Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022 - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/30/us-germany-nuclear-idUSTRE74Q2P120110530

<comment><USER2> Sweden held a referendum in 1980 about nuclear power, and the only choice was about how fast our nuclear power plants should be shut down.

It took twenty years until a reactor was closed, and five more years until one whole plant was closed.

During this time, Sweden's energy consumption has of course gone up, and although there's been some increase in wind and water power, the net result is that each time we close a nuclear reactor, we have to import a lot more electricty from Danish or German coal-powered plants.

So the net result for the environment is negative, but the environmentalist movement thinks it's a huge win.

I'm willing to wager that this German proposal will have the exact same end result. The _only_ way to successfully switch to renewable energy is by making renewable energy _cheaper_ than coal or nuclear.

<comment><USER3> What I suspect will happen is more power will be imported from nations that flagrantly pollute the environment.

The Chinese might be on to something with putting the engineers in charge. Sometimes the public really doesn't know what the fuck they're doing, and should be completely ignored.

<comment><USER4> China has stopped waterfront nuclear power station approvals:

[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-suspends- waterfront-n...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-suspends-waterfront- nuclear-power-approvals-2011-04-06)

and suspended all other development: [http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/china.nuclea...](http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/china.nuclear/?hpt=T2)

Don't believe everything the nuclear power fans tell you. Sometimes the engineers really do know what they are doing.

<comment><USER3> They're halting approvals until the safety standards have been revised. That's hardly the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Closing nuclear powerplants early makes for a self-fulfilling prophecy as well, unfortunately.

The only solid argument against nuclear goes along the lines, ``nuclear power is too expensive because of the costs of disposal of wastes''.

Thing is, in normal operation the cost is amortized year by year. Normal life of a nuclear plant is a few decades; say 30 years. Could be longer, but the technological progress is so fast it just makes sensible to replace hardware before it's completely worn down.

But it becomes a hefty one-time fee if the plants are closed mid-life. The overall costs barely go down. The difference in amount of waste is small -- because large portion of nuclear wastes stems from decommissioning of the plant itself. The spent fuel itself is not that much. [1]

And the headlines in press go, ``See? It's too expensive''.

\----

[1] been touring recently a nuclear powerplant in Greifswald, Germany, that undergoes decommissioning right now. Most of the waste is NOT the fuel, but infrastructure of the plant (granted, it was built with old technology).

<comment><USER6> > The only solid argument against nuclear goes along the lines,

The main argument against nuclear goes that it creates a dangerous set of problems that must be handled over many human lifetimes. People simply cannot do that.

In fact, it's a little ridiculous to safely assume your successors perhaps 100 years hence will have the means to shut down a plant and safely store all the waste. What if things have gone all Mad Max? What if the financial condition of the nation happens to be worse than Greece, but theres this massively capital intensive need to decommission several plants that are now quite dangerous? Heck, what if there's a financial crisis only ten years after the thing is built and all the people who keep it running safely aren't getting paid?

Nuclear is definitely taking a dump on the grandkids, so to speak.

<comment><USER7> If things have gone Mad Max I could care less about the decommissioning of power plants.

In all other cases, it is reasonable for other countries and NGOs to pool in to avoid a nuclear disaster - much like they've done with dangerous facilities in other poor countries, e.g. toxic waste dump cleaning, etc.

<comment><USER8> Somalia is closer to Waterworld than Mad Max I will grant you however it is not as if the international community has leapt to their aid in the manner you describe: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm> "Tsunami waves could have spread illegally dumped nuclear waste and other toxic waste on Somalia's coast, a United Nations spokesman has said."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Germany is a leader in solar power. They installed more panels last year than the rest of the world combined. They generate more electricity from solar than Fukushima did. If they can further establish themselves as leaders and experts in new-energy, it'll make them even more disproportionally well positioned to most of Europe.

However, it's a shame they see no future in nuclear. Seems like they are betting against something we've just scratched the surface of (my money is on Thorium)..for the wrong reasons. The damage from the oil and coal that they burn is far worse.

<comment><USER10> The problem with wind and solar energy is that you can't plan for when you need power, and you can't feasibly store large amounts of electricity. This means that wind and solar can't be the primary powersource, at least until the storage problem is solved which doesn't seem to be on the horizon.

On windy sunny days you'll have too much electricity and on windless nights you won't have enough.

There's a EU project underway to scale up powerlines so that electricity can be moved across the EU as needed. The thinking is that it's always windy _somewhere_ , and though you can't store electricity you can move it without too much loss. So if the wind is blowing in Portugal they can export theis excess power to a windless Denmark and vice versa.

<comment><USER11> Actually, MIT solved the storage problem 2 years ago. It's just got to make it's way to market: <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html>

<comment><USER10> Very interesting article. Unfortunately there's usually a long way from the lab to industrial production, but of course if you don't try you won't succeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Throughout the whole article no mention of any specific alternatives to be used? 23% is a big amount to make up to.

A relevant TED talk by Bill Gates (Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero): <http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html>

In short, the most viable option currently, in his opinion, is the thorium reactors. Current uranium reactors can be converted to work with thorium.

"The main point of using thorium, in addition to the proliferation issues with uranium, is that there is 10 fold amount of it available compared to Uranium. If you take into account also the fact that we only use uranium-235 in our nuclear reactors, and this consitutes only 0.7% of the total amount of uranium, the increase is 100 fold.

Thorium reactors also operate by burning uranium. This is created from thorium by bombarding it with neutrons. This forms uranium 232, which is highly radioactive and is hence hard to deal. This is why U232 can't be used for nuclear weapons, it's hard to handle."

<comment><USER13> Germany does not want a different form of nuclear power. Nuclear power is no option.

The goal is to develop renewable energy to 100% over the next 40 years.

<comment><USER12> Don't take this the wrong way, but when the scientists or the government set an ambitious goal like this, that are 4 decades away. It usually means that currently we have no clue how to go about solving it and hopefully our successors will figure it out.

As Bill Gates explains the current renewable technology is not viable. This is because of various reasons, such as low ratio of energy invested vs energy returned, instability (eg. what you do when the wind is not blowing?), requirements for a possible site, et cetera.. I fully agree that it should be the long term goal to switch over to renewable energy, but with current technology it is out of reach. Therefore we a need a stepping stone that the nuclear energy can provide us with.

It is too early to go all in.

<comment><USER13> You are on a discussion level of ten years ago.

All the questions you mention have been discussed for a full decade here. Numerous research institutes have been working on that for a decade. Several plans have been proposed and discussed. As a first step Germany has jump started its renewable energy industry a decade ago. We moved from 6 to 16% during that decade and now have several hundred thousand employees in that industry, numerous small and medium companies, numerous research institutes, ... we are already exporting a lot of that technology. It is expected that in a few years this industry will be larger than our automotive industry.

Our government actually does something for the tax payer money:

Read it here:

<http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/47124/3860/>

Renewables' contribution to energy supply in Germany continued to rise in 2010

17 percent share of electricity supply 370,000 employees in the sector

The share of renewable energies in Germany's electricity supply rose further in 2010. At 17 percent, the share was about half a percentage point higher than the previous year. These are the preliminary results calculated by the Working Group on Renewable Energy Statistics (AGEE-Stat) for the Federal Environment Ministry. This growth was achieved in spite of the sector being hampered by adverse weather conditions. As there was very little wind in 2010, the wind power yield of 36.5 billion kilowatt hours (KWh) was the lowest since 2006. Even so, wind energy remained the key pillar of renewables, with around a 6 percent share of the total electricity supply. Clear increases were recorded for electricity generation from biogas and the photovoltaic sector. Solar power almost doubled its contribution, covering around 2 percent of total electricity demand.

Current scenarios show that in just ten years, renewables can cover 40 percent of Germany's electricity supply. An increase of 12 terawatt hours (TWh) per year is considered realistic. (1 terawatt hour = 1 billion kWh).

The renewables' share in total final energy consumption for heat rose from 9.1 percent in 2009 to just under 10 percent in 2010. The renewables' share in fuel consumption rose slightly to an estimated 5.8 percent (2009: 5.5 percent).

Overall, in 2010 renewables covered around 11 percent of Germany's total final energy consumption for electricity, heat and fuels. This is significantly higher than the previous year (2009: 10.4 percent) and is remarkable because energy consumption was considerably higher than in 2009, due to both the economic recovery and the cold weather.

Renewables also increased their contribution to climate protection. In 2010, around 120 million tonnes of greenhouse gases were avoided through the use of renewable energies (2009: 111 million tonnes). Around 58 million tonnes of these savings can be attributed to the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) alone.

The figures prove that renewable energies were able to keep pace with the economic recovery and continue their trend of a steadily growing share in our energy supply.

Alongside this, renewable energies also gained importance as an economic factor. Initial estimates for the BMU show that, at around 26 billion euros, investments in renewable energy installations were around one quarter higher than in 2009 (20.7 billion euros).

This development is reflected in the employment figures linked to the expansion of renewables. Last year, employment in renewables rose again and latest estimates show there are now around 370,000 jobs in the sector. This is an increase of around 8 percent compared to the previous year (around 339,500 jobs), and well over twice the number of jobs in 2004 (160,500).

<comment><USER12> These numbers show the point I'm trying to make here. The resources currently occupied in putting the current inefficient technology to use could be instead used in R&D to develop the next generation solutions faster. During this period of time nuclear reactors (or thorium reactors in the future) could provide a fairly clean and stable source of energy until viable renewable alternatives are found.

<comment><USER13> There is little inefficiency.

Thorium reactors won't provide any sizeable contribution until 2050. Plus then we go the nuclear route, but again differently. Germany tried already:

* boiling water reactor * pressurized water reactor * Thorium pebble bed reactor * Fast Breeder

and more

enough is enough

Nobody wants a Thorium reactor in Germany. We had one already. It failed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Let's see how long this decision holds up, In 2000 they decided to switch off old plants by 2011 (labor+green party). This was anulled by end of 2010 by the conservatives. Only because of Fukushima (and pending elections) did they anull this again. The green party has been winning in the last elections since Fukushima, and the ruling conservatives have lost ground. This is their opportunistic way of trying to avoid becoming meaningless.

In 5 years, energy prices will be high, Fukushima will be forgotten, new reactor designs may be available (pushed by Chinese who will have to depend on nuclear?) Let's see what happens then.

<comment><USER13> In five years renewable energy will be MORE competitive, not less.

The government decision to increase the life time of the nuclear power plant was highly unpopular. In the German society the majority of people were ten years ago already in favor for the shutdown. You can bet that the next government will not have the FDP and CDU in power and that the move to renewable energy has broad support even then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> That's more than 11 years to complete this task. Who can predict what will happen after 11 years? Generating electricity from nuclear fusion may be possible. Or we may move our nuclear plants to the moon.

We shouldn't ignore the fact that 70% of France's energy consumption is backed by nuclear plants, and this makes France one of the cleanest country in terms of energy consumption in the world.

I just don't understand why people are so hesitant to invest in nuclear energy, which is extremely cheap, infinitely available, non-polluting and moderately safe (burning coals may emit radioactive materials directly to the air).

Nuclear energy won't kill thousands of people underground (like coal), nor will it kill tens of thousands of bird (like wind mills). It also doesn't trap heat (like what solar panel does to retain all the heat), or emit greenhouse gases.

It seems that nuclear energy is an ideal energy source for the future. We should spend more time and money to find out better ways (like fusion) to build nuclear plants instead of worrying about the rare accidents (in terms of death per watt, I don't think nuclear energy is going to lose out).

<comment><USER16> _That's more than 11 years to complete this task. Who can predict what will happen after 11 years? Generating electricity from nuclear fusion may be possible. Or we may move our nuclear plants to the moon_

Or, far more likely, we'll still be burning coal.

Hey, it's no skin off my nose, I'm an Australian. If the Germans wanna quit importing our uranium and start importing our coal instead then that's cool, I just think the German greens are gonna wind up looking pretty stupid when they suddenly need to build fifty new coal power plants by 2011.

<comment><USER13> We currently have most of our nuclear power plants off grid. Nothing happened so far.

How do you come up with the number 50 by 2011???

<comment><USER16> I derived it _ex anum_. But I did mean 2021.

<comment><USER13> How did you compute the 50 then?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sorry for this rant, but we germans are rather stupid by going down that road. we keep saying that the costs of renewable energies have gone down, but thats only due to massive subsidies.

Thanks to fukushima the green party is like a political Steve Jobs on steroids right now: they can promote whatever dumb legislation and nobody questions it. nobody talks about the coal plants that we gonna need to supplement this. it's astonishingly dumb of my people.

but as we germans have almost no economical education classes in our schools, we're easily fooled. as long as it sounds nice (i.e. humane, ecological, responsible, sustainable blah blah) anyone who calls for soundness is comitting political suicide.

<comment><USER18> come on, another german trait is that everyone believes that everyone is to be fooled easily. People are not that stupid. Most just do not care.

<comment><USER17> Nuclear plants are a serious political issue here in Germany. Sound voices are not the ones to ride on those political waves.

Last poll on this issue: 22% of Germans are in huge fear of foreign nuclear plants, 29% are in great fear of it, 29% fear it, 20% don't care.

[http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/tsunami-in- japan/umfrage-m...](http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/tsunami-in- japan/umfrage-mehrheit-der-deutschen-will-atomausstieg_aid_609183.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Debunking myths:

"This won't have consequences, it didn't have any in Sweden either."

=> After the nuclear phase-out was enacted in 2000, two power plants were shut down as planned (Stade 2003, Obrigheim 2005).

=> After the Fukushima incident, eight additional plants were shut down and will never return to the grid again.

"This just leads to increasing energy imports."

=> Germany exported 9 billion kWh in 1Q2010, can hands-down afford shutting down nuclear power plants. Source: [http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutsch...](http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutschland- stromexport-weltmeister)

<comment><USER5> _> "This just leads to increasing energy imports." => Germany exported 9 billion kWh in 1Q2010, can hands-down afford shutting down nuclear power plants. Source: [http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutsch...](http://www.klimaretter.info/energie/hintergrund/6271-deutsch..). _

That's theory; compare it to practice:

Germany already imports electricity from France[1] -- during peak hours. The capacity your source cites is the optimistic variant. The industry simply can't run on the somewhat fickle solar and wind energy, so energy has to be imported. Of course there are ways around that -- energy storage of various kind, or vastly excess capacity, but those raise costs substantially. And that's the core of the problem: the green power companies shift the costs elsewhere, out of public sight. The sleight of hand works, because the numbers -- the optimistic capacity -- are right.

\----

[1] sorry, no link here. They explained it during lecture in Greifswald's powerplant.

<comment><USER13> Germany exports electricity to France, already.

There are two things going on:

* there is an energy market. Energy is traded for different prices at different times. Sometimes energy from France is cheap (well, it is government subsidized anyway) - sometimes not. For example the Nuclear Power Plants of France are idling a lot on the weekend, when the demand is low.

* there are times when the nuclear power plants have not enough capacity to power France. In winter the demand is possibly very high, like last winter, when it was cold and France was heating a lot with electricity (which we do not that much in Germany). In summer the nuclear power plants have to reduce their capacity, because the rivers are dry and there is not enough cooling water for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Good move aka burning bridges. If managed right, this will enhance the development and use of better technologies.

<comment><USER21> Nuclear is the safest form of energy that we currently have. More people die from installing solar panels than deaths occurred in nuclear accidents: [http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all- ener...](http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy- sources.html) .

<comment><USER22> >Nuclear is the safest form ..

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_accidents_by_coun...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_accidents_by_country)

 _"The nuclear industry says that new technology and oversight have made nuclear plants much safer, but 57 accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Two thirds of these mishaps occurred in the US. The French Atomic Energy Agency (CEA) has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation. An interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005 – 2055, at least four serious nuclear power accidents would be expected in that period"_

[http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy- briefs/201101_RSU_Poli...](http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy- briefs/201101_RSU_PolicyBrief_1-2nd_Thought_Nuclear-Sovacool.pdf)

<comment><USER23> Nobody claimed that nuclear power was _absolutely_ safe; only that it's a lot safer than the alternatives we have right now. You're arguing against a straw man.

<comment><USER22> very strange that ..

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster don't changed the statistics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I guess it is pretty obvious that a non-nuclear energy strategy will definitely result in higher energy prices in the short term. That said, some people might be comfortable with this as long as the price increase is moderate.

In the long run however, renewable energy sources are absolutely the way to go. It might actually pay off nicely to invest a lot of resources in renewable energy early on and come out ahead of the pack once coal, uranium, gas and oil become more expensive.

Whether or not Germany will actually be able to carry this off and reap the benefits of it will remain to be seen, though.

<comment><USER9> I agree..except that's assuming a static world for the next decade. Both China and India are intently looking into Thorium reactors (and the US sorta is)...that's where I'd put my money too.

<comment><USER25> Yup. Thorium fuel cycle is the holy grail of Indian nuclear research. Its the main focus if not the only major focus. This could change but with our investments in renewable energy and closed thorium cycle, we could be looking at a more cleaner future for the world.

As for the risks associated with the nuclear power, its clearly a necessary risk. India consumes 1/25th of the American per capita consumption. Even assuming we consume less than US that's a lot of new electricity that has to be added to the grid. Something renewable energy can't provide. I would rather have us build reactors than coal plants. Of course all bets are off, if we ever tame fusion.

<http://www.physorg.com/news205141972.html> <http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/19093.asp>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Italy has always been nuclear free because it couldn't afford it. I guess sometimes it pays off being economically weaker.

</comment><comment><USER27> Also discussed at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2598475>

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm a German and I think myself that it is really stupid. The way to think should not be "Don't do nuclear power anymore" but "do X". We have no plan what X is. So we didn't solve any problem.It's so frustrating. We really had a chance with the strong movement from most people here.

<comment><USER13> We have plans. Maybe you should get in contact with our government and check it out. There are a lot of publications from them about the future energy strategiy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> In march, I was flying over Germany on a sunny day. I saw hundreds of wind turbines polluting the landscape. They are ugly, inefficient, and apparently a huge danger for the birds. I really cannot see how that is environmentally friendly.

AFAIK, nuclear fuel cannot be produced, it can only be distilled. So, we're only using whatever radioactive materials exist on Earth anyhow. Were they mined from deep underground? Let's bury the waste deep underground, and there should be no problem.

I see three long-term solutions. 1) Use nuclear energy in a safe and responsible way. 2) wait until solar panels are developed enough and use them. However, both these solutions still have a big problem: batteries suck (they are heavy, inefficient, expensive and toxic, short-lived). Final solution: 3) grow genetically modified algae and use them to produce bio-diesel. The only problem would be the concentration of CO2 and other exhaust gasses in urban areas.

<comment><USER13> I find wind mills much nicer than the huge nuclear sites heating up the rivers, their large cooling towers with the large clouds, their large power lines, ...

I find it much better if a city has their windmills, compared to huge mega corporations and monopolies of the nuclear industry backed by corrupt politicians.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Well, that's a shame. I think the famed German ingenuity and attention to detail could provide some really great nuclear innovation and development.

</comment><comment><USER3> Meanwhile Japan itself, which has weathered the effects of several nuclear disasters (Fukushima being the mildest), is doing no such thing.

And apparently Germany will continue to import power derived from nuclear plants.

<comment><USER31> Yes, they are actually.

[http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/29/inhabitats-week-in- green-...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/29/inhabitats-week-in-green- hydrogen-powered-space-plane-japans/)

 _Speaking of solar power, Japan unveiled plans to construct 10 new solar power plants in the wake of the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, while Switzerland announced that it will completely phase out the use of nuclear power._

<comment><USER3> What does that link have to do with anything? You claim Japan intends to follow Germany's lead in becoming nuclear-free? Anything to support that?</comment></comment></comment>


Acumen Brands raises 83M in 3rd Round of Investment - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/04/arkansas-startup-raises-83m-for-cowboy-boots-carhartt-camping-gear/

<comment><USER2> I find this a bit odd. 2 of their 3 stores (the one selling workwear and the one selling scrubs) seem very generic with tons of similar competition. Not sure about the other one selling the cowboy boots. $83m seems like alot.</comment>


iOS device and OS version stats from Instapaper 3.0 - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/4073734086

<comment><USER2> It's hard not to love Marco. He's a one man band that manages to keep up a killer product, maintain an active presence in the community and he's innovated on Instapaper in a good way. I use it every day.

<comment><USER3> Apple should preinstall Instapaper on new iPads. It's just that good.

<comment><USER4> what would you say are the 3 most polish level features of instapaper? not the crazy features, but the little things that matter.

<comment><USER3> 1\. It just works - I have never encountered an issue with the bookmarklet not formatting an article correctly.

2\. Day vs. night mode. You can configure it to automatically switch to white text on a black background at night.

3\. Performance - even with 100+ articles the app doesn't slow down and downloads new articles in seconds. Switching between articles and scrolling long articles is liquid smooth.

Overall, you can tell just by using it that a ton of thought was put into the UI.

<comment><USER5> I agree that instapaper is fantastic, but the article formatting only works for me about 95% of the time. There seem to be some sites that it occasionally gets wrong in a really annoying way (like including some odd dump of the site's sidebar that requires you to finger-swipe for about 5-10 seconds on an iPod to get to the article contents, which are of course easy to speed by).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wonder what the equivalent breakdown is for the much more diverse (fragmented?) Android OS/devices...

<comment><USER7> I don't know about the device breakdown but 92.2% of all Android devices connecting to the Market in the last 14 days were Android 2.1+.

[http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform- ve...](http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform- versions.html)

<comment><USER8> The subtle point being that latest version (2.3+) is less than 2%…

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Totally not accurate, but if you assume a 40/7 ratio of iPad to iPad2 installed base and about 18 million original iPad's out there, you get over 3 million iPad 2 sales over the past two weeks.

The entire US PC industry (including Apple) is only about 6 million units/month, it took the original iPad 80 days to reach 3 Million in sales.

[http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/14/idc-and-gartner-us-pc- sal...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/14/idc-and-gartner-us-pc-sales-drop- as-tablets-shake-things-up/)

[http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/22/apple_announce...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/22/apple_announces_3_million_ipads_sold_in_first_80_days.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> Would be interesting to see what percentage of users have updated to version 3.0. Eg, 100,000 clients have hit the server in the last two weeks and 65,000 had 3.0

Love the product though and enjoy these kinds of tidbits of info.</comment>


Show HN: better software deployment with Git - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/arnoo/git-deliver <comment><USER2> Git is a source version control system. Why does everybody keep trying to use it as a deployment tool?

<comment><USER3> That's a really odd comment to make. Surely automating the steps to deployment is a good thing.

Git has hooks for kicking off processes, its extensible, deployment scripts don't alter the core of git. What's the problem with evolving something?

<comment><USER4> Not odd. OP Is noting that this seems to confuse "make" with "make install". This leads to problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a sysadmin, seeing this kind of stuff gives me The Rage(tm). Don't fight the distro - your distro of choice (Debian, RedHat, _BSD,_ -buntu, whatever) already HAS ways of deploying your software. It even plays nice with interdependencies between different packages, allows custom scripts at different stages of deployment, etc. They're not perfect, but they ARE standard. Learn them, use them, love them, and if there's anything particularily egregious about some aspect of them, they're open source so you can submit patches. Literally every job I've ever had as a sysadmin has started with "...so the developers rolled their own software distribution tool and we're learning the hard way that we've blown a sizable hole in our collective foot with it". Working with developers to apply a suitable dose of RPM or DEB magic (99% of the time, these systems are Linux-based and speak one of those two packages) solves the problem, and everyone agrees that it's a better solution.

Don't fight the distro, people. They've hit all of your problems harder, sooner, and with more edge-cases than you can care to imagine.

</comment><comment><USER6> Does it still have the `.git` folder? If so, I'll stick to writing regular build scripts, as nice as this seems. I also want to push a snapshot of a build artifact (sort of, it's PHP after all) - not sending a few folders, sending commands to the remote server to execute, etc.

Anyone have a better way of achieving what I want that doesn't require my hacked together `build.php --deploy` script?

<comment><USER7> I like Fabric: [http://docs.fabfile.org](http://docs.fabfile.org)

<comment><USER6> Brilliant. Cheers, I've been looking for something like this for ages. Sick of my hacky bash and PHP scripts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This looks similar to fleet[1] (which is awesome, btw). git-deliver looks a bit more complicated, though designed for more than just Node deployments.

[1] [https://github.com/substack/fleet](https://github.com/substack/fleet)

</comment><comment><USER9> Seems like a great tool, I will definitely give it a try on my next project. So if I understand well, Git doesn't have to be installed on the production server(s), only SSH access is needed, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, Git is required on the server(s). It's used for a few things, the most important being the creation of each delivery clone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What's the difference with capistrano?

<comment><USER11> It also looks like using ansible + git. However, also gitflow is just a clever use of git branches, but having a standard way of doing things using simple existing tools (git + ssh here) defined by someone who has studied the problem is very valuable to other people who has similar issues, but didn't study the case yet.</comment></comment>


A Tale of Two Kernels: Towards Ending Kernel Hardening Wars with Split Kernel [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://web.archive.org/web/20150120160031/http://split.kernel.build/papers/ccs14.pdf <comment><USER2> I think it's interesting work with performance tradeoff and such. I've even used this same approach at the library level where some are optimized for speed and some safety depending on app they're integrated with. Yet, there's two things going against it for system protection: (a) OS's have so many potential vulnerabilities and covert channels that it's best to isolate them entirely into a protection domain with careful interfaces to other partitions; (b) the protection schemes on code, hardware or software, have gotten _much_ better than the limited guarantees this scheme offers with performance hit that we can live with. Regarding (b), they even referenced one (SVA-OS) I considered building a medium-assurance design on. Softbound for full, C memory safety is also interesting and Control Pointer Integrity if you have segments.

Many interesting tech for turning exploits into mere exceptions or things that don't compile in the first place. Also many tech's for isolating all that mess in a box with low overhead and easier-to-check interface protection. I'd rather take a combination of those than a split kernel.

</comment><comment><USER3> All this does is clear the stack area prior to each Linux kernel call and check, at the instruction level, for stack pointer problems. That's nice, but narrow. The approach is to do this at boot time, which is kind of strange and may introduce more security errors.

It might be more useful to do this for all kernel calls other than the top 10. Vulnerabilities are more likely to be present in less-used system calls, where the code isn't exercised much. We know now that the "with many eyes, all bugs are shallow" meme is bogus. Much code in open source software barely gets looked at by anybody.

If this is useful, Linux kernel call code is very buggy.

This is, of course, a C problem. We've really got to get rid of C for anything security-critical.

<comment> vezzy-fnord _This is, of course, a C problem. We 've really got to get rid of C for anything security-critical._

On the other hand, it must be noted that there's a ton of subtle timing- related attacks in crypto where low-level control of memory layout strongly benefits their mitigation [1]. I don't know how mechanisms provided by languages like Rust fare into this, though C has definitely been tried and tested well.

Then the idea of moving away GNU, the Linux kernel, Freedesktop projects and all the other myriad software from C is a pipe dream, anyway. It _might_ have been attainable if something like Cyclone won out which extended C only to a minimum for security purposes, but otherwise the task is immense.

[1] [https://cryptocoding.net/index.php/Coding_rules](https://cryptocoding.net/index.php/Coding_rules)

<comment><USER3> It's starting to happen. All we need is a non-C OS that can run Docker containers.

<comment> vezzy-fnord The expression "non-C OS that can run Docker containers" reeks of magical thinking through and through, but for what it's worth the purpose of Docker is application containerization, which is more concerned with logical resource partitioning, infrastructure granularity and an escape from the broader state- related issues of the shared library context in the host OS.

Sandboxing is orthogonal. It so happens that some of the techniques of OS- level virtualization overlap with those of sandboxing on Linux, but Docker is nonetheless not a security tool.

Not that Docker's current libcontainer work is even at all portable. It's questionable what the current ruckus about companies backing the Open Container Project will lead to.

I'll let Theo take it from here:

"You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes."

<comment><USER2> There's been many highly-secure virtualization prototypes or production systems that leveraged tiny kernels with minimally-complex trusted software. Kernel-mode code for modern ones was around 10Kloc. On a virtualizable architecture, this is way easier to do than a whole OS given the complexity of the latter. Plus, it's best to entrust the best security engineers and software engineers to build it with similar to certify it rather than "a worldwide collection of software engineers" unqualified for the job.

Right people, right tools, right architecture, and right processes for knocking out defects. That's what it takes. Virtualization's well-studied enough to tackle it. Only one's trying in FOSS that I'm aware of are L4 community: esp TU Dresden Nizza architecture w/ L4 Linux, OK Labs OKL4/seL4 / OK Linux, and GenodeOS on Nova microhypervisor or OKL4. Google separation kernel, Nizza and Genode architectures to see what I mean.

<comment> vezzy-fnord I'm aware of that. I was mostly responding to the specific notion of "non-C OS running Docker containers", which is asinine.

The research OS space is mostly doomed to languish in obscurity, but it seems like MirageOS just _might_ stand a chance.

<comment><USER2> I totally agree on MirageOS. Very exciting work applying good principles to the container concept. Work that's gotten noticed and might get used widespread one day. A situation so rare it's worth a toast to them! Lol.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How can I be a data scientist with no computer background? - <AUTHOR> https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-be-a-data-scientist-with-no-computer-background?share=1 <comment><USER2> TL;DR - "How can I join the latest hot job trend without gaining the requisite education?"

<comment><USER3> Where did you get the 'without gaining the requisite education' part? The OP is willing to learn whatever he/she needs to learn.

<comment><USER2> "How can I be a data scientist with no computer background?"

The first answer to himself should be "Get a computer background". He already indicates knowing about the needed math topics, and is thus not ignorant of the steps required.

This sort of question is near universally "How can I get on the bandwagon without effort?"</comment></comment></comment>


Apply HN: Food-allergy centric "yelp" - <AUTHOR> A common food allergy is gluten. It is difficult to find all the gluten-free food options nearby. One can use a service like yelp to find restaurants that specialize in gluten-free food, but this actually leaves out most of the options actually available because most restaurants do have some subset of dishes that are, or can be prepared, gluten-free. The problem with yelp is that all the metadata (tags/review/etc) are at an establishment level, but what is needed for this use case is metadata at the dish level instead. If one can search by dishes nearby that are gluten-free, the number of options available is much greater. This will enable one to find significantly more restaurants that someone who has a gluten-free diet can eat at and what dishes to order. Additionally, this helps find more restaurants that suit groups that have a mix of those with gluten-free diets and not.<p>There are also other common food allergies, such as peanut, tree nuts, milk, egg, soy, fish, shellfish that this concept can be expanded to include. <comment><USER2> I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but this seems like a classic case of a feature instead of a startup. Based on the way you describe it, this is an enhancement that Yelp could add. Sure, it will be harder for them to do so than for a nimble startup focusing solely on this feature, but Yelp has an huge, huge advantage: they already have their network.

For you, building out a product with this feature is just the very beginning. At that point, you'll have to face your biggest obstacle: attracting a critical mass of users. As a potential investor, I would be far more interested in hearing how you plan to accomplish this.</comment>


[video] Marketers embrace user-generated content revolution - <AUTHOR> http://news.com.com/1606-2-6179822.html?tag=ne.fd.mnbc <comment><USER2> Personally, part of the enjoyment I get out of browsing user submitted content is the lack of advertisements and marketing. As marketers begin to embrace and slowly creep their ads into the majority of such content, I wonder how communities will react.

I know I'd be turned away.</comment>


Will the White House Order New Federal Architecture to Be Classical? - <AUTHOR> https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/14466-will-the-white-house-order-new-federal-architecture-to-be-classical <comment><USER2> Is Albert Speer still available? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer)</comment>


What are the most productive ways to spend time on the Internet? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Intelligence/What-are-the-most-productive-ways-to-spend-time-on-the-Internet

<comment><USER2> MOOCS,edx,udacity,udemy,</comment>


A shocking story of police and lethal force. Just not the one you might expect - <AUTHOR> https://features.propublica.org/weirton/police-shooting-lethal-force-cop-fired-west-virginia/ <comment><USER2> A tragic story, but also one that shows once again that "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" that gets you.</comment>


How to make email confirmation easier for you're users - <AUTHOR> https://stories.betalist.com/how-to-make-email-confirmation-a-little-easier-for-your-users-b26125ce3b42 <comment><USER2> "your"

</comment><comment><USER3> tl;dr make a link with a query for their inbox for those that didn't confirm right away. It goes next to the resend email.

[https://github.com/bkonetzny/link-to- inbox](https://github.com/bkonetzny/link-to-inbox)</comment>


Things I Wish I'd Known At 20 - <AUTHOR> http://www.teejayvanslyke.com/2016/11/02/what-i-wish-id-known-at-20/ <comment><USER2> Great list. I'm 37 and I still haven't mastered many of those things.

The only one I would really take issue with is "Don't Buy a House". If you get a good deal on a property that is good for you and your family, buying always makes more sense, especially at current interest rates. You can fix your monthly cost for year after year instead of paying ever increasing amounts of rent.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment! I think my main point here was that buying a house isn't necessarily a good investment, depending on your goals and the price of the house relative to its value.

I will say though, that it makes sense for owners to defend their position, since they're already owners. And, as a renter, I'm likely to do the same.

Regardless, I appreciate both perspectives!

<comment><USER3> It's really strange that, ever since the financial crisis, 20-30 somethings are starting to rationalize rent over ownership. It's a counterproductive argument that hinges on interest rates quickly shooting back up to 7-8% so housing prices go back down. There are a lot of forces moving against that though. Asset holders (homes and stock) aren't so keen on giving up the new values they've become accustom to, and Europe has negative rates. When Ben Bernake left the Fed, he started giving these 250K dinners to Wall Street. The crux of his message was low interest rates are here to stay.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/r-at-big-ticket-dinners-a- blu...](http://www.businessinsider.com/r-at-big-ticket-dinners-a-blunt- bernanke-sounds-theme-of-low-rates-2014-16)

And, even if interest rates do rise dramatically over the next 10-20 years, inflation will act as a counterweight against the argument of buying now.

Instead of rationalizing rent, I think you'd do better to downsize and try to get a house you can afford. That way you have a strong asset you can work with if your $150,000 in 401K money doesn't amount to squat in your 70s.

Not trying to be a jerk, but America has been sold a lie with the 401K (watch "The Retirement Gamble" on PBS), There's going to be a major crisis in 30 years. In my view, there's no real answer other than trying to amass a shit ton of assets and hoping technology relieves some of the burden rather than compounding it. Ok, now I'm getting off topic... :-)

Anyway, yours is a smart piece, and I'm sure you'll do fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While I agree with most of this I think it's somewhat too strict. For many people their twenties is the only time they will have time, money and vigour. If you get the chance you should take advantage of that.

</comment><comment><USER5> >Invest in ergonomics. Stand at work.

I invested in a Mirra chair in 2006, transitioned to a stand up desk in 2014 and I wholeheartedly recommend doing either or both if your finances and ability permit.

</comment><comment><USER6> Lots of these are mutually exclusive. Don't sweat work and work 8 hours a day, but if you're in debt, work hard. Don't spend any money and live like the average person and don't drink but fall in love. Where will you meet this person who loves your boring frugal 20 year old self? Don't go out, but enjoy sex now. Don't be in debt but follow your dreams.

</comment><comment><USER7> "Symbols of status matter, but the symbols aren't your car, house, or clothes." What are the symbols that matter?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hm. I'd say happiness, influence, and respect. Maybe those aren't symbols. Maybe I just liked the way that line sounded as I typed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd correct one thing. Instead of "If you're a man: Respect women." to "Respect people."

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a great list. The only thing I would add:

35.1 Gratitude is not a feeling but an action.

Can I go back in time 30 years now?

</comment><comment><USER10> Great list though 13 and 24 seem almost contradictory, can you expand on 24?</comment>


Why ancient Roman graffiti is so important to archaeologists - <AUTHOR> http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113411831/why-ancient-roman-graffiti-is-so-important-to-archaeologists-010516/ <comment><USER2> At the risk of nitpicking: "Meanwhile, every female Roman voice has been lost to time."

I bring this up less to bang on some diversity card, and more that it seems very far from true? (Yes, they were a vast minority, but 'lost to time' seems quite overwrought) In terms of poetry we have Sulpicia (both of them) and then lots of miscellaneous daily writings e.g. the diary of Vibia Perpetua; and of course Lucretia and Fulvia if we're talking public figures...

And the additional quote of female homosexuality being universally abhorred also seems to be misaligned with what I was taught, but my memories of this are both fuzzier and from my days in university, so I'd be more than willing to be proven wrong. (The obvious argument in my favor is the amount the of attention garnered by the supposed lesbian (both in location and sexual practice) Sappho) My take on it was that there was as much of a distribution in terms of outlook on sexual practices as there is today, albeit very differently weighted.

That all being said, roman graffiti is _amazing_ as a view into "normal people", the article leaving out the fact that gives me a good (but immature) chuckle, that a large amount of graffiti included simply crude drawings of penises.

<comment><USER3>
      > that a large amount of graffiti included simply crude drawings of penises.

While reading your comment, I literally could not stop myself from thinking of this. teehee

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The advertising on redorbit.com (desktop site) is utterly preposterous- in terms of the quantity, quality, and repetition, and the relentless popups. I usually get annoyed when HN comments devolve into people discussing the page or the site rather than the contents of the story, but this is just absurd.

I would normally assume that a site that looks like this has to be a domain squatter's autogenerated site, or some sort of honeypot for distributing malware.

Or maybe I'm not getting the same experience everyone else is? If this is what it looks like to everyone, that's grounds for HN blacklisting redorbit.com links. I hope this is a screwup and not what the site owners are going for.

<comment><USER4> What I'm seeing in this link: every image and every paragraph is followed by the same Teleflora banner ad that scrolls open when you scroll past that image or paragraph. At some point an animated Revlon ad also appears which expands to fill the entire page. The sidebar and bottom of just about every page is consumed by ginormous BS "Trending now!" links to "25 celebrities you didn't know posed topless!" and "The weight loss trick that they don't want you to know!" articles on other equally disreputable sites. The page for this article looks like satire, it's so ridiculous and seedy and invasive. I wanted to read the article, I really did.

<comment><USER5> Here, try this instead. Some hilarious stuff. No adds, i'm pretty sure it's circa 1995:

[http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti%20from%2...](http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti%20from%20Pompeii.htm)

<comment><USER6> _" Gaius Pumidius Dipilus was here on October 3rd 78 BC"_

That's apocryphal, right? How did he know it was "BC"?

<comment><USER7> It gets weirder when you consider that Christ was most likely born between 7 and 2 BC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Another great bit of ancient graffiti are runes carved by some Vikings sheltering inside the ~4800 year old tomb of Maeshowe on Orkney:

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

 _" He is a viking...come here under the barrow"_

[http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/maeshowe/maeshrunes.htm](http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/maeshowe/maeshrunes.htm)

<comment><USER3> Along the coast of Norway, outside Tromsø, I found these ancient stone drawings:

[http://i.imgur.com/2ago5A9.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/2ago5A9.jpg)

[http://i.imgur.com/YaIIXdP.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/YaIIXdP.jpg)

Including the one of a six-legged cow (with three horns). I have no idea why the Norwegians wanted to draw a six-legged cow, but I assume it must have some significance. If anyone has any ideas, I would love to hear them.

<comment><USER9> I would have interpreted the third horn as ears.

Two hypothesis on the six legs:

* an oddity, this things sometimes happen and might have been interpreted as good or bad omens, worth recording. The positioning (mid-flank rather than at the bottom, like the others) seems consistent with similar cases I have seen. Random internet result: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/6-legged-lamb_n_123...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/6-legged-lamb_n_1232176.html#gallery/22942/0)

* maybe those are not extra legs of the top animal, but horns of the bottom animal (who also has 4 short legs), maybe recording when some ram or species of deer charged into a much larger cow? Though the horns would be out of proportion, and I'd expect them to be curved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >"These places weren't necessarily vast repositories of lost literature, but the eruption froze them nearly perfectly in time, preserving them for nearly 2,000 years—and preserving thousands of pieces of graffiti along with them."

Actually, Pompeii and Herculaneum are precisely one of the largest and most precious repositories of lost ancient literature.

[http://ancphil.lsa.umich.edu/-/downloads/papyri/JankoRecentD...](http://ancphil.lsa.umich.edu/-/downloads/papyri/JankoRecentDevelopments.pdf)

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/the- invisible-l...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/the-invisible- library)

</comment><comment><USER11> Umm what? "[Pompeii and Herculaneum] weren't necessarily vast repositories of lost literature"

Not sure about Pompeii, but Herculaneum had the villa of Piso with tons of scrolls from Philodemus, who totally fleshed out the ideas of Epicurus, upon whose atomism all of modern science is based.

<comment><USER12> > Epicurus, upon whose atomism all of modern science is based.

It is difficult to comprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement.

Modern science makes no reference to Epicurean atomism, other than in the historical choice of the _word_ "atom" to refer to something that Epicurus wasn't talking about.

<comment><USER11> Okay. Then I'd be interested to know about atomism after Lucretius and before the renaissance. Who was the first modern "inventor" of it?

My comment was meant to express alarm that anyone could say there was no lost library buried by Vesuvius.

Here it is: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_of_the_Papyri#Epicureani...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_of_the_Papyri#Epicureanism_and_the_library)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I love this type of stuff, because it is an insight into the way that normal people (ie. not royalty) lived.

</comment><comment><USER14> Absolutely unreadable on mobile; the site just keeps scrolling itself back to the top.

<comment><USER7> What OS? iOS and Crystal make it just fine. It's a pity add block isn't a default position for everyone.

<comment><USER14> Android.</comment></comment></comment>


(2005) Cedars-Sinai Doctors Cling to Paper - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52384-2005Mar20.html <comment><USER2> The nurses/system are liable here - they should not have the authority to just change a dosage, but if they do, it should be reported back.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best JavaScript stack for a beginner to learn? - <AUTHOR> I'm an experienced Rails developer, and I'm helping a friend learn about javascript frameworks so he can eventually get a job (we're kinda learning together). He was considering the MEAN stack, but with the announcement of all the breaking changes in angular 2.0, I don't think it would be a good use of time to learn angular.
It would be nice if there was a Rails of javascript, but there seems to be a lot of competing technologies. Obviously, you can learn new things at a new job, but it would still be better to learn something with a lot of adoption. I'm thinking a MEEN stack (using ember instead of angular) or even using react and flux. Meteor is another choice, but I'm not sure how widely adopted it is. I think it would be best for him to pick one stack and master it well before moving on.
It's annoying because, when it comes to Rails, I know exactly what skills a beginner needs to learn. Does anyone know what the more successful js bootcamps like hack reactor teach? Or do you have any advice on a good stack for a prospective full stack js developer to learn? <comment><USER2> Familiarity with frameworks is useful, but knowing plain JavaScript inside out is way more valuable than being able to recite various APIs. But if your friend hasn't found the job yet, and therefore doesn't know what framework he will spend his days learning to loathe, I'd say put together a few small projects with a smattering of libraries to get a better sense of their strengths and weaknesses, what problems get solved, etc.

<comment><USER3> This is the right answer. The best stack for a JS beginner to learn is JS, HTML, and CSS. Throw in some localStorage if you need persistence. The OP is definitely coming at this from the wrong perspective (the need to pick a framework). Instead, learn the core fundamentals and perhaps the nuances of a few different libraries, before you have to pick a stack. Otherwise, you won't even know the pros/cons of the stack you've chosen.

<comment><USER4> The word "framework" should always raise flags, because it implies a coding universe that is unfriendly to external software, thus hampering composability.

<comment><USER5> Totally agree. I would go so far as to say one shouldn't use (or even pick) a framework, before having the skills to write such a framework. The benefit of a framework should be time savings; it cannot make up for lack of understanding of what the framework is doing and why. Continued use of the framework should always be weighed against the cost (unfriendliness to external software and composability).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My 2c: stay away from any complex framework until you have a really good understanding of the language itself. Learn the DOM APIs with all it's drawbacks and bugs, DOM events, standalone browser APIs like Canvas, Audio, etc. Write simple node apps with express and modules whose sources you can read. Start using lightweight libraries like underscore / Backbone - you'll come to understand many of the issues that plague evented architectures and DOM manipulation; then you can approach Angular / React / Ember and actually understand how each one is solving those problems.

<comment><USER7> That sounds like the most boring possible way to learn webdev. Unless they're already a programmer, those things just aren't entertaining for most people. Making sure a beginner stays entertained is probably the most important goal, because people who get bored will give up before realizing their full potential.

So if anyone's reading this and feeling bad that they don't feel like doing that, just dive in and do something fun. The longer you spend learning, the more likely you are to pick up all of those important details anyway.

<comment><USER8> I'd say there are ways to combine both approaches - develop userscripts. While you can do tricks to use other libraries, simpler userscript development is easiest with just vanilla JS. It's how I got into JS myself - I first fixed up an userscript I was using that no longer worked, and then I used that userscript as a base to start building a more complex thing. Eventually I ended up completely rewriting the thing from scratch (and I did the same for the original userscript I fixed that started it all). I've been actually thinking of giving it another rewrite one of these days, this time opting to build the thing with Browserify...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ember is the Rails of JavaScript. People who like Rails tend to also like Ember -- same approach to problems, and they integrate well together.

Personally I am into React/Flux lately but that's because I like doing things at a bit lower level, with more control. Note, lower level doesn't mean better.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have to strongly disagree with people proposing Ember. Several teams I work with, teams with very strong js and rails background, have tried it out and uniformly rejected it as being too restrictive, pointlessly baroque, monolithic, unstable, and with immature tooling (ember-cli in particular). I know a lot of people may disagree with that list but that is my experience and that of several people I respect.

I'm not saying this is the "ideal" front end stack (because that has yet to be created) but a good simple starting point IMO would be backbone + react. Very simple, flexible introduction to concepts like router, functional reactive, and components.

<comment><USER10> Also, while I get where people are coming from who recommend plain js, really learning how to do good front end development is only in part about knowing js itself. The OP would also benefit a lot from learning some high level concepts you won't get from doing vanilla js - routing and components in particular - so keep that tradeoff in mind when deciding.

<comment><USER11> The high level concepts you refer to are implemented in plain javascript. The general purpose of frameworks is to increase productivity for those who already master the language. You will have a harder time learning if you begin by using abstractions you don't understand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would learn Ember. The documentation is really good and it has the same philosophy as Rails (convention over configuration). It is as close to Rails for JS as you are going to get. Ember-cli is also amazing.

For the backend I would stick with Rails. I see no benefit of moving to Node for a general application when you already know Rails.

Ember, Ember Data and Rails works incredibly well together.

</comment><comment><USER13> What worked for me (two years in webdev):

1\. Start with vanilla JavaScript/DOM and try to make a small app with that. You'll learn encapsulating DOM into some kind of DIY views, and browser APIs such as pushstate, requestAnimationFrame, etc. This is an essential step.

2\. (Optional) Try a classic MVC framework, simpler is better. Backbone is very basic and might be a good idea as middle step. Refactor your simple app to use Backbone views and models. Learn the hard way about their shortcomings.

3\. Learn React and Flux (any flavor). Throw Backbone away. Ditch imperative DOM updates, learn top-down data flow. Even if you don't stick with React, other frameworks (e.g. Ember) are starting to embrace top-down data flow, and it's an essential concept that simplifies webdev so much.

4\. (If you really feel like it) Try some Angular. This will help you see why one-way bindings, no templates, no direct DOM manipulation and minimal API surface rock over other approaches.

5\. (If you want to stay on the edge) Try exotic stuff like Cycle.js or Om (or Omniscient.JS if you don't want to leave JS land). These build up on ideas React pioneered, but one uses Observables as primitive and other uses Cursors.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'd agree with most everyone here that plain javascript should be your first step. However, once you get past that stage I'd recommend the following:

\- React: by far the most enjoyable UI tool I've used in a long time. Single- direction data flow is easy to reason about and requires very few new concepts to learn.

\- Reflux: have your react components trigger events that update your data store. I find flux to be a little too complicated for my tastes. Reflux removes the need for a dispatcher and just has events and stores.

\- Browserify: makes writing modular JavaScript much much easier by using node-style CommonJS imports.

\- react-router: react style routes makes structuring your apps routes intuitive.

I've included these tools and more in a starter project I have on github: [https://github.com/builtbybig/starter](https://github.com/builtbybig/starter)

</comment><comment><USER15> I've enjoyed working with riot.js ([https://muut.com/riotjs/](https://muut.com/riotjs/)). It's a "minimalist" front end framework, written in vanilla javascript. It's easy to pick up, and it's not super opinionated. You can read/absorb the library in one sitting -- so you'll have a good sense of what's going on under the hood.

Another great resource is You Might Not Need jQuery ([http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/](http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/)). Take what you need, leave the bloat behind!

<comment><USER16> I picked riot.js to learn javascript as it seemed to rely most heavily on solid javascript program paradigms rather than abstractions introduced by the framework. So far I'm happy, with this choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Javascript is more "messy" because front-end is harder (on web) than backend.

The advice of learn "vanilla javascript" break if your targets (=browsers) are older than, lets say, THIS YEAR.

So, is the interest to do only "modern javascript" aka "this year release of browsers implementation of JS"? or "javascript as understood by, please not! internet explorer 6?".

So "vanilla javascript" is different depending in how much "modern" we are talking about. With truly recent JS, is possible to avoid jquery. If you are only in the server-side, Javascript IS == NODE.

So? No universal version (that could be retrofit to older devices) of JS exist on this earth (and the same apply to CSS3).

Think is like C/C++: The same bloat, pain as experience by the first users at the dawn of it, plus half-baked new shinny things, that are not universally used, and never equally across the board.

So, is very likely you need to learn "real vanilla javascript = as understood in the IE6 era, perhaps some versions up (if lucky) plus "jquery".

You can avoid jquery if use some kind of niche stack, but, jquery IS javascript as "everyone" use it. Think no only in raw use, but, interfacing with libraries and stuff. So, jquery is the "rails" of js, could be argued.

IF you actually have total control on the deployment environment, and on the use of external dependencies, you can SKIP JS and use coffescript, elm, typescript, etc. But you need to be very lucky to be in this position ;)

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm not sure how hands on you are being teachinging your friend, but I tried going the full JS stack route with another friend with only 2-3 courses of programming under his belt, and he clearly was struggling due to the complexity of tooling, setting up environments, and generally having a difficult time figuring out the problems & coming up with solutions to them - I am not inexperienced with teaching either, having done it in various capacities (as a paid & unpaid tutor, a lecturer, and discussion section leader).

FWIW, we were working with Sails.js ([http://sailsjs.org/](http://sailsjs.org/)), with the intent to getting to use Socket.io, Angular.js, and MongoDB - the setting up of Sails and understanding what things did in Sails ended up being the problem spot.

Instead, I changed my approach to act more like a mentor and have my friend go along the excellent Ruby on Rails Tutorial ([https://www.railstutorial.org/](https://www.railstutorial.org/)). Things have been much better, although my friend has fallen on his face a few times with Git & SSH in general. I now believe a good intro text is worth far more than picking the right framework(s) to learn.

</comment><comment><USER19> To provide a counterpoint to many of the responses here, I find that the best way to ramp up quickly in a language is to build a few small things using one or two of the main frameworks or libraries, rather than trying to just learn the language or specifically working only with microframeworks.

There are a lot of benefits that come from using mainstream existing frameworks and libraries from the beginning. You learn conventions pretty quickly, and immediately learn to write idiomatic code for that language. When you use a major framework or library there are typically a lot of blog posts and stackoverflow answers, more so than just for a language itself. When you track down errors you'll end up learning about how the frameworks and libraries work, and thereby learning about how to implement things you wouldn't have considered independently.

As a result, what I'd recommend is coming up with two extremely simple ideas for tools that he'd find useful for himself and implement one each with Ember and React.

Personally, I've been following this approach for many years (I'm currently simultaneously working on three new projects in multiple new-to-me languages like this) and it works extremely well in my experience.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've written about Meteor a few times, recently not too positively ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8230631](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8230631)), but I still think it's the easiest way to get started with full stack JS development. It gives you a bunch of quick wins which is really good for morale, and from there you can slowly start looking at "raw" node if you want to.

An essential that might be obvious but in case he missed is that learning JS is much easier in the developer console. If you want to experiment with underscore, go to [http://underscorejs.org/](http://underscorejs.org/), hit cmd-i/f12 and type in _.map([1, 2, 3], function (x) { return x * 2; }); or if you want to understand moment, go to [http://momentjs.com](http://momentjs.com) and type moment().fromNow(); in the console -- the library objects are available there and this makes it really fast to try things out.

</comment><comment><USER21> Assuming your friend already knows javascript, Backbone would be a solid choice. You can add it to an existing codebase as a model layer and then if you really truly need a framework you can tack marionette or chaplin on top of it.

If your friend's a total beginner, though, then it's better to just learn vanilla js for now.

</comment><comment><USER22> The phrase "Rails of javascript" doesn't make sense to me. What exactly is Rails...er...the "Rails of"? I'm assuming you mean something analogous to, "Rails is to full stack web-development as X is to JavaScript"...but that doesn't make any sense. Web development is a profession. JavaScript is a language. Maybe you're thinking that Rails is to back-end development as Something is to front-end development? But that doesn't make a lot of sense either, as modern Rails is pretty entwined into modern front-end development.

So I don't really know what to tell you, except that you probably have the wrong idea about JavaScript, and so the best recommendation is, as others have said, to work without a framework (other than jQuery, of course) until you understand what JS's role is in web development.

<comment><USER23> Rails is the "Rails of" Ruby. Rails is a framework. Ruby is a language.

In analogy form, I think his question is:

Ruby::Rails

Javascript::???

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> As most people have said learn Backbone. This is really worth reading as a starting point:

[http://backbonejs.org/docs/backbone.html](http://backbonejs.org/docs/backbone.html)

If you don't understand all of that, probably learn more javascript.

</comment><comment><USER25> I would go with Ember. The router will feel familiar as well as some of the concepts in ember-cli. The documentation is great. Ember Data is very stable (has been for the past 6+ months) and shouldn't be too difficult to grasp from ActiveRecord

</comment><comment><USER26> I would start with implementing some backend in Node and Express, and with LevelUp for the database. Since you're familiar with Rails and backend development, it should be easy to build something quickly. Just make a simple API. That should show you the basics of JS!

After that, you should have enough JS knowledge to start building a client- side app that consumes your API. I honestly prefer AngularJS, but React+Flux seems like a fine choice.

</comment><comment><USER27> If this is about getting a job, forget about stacks and just start hacking on the first thing that seems interesting. If you're comfortable, you're doing it wrong.

Whatever you're working with will most likely be out of touch with what the job requires and outdated in a year, but the ability to pick up new things is an indefinitely transferable skill.

In addition to not bothering with stacks, I would also advise you not to limit yourself to JS.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'd say its extremely difficult to give you a good answer without knowing what you are trying to build. Is the goal to be able to add some interactivity to otherwise relatively static or content driven websites? Do you want to long running client side apps? Is using JavaScript on both the client and server a goal? The JS community is pretty diverse, largely because there are a lot of wildly different use cases.

</comment><comment><USER29> If you're interested in the fun and pointless, I'd like to plug my own library for working with and playing timed event sequences: [https://github.com/zachrose/barrel](https://github.com/zachrose/barrel).

Using it to make something stupid definitely won't get you a job, but it's easy to using it will encourage you to use/learn about the cool parts of JavaScript.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'd say check out sails.js, it mimics the mvc pattern of rails, and coffeescript instead of js since the syntax is cleaner and would be more familiar. ([https://www.npmjs.com/package/sails-generate-new- coffee](https://www.npmjs.com/package/sails-generate-new-coffee)) <\- may be helpful. Additionally, check out yeoman, which mimics the generate commands provided by thor and yeoman generators help you scaffold out apps. Theres the learn from scratch approach if you have a lot of time and want to appear smart, and then theres the ;i need to build something working right away approach', which i like more. Programming is all about abstraction, why bother with the low level apis when you can just use the shiny wrappers and save time. I used the MEAN stack for a long time, enjoyed it, relatively easy to use, and has come a long way since then(we did actually have to fix bugs in the framework in the start).

When youre more familiar you can roll your own cutting edge framework, maybe use koa, write a yeoman generator, fancy non-relational databases like couchDB. Learning to recite APIs as one comment pointed out will actually help you understand good api design, and give you a working idea of how theyre wired usually, allowing you to ramp up faster on a new framework than if you jut knew vanlla js and individual components. IMO. Sorry for any spelling errors, temporarily on a samsung v1 chromebook, things appear a few seconds after i type and the internet is hard to use while listening to music

</comment><comment><USER31> My suggestion would be to learn Sencha ExtJs [1]. It has a proper MVC framework and is very mature compared to the others mentioned here.

It's not something that can be learnt over the weekend and takes time to master.

Just like Rails, it seems to be able to a lot of things by magic and needs some dedicated effort to understand. This article from their blog [2] and this video [3] gives a very good comparison of what Sencha ExtJs covers with respect to other Javascript frameworks.

[1] [http://www.sencha.com/products/extjs](http://www.sencha.com/products/extjs)

[2] [http://www.sencha.com/blog/4-questions-to-ask-before- choosin...](http://www.sencha.com/blog/4-questions-to-ask-before-choosing-a- javascript-framework/)

[3] [http://vimeo.com/108127206](http://vimeo.com/108127206)

</comment><comment><USER32> For a single page app framework that encourages modularity and eschews unnecessary complexity, I highly recommend Mithril. It's pretty trivial to hook it up to a REST API which you can build in Rails or whatever.

<comment><USER33> I've seen Mithril around and it looks interesting, but the thing I'm wrestling with is whether it's better to check out this niche framework or start with something more popular like React (plus whatever for the M_C part of MVC), or Angular.

<comment><USER32> I think that Angular is the worst choice because developing an app in Angular is so radically different than developing an app in vanilla JS. For a beginning developer I think it's best to first do vanilla JS, then JQuery, then try a lightweight framework like Backbone or React or Mithril. Angular is just a bad decision, it's like patterns just for the sake of patterns.

Focusing on learning frameworks seems like a good idea for resume-building purposes, but they come and go like fashion. Learn Javascript the language very well first, and then learning the framework du jour will be trivial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm really surprised by the people comparing Ember to Rails. Rails is modular, is opinionated but has affordances for and encourages other ways of doing things, is flexible. Ember is none of those things.

</comment><comment><USER34> lebron is the only stack -- [http://lebron.technology/](http://lebron.technology/)

</comment><comment><USER35> DART + Polymer? I know it`s not Javascript per say, but seems at least to be a step up.

</comment><comment><USER36> Angular 1 has a 2-year lifespan minimum.

</comment><comment><USER37> vanilla.js

</comment><comment><USER38> Just JavaScript is enough.

</comment><comment><USER39> jquery

</comment><comment><USER40> Why not AngularJS?

<comment><USER18> Not sure why you got downvoted - when I was a junior developer, I got tasked with investigating building a simple app with Backbone, Ember, and Angular in order to determine what to use going forward for the non-profit I was working at (I didn't make the call what framework to use, I was just the test monkey for how to implement a simple app in all three frameworks). Angular turned out to the easiest by far to get work done with exposure to some advanced concepts - Backbone's documentation was very confusing since everything was in a flat list with high level details buried in there & not enough explanation, and Ember's templating system was very rigid and highly dependent on build processes for someone who had no experience working with tools such as grunt or gulp at the time.

React is probably the best candidate to achieve that simplicity along with Angular, although I would give Angular the edge, simply because it does not rely on tooling to build a small app and still benefits just as well from it when it is present. The documentation, even two years ago, was better than Backbone's at the time (and as far as I can tell from a recent study of Backbone, still is) - Ember's might have been a little better, but it also threw more stuff at you upfront.

The expert can probably work with all of these frameworks just fine - in the end, finding what framework (or no framework) jives with you is the best for your long term development. Become an expert with one, then experiment with others to draw good ideas from them and incorporate it into your code style, that is what separates the good developers from the rest.</comment></comment>


A Murky Road Ahead for Android, Despite Market Dominance - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/technology/personaltech/a-murky-road-ahead-for-android-despite-market-dominance.html <comment><USER2> _What if a significant number of the people who adopted Android as their first smartphone move on to something else as they become power users? In Apple's last two earnings calls, Timothy D. Cook, the chief executive, reported "a higher rate of switchers than we've experienced in previous iPhone cycles."_

Are they trying to insinuate that power users move to iOS? I'd consider myself a power user, but for that very reason I've stuck with Android. Higher-end Android phones provide much more for me than iOS can with its closed- ecosystem.

Also, are these "switchers" coming from Android, or a mix of other sources?

<comment><USER3> If I had to bet, it's probably Apple finally getting around to offering a phone product in the size that people want. For years, if you wanted a large phone your choice was only Android.

<comment><USER4> And now the situation is reversed, if you want a normal size (ie, less than 6 inches) phone, Apple is starting to be the only company in business that delivers powerful hardware in a non-phablet form-factor

<comment><USER5> I assume you're comparing only Nexus devices, because the breadth of Android devices in different sizes is by no means limited.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I've got a Moto X and while it's not particularly small, it's basically the non-phablet version of the Nexus 6 with a few minor differences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's an interesting time. Android 5.1 is easily the strongest version of Android that Google have ever produced; in terms of design, functionality and performance the bar has been raised several notches. The big problem that remains is getting it onto devices is a timely manner. This also reared its head on several devices that received 5.0 early, only to have fairly serious bugs that were not rectified for weeks or months until the next update finally rolled out.

Android Wear is the most complete smartwatch OS, backed up by a solid selection of hardware. Chrome OS continues to show strong growth, with Chromebooks and Chromecasts selling very well. Will we see more integration between Chrome and Android? Will Google try to directly interfere with third- party app stores and launchers?

<comment><USER8> > The big problem that remains is getting it onto devices is a timely manner.

This. I own devices from a manufacturer that supposedly uses close to vanilla Android to roll out quick updates. My Moto X 2013 is still rocking 4.4.4, despite the fact that it was just over a year old when Lollipop came out.

My Moto X 2014 (also pure) has Lollipop, but the bugfix releases (5.0.1 and 5.0.2) were never rolled out. The rumor is that 5.1 is now rolling out in Brazil (I am in the EU) and one US carrier. It's been 2.5 months since 5.1 was released.

No surprise that my next phone will either be a Nexus or an iPhone (I used an iPhone 3G and then 4 for years, and always had prompt updates).

The counterargument is always: the user does not care about updates. But I assume that people who drop 500 Euro on a smartphone care more than those who buy low-end.

<comment><USER9> > the user does not care about updates.

The Manufacturer does not care about updates. It nets them no cash flows. Delay the updates, force people to buy new phones for new (software) features.

<comment><USER10> Now if Apple did that it'd be called planned obsolescence and every tech blog would be breathlessly bleating about it.

<comment><USER9> Apple controls everything in their walled garden.

Android controls next to nothing - so you can pass the buck pretty well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been seeing these gloom and doom articles on Android since its launch. Nowadays at least they have to have the reality of the situation included - "A Murky Road Ahead for Android, _Despite Market Dominance_ ". "Android is now not just the globe's most popular smartphone operating system, but the most popular operating system of any kind. More than a billion Android devices were sold in 2014". It doesn't seem so gloomy to me.

At least nowadays these Android gloom-and-doom articles have stopped saying that Microsoft is going to come out and crush Google in mobile. Microsoft's threat has been reduced to being involved in cloning what Google did - "One software start-up, Cyanogen, has raised about $100 million from several investors, including Google's arch-competitor Microsoft, to sell phone makers an alternative user interface that works on top of Google's Android."

<comment><USER12> FWIW, there have been iPhone doom and gloom articles since _its_ launch. Maybe it's just that doom and gloom articles get clicks?

<comment><USER13> I'm sure that's the reason. Doom and gloom headlines for any kind of platform or brand identity is perfect as clickbait because it sucks in both the opponents of that thing (due to schadenfreude purposes) and proponents of that thing (who want to see what is being said so they can refute it and be outraged by its wrongness).

"Apple Phones and Android Phones both pretty cool and here to stay for the foreseeable future." just ain't going to get clicked like any of these doom and gloom ones (in either direction) are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As a free software proponent, I've spent most of the time promoting Android to my friends.

Android(Non-Nexus) is a toxic hellstew of surveillance and security vulnerabilities.

I'm currently recommending iPhones or Nexus only to my friends.

Google could do a lot to improve this but the carrier relationship with handset manufacturers allow them to MITM the CA systems through root certs and that is god damn unacceptable.

<comment><USER15> It's also why the rumor that Nexus devices would get 2 years of OS updates and one extra year of security updates (3 years) makes me want to stick with Nexus devices, despite some of their annoying shortcomings such as worse cameras (than high-end competition).

Two years of OS updates (2 major OS versions, since they do them yearly now) + another year of security updates seems quite ideal and I'd hope more OEMs adopt that. Unfortunately even if they do, they won't do it for _all_ of their phones, only their flagships, which means lie 80% of the Android smartphone population won't benefit from it.

<comment><USER16> >Two years of OS updates (2 major OS versions, since they do them yearly now) + another year of security updates seems quite ideal

As someone who has recently had to support some Windows XP systems, I have to say Microsoft has set a high bar for support. XP was released in 2001, received major updates for 7 years until 2008 with SP3, and received security updates until 2014, a total of 13 years. Some customers are still receiving special security updates.

While Windows XP is not exactly a desirable OS in 2015 for many reasons, its sad that 3 years of security updates is seen as progress in the smartphone world, and I say that as an Android user with a perfectly functional phone facing EOL this year (a 2013 Nexus 4). I'm hoping google can wrestle enough control from OEMs and carriers to be able to support their OSs for 5+ years with at least security updates. Its not without precedent, they supported Chrome on XP until at least this year -- on a 14 year old OS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> TL:DR

A lot of poor people use android , poor people don't spend a lot and don't click many ads.Therefore Android is doomed.

<comment><USER18> maybe you didn't read the article it says that Google also benefits from iOS users(although it says it's a risk that they lose the higher end niche), and the "poor" people are the ones actually ditching the google ecosystem entirely. The article never talks about poor people, instead it refers to places where google services are unavailable/unpopular, e.g. China.

edit: For those down voting, could you please quote the part of the article that implies this: " A lot of poor people use android , poor people don't spend a lot and don't click many ads.Therefore Android is doomed."

it actually contradicts the parent comment: " For years, Android apps were a backwater, but sales have lately picked up."

"In 2014, Google Play sold about $10 billion in apps, of which Google kept about $3 billion (the rest was paid out to developers). "

"Google's app revenue is becoming an increasingly meaningful piece of its overall business, and it is also growing rapidly."

<comment><USER19> This article commits a composition fallacy and ignores that Android is the cost-leader.

Yes, as the #1 low-cost solution you're going to have users you don't make a return from, but you have enough users that as a sum you make returns. Android's strategy isn't to maximize returns from each user.

It's a subjective article and doesn't really provide anything insightful beyond FUD of the future.

<comment><USER20> Google's strategy isn't to maximize returns from each user, but what about developers?

<comment><USER19> >Google's strategy

Android's strategy isn't to maximize returns from each user, not Google. It's all market driven. Google _is_ trying to maximize returns for each AdWords user, for example.

App developers all have their own markets and their own strategies which are mostly irrelevant here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if Google will need to, eventually, move away from Java or if it's simply impossible at this point. I've owned an Android device with every version of Android so far (all flagship devices) as well as iOS devices and I find it difficult that Android still has that annoying (but occasional) lag that everyone equates to Java and garbage collection (though with so many initiatives from Google to eliminate this I have to wonder if it's really garbage collection that's the problem). I see this on my wife's S6 Edge and on my Moto X 2014 both running Lollipop.

iOS is always buttery smooth and while I enjoy the power and flexibility of Android FAR more than iOS it's hard not to get distracted by the occasional lag / hiccup that I've seen on every single Android device I've ever owned or tested.

I also find it annoying that Google doesn't seem to be able to focus on delivering a full user experience. For instance Android Wear let's you respond to test messages but you can't if your phone uses the default Messages app on the phone (I had to download Google's or almost any third party SMS application to do it). Such a flagship product with features being advertised that you can't use by default on most of their phones is just...dumb.

<comment><USER22> > that everyone equates to Java and garbage collection It is a very complex > problem and there I don't think it is possible to simply point at Java or GC > as the culprits. It has more to do with how the platform architecture has > been thought out and the lack of focus at that time on overall fluidity. The > Sky experiment by the Dart team (so another GC language) shows a very > interesting attempt at designing a runtime for 120 fps apps. The core idea > of this project could very well be rewritten in Java.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's interesting to see a wider acceptance of the reality of the mess of Android.

Really the shocking thing was how good the iPhone 6 was, and how ready to switch to iOS places like Korea were when the larger devices became available, when previously it had been assumed those markets were lost to Apple. The emerging social class type distinction emerging globally between Android and iOS users is a real and growing problem for Google, especially combined with Apple's probable search engine launch.

The noise from my network in Android land has been that Lollipop remains a disaster. Easily the worst version since Android became popular, and it will be very curious to see what, if anything, Google have proposed for the resulting mess at I/O.

It says quite a lot that the most exciting thing about Android for I/O is the rumoured stripped down headless version for Internet-of-Things devices, which may become an accidental foundation for a cleaned up future Android proper.

<comment><USER24> I don't have the contacts to know if my opinions with Android are even vaguely representative. I'm interested in what your network think is wrong with Android Lollipop, and without any sarcasm or snideness can I please ask who your network represents just to get a sense of how representative it is?

<comment><USER3> From a user who's devices just all upgraded a short while ago, it has all the usability problems of the new google maps. Things are more animated/transition-y/slid-y, but hell if I can figure out what to push or where a desired setting is.

It looks great, but it's not great for usability.

<comment><USER25> Can you elaborate more? Since I'm finding Lollipop significantly more usable in pretty much all respects - UI is more thought out, runs faster, battery life has significantly improved, dead Wifi detection is more reliable, timed audio profiles are a godsend...

Can you be a bit more specific? Are you perhaps using a Samsung TouchWiz device, where Samung pretty much removed most of AOSP UI improvements?

<comment><USER3> Here's a quick example, on my shield tablet, when videos fullscreen, the button to make it go full-screen/embedded disappear for no reason after a few seconds when it's full screened, meaning to escape a full-screen video, I have to hit the home or back buttons. This is a new behavior and super annoying.

On my phone, under settings, there's no obvious button to push to change wi-fi settings. There's a skeumorphic switch to turn it off and on, but no obvious button. In fact there's no obvious button for all the settings, just the label and an icon, but apparently if you push the label for Wi-Fi it's actually a button, but there's literally no affordance that it is such a thing.

Strangely, when you dive deep and view the app info for an individual app, there's buttons and pushable things everywhere.

The new google apps are a mess as well. Here's the process to change users in the gmail app

1) hit the hamburger menu (what could be there?) A panel slides out, which for some reason doesn't go all the way across the screen, because I need that 20% of my inbox that shows me nothing at all to stay visible

2) I have 3 colored circles with faceless people icons, they switch between three of my accounts, where are the others? I have no idea which one is which, so I push one, get dragged in the inbox for that one, but it doesn't tell me which one I'm in until I hit the hamburger menu again.

3) I'm of course not in the right one, and the one I want to be in is not one of the three choices. Where to now?

4) I see a list of folders, labels, and other crap, does it scroll? Apparently it does (oh, and apparently settings is all the way at the bottom of that scroll list, that will be easy to find) but there's no indication that it's a scrollable thing.

5) Nope, no list of accounts to choose from. Where to now?

6) Oh...the name of the account that _I 'm currently in_ is a thing I can push (again no affordance) and if I push that for some reason the little down arrow triangle next to my account name turns to face up and a list of user accounts appear. I thought the arrow was just telling me to look down for stuff about my account. In other GUI metaphors, a down arrow means a selection list is unrolled, so it turning up means that something should have rolled back up. Why do I push my account name to find other account names?

Absolutely a mess.

I could go on, maps is something I use almost daily and it's a similarly painful experience. It's like google just said "fuck it, bury it all under hamburger menus". But didn't google get rid of the menu button on new android phones to force designers not to bury stuff under the equivalent? Remember when android devices had a built in menu button _and_ a search button? Now that garbage clutters up every app screen and lazy designers just bury stuff under them. At least with the menu button I knew what to press to look for options. Now I can't even figure out what's a button, and the buttons they do show use faceless icons that mean nothing.

The new chrome also, with it's "let's have every web page be an activity on the app stack" is terrible. Now I have to thumb through a pile of long-since closed apps to find the web page I was reading yesterday. Thank goodness somebody had the good thinking to revert that nonsense.

It goes on and on, hiding needed interface options under 2 or 3 deep layers of hamburgers, making buttons invisible, weirdly out of place skeuomorphic sliders, removing affordances...hell, I have to hit "agree" _every single time_ I turn on the location finding thing to consent to location sharing. _EVERY_ _SINGLE_ _TIME_.

They've completely lost the plot.

<comment><USER26> > In fact there's no obvious button for all the settings, just the label and > an icon, but apparently if you push the label for Wi-Fi it's actually a > button, but there's literally no affordance that it is such a thing.

This annoys me. I see what they were trying to do by giving you more options but the touch target for small for the label button that I fat-finger this a lot and end up doing something like turning off Wi-Fi.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I am sure Android helped them collect data to improve their Maps, Google Now, retain people on Google search, Gmail, Drive.. and to some extent even Google+.

Google's biggest strength is their huge data and Android definitely helps them there.

</comment><comment><USER28> > About one of every two computers sold today is running Android.

So, like, half of them?

</comment><comment><USER29> This article takes a rather strained and artificial angle: It ignores revenue from Google getting to place Google Search, Google Maps, etc. on a billion devices each year. Then, it attributes Google Play revenue to Android. I can buy movies from Google Play on my PC. Profit from media sales are probably greater than profit from app sales.

<comment><USER30> It does not ignore Search or Play:

> ...Google collected about $11.8 billion on mobile search ads in 2014, with > about 75 percent coming from ads on iPhones and iPads... 2014, Google Play > sold about $10 billion in apps, of which Google kept about $3 billion

Yes, I can buy Google Play media on other devices, including my iPhone, but surely non-Android Google Play revenue is a rounding error.

The claim about "a billion devices per year" is false - around 30% of Android sales are forked AOSP, which Google does not allow Maps on. The concern is that these forked variants are most popular in growth markets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> My main problem with android is the play store. Its so heavily localised with crappy apps and many bad attempts at trying to find the right things for me. I miss out a lot.

<comment><USER32> Come over to the iPhone side of the fence where...

no, we're flooded with crap too. Tons and tons of it.

I like the walled garden, I like the idea of curation. I just wish Apple would really enforce them. It takes a single search in the iOS store to easily find stuff that is either illegal or just copied junk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I like the part about iOS representing the 75% of mobile ad revenue for Google without even linking to the source

Yes, some analyst at Goldman says something in a report and now is an stated fact like I'm saying in some other sites.</comment>


Google Mobile Shopper Android-app launched (Video) - <AUTHOR> http://androgeek.com/google-mobile-shopper-android-app-launched-video.html <comment><USER2> Why not integrate that into Goggles, instead of launching a complete new App?

</comment><comment><USER3> That's cool, one more reason to go with android :)</comment>