Moto Razr 2019: A foldable smartphone with no display crease - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/11/moto-razr-2019-is-official-a-foldable-smartphone-with-no-display-crease/ <comment><USER2> Finding the actual patent it refers to was surprisingly hard so I spare you the trouble: [1][2]

Note that an industrial design is also registered[3] but it doesn't look as useful for understanding how it works.

[1] [https://patents.google.com/patent/US10054990B1/en?oq=1005499...](https://patents.google.com/patent/US10054990B1/en?oq=10054990)

[2] [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=10054990.PN.&OS=PN/10054990&RS=PN/10054990)

[3] [https://www3.wipo.int/designdb/en/showData.jsp?qi=8-m9YGJqGI...](https://www3.wipo.int/designdb/en/showData.jsp?qi=8-m9YGJqGIoRySr7N2nK8KBO4Q2TbUrvZCn5hYDaWfEyI=&SOURCE=EMID&LANG=en&XML=86/05/005908605-0002.xml.gz&KEY=005908605-0002&NO=1&TOT=3416)

<comment><USER3> This is the image from that patent that shows how it works [https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b9/86/bc/ce509ae...](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b9/86/bc/ce509ae68f275f/US10054990-20180821-D00009.png)

<comment><USER4> Ironic that this is the first image the article shows when describing the folding yet the comment thread was started to save people time from looking around.

<comment><USER5> Kinda shows how many people don't click on the article itself

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Most interesting part is the patent picture that shows how they avoid a crease in the screen: [https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp- content/uploads/2019/11/US000...](https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp- content/uploads/2019/11/US00000010054990B120180821_-_Google_Chrome.png)

<comment><USER7> I wonder how this is even patentable.

<comment><USER8> The excellent engineers at Samsung failed to crack this problem. A little while ago people were saying Motorola must just be showing advertising mock- ups, because how could they solve the hinge problem that a Real(tm) cell phone company could not, with all that engineering talent and R&D funding.

Maybe moving the hinges to the side and using sliding supporting plates is more complicated and less obvious than it looks? Problems do tend to look a lot simpler once someone else has solved them for you.

<comment><USER9> > Problems do tend to look a lot simpler _once someone else has solved them > for you_

This is so true. I wonder if there's a law named for this phenomenon?

Off topic, but I find many managers fall into this trap. I.e. they don't recognize the difference between when someone exceptionally bright solving a problem very quickly and just moves on vs. a mediocre thinker who takes an inordinate amount of time to solve a problem, but then advertises their accomplishment like a metal of valor (and managers typically fall for it).

<comment><USER10> > This is so true. I wonder if there's a law named for this phenomenon?

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

> An egg of Columbus or Columbus' egg refers to a brilliant idea or discovery > that seems simple or easy after the fact. The expression refers to an > apocryphal story, dating from at least the 15th century, in which it is said > that Christopher Columbus, having been told that discovering the Americas > was inevitable and no great accomplishment, challenges his critics to make > an egg stand on its tip. After his challengers give up, Columbus does it > himself by tapping the egg on the table to flatten its tip.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Flip phones were an important design constraint when phones featured physical hardware buttons. It was easier to flip open a phone to unlock it then press the weird key combos that some phones used.

With touch screens this is no longer a problem, and the design constraint for a flip phone is less relevant. If anything it now increases the time to unlock a phone if you have to flip it open first then authenticate with thumbprint or face scanner.

<comment><USER12> Flip phones are also smaller when folded, so they are more pocketable. That alone is more important for me than most considerations.

<comment><USER13> Smaller in one dimension. Thicker in the other.

<comment><USER14> Preferred that way, honestly. My galaxy s8 is too thin to hold easily for me. Especially with the bezel-less curved-edge screen.

<comment><USER15> I miss being able to reach the upper half of my phone's screen with one hand. We've normalized it a lot now, but compared to older smartphone generations it is downright awkward to hold a phone today.

But I don't really miss flip phones per se. Just smaller smartphones. The galaxy s4 was around the upper limit of how big I'd like my phone to be.

<comment><USER16> The Galaxy S4 was pretty much the perfect phone for me. Just the right size for my small hands, replaceable battery, rootable OS, and plenty of power and storage expandability for the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The nostalgia factor of these for people who owned one years ago, and are now earning enough to waste money on one will be high.

Not going to lie, I want one, even though I appreciate my Pixel 3 camera nearly every day, and this has a rubbish camera.

It is good to finally see some innovation occurring in the Android hardware space however, although it remains to be seen how the software will cope.

<comment><USER18> You can keep this phone in your pocket without worrying that your car keys with scratch the face. There are many advantages to a flip phone.

<comment><USER16> Not to mention the lack of glass covering the screen means a screen protector in general is likely unnecessary. No hassle of dealing with stupid air bubbles or the inevitable edge chipping of the protector (which is somehow always way weaker than the screen itself anyhow)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Nobody talking about the price? $1,500 is more than any base iPhone- that's a really heavy price tag for a brand that has been dormant for so long.

<comment><USER20> Taking into consideration issues which iPhones and nostalgia this is perfect time for an iconic brand to enter the market

<comment><USER21> > Nostalgia

It's true, I was so excited as I scrolled down the page and convinced myself that I'd get one just because I loved my RAZR from 2005. But then I got to the $1500 price tag.

Now, I bought a $1350 phone a couple months ago so it's not that I wouldn't pay $1500 for a phone. The problem is everything that this phone is not (and that my other phone is). The folding screen is cool, and this is the perfect application for it. But, I think they're going to have trouble getting $1500 for someone's main phone if it only has one camera lens.

There will no doubt be some diehards, and if they can get the price of this down to typical Android flagship pricing then they might see some traction. But at $1500, it's going to be a very limited market (and maybe that's their goal).

<comment><USER22> > But, I think they're going to have trouble getting $1500 for someone's main > phone if it only has one camera lens.

Has it really come to this?

I'd gladly buy a phone with a single mediocre camera as a daily driver if all the other specs are flagship-class (which sadly the Razr's are not) and if it means saving a few hundred bucks off the hardware and R&D of the latest and greatest camera tech.

Am I in the minority now?

<comment><USER23> I would never pay that much money for a phone without a very good camera. A cheaper phone with mediocre camera, why not, but a $1500 phone must have a _perfect_ camera.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> d--b I am waiting to see just how many times you can actually fold / unfold before the screen breaks.

<comment><USER24> Maybe it will be a new feature, openable 10,000 times! Like battery life on smartphones, which was never an issue for dumb phones.

<comment><USER25> It wasn't an issue on dumb phones because dumb phones weren't interesting enough or good enough to use for six hours a day.

<comment><USER26> Apparently my Symbian phones didn't any issue lasting a couple of days.

C++, Java, Python, Camera, video, a multitasking OS, Internet access, lasting two/three days on single charge.

Yet my first Android device, running Froyo, could hardly last a full day, in spite of forked Java that was supposed to perform better than what Nokia and Sony were delivering.

<comment><USER27> I always had to carry spare batteries for my Symbian devices, no way did they last a couple of days under regular use. Same with my Sony Ericsson J2ME phones. Running stuff like IRC, streaming radio, bluetooth headphones, really sucked down the battery.

<comment><USER26> My very last one, Nokia 6120 classic did last a couple of days.

> The battery life of Nokia 6120 is impressive. To give you an example, a > daily average of 5 minutes of calls and 20 SMS requires charging every four > to five days. More demanding jobs, including active internet browsing in > UMTS, will surely reduce durability to 2-3 days, but even so the phone does > great. Charging takes about 2.5 hours.

[https://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_6120_classic- review-161.php](https://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_6120_classic-review-161.php)

Try to do this with most mid range Android devices.

<comment><USER27> > _a daily average of 5 minutes of calls and 20 SMS requires charging every > four to five days_

I literally laughed out loud at that.

Modern smartphones have fantastic battery life if you switch off data and use them like dumbphones. When I travel sometimes I leave my home SIM with data off in an old iPhone and it easily lasts a week.

<comment><USER26> Most people still follow such patterns, not everyone is glued on their phone 24x7.

I am yet to own an Android device that lasts more than 3 days.

<comment><USER27> Do you literally switch off data, or just not use it? All those background connections for push notifications, etc take a huge toll.

My iPhone 11 Pro Max lasts 2 days with decently heavy use if I'm not going totally crazy on it, I haven't used Android in ages though.

<comment><USER26> Data is only switched on when required, we are far away from flatrates over here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I must say that Motorola really has some great products to offer. I was recently looking for a cheap replacement for my old Android phone and found the Moto G7 Power, which is awesome in my eyes. No bullshit stock android, a nice large screen and it runs on a single charge more than 6 days in my case [1]. It's crazy.

The camera is bad though, but that's one of the reasons why smart phones get more expensive each year. I won't buy into this ultra-resolution, low-light, AI photo craze.

IMO they should focus on that low-price segment and they will own the market. I don't see any value in foldable screen gimmicks.

[1] [https://imgur.com/a/jWCEfpO](https://imgur.com/a/jWCEfpO)

<comment><USER29> The problem with Motorola is the complete lack of software support. I have a G5+ and Motorola announced in March that it will not receive security updates anymore. That's just two years after the phone's release. It seems that Motorola doesn't care about software at all. The security patch level of my G5+ has been out of date by several months for practically all of the phone's life.

<comment><USER30> Most Android OEMs stop updating their phones after 2 years, no? That's not a problem exclusive to Motorola.

<comment><USER29> All Android One phones get security updates for at least three years. Samsung decreases the frequency of security updates after two years, but still provides some. Google updates its phones for quite a bit longer. Of all the phones I've had, Motorola has been the worst by far with respect to updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I like the form factor, but didn't need it to be a continuous screen. A clam shell with a distinct screen in each half would be more durable and would surely bring the price down too.

<comment><USER32> It did to get media attention.

Also your idea sounds pretty bad. No wide screen videos, and why not just put a keyboard in the bottom half to reduce costs further?

<comment><USER33> i think the idea is to make the os extend across screens much as you do on a desktop 2 screen setup not have individual screens. you could do it by making the 2 screens have no bezel on the side they meet and then making a clever hinge that brings those screens within 1mm of touching when unfolded

<comment><USER34> People complain about a notch on an almost invisible place on their screens, having any kind of line running between two screens is very likely a no-no for designers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Curious about the screen durability. In a testing of the Samsung fold phone [1], a fingernail was enough to leave a horrible scratch on these bendable screen surfaces...

[1] [https://youtu.be/tZBk_Hb-X0w?t=245](https://youtu.be/tZBk_Hb-X0w?t=245)

<comment><USER36> Interesting video, thanks for sharing.

Along the lines of your question, is anyone reading a display engineer who can shed some light on why we are seeing foldables now? What have been recent engineering developments that make these things feasible now, and should we expect the number of these foldable screens to be growing exponentially for sometime?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> What I like most about this is the long screen. Reading articles on it looks really nice. Fold it and it fits any pocket.

I can understand the high price, but I imagine most people will wait for a cheaper version.

<comment><USER38> I'm old and my vision is not what it used to be. Most sites optimize for young people's vsion in portrait, making them dificult to me, so I usually browse in landscape. Super long and narrow phones for me are a big no-no, I don't want to read articles 2 lines at a time.

<comment><USER37> Then I guess a foldable like Samsung's is perfect for you. Smartphone pocket size, tablet screen size.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> It's a shame that competition based on displays (and large size) is all the rage, but the battery tech is in the stone age by comparison. Like, who wants a battery that stays charged under average load more than a day, or a battery that doesn't diminish in capacity after 8 months?

<comment><USER40> > the battery tech is in the stone age by comparison

Is this really the case? Legit question. I'm not very familiar with the state of battery tech, but I remember the release of that massive Energizer phone and I don't think I'd be comfortable trading that much size for a better battery.

<comment><USER4> The Energizer phone never released, it was cancelled.

My first smartphone was a Note 2. I put a 10 amp hour zero lemon battery on that, was great. I did the same thing with the Note 4. Nowadays everyone makes it ridiculous to swap a battery and I don't like the "wrap around style" but thankfully phones with 4-5 amp hour batteries with more efficient SoCs are available these days so it's not as bad.

I'd still love to see a large format phone with a 6-7 amp hour battery built in though. It would barely be any thicker and would mean once a week charge for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Hello, Moto!

Ah, the nostalgia! Used to own a V3X, and although really liked the device, quality wise it didn't last for more than a year (buttons needed to be pressed harder, the soft touch would peel off, etc)

</comment><comment><USER42> (For reference, the Motorola brand is now owned by Lenovo, so presumably this could be considered a Lenovo phone.)

</comment><comment><USER43> I once owned the original Razr (about 1-2 years after it was originally released). It was most definitely the worst phone I have ever owned, my first being the Nokia 3210 way back:

The keyboard was unusable, the UI was ugly and slow, bluetooth did not work properly. There were just so many issues. I remember it being released in Europe and it was one of the most expensive phones at the time; about a year or two later it was sold for peanuts.

All that being said, this phone runs android and does look quite cool. It might be a great phone at 1/6 of its price some day.

<comment><USER44> It was a big hit in the US, where Nokia was non existent. For a lot of folks this was their very first mobile phone, I'd say the equivalent of Nokia 3210/3310 in Europe. But yeah, unlike Nokia this wasn't the best device on the market.

<comment><USER45> >the US, where Nokia was non existent

That's completely false. Nokia was by for the largest cell phone brand in the US in the early 2000s.

<comment><USER46> Agree completely. Nokia 6190, 8290, 5190, 3390, 2190, etc etc were all very popular US phones between 1998 - 2003. Malls were covered in accessory stores selling interchangeable face plates to customize the look of the phone to literally anything the heart desired.

<comment><USER6> I'm experiencing the Gell-Mann effect in this comments section where HNers recollect events just 15 years ago yet say things like "Nokia was nonexistent in USA" and "people didn't really text / use flip phones much".

It makes me question any HN historian chiming in on the past when people are so wrong about such a recent era.

Man, this was the era that was so ubiquitous with flip phone usage that "free ringtones" were the biggest spamsite genre of the time and entire kiosks at the mall existed to sell you custom faceplates and vajazzling decor for your phone.

I think one thing at play is that people regularly extrapolate their microscopic local experience into broad wisdom about the world. Nobody in their social circle had a Nokia? It was dead in USA. Nobody in their social circle texted much? Nobody did. They don't like spinach? Kids would never eat salad (which I just saw in another thread). Maybe it's a bug in the human software.

<comment><USER46> See my comment below to sibling. I think the real problem here is lack of exact timeline memory. The RAZR didn't come out until 2004, not early 2000s. That said, very much agree with what you said about folks insisting on things that they are simply misremembering (or never knew in the first place and instead apply own biases).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The dimensions cited in the article (172mm x 72mm x 14mm) don't tell the whole story for a vertically foldable smartphone. That's the unfolded height. I don't see the folded height anywhere in the article, but once you use that figure to calculate the volume it won't be anywhere near "over double the volume" of the old Razr.

<comment><USER48> I don't see how the volume could decrease in the bended state.

      172 x 72 x 14 = 173376
      53 x 98 x 13.9 = 72196.6
      173376 / 72196.6 ~= 2.4

(original Razr dimensions from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Razr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Razr))

<comment><USER47> In the folded state, the phone is 14mm thick throughout, but its height is significantly less than 172mm.

In the unfolded state, only the lip at the bottom remains 14mm thick. The rest is 7mm thick.

172 x 72 x 14 is a meaningless figure because it combines maximum dimensions from two different states. The fact that the lip at the bottom doesn't unfold probably adds to the confusion.

Edit: According to updated figures from GSM Arena, the folded height is 94mm -- even shorter than the old Razr. So the actual volume (ignoring curves) is 94 x 72 x 14 = 94,752mm^3 = only 31% bigger than the old one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Woow. Ok, so this is going to get buried, but...

...while looking at the article I just spied "09JAN19" on the back of the display in the 5th image in the 3rd gallery (the teardown one).

Motorola have been working away at this for over a year.

And (probably...?) successfully kept it a secret.

And watched while Samsung's fold thing blew up.

With their own display probably already set in stone.

And it looks like they have a winner on their hands.

Hahh.

<comment><USER50> >while looking at the article I just spied "09JAN19" on the back of the display

>Motorola have been working away at this for over a year.

>And (probably...?) successfully kept it a secret.

They didn't. January 16th: [https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/1/16/18185101/m...](https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/1/16/18185101/motorola- razr-smartphone-fold-price-verizon-lenovo)

January 21th: [https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/21/18191330/motorola-razr- le...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/21/18191330/motorola-razr-lenovo- remake-foldable-smartphone)

Rumoured initial release of February 2019 and the Snapdragon 710 that is in devices for over 1.5? years already I wouldn't be surprised if similar problems as Samsung's lead to that late release now.

<comment><USER51> Their behind-the-scenes video shows them working on it for over 4 years: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74KHL9UWqr8&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74KHL9UWqr8&feature=youtu.be)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm all in on smaller phones coming back but I'm none in for the >$1k price points.

<comment><USER53> Spending more than $200 on a phone is a waste of money.

<comment><USER52> I just built a very capable gaming PC for 1/3 of the price of this phone that does the same things my $200 old iPhone does.

<comment><USER54> Was that sarcasm? Or did you spent $500 on a gaming PC that's as powerful as your $200 iPhone? I'm confused.

<comment><USER53> Of course it was. He implies that it can't possibly as good as an $1000+ one. Thing is, the returns are diminishing beyond a certain money spent. The $800+ difference to me is ridiculous if you look closely what you get for the extra money.

I optimized for battery life in my last purchase, now I charge 2x / week, brings back the old Nokia memories from the 90s :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Just give me physical buttons...

</comment><comment><USER56> Quite suprising Motorola couldn't push the navigation bar down slightly, that wastes a lot of space at the bottom. I know the article says android needs a rectangular navigation bar, but a lot of phones with rounded corners on the display just crop the navigation bar (e.g. Oneplus).

Would this have been possible with that much larger bottom curve, or are there parts of the Android UI that would be cut off? The little hint that comes up to switch to portrait/landscape mode comes to mind.

</comment><comment><USER57> I had the phone, and I love the form factor. I wish Apple could come up with something like this, as I could not move from iOS, to be honest.

<comment><USER58> They can't, I think, because Moto patented adding a budge to keep the display from creasing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Photos of the FCC specimen seem like there is distortion around the hinge. I wonder if straight lines would render straight on this display.

</comment><comment><USER60> I don't give a damn about the phone itself, but if they include the old golf game from the original RAZR...I'm in.

</comment><comment> archon-99 But, i can see the crease in those screenshots >_>

Foldable displays are probably the future, but they need to be actual value (like a significantly larger display) for them to properly take off. Waiting to see the next generation Samsung phones, should be interesting once they get the form factor right.

</comment><comment><USER61> The novelty will wear off quickly. The phone's success will depend on the software. It's thin and so going full screen makes no sense. Will it let me multitask with movie playing half and note editing in the other? How is the long thin screen going to make it better than a regular phone?

</comment><comment><USER62> Recently I wanted to replace my iPhone 6 with a smaller & lighter alternative, and found myself looking at bigger phones marketed as "small smartphones". A quick reddit search brought me results of people asking for small smartphones. For some reason, noone is working on it though.

<comment><USER63> The 2018 palm phone is interesting but probably too small for its own good.

<comment><USER62> It's not sold outside US unfortunately. And the battery is not sufficient as I heard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> If I could have two phones tied to the same cell account, then this phone would be a great daily workhorse. But I'd still want another with a good camera and good sound for the weekends. Alas, the phone is expensive enough, and I don't want two phone numbers.

<comment><USER46> Getting a carrier to do this adhoc is likely difficult, but technically it's possible now. The Apple Watch for example does this and the carrier feature it leveraged to do it existed long before Apple used it for the watch. Under the hood, it's still two different numbers, but the second one is masked by the carrier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I'm still waiting for someone to make a modern, smartphone version of the Matrix phone. Nokia re-released it last year, but it's not a smartphone.

[https://youtu.be/Lweuy1X9Tcg](https://youtu.be/Lweuy1X9Tcg)

</comment><comment> Digit-Al I'm kinda curious about the second screen. The author was wondering if it was a new Android feature or a Motorola feature. I'm wondering if it's driven by a separate processor running Android Wear.

</comment><comment><USER66> Given that my 6" phone fix ok in pocket, this is a tough call. It's half the height, but also double the thickness.

Putting on external case also means casing on both sides when folded. Hrm.

</comment><comment><USER67> I had one of these. It was really nice hardware but the OS / UI horribly complex (bit like Blackberry with multi layered menus) and battery life wasn't great.

<comment><USER68> The fifth picture shows it running android.

<comment><USER69> The new version runs Android; the original certainly didn't.

<comment><USER68> The article is about the new model, not the one from ten years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> This is a great idea, because everyone wants a screen that is 438 times as tall as it is wide.

</comment><comment><USER71> I'm not so sure I would want to associate a modern, $1500 phone with an old razr. I can sense the nostalgia marketing tactic they are playing at but honestly I remember those phones for feeling cheap and breaking easily (and often).

Also, $1500 for a flip phone (that admittedly has a cool foldable screen that), this feels like a joke to me.

</comment><comment><USER72> A 1400 dollars phone that cannot compete with an 1000 iPhone/Samsung? Delusional.

</comment><comment><USER73> if there ever was a star trek communicator this was it. I used to have a dark blue moto razr and was probably the best flip phone i ever had, it was usable in both the US and abroad and very durable

</comment><comment><USER74> Good concept but at $1500 it better blow samsung and pixel out of the way.

</comment><comment><USER75> Did anybody else remember calling these Gatorolla's?

</comment><comment><USER76> Hopefully, phone belt clips come back into fashion too

</comment><comment><USER77> That screen will be toast after a year or 2,500 folds.

<comment><USER78> I don't know why you're downvoted because it's true. It's going to go snap like a 1980s lunch box hinge.

Apple got rid of as much mechanical stuff as possible. There was a good reason for it.

<comment><USER79> Eh, my RAZR v3 is still a champ.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> How things haven't changed since 90s. The watch (Rolex) we wear is electronics and the flipphone now it's now an advanced Electronic with cool screen

</comment><comment><USER81> will gaming be difficult with that chin?

</comment><comment><USER82> Not ideal for video calls. That's a serious design oversight.

<comment><USER83> Why? It has a selfie cam just like any other phone

<comment><USER82> No it doesn't. It has one camera. You can only do video calls in the mini screen.

<comment><USER84> There's a selfie camera in the notch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Just Good Old memories

</comment><comment><USER86> I will never buy a Motorola phone.

Back in the early 2000's, my then girlfriend received a Motorola cellphone for her birthday. Her sister bought the same model a week later. The thing worked fine, but some time after the guarantee period expired, the screen flipped upside down. Very strange problem to have. Exactly a week later, the same thing happend to her sisters phone.

Since then, that brand leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

<comment><USER87> Motorola has changed hands twice since then. They are now part of Lenovo. The only thing that is the same is the brand name.

<comment><USER88> They acquired whole phone division though, not just brand. E.g. inventor specified in this patent also have patents for Motorola hinged/sliding devices back to 2006, so it seems Lenovo didn't bought their corpse only for brand, like with HMD/Nokia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Who _asked_ for this? _Why?_ Who has a problem with the current height of phones? What will this enable? Did Motorola hit some kind of pocket-height- limit for their dream of an ultra tall phone?

I'll be happy if this becomes the CmdrTaco comment for the 2020 revival of the Moto Razr, but I doubt it.

<comment><USER90> Who asked for the iPhone before it was made? Who asked Alexander Graham Bell for the first telephone?

If you always wait for someone to ask for stuff, you'll always be chasing tail lights.

<comment><USER91> Those things were useful, this is not.

<comment><USER92> I'd say that this is useful in the same way that flip phones were useful 15 years ago. They provide more space than a candybar phone when in use, and take up less space when pocketed. And the screen is protected from your keys or other items in your pocket.

If I had a magic wand, I'd use it to fold my 6S and get something half as tall and twice as thick.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: BESTIO - Quora for recommendations (collaborative favorites journal) - <AUTHOR> http://bestio.co

<comment><AUTHOR> Why rely on Google when you can rely on people. Bestio is like a your own personal Product Hunt - that doubles as a favorites journal. It merges a Twitter style layout and streaming, with voting and a sophisticated search engine.</comment>


Pasco's sheriff created a futuristic program to stop crime before it happens - <AUTHOR> https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/police-pasco-sheriff-targeted/intelligence-led-policing/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is almost lifted out of a bad movie and it's horrifying. Commit one crime as a teenager, maybe hang out with the wrong friends. Suddenly some software program deems you liable to commit future crimes and your entire family becomes a target for endless harassment by sheriff's deputies. You can either accept it or leave the county, stark choice.</comment>


How to Use Your Computer All Day Without Hurting Your Eyes - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/305486c107b4

<comment><USER2> Taking a short break every 20~30 minutes is a good idea for other reasons, too. It gives you a chance to get up and walk around for a minute, which gets your blood moving and counteracts some of the ill effects of sitting in a chair all day. And it gives you a chance to re-examine whatever task you were working on; it's surprising how often you'll realize you were making the job overly complicated, or doing something that didn't really need to be done.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, I'm a huge fan of the Pomodoro technique, which forces me to do this. Works wonders.</comment></comment>


Why did I spend 1.5 months creating a Gameboy emulator? (2017) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rekawek.eu/2017/02/09/coffee-gb/ <comment><USER2> Game Boy emulators are always great for educational or experimental projects, because the Game Boy platform is surprisingly simple, which leads to a very quick payoff, and yet very "real" in that the Game Boy was a great commercial success with thousands of software titles available, so you have plenty of software available to try in your project and actually make use of that payoff.

One example to illustrate how simple the Game Boy is: There is no operating system at all, only a 256 byte boot ROM whose sole purpose is to display the Nintendo logo from the cartridge and halt if it does not checksum correctly (for both cartridge integrity and legal reasons).

This entertaining 33c3 talk manages to describe the Game Boy hardware practically in its entirety (and with some previously unknown details, actually): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyzD8pNlpwI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyzD8pNlpwI)

<comment><USER3> The Game Boy is only simple in the early stages of emulator development.

You find quickly that it is full of excruciatingly complex edge cases that aren't documented, and aren't well understood by anyone.

We're still making significant progress to this day on it.

And even in the early stages, the Z80-like Sharp LR35902 is quite a hassle. If you want an educational project, consider an NES emulator instead. Still has lots of edge cases, but the documentation and reverse engineering work is far ahead of the Game Boy.

Some reading if you like:

[https://mgba.io/2017/05/29/holy-grail-bugs/#pinball- fantasie...](https://mgba.io/2017/05/29/holy-grail-bugs/#pinball-fantasies)

[https://mgba.io/2018/03/09/holy-grail-bugs-revisited/#the- ph...](https://mgba.io/2018/03/09/holy-grail-bugs-revisited/#the-phantom-of- pinball-fantasies)

<comment><USER2> Sorry, I should have clarified: The Game Boy is very simple in concept and on a sufficiently high level. But this is exactly what allows you to get payoff quickly, and why I like it for educational and experimental projects. Especially earlier games like Tetris don't significantly rely on many edge cases and implementation details, so even a quick and dirty implementation runs them reasonably well.

Once you want to do "serious" emulation that runs a wide variety of games and accurately reproduces them in every spect, things become much less simple and might also lead you to completely abandon initial approaches, e.g. because your straightforward but non-cycle accurate CPU main loop doesn't cut it anymore.

Compare this however with a more modern system that has an MMU, where you have a long, long road of busywork ahead before you can even get past any reasonable definition of "booting", whereas for the Game Boy even a shoddy first draft implementation might at least get you into a game's initial menu screen, completely with working buttons and all.

And strictly spoken, a conceptually more complex system will have more edge cases and implementation details to deal with, albeit I think that it often also means that those implementation details are less exploited, as developers stay on a higher level and are less trying to squeeze out every last bit of the "simplistic" hardware.

<comment><USER2> And the simple front with the fractal complexity below it also make this more fun and educational: You can start off easy while still getting good results, and go arbitrarily deep in perfecting your emulator, choosing from an apparently still unexhausted variety of interesting problems to solve.

Your links are a good example, I love reading about the complex implementation details in emulators of superficially simple hardware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hi, it's the blog author here.

I just wanted to write I'm really happy that this post showed up on the HN front page. It's been more than a year since I wrote the post and from the time perspective I think it was the most rewarding project I've ever done. It doesn't matter that there's a plenty of more mature, accurate, user-friendly emulators - the "journey" was a reward in itself. If you're thinking about creating your own emulator, I highly recommend it.

<comment><USER5> I wrote my own GBC emu about a year after you, and an NES emulator, working on and off, from about 2008-2014, doing bits at a time. It's amazingly gratifying when more and more games start working in it.

I'm going into Game Boy Advance now. Even just efficiently decoding ARM opcodes is an adventure on its own. Different timings and bus widths in different parts of the memory map....but a large enough map that you don't have to worry about banking at all. Although I suspect that it's fast enough that it might start making sense to look at dynarec/jit techniques.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So much of the fun rings true.

I'm reminded of the days I was writing a Z-machine emulator in Haskell [1], ostensibly as a uni class project but also as a way to teach myself Haskell and have fun; I had the infrastructure in place and was trying to run Zork, implementing opcodes, one by one, when finally I saw the familiar message "You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here." The sense of accomplishment was rewarding and elating.

2004\. Good times.

[1]: [https://github.com/nathell/haze](https://github.com/nathell/haze)

</comment><comment><USER7> _" [...] every time I had a few minutes during the day and basically every evening I felt an irresistable urge to move the emulation a bit forward [...]"_

Ahh, memories of the good old days... before I got married...

 _" [...] if I have 5 minutes of a spare time, I was trying to fix this weird GPU or sound bug. I guess it's not too healthy (especially if you have a family) [...]"_

Oh, crap, this guy apparently has family, too! Shame on me! :-)

<comment><USER8> _" Ahh, memories of the good old days... before I got married..."_

Just wait until you have a baby... ;)

<comment><USER7> Done. And you're right: it didn't exactly help...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Always impressed by people who complete things. I've had terrible luck actually FINISHING a project. I guess maybe it's ADD... or my interest in rather boring device drivers and the like. I've been able to modify large projects with many thousands of lines, but when it comes to write one from scratch it really is a lot of work. Props!

<comment><USER10> I've noticed that sometimes when I code for fun there is some tricky puzzle to solve. Once I've solved the puzzle, the fun is gone, and actually finishing the project is a lot more like work than fun.

I think I'd probably finish a lot more projects if I wasn't a professional software developer -- I don't want to work in my free time as well.

<comment><USER11> do you think you don't have enough free time to do boring part hobby work, or that you don't have enough reason?

There so many things I would do before I'd do something unrewarding.

<comment><USER10> I was thinking about that in response to the other reply below. I think it's definitely based on _value_ ; at some point you realize that you'd be happier doing something else. At work, you don't have the same calculation because it has to be done and personal rewards are not the only motivation.

I've also found that how intellectually rewarding my day job is (and how much agency I have) has a direct affect on my hobby development. I have a lot of creative freedom and interesting projects at work right now so I care less about coding in my spare time. I only have so much free intellectual energy to devote to something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think most projects where a person is trying to learn something such that it builds on something else are often not understood by a person who is not on the same path. In the end, the tapestry formed is only understood by the one doing the journey and then in hindsight it all makes perfect sense.

<comment><USER13> I'm actually cleaning up my GitHub repos at this very moment. So much basic stuff not really useful to anyone, things that other people clearly have done many times better. Old messy code, new messy code .... but to me they're experiences and represent invaluable learning that I've done.

I look at some repo that is a mess, but I remember making widget X work and how great that felt.

When someone says they created something I always think about what they must have learned to do that something, and not so much about the actual something.

I get a bit frustrated when folks critique something about "Yeah but this other thing" and so forth. For me that's almost never the point...

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Kinda-related, but a few months back I started working on a Web wrapper[0] for a specific GameBoy ROM, Little Sound Dj (LSDj.) See it in action here: [1]

I was able to get the project up and running using a third-party JavaScript emulator[2], but the library was basically abandoned years ago and the sound in modern browsers is very... odd. Unfortunately, sound is crucially important to music creation software like LSDj.

I'm also mystified that there doesn't seem to be a .SAV format that's cross- compatible between emulators, which is required for basically the entire purpose of the app. (Users would work on a project online on any device, then transfer the .SAV to real hardware for recording the tune.)

If anyone has advice on these topics I'd love to talk!

[0] [https://littlewebdj.com/](https://littlewebdj.com/)

[1] [https://twitter.com/andrewrabon/status/966551415358451712](https://twitter.com/andrewrabon/status/966551415358451712)

[2] [https://github.com/taisel/GameBoy- Online](https://github.com/taisel/GameBoy-Online)

<comment><USER15> Re: Sound quality: I wonder if you might have more success compiling a more well-known C (or similar) based emulator down to webasm and running it that way.

<comment><USER14> WebASM is definitely the way to go today. Just wish I had the low-level know- how.

Maybe I should take on the task myself like the OP did...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > So why did I spend all this time trying to write it? I treated it as a > programming riddle [...] Maybe because of these results I got quite addicted > to the project itself [...] I guess it's not too healthy (especially if you > have a family), but it also doesn't happen that often.

I can empathize, I think lots of us have GH profiles littered with projects we've hit real finish lines on but may not be useful to others. But I actually think it's healthy, especially if you have a family (assuming it's only your spare time). It provides sanity and brain maintenance simultaneously. Even better if you have an employer that doesn't track your every hour and recognizes the value of these kinds of things on down time.

> Right now I don't have any obvious ways to move the app forward, so the > addiction dissipated ;)

Run through [https://github.com/konsoletyper/teavm](https://github.com/konsoletyper/teavm) to WASM and abstract graphics calls and what not :-)

<comment><USER17> In "science projects" like these, you pay in time to recieve experience. By day I do Javascript at work, but my work on a passion project resulted in a wealth of OpenGL and C++ experience. Enough that when I was tapped to do work on our C backend, I hit the ground running quick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Doing it 1.5 months is impressive, it took me almost 6! [1]

I agree with the post that it was a very rewarding (if frustrating) project. But once you see that Nintendo logo come down the screen for the first time it's almost like magic.

[1] [https://github.com/djhworld/gomeboycolor](https://github.com/djhworld/gomeboycolor)

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't know where to start with writing an emulator. Any ideas?

<comment><USER20> Ditto - I've been wanting to do one on a small ARM Cortex-M core, but it's bewildering to even think about where to start.

It seems like people have put together a lot of good documentation for old systems though, which could at least be a good place to start reading:

[https://problemkaputt.de/gbatek.htm](https://problemkaputt.de/gbatek.htm)

<comment><USER21> Try this Assembly tutorial

[https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/projects/raspberrypi/tutorials/os/](https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/projects/raspberrypi/tutorials/os/)

It has enough for doing 2D games bare metal on ARM.

And then you can jump into PiFox.

[https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/pifox-bare-metal-arm- assemb...](https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/pifox-bare-metal-arm-assembly- language-star-fox/)

<comment><USER20> Well I've already gotten simple 2D games working in bare-metal ARM with OLED and TFT displays, it's more the emulation aspect of things that is intimidating.

ARM Cortex-M cores are also a bit different from the Application-class processors used in boards like the Raspberry Pi. They are closer to an Arduino than a "real computer".

<comment><USER21> Yeah, I guess I misunderstood you.

That is how we did 8 and 16 bit coding on home micros back in the day. :)

My favourite SOC is the ESP32, but I guess it already has too much hardware to emulate and isn't an ARM anyway.

<comment><USER20> Haha, no worries - embedded stuff sometimes feels so confusing that I think I misunderstand myself most of the time.

Yeah, I've wanted to learn more about the ESP32 - it seems like people have done some really cool stuff with it and it looks like you get a lot of power and connectivity.

But I'll bet you can empathize with not having enough hours in the day!

<comment><USER21> Yup, my github repo is full of useless, unfinished stuff. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This blog made my morning. Started reading about this Gameboy emulator - really cool project. Then read through a few of his other posts including the one about resurrecting a Macintosh Plus: [http://blog.rekawek.eu/2016/12/08/mac- plus/](http://blog.rekawek.eu/2016/12/08/mac-plus/) Hoping he'll post more soon.

</comment><comment><USER23> > It was also very addicting - every time I had a few minutes during the day > and basically every evening I felt an irresistable urge to move the > emulation a bit forward - fix this strange GPU bug, pass one more > compatibility test or implement one more missing feature.

This resonated strongly with me. I did a study of architectures in college where i built a bunch of emulators of real and made up chips and fiddling with the details of an emulator is incredibly engrossing.

</comment><comment><USER24> Wario Land 3 was a great game. Hmm, makes me want to find that old GBC I have lying around somewhere

<comment><USER25> Have you played wario land 4?

WL4 is my favorite hand-held platformer of all time. Love that game!

I've played 3 too, but it just didn't get me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "First I implemented all the Gameboy CPU opcodes. It's not exactly the Z80, but it's pretty close" \- The CPU is close to 8080 which the Z80 is derived from, so hence the Z80 similarity. However all the main Z80 enhancements are missing. A+B-B=A

<comment><USER27> The Gameboy CPU looks more like a stripped-down Z80 to me, it doesn't have the ED, DD and FD extended instruction ranges of the Z80 (most of those aren't that useful anyway), and the shadow register set is also missing, but the complete CB instruction range exists (bit twiddling and additional shift/rotate instructions). Also the relative jump instructions of the Z80 are there which are redundant NOPs in the 8080 instruction set.

<comment><USER26> I think the missing IX and IY are definitive Z80 instructions. The 'Ultimate Gameboy talk' has a nice Venn diagram and they tend to agree that the GB is missing the 'interesting' instructions from the Z80. However the added shifts etc from Z80 are quite useful. But on the continuum between 8080 to Z80 the GB80 is closer to 8080

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I love emulators like this person too. My dream has been to write a TI-85 emulator. I know there is a few out there, but none for the Mac. I used that calculator a ton in HS, and that's where my love for the Z80 came from.

</comment><comment><USER29> I've been heavily thinking about making an emulator for a while now, maybe seeing some of the sources here will motivate me to go through with it.

</comment><comment><USER30> Having written most of a Gameboy emulator I can acknowledge how fun/tedious they are to write. I now feel motivated to go finish it. :)

</comment><comment><USER31> you are amazing for doing that, you did it because there would be many a people who would appreciate such thing, for that we thank you.

</comment><comment><USER32> Is there a good one that works on a smartphone?

</comment><comment><USER33> TLDR; for the question in title:

 _I treated it as a programming riddle (or a series of riddles), quite similar to those you can find on the Project Euler._

</comment><comment><USER31> because you are amazing for doing that homeboy! get it

</comment><comment><USER25> Most hackers worth a shit know the answer to the question without even any context.

It's like a lust to solve a problem. Idk maybe it IS add, I'm there too, but sometimes there are software problems that just completely captivate me in a way that nothing else does.

Time melts away, and I'm just typing.

Y'all know that feeling, that 6am,"oh shit I work in three hours but I was hacking on this project all night and it almost works if I could just get this thing over here to- Oh, work, real world.... Right."

That mental mode of concentration is elusive and indeed a bit habit forming. There are moments where I'll be washing my car or cleaning the house and I have that "I should be in vim right now" thought and the world just seems grayer and dumber until I survive past it and sit back at my keyboard again.

Said like that, that is weirdly analogous to when I used to drink.

Is programming a drug? Are some addictions healthy?

<comment><USER34> It's funny how incredibly highly the money and success narrative is emphasized in the news, and the drug-like high aspect of the work is rarely mentioned. The truth is that a lot of us would do it (and do do it) for free, and the high demand aspect of it is to a large extent just a blessing on the side.

<comment><USER25> I started for the glory. Refurbishing keygens and writing ddos perl scripts for irssi.

But the more I learned, the bigger the problems I want to solve, (and create, in some cases) and that drove me to become more dedicated to the discipline of it all.

I'm blessed to have the opportunity to do contracts or work a 9-5 with my skillset, and I can basically live whatever lifestyle I can afford that way.

But yeah, even if I was getting paid 1/5 of what I have now, as long as I can spend my days browsing through disassembly, outsmarting someone, I'd still show up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Next, the OP should try out a real challenge - take the crown of link emulation away from TGB-Dual.</comment>


Ask HN: How do blind people code and work with terminals? - <AUTHOR> In the space of half a day, vision in my right eye deteriorated to the point that I can't even see an eye exam chart with it.  I've already gone to the hospital and going back tomorrow for another round of tests.  It's not a tumor, no signs of MS, no signs of infection.<p>I know they're are people considered legally blind that still write code, so how do they do it?  Is there an OS that's better geared for accessibility, and are there any tools that can help make life easier? <comment><USER2> I used to set-up, deliver, & train blind users on Windows machines. Windows is the most popular since it has the most user-friendly accessibility solutions. My dad started the business I worked for, & he's been totally blind since birth. If you want, I'd be more than happy to put you in touch with him, feel free to contact me at dave [at] sweetmansystems [dot] com.

The favorite screen-reader for Windows is Jaws, but Window-Eyes is also good. OSX is great because it comes with a full-featured built-in screen-reader for free, whereas Jaws can run you $900 -- but the OSX screen-reader (called VoiceOver) is generally much more difficult to get started with, as they key combinations are complicated and difficult to remember. If you have enough useful vision, you could also use a program like ZoomText (on Windows), which combines screen magnification with voice output.

I've been looking into screen-readers for Linux & especially the command line, but haven't had enough experience with anything to make a recommendation -- though my dad knows a guy who uses linux & runs servers, if you end up talking to him ask for contact info for a guy named louis, if you can get a hold of him he'd be able to steer you in the right direction.

If you're in the US and in California (I think other countries and states have similar programs), you may want to get in touch with the Department of Rehabilitation, as they can provide a lot of help and information & will also purchase training, accessibility equipment, computers & software in order to get people with visual impairments proficient enough to compete in the classroom & in the job market.

The thing to be prepared for is that it's a major life adjustment. It's a totally different way of interacting with the computer, and it will usually come with a pretty steep learning curve, but it's definitely doable, especially I think with the hacker mindset.

All of these programs have demo versions from their websites: Jaws for Windows: [http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product- pa...](http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp) Window-Eyes: <http://www.gwmicro.com/Window-Eyes/> ZoomText: <http://www.aisquared.com/zoomtext/>

Info about Apple's VoiceOver: <http://www.apple.com/accessibility/voiceover/> (oh, the other good news is that VoiceOver is also included on all iPhones & iPads!)

<comment><USER3> I've been a jaws user for around 15 ears, and have very limited experience with VoiceOver on the mac. The advantage VoiceOver has over Jaws is the fact that VoiceOver has a comprehensive tutorial that can be brought up with one keystroke. If you are trying to teach your self how to use a screen reader the built in tutorial makes VoiceOver a lot easier to learn then Jaws.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Old thread on this topic: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4058761>

SO discussion (linked in thread above as well): [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/118984/how-can-you- progra...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/118984/how-can-you-program-if- youre-blind)

In my experience, programming, in general, has nothing to do with sight – its more about how you load the entire application (architecture/design/flow – whatever you may call it) in your head. Great description by PG on this particular phenomenon [0].

As far as accessibility goes, there are blind developers for all the 3 major OS – Mac/Linux/Windows. Basically you use a screen reading application to get speech output and rely on keyboard shortcuts heavily (in GUI environments).

[0]: <http://paulgraham.com/head.html>

Edit: Ok, let me give you a more realistic picture: yes, every other day could prove to be a challenge especially if you are programming in a gui environment – UIs are designed primarily for visual and pointer interaction; however, being a programmer, you have more tools and techniques at your disposal to find alternative ways of doing things than a basic blind computer user. You should always be exploring and shouldn't give up. That's my learning after having been working as a developer in .NET (web/windows) for 5 years and you know, with every new major release/product, Visual Studio and Windows constantly change and break accessibility support in one way or the other.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been blind since birth and have been programming for the last 12 years, with the last three being professional programming. I use Windows with Jaws as my screen reading software. I've found Linux accessibility to be a hassle to get set up and the web browsing experience on Linux as a blind individual was very poor the last time I checked. Instead of dealing with Linux I use Cygwin for most of my terminal work. While it's not perfect it does at least 90% of what I want. If you have any questions feel free to email me at stofflet (at) gmail dot com

</comment><comment><USER5> Most people use screen readers because it is much much faster than braille displays. Especially since most blind users speed up the screen reader speech rate very high.

If you are an emacs user check out emacspeak: <http://emacspeak.sourceforge.net/>

Windows there are many options.

NVDA is the most used free one: <http://www.nvda-project.org/>

JAWS is highly used but expensive: [http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product- pa...](http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp)

For mac there is voiceover (included in OSX): <http://www.apple.com/accessibility/voiceover/>

Chrome and ChromeOS have chromvox: <http://www.chromevox.com/> but that is more for web.

Linux the most popular is orca for gnome desktop: <http://projects.gnome.org/orca/>

</comment><comment><USER6> Sorry to be "off topic" but if your problem is a retinal detachment (since its happening so fast) you have to not move around (seriously!) and get it checked by an good eye specialist immediately!! Once it's completely detached you are unfortunately out of options! All the best of luck and wishes to you!

</comment><comment><USER7> The two most common methods are "Screen Readers" (audio) [1] and "Braille Displays" (touch) [2]. Depending on the exact vision impairment, other alternatives also exist (magnifiers, customized color/brightness, and so forth).

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

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refreshable_braille_display>

Good Luck with your situation!

</comment><comment><USER8> I know a blind programmer who uses an 80 column braille display. He also uses a lot of Linux command line tools with it that he has made himself afaik, for example for email. He can program incredibly fast with it, he uses an editor in text mode (he has no graphical desktop), but I'm not sure if it's emacs or vim or something else. The command line seems well suited for this braille display for him, but I think all of this requires a huge learning time starting from childhood.

</comment><comment><USER9> BSDTalk episode with a blind BSD user[1]. It's about many things, not how blind people deal with computers, but it offers some great insights nevertheless.

[1] [http://bsdtalk.blogspot.co.at/2008/03/bsdtalk143-bsd- hobbies...](http://bsdtalk.blogspot.co.at/2008/03/bsdtalk143-bsd-hobbiest- deborah-norling.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> Through the use of screen readers and braille displays.

In terms of OS's: OSX has a built in screen reader - Press Command-F5 to activate it, and follow the tutorial for more details.

Chrome has a screen reader called ChromeVox (<http://www.chromevox.com>)

Windows users have access to NVDA (free), JAWS (paid) or WindowEyes (paid).

EmacSpeak is available for emacs users.

However you'll find that each of these screen readers have a slightly different model that you'll have to learn.

What OS are you currently using? Being able to apply your existing mental model of how the OS works will reduce your learning time exponentially.

</comment><comment><USER11> Previous discussion & link to an excellent StackOverflow article. - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5210648>

</comment><comment><USER12> There was a very interesting article last week about Josh Miele in the New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/nyregion/40-years-after- an...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/nyregion/40-years-after-an-acid- attack-a-life-well-lived.html?pagewanted=all)

Someone threw acid on his face as a child, and the story narrates how he eventually overcame these challenges to go on to do great things, like work on NASA software for Mars Observer.

</comment><comment><USER13> Klaus Knopper, the maintainer of the Knoppix distribution has a blind wife. She uses Knoppix with some extra modules and it works very well. A synthetic speaker reads everything whats important on the screen. You should definitely checkout <http://www.knoppix.org/>

<comment><USER13> The project for blind people is called ADRIANE - Audio Desktop Reference Implementation and Networking Environment <http://www.knopper.net/knoppix- adriane/index-en.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hi, when i was in training some time ago, my IT manager was totally blind and use a braille tablet to read its screen. Characters was translated into braille and 'printed' to it's tablet. He has no need for a screen and use a regular keyboard. He also use a screen reader app for emails, internet and documents.

</comment><comment><USER15> Sorry to hear about your sudden disability. I hope it yields to treatment, and that you'll bring us up to date when you've learned more. I have poor eyesight and have thought a lot about blindness since childhood, but have never had to deal with such a fast and drastic change. Best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm one of those people. I code with 3/60 vision. Here's what I do.

I use an articulated arm for my monitor which holds it much closer to my face than any stand could while not forcing me to hunch over my desk to see.

I use larger font sizes, and spend a _lot_ of time selecting the most comfortable available font, size, and syntax highlighting options possible. Personally, I have a lot of difficulty with contrast, so standard 'high contrast' schemes make me stabby. I tend toward darkish backgrounds with just off primary colours. This may not work for you. Be prepared to spend a lot of time experimenting. This can be frustrating, and you have my sympathy.

I use a backlit keyboard.

I probably format my code a bit differently to most people, I like to leave a lot of whitespace. Between lines, on the inside of brackets, between operators and operands, etc.

I generally have my monitor brightness set a bit lower than most people, and I also bias light.

For web browsing, I use browser plugins that allow me to zoom the text, currently zooWheel in Chrome since Firefox's kamikaze update schedule continually breaks my accessibility plugins. I used to use an FF plugin called greasemonkey to reformat frequently visited sites with custom CSS, but this turned out to be more trouble than it was worth.

I work with OS X a lot, but find it to be the most hostile environment for low - as opposed to zero - vision due to the complete lack of ability to change the colors of UI elements. There are third party hacks, but they are patchy and irritating. Apple's solution is to allow you to invert the color pallete. As the saying goes, now you have two problems. Also their cursor tends to get lost against dark backgrounds. I'm sporadically working on a software solution for this.

Linux obviously offers the ultimate in customisation, but will suck massive amounts of time if you allow it to.

You may have noticed that these are all pretty much the same kinds of things you'd do (or should do) and consider when setting up your working environment.

This is good news. As a coder, you are going to find that a lt of stuff that's severely challenging to many people with low vision is simply not a big obstacle for you. You are already well equipped to modify your tools and environment around your needs.

Hold on to that thought, because the most important thing is that much of the advice that anyone gives you, quite possibly including most of the above, simply won't be right for you. As an articulate, technically aware individual, you are in a position to try out solutions and decide what works for _you_. Reject anything which doesn't. Go custom where there are gaps.

Most importantly, be stubborn. You have some scary shit happening and it's going to present you with new challenges. Own them. Some days are going to be really frustrating, and you'll feel like you're losing. Go get some rest, come back, and just own the ass off them.

<comment><USER17> > I work with OS X a lot, but find it to be the most hostile environment for > low - as opposed to zero - vision due to the complete lack of ability to > change the colors of UI elements. There are third party hacks, but they are > patchy and irritating. Apple's solution is to allow you to invert the color > pallete. As the saying goes, now you have two problems. Also their cursor > tends to get lost against dark backgrounds. I'm sporadically working on a > software solution for this.

It must be easier to change the mouse pointer sprite to be higher contrast with inverted colors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> good luck. i can imagine how you are feeling - hopefully it's something simple / physical, but if it _is_ ms and you want a programmer to talk to, feel free to contact me (email@example.com). although i have ok vision so won't be much help with this particular issue (when first diagnosed, i did try to get emacs working with audio output, terrified i would be blind in days, but ms isn't necessarily that bad, and the attempt fizzled with it only half-working...) (there is a linux distro for blind people - i didn't install it, but my impression was it was pretty out-of-date and it would be better to try get emacs-speak working on what i already had).

</comment><comment><USER19> Theres a stackoverflow discussion regarding that. [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/118984/how-can-you- progra...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/118984/how-can-you-program-if- youre-blind)

</comment><comment><USER20> I know this is not about programming, but from what I know the same principal could be applied. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVuLGrab9JA></comment>


Silk Road founder loses appeal - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/31/ross-ulbricht-silk-road-appeal-denied/ <comment><USER2> I'm not going to argue Ulbricht shouldn't be serving a serious sentence, assuming legitimacy of the evidence of his murder-by-hire attempt.

However, he wasn't convicted on those charges. He was convicted of 'conspiracy to traffic narcotics', money laundering, and 'computer hacking'. The 'hacking' and laundering were only necessities of the narcotics trafficking business, so it really does boil down to him being convicted to a life sentence for the drug distribution business.

I'd take no issue with a life sentence for procuring murder, but see it as an absolute travesty that drugs are demonized to the point where a life sentence for trafficking is even a possibility.

<comment><USER3> I don't think it's just for a lifetime sentence for anything but murder itself... or someone who is an actual danger to individuals or society itself. I think what got Ulbricht in the end was the fact that he was acting like a drug kingpin and so they threw the book at him hard. It wasn't one of those things that did him in, it was all of those things combined that earned him a life sentence.

<comment><USER4> That's it. Diversity of crime plus arrogance in execution usually equals a strong punishment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's bizarre to think that, according to most countries' justice, a guy behind a computer is as dangerous to society as a serial killer.

<comment><USER6> It's not bizarre at all. A guy behind a computer or a guy leading a company can do so much more damage than any murderer. The "guy behind the computer" didn't hack up and at people but ruined the lives and many people, and their families. You might argue that everyone on silk road is a little guilty and that's probably true but he facilitated the ruining of lives of many spouses and children who did nothing wrong.

<comment><USER7> If you're arguing that silk road's drug sales ruined lives, I'll posit a counter-argument that silk road may have saved lives. People who are drug addicts are going to find their drugs one way or another. I highly doubt there were many people who got their drugs on silk road that wouldn't have gotten them somewhere else.

And instead of purchasing them on the street from dubious sources where the drugs may have been cut or mixed or mis-measured or not even actually what they claimed to be, these people were able to purchase them from sellers who had been peer reviewed thousands of times. Not an ideal situation, but often far safer than purchasing from random people on the street.

In my opinion, the solution to drug addiction problems is not prohibition. That's what we have now and it's not working.

<comment><USER8> Drug was only one of the item on sale.

You had also assassination, children, organs, human trafficking, and more that I can't remember.

I agree with you on the point of the drug, but the rest... Is disgusting.

<comment><USER7> I completely agree that the sale of assassination, children, organs, human trafficking are deplorable and thats definitely regrettable if those things showed up on the silk road with consistency and were allowed to remain.

But I was under the impression that ross ulbricht was being convicted mainly for drug trafficking and wasn't charged for any of those other things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is funny how so many people are trying to lowball crime simply because it's done using computer, as if computer is some pure tech with no evil possible. Bernie Madoff got 150years for a non violent crime. Also scale always matter, hacking in neighbour WiFi is not same as putting ransomware in million systems.

</comment><comment><USER10> That's sad :(

But it was an effective proof of concept, and nobody can take that from him.

</comment><comment><USER11> This makes me very sad, but it's hard to explain why. The nonviolent crime charges leading to a life sentence is part of it. The obvious inability of our modern legal system to understand technology above a basic level is part of it. Maybe I'm not separating how awful "the drug trade" might be from some kid running a darkweb network. This sentence stings in a weird way.

<comment> ryan-allen Especially when USA citizens are dying from prescription medication overdoses at a rate higher than illegal drugs.

<comment><USER12> He sold those prescription drugs on the site too though.

<comment><USER13> No, he didn't sell the drugs...he facilitated the exchange of drugs (illicit and prescription) between other people.

To me the difference between the two statements isn't one of simple semantics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> That's a shame, so young and entire life ahead of him. Would he have had a shorter sentence if he dealt only in narcotics? The article implies Silk Road was narcotics-only, but didn't it deal in other more immoral areas?

<comment><USER15> It doesn't matter which laws. Silk Road was a large-scale public display of flagrant lawbreaking, which appeared to be impervious to enforcement action through clever use of technology.

Shutting it down and eviscerating the person behind it was a matter of _preserving the belief that we live in a law-governed society_. The stakes here aren't drug prohibition, they're the capability and reach of government as an idea. If darknet markets continued at similar scale and visibility, we wouldn't be the United States anymore, but something closer to Somalia.

You could make a comparison to Wall Street, I guess, but selling volatile securities that turn out to be wildly overvalued isn't an obvious crime in the way that selling heroin is. And even then, the fallout of the financial crisis did enormous damage to public trust in society.

<comment><USER16> > Silk Road was a large-scale public display of flagrant lawbreaking, which > appeared to be impervious to enforcement action through clever use of > technology.

So is Uber.

<comment><USER17> Uber at least makes an argument that it is a public good. That the laws that it is breaking are unjust, and for the most part, Uber does little to hide that it's breaking them - Their behavior is more akin, at least in theory, to Nonviolent Resistance. Silk Road, on the other hand, was blatantly violent, and clearly not willing to stand up for it's beliefs

(As a former Uber FTE, I got out because Grayballing was a thing, and because their argument of public good very clearly didn't hold water from inside the bucket, and I maintain that pretty much the same will happen to Kalanick when all is said and done. But the facade of peaceful tearing down of injustices - The very real statistics that show that you can hail an Uber to the bronx while black - are enough to put them in an entirely different class, at least until investigation got really started)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Interesting coincidence with this news coming out the day I finished the Nick Bilton book. I do highly recommend it for anyone interested in the Silk Road or in drugs or in e-commerce. What I found most fascinating was to hear a true "Breaking Bad" tale.

</comment><comment><USER19> Is there any chance of further appeals or any way of a shorter sentence?

<comment><USER20> There's always a chance, but you and he may be waiting in vain for a few decades still.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Cruel and unusual punishment. The judges kept alluding to the volume of the sales; thats just the nature of the technology, not the nature of the crime. There was also language in the original sentencing that he was "privileged" (i.e., white) and therefore deserved an absolutely absurd sentence. You can rape and murder somebody and spend less time in jail.

</comment><comment><USER22> I really disagree with the judicial concept of "making an example out of somebody."

<comment> m-j-fox You wouldn't like Saudi Arabia much.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Saudi_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Saudi_Arabia)</comment></comment>


Former NSA and CIA director says terrorists love using Gmail - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/15/former-nsa-and-cia-director-says-terrorists-love-using-gmail/?wprss=rss_technology&clsrd

<comment><USER2> It would be nice to see evidence of this, especially since NSA directors have a tendency to lie indiscriminately.</comment>


EpiPen Maker Quietly Steers Effort That Could Protect Its Price - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/business/epipen-maker-mylan-preventative-drug-campaign.html <comment><USER2> This whole drug company argument -- that the only thing that really matters is what end users pay as a co-pay or co-insurance and that no one should care what insurance companies (including governments) pay -- is so breathtakingly bad I can only imagine it is in bad faith. Where do they expect us to believe the institutional payments are coming from, out of thin air?

<comment><USER3> This. Exactly This. I am sick of hearing "oh you just pay $20 co-pay". No we don't. The real cost is much more and these pharmas and insurance companies know it. I know because I paid it for a family of 4. It costs $1500/Month for a decent plan that does not have high "out of pocket" costs (Read capped at $5000). So you pay $1500 per month and in worst case scenario, you can still pay $5000 out of pocket for a year IF the insurance company does not deny a claim.

I usually don't make political comments but one thing that was disappointing with Obamacare was the fact that it did not address this root cause and instead touted that now anyone can get insurance. Sure, someone with pre- existing condition is now probably a little better off but overall, obamacare did not address the main issue: getting rid of middlemen (insurance companies) and let doctors/hospitals work on fair and transparent pricing. Isn't that what America is all about ? Free Market, eh.

If I may steal the legendary MLK's words, I have a dream. A dream where I can call any doctor/hospital and ask what will it exactly cost to get a simple X-Ray done without saying "Oh no, I ain't got no insurance". Just a dream.

<comment><USER4> Transparent medical pricing is not possible so long as hospitals have an obligation to treat sick people whether or not they can pay. Hospitals _heavily_ cross subsidize between insured, uninsured, and Medicare/Medicaid patients. As long as we put expectations on doctors and hospitals that compel them to do that, they cannot provide transparent pricing.

<comment><USER5> The work done by David Belk MD shows that these costs are an extremely small cost of hospitals, and that you're basically promoting a myth. [1][2]

He directly addresses the inaccuracy of that claim in the following 10 minute video, "The $55,000 Appendectomy: What Everyone Should Know About Hospital Bills". [3]

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4lgnif/i_am_david_bel...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4lgnif/i_am_david_belk_im_a_doctor_who_has_spent_the/)

[2] [http://truecostofhealthcare.net/conclusion/](http://truecostofhealthcare.net/conclusion/)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkAY15p2DN4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkAY15p2DN4)

<comment><USER6> I'll have to check that out. My primary care physician is located at a teaching hospital that is surrounded by extreme poverty. A few years ago he said that I was one of the few patients that have insurance, and one of the few that comes in for preventative treatment (no surprise, given the lack of insurance). This isn't emergency treatment though, this is normal doctors stuff, the hospital he works for makes a point of treating everyone.

Even so, my last visit was less than $100, including blood work. There wasn't even an in-network discount or anything. So I doubt I'm subsidizing anyone, and I don't think the hospital is suffering too much from treating everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How can any article about this issue not mention the word "patent" anywhere? Why is a 1970s technology still under patent? Patents are supposed to allow recouping of R & D costs, not grant an effectively permanent monopoly that can be sold over and over again until someone greedy enough does the inevitable – if we grant that sort of long-lived monopoly, what else can we possibly expect to happen? Reform the broken patent system and this problem vanishes due to natural competition. This patent reform isn't even a hard one: stop allowing patents to get extended indefinitely (with or without minor modifications).

<comment><USER8> If no one is making a generic, or more to the point doctors are prescribing "EpiPen" rather than "epinephrine autoinjector" being out of patent won't help.

In the UK doctors had to switch to prescribing generics I think as far back as the 80s. Brands are now only prescribed, with a few exceptions, when it's something new enough to not have a generic yet. Before that lots of things were often prescribed by brand without good reason.

<comment><USER9> My experience in the US is that doctors prescribe drugs with generic alternatives anytime they can. I'm not sure if I've ever even taken a branded prescription pill.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, my old doctor would always prescribe generics, and if he knew you were hard up and might not even be able to afford the generics he would try to get samples from the reps anytime he could and just give them to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does the FDA have the authority to deny marketing approval for minor improvements?

Mylan pushed generics off the market by making a better cap or something, the FDA should just say no, that improvement is nice but it isn't enough to give you exclusive marketing rights. If you want to incorporate it into your product, license it to your competitors for cheap.

<comment><USER2> >> Does the FDA have the authority to deny marketing approval for minor improvements?

They certainly don't. Look at Nexium, it is something close to a blatant scam but the FDA approved it and between Medicare and Medicaid alone the federal government has rewarded the scammers (AstraZeneca) with billions of dollars never mind private insurance companies.

<comment><USER11> Honest question, how is Nexium a scam?

<comment><USER2> Omeprazole is a mixture of two mirror image molecules. One of the two versions is the active and the other isn't (for 97% of the population). When the patent was running out on omeprazole AstraZeneca patented esomeprazole, which is just the active isomer. In order to show improvement over omeprazole they did clinical trials that used a higher effective dose of esomeprazole than omeprazole. The FDA, for reasons unknown, let them get away with this fraud and approved the drug.

The government has spent literally billions of dollars buying esomeprazole when a double dose of omeprazole is the same damn thing for 97% of the population. I caveated my original statement ("something close to") because there might be some role for esomeprazole as a second line drug for the 3% of the population that is sensitive to the other isomer, but even there a perfectly fine alternative would just be a lower dose of omeprazole.

Nexium is 18th on the list of drugs by global sales in 2014. These are not small potatoes.

<comment><USER12> >One of the two versions is the active and the other isn't (for 97% of the population)

My understanding is that the inactive form is actually metabolized into the active form by the body.

There is _some_ argument that this happens differently in different people. But if AstraZeneca knew this (which they almost certainly did), why didn't they release esomeprazole at the beginning? They released omeprazole first, then sat on esomeprazole until the omeprazole patent was about to expire. It's obvious why they would do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >Mylan was actively involved in pushing a 2013 federal law encouraging schools nationwide to stock EpiPens. And the company takes credit for legislation in at least 10 states that require the product in hotels, restaurants and other places, and additional school-related legislation in nearly every state. It is also helping push legislation pending in Congress that would require epinephrine auto-injectors on all commercial airline flights.

It would seem to me that a government-mandated market expansion would require a counter-balancing price regulation, but maybe my sense of reciprocity is misplaced.

<comment><USER14> They probably conveniently forgot that..

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> One thing that really annoys me is the fact that drug makers can refund the co-pay to customers. In the auto repair industry, I believe this has a name: insurance fraud.

<comment><USER16> That's a very specific thing.

The co-pay is a part of the price of the product that your insurer doesn't cover, so technically it's not theirs to begin with. Which is also why it's not a refund of the deductible paid, because that -is- considered part of the insurance contribution, i.e:

(deductible paid by customer + insurance payment) = your insurance contribution co-pay = your personal contribution to the cost of the treatment.

<comment><USER17> It's obviously fraud. If your windshield breaks and your deductible (co-pay) is $500, I can't quote you $500 above market rate to fix it and give it back to you in cash to stick it to your insurance company.

<comment><USER16> Your deductible is not your co-pay.

Deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance are all separate things with specific definitions:

A deductible is a portion of covered medical expenses that the insured must pay. It is specifically defined as the amount of covered benefit that must be incurred and paid by the insured before benefits become payable by the insurer.

Key in the above is "a portion of covered medical expenses".

A copayment is a flat dollar amount that the insured pays each time a certain kind of service is received. The copayment is not a percentage of the total cost, as it is in coinsurance, but rather is always the same dollar amount even though the cost of the service may vary (a pharma co-pay of $x, regardless of the variable drug price).

It may seem like nit picking, but there are specific reasons for the difference.

Source: myself, who writes and maintains health insurance claims management and adjudication software.

This is all separate to your claim: of course, if your doctor agreed to charge you $x+200 (leaving aside the reality of negotiated and contracted fee schedules) and refund you that $200, then absolutely yes - this is insurance fraud.

However, the co-pay does not form part of the insurance coverage.

<comment><USER17> > This is all separate to your claim: of course, if your doctor agreed to > charge you $x+200 (leaving aside the reality of negotiated and contracted > fee schedules) and refund you that $200, then absolutely yes - this is > insurance fraud.

If you charge $X more for an Epipen vs. the market rate for a generic epinephrine autoinjector but offer a $X discount for uninsured persons (or a smaller $Y discount for those with copays or deductibles), it is the same scam.

Maybe not legally, but effectively.

<comment><USER16> What you need to remember in this case is that the delineation comes FROM the insurance company. They wash their hands of the co-pay entirely and say "no, we+your deductible are covering this (part of the cost)". That becomes the insurance benefit in total. Your co-pay also comes out of your pocket, entirely separately.

There's no fraud, because that's how the insurer defined the separation themselves (for other reasons).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've been waiting to see a neurologist for a serious and worsening vision problem since May. For those keeping track, that's four and a half months. So between these high drug prices and low healthcare availability, why exactly are we so afraid of single payer again?

<comment><USER19> How does single payer create an incentive for increasing the neurologist supply?

<comment><USER18> By turning healthcare into a humanitarian mission instead of a business venture. My local clinic is for-profit and found that it made better business sense to only have the most rudimentary neurology department possible since it tends to be expensive. Instead they focus on their financial bread and butter like flu shots and annual checkups.

<comment><USER4> Humanitarian missions and charity are notoriously ineffective at achieving real change. See, for example, the utter failure of aid organizations to achieve any fundamental changes in Africa. Meanwhile, big drug companies and their anti-retro viral cocktails changed the course of the AIDS epidemic there almost overnight.

<comment><USER18> And yet I continue to go untreated thanks to the profit motive...

<comment><USER20> So? Money is a representation of human effort. Nobody wants to work for free or invest for 0% gain.

Is there a reason you think the price should be lower? (remember people working need money too)

<comment><USER18> If you had studied economics, you would know that profit and income are fundamentally different concepts. The existence of profit (rather than breaking even) implies a market failure.

<comment><USER21> I think you're confusing "profits" with "rents".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's not a "quietly effort", Martin even said that this would be the best course of action on live TV[0]. The government will spend more money, but the public will get it for free. Of course there's two side to every story, but I think I choose to believe Shkreli on this.

[0] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMlxVimwiU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMlxVimwiU)

<comment><USER23> > The government will spend more money, but the public will get it for free.

You know where the government gets its money, right?

<comment><USER20> So what if taxpayers are paying for it? Companies need to make a profit.

Is there a specific reason why the price is unreasonable? (don't anchor the previous price)

<comment><USER23> > So what if taxpayers are paying for it?

People are _not_ getting it for free, as you argued.

> Is there a specific reason why the price is unreasonable?

It is a clear case of price gouging and a harm to public health.

> (don't anchor the previous price)

Do I get to forbid you from making arguments too?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Lobbying, crooked NGOs, corruption, price gouging. There is something completely rotten in the US healthcare system.

If this were free markets and capitalism, wouldn't the response be a flood of alternatives at 1/100 or even 1/10 the price since the base ingredient costs pennies, and not this self serving and crafty effort to leech tax payer subsidies? This is organized corruption.

When you let people feed on others desperation you create demons. This is the biggest argument for socialized healthcare.

</comment><comment><USER25> As a pharmacy company, wanting to charge a higher price for my products, doesn't it sound like an excellent strategy to outrage my customers, get them actively protesting, only to present a solution that many of those outraged customers will support while continuing to allow me to charge my higher price?

This feels like a House of Cards-like strategy: take up an unpopular selfish position only to later use its most vociferous opponents as leverage in maintaining that strategy.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is why we need alternatives. Vote with your money:

[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/allergystop-affordable- ep...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/allergystop-affordable-epinephrine- injection-health#/)

<comment><USER23> I see little indication that that doctor has any experience getting a medical device through the FDA and manufacturing. Couple that with the flexible funding goal and that looks pretty damned scammy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The solution to the cost problem is for competition to enter the market. It is my understanding FDA has in some way restricted market entry as competing firms (eg, generic giant Teva) come up with a device acceptable to the FDA.

</comment><comment><USER28> The government created this problem in the first place by granting monopolies on drugs. If it allowed others to manufacture it, the price would drop.

</comment><comment><USER29> Rent-seekers seek rents, dog bites man, &c. &c.

</comment><comment><USER30> Love or hate the guy, but Martin Shkreli has a good point here on the EpiPen: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMlxVimwiU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMlxVimwiU)

Basically:

      That $600 is a value to save your life
        - much cheaper than an ambulance / hospital stay

      That insurance companies should cover 100% of it

<comment><USER31> That's a terrible point and could be used to justify $10,000/dose EpiPens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Having multiple deadly allergies and needing to purchase EpiPens regularly, their price doesn't seem outrageous to me.

I pay about $10 a pen, insurance pays about $100 per (even after the price increase). That being said, people rarely use this drug. $100 to save your life once a year or so kind of seems like a fair trade.

This seems more like the media is outraged as opposed to the country. All my friends don't even know about this price change, I only know about it because I read the news more often.

<comment><USER33> How much does your insurance plan cost you per year? If your employer pays it, ask them how much they have to pay.

Part of the reason it is so expensive is because of monopolistic pricing on many drugs and treatments.

You are paying way more than $100

Also you have to buy more than one because they expire.

<comment><USER34> You don't need to ask, it's on your W2.

<comment><USER3> yep. Look for "code DD in Box 12 of W-2". That is the total cost you and your employer paid together.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Relevant post:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/09/14/government-h...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/09/14/government- hypocrisy-over-epipen-the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black/)

It's Forbes, but the argument is backed by the recent Harvard study:

[http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2545691](http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2545691)

<comment> tuna-piano They look at the symptom, and might fix one case of high prices with public pressure, legal threats, etc - but if the system is broken, then what good is that?

The question is not "why is this company so evil and greedy?" It's "why dont McDonald's hamburgers also cost $600?", and how do we make the market for drugs as competitive as for burgers?

<comment><USER36> >It's "why dont McDonald's hamburgers also cost $600?", and how do we make the market for drugs as competitive as for burgers?

Because insurance doesn't pay for McDonalds. To make the market for drugs competitive, step one is to get rid of health insurance. Or at least health insurance coverage for drugs.

I think the going price for an iPhone is $700. How much would an iPhone cost if you only had to pay 20% of the price?

Do the math, and now THAT's why drugs are so expensive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> And what does NYT expect him do to ? Open a charity, raise a kickstarter to provide free EpiPens ?

I hope he makes a fortune and inspires more to come up with those kind of drugs.

<comment><USER33> Her. We expect her to be out of a job when healthcare becomes socialized, then she can move into the financial sector and rip people off there.

<comment><USER37> And if the healthcare becomes socialized who will make EpiPens ?

<comment><USER31> The same company that currently makes them? Single-payer doesn't mean the government is going to try and run pharma manufacturing.

<comment><USER37> But without the incentive to make awesome windfall profits there wont be any EpiPens to begin with.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


China's anti-trust regulators are investigating the Didi-Uber deal - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/chinas-anti-trust-regulators-are-investigating-the-didi-uber-deal/ <comment><USER2> Didi could have let Uber die by itself and get the totality of the Chinese market on its own without sacrificing anything. As it stands now, Uber gets shares of Didi when they were going bankrupt. It's like saying "I'm broke now, but I still want your money!". It may not feel fair to some foreign observers who believe China is "big bad, evil!" but it's natural that some Chinese people question the deal- Apple owns part of Didi, now Uber- who's next? "Activist" bean-counter vampire shareholders like Carl Icahn? It would be a big mistake for the Chinese to let people like him get a foothold in China or anywhere near Chinese companies.

<comment><USER3> > Didi could have let Uber die by itself and get the totality of the Chinese > market on its own without sacrificing anything.

The very point of the deal was because both companies were hemorrhaging their investors' money, and neither wanted to sacrifice any more. If that's what the regulators are investigating, then they're doing their job. Two companies collaborating to stop losing money is pretty close to the definitely of a cartel.

This keeps getting framed as a China vs the World thing, as so many things Chinese do, but what really happened here is that two companies, backed by a set of the largest multinational investors in the world, are collaborating to screw the consumer, who this time is the average Chinese user of Didi or Uber.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> China has anti-trust regulators?!

<comment><USER5> Between what we hear out of the Western news agencies, various activist groups, hackers and whatnot, the more I hear about China, the more questions I have about what we (the Western public) know about China.

Given China's behaviour towards Western corporations (Google et. al.) which was reported in such a way as can only be interpreted as antitrust, this does seem to be paradoxical. Though, the more I read about Chinese politics the less adds up, much like Western politics. It makes me wonder if everything we're taught about China is fabrication, propaganda, lies, half truths and spin - much the same as our own political system.

<comment><USER6> The western media makes China out to be less crazy and dysfunctional than it actually is, probably because no one would actually believe them if they reported more on the truth. E.g. China's pollution is much worse than western news story would suggest, it literally is unimaginable to most westerners.

If you want a real perspective on China, move there, or at least read Chinese propaganda directly (chinadaily, globaltimes). The latter is especially useful given how bad it is, and you quickly realize how much scarily closer China is teetering towards a DPRK-style dictatorship than would be apparent just by reading CNN.

<comment><USER7> I'm sure it's horrible in some cities, but I lived in a 4.5M-people city in the South (Kunming) for a year, and its air pollution level was entirely comparable to North American cities of the same size. What are you basing your opinion on? The standards of living of Chinese people are rapidly improving. I'm sure I would be horrified to see how the sausages are made, and I wouldn't bet on its long-term success, but I wouldn't call it dysfunctional.

I agree with GP; the news media makes it sound like a horrible place, but living there felt like living in a developing east-European country. I'm much more worried about India.

<comment><USER8> Kunming is west of most of the pollution. Which keeps getting worse as you approach the ocean near central / NE China. [http://berkeleyearth.org/air- pollution-and-cigarette-equival...](http://berkeleyearth.org/air-pollution- and-cigarette-equivalence/)

<comment><USER7> True, but I was under the impression that even on the coast, a few cities are _really bad_, but most are ok enough (i.e. polluted, but not worryingly so). Do you have any personal experience there?

<comment><USER9> I'm there right now, visited Shanghai, Suzhou, Chengdu. In most populous cities you can't see past a few km because of what first appears to be fog in the morning, but then you realize is smog. Tap water is always undrinkable.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>