, a team of them) at MS who's just as asleep at the wheel as I am.

<comment><USER3> Check here: [http://www.dnsbl.info/dnsbl- list.php](http://www.dnsbl.info/dnsbl-list.php)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm all-clear on all of those. Great site, btw.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are words that you cannot spell without a spell checker? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> Seperate and reccommendation (spelled wrong for context) are the ones I get wrong the most.</comment>


Why I'm applying for citizenship in São Tomé - <AUTHOR> http://olifro.st/blog/sao-tome-citizen/ <comment><USER2> If you don't wanna click on it, it is just a lighthearted and a funny story.</comment>


Good Tables web service by Open Knowledge (alpha) - <AUTHOR> http://okfnlabs.org/blog/2015/03/06/goodtables-web-service.html

<comment><USER2> So the Good Tables web service seems to have a way to test a schema against a CSV file, with the possibility of changing the schema to more accurately describe the CSV File if it isn't a good match.

I'm not really seeing anything on the related YouTube videos that shows this uses any technology stronger than a loop and some regular expression parsing. I thought Open Knowedge was advocating the use of ontologies and artificial intelligence processes such as rules engines.</comment>


Jamie Zawinski(jwz) about ban on emacs coder Richard Mlynarik - <AUTHOR> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/07/kids-today/ Jamie Zawinski(jwz) feels for Richard Mlynarik ban for posting a bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668655#c1 <comment><USER2> As commenter fantasygoat wrote: _"I've noticed the decreasing thickness of skin on the intertubes for awhile now - blame Generation Y and their interest in form over function."_ I don't know that it is any particular generation; it's just that people who actually _do_ things seem to have given up on listening to complaints of "aggressiveness" and even "bullying" (what more rational people would call "getting to the point" and those with intelligent vocabularies would call "brusqueness").

</comment><comment><USER3> Dup, submission of bug report, with many comments, at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2741660>.

<comment><USER4> This is a discussion of jwz's posting and the comments to it, not of the original. Therefore not a dup.</comment></comment>


Shadows of the Past - <AUTHOR> http://www.flickr.com/photos/hab3045/716617573/

<comment><AUTHOR> The two images represent the same doorway- one taken in 2007, the other in World War II, when Amsterdam was under German occupation.</comment>


Neuroscience Takes the Stand - <AUTHOR> http://www.brainfacts.org/neuroscience-in-society/law-economics-and-ethics/2018/neuroscience-takes-the-stand-120518 <comment><USER2> Addiction is a learned behavior, not a disease.</comment>


Brain stimulation for treatment and enhancement in children: an ethical analysis - <AUTHOR> http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00953/full

<comment><USER2> Can someone write a short overview or post a few links about the best methods for non-invasive brain stimulation?</comment>


Taking the pulse of ESPN - <AUTHOR> http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/06/26/Media/ESPN-main.aspx <comment><USER2> Think there was an article on here earlier either about ESPN directly or about cable in general. Someone had a real good point... ESPN used to be actual sports news, analysis, and coverage. Now it's like TMZ for sports. It's terrible programming talking about serious issues like Tom Brady's haircut.

<comment><USER3> I don't now about analysis, I don't remember a lot of that in the past, it's always been somewhat superficial. You're right that it's become louder and more TMZ in the past few years, but I think this is a general trend in media that covers news items.

Facts are not valuable; they are free to anyone on the internet. What's valuable is your ability to add entertainment surrounding those facts. How do you stand out against others doing the same thing? Be louder, more controversial, etc.

Given that we keep seeing the same problems in our society play out in various arenas (look at politics), my question is are the sociologists asleep at the wheel? Why are they not observing these patterns and offering up solutions?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If I were Amazon or YouTube I'd strongly consider making a bid the next time one of these leagues were available.

<comment><USER4> If I were one of the sports leagues I would be terrified of the next time one of these deals come up. On the one hand they are sitting on one of the few assets that still has some value live (though I tend to watch all of my sports 30 minutes delayed). On the other, the entire media landscape is having the margins sucked out of it in an impressive pace. Those rights deals are outrageously expensive for the people that get them.

I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon, Netflix or Google snapped up the rights deals at a blockbuster price. But I also wouldn't be surprised if the price was much less than people thought due to less competition as well.

<comment><USER5> Both the NFL and MLB already have high quality streaming offerings today, including more advanced features like chose your own camera angle. They just don't distribute these services widely because TV pays so much better. If prices drop too far, they'll probably just keep the rights and start streaming the games themselves.

<comment><USER4> Yeah I thought of that as one option, but that means that the sports leagues need to get in the business of streaming video. Now they can dip their toe in it because the numbers are so low, but to support the Super Bowl for instance you'd have to be fairly sophisticated.

<comment><USER5> _to support the Super Bowl for instance you 'd have to be fairly sophisticated._

That is a good point. Good old cable technology still has some advantages. From what I can find the current record for a single live video stream is 4.6 million concurrent viewers, and the Superbowl consistently gets over 100 million.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> with the professional teams flush with so much broadcast money there needs to be a bigger push to legally block them from exploiting deals from cities and counties for building costly venues at taxpayer expense. throw in the IRS really needs to revisit its rules which allow the write off of tickets to such events as business expenses

<comment><USER3> Who is going to create such laws? The federal government? Why should they tell cities how to spend their money?

<comment><USER7> If players have a union and collectively bargain, and the owners collectively bargain, then the fans/cities should also collectively bargain. Create a union of the cities that host the leagues, and have them bargain for rules such as no taxpayer subsidizing of stadiums.

<comment><USER8> Federal Government should not be allowed to tell cities how to spend their money, but something needs to be done what devinhelton said. Look up Atlanta about their stadium deals for the Falcons and Braves. The City Council basically ignored the citizens completely and went ahead to spend millions to replace 2 stadiums that really wasn't that old to begin with.

<comment><USER3> Did the city council get re-elected when they went against citizens?

<comment><USER8> Im not sure. I remember reading an article about it awhile back and wondered if they would get re-elected, though I cannot find that article at the moment. I believe it was to approve additional funds for the Braves new stadium. If I remember right, they kept anybody who was against the deal from speaking about it at the meeting. There was a big scene and they went ahead and voted for the additional funding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you just want to watch spots put up an OTA antenna and you will get as many games as you see on ESPN. What ESPN specializes in is sports commentary, which is often worthless.

<comment><USER10> This is not true for the vast majority of basketball games, Monday/Thursday NFL games, most soccer games of interest, or hockey. But if all you're interested in is local baseball, the NBA/NHL finals, or Sunday NFL then go for it.

I'm saying this as an NBA/MLS junkie that's cut the cord.

<comment><USER11> >> Monday/Thursday NFL games

Mondays are on ESPN but Thursday night is on network TV. Not that you'd want to watch a TNF game. And MNF is a good excuse to go to the pub and watch the game.

<comment><USER10> I thought Thursday nights were NFL Network only unless it was also your local team (which never had relevance for me as I didn't live in my home market). Has that changed? I haven't really followed the league since dropping cable a few years back.

<comment><USER12> This year 7 are NFL Network exclusives, the rest are simulcast to various places, CBS, NBC, Amazon

Last year I believe Yahoo and Twitter had a couple, TNF seems to be the place to experiment with different distributors.

[http://www.nfl.com/schedules/2017/TNF](http://www.nfl.com/schedules/2017/TNF)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can't bring myself to watch espn any more. They've gutted so much of their actually insightful talent, while retaining the hot take artists and trolls. And I don't need to be constantly bombarded with left-wing propaganda and outrage with my sports scores.

In addition, their broadcasts are just not very good. Watching TNT and Espn during the NBA playoffs this year was like night and day.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, it's another case of an old media company thinking that the internet is stealing the fanbase. No, it's because your product sucks. That's the only reason. There are still tons of sports diehards even among millennials who would get a cable subscription for nothing but ESPN if it wasn't such utter garbage.

<comment><USER4> Can you quantify that? Cause its not just ESPN that is losing subscriptions to cable cutters its the entire industry. There is basically no cable subscription channel that is adding subscribers. The best some can say is they aren't losing them as fast as others. They study this _a lot_. Its pretty clear from their data that millennials have a different media consumption pattern from their predecessors and that new consumption pattern is moving up the age bands as well. Anecdotely, I recently cut the cord, am not a millennial, and am a huge sports junky that had cable (actually satellite) just for sports. I did it because a) I consume less television generally these days and b) the value proposition wasn't there with all the other ways I can consume sports now.

ESPN is being hit the hardest because they had the largest piece of the pie that is shrinking. Also their sports broadcast deals are staggeringly expensive.

Finally, ESPN is not moving to a sucky product for funsies. They are doing it because contrary to our inclination people _do_ watch the talking heads screaming at each other, in about the same amount as other programming, and its _much_ cheaper to create.

[edit] another thing that might be driving ESPN more to the talking heads model is the way views are calculated. As part of the metrics there is some accounting for public places that are showing television so from a 'real' perspective the bar showing Around The Horn on mute to a few patrons in the afternoon is not very valuable to advertisers, but based on the metrics they use it is. Model error is real.

<comment><USER3> I think ESPN is being hit the hardest because their content costs the most. Look at this deal they signed. Can you imagine AMC or whatever other premium content channel having to spend 12 billion for a few shows a week?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Design Lesson - Don't try to be original, just try to be good. - <AUTHOR> http://www.monoscope.com/2007/10/grumpy_old_curmudgeon_aka_desi.html

<comment><USER2> No need to watch the video... the title says it all.</comment>


Socialism and the 'net - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism

<comment><USER2> hm. really? I thought that free software was a natural consequence of capitalism and technology. 'in a free market, the price of any commodity will be slightly above the marginal cost of production' - the marginal cost of another copy of Linux is rather close to zero.

I think similar economics push free and ad supported online content. The marginal cost of adding another user to a webapp is so close to zero that charging for it doesn't make a lot of sense.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like Kevin Kelly but this piece was sadly misguided. Like trying to fit Cinderella's slipper on a line backer.</comment>


AltStore: iOS App Store alternative that doesn't require jailbreak - <AUTHOR> https://altstore.io <comment><USER2> Interesting!

So the AltStore server, running on your computer, will sign apps using your personal AppleID and sideload it onto your device. Because of restrictions Apple put specifically to prevent such thing, apps will expire after 7 days.

So your local AltStore server will refresh app signatures and push them onto device to keep them from expiring.

Hacky and vulnerable to Apple's pushback, but interesting!

Technical details: [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/altstore-is-an- alt...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/altstore-is-an-alternative- ios-app-store-with-a-built-in-nintendo-emulator/ar-AAHQDh7)

[https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/25/altstore-is-an-ios-app- store-...](https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/25/altstore-is-an-ios-app-store- alternative-that-doesnt-require-a-jailbreak-heres-how-to-use-it/)</comment>


GameBoy Color emulator entirely in JavaScript+HTML5 - <AUTHOR> http://www.grantgalitz.org/DonkeyKongCountry/ <comment> T-R Impressive, but might I suggest using a public domain ROM, instead of exposing yourself to a lawsuit:

<http://www.zophar.net/pdroms/gameboy.html>

<comment><USER2> Or just have the user load a rom locally, like I do with my little NES ROM painter[0]. Nintendo strikes down hard on emulation like this. Although I see why he chose DKC, that is one beautiful GBC game.

[0]<http://www.mattgreer.org/exercise/1nespaint>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm getting "Please try using a standards compliant browser." in Safari 5 & Chromium 12.

[edit: fix confirmed]

<comment><USER4> I am as well in Firefox 4.

<comment><AUTHOR> Edit: Fixed

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What would be even more interesting is a JIT-based emulator that worked by compiling bytecode _into Javascript_ , then relying on the browser to compile it back into machine code.

A machine-independent, JIT-compiled JS emulator might actually end up being faster than some purely-interpreted native-code emulators. And unlike a purely native JIT emulator, it wouldn't need a compilation component (the browser would do that itself).

Obviously such a thing would be dramatically slower than a native JIT emulator -- but surprisingly few emulators are JIT-based.

(Possible catch: I know for a fact that some Nintendo DS games use small amounts of self-modifying code. This probably is true of previous generations, too.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not a good idea with hand-coded ROMs for CPUs that are in single-digit MHz that use interrupts liberally, it would cause code cache invalidation a lot.

Some stats for SML2 running (Audio ON (web audio for mac in about:flags for chrome, mozAudio for Firefox 4), scaling OFF):

Chrome 12: <http://i.imgur.com/JjpT5.jpg> 27.0% CPU load

Firefox 4: <http://i.imgur.com/yEzzw.jpg> 68.6% CPU load

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Impressive. Any information on the inner workings?

</comment><comment><USER7> "Could not initialize the emulator properly. Please try using a standards compliant browser."

Getting this in Chrome 10.

I think your project needs a little love.

</comment><comment><USER8> Doesn't seem to work in Firefox.

<comment><USER8> Er, whoops, it takes about 5+ minutes to load. Seems to work fine.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> x is A

z is B

shift is Select

return is Start

D-Pad is Joypad

</comment><comment><USER9> Why do you say it's an emulator? Looks like a ported game to me. Ported in JS, that is.

<comment><USER8> Compare it to the original on a GBC or an emulator. It looks and sounds just like it.

<comment><USER10> Ported is different from emulated though. Ported involves altering the game itself to run on a different platform. Emulation is building a virtual version of the original platform that does "translation" of sorts between the original platform's methods/attributes/etc and the new platform, leaving the game itself unaltered.</comment></comment></comment>


Why the Web 3.0 Matters and you should know about it - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@matteozago/why-the-web-3-0-matters-and-you-should-know-about-it-a5851d63c949 <comment><USER3> 1\. jot down a bunch of buzzwords

2\. come up with a buzzword that summarizes those buzzwords

3\. put normal words between the buzzwords

4\. take the paragraph PR emailed you earlier and insert it about 85% into the text

5\. publish to Medium and post on HN

I love the idea of going back to a decentralised Web but I worry about it becoming just a way for the next generation of Silicon Valley kids to make billions. I would like to see more technical posts dealing with the actual workings of decentralised systems, rather than this mindless PR.

<comment><USER4> The fact that they posted this drivel to HN also demonstrates that they do not know their audience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Every time I see Web 3.0 I cringe. The article starts off with a history lesson that is outright wrong. It's like they didn't know what Web 2.0 actually was so decided rather than research, to just make something up. Then base their web 3.0 definition on a faulty 1.0 and 2.0 definition.

You are not Tim O'Reilly or Tim Berners Lee. You can't just make versioning for the web. Web 2.0 was popularized by Tim O'Reilly and the only reason it caught on is because O'Reilly media started putting the name on major conferences. Spending a lot of money and resources on the branding and lobbying to make O'Relly a thought leader in the space not just a blog post. I know, I was there, right in the main auditorium of the Web 2.0 Summit watching the biggest names in tech speak.

It had nothing to do with modem speed. It had more to do with Javascript becoming main stream. To vastly oversimplify:

Web 1.0 = Static documents and basic server-side business logic

Web 2.0 = Dynamic documents with Ajax and interactive page elements* - <USER2> RIAA (Rich Internet Applications) or recently SaaS

Web 3.0 = Either the Semantic Web (giving meaning to web content) __, SPA (Single Page Applications), decentralized web, or blockchain. Depending on who you talk to. Really depending on which industry the person you are talking to wants to promote as the next big thing.

The point is, there is no definition of web 3.0 and there won't be. No one person has the right to version the Internet. Because the web is not one single thing anymore. And that's OK. I just wish people would stop trying to call it that.

* Plus fewr letter "e" before "r", baby blue and/or pink logos, star burst graphics, and mirror images bellow graphics

 __The Semantic Web never really caught on (though you can still go to Meetups at MIT to discuss it every month) but some of the key concepts did carry over, like having elements in your XML (HTML) that convey the meaning of what is inside.

Edit: Changed "coined" to "popularized"... O'Reilly as not the first to use the term.

</comment><comment><USER6> Why not skip ahead to Web 3.11 for Workgroups?

</comment><comment><USER7> Wasn't Web 3.0 supposed to be about using structured data in websites?

<comment><USER8> I thought it was all about 3D Websites

<comment><USER9> Where did you get that impression? I mean, it's quite a leap.

<comment><USER10> Canvas 3D, Mozilla 2006, Opera 2007

Web GL, 2009 - 2013, Apple, Google, Mozilla, Opera, and others

Web VR, Mozilla, 2014

[https://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-virtual-reality-for-the- we...](https://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-virtual-reality-for-the-web/)

And web as VR splashes every step of the way. It's here!

[https://www.creativebloq.com/features/the-vr-web-is- here](https://www.creativebloq.com/features/the-vr-web-is-here)

<comment><USER9> I was talking about the impression that this is what will be called "Web 3.0". I know this has been pushed a lot, but nowhere in the articles you posted (or the other I read by myself) this is called "Web 3.0".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> TL;DR:

"Web 3.0 is all about a new set of apps and services. It will bring about a new way of doing things, and is the future. These apps will be what everyone is using."

...

"Join us and discuss this utopian future over at ${centralized_platform}!"

"I'm also using ${centralized_platform} and ${centralized_platform}, just like everyone else in the real world, and you can reach me over there too."

How do I interpret this?

This person's actions call into question whether they even believe in the shovelware they're hawking.

If you're going to make a whole post like this, at least have the decency to be that crazy about it.

</comment><comment><USER12> Web 3.0 is a thing for many years now. Shouldn't we talk about 4.0 or 5.0?

I mean, with WASM we are at native Web now...

</comment><comment><USER13> Why is almost the entire article in italics? Is that the author's stylistic choice or am I doing something wrong?</comment>


Supercharging Style Transfer - <AUTHOR> https://research.googleblog.com/2016/10/supercharging-style-transfer.html <comment><USER2> Notice how the transferred images have none of the power of the originals.

Take the first set of images, in the style of "Head of a Clown", by Georges Rouault. Not only does it not recreate the brush-strokes, but the content of the restyled image doesn't fit the artist's style.

In the case of Munch's The Scream, and Starry Night, and every Monet, the subject matter is as important as the image. Maybe you'll be able to mask your Facebook profile in a combination of Murakami and Pissaro, but that's not the extent of their genius.

Similar things are attempted in music. While we can pretty programmatically formulate pop music, deeper meaning eludes machines. Bob Dylan didn't just write great lyrics, he tapped into the zeitgeist of the era in which he wrote. When Kendrick Lamar or Beyonce write about black struggle in America, that's in the context of a larger societal conversation.

I don't believe that neural networks will ever be artists because they work on copying existing patterns. Until there is an element of randomness fueled by context, they aren't creating anything new. That's where genius lies.

<comment><USER3> I agree with the first half of this comment, but I don't follow you here: "Until there is an element of randomness fueled by context, they aren't creating anything new. That's where genius lies."

I suspect reframing of problems, seeing things in new light, paradigm shifts, new ontologies, whatever you want to call it are not quite so simple as context-dependent randomness! I don't think we understand this process very well right now.

Finally; I think there is an artfulness in copying existing patterns, because the way in which you "abduce"[1] an observation-explaining theory out of the infinite space of possibilities is a creative and aesthetic process.

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

<comment><USER2> What I mean by thinking of context is this:

Lil Wayne has a wonderful line in his song 6'7', "real G's move in silence like lasagna". Unbelievable.

Let's extrapolate that pattern:

"Real H's move in silence like phonebooks".

Not really the same ring to it, huh? It's not just pulling out a silent letter to emphasize the silence, but there's the context of Lil Wayne being a rapper and self-proclaimed G (gangster.)

Is our extrapolation "new"? Sure, in that no one has (likely) ever said that. But while it mimics Weezy's style, it doesn't understand it's context. Similarly, if Katy Perry sang the same line as Lil Wayne, the context doesn't make sense (Katy Perry is no gangster...)

EDIT

A better example, specific to art, would be Warhol. He explicitly copied real- world objects as art, to create something new. But the newness wasn't that he made a clear copy, it was that his copies reflected the shift in materialism that came with mass-production. Warhol mass-producing "art" was a social comment that resonated _at that time_.

His art was more than the process, it was the context in which it was made and what that said more broadly about society. That's why it resonated.

<comment><USER4> > Lil Wayne has a wonderful line in his song 6'7', "real G's move in silence > like lasagna". Unbelievable.

Sorry, I'm too thick. I mentally thought of a gangster moving laterally, splayed out and wondered how it would be quiet. I had to google this to understand that he meant silence like the letter 'G' in 'lasagna'.

<comment><USER5> Even harder for me, since I'm Italian and the g in lasagna is not silent at all.

<comment><USER6> I think most English speakers would pronounce the gn as ñ.

<comment><USER5> That's how it is pronounced also in Italian. Gn is a digraph, pronounced like ñ in Spanish. The g is not silent, as it is part of the digraph.

<comment><USER7> Wow, this is more complex than I thought. It looks like in Italian, you have a single consonant ɲ. In English, ɲ doesn't exist. We say nj, a two consonant cluster, and most people can't properly distinguish the two sounds.

The end result here is that in English the g causes a sound change _after_ the n, and basically qualifies it as a silent letter. This is a subtly different sound from the Italian version, where it merges with the n and does not qualify as a silent letter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Real-time neural style transfer is not new; in the past year there have been several academic papers [1-4] on this topic and several open-source code releases:

[https://github.com/jcjohnson/fast-neural- style](https://github.com/jcjohnson/fast-neural-style)

[https://github.com/DmitryUlyanov/texture_nets](https://github.com/DmitryUlyanov/texture_nets)

[https://github.com/chuanli11/MGANs](https://github.com/chuanli11/MGANs)

Neural style blending is also not new; I did it more than a year ago using optimization-based method:

[https://github.com/jcjohnson/neural-style#multiple-style- ima...](https://github.com/jcjohnson/neural-style#multiple-style-images)

The novelty of this work is a clever way for training a single network that can apply many different styles; existing methods for real-time style transfer train separate networks per style. Their method also allows for real-time style blending, which is very cool and to my knowledge has not been done before.

(Disclaimer: I'm the author of [2])

[1] Ulyanov et al, "Texture Networks: Feed-forward Synthesis of Textures and Stylized Images", ICML 2016

[2] Johnson et al, "Perceptual Losses for Real-Time Style Transfer and Super- Resolution", ECCV 2016

[3] Li and Wand, "Precomputed Real-Time Texture Synthesis with Markovian Generative Adversarial Networks", ECCV 2016

[4] Ulyanov et al, "Instance Normalization: The Missing Ingredient for Fast Stylization", arXiv 2016

<comment><USER9> Also check out Prisma app for a slick mobile-friendly UI & subset of pre- selected art styles. (layman's application of this tech)

<comment><USER10> Don't forget everyone that is not Prisma that does the same thing, sometimes better.

Here's mine. It runs on Mac & Windows, runs locally on all its styles unlike Prisma, runs HD images, and can process unlimited video: [http://macdaddy.io/Style/](http://macdaddy.io/Style/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So I've been playing with style transfer for about six months. I even combined it with another technique to actually get something that I liked enough to have printed on canvas ([https://github.com/j2kun/art-21-logo](https://github.com/j2kun/art-21-logo))

And as much as I love the math, the computer science, and the tech behind it, I have to admit that the novelty wore off quick. Not only does a style- transferred image not have the power of the original, as another commenter said (we can debate about why), but the longer you look at it the more you see the ugly artefacts. I understand it's not perfect, and that there will be improvements, but to me that's what's primarily holding back style transfer. Not runtime or memory constraints, but whatever first principles need to change to get a global unity of style in the image.

Of course, if you introduce the human hand to fix the artefacts (which I think is great, and I know people are working on this), then style transfer can still be super useful. I can definitely see this becoming a new photoshop/illustrator integration.

<comment><USER12> Did you try putting more structure (concentric outlines or a gradient or something) in the input image? Seems like style transfer would fall flat on a binary image.

<comment><USER13> Gradients in the source image tend to yield poor results. They often awkwardly reappear in the result, looking like an artifact doesn't fit with the style image at all.

Source images in a posterized style, with large flat surfaces in unified colors, tend to yield great results with few artifacts. With that in mind, I find the raw "21" logo to be a rather good source image. Two colors is minimalist, but it's a choice. I'm sure GP went for simplicity quite deliberately.

<comment><USER11> Definitely the original is good, too, and my example was a fun addition, not a replacement of the original logo :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> These are thrilling developments but every time I see examples they're relatively "low-res" images. I would love to be able to zoom in and see whats going on, but I suspect that we're seeing the output exactly as it was rendered by the ML processing. Is that the case?

Actual paintings have brush strokes and even surface effects that aren't visible until you're looking very up-close or at a high resolution image. This is a key feature of the enjoyment paintings that often gets lost on people.

I guess the ultimate "turing test" for this stuff would be to have the system literally paint these images. That is, with actual paint and a paint brush, NOT with pixels. This would sort of give a really fresh and exciting twist of meaning to the title of the old essay by Walter Benjamin "Art in the age of mechanical reproduction."

</comment><comment><USER15> Imagine this used to create a film noir style transfer style network. Throw it onto Daydream. You could have a game where you're Sam Spade, walking around 1930's San Francisco.

Or maybe it's a gloomy day on Ocean Beach. Make a sunny day filter, put it on Daydream, and you're ready for a picnic!

<comment><USER16> Protip: Often when it's overcast and unpleasant in the Marina it's beautiful at Ocean Beach (and vice versa).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Eventually, they will be able to transfer music and song style from one artist to others too.

I wonder what is the point to have artists in the future and how the artists can survive?

Will artist become template markers?

<comment><USER16> Interesting. Your comment gets at the question of what constitutes art.

I think there are many forms and purposes of art, but the kind we most often consider authentic usually seems in many ways crude compared to what preceded it:

\- Jazz began as something that sounded cacophonous compared to the more obvious order of hymns and classical music. Jazz transformed what had been brief moments of dissonance and arrhythmia into elaborate intereleavings of tension and resolution, structure and chaos.

\- Rap began by taking the repetition and rhyme of poetry and the rhythms of african music and created something many would not classify as music when they first heard it.

\- In order to be deemed fresh and worthy of recognition, fiction must not feel like a rehash of the great classics. In most cases the best new fiction smashes conventions in at least one narrow way. I'd argue that an unattributed work from a great author would not likely be publishable today because of that. Quality is not just subjective, it is relative.

\- In fashion, the moment a style is obvious it becomes outdated and means something quite different. In some cases the latter can be marketed successfully, but it is hard to think of it as art by that point. Think of the way iconic things felt when they were new (and ugly to most people at that moment) and someone was making them iconic.

So while these algorithms create believable surface features mimicing established instances of "art" (they might persuade me that a short story was written by Fitzgerald when in fact it had been written by a grad student and run through the algorithm) they won't necessarily make it a _good_ short story.

But in another year researchers will likely understand what makes humans consider things stylistically novel and then all the above points will be irrelevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> While these results are certainly impressive, it's hard to say that they're aesthetically or artistically "good."

I played around with Photoshop filters a bunch when I was younger -- there are (or used to be) a good handful of "artistic" filters, imitating watercolor, pointillism , ink drawing, etc. These style transfer results are reminiscent of nothing so much as those effects: they look superficially appealing, but have the same blind, dead quality.

Maybe this is an indictment of "style" as it's typically understood? A certain brush technique does not an artwork make.

<comment><USER19> More than likely you're just biased because you know ahead of time it was done by a computer. We could probably take one of the images, present it in the right context, like in an art gallery where we pretend that it was created by some fictional up-and-coming artist, and people would love it instead.

<comment><USER18> People will love all sorts of stupid shit if it's put in a gallery. (Commentary on that phenomenon is, in fact, an entire art movement -- readymades.) There are two questions we should be asking here:

1) Does a positive gallery reception indicate artistic value? Presumably not. 2) If we assume that these style transfers have artistic value, is it similar to the value of the original paintings? This is a more difficult question, but the answer does seem to be "no."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'd like to seem the same thing done for food.

Show it how to cook a cake. 'Feed' it a large set of edible ingredients. Enjoy random cakes in various styles

<comment><USER21> Love that idea!

</comment></comment><comment> purple-dragon So is this the early warning that Prisma's market ownership of this effect will soon come to an end?

<comment><USER22> Prisma was a land grab because the original authors didn't make an app. Hell I started working on my own version at the time since it was such an obvious app.

The original authors finally got around to making their DeepArt app, so we have at least two players in this space atm.

I think either of these two players will incorporate this research, but there's no clear incentive for anyone else to try and get in on this market now. It's not clear that there's a whole lot of money to be made here, but who knows maybe usage will explode. I mostly expect an acquisition.

<comment><USER10> Plug for my mostly ignored version, that runs on Mac & Windows. It processes high res images unlike Prisma, and runs entirely locally. And can process videos of arbitrary length & resolution. [http://macdaddy.io/Style/](http://macdaddy.io/Style/)

<comment><USER23> I will try it out on Windows10 in the next days! Seems interesting for processing photos instead of having to use Prisma on Android.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Did I miss the part of the article where they create a Monet style from multiple Monet works and apply it, rather than using the style of an individual painting? I thought that was the point of this. They sort of do it in the last image, I guess. Seems to pick up so much actual color, though! (as opposed to perhaps the _quality_ of the color or how it's used, which is just as characteristic of a particular style as the color itself)

<comment><USER25> There has been other recent work (Preserving Color in Neural Artistic Style Transfer) that allowed control, separate from the "style", over how much of the original painting's color palette to use:

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05897v1.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05897v1.pdf)

It isn't too hard to extrapolate from this to using _separate_ images as sources for the style and palette, and from there to transforming the "content" image's color palette to resemble the palette of the "style" image in terms of saturation, value, contrast, etc. (but not hue) by manipulating histograms, and then using _that_ result instead of either the "content" image's or the "style" image's palettes.

Because if you have a photo of a bright red cardinal and a desaturated pastel drawing of a pale blue boat, the result you are likely to be most pleased with would be a pastel cardinal that is, well, pink, and _not_ a pale blue cardinal.

Of course, the harder version of this would need to recognize the _semantics_ of both the "content" and the "style" image in order to construct a more meaningful palette to be applied (which is what you're getting at), and that same semantic information will also help with transferring the style more meaningfully (eg. crude palette-knife houses in the background but small brushed strokes depicting the people in the foreground).

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> There is a Twitter Bot[1] which does this too: [https://twitter.com/neuralpainter](https://twitter.com/neuralpainter)

You need to tweet a photo to this handle and it replies with painting.

1\. He's a friend, also a SaaS: [http://neuralpainting.co/](http://neuralpainting.co/)

<comment><USER25> There is also DeepForger (been borked for a while though):

[https://deepforger.com](https://deepforger.com)

[https://twitter.com/DeepForger](https://twitter.com/DeepForger)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > The pastiches produced via this algorithm look spectacular

Not really they don't, no. It's kind of cool, that's about it.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is cool for my Instagram account, and I do really like Prisma, but... Google and others do hard work in neural nets. I feel like there must be less obvious applications here than what's discussed in the blog post. Anyone have ideas?

Does this go far beyond photos? Will I eventually be able to translate my ideas and thoughts into anyone's style programmatically? Could each user view the same content interpreted in a different style that they like best? Might I be able to extrapolate how a user might use my website from their clickstream stlye on many sites? etc

</comment><comment><USER29> I wonder what you get if you ask the algorithm to start with Starry Night and then apply the _inversion_ of the Van Gogh style filter.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'll be the first one to admit I know next to nothing about art, but some of those generated paintings are quite beautiful. The "Starry Night" driven ones in particular. Very cool research.

</comment><comment><USER31> Soon, I will be able to sound so snooty by saying "oh that? Yeah, it's a Monet pastiche of a picture I took."

<comment><USER32> Great, what I've always wanted, more Monet. Now only if I could have less problems...

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Still no continuity between video frames? Doesn't seem like it would be very difficult.

</comment><comment><USER33> Is it really possible to run tensorflow under the ios and swift? Really great article, btw.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's prisma with random images rather than filters?</comment>


14 rules for fast web pages - <AUTHOR> http://www.skrenta.com/2007/05/14_rules_for_fast_web_pages_by_1.html <comment><USER2> Nice list.

I would add: Don't use Google Analytics.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great tips! Here's the full presentation:

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/49362/High-Performance-Web-Sites>

</comment><comment><USER4> Host the Yahoo UI Toolkit instead of loading it from their slow servers.

</comment><comment><USER5> Excellent collection of ways to reduce response time.</comment>


How we got featured in the App Store in less than a week - <AUTHOR> http://blog.forkly.com/post/9723098253/forkly-is-featured-in-the-app-store-its-been-a-tasty

<comment><USER2> My app "TextPics" was featured about a year back - same deal. Vague contact from Apple requesting artwork, which we also followed to the letter. The difference for me was that it took about two months before this happened, and as stated on Apples AppStore guidelines I had a (fairly) strong AppStore presence, consistent updates, a quality design following their vaunted HIG, and most of all a unique interesting app (this was the first ASCII art texting app, before the cursed Chinese clones arrived, stealing and reselling all my content).

Bottom line is basically to have a unique high quality app and you might get noticed by the AppStore team. There was no silly technique or magic bullet.

I'll say this though... That two weeks in the Top 10 were insane. Spend a week at #3 and you won't need any more of these VC posts. I guess that was my taste of what the Angry Birds guy enjoys every single day.

</comment><comment><USER3> This speaks to nothing of how they got featured in the app store, but of a "vague email" they received from Apple. Don't get me wrong, its great for them and I think their app has a great design, but the title is misleading.

And the correct title should be: Forkly is featured in the App Store. It's been a tasty first week!

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't see how this post answers the "how" at all. From what I'm reading it just seems like pure luck that they got featured by apple. Am I missing something?</comment>


Time Zones Explained - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12849630

<comment><USER2> This is a nitpick, but the first sentence bothers me. Theoretically, the world shouldn't be divided into time zones at all, but rather one continuous timeline, where local noon is always when the sun is at its highest point.

I don't actually object to timezones (I'm not nuts!), and they do discuss local mean time later on -- but for a piece trying to explain them, it seems odd that it starts by arbitrarily positing 24 equal 1-hour timezones as the most "natural" time.</comment>


Oral History of Sophie Wilson (2012) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2012/06/102746190-05-01-acc.pdf <comment><USER2> Context: Sophie was one of the main architects of the original ARM processor

 _Fairbairn: So was there sort of a major insight or breakthrough or whatever in doing the processor, or was it just sort of you read the papers, you sort of absorbed things and sort of went through the process? Were there any sort of major aha moments, or points that--

Wilson: There was nothing aha about it. It was just, "You can do this stuff. You just get on and do it." As I say, it was more the reverse. We expected to find a roadblock. We expected to find why National Semiconductor employed all those people in the building in Israel and why they found it so difficult. And we just never did. We also-- we thought it was going to be much harder than it really turned out to be, so we put a lot of effort up front into verification and modeling._

<comment><AUTHOR> I particularly enjoyed this anecdote (talking about the prototype 6502 based BBC Computer, not the ARM here):

 _Wilson: ...Hermann determined that if there was no logical reason why it didn 't work, then it must be the fault of the in-circuit emulator, and that what they should do is take the in-circuit emulator out, put a native processor in it, and surely it would work then, because there was no logical reason it shouldn't. And annoyingly, he was completely right. It did work._

<comment><USER3> There's a sequence in the BBC drama "Micro Men" which appears to dramatise this, albeit with an external clock wire as the culprit. Worth watching, it's brilliant.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, it's been on my to-watch list for a while. Maybe it's time to bump it up the queue a bit :)

<comment><USER4> It's quite fun & Alexander Armstrong has great fun hamming it up a little as Sinclair.

<comment><AUTHOR> The ZX81 and ZX Spectrum were a big part of my childhood, so I had a big case of Clive-worship as a kid. Watching a clip from this I now feel slightly attacked :) but I'm settling down with a very British cup of tea to watch it tonight.

Thanks for the recommendation.

<comment><USER3> I get the impression that the Acorn guys had more of a hand in the consultation process for the film!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I interviewed Sophie at Cloudflare's Internet Summit back in 2018. Lots of fun stories: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abrrsCOiMy0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abrrsCOiMy0)

<comment><USER6> Nice; thanks for the link. I miss hanging out in your office at Optimal Networks.

<comment><USER5> That was a really long time ago...

</comment></comment></comment><comment> the-dude This is a transcript. I have searched but failed to find the recording.

Does anybody know if it is available?

<comment><USER7> The recordings of the oral histories done at the Computer History Museum are at:

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQsxaNhYv8daKdGi7s85u...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQsxaNhYv8daKdGi7s85ubzbWdTB36-_q)

There are 318 at the moment and they post several new ones each week. But they still have quite a back log so it is not surprising that an interview from 2012 hasn't been posted yet.

This list (currently 1337 items) includes videos and the transcripts:

[https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/oralhistories/](https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/oralhistories/)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is brilliant, thanks so much for posting these links!

<comment><USER7> I have now read the transcript and it has "end of tape 1" and "start of tape 2" which makes me think it might be an audio only interview. In that case it probably won't show up on Youtube.

Douglas Fairbairn, who did the interview, was the founder of VLSI Technology Inc which was the first fab to make ARMs and, together with Acorn and Apple, set up the ARM company.

In an interview I did with Prof Andy Hopper he mentioned that a CAD group was created for a networking company which got merged with Acorn. That led them to have a chip design capability that they were trying to figure out what to do with it. This is a slightly different viewpoint of the same story.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great link. Thank you for sharing

</comment><comment><USER9> Extraordinary; she puts Woz to shame.

And of course ARM helped to fuel Apple's extraordinary success in the 2000s-2010s with the iPod, iPhone, and iPad ...and non-success in the 1990s with the Newton and eMate.

<comment><USER10> It really is an extraordinary record, especially for someone with no academic background in EE. She literally just sort-of picked up digital logic design intuitively, more or less all at once. And then wrote a BASIC and helped design a game-changing super-efficient processor (etc), because why not?

And no one at school noticed she might have unusual talents.

I wish we could have an interview that tries to get some insight into how this kind of mind operates.</comment></comment>