The terrifying rise of the political entrepreneur - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/05/23/the-terrifying-rise-of-the-political-entrepreneur/ <comment><USER2> The cognitive dissonance in Silicon Valley is amusing. You think VC-istan was ever not political? Where do you think VC's come from? They don't grow on trees. They grow in McKinsey and Morgan Stanley, where they learn to deftly navigate corporate politics at the highest levels. Thats not the only thing they learn, of course, but it is a fundamental pillar of the training. Silicon Valley is owned by Wall Street (what do you think it means for VC's to "raise funds?") and favors those who can play that game.

Not that I think this is a bad thing mind you. It just is. It's like dating- it's futile to complain about the rules. They're just the rules. You're trying to convert capital into a successful business, so you gotta play by the rules of the people who have the capital. Which is true for pretty much everyone. Being in Silicon Valley doesn't insulate you from the reality that exists everywhere else.

<comment><USER3> Actually the trend among VCs lately is to hire people with operating experience as partners: Alfred Lin, Chris Dixon, Keith Rabois.

<comment><USER4> This has been replicated in traditional private equity as well, especially when the IPO market softened significantly during the financial crisis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The sweeping generalizations and alleged industry-crossing trends in this article undermine a very basic truth: that a small minority of people are successful by kissing ass rather than kicking it.

The author has set up an imaginary "nobility" (including himself, presumably) of people who's intentions are—by his definition—"pure". You're either an entrepreneur or a "corporate stooge". There is no middle ground. There is no one in a Fortune 500 company who is responsible for delivering results, apparently. (Unless we're defining "entrepreneurs" as "anyone who is not a corporate stooge," which seems like a stretch.)

Moreover, there's apparently no one who can both play the "political game" and deliver results. As if the mere presence of the former taints the well, so to speak.

I think the fact of the matter is the politics—relationships, perception, track record—do matter and should matter. If you think you can build a good product and people will beat a path to your door, you're horribly naive. As a VC faced with two equal products, would you rather back someone who's already built a product and had an exit, or someone who's doing this for the first time? The former is certainly lower risk...

</comment><comment><USER3> This would be accurate if time were going backwards. The world it describes is how things were in the 90s.

For the last two decades, at least, the power of hackers/makers relative to MBAs/smooth talkers has consistently increased, and that trend shows no sign of slowing down.

<comment><USER6> > hackers/makers relative to MBAs/smooth talkers

I think the article is more referring to Hackers/Makers that are also smooth talkers. Obviously an MBA/Business guy with no technical experience/knowledge is not going to be able to pull off any sort of political entrepreneurship in VC-istan.

<comment><USER7> I stopped trying to parse this comment just before it gave me an aneurysm as I tried to resolve what "VC-istan" might refer to and how non-tech MBAs had no influence there. VC's fund tons of companies headed by operators with no technical experience (look at some 2012 portfolios to see this). It is eas- _ier_ to get external funding if you're a tech with no company operating experience, but it still not eas- _y_ to do that. So it's probably not "obvious" that MBA/business types have no influence wherever "VC-istan" is. Which is I think a good reason not to start calling it "VC-istan".

<comment><USER8> The word "VC-istan" has been used a lot in this thread and even elsewhere, I don't understand why you put so much emphasis on not understanding what it means.

<comment><USER7> For example: because the commenter upthread doesn't appear to know what it means, since they think that MBAs have no influence there. Because it doesn't mean anything; it's a slippery term, meant to diffract understanding rather than focus it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really don't like this article. I'm not saying that the author is right or wrong, but what is the author trying to accomplish? They aren't helping change the ecosystem or bring new conversations to the table.

I feel like this feeds to pettiness and bitterness toward fellow entrepreneurs that you don't feel "deserve" it. Who cares what they raised? Who cares who they sold to?

If you're doing what matters to you, it shouldn't matter.

<comment><USER10> It definitely reads as envy or sour grapes.

One thing I always have in the back of my mind is to work hard to avoid hating anyone because they're good at what they do, and it's hard work because the human psyche is tremendously good at finding justifications and pulling the blinders over oneself. Tearing someone else down is the childish and easy way to build yourself up, but it's only in your own head, it doesn't actually make you any better and it doesn't impress anyone around you.

Hate should be reserved for people who really do bad things, and even then we're probably better if we can avoid the hate entirely.

<comment><USER11> _One thing I always have in the back of my mind is to work hard to avoid hating anyone because they're good at what they do_

Stop right there. None of us hate people who are good at what they do. When we find someone who's better, we seek that person out and try to learn as much as we can. I'd believe this to be especially true on HN, where there's an above- normal proportion of top-5% programmers, many of whom rarely get that opportunity to learn from someone of truly superior skill.

The problem with political players is that, while they suck at what they do, they're great at hacking evaluation processes and making themselves look superior. That hurts everyone (except them) because their shitty decisions and ideas result in a widespread proliferation of crap.

<comment><USER10> Sure, sometimes. But if your company is not doing so hot and you see some ridiculous acquisition and think to yourself how the fuck did that happen, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that it's political bullshit when in fact you don't really know the whole story. You don't know what the tech is or what the real numbers are or what the purpose of the acquisition was. I think it's very easy to jump to a conclusion on an emotional basis, and our belief in our objectivity is what makes this all the more treacherous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't get it.

Convincing people to give you large sums of money has _always_ been based on gaining their confidence. And people being what they are, that confidence has always been based more on how you present yourself than on any objective logical measures.

<comment><USER13> What if I tell you that, there're a bunch of people who do nothing but present themselves? And, when they're co-founding a company with you, they still do nothing but present themselves (not your company)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> As Cory Doctorow aptly stated: every good eco system has parasites. I'm sure these types exist, but they are an inevitable side effect of the properties that make the eco system successful.

<comment><USER15> There's a good case to be made that parasites make ecosystems, not the other way around (the "Red Queen" hypothesis).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> _Now, I've decided to refrain from naming names, since any specific mentions would almost certainly induce a wave of denials and distract from identifying and, hopefully, ending the underlying trend._

You've identified a "terrifying" trend, but you don't want share any names or substantiation because it would distract from the important discussion you think we need to have. That's really shoddy journalism.

</comment><comment><USER17> Even if there do exist 'political' entrepreneurs, they don't come at the expense of normal ones. Get users, make sales, and you will succeed.

<comment><USER18> _Get users, make sales, and you will succeed._

That's the way I try to look at it. Nobody locally (RTP, NC area) seems to pay much attention to us or give us any credit, where when I look at what we're doing I can't help but think "What? Are you people crazy? Do you realize how fricking awesome this stuff is?" But then I have to acknowledge that I'm (very) biased, and that our focus should be on identifying, connecting with, and having conversations with, our future customers. Getting press mentions, getting invited to events, accepted into accelerators / incubators, etc., all those things ultimately play second fiddle to customers.

IF the day comes when we have paying customers and are growing, then the accolades and attention will come. Or not. In the end, it doesn't really matter. If we build a profitable, growing, successful business, it doesn't _really_ matter if we get any accolades or not. Although it does pain my "inner Tony Stark" to say that, as I really want to have a big "Fogbeam Expo" one day. :-)

Net-net, I just try to remember "we haven't proven anything yet".

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well ... I think it is much simpler than that - startups are in a buyer's market. We have oversupply of startups concentrated in few relatively narrow classes of problems. So the most connected people win.

Which is paradoxical because the uncharted areas today are bigger than ever - but there are not much ships sailing there. Maybe the "solve problems that you have" mantra is becoming too influential. So we have two tracks - one of people with common problems and the tech skills to solve them and the other - much bigger - people that have real problems but lack the skills to solve the problems.

But we got success stories like Raspberry Pi - when people tried to solve a problem they didn't have but created something awesome in the process.

And just today Google bought a flying wind turbine startup - and it does not look like aqui-hire.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've gotten hung up on this before, but after two years away from the Valley, I realized a lot of this stuff is small potatoes.

We've all seen companies that have been involved in multi-million dollar transactions on pure hot air and politics alone. These can seem discouraging to people who want to build actual businesses, and deals like Tumblr and Instagram are in another league entirely.

But, for most of them, you really have to look at the actual magnitude of these things (on a financial level) before you decide to be indignant about them.

As a thought experiment, if you take the amounts of money involved in typical fundings and even a lot of exits, and compare it to amounts of money involved in things _outside_ the startup ecosystem, it can be thought-provoking, even if you're comparing apples to oranges.

For instance:

\- The project budgets of large consultancies. (e.g. I worked on a routine project at a consultancy once where the budget was $12M.)

\- Smaller government agencies and civil engineering works (e.g. new Central Subway on 4th St is around $900M [how much politics do you think is involved in _that_?])

\- Real estate listings

\- The amounts invested in even smaller hedge funds/mutual funds. (I think Zed Shaw had a piece on this)

\- The profits of bigger SV companies that actually are profitable (Google, Apple, etc). Or, the budget of some given department in such a company.

\- Real acquisitions outside of tech (see the WSJ on an average day for figures that can make your head spin).

I know these things are obvious, but it really needs to be stated sometimes. It's hard to rationalize big numbers unless you really think about it. And you can get tunnel vision living in the Valley.

$5M here and there is chump change in the grand scheme of things in the world that venture capitalists and large enterprises inhabit. There is bound to be a certain amount of noise you see observing these transactions, and definitely politics. Fun to watch and comment about, but not _really_ important.

While these aren't grave injustices, I guess I would concede that when taken wrong, it does have some chilling effects for people like the OP and myself. The current business climate does create some awkward and unnecessary dilemmas for people in the uncanny valley between being an entrepreneur and an employee. There are plenty of smart people who, in a perfect world, might go for starting a fairly medium-risk/medium-return sort of business. But with all the "smart money" on crazy startups impacting everyone's salaries, the rents, and the news cycles, it changes things. If you do go ahead with it, you might be tempted optimize your business at least partially for a potential acquisition and spend more on generating hype than on the fundamentals. Or you might get such a compelling offer from one crazy, poorly-proven but well- funded and well-connected startup that you forgo your perfectly viable plan entirely.

So, the odd politically-motivated acquisition or funding shouldn't make you feel bad, but the cumulative effects can be suffocating for sure!

<comment><USER11> You said you left the Valley. Where'd you go? How do you like it?

I'm in New York. In 2005-7, it just seemed obvious that if you were young and wanted to have a career, you moved to the Valley or New York. However, I don't think it's that way anymore (if it ever was).

I'm trying to figure out where the future is, because the Bay Area's been parasitized by NIMBY and acq-hires and lost its vitality, and New York VC- istan's pretty damn uninspiring. Austin and Seattle seem like strong candidates.

<comment><USER21> I'd personally pick Austin if I were looking for an already established major tech hub that is not one of the coasts. It's got a fun atmosphere too, lots of music and good night life.

I would also look at Atlanta, Boulder, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Detroit. The latter is a really interesting contrarian pick: ultra-cheap real estate, neat history, and an interesting subculture of hacker/maker types.

<http://www.omnicorpdetroit.com>

Its dangerous reputation is mostly just reputation, but don't leave valuables in your car. Vehicle smash-and-grab crime is very high.

<comment><USER22> I'd advise to stay the fuck away from philly. There is no startup energy in this area.

<comment><USER23> As another data point, I've found Philly to have a lively and close-knit startup culture, albeit much smaller than NYC and SV. Gabe Weinberg (founder of DuckDuckGo) keeps an on-going list of links related to the Philly startup scene: <http://foundedinphilly.com>

I'd be curious to hear what ways you think Philly can improve.

<comment><USER22> Cool, I'm familiar with Gabe and salute his efforts. The city badly needs him/them. I was born in the city and went to college there so I hope it can become greater than what it is. The main thing, imho, that needs to happen, is to get the word out amongst college-aged people in the area and the attraction of more venture funding. The general attitude of the people there is what pg refers to in one of his essay's as the 'default'; graduate and work in a large corporation. This formula is not working anymore and the startup attitude needs to affect Philly and the rest of the country proportionally to the new state of affairs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's both surprising and alarming to me how many VCs cite "emotion" (rather than logic) as a main if not primary factor in their decision to fund a startup or not. I'd venture (no pun intended) to say that this is the root cause of much of the "politics" and cronyism described by the OP, and I don't think YC is immune to this either.

Sure, we can talk all day about "human nature" and how "those are the rules of the game", but there's gotta be a better way for investors to make funding decisions than "trusting your gut" or "I have a good feeling about this team."

Yes, VC has changed and evolved over the years thanks in part to new institutions like YC, but the overall VC landscape still reminds me way too much of that scene from the based-on-the-book film "Moneyball" where a bunch of old baseball scouts are sitting around a table discussing who to recruit for next season, and they keep recommending players based on fluff and BS like how good a guy looks swinging the bat (vs. actual hitting stats), how confident he looks, how good he he looks with his shirt off, etc.

This all leads me to believe that, while things are getting better, there's still a long ways to go before Silicon Valley and michaelochurch's so-called "VC-istan" can be considered anything close to a true meritocracy.

<comment><USER25> The problem I see with your complaint is that any early venture funding is a bet on people ("I have a good feeling about this team") and there's no escaping that.

The real Moneyball was based on using better metrics to choose players ... in a rigorously constrained game. Starting a business of the sort we're talking about is entirely different, and I see little in the way of opportunities to apply logic to the choosing people question.

<comment><USER24> I agree that baseball is easily the most "rigorously constrained game" there is, but I don't think that's reason to dismiss the use of more/better metrics in assessing startup founders and teams.

The same argument you make was once used to dismiss the value of metrics in other more free-flowing and less-constrained sports like basketball, but analytics has become a staple of the sport ever since. [1] And since then, advanced metrics have even found their way into Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), of all things. [2]

Sure, starting a company is obviously very different from sports and building a sports team, but I don't think it's THAT different. Sports is essentially a simulation of real life, and I think the move to using advanced metrics in startups is inevitable. If you think about it, even startups are a highly constrained and simplified (i.e. smaller-scale, less people, more uniform "path", etc.) version of running a big business. I see no real reason, besides general skepticism, why metrics cannot be used to improve the startup fundraising process.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APBRmetrics>

[2] <http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=8966>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If anyone read the Fountainhead you can call those groups Keating's and Toohey's

</comment><comment><USER27> Everything is political, because everyone else is political, except for me - I'm not political.

The winners of the political game are the same individuals who reinforce the political game, and the people who complain about the politics are inevitably the ones who can't muster the energy for fake affection, enthusiasm, flattery, obsequiousness and therefore lose the political game.

As soon as something has become a culture in itself it is already too late - it is and will forever be political, til the very beginning of the next big culture shift, which will also inevitably become political.

It's self-selecting, and it's been going on since the beginning of history.

The only answer is to not give a shit. To not complain about politics, or if you happen to be a winner of politics, to be self aware enough not to then turn around and reinforce the game that you just won at.

</comment><comment><USER28> The OP is presenting this as if the objective of every startup is to get fundings or to get acquired. It's not.

The objective should be to help a big number of users with something and make profit.

Funding should be just a tool to help you achieve that if you can't bootstrap your business. If there are VCs who fall for tricky presentations, they'll soon realize that it is not that fun to lose money investing in startups with no future.

</comment><comment><USER29> The rise? Has anyone not paid attention to history? Entrepreneurs have always directly influenced policy.

</comment><comment><USER30> If there are two camps, these would rather be 'those who want to build a business' (sending invoices, paying customers, etc) and 'those who want to make a big flip' (with major financial rewards)

Since VCs (and indirectly LPs) are in the business of growing money, they will follow the money.

</comment><comment><USER31> Its not as scary as it first appears as VCs have a huge incentive to correct this while in the corporate world, the incentive to correct it is quite less.

</comment><comment><USER11> I feel like the douche-pocalypse described by OP has already happened. It's not a future threat. It's how most people have to live. The Apple founders would be unable to get funding these days. They wouldn't even get a meeting.

VCs have set themselves up as executives (maybe more like record industry shot-callers than steel-company management) of the first postmodern corporation. If you don't take their terms, they can't exactly fire you, so they fund your competition. Tech press is a weird sort of HR organization, and so-called "startup CEOs" are merely product managers within this weird meta- corporation that is just as badly stacked against software talent as a 1970s steel company.

It's having pernicious effects on the software industry, which is now a hotbed of mediocrity utterly opposed to what it used to be.

I think what killed software entrepreneurialism for good was the rise in housing prices, coupled with the student debt epidemic and the cost of health insurance. Unless independently wealthy, no one can actually afford to "bootstrap" in these locations, so true entrepreneurial activity has been replaced by VC-istan careerism.

I don't know where the future is, but it's not in Silicon Valley now-- no place where middle-class houses cost $1.2 million is anywhere near the future-- and it's not in New York, and it may not be in the U.S. at all.

On a side note, I wish people would stop calling the VC ecosystem in the Bay Area, "Silicon Valley". That's why I use VC-istan. They're different things. Silicon Valley has a 70-year history and it hasn't always been VC-istan. VC- istan is just how it died.

<comment><USER7> I've been doing startups since the mid 1990s†. There is no reasonable argument that says that it is harder for tech people to get funding now than it was in the 1990s. It is much, much easier to get funding in 2013 than it was in 1999 (which was the last time I got funding):

* There are more investors doing deals now than there were then

* The deal size needed to start any given company is lower and investors are playing along with that instead of holding out for deals they can shove 8MM into

* More technical people with no previous operational experience are getting funded than got funded in 1999 --- you can just look around to see this; bubble companies still needed grey hair and/or Ivy MBAs to get off the ground

* Companies have better pre-A-round options (particularly, syndicated convertible note funding) than they did in the 1999s, when "angel investor" meant "best friend's rich uncle gives you $200,000"

* There are more people with operational experience in software companies staffing VC firms

In 1999, if you were a software developer with a good idea, a working prototype, and just a little bit of traction, but no experienced operators and no inside track, you had no realistic chance of getting off the ground with external funding of any sort.

Your whole argument stems from a flawed observation and so, I think, falls apart when the observation is shown to be incorrect.

I do not like venture fund financing either, but the hyperbole you bring to these arguments does my own dissatisfaction with the model a disservice by presenting an easily dismissible caricature instead of an argument.

† _From 1995: 1. Bootstrapped ISP with mid-double digits FTEs, 2. Angel-funded product company that exited successfully, 3. Venture funded product company that failed, 4. Venture funded product company that eventually exited successfully, 5. Matasano; I had key/sr/mteam roles at all of them and founded 2._

<comment><USER32> I would suggest the two of you are describing different parts of the elephant.

I was deeply struck by Venkatesh Rao's arguments [#] that entrpreneurlism now is simply a new form of hiring than genuine disruption. Michaels comment that VCs are the execs in some new corporate format has the ring of truth.

However, it certainly seems there is more capital, more widely available, and more fairly accessible both in the US and elsewhere. This means that a vastly increased number of entrpreneurs will be able to take flight and not all of them will be lacking the leverage of insight into tidal forces that Michael is alluding to.

Anyway I need sleep, but it seems to me that there is an elephant in the dark, it is the shape of Western workforce in the future - and we are all trying to describe its shape.

[#] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/venkateshrao/2012/09/03/entrepre...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/venkateshrao/2012/09/03/entrepreneurs- are-the-new-labor-part-i/)

<comment><USER7> The notion that entrepreneurship is simply a different form of hiring is a popular notion that bears no relationship to reality. Operating a company is nothing at all like having a job. Operating a company that is cash flow positive after paying market salary is an extraordinarily privileged position relative to any reasonable (ie, not a first baseman for the Yankees) candidate/employer relationship in the market.

The thing that makes people believe that entrepreneurship is merely a hiring challenge is that most companies fail, and in this market, tech talent is so scarce that a failed startup team can still generate a premium. This is called "a safety net", and it is a good thing. You should be extremely wary of the kinds of people who argue that safety nets are a bad thing for tech startup people. Companies don't do their best work when they're dangling their development team's feet over the prospect of having no income and no health insurance if they fail.

The fact that most new businesses fail is not a new thing. Most new businesses in all sectors fail. That's why the rewards for financing a successful one are so high: that capital has been put at extreme risk.

<comment><USER32> I completely agree that a safety net allows you to concentrate on good _long- term_ work and is invaluable.

But I also glimpse a new way of organising work. New ways of bringing together teams and rebuilding old networks, flexible remote working making this possible in ways not seen before. Add into the mix totally new market-types opening up (Indian micro-products where you need to think and capture value at fractions of a rupee at a time will demand insights that no-one walking the streets of SV will ever grasp)

I doubt that new entrepreneurialism is going to be a better sort of linkedIn for HR departments - but I do think that the (tech) world of work I will retire from will be radically different to now - and there are advantages in knowing which way the elephant is pointing.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Convert CSV files to ASCII tables (vscode extension) - <AUTHOR> https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=phplasma.csv-to-table <comment><AUTHOR> Author here, made a vscode extension to convert your CSV/PSV/TSV files into a formatted ASCII table.

I've found this useful when needing to export data from temporary sources (sql, APIs) and present them in an email.

<comment><USER2> Nifty little extension!

For SQL sources, isn't it easier to copy-paste the query output rather than export it as a CSV and then convert it to a table format?</comment></comment>


Show HN: A tiny Chrome Extension to search through "Who is Hiring?" - <AUTHOR> Hey, folks!
I'm writing this small Chrome Extension to help me find jobs I'd be interested in the monthly HN's "Who is Hiring?" thread. I've used React to render the UI that just loads a stripped down version of the posts and look into them by the tags I've chosen. Here's a demo: http://imgur.com/a/CzNSa.
I haven't submitted to the Chrome Web Store yet because of their $5 fee. :P But let me know if you'd be interested and I can share the extension with you :) <comment> aman-pro This is cool! Please share. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey! Thanks! Here's the extension: [https://github.com/viniciusCamargo/hn- chrome-extension/blob/...](https://github.com/viniciusCamargo/hn-chrome- extension/blob/master/hn-wih.crx)

You have to enable the developer mode and drag the file to the extension page, you can find instructions here: [https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/getstarted#unpacked](https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/getstarted#unpacked)

I've also provided the source code, so let me know if you have any issues to run it ;)</comment></comment>


Charter Agrees to $174M Deal to Settle Alleged Netflix Throttling - <AUTHOR> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/charter-agrees-174m-deal-settle-lawsuit-alleging-netflix-throttling-1170368 <comment><USER2> Drop in a buckek, more important question is are they still being kicked out of NY? or was this a bribe?

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/charter- negotiat...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/charter-negotiating- with-ny-to-avoid-being-kicked-out-of-the-state/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Some perspective: Charter Communications made $~15 Billion gross profit on ~$40 Billion in sales in 2017. It takes them about 38 hours to generate $174 Million.</comment>


1966 prediction of the home computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC5sbdvnvQM

<comment><AUTHOR> "What the wife buys on her console, the husband pays for on his". Oh boy!</comment>


Apple's suggestions to Samsung to work-around its iPhone and iPad design patents - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/2/2596527/apple-samsung-design-patent-iphone-ipad-work-around <comment><USER2> _As for tablets, Apple identified a similar list of alternative designs available to Samsung:

Overall shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners. Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface. Front surface that isn't entirely flat. Profiles that aren't thin. Cluttered appearance._

If Apple were a car maker, they would be "suggesting" that their competitors should design cars with non-circular wheels, thick body metal and a non- aerodynamic appearance.

<comment><USER3> I understand that people on Hacker News detest courtroom bickering and would rather talk about innovation, including design innovation; I think I fall under the same category, however:

a. Samsung's designs are really similar to Apple's designs. Yes, all cars have to have round wheels, but as Nokia has shown (N9?), it is absolutely possible to design a phone with the same level (or more) minimalism without copying the design DNA.

b. Look at an HTC phone. There's no way one can mistakenly think that it's an iPhone. Same with tablets; a Xoom (esp. Xoom2), an Iconia, or a Touchpad will never be confused with an iPad.

In fact, this STEALING (couldn't mince words here) goes much deeper. This was on the internets a few days back: <http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a>

Doesn't this seem like Samsung crossing the line?

<comment><USER4> devil's advocate: if design has practical merits beyond branding then why shouldn't everyone copy verbatim the design elements of successful products? this can still be iteratively innovative.

<comment><USER5> Certain protections of design/research aid the consumer/society.

If all hard work is copied with no limitation, then this severely limits the amount of money you can spend on r&d to remain profitable.

Take medication for example, the r&d lead time is many years long and a huge culmination of factors, but duplicating a known-formula can be trivial.

How this applies to business: as society relies on competing bodies to spur innovation, there is a direct consequence if we remove the ability to compete:

If unfettered duplication of a product is legal, and this duplication can occur in a shorter timeline than the time required to acquire profit from the product(i.e when taking away the costs of development) then there is no business reason to ever develop the product to begin with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Remember folks, Apple are not patent trolls, they just want justice and to be given credit for their innovations, like the rectangle and the rounded corner.

<comment><USER7> Is this sarcastic?

<comment><USER8> Yeah. But also misguide: Apple doesn't object to such trivialities. There are a lot of tablets out there with different designs which they don't challenge at all.

Samsung choose to copy almost everything of Apple's design. Hell, a representative for the company couldn't even tell between an iPad and one of their devices when they were shown to him in court.

<comment><USER9> Actually, Apple has challenged a number of other tablets.

They're suing Motorola over the Xoom somewhere in Europe (from what I understand, this trial has fewer fireworks because the Xoom was already being sold, so a preliminary injuction is both less likely and less important).

Apple also tried to push _criminal_ charges against a tablet vendor in Spain (over a technical, but unimportant infraction related to an import ban, IIRC). Fortunately, the charges were dismissed.

I suspect Apple is focusing their legal energy on Samsung because they think they are the strongest cases and because they view Samsung as the most threatening competitor, but there is plenty of evidence that they're planning to head down their list of competitors if they have legal success.

<comment><USER8> """Actually, Apple has challenged a number of other tablets."""

I fail to see how this contradicts my statement though, which was:

"""Apple doesn't object to such trivialities. There are a lot of tablets out there with different designs which they don't challenge at all."""

I didn't say the don't challenge any other tablet --just that they challenge for good reasons. The Xoom was also bloody similar.

(Mind you, there are also patents related to the UI etc, not to the external design).

<comment><USER9> >The Xoom was also bloody similar.

First, Apple is suing over the Xoom's design, not a technical patent (the details came up in the Samsung lawsuit): [http://www.macworld.com/article/161675/2011/08/apple_motorol...](http://www.macworld.com/article/161675/2011/08/apple_motorola_xoom_lawsuit.html)

Second, here's a photo gallery of the iPad 2 vs the Xoom: [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/ipad-2-vs-motorola- xoo...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/ipad-2-vs-motorola-xoom-in- photos/1595)

It was obvious to me which was the iPad and which was the Xoom in every comparison shot. Since you disagree, it sounds to me like you're one of the people who actually think Apple should have the exclusive rights to minimalist, black rectangles with rounded corners.

<comment><USER8> """First, Apple is suing over the Xoom's design, not a technical patent"""

Gee, maybe that's why I f _n wrote "Xoom was also bloody_ similar _", and added the technical patent issue on a_ separate* line where I'm NOT talking about Xoom.

"""It was obvious to me which was the iPad and which was the Xoom in every comparison shot. """

You really believe that the litmus test of an original not derived design is that you are able to tell which is which?

There are tons of Rolex clones that you can _easily_ tell from the original, but that doesn't mean the haven't copied it.

"""it sounds to me like you're one of the people who actually think Apple should have the exclusive rights to minimalist, black rectangles with rounded corners."""

And it sounds to me like you're one of the people who actually defend companies not even trying to come up with something different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What bothers me about Apple's claims, and I assure you, I have no understanding of how design patents work, is what seems to be good clear prior art, or prior use of these elements in Samsung's own digital photo frames or in the movie 2001, and how little that seems to have been addressed by the courts.

Apple's workarounds seem to indicate that Apple wants some exclusive right to rectangular shapes, rounded corners, thin frames, flat surfaces, thin computers, uncluttered appearances.

Take the last one, Apple wants a design patent (monopoly) on uncluttered appearances.

<comment><USER11> Even if Apple's industrial design is a revival and not original, by the timing it is clear that Samsung is copying Apple and not _2001_. Whether this should matter legally is a matter of debate.

<comment><USER12> And here I thought the word "prior" was pretty unambiguous. Perhaps there's some legal definition that clarifies it as some point no more than 2-53 years in the past?

<comment><USER13> For regular patents you are correct about prior art. But for design patents it is different, a design patents is closer to a trademark, where what matter is how it is currently being used to identify a product not who first thought of the idea.

Part of the problem here is that the * appearance* of a tablet or smartphone has become a much bigger part of the product. 20 or even 10 years ago people didn't buy a computer based on how it looks, and all computers looked pretty different from one another. The way the bulged, how the vents were positioned, or the color, made it obvious who made the computer (or even which model). Dell is an excellent example of making a recognizable design despite that design being ugly and making the USB slots hard to reach.

Now because the look of a tablet or smart phone is so important, perhaps even subject to fads, it's more like clothing industry which has very little IP protection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why are people stuck in this mindset that Apple invented the tablet?

They didn't. I had a Honeywell tablet way back when, there is a company called hammerhead that makes tablets (<http://www.yenra.com/rugged-tablet-pc/rugged- tablet-pc.jpg>), panasonic has had the toughbook, etc. etc.

All of these are roughly the shape and size of an iPad. Apple just applied their standard solid-colored plastic design to it.

("GUYS! I have an idea! Instead of /white/ plastic lets...wait for this. Are you sitting down? Guys! Instead of WHITE plastic...what if we used.... _black_ plasitc?!?")

Even the iPhone. Palm had something that looked exactly like an iPhone in early 2000s. I remember my dad having one and giving it to me when it "broke". In fact, I think it only had one button on it.

At this point a tablet is as generic a shape as a laptop is. It's rectangular, about the size of a textook, and about a centimeter thick.

Apple: get over yourselves. If you're so /innovative/ then show us. Take more scrollbars off of things or something.

<comment><USER15> > If you're so /innovative/ then show us.

Will this suffice?

[http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp- content/uplo...](http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/08/tablethistory.jpg)

<comment><USER16> What is that photo supposed to show? All I see is that the iPad's physical design is as much a derivative of all those that came before as the rest are derivative of the iPad's.

Do you really not see the flaw in your argument or are you just being willfully dissonant?

<comment><USER8> """All I see is that the iPad's physical design is as much a derivative of all those that came before as the rest are derivative of the iPad's."""

The only thing in common the devices previous to the iPad have with it is that they all have a rectangular screen. I'll give you that. Apart from that though, they are totally different.

And that's from the external design aspect.

From a UI aspect it's night and day.

The devices after the iPad, now, copied both from it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The absurdity of this is breath-taking. Apple tablets look exactly like miniature flat screen TVs. I don't know how they have the gall to claim that the form factor of their tablets is in anyway original or protectable. The Apple design here is the obvious one. There will be aliens on distant worlds designing tablets they they will be thin, flat, have narrow rounded borders and have an uncluttered appearance. I can't believe Samsung could even dream of capitulating.

</comment><comment><USER18> Ever since Apple revolutionized the black rectangle, everyone wants to capitalize on it. It's pathetic really, can't these companies come up with _their own_ shapes?

<comment><USER19> Can't wait for the star-shaped tablet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> In other words, they just want to claim a general trademark on "it looks good". Apple fanboys will disagree, but I think it is ridiculous and is part of what makes me dislike Apple with a passion.

<comment><USER11> I think the Nexus S and Nokia N9/Lumia show that you can create something that looks good without looking exactly like an iPhone.

<comment><USER21> I think you'll find that the Nexus S is actually one of the phones that Apple have been suing Samsung over; it really is a case of them trying to kill anything that looks good and could compete with them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The original wording[1] doesn't sound that bad as The Verge writeup. iPhone:

> For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front > surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not > rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are > more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that > are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial > lateral borders; speakers openings that are not horizontal slots with > rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screens; front > surfaces that contain substantial adornment; and phones without bezels at > all or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an > inwardly sloping profile.

iPad:

> For the D'889 tablet design, alternate tablet computer designs include: > overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not > have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or > clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin > rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the > D'889 or that have a cluttered appearance.

They've also provided some sample phone models that are not covered within this design patent[2], from a quick scan-through they mentioned LG Prada, LG Chocolate and Sharp 825SH.

> Among other differences, the LG Prada has thicker borders to the left and > right of the display screen that are noticeably different from the "big > screen" look of the D'677 design.

I found this part somewhat interesting:

> in instances where visual elements of a design patent are "purely > functional," such visual elements should not be considered a part of the > patented design

[1]: <http://www.scribd.com/doc/74556601/Expert-declaration>

[2]: [http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/807407/Apple_Reply_Expert_...](http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/807407/Apple_Reply_Expert_declaration.pdf)

<comment><USER23> It still is almost comical - my best comment on that is an old computer joke from the 1980s (it would be a joke if not so true).

You know, I live in a house that has a door, windows and a roof and one thing is certain - one day Apple is going to sue me for the windows...

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> _As for tablets, Apple identified a similar list of alternative designs available to Samsung: Overall shape that isn't rectangular..._

Kubrick's __2001 __cited as prior art:<http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/collectibles/e1e0/>

</comment><comment><USER25> Every time this kind of thing comes up I remember what incredible dipshits HN users can be. I forget it sometimes, but it all comes back with a Proustian rush when I see you stumbling over each other to drown any chance of discussion or insight in tediously histrionic recitations of your opinion.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is all basically a form factor lawsuit, with Apple making a big arrow pointing to their chief competitor, the one they think can beat them in the marketplace.

It's like Apple suing over all-in-one PCs with handles on top, or laptops with a foldup screen.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'd have some sympathy for Apple if their design was distinctive in itself, but its only real claim to "distinctiveness" is its minimalist lack of any distinctive features. If we allow a lack of design features and utter minimalism to be considered trade dress then we are in for all sorts of trouble because any generic shape or design becomes infringing and this precedent will ripple through everything.

Thus I think the whole argument about "Samsung could have made theirs more distinctive" is missing the point. Apple can easily make their tablets more distinctive too, and thus gain the protection of trademarks or trade dress.

</comment><comment><USER28> Please, please, can an artist mock up a "Presenting the new Samsung Galaxy X" graphic post haste? Just the mental picture of the proposed redesign was snort-out-loud funny. Sharp corners, front surfaces with substantial adornment, and an off-center, cluttered appearance with wide edges, hoo boy.

</comment><comment><USER29> Next week: tvs that are square, have sharp corners, and the latest trend: really thick bezels!

</comment><comment><USER30> "Cluttered appearance:" priceless.

</comment><comment><USER31> Anyone else think the title is misleading? It's a really loose definition of "suggestions", kind'o like "suggesting" someone go jump off a bridge... So, in the spirit of "suggestion", Samsung could have just gotten rid of the touch screen thing all together and added a fold out keyboard and cd-rom just to be sure not to infringe on Apple's patent. How about circular or triangular screens?

</comment><comment><USER32> I'd also like to just drop this off here: [http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital- picture-f...](http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture- frame-stores-pics-movies-music/)

Exactly who is aping who? Make the bezel thinner and take off the logo and it's a completely different design, your honor!

</comment><comment><USER33> What would be something if the court on reading Apples ridiculous suggestions took a second look at the very idea of having such broad design patents in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER34> Why don't they patent the rectangle, the color black and emptiness itself.

</comment><comment><USER35> The fact is Samsung is obviously mirroring the industrial design success of Apple to cause market confusion. To root for a company like this to succeed is disgusting.

<comment><USER36> And the Prada phone. And Jil Sander's clothing. And those stoves with entirely flat surfaces rather than pop out heating elements. And anything made by Dieter Rams for Braun.

Perhaps Samsung is following modern design techniques, many of which pre-date Apple, despite being popularized in the computing world by Apple.

<comment><USER37> If you put money and effort to your R&D, you will try to protect yourself as well.

<comment><USER38> If you spend millions of dollars on R&D to discover that LCDs are rectangular and that rounded corners hurt less, I don't think you deserve protection.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hacker says he'll livestream deletion of Zuckerberg's Facebook page - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/28/zuckerberg-facebook-page-hacker-livestream/?guccounter=1 <comment><USER2> Impossible. FB doesn't have that feature (deleting an account). LOL.

</comment><comment><USER3> * Yawn *

Either he is going to do it on the sandbox and claim a bounty... or he will do it live, get no bounty and FB will simply find out from their logs what happened and then restore / fix the issue.

</comment><comment><USER4> Facebook will hard lock the page to prevent it from deletion

</comment><comment><USER5> hacker since changed his mind because the story went viral.

</comment><comment><USER6> The things people choose to do with their time and ability.</comment>


Show HN: PandaStream redesign - <AUTHOR> http://www.pandastream.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

I'm looking for comments / critiques regarding the design and copy in general.

<comment><USER2> It's beautiful. Who's your designer?</comment></comment>


Nested models/collections and storage with Backbone.js and Backbone.LocalStorage - <AUTHOR> http://karlwestin.posterous.com/nested-modelscollections-and-storage-with-bac

<comment><USER2> Let's say I wanted to continuously (every few seconds) check the server and update the data in local storage if necessary. In the past I've used changesets to do something like this. What are your thoughts on continuous updates from the backend?</comment>


Why NASA Switched from Unity to Blend4Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/apis-and-tools/why-nasa-switched-from-unity-to-blend4web-r4150 <comment><USER2> It's very simple: Unity was never designed with a target platform as radical as HTML5/JS/WebGL in mind. It's stuck with an older version of the Mono runtime for its scripting language, and they've pulled off some crazy tricks to get it to work on WebGL: Mono IL code is cross-compiled to C++, which then gets cross-compiled again to JS/WebGL using Emscripten. That it works at all is nothing short of a miracle. However, compatibility and performance will be really hard to get up to a decent standard, especially when compared to engines that were built from the ground up for WebGL, such as Blend4Web.

Long story short: if WebGL is your primary target platform, Unity is not exactly the first place you should look.

<comment><USER3> I doubt WebGL will be a serious competitor to any platform 3D engine for at least another decade, probably two.

<comment><USER4> I exported my home from SweetHome3D into Blender, then into HTML5 using blend4web and it looks surprisingly good both on my fresh $100 smartphone and on my $600 notebook. I just added another source of light to make shadows softer. I reading book about Blender because I want to add walkability to home, but I have no idea how. :-)

<comment><USER5> Sounds like you really love your home :-)

<comment><USER4> I hoped that I will start building of my home in 2014, but revolution and war with Russia delayed it. I bought plan of "Starboard Solar home" built in Boulder, Colorado 30 years ago. It uses Trombe wall to heat and/or cool home. I will also use G.R.E.B. technology to build "Passivhaus". Unfortunately, I spent all my savings at revolution, so now I am waiting until I will have at least $15K in savings to build enclosure, so I am spending my time to make building plan detailed and SweetHome3D is perfect tool for that, except that it is hard to share 3D model with others. Export to HTML5 solved my problem: I can just display home levels on my cheap 5,5" smartphone or share it using Google Drive.

IMHO, export of 3D models to HTML5 is superb technology and will be used everywhere. For example, clothes shop can use it to display clothes on model of customer, in dynamic (walking, dancing, running, etc.). Car shop can use it to provide virtual test drive. Constructions shop can use it to let customer practice with tools and materials. Anybody willing to start SaaS startup in that area? I am working for outsource firm, so I cannot start a software startup, because I will be fired immediately and I have not enough savings, but I can be hired. I have more than 25 years of experience in programming and more than 30 of successfully finished projects (and 2 failed), I participated in few startups (e.g. Bazarvoice), I saw my code spread, e.g. in BashFAQ, etc.

<comment><USER5> Just saw this comment now. Interesting to hear your story. Do you have a link for your home HTML5 model?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article puts too much blame on Unity and not enough blame on browser vendors.

This is hinted at in the article:

> Browsers are the programs which eat all of a computer's free memory, and the > half-finished Unity WebGL build often causes crashes and closes browser tabs > (especially in Chrome).

The main problem is that Chrome has deprecated NPAPI before it is capable of running content like Unity well.

If you look at Unity's forums, you can see lots of posts talking about Chrome- specific issues, for example

[http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/webgl-issue-on- chrome.33687...](http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/webgl-issue-on- chrome.336871/)

[http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/bugs-in-chrome- stuttering-a...](http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/bugs-in-chrome-stuttering- and-javascript-error-on-reloading-page.337880/)

As those threads say, many Unity games run well in other browsers, but since Chrome is dominant in the market (over 50%), poor Chrome performance makes Unity look bad. But this isn't Unity's fault.

Chrome decided to deprecate NPAPI now, before it has a good-enough solution for running large asm.js codebases. For example, on the Massive asm.js benchmark, Chrome is well behind both Firefox and Edge,

[http://www.winbuzzer.com/2015/07/28/asm-js-only- benchmarking...](http://www.winbuzzer.com/2015/07/28/asm-js-only-benchmarking- asm-js-javascript-performance-of-microsoft-edge-vs-google-chrome-44-vs- firefox-39-xcxwbb/)

<comment><USER7> I want to be clear that I fully intend to spend my weekend with my family, and not arguing this with you. So, I'll avoid rehashing any of our past discussions regarding technical concerns with asm.js. However, as the person responsible for Chrome's NPAPI deprecation, I just want to set the record straight regarding Unity.

Unity previously had a high quality NaCl port (long before asm.js ever existed) and I fully expected that they would continue to support it. Plus, long prior to NPAPI deprecation the Unity NPAPI plugin was on our security blocklist due to a rash of vulnerabilities. So, I don't know why Unity chose to drop support for NaCl, but it occurred well after they became aware of our plans to remove NPAPI. And if you want a public record, you'll notice that Unity 4.3 was released (without NaCl support) months after our NPAPI announcement:

[http://answers.unity3d.com/questions/574054/can-i-use- native...](http://answers.unity3d.com/questions/574054/can-i-use-native- client-nacl-in-unity-43.html)

<comment><USER8> > However, as the person responsible for Chrome's NPAPI deprecation, I just > want to set the record straight regarding Unity.

Why? You have regressed a feature that your users want. I realize that plugins aren't sexy, but Unity is something that both developers and users want. Entire development studios are based around creating online games in Unity that have active user bases who enjoy those games.

For better or for worse you have removed the ability for people to enjoy using a part of the web. But hey, an idealized vision of software perfection won out over what users wanted, so you got that going for you.

I'm a bit bitter that those in charge of browsers have en-masse decided that being pragmatic is worthless in comparison to creating idealized castles in the sky. This just as much applies to Mozilla as it does Chrome. Mozilla's response to why they won't implement Pepper is just as "pie in the sky, who cares what users want" as Chrome removing NPAPI is.

Plugins are something that users want. Ignoring how Adobe has managed to completely drive Flash's overall quality and performance into the ground, plugins are useful. They may not be useful to Developers who are doing Serious Developer Stuff at Serious Companies, but for a lot of users, my mother, my grandmother, my nieces and nephews, they are very useful.

On the other side, browser developers have content developers as customers. Those content developers prefer alternative toolchains. Flash and Unity have far better tool chains than WebGL does. Debugging problems is far easier when you don't have to go through multiple translation layers. And less layers in the stack means less places for something to go wrong. If you are writing against Flash then Flash may have a problem. If you are writing against 3 different browser's implementation of WebGL and/or ASM.js you now have 3 different sets of bugs and implementation quirks. (Not that Flash works the same across all browsers, but at least it is from one vendor!)

But all of that is thrown away in the name of "web standards".

Users care about what works. As developers we have a responsibility to make users happy, our own sense of happiness is sort of not the primary concern.

<comment><USER9> > This just as much applies to Mozilla as it does Chrome. Mozilla's response > to why they won't implement Pepper is just as "pie in the sky, who cares > what users want" as Chrome removing NPAPI is.

This seems like an unfair comparison. "Remove existing functionality that we no longer want to support" and "support a large technology with a single implementation and no specification" are not even in the same ballpark.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just a quick note: NASA is not a unified entity marching in lockstep. This was one org-unit's decision made for their own work. I work with a lab at NASA GRC that uses Unity engine pretty extensively for scientific visualization.

</comment><comment><USER11> We have a product which used to run on Unity Webplayer. After the Chrome NPAPI deprecation we lost about 50% of our users. WebGL wasn't done and still isn't really working. Our experience is the same as described in the article. Memory usage and multi million lines of compressed JavaScript will cause most of our users computers to freeze or lag out. Any user with less than 4 GB and on Chrome will have a pretty bad experience. FireFox is far ahead here and runs much better.

Edit: Direct to one of our games using WebGL and websockets. [http://www.kogama.com/games/play/68818/?webgl=1&da=0](http://www.kogama.com/games/play/68818/?webgl=1&da=0)

<comment><USER12> That's pretty cool. So that's not the Unity webplayer, so what is it? Good draw distance. Crazy stuff in there!

Edit.. The loading experience was a bit clunky for me btw. I'm assuming it's not the Unity plugin you're using here, but I think Unity would have done better with loading!

<comment><USER11> Didn't formulate myself very well. It's the Unity WebGL export using WebSockets for the network component.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Good. Anything that goes away from Unity is good. I dislike Unity because they refuse to make their web player for Linux. So several Newgrounds games don't work for Linux users due to Unity.

The Blend4Web Mars Rover demo here works perfectly for me in Linux btw, and guess what, the linked old Unity version says "unsupported platform", so, thank you NASA for thinking about more users :).

<comment><USER14> Unity's goal is to improve their WebGL builds, such that the experience is basically what you got with the WebPlayer, with the exception that no PlugIn is needed. This means, you are going to get the Unity WebPlayer experience on Linux thanks to WebGL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Blend4Web homepage with nice demos: [https://github.com/TriumphLLC/Blend4Web](https://github.com/TriumphLLC/Blend4Web)

</comment><comment><USER16> What about Unreal 4? I read that they support HTML5 pretty decently by using Emscripten. I really do not know what is their current status on that subject.

<comment><USER17> It's a push to call the Unreal 4 support decent. Unity at least have it as part of their product feature set. Unreal seem to do it only as a demonstration piece.

The problem with taking a engine like Unity or Unreal and compiling to javascript is that 1) they end up with very large blobs of javascript (Unity is around 5MB of JS for the webplayer alone) 2) It is impossible to optimize, debug or inspect any of that code in the target setting. Neither of these engines have ever demonstrated code running on mobile browsers for good reasons, they can't.

Meanwhile, engines designed specifically for the web, for example, PlayCanvas [[https://playcanvas.com](https://playcanvas.com)] let you create content that works on every device, down to the likes of the iPhone 4S and comes in much smaller download sizes. e.g.

[http://tanx.playcanvas.com](http://tanx.playcanvas.com) (~1MB)

[http://mmx.playcanvas.com](http://mmx.playcanvas.com) (~3MB)

[http://swooop.playcanvas.com](http://swooop.playcanvas.com) (~10MB)

All of which work on mobile browsers. The future of Web 3D is not compilation of desktop game engines. It's engine's designed to be web (and mobile) first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> To be fair, the previous Unity version he links to is obviously a beta design. It actually says "beta" at the top. For me, the Unity version loads and runs smoothly.

The Blend4Web version seems more polished because it _is_ more polished. They've toned down the lighting, completely changed the interface, and reduced the map area.. you're confined to quite a small space. The Unity version you can drive further, only the ground texture needed work. Zoom out though and you'll see why the ground texture is more blurry than the Blend4Web version.

I'm sure Blend4Web is great, but what isn't great is that Blender is required!

<comment><USER18> But isn't Unity required when using the Unity plugin? Blender is at least open source!

<comment><USER12> Yeh true. I was responding more to his criticisms of that version based on the quality of the product...

Bezuhoff says: "Honestly, it looks like an unfinished game. The scene loads slowly (especially the terrain), functionality is primitive – you can only drive, the overall picture is of horrible quality."

I think that's a bit unfair considering it only looks like an abandoned game because it is an abandoned game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder how big the deliverable is compared with Unity, UE4 or other similar solutions? I am a long-time Blender user, but I have never used this in any of its previous versions. It seems it supports a lot of the things from Blender - materials, lights, and others. I will have to see how much can be directly used in the transition. I am not very clear on GPL. If I use it for my company, but I choose to release the source, do I still have to pay for a commercial license or is the open source license adequate? I know the commercial license comes with a lot of support material.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is nasa doing this stuff in-house? I've never thought of nasa as experts on software beyond control systems. Have they brought in some gaming people to help with media relations?

</comment><comment><USER21> Was it that necessary to keep it in the browser? Why not just give it to the user as a normal Unity build download instead of redoing everything to keep it on the browser?

</comment><comment><USER22> Hmm, about networking, could not WebSockets be used for client-server comms?

<comment><USER11> WebSockets work for Unity WebGL. Not sure if there is an official implementation, but we use it in a multi-player game. We specifically run Photon Game Server with WebGL and WebSockets.</comment></comment>


Passing the torch of NumPy and moving on to Blaze - <AUTHOR> http://technicaldiscovery.blogspot.ca/2012/12/passing-torch-of-numpy-and-moving-on-to.html

<comment><USER2> Congrats to Travis and the rest of the Continuum analytics team on the Darpa XDATA funding!

As someone working to build tools in the same space as Continuum (and perhaps as a competitor), having your competitors (Continuum) be intelligent, nice, interesting folks who really understand the problem domain is pretty darn great.

Point being: the numerical computing / data analysis landscape is going to be seing a lot of great tools emerge and/or mature over the next year, and I have no doubt that 30-50% of them will be coming from Continuum Analytics. [edit: to the substantial enrichment of high level tools for extending numerical within python / and likely generally!]

I can only hope that I execute my tool building work at WellPosed well enough that I can call them a competitor for years to come!

</comment><comment><USER3> As someone who has dabbled in using Python for numerical computing in several small projects, I wonder: what would be the motivation for further investment in Python as a numerical platform, considering all Python's problems with concurrency.

Real threads will never come to Python. MPI is a real pain unless you are running very large computations. This will only become more true as time progresses. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER4> Is concurrency really that important for numeric work? Surely parallelism is what you care about.

Many numpy primitives are already parallel since it basically just hands off to your BLAS library. Beyond that there is numexpr which is really good at doing parallel evaluation of large array expressions. If your problem isn't solved by any of these, there are other powerful solutions like IPython, Parallel Python and even multiprocessing from the standard library

If you need even more performance, cython has some support for semi-automated parallelization, and if all else fails drop down to C and use OpenMP or whatever else you like.

So while concurrency is a problem in python, numeric parallelism is an area where many good solutions exist.

<comment><USER5> Why should I have to revert to a C library in order to do anything in Python? What's the point of using Python if every time I want to do something in parallel I'm going to have to write a C library?

Python people have their heads in the sand! If we have a hundred core processors, running Python on a single core is not going to be a tractable solution to any problem. Your BLAS may be parallel, but any time you go back into the Python driver code suddenly it's a massive bottleneck.

Distributed Python is a messy hack that wastes all the amazingly tuned shared memory support in the processor. Writing C extensions goes against the whole point of using Python.

"if all else fails" The problem with Python is that the moment you want to do something in parallel, which in the next decade will be everyone, "all else fails" is your starting point!

<comment><USER6> In my view, this is the strongest evidence that Matlab, SciPy, R, etc. haven't found the right abstraction level for numerical computing. The high-level language is supposed to be the abstraction, yet in these systems you continually need to break through that abstraction and code in C for performance and scale. That's not a very good abstraction. This problem is precisely what Travis Oliphant and his team are tackling with Numba and Blaze, but it remains to be seen if they can produce a better abstraction.

If you're willing to try another language altogether, Julia [<http://julialang.org>] is a general purpose language with enough performance and expressiveness to be an effective abstraction layer for numerical programming – you never have to dip into C for speed, scale or control. In developing the language, we haven't allowed ourselves to resort to C – instead, we've worked at making Julia itself fast enough to implement things like I/O, Dicts, Strings, BitArrays (packed 8 bits-per-byte boolean arrays), etc. – all in pure Julia code while getting C-like performance.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. I have pretty much stopped engaging with the standard dialog repeated ad-infinitum that goes along the lines of "code the bottleneck in C", "GIL is a non-issue, just use parallel processes".

For some workloads, the latter is actually a good advice, but for my typical use case that does not help. These would be tight'ish loop wrapped around a fork-join. Shared memory handling can be quite clunky in numpy, and if you want to do message passing, the overheads bleed off any advantage that parallalelism ought to have given you. I dont mind the message passing abstraction, just that the overhead for doing it in python/numpy is too much. About the former, one major motivation to use numpy et. al. was to not use C with its explicit indexing over arrays. Its both verbose and error prone.

It is never pleasant to drop into a different language, though it is much much better than how bad it could be, thanks to Swig, Cython, Weave. Contrary to common wisdom I prefer Weave because of its much succincter syntax. In Cython I am back to writing C again but with a different syntax. This is not a criticism of Cython, its an excellent tool and it is much much more pleasant to parallelize from Cython than from Numpy/Python.

Julia looks pretty good. I have one suggestion: The best way to get speed out of Julia is not to write vectorized expressions but to writeout explicit loops. Thats a little unfortunate because though vectorization constructs evolved out of the necessity to avoid loops (which was slow in the older languages), it did have an excellent byproduct of succinct code. Ideally I would like to retain that.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bill Gates criticises Elizabeth Warren's plan for tax on super-rich - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50333597 <comment><USER2> It's cause the plan is poorly thought out. I kind of agree with him, the same way her plan to implement Medicare for all wouldn't work. It's not that either is a bad idea but the plan for implementation is wanting</comment>


Insecure/Hacked server: lessons learned - <AUTHOR>

I've recently had an educational (and sleepless) night as a result of having a server hacked so I thought I'd just give a gentle reminder for everyone to secure their machines.
Some details:

  Cost: $53 (bandwidth)
  Machine: Win Server 2003 hosted with Rackspace
  Data Loss: none
  Duration of comporomise: ~3 Days
  Data in: 300GB
  Data out: 330GB
  Data out rate: 2-4% of 2gbit connection used 24/7
  Down time: ~30 hours
 Does anyone have any idea what all this data in/out could have been?
most wtf moment: installing wireshark and watching my password fly past in cleartext
This was a dev box I kept for testing. In no particular order here's a list of stupid mistakes I made:

  1. Machine unpached
  2. Apache outdated
  3. MySQL no root pw
  4. httpd and mysql processes running as root(!!! ffs what was I thinking)
 I knew these and other things needed to be eventually set up, but you know how it is... there're always a million other things to do :|
My guess is that the box was comporomised via apache. Running MSSecurity essentials yeilded no less that ~50 trojans. Not sure why so many. Maybe was compromised by multiple attackers?
I was running a few sites for friends/acquantances from this machine as a favor, so my next thought was: how do I not inconvenience these people with down time?
Purely by luck I had made a full backup up of /web just 2 days prior so a restore was going to be painless. If not for this, recovering anything from the machine would have been a very painful process since any traffic from Rackspace-->My Home Machine would need to be tightly managed.
So the test box was toast and the image needed to be destroyed (a true case of: 'aghhh burn it with fire!')
This was finally the motivation I needed to secure a machine, especially since I'm just weeks away from lauching my first web app.
These tips mostly apply for *nix/win

  1. Remove any unneeded accounts. Windows has a permissive 'Users' group. My suggestion is to remove any accounts from here
  2. Create a new user group and a separate Apache and MySQL user.
    -- These two users should have strong and distinct passwords
    -- for some strange reason, in windows creating new users default to the 'Users' group. be careful to make sure your new accounts go where you intend
    -- Remove all permissions from above users
    -- Give Apache user read access to /apache, write to /tmp and thats it.
    -- Same deal with MySQL read to /bin, write to /data
  3. Need FTP? Only open the ports and start the service when needed.
  4. Dont run any unnecessary services. Given I'm curious (and a sucker for punishment) I wanted to run my own mail server. Dont. All mail now goes through
    a Google apps account. This means 2 fewer ports open on the machine and MUCH better deliverability. I was never able to configure my server to deliver mail to hotmail without going to junk.
  5. Enable auto update for win
  6. Stay on top of security updates for Apache. Plan out an upgrade schedule
  7. Revoke any SSL certs which were on the machine and regenerate certs
  8. Change all you passwords for all services (registrar, hosting, email etc)
 For windows: I was surprised how easy it is to grant more permissions for a user than intended. Double check the permissions from the 'Effective Permissions Tab' in the folder security tab. To double check and for your own peace of mind: log into the machine as Apache/MySQL and see what you can access/do.
Wow this turned out longer than intended. Feel free to add any other hints/tips.
Resources: http://robsnotebook.com/xampp-security-hardening gives a nice general purpose checklist for securing xampp (applies to any apache/mysql install) <comment><USER2> Nice write-up. Out of interest, why were you running a Windows server?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have some screencap/pdf processing applications that are win only so I decided to go with windows. I have thought about getting separate/non public boxes for the win only apps that I need but funds are tight so this may need to wait for another day.

<comment><USER2> Ah fair enough, makes sense :-)</comment></comment></comment>