Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing - <AUTHOR> http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/dumb-things-the-camera.html <comment><USER2> I love 1/4-20 sockets. Attach my camera to a flash bracket? Yep. Attach an eyebolt to attach a carabiner to attach a neck strap? Yep. Attach a hand strap or a 40mm, 80mm, or 200mm Arca Swiss plate. Yep. Yep, Yep and Yep.

There's nothing stopping a photographer from permanently attaching an Arca- Swiss plate to the bottom of a camera body with a bit of cyanoacrylate or some screws if it makes better photographs. For me, walking around with an Arca- Swiss plate on my camera made me appreciate that 1/4-20 socket is flush. Walking around with a 120mm plate made me appreciate that the 1/4-20 socket is flush both top to bottom and front to back.

Like everything in photography 1/4-20 and Arca-Swiss are defined by engineering tradeoffs. The cost of slower direct attachment of 1/4-20 is in exchange for the physical strength of bolted connection and the flexibility adopting a broader standard affords - I can build a camera mount from general components available at the hardware store (including round stock and a 1/4-20 die in a statistically unlikely universe).

edit: I left out all the electronic/software rants because photography is undergoing Cambrian explosion in regards to controls and computation (but mirrorless cameras are nothing new).

<comment><USER3> The only thing wrong with the 1/4-20 mount is that there's only one. Camera manufacturers should add a second one half an inch to the side so that plates can be mounted with two points of attachment, which would eliminate concerns with twisting and loosening.

Wanting to force the weight and cost of Arca Swiss on everyone is just selfish. In fact most of these complaints are just examples of wanting everyone else to subsidize features they might not need that this guy happens to want.

The Qi demand on the other hand is just dumb. Wireless charging requires close proximity, so you'd have to set your camera down _just so_ or it would fail to charge. With different lenses changing the balance point and accessories like portrait grips changing the shape, many people would never get Qi to work properly. Plus in a world where enthusiasts largely have multiple batteries anyway, wireless charging built into the camera seems utterly useless. I'd rather rapidly charge my battery in a dedicated charger than leave my camera on its own charging pad all the time.

<comment><USER2> For some applications, Velcro on the bottom of the camera and top of the accessory might mitigate twisting. I've also read about people using compressible materials to increase friction. For what it's worth, there's nothing preventing modifying a camera to add a second screw.

<comment><USER3> Drilling into the body of a camera that costs multiple thousand dollars to add a second screw seems like a risky maneuver and definitely warranty-voiding. I would personally advise against this.

Adding Velcro doesn't seem to me like it would do much for vibration or slippage (large rotation, yes, small scale rotation, not so much), since Velcro is not a rigid connection. Rubber or similar spacers can help but it's still not great. I use a plate that's got a lip on it to prevent twisting (which was a happy accident, because I actually ordered the wrong plate).

<comment><USER2> To me, the degree to which a camera is likely to see a built in Arca Swiss plate is inversely proportional to the degree to which it costs multiple thousands of dollars because the higher the price the more modular the design. The reason for more modular designs is that the variety of systems with which high end cameras are designed to integrate tends to be higher. Or conversely the more likely the camera is to be designed to lock the photographer into a proprietary systems sold by the camera manufacturer.

In terms of adding a second screw, a multiple thousand dollar camera body is probably not the ideal first subject for a person who has never disassembled a camera or done similarly fine grained work. Such a person should perhaps hire a technician or practice on broken equipment first in cases where such modifications seem worth the effort/cost. Hoping camera manufacturers would design around the edge case is not much of a plan.

<comment><USER3> I think the inverse proportionality is probably wrong since entry-level cameras generally never get mounted on anything. Arca Swiss mounting on my mom's camera wouldn't be particularly useful.

I don't think a multiple-thousand dollar camera body is a good target for invasive modifications unless it's already out of warranty, regardless of whether the change is being made by someone with the appropriate skills. I also doubt that the result of such a modification would be very good anyway. Without being part of the initial design (e.g. a captive nut embedded in the base), the best aftermarket modification would likely be based on either threads tapped directly into the body or a nut essentially glued in place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As said in this [1] article, one of the worst thing camera makers are guilty of is not slapping Android on their cameras to open up th instant publication, photo manipulation, etc. It's a shame that a professional camera is 90% of the time simply not as useful as a smartphone, even ... as a camera.

[1]: [https://mondaynote.com/memo-to-camera-makers-put-android- in-...](https://mondaynote.com/memo-to-camera-makers-put-android-in-your- device-of-face-extinction-1c9a228287e2)

<comment><USER5> Battery life could be a concern. While using my Nikon DSLR I won't turn it off at all until I'm done for the day and that seems to barely affect the battery. I can leave it in a drawer for months, pick it up and snap a hundred pictures and put it back in the drawer for a few more months and the battery is still fine. In fact, I'd be surprised if I charge it more than once a year (mind you, since phone cameras became good enough I have very little use for my DSLR.)

I love Android (I've only had Android phones since my first smartphone), but battery efficiency is definitely not its strong suit, even on a clean install on a flagship phone.

<comment><USER6> I don't understand. A phone that's 7mm thick and the size of your hand can operate for like 16-24 hours on a charge. A 1.5 lb hunk of plastic that's nearly a cubic foot in volume can't? Maybe we need better camera batteries.

<comment><USER5> A lot of the "hunk" and weight in the camera comes from needing a certain amount of room for the mirror and sensor, plus a solid coupling mechanism for the lenses, plus a good amount of surface to provide comfortable grip, plus a number of slots for all kinds of connectors (for your tripod, for you external flash), etc.

I'm not saying the design can't be improved, or that every empty recess couldn't be filled with extra battery capacity, but personally I find the current state of affairs (where you can just get an extra battery for $20 and throw it in your camera bag) better than a phone-like model with non- replaceable batteries.

<comment><USER6> Totally agreed. My point was that making the camera 75 grams heavier by adding a little more battery capacity to run Android wouldn't make a noticeable difference to most users. I would assume some pros would want the lightest possible body, but most photographers wouldn't care that much. And worst case scenario, yeah just swap batteries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's another dumb thing. The camera companies make things harder and more expensive for underwater photographers by making minor changes to size, shape, and control positioning in every new model. Much of this is just change for the sake of change and doesn't actually improve functionality. Every little change means photographers need a completely different waterproof housing. These are quite expensive, often more than the camera itself. So you see a lot of underwater photographers still using old cameras because even if they could afford a new camera they can't afford a new housing for it. The camera companies are missing out on those potential upgrade sales.

And one more dumb thing. They don't include internal GPS receivers or electronic compasses for geotagging even in fairly expensive models. The chips cost <$10 now so this is just a silly limitation. Add-on GPS receivers tend to be bulky and fragile.

<comment><USER8> While GPS chips might seem like an obvious addition, it might negatively affect other camera functions like battery life.

<comment><USER9> That has massive import/export implications, changes how you can ship them, all sorts of nonsense. As always, when a group of hundreds of smart engineers are doing something superficially inexplicable, it's actually either:

a) complicated, and a good idea, or b) complicated, because of the government.

<comment><USER7> I don't accept that. Many cameras, even some cheap point-and-shoot cameras, _do_ include GPS receivers. I have an old Canon Powershot S100 with GPS that was sold all over the world for less money than a smartphone. So obviously the import/export and shipping implications aren't that massive. There's no valid reason to exclude that feature from DSLRs any more.

<comment><USER10> > I don't accept that.

For a start you need to deal with the laws in China. They apply not only to items sold in China, but also to items brought into the country (eg by customers). Economies of scale make this easier with widely sold products, and more painful for low volume products (higher cost of implementation per unit sold). Repeat for laws in other countries.

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

My point and shoot from a few years ago had two pages in the manual covering the builtin GPS usage in China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I could only imagine if Apple took all of their camera expertise from the iPhone and all of their existing Chip expertise and all of their Operating Systems expertise to create a Semi-Pro Mirrorless camera.

Imagine full iOS integration, super fast A-11 Bionic chip (same as iPhone), high throughput wireless components, custom OS (like WatchOS), developer API, W2 chip for Bluetooth pairing, OLED screen, and beautiful lightweight aluminum housing.

That would completely change the market. But we can only dream.

<comment><USER12> Apple could take their MacBook experience and make a phenomenal netbook. There's no argument that it would be the finest netbook of all time.

But that, too, would be moving in the wrong direction.

<comment><USER13> _Apple could take their MacBook experience and make a phenomenal netbook._

They kind of did when they released the MacBook Air.

<comment><USER14> And even moreso, the new 'macbook'

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Great article.

I was hoping that the author would add something about the UIs of these cameras. The bodies of modern DSLRs are jampacked with every kind of knob, control, button, dial, and dongle that you can possibly think of.

To a large extent, that's kind of the whole point — these cameras are for professionals and professionals ostensibly need to be able to adjust every aspect of their picture. But in practice, 95% of users aren't using 95% of these adjusters 95% of the time. Most people are changing their aperture, exposure compensation, and a small handful of other things, and yet, dozens of other readily-available and features are still bolted onto the camera that get used roughly never.

There are other downsides besides complexity too. Fuji's mirrorless X100 series is a popular camera with consumers and for years it's shipped with an exposure compensation dial right at the top edge of its body. For just as many years the thing's been loose enough and with little enough inset from the outside that whenever you throw it in a bag or something, there's a pretty reasonable chance that it'll come out cranked all the one way or the other. Sometimes you don't notice, and there goes your shot.

The possible fixes are pretty easy — either move it in so it's less prone to accidental adjustment, or take the units off the thing so that it could optionally be reset every time you turn the camera on, but Fuji will probably never fix the problem – the way things are is the way things are, and they should stay that way.

It would be insanely great if instead of just cargo culting what they themselves have done in the past and what everyone else is doing, camera manufacturers started to think about optimizing these designs for the benefit of the user a little bit. Unfortunately, they never seem to.

<comment><USER16> > The bodies of modern DSLRs are jampacked with every kind of knob, control, > button, dial, and dongle that you can possibly think of.

That's what I actually like on the more "expensive" camera's, the ability to control everything just with single click/rotation.

I'm mostly shooting manual, on my Canon 5D I have a dial for apperture, smaller dial for shutter speed and a knob for the focus point(s). When I used Canon 500D from my friend, I couldn't use it in manual as this requires you to push one button, to then change the shutter speed with a dial (the same one that controls the apperture (or vice versa I can't remember anymore)).

But I think canon is doing it alright as the "entry" level DSLR's like 500D are meant for normal users who just want a point and click camera for most of the time, and don't need that many knobs and dials. While the professional versions have a lot of controls.

But then again, this all goes to personal preference, and most users will buy a camera that they like to use, with or without many controls. I haven't seen anyone with a 5D saying "I'm not happy with total control of my camera", but I heard more people say "Damn, I wish you could change this value much faster and not go to the touchscreen"

<comment><USER17> > That's what I actually like on the more "expensive" camera's, the ability to > control everything just with single click/rotation

I use Nikon and have gone from D200, D300, and now a D700 because I love the quick and direct access to a lot of the controls. The consumer bodies are great cameras but once you become accustomed to the layout it is really useful and logical. I presume the Canon pro range is similar.

<comment><USER18> Nikon is known to be one of the best at quick access through shortcut physical buttons. The problem with Nikon is discoverability is bad, but once you're in the know it's awesome. According to some, the shortcuts are better than what Canon provides. I've never even held a Canon camera so I can't comment. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As an economist: isn't this 'just' an example of software eating the world?

One the one hand, quality camera's should keep upgrading the periferal hardware to keep match with modern IT-supplies and on the other hand keep a focus on durable products. Why wouldn't producers do this? Cost savings and probably price competition.

The competition (smart phones) have a whole different market. They have a product that people (regretably?) replace every 2-3 years. The market dictates the newest techniques. Pictures are sensors + software. Software has a much shorter improvement cycle. Hence, I would expect a continuously larger part of the camera market to 'fall' for the smartphone camera. Heck, the 'official' advice from my preferred reviewers is not to buy a small camera anymore, but use the savings for a better smartphone.

And then you have large old-camera corporations struggling because their highest margin products (just a guess that that was the little cameras in the former days, not the professionaly product) are falling away. So they don't have the money to keep their high-end products up quality wise nor the institutional awareness to quickly adapt. Cycle a few times... Read OP.

<comment><USER20> > The competition (smart phones) have a whole different market. They have a > product that people (regretably?) replace every 2-3 years. The market > dictates the newest techniques. Pictures are sensors + software. Software > has a much shorter improvement cycle. Hence, I would expect a continuously > larger part of the camera market to 'fall' for the smartphone camera. Heck, > the 'official' advice from my preferred reviewers is not to buy a small > camera anymore, but use the savings for a better smartphone.

The old corporations in the field (Canon, Nikon, Sony) should make you pay for better firmwares (i.e. plugins or at least revisions) so that they have an incentive to keep improving their existing DLSRs. I think on my previous body there was only ONE update in x years and that did not bring anything new on the table.

Thanksfully nowadays we have MagicLantern for Canon DSLRs at least, which brings a ton of additional features for photo and video. It's still not at a parity level with the software available on phones and the like, but it's a big jump vs the base firmware nonetheless.

<comment><USER21> At least Fuji and Olympus have realised the new model cycle is getting longer so they are releasing new firmware features until the replacing model is launched.

Canikon aren't doing new features in firmwares, seems more like bug fixes and Sony is somewhere inbetween at least with the A7-series...

Sony A7 series have also some kind of small apps you can buy and download from their store to your camera. Haven't seen that many apps there =(

<comment><USER22> Finding, downloading, and using those apps is a whole exercise in pain tolerance. Took me an hour-plus to download the timelapse app.

<comment><USER23> >> Took me an hour-plus to download the timelapse app.

Oh wow. I had the same experience. In my case I just wanted to update the existing apps I had installed. Apparently you need a Sony entertainment account to install apps (it must be a new requirement as I never had one when I installed the apps in the first place).

I tried for 15 minutes to create an account using the camera.

        * My A6000 doesn't have a touch screen so I had to use the camera's wheels to operate the on-screen keyboard
        * The account creation page is non-responsive.

You would think Sony Entertainment Network's account login/creation webpage would be responsive so it would be usable within the camera OR there would be a completely different page. NO, it is the same desktop, non-responsive page including Google's painful anti-bot script which requires me to select 10 images that represent street signs using the camera wheel.

Amazingly, I could actually use the A6000 to create an account, but it kept erroring out when submitting. Finally, I realized it would be easier to just use my laptop and to my surprise it still failed because their account creation was down. About 10 attempts later it still failed with a slightly different error, but I still received the account creation success email (?) and was able to login fine after that.

Edit: Formatting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I disagree with this article in a lot of ways; the tripod mount is about the closest thing to mattering to a field/wedding/studio photographer.

\- IR Remote; Works in the studio (or in the field) because your lighting is to the sides or front (if it's behind the camera, you have shadow)

\- USB/Wifi version. The typical pro is taking 300-3000 clicks before uploading to lightroom for post; between this there are many other time sucks: A) transportation back to the studio B) unpacking your camera gear backpack C) showering bathroom. I don't know how this is interfering. The field shooters are traditionally switching multiple cards from a day/week/second shooter - there HD gig and backup purposes never have them go camera to computer.

\- Slow card writes; this affects burst and you'll find the best sports cameras either compensate with ram or have faster card writes. Of course, this matters more with video.

I can agree with some of the the points though; better AF UX; though I appreciate my classic dot that lights up and I can preference with a joypad. The better tripod mount. And battery grips should mount through the tripod/battery/base and need no cables (my camera battery grips work like this)

I also don't want android apps; for the most part, i even resist a program that does multi exposure for fireworks - especially now that anybody with an iphone can take that picture, probably better.

<comment><USER25> D500 owner. Clearly the original post was directed at the high end and reads much like first world problems and to the extent that much of his wish list is not on all cameras can be attributed to profit margins.

I agree with the raw stuff and perhaps the focus as well (though what he asks is just a function of modern day laziness).

I disagree with the wifi and usb issues. I can count how many times I have used wifi. And only at home. Really do not want to be having to set up wifi access at every location, do not want the security risk of wifi, and most imporant - do not want the battery drain of wifi.

As to USB - give it a couple years and the usb connections will be type C. Camera companies are very conservative and won't punt on the traditional until they are certain it won't be a hardship. USB 3.0 is already available on the d500 and d850.

The d500 and d850 for sure have UHS-II, I'm sure similar Canon models do as well.

Which brings up another point - I don't transfer files over USB either. For the most part, I take the card out and use a reader with laptop or desktop. The USB is nice to have when using other equipment but I find it no inconvenience to use the card manually.

<comment><USER26> Agree on battery drain, I can leave my D300s on for days and it still has battery left.

If it had WiFi it would be a matter of hours.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> My pet-peeve with modern DSLR's is that none of these manufacturers seem to care about motion-cadence with their video offering. There's been amazing leaps with 4k video and now 10 bit image depth with the Panasonic GH5, but the footage looks so damn robotic and souless compared to cinema cameras from Arri and Red.

I obviously don't expect a $2000 dslr to match a $50k Alexa in image quality, but surely they must be able to make the motion of the images smoother and less CCTV looking.

Blackmagic put out an amazing little pocket camera a few years ago with gorgeous colours and buttery smooth motion, why can't the big guys follow suit?

<comment><USER17> I think a lot of the problems relate to the experience of the person behind the camera.

Often you can see the choppiness when things are moving. That to me looks like they are using a high shutter speed which is inappropriate for cine work. In still photography if you take a picture of a waterfall on a bright day at 1/1000 you'll see every crisp drop, shooting at 1/30th will give a little bit of smoothing motion blur. Using a DSLR shooting at 25 frames a second and leaving the shutter speed on auto can result in a sequence of 1/1000 second shots which will look choppy. What they should be doing is using Neutral Density filters so they can choose the appropriate aperture for the shot whilst keeping the shutter speed at 1/30 or there abouts. This will give the smoother motion images but does take skill and time.

My other bugbear is many cameramen appear to have forgotten what a tripod is. The camera wobbling about can occasionally add to the atmosphere but most of the time it is just annoying and distracting. Again a combination of lack of skill and production values.

<comment><USER28> Maybe someone here can answer my question:

During panning shots (horizontal, vertical), in recent films the image is blurry and uncomfortable (for me). Similar panning shots in earlier films seem cripser and more "comfortable".

Is there a technical reason (shutter speed fashion) ? Or is it in my head ?

<comment><USER29> [http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/global-rolling- shutter](http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/global-rolling-shutter)

<comment><USER17> Interesting looking article, thank you & I'll read that later.

An example of a different shutter mechanism producing an odd effect, this picture [https://www.flickr.com/photos/sorenragsdale/3192314056/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/sorenragsdale/3192314056/) shows that what the camera sees isn't always the truth!

<comment><USER30> There are really nice video explanations for rolling shutter effects on very fast things by Smarter Every Day[1] and standupmaths[2].

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

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP1elMR5qjc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP1elMR5qjc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I _really_ want the focus information in the display.

Tell me the DOF, and make finding the hyperfocal distance easier -- a button to just take me there, or a calculator that tells me the ideal distance and a display that shows me my estimated focal distance.

<comment><USER32> Agreed. The camera knows this stuff, why not display it. I've got the top of the line Canon 1DX II, a $6000 body. WTF, Canon? You can't put that in there?

<comment><USER33> Magic Lantern proves it's possible to show it too, but alas, Canon can't seem to follow their lead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Another thing I hate about a lot of recent camera hardware is the move toward cheap plastic, everywhere.

I shoot pretty much only with old manual-focus lenses from days of yore. Most of my lenses are older than I am. They're all made of metal, built like a tank, and way easier to use. No fidgety UIs or menus to manipulate, perfectly calibrated infinity focus (slap the focus ring to the end until it stops and landscapes are perfectly sharp 100% of the time), rock-solid, don't break under pressure inside my bag, and they just work, no questions asked.

Totally agree about the lack of Arca-Swiss adoption by camera manufacturers. Camera bodies and heavy lenses could easily have a built-in Arca-Swiss shape at the bottom _and_ still have a 1/4-20" screw hole for people who need it.

<comment><USER35> At the time that was my deciding factor picking between canon rebel something vs nikon d80 (2006, when it was brand new). Photo quality-wise they were so well matched, until i read a review where the author said, the canon is plastic and the nikon metal and the metal makes you feel you have a real tool in your hands instead of toy. (also i'm not the most careful person metal stronger then plastic, typically)

<comment><USER36> Given that you're often hand holding a camera, being lighter is a significant advantage, it can often be the difference between a stable or a blurred shot.

And good plastics are plastic in the traditional sense of the word: if you drop them, they'll absorb the force by deforming and then spring back into place. Metals deform permanently. In a car that's an advantage, you can just hammer it back into place. With a precision instrument a bent tool is just as bad as a broken one.

I don't know how a Rebel compares against a Nikon in a drop test -- I've dropped my Rebel without issues, but no major drops, luckily. But I can compare the pre-unibody MacBook Pros with Thinkpads from the same era. In the store, the original MacBook Pros felt and looked a lot more solid, but they were really crappy cases. OTOH, the ThinkPad's were tanks. Their plastic cases had a magnesium frame, giving them the best of both worlds. Of course, once Apple switched to unibody and ThinkPad's have started to compromise to compete on thickness the story hasn't been so clear.

<comment><USER37> > And good plastics are plastic in the traditional sense of the word: if you > drop them, they'll absorb the force by deforming and then spring back into > place.

That's not what I was taught plastic meant. I was taught both plastic and elastic materials deform under force, but the elastic ones (not the plastic ones) return to their original form once the force is gone …

<comment><USER38> If you drop an iPhone hard enough it wil dent. Drop a polycarbonate phone: no problem. Windows phone wasn't a great OS, but the Lumia line were absolute tanks.

<comment><USER39> PC is a very impact resistant material, but you can also form it cold, a bit like mild steel, actually.

<comment><USER40> So is nylon. But nylon is hydroscopic, and thus not well suited for electronics applications.

I do prefer ABS-PC or ASA for a lot of my more-adverse condition cases. They're much more heat resilient, and chemical/UV resistant in ASA's case.

<comment><USER39> Well, a great many connectors (even, or rather, especially industrial ones) are made from PA6 or 66 with some glass fiber fill; including the actual contact carriers (if they are a separate part). FR4 is somewhat hygroscopic as well; moisture expansion causes real problems for some applications. Never heard of issues with PA connectors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> And they do the same thing phone companies do, don't support the device. I have a camera with wifi that got a shitty remote app on release and that's it. There is so much potential with remote controls, but no.. it can only take pictures on auto settings. At least document the API if you are lazy...

Camera itself got some bugfix updates, but is missing some essentials as working as a web cam, supporting timelapse, etc...

</comment><comment><USER42> I have a Canon DSLR and my biggest frustration is with the software. I do a lot of night photography and the longest exposure possible is 30 seconds. To go beyond this you need to buy an external shutter release. It should be a simple thing to add a few more options with longer exposures to the menu.

Also, doing things like HDR or stop-motion can be a pain. Better software or the ability to run apps could solve this.

<comment><USER43> If you are a tinkerer, you could (most likely, depending on model) use a custom firmware such as Magic Lantern. Gives you basically anything you could imagine, but that Canon couldn't imagine. [http://www.magiclantern.fm/](http://www.magiclantern.fm/)

<comment><USER44> Magic lantern truly is, well, magic. When my 30D died, I bought an 50D with some ambivalence; I wanted a "real body" and can't justify the price tag any of the #D series, but the 50D can't record video. Then I installed magic lantern, and now it can record video and so much more. Didn't end up shooting much video, but the photography features are _so_ numerous and useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> My biggest complaint is that they keep thinking we want Wifi more than we want GPS on high end cameras. Really, hooking up to a wire at home is far easier than adding on GPS data in the field. If I can only have one, give me GPS.

</comment><comment><USER46> I feel that a lot of these problems are not purely born out of lazy engeniering but has to do with the review culture. In camera land as well as any other consumer products reviewers have quit a lot of power. If you get a bad review it can destroy your product. As most reviewers converse to the same opinion it is very tempting to please the reviewers. So if you create a semi pro camera is had to have a tripod mount even if most buyers have to use it. For a long time and party true today a simple interface was not something the reviewers would like.the interface should look like the Pro DSLR to be taken seriously. When Sony launched the original Xperia z every reviewer said the waterproofing was a gimmick now day's you get faulted for not having it. In the car world reviewers are constantly patting the top op the dashboard no other human does this as a result more car companies are making an effort to give it a nice feel, but stuff like a good feeling steering wheel seem more important to me. There are countless examples f reviewers dictating what is important with out looking at true usability but by looking at an spec sheet and see if it is 'better' than before

</comment><comment><USER47> I'd like to see more innovative lens design with software correction. IE many expensive lenses are complicated by the tradtional need to reduce barrel/pincushion distortion and Chromatic aberration. For film that is important but now with digital its relatively easy to correct in software. I was expecting lots of innovation in lenses because of this but I haven't seen much change.

</comment><comment><USER48> I'd add to the list geotagging. It is extremely useful to embed in the Exif the coordinates where the picture was taken.

<comment><USER49> My point and shoot did that like 5-10 years ago. Crazy that DSLRs don't.

<comment><USER50> They do (or at least, my Canon EOS 7D mark 2 does). However, leaving the GPS switched on _significantly_ reduces battery life.

<comment><USER51> My D5300's GPS doesn't hurt battery life.

Of course, it also doesn't _work_ , because the camera sleeps it along with everything else when it goes idle, so it never has time to get a good lock.

The way you solve this is by disabling idle sleep. That doesn't hurt the battery, either; it _kills_ it.

This is legitimately frustrating, unlike a lot of the frankly scattershot and silly business in the article. (XQD on entry-level cameras? Five times the media cost? Yeah, the market wasn't small enough already...)

<comment><USER52> I bought a Canon point and shoot a few years back to use in situations where I'd be worried about losing the camera (e.g. on a ski lift) and I got one with GPS - it has to be the crappiest GPS in existence, it does work but takes about 30 minutes to get a fix, which is pretty much unusable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I had a Sony RX100III until last year. It is considered a top-of-the-line compact camera. Yet sony thinks it's cool to have an app store for a camera that costs somewhere in the 800USD ballpark to sell you "apps" for 4 dollars to allow you to add software features. There are a handful of apps in the whole marketplace, proving that this is indeed a poor business idea. The whole "you bought a camera for ±1k but can't afford 4$" discussion is unrelevant, i am just frustrated that Sony can't develop these features in house and supply them to their users as it should have done in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER54> Call me skeptical, but this guy's rants sound to me like a super demanding, high-end user. No doubt his complaints are well-reasoned for _him_ , but I have to say that as an amateurish photographer, I disagree with a lot of what he says.

First of all, what's wrong with having a standardized mount size? I like knowing that I can fit my camera onto any standard mount I want to buy without issue. The quick-release and plastic body concerns are a non-issue for me because most tripod manufacturers have fixed this by simply putting a quick- release plate on the tripod that has a rubber surface. Voila- when I am in the mode of taking mounted photos, I screw the plate on, and just leave it. Then I can quickly mount and unmount the camera as-needed. Sure, this might not pass the "smack the lens and there shouldn't be a single iota of movement test", but that's a very narrow use-case, as opposed to not having to spend hundreds of dollars on a more expensive camera whose manufacturer invested hundreds of thousands of man-hours to develop and test.

As for the remote, that also seemed to be a pretty narrow use case. I have a standard infrared remote I use when taking mounted photos, and it works fine 99% of the time. I don't like the Bluetooth idea for a few reasons. One, you have to toggle it on and off if you want to conserve camera battery. Two, you have to have a Bluetooth enabled device capable of controlling the camera (read, smartphone) which introduces a potential failure point because now you have to make sure you have two things charged (your phone and your camera) because remote batteries can last for years. You want to take pictures with your steering wheel? Sounds cool, but is that a use-case Sony should invest heavily to satisfy?

To me, the innovation in the camera market has been phenomenal. The speed at which cameras can autofocus and burst shoot, as well as the battery life have all improved while the prices have continued to drop. The one thing I think could definitely be improved (as a Sony Alpha user) is the software interface, which took me a solid month of study to master and is still cumbersome to use on a daily basis. But, the complexity of photography and understanding all of the variables involved is one of the most appealing parts to me.

<comment><USER22> I am also a Sony Alpha user and the interface seems anti-designed. Like, willfully obtuse and user-hostile. I know UI is not easy, but relative to the scope/scale of Sony, how hard would it really be for them to cop even a few best practices in software design?

<comment><USER54> Agreed. The Alpha software reeks of "design by committee" for the entire mass of camera users to allow anything to be controlled with equal weight. It's a major problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I'm just a consumer ofcourse but I don't get it.

If Sony would stop making as many smartphone models and add a couple of those engineers to their DSLR team, they should be able to solve most of these issues pretty quickly.

Sony makes about 5 different smartphone models each year. If they focused on shipping just one or two I guess they'd have more time to develop a better DSLR?

This would give them a big advantage over Nikon and Canon. Sony has a lot of knowledge and experience that Nikon and Canon don't have. Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, USB-c, batteries are all great in their smartphones. Why not use that to make their cameras better?

<comment><USER56> Seems like they mostly did this with the a9, though the dig in the article about the upper card slot being slow is annoying, and Sony's mobile app for WiFi image transfer is bizarre, requiring the phone and camera to join a camera-created network, even though the camera can be manually configured to join your own access point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> It's funny, but for several of the authors main criticisms an old camera of mine would have done well:

A 60mp leaf credo on a Rollei HY6 body.

Histogram and blinkies processed from the raw image, the lenses where all made of extremely solid metal, it had a built in arca Swiss like tripod play on the bottom, a giant 3.5 inch touchscreen, USB 3 transfer and tethering, could charge the batteries from USB and run off USB power, and the lenses all had great depth of field and distance scales.

And the viewfinder was ludicrously massive!

Downside, it weighed ~2.5kg total or something and ate batteries, and hated any iso over 200. And cost something like 30000 when new.

</comment><comment><USER58> I just want to say when iPhone supports external flash I will probably never use Canon again. And I've used it for 10+ years professionally in the studio. Seriously, it's like Japan's products are moving at the same speed as their economy, i.e. not at all in the past 20 years.

<comment><USER59> Most modern LED's are bright enough that you don't need a discrete "flashing" type of external light for most such use cases, you know?

<comment><USER60> For me at least, having an external flash has very little to do with how bright it is, and very much to do with where the light is coming from. A flash coming from 1/4" away from where the lens is, usually doesn't look too great.

<comment><USER61> He is talking about separate monolight on a boom or stand. Always on light rather than flash. He's not talking about the LED on the phone

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> no-such-address From comments here, you can see the field of premium photography equipment is about to undergo some kind of massive disruptive consolidation and reorganization. Almost anyone who comments here is a prospective customer, yet we see so much fragmentation. Some customers just ask for a box with a great sensor, and plan to process the images elsewhere. Some ask for a retro- experience, or an open source photography platform, or an incremental improvement to existing products. Some ask for a high-end consumer experience like a Smartphone, or tighter smartphone integration. Maybe a smart equipment company would organize its products around those markets, instead of struggling to segment too finely using old concepts of cost and performance.

The traditional photography equipment business is in a world of trouble because, as others point out, software is replacing physics as well as the familiar mechanical human interface. This requires a lot of expensive software engineers and some computer science expertise, and the rate of change is only increasing now. For example consider how machine learning is affecting image processing, like this method of pixel-based image synthesis: [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~aayushb/pixelNN/](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~aayushb/pixelNN/). Having lost the low end, DSLR companies can't amortize the cost of ambitious engineering projects over any significant volume of inexpensive products. Agree with the article by Thom Hogan - if anything it doesn't go far enough to convey the extent to which top line camera companies are out of touch with how the digital world has changed.

</comment><comment><USER62> I bought a GoPro - HERO5 Black 4K for $400 for a vacation - wanted to transfer my videos to my laptop and i'm hit with USB2.0 speeds.. So what do I do? Set up my camera as a wireless access point and use wget to transfer my files. ugh.

<comment><USER63> Yeah, I found the same with my GoPro, but you don't have to go to the trouble of setting up an AP, just get a UHS sdcard and pop it out and into a compatible reader.

<comment><USER62> Totally! I do that now, but couldn't on vacation and had to free up space for the next day of underwater videos!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I must say, I have a small Leica camera running Android and I totally adore it (CM-1).

It meets 9.5 of the 11 features the author is requesting but those aren't why I like it. It's also why I find his argument to be flawed.

The best parts of owning it aren't any of the authors points. It's that it solves a class of problem not addressed by the market. It fits the bill for: "ultimate international travel camera". It gives me: 1] nice photos (raw, 1" sensor) 2] that I can process immediately (runs Android, Photoshop, Lightroom, Instagram) and 3] publish directly (4G connection, WiFi N) in a 4] compact form factor (bit thicker than a smartphone). I'm sad to see this category not take off but I'm glad I have one for myself. As an added benefit its great for China and Taiwan where I can still have my primary iPhone and use my camera as WiFi hotspot to get cheap data with a local sim.

It was done as a design exercise with Panasonic similar to the Hasselblad True with Motorola. It's far from perfect (design exercises usually aren't).

But. And that's a big 'B'. This camera let's me solve my photo problem (How do I take nice photos and share them while on the go) in way fewer steps and with less equipment than the mainstream camera solutions and with better quality than smartphones. (I want the photos to be "Nice" remember? Also 1" sensor! Raw! )

The author is in effect pushing for more features. That's not how you solve your users problems. What the camera industry needs to do is diff assumptions made about how camera's were used when these platforms were created (D series, EOS series) and how they are being used today - then solve for the new problem classes that emerged. Not tack on more features and higher performance as the author is suggesting. In the former case you push for the ability to run Photoshop and Instagram on the camera and publish mobiley, in the later case you push for faster bus speeds and more stable camera mounts.

</comment><comment><USER65> My ideal camera is just a simple autofocus camera which has two modes of operation. Standalone and paired with a phone. Standalone mode is built for speed - just manual controls, snap and shoot. No screen, no buttons at the back nothing. Just the PSAM dial, front and back wheels for shutter aperture control. When paired with a phone - AF and all the gimmicky stuff to be done using the phone's interface which will also act like a viewfinder. Of course you can still use manual controls on the phone app. You can even edit the images on the phone and like the OP says, bloody mount the camera somewhere, sit in your tent and shoot. What all fancy stuff you can do - once you have all the controls on the phone. Automatically fire when a bird takes off and fun things like that.

</comment><comment><USER66> The dumbest is that their "auto" modes aren't as good as phones. I bought a Fuji X-T20 and am really disappointed with it; it is definitely capable of much better results than my phone as long as you have the time to switch all the knobs, which is way more annoying than I thought it would be and often not possible depending on your subject.

I have no desire to do any post-processing and didn't realize that most of the amazing photos I saw in camera reviews were the result of professional-level post-processing.

<comment><USER67> With a bit of effort it's possible to create very nice images without doing any post-processing. See e.g. the book "In Camera" by Camera Labs editor Gordon Laing ([https://www.cameralabs.com/in- camera/](https://www.cameralabs.com/in-camera/)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> While this article focuses on DSLR type cameras, one that I find odd is the lack of phase detection autofocus on compact/superzoom cameras that use 1/2.3" (7.66mm x 6.17mm) sensors when we've had it in our phones for 3-4 years? The only compacts/superzooms with fast/accurate contrast-detect AF are Panasonic's cameras that use their secret-herbs-and-spices Depth from Defocus AF.

And what about the lack of IBIS (In-Body Image-Stabilisation) in cameras like the D850? Many mirrorless cameras (and Pentax DSLRs...) allow you to use unstabilised old glass like Minolta lenses with excellent results thanks to IBIS. I understand Nikon has a wealth of stabilised lenses but it'd be nice to have a bulletproof camera feature-wise. Plus you could pair lens barrel stabilisation with IBIS as Panasonic does with the GH5 and G85 to create silky smooth gimbal-like footage or crisp slow shutter photos while hand-held.

I'm sure these things will come in time but they seem like they should have been here already. Everyone is playing musical chairs with features.

</comment><comment><USER69> My Nikon AW1 can't even charge its own battery. I have to take it out of the camera and put it in a (huge, blocky, AC powered) charger.

</comment><comment><USER70> Tangentially related: I find that being able to run android apps on my camera (not my phone with its tiny lens) is extremely useful. I bought the Samsung galaxy camera 2, but I don't know of any other such product.

<comment><USER71> From a cursory Google search: Nikon COOLPIX S800c, Panasonic Lumix DMC-CM10. So the big players are investing in Android.

This just shows how different users have different needs. I do not want my camera to be "smart", I want it to measure the amount of light that comes trough the lens, tell me if it's too much or too little, then capture and save the data on some storage. I can take it from there.

My ideal solution would be something like the failed Siliconfilm project which was a digital sensor you'd put into an analog camera 35mm film compartment.

<comment><USER70> Thanks for the search Pawel, for some reason these didn't appear in my searches.

Yes, different needs. Actually the reason why I want android is mostly that I automate the upload of new photos to Amazon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> A huge thing that's missing is a proper file system, especially with undelete/recycle bin capabilities. It's amazing how in a consumer product like this, "delete" is essentially `rf -f`.

</comment><comment><USER73> I just wish they would sell mono cameras more (e.g. without the Bayer mask). Heck, I don't even need the camera. Just sell the chip and let companies like Atik, StarlightExpress and QHY pick them up.

</comment><comment><USER74> One area where I think camera makers could really improve is in coaching people how to take better pictures. I'm sure there are some good mobile apps out there but as a casual camera user, I would love to take my camera off auto-mode and actually learn how to use the advanced features. If I'm shooting portraits or landscapes, it would be great if the camera could intelligently let me know, "Why don't you try this exposure/aperture for a better picture". Pretty soon I would start to learn on my own.

<comment><USER75> I'd play a game like pokemon go, except you have to take photos of specific scenes and get points for how good you're picture is. You can go back later and take more pics once your photography skill has improved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Here's another one: the 30-minute recording limit for video recordings. Apparently Panasonic fixed this in their GH4R [0], but it doesn't seem that Canon and Nikon have.

I was looking for a camera to record meetup talks, and I almost bought a new Canon 80d until I realized it couldn't go more than 30 minutes without restarting.

[0]: [http://cameras.reviewed.com/news/panasonics-gh4r-finally- kil...](http://cameras.reviewed.com/news/panasonics-gh4r-finally-kills- the-30-minute-limit)

<comment><USER77> That's a heat-related issue; fixing it would require the ability to dissipate heat much faster (fans, etc.). That's one of the reasons why cinematic digital cameras are so much larger than DSLRs.

<comment><USER76> I had read that it was tax-related, something about a higher tax on "video cameras" in Europe, and "30 minutes" was the defined limit.

Heat would make some sense too, but it's interesting that Canon and Nikon would both have the same heat issue that magically manifests after 29:59.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> > camera with Bluetooth

Enjoy your Blueborne security vulnerabilities. Because I'm sure you'll easily get a firmware update from Nikon from your 5 year old camera.

Also, since Apple breaks Bluetooth in pretty much every iOS release, something tells me you're not going to have fun trying to use your iPhone with your camera. Especially since cameras are designed to last decades, not a 2 year max like phones.

</comment><comment><USER79> The problem is the lack of competition. Yes, you read that right: even though we have several "major competitors", they have reached a state of equilibrium, where they try to preserve the status quo as much as they can.

This isn't much different from the automotive market. All the cars are pretty much the same, except for Teslas. The DSLR world is waiting for their Tesla.

<comment><USER80> Sony's alpha series came out and disrupted this in some ways, breaking Canon and Nikon's duopoly of releasing the same camera every year even though the technology allowed for what they release 10 years ago prior.

I think Sony will continue innovating here, as long as people keep calling out the user experience problems.

Otherwise they will go into the incremental improvement phase too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> This is where I think Snap Inc can innovate. Traditional camera companies will never come up with a camera that shares well to any socially enabled device. Our devices (phones) are built to be do-it-all computers, not cameras and will never fulfill all the promises of new camera technology. What's missing is the real future of the camera.

</comment><comment><USER82> Tangentially related: I plan on buying a Sony a7s Mk2 this year. Aside from the screwmount and the battery issues, how is this camera affected by the other problems mentioned in the article (vibration, especially)? Is there anyone here who regularly shoots video with this camera?

<comment><USER56> If you didn't purchase yet, did you consider the a9 mentioned a few times in this blog? You might not need the extra MP of the a7s II.

Comparison for video:

[https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2661726126/alpha-better- so...](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2661726126/alpha-better- sony-a9-versus-a7r-ii?slide=9)

Field notes:

Used one on a trip in Europe. The light gathering is astonishing, both photos and video. Street shooting at night in dimly lit rural towns, almost every shot looks better than it did to naked eye.

Only took two very small lenses, FE 2/28 and FE 1.8/50, both gave results that belie their size and cost. It autofocused down to light levels that would need a 15 second exposure at f2 (candlelight is EV 4, autofocuses down to EV -3). It autofocused on stars.

The main thing I can't get over is its uncanny ability to nail tack sharp focus on the iris of either the main face in my image or the preferred registered face among many faces, at arbitrary distances from face larger than frame to far enough away focus doesn't matter.

<comment><USER82> Yep, and the A9 is, with ~3k4€ just for the body, outside of my price range unfortunately :(

The A7s2 costs ~2k€, I'll have to spend at least a grand on lenses and another grand for the XLR/mike head and the external battery pack... thanks for the heads-up on the performance though, hope the A7S will live up to expectations ;)

<comment><USER83> I think that a more-realistic competitor of the A7SII is the Fuji X-T2. The Fuji has a wonderful feel, the UX is _really impressively simple_ and just 'feels right'.

Had I not already invested in another system, I'd probably have gone Fuji.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> 1/4" mount with no anti-rotate hole.

I have a 80D and there is a 1/4" mount at the bottom. But if you take a photo in portrait orientation with a long lens then the 1/4" bolt will not be strong enough and the camera will twist out of it. It's a joke!

<comment><USER31> I eventually went with an L bracket on my camera -- the bracket has Arca Swiss rails.

But now it's a little bigger and heavier :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Funny, my Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji cameras have a lot of these issues fixed (Wifi, Bluetooth, good app, excellent tripod collar, etc.) it looks more like a Nikon problem.

Or as I tell people in my talks: Nikon is the new Nokia.

</comment><comment><USER85> And it's time movies started being high FPS. Low FPS is mainly a relic from a time film was expensive and the technology to produce it tough. Their usual excuse is that low FPS solutions do motion blur well.

<comment><USER44> I wonder what, say, 100 fps video shot with an exposure of 1/25 would look like. You'd need 4 cameras or a special camera to record it, but that could be simulated. It would probably look bad, but maybe in an exciting new way? Has anyone tried that yet in, say, Blender?

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> Somebody, somewhere, is planning a Kickstarter campaign off the back of this.

<comment><USER87> You aren't kidding, man. This is how Red got started if you substitute the gripes for (functionally similar) ones from motion picture cameras.

 _$100k for a camera with a base sensor just barely better than a flip-phone camera, and the size and shape of an old over-shoulder ENG rig. In 2006. What happens if we put a 21 megapixel DSLR sensor in a box?_

I would be really interested to see a similar thing happening in reverse. Gopro hits a niche, but not quite.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> If the author of this blog is here, there is a nice padding around the content at most breakpoints, but not at 1200px. It makes it very difficult to read.

</comment><comment><USER89> And the "Why?" is explained in short words: They will have things they can sell as new "innovations" for the next camera models.

</comment><comment><USER90> So many of these complaints can be leveled at manufacturers of pretty much every piece of tech widely used. As soon as a company becomes big, it's a race to the bottom for every silo manager to make his particular silo the leanest which leads to less quality materials, cheaper parts, and an overall worse product.

Dell and HP are the most brutal examples. Dell laptops I work on regularly are put together so incredibly cheaply, it's infuriating.

</comment><comment><USER91> The biggest problems in photography are dynamic range and low light. If they can fix these, we're set.

</comment><comment><USER92> The dumbest thing they're doing is still making DSLRs. The mirror adds weight, the assembly can be a source of leaking light, it vibrates and wears out the camera, and offers no benefit of any sort. When the output comes from the sensor anyway, you might as well have a digital viewfinder that gives you the sensor's view.

</comment><comment><USER93> This guy should write an article on technology in modern vehicles. (Excluding Tesla)

</comment><comment><USER94> I still shoot film using cameras and lenses built when my dad was a kid.

</comment><comment><USER95> Profit margins on camera bodies are extremely low (for resellers sometimes around 1%). All profit is made on accessories like lenses, bags and tripods.

So I can imagine that RnD is limited to chips and software instead of body work.

</comment><comment><USER96> My Leica SL luckily doesn't suffer from most of these 'issues'. It still only has 1 UHS-II slot though. It would be nice if it had IBIS though.

</comment><comment><USER97> Oh god, don't get me started on this. Why can't we have modern day USB ports?

</comment><comment><USER98> I can't wait until I have to worry about bluetooth attacks on my DSLR too.

</comment><comment><USER99> 1/4" tripod socket is the best common option. I use it. No point there because the user don't use it. Don't undertand why remove a standard?

Optical remotes? I don't take selfie. I press the button.

Wifi? lol, no thanks. I want a camera not a phone and I don't want 1 hour of battery.

Battery problem? where? just buy battery pack...

<comment><USER100> > Optical remotes? I don't take selfie. I press the button.

The OP had a specific complaint about cameras not having an IR receiver at the _back_ , i.e., for non-selfies. Remotes are useful for bulb shots, for reducing camera shake, and many other things.

<comment><USER101> I think he was mostly joking about it being for non-selfies.

Depending on exact location, the accepted angles should be slightly less than 180 degrees in front of the camera—you don't need to be anywhere near the subject, unless you got a fisheye mounted.

It's just a bit silly that the default approach wasn't RF, rather than optical, even if they put receivers on all sides of the camera. Some new cameras have BLE though, which is nice and solves most problems (although I prefer physical remotes to poorly written apps).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> The camera people described are living in the past. They're talking about rigid mounts and tripods, not active stabilization. They're talking about aiming the camera, rather than taking a full spherical picture and selecting from that.

Here's a 360 degree camera on a gimbal mount [1] and a video taken with a similar rig.[2] View the video in 2160p, and click and drag the image to change the direction of view. No need to focus. No worries about depth of field. No need to aim. Not even that expensive.

Pointing the lens is so last-cen.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P69-mh- Jw6k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P69-mh-Jw6k) [2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTcx0OHehdE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTcx0OHehdE)

<comment><USER103> That channel is ridiculously over-sexualized.

Also 360° video is as much a gimmic as 3D video.

<comment><USER102> That's just the capture phase. You pick 2D images from the stream when editing.</comment></comment></comment>


Hoodie - for frontend-only web apps. - <AUTHOR> http://hood.ie/

<comment><AUTHOR> Super interesting project lost in the new page 2 :(.</comment>


How much do you use the terminal? - <AUTHOR> Actually, my main question is whether there is anybody here who only (or almost only) uses a terminal/commandline interface for his day-to-day computing?
I recently installed Arch alongside my usual Ubuntu and decided to forego the use of the X server... It has actually been easier than I had expected: mutt for email, w3m for the web, mocp for music, etc. But of course I still have my normal Ubuntu for when I really do need to look at something other than text (and it remains my primary OS).
Is there anybody here who has completed the switch and uses a CLI almost exclusively?
EDIT: fixed typo <comment><USER2> There are too many usefully GUI tools to be a purest about living in the terminal.

I enjoy the terminal for development, but even then I find myself switching to Chrome for docs/github/stackoverflow, wireshark for packet capture, spotify for music.

Corporate stuff (outlook) is always MS / Windows based so it's just easier to stick with that.

If w3m was a bit more consistent with rendering (or if the web was more accessible) I would probably use that.

</comment><comment><USER3> It sounds like the question is really 'who does not use X server for their day to day computing?'

The closest I come to this is when working on servers that don't have Xwindows installed. On these systems I don't need to use email, web, listen to music, etc.

Interesting question though. I assume folks that do this for development use tmux, screen or some other screen splitting.

OP: would this be better as an 'Ask HN'?

<comment><AUTHOR> > OP: would this be better as an 'Ask HN'?

Yes, it would ;-) For some reason, I was under the impression that HN automatically prepends 'Ask HN' to all submissions that do not include a link. Guess I was wrong...

<comment><USER4> I think by default Hacker News throws all text only submissions into the "Ask HN" stream...except for those that start with "Show HN". But Show HN is more recent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> #define "almost exclusively"

Web browsing, with modern insistence on JavaScript sh&t for displaying _static text_ ("single-page apps" for web sites being a major offender), virtually cannot be done on terminal.

Other than that and playing media files (I happen to really like Exaile for music), I can't think of anything I do in GUI.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, single page apps can be really annoying. Sure, they look great on a modern browser with good internet, but take away either of these two, and they're a pain in the neck.

On the plus side: that does mean that I waste less time online when I'm in the terminal...

<comment><USER5> > [SPAs] look great on a modern browser with good internet, but take away > either of these two, and they're a pain in the neck.

You don't even need to do that. Just try to open a part of the web page in another tab. Most of single-page apps fail this simple test, which is a very important way I interact with web sites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I use the terminal a lot in that I always have several sessions open whether I'm using Mac or Linux. Generally I'm running `git` commands or python scripts, or else just testing my rubbish internet status with `ping`, `traceroute`, etc - how else do people do that?

</comment><comment><USER7> Don't think I've been text only since about '89 when I first started using Sun workstations, then DEC Alphas then PCs with Linux and/or Windows.

However, from '83 to '89 I was text only!</comment>


Ask HN: What revenue X has by the time acquired by Y for $Z - <AUTHOR>

I wonder is there is a list of acquisitions in the start-up industry having the actual revenue a company have had by the time of acquisition.
Sure there are many other factors for a company valuation such as TOM, SAM, SOM, talents, and other stuff.
It does not have to be acquisition rather valuation, which was made for an investment.
What I care about is simple.
Being a bootstrap profitable startup, I wonder what is the optimal momentum to approach VCs for series A, assuming the TOM a very huge figure.
If there isn't such a list, (I doubt there is), what is the formula for a valuation then? Where should I draw my top-bottom lines?
As PG once said on Bloomberg, founders wish they were valuating their own companies, but they don't investors do that, and I wonder, how do they do that, and what shall I accept / reject. <comment><USER2> [http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/09/determining-valuation- multip...](http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/09/determining-valuation- multiples.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you very much!</comment></comment>


g-fu: a Lisp developed and embedded in Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/codr7/g-fu/ <comment><USER2> g-fu author here,

I'll do my best to keep an eye on the discussion so feel free to ask questions/suggest improvements.

<comment><USER3> Could you add more context why this is useful (xkcd reference is entertaining, but does not elevate this to more than toy usage)

<comment><USER2> The idea wasn't to elevate anything, I'm sharing ideas with anyone who is interested.

There's nothing in here that will make you rich and famous, I have nothing to sell.</comment></comment></comment>


People migrating from GitHub to Gitlab should learn about these details first - <AUTHOR> https://www.prahladyeri.com/blog/2018/06/people-migrating-from-github-to-gitlab-should-learn-about-these-details-first.html <comment><USER2>
        There is a reason why Twitter ditched Rails in favor of Node.js

LOL if you're going to spout FUD at least spout _correct_ FUD - it was Scala.

There's extra bonus irony that both the service you're advocating switching _from_ (Github) and the competitor people are switching _to_ are written in Ruby.

<comment><USER3> That's true, but to be fair, the complaint is in the context of someone running their own instance of a private Gitlab service. Gitlab licenses their software, and Github doesn't. So you don't have to worry directly about how much the server is costing you.

That said, I don't see Gitlab's use of Azure as a huge issue. That doesn't give MS anywhere near the kind of control over the platform that they'll have with Github.</comment></comment>


Recycle your old Mac for an Apple Gift Card - <AUTHOR> http://store.apple.com/us/browse/reuse_and_recycle

<comment><AUTHOR> Although it's nothing new, it's still a good reminder for those folks who are now ready to buy that fancy next gen MacBook Pro.

</comment><comment><USER2> How much for my Apple IIe? :)</comment>


The Future of Computing Depends on Making It Reversible (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/the-future-of-computing-depends-on-making-it-reversible <comment><USER2> _There's not much time left to develop reversible machines, because progress in conventional semiconductor technology could grind to a halt soon. And if it does, the industry could stagnate, making forward progress that much more difficult. So the time is indeed ripe now to pursue this technology, as it will probably take at least a decade for reversible computers to become practical._

I believe the opposite: companies should wait until performance improvements in mainstream processors have really ground to a halt before investing substantial resources in reversible computing. Otherwise it will be a financial sinkhole like many prior attempts at exotic computing hardware that couldn't make a sustainable profit.

The only path suggested in the article that could be pursued right now involves superconducting devices, requiring cryogenic cooling that will never work for phones, tablets, or laptops. A company would be trying to catch up with a _tremendous_ head start enjoyed by CMOS plus conceding that the new hardware, even fully realized, will never address markets as broad as CMOS.

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe its just my distaste for the more whimsical topics in thermodynamics but is this a round about way of saying any circuit without entropy loss is also reversible?

As the article states, you can reverse intermittent computational values to recover energy so it seems that reversibility isn't really a necessary feature of computing as much as a feature of waste free circuits.

EDIT: Why the down votes? I'm asking a question here.

<comment><USER4> >> Why the down votes?

Let me offer a theory:

It seems that we need a 'Law of Anonymous Social Systems Entropy' (not to be confused with the idea of 'Social Entropy') that states that every social system (including social media platforms) tends, over time, to demonstrate that groups of negative human beings will eventually -- by virtue of their being less constrained by civility and less tolerant of foreign ideas or groups -- infiltrate and negatively affect all human social systems that allow anonymity. This is likely due to the fact that anonymous social capital (e.g. this site's user reputation) is not real enough to activate normal human self- censorship. As well, the disingenuous will be able to game the system to gain the social capital necessary to negatively affect the system. Note that the negative group need not be in the majority to do damage.

It has taken longer for HN to reflect this truth but it appears that a significant percentage of this site's commentariat has finally become more and more insular to ideas -- and even questions -- more borderline than the ideas of those who hold its social capital (i.e. those with the ability to downvote a post).

In theory, anonymity is great for allowing free-thinking people to express their controversial views without worry for reprisal from other groups, but in reality that gives cover to the people with purely destructive, anti-social, anti-progressive and intolerant tendencies. And those attitudes and their accompanying behaviors have a much greater negative system effect than those of well-intentioned users.

The fact that our entire world is now connected by effectively anonymous social media means that the above concept has crept into every aspect of our lives, and has actually cost lives in places such as Myanmar.

(Note that I don't have the karma to up or down vote.)

<comment><USER5> That reminds me of Eliezer's model of evaporative cooling of beliefs - and, by extension, communities. TL;DR: as trolls, or random chance, slightly lowers the standard of discussion, the first people to get fed up and leave the community are the ones with above-average quality contributions. When they leave, the average quality goes down. The process repeats until the community is garbage.

[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative- cooling-of-group-beliefs)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> An interesting video about it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVmZTGeIwnc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVmZTGeIwnc)

<comment><USER6> Interesting but it doesn't really explain how a software trick can help us break the Landauer limit...

I'd love for Isaac Arthur to tackle this, he uses the Landauer limit a lot to express things like "How many human minds can run on the energy of a black hole some 10^53 year into the future?"

<comment><USER7> His channel is really fantastic.

I love his civilizations at the end of time series.

<comment><USER6> I send Isaac an email, he responded that he would look into it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So, after some reading and watching... Is this like using balls in space to do computation? It takes no energy to lead them down paths using elastic collisions but it does moving them actively and resetting them to their base position. Then, resetting could also be done by a fully elastic collision causing the ball to go back down its path.

But then, it still must take energy to move the switches that send the balls in desired directions, right? But perhaps this is much less. But not 0.

I am not a physicist in case this post was not glaringly obvious.

<comment><USER8> One of the possibilities for adiabatic computing I was interested in some time ago was to use an oscillating power supply. You still lose some energy due to the interconnect resistance, but much less, since you're only sustaining the oscillations (the charges don't get dissipated when returning to the ground, they just move back).

Then, it's "only" a matter of deciding which part of the circuit will be powered for the next oscillation, and the switching can be done when vds=0.

I haven't had the occasion to think about this as much as I wanted, though, so the above explanation might be incorrect. Hopefully this gives you a better idea of the concept (which there are many ways to approach).

So yeah, there are losses (mostly due to circuit resistance), but the "switches" are capacitors, which are just "springs" in the electrical sense. You can get back your energy if done in a clever manner, but we typically just short them to discharge (switch) them :)

So, compare the energy required to compact and extend a spring if:

* You oscillate with it

* You compact it, fully release it, then recompact it.

This is a very apt analogy, I think, up to the mathematical level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wonder if progress on reversible computing tech is being stymied by the NSA's own ambitions in this area? They have an annoying habit of plucking promising talent out of non-classified R&D environments that they feel would be useful for maintaining the computational competitive edge that they need in order to keep ahead of the rest of the world. They have done this for decades in areas like VLSI design and cryptography.

</comment><comment><USER10> > A conventional computer is, essentially, an expensive electric heater that > happens to perform a small amount of computation as a side effect.

Is this really a fair analogy? Isn't it precisely the opposite? The computer performs computation and generates heat as a side effect?

<comment><USER11> Given how far we are from the Landauer limit, the comparison is apt. The amount of negentropy gained by computation even in the best case is utterly dwarfed by the increase of entropy in the form of waste heat.

<comment><USER12> I was having this conversation recently, trying to think of what about computation produces waste heat - how many watts go to computation vs how many watts are waste due to inefficiency.

But we couldn't put our finger on, where does this inefficiency come from? Is is the silicon heating up due to resistance ? Or is there some analogy for friction in switching the state of a flip flop , such that there is heat generated by the state change ?

<comment><USER11> In our current hardware it is almost entirely electrical resistance. But even in a theoretical 100% superconducting computer there's a fundamental lower bound to heat dissipated by every _bit-erasing_ operation; this is the Landauer limit. Entropy increases when we forget information: we can't reverse the computation, giving time a direction (the so-called thermodynamical arrow of time).

You can think of it as conservation of energy: if you have two electric signals and put them through a gate with only one output, some of the total energy must be dumped to balance the books. If a computation is completely reversible—if we can always get our input back given the output, Landauer limit does not apply, but of course other hardware inefficiencies may still be present.

<comment><USER13> Actually, cmos input stages are high impedance, i.e. high resistance, and therefore have close to no current flowing between state changes. The output stage should be very low impedance if driving loads, or very high impedance if turned of. Indeed, switching between states, saturating the gates with enough electrons is the problem that generates heat, when there is voltage and resistance visible for the following node. At that scale, the small resistance of the connections plays a role, too, sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very cool. Still, it seems like other cooling technologies (and more energy- efficient chip design) will remain lower-hanging than this approach for some time. Lowering transistor size isn't the only way to increase speed.

</comment><comment><USER15> To learn more, the _Feynman Lectures on Computation_ is one good older source.

</comment><comment><USER16> Visual studio 2017 has a "reverse time" feature in its debugger. It works surprisingly well.

</comment><comment><USER17> Can you even build a reversible logic gate using flip-flops?

</comment><comment><USER18> So like infinite undo on the CPU level?

</comment><comment><USER19> A bonus feature of reversible computing is that a lot of garbage collection becomes a lot easier. Do a bunch of computation, copy off the results you need long term, unwind the computation. No need to track the unwound values' lifetimes.

<comment><USER14> I don't think this is analogous to immutable data structures.

<comment><USER19> That's not what I'm saying.

Execute instructions. Some of those instructions effectively allocate memory. Reverse execution. Running backwards undoes the allocations.

<comment><USER20> ... at the cost of erasing the result, and taking time proportional to the original computation? Clever optimization, but the net result seems suboptimal

<comment><USER19> The idea is that eventually we'll have to go reversible anyway. Computation will have to run twice in order to run at more than 2X the clock speed of running once. Getting easy garbage collection is a side effect, not a goal of the optimization.

And, the result will have to be copied off before rewinding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a great idea but is contingent on advances in storage. Perhaps by storing information in a more biological way (utilizing DNA, for example) instead of silicon, is the way forward.</comment>


Zen And The Art Of Scaling - A Koan And Epigram Approach - <AUTHOR> http://highscalability.com/blog/2012/2/27/zen-and-the-art-of-scaling-a-koan-and-epigram-approach.html

<comment><USER2> 6\. Scaling is about compromises. Statelessness scales forever, but does nothing.</comment>


A collaborative spreadsheet of "Coronavirus stocks" - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bBsJnUIWg8BbET-h3oKN8qY45JScNeoRr4BHJIp7Jpo/ <comment><USER2> Leverage should be a column as many companies that are highly levered will not have the resources to outlast this crisis.

<comment><USER3> As should cash (negative leverage?). It would be nice to visualize how much cash vs debt companies like Apple and Microsoft have. FAAMG have between $480B-$590B in cash on around $200B in debt.

It has it for Berkshire but not for companies who have more, Apple, Microsoft.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> ?? Seems locked from read as well

> You need permission; Want in? Ask for access, or switch to an account with > permission.

<comment><USER4> Access is fixed today.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It was changed to a read only link, not sure why. I'd have appreciated addition from the HN folks

<comment><USER5> We certainly didn't change the link. We did take "Show HN" out of the title, since it falls more under the category of curated list than something you can try out or play with. [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting sheet.

Might be useful to also add columns to show the current PE and also the market vs book value.</comment>


Login button is broken on Linkedin. They suggest that I use another browser - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/forum/question/663963 <comment><USER2> Switching browser usually means that you don't have any extensions installed, no caching, no local storage, probably no malware and so on.

They suggest you to _try_ another browser and see if that's fixed. If is fixed, there is a problem on your side. If is not, there might be a problem on their side.

\---

TLDR: that looks like a standard/automated reply</comment>


Ask HN: What can we do to help Andrew Auernheimer? - <AUTHOR> It frustrates me that I did not lift a finger to help Aaron Swartz. Part of the problem is that I feel so damned impotent when it comes to actually doing anything. Petitions make our numbers known, but they are all bark and no bite.
I'd like to open a brainstorming discussion here about what we can do to add a systematic bite to our bark. And not just a bite, but a focused bite that we can all get behind to take a chunk out of injustice.
I'll be honest, I don't think I have any great ideas to address this. I have a couple off-the-wall ideas that I'll throw out there. You should do the same. If someone comes up with something brilliant that we can all get excited about, well, let's stop procrastinating and start our counterattack, shall we?
For my part, here's some brainstorming:
1. We are the new media; let's do what the media should: The SOPA blackout was an inspiring success. Can we be more systematic with this method? What if, once a month or so, we democratically chose some injustice being perpetrated by the justice department (the Andrew Auernheimer case, for example), and focused all our energy on a repeat of the success we had with the SOPA blackout? I'm imagining a simple voting site with a countdown and instructions for participating once the target had been selected. Each target could have a list of subscribers - people or companies willing to take a public position on the issue - giving us a better idea of which target might be successfully addressed.
2. Can we put our money where our mouths are? What if someone started a startup that allowed us to automatically funnel money to politicians that behaved the way we wanted them to behave? For example, with a few clicks, I might put twenty-five dollars towards the reelection campaign of a politician that started an investigation into the case of Andrew Auernheimer. If a politician did so, they would automatically receive my 25$ along with whatever other money was donated to the cause. If more than one politician did so, it would be split among them.
This is a serious problem that affects all of us. A lot of the public tolerates us as witches and wizards and have little compunction about turning on us for doing harmless things that seem scary to them. The first step in doing something about it is choosing something to do. Well, let's get started, damn it. <comment><USER2> Don't presume that people already know the story.

Here are a few links, to start with:

[http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/att-ipad-hacker-when- em...](http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/att-ipad-hacker-when-embarassment- becomes-a-crime)

[http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/21/ipad-hack-statement-of- resp...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/21/ipad-hack-statement-of- responsibility/)

<http://cfaadefensefund.com/>

I recall at the time this story originally hit (or soon after) some concern/speculation as to whether he originally intended to report the problem or whether he did so after thinking through the cost/benefits of using the data privately versus reporting the problem publicly. I do _not_ know whether this is the case; perhaps someone else can speak to this more authoritatively.

Regardless, he reported the problem. Also, I think many non-technical actors and reporters in this have no concept of how quickly and effectively a very simple script could scrape that number of... I don't even want to call them "accounts", because they were public pages and set up in the vast majority of cases without the data owners' knowledge.

Once you have the proof of concept script, 10 examples versus 100,000 examples may be just the difference between a second or two's run and several (well, maybe many) minutes' run.

Hell, the phone could ring, and you hang up a half-hour later to find/remember that your script is still running. I'm not saying that's what happened; on the other hand, it easily could have.

P.S. Regarding that defense fund link, whoever's managing it should try a little SEO; currently, it's not in the top two pages of Google results against Andrew's full name. (I got frustrated and didn't look further into the results.)

</comment><comment><USER3> A lot of people didn't know who Aaron was until he died, or at least couldn't put his name to his actions.

Maybe you should explain who Andrew Auernheimer is?

 _What if someone_

This is part of the problem, suggesting that someone else do something.

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev> There goes the wiki link.

Can anyone summarize what's he going through currently? Any DoJ cases etc. Some guilty plea extortion or out of proportion criminal charges worth millions and 100+ yrs in jail. We can use the petition (with 25k signatures) as a great tool to get these things looked into by the White House. Such exposure will guarantee that nobody will play with anyone's life just for their career sake.</comment>


Arduino Pinball Machine That Plays Itself - <AUTHOR> https://www.instructables.com/id/Arduino-Pinball-Machine-That-Plays-Itself/ <comment><USER2> Very nice, I love pinballs. There's room for improvement on the ball detection and flippers movement, probably requiring a faster processor and complex code; I mean having really good control of the flippers (and ball detection accuracy) so that a flipper can be used to stop and direct the ball by firing it before the ball enters in its area then using the flipper returning to place to damp the ball speed, then before the ball falls into the hole, wait the right amount of time before firing again the flipper to give the ball the desired trajectory. This is not too hard to learn for a human but probably quite a challenge both for hardware and software.

</comment><comment><USER3> > in animum apparatus iacet victoria

My Latin is pretty bad. Victory lies in the spirit of the machine, maybe? Or perhaps the spirit of victory lies in the machine?

It sounds like the flippers just fire when the camera identifies that a ball is somewhere in a zone that will cause the ball to be hit. I'm curious about doing more than that. I wonder how accurately such a system could aim for a particular target.

<comment><USER4> Victory lies etc...

<comment><USER5> In that case, wouldn't it correctly be conjugated as 'In animō apparati iacet victoria'? I haven't touched Latin since boyhood so I'm likely completely wrong, but I am eager to understand this.

<comment><USER6> Apparatus is forth declension, the genitive form is still apparatus. I agree that animus should take the ablative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like the perfect problem to apply reinforcement learning to. Just let it play and learn at the same time.

I think they could even skip the explicit implementation of ball position/velocity tracking.

<comment><USER8> I think it would be painfully slow to have it learn in real time, especially if a grad student had to put the ball in between every game like what is demoed.

<comment><USER9> You could definitely pipe (literally) the ball to the input like in real pinball machines and trigger a new iteration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As one of the good pinball players in the world, I think my ranking is safe for now.

They built a drunk pinballer flailing simulator...

<comment> worthless-trash That is exactly how it starts.

<comment> blaser-waffle Eventually they're doing speed runs and finding odd magnetic anomalies with the ball and plungers

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> [https://aussieazuredevs.github.io/blog/pinball/genesis](https://aussieazuredevs.github.io/blog/pinball/genesis) Is another group's attempt at using machine learning to play existing real games.

</comment><comment><USER12> This would be a good "attract mode" feature to have on a commercial pinball machine in a bar, etc.

</comment><comment> dave-f Heh, reminds me of the "Phantom Flip" on the old Monster Bash table: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Bash_(pinball)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Bash_\(pinball\))

<comment><USER13> "Thing flips" on Addams Family ~6 years earlier. A few machines had things like that.

<comment><USER14> "Well played, Thing; you're really on the ball!" - Raul Julia, as Gomez.

<comment><USER13> I really wish I'd bought one of those back when they were merely hard-to- justify-on-my-high-school-job-wages expensive rather than hard-to-justify-on- my-developer-salary-with-a-family expensive. Never imagined they'd appreciate faster than my disposable income did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Very cool! My daughter is getting interested in robotics, and we recently got an Arduino starter set. This won't be our next project, but it will get us building more!

</comment><comment><USER16> Few. Why would I want to play pinball myself.

</comment><comment><USER17> Why did they build the entire pinball machine themselves? The portion that "plays itself" is a camera attached to some very basic computer vision techniques that boil down to:

When ball detected in flipper area, flip.

You could attach this to any commercial machine by connecting a relay where the flipper buttons would be.

<comment><USER18> Because it's a university senior design project - they often pair students with related majors together to work on a project over the course of a semester or two. It's about the interesting engineering of the entire project. They never claimed any one part of it was "novel" but the project as a whole clearly is.</comment></comment>


Bus Pirate [hware dbug device] - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_Pirate <comment><AUTHOR> wikipedia article is usually a coordinated treatise edited and vetted by the community. there are usually links from the wikipedia article so readers can chase down breadcrumbs and primary literature references with relative ease.

You will find your dangerous prototypes link near the bottom of the page with a number of other references, and near the top in the right side column ["ads column"].

if you take a look at my recent submissions you will see a collection of articles all dancing around the subject of designing a device to snarph data from a display controller/driver chip or readable display panel.

for those that can read between the line they would just need to see the titles and understand exactly how to make such a thing, for those that need to read the entire articles there should be sufficient exposure provided for someone even someone green to put it all together with guidance here and there.

</comment><comment><USER2> Is there a reason that this is a link to the wikipedia article instead of [http://dangerousprototypes.com/docs/Bus_Pirate](http://dangerousprototypes.com/docs/Bus_Pirate) ?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a usefull and relevant link as well.

[https://github.com/BusPirate/Bus_Pirate](https://github.com/BusPirate/Bus_Pirate)</comment></comment>


Shrink thinking: are countries really like people? - <AUTHOR> https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/nations-people-upheaval-niall-ferguson/ <comment><USER2> Ascribing personhood to countries is weirder than ascribing personhood to corporations.

Particularly grating is the common parlance that countries X and Y are "friends" or "enemies". This may have made sense in the world of monarchical empires, but in modern nations it is at best a rough summary of the collective attitude of an elite. The bulk of the population in each country is unlikely to care at all about the other. And there is likely to be a significant dissent about whether friend or enemy should characterize the relationship.

<comment><USER3> It's a model used to simplify the world around us and, as with all models, it's wrong but useful. When you over-apply the model, it stops being useful.

<comment><USER4> How useful is it really? I think it only serves to conflate the will of the people with the will of the elite. I certainly don't want to be associated with everything the US has done in my lifetime.

Is it really that much harder to name the person who proposed the policy or who ordered the action?

<comment><USER5> Yes, for most people it's much harder to name the person who proposed it, and those who carried it out. Heck, we anthropomorphize cars, animals, and the weather... on a regular basis. I'm not saying it's good much less accurate, but it usually makes the story easier to tell and more memorable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> C.G. Jung once wrote that it was totally clear that the amount of conscience of a group of people is inversely proportional to the size of the group. So, if countries are like people they mostly are like psychopaths.

<comment><USER7> If it's possible to mathematically characterize the relationship, and the relationship is non-linear, then there exists an optimal hierarchical grouping algorithm for maximizing empathy in nested groups (that balances the loss due to group numbers vs the "generation loss" from traversing hierarchical levels.

I think the difference in sizes between the organizational groups of different countries goes a long way towards explaining the vast differences in political flavor. How many people are in the smallest political constituency you identify with? Dozens? Hundreds? Millions? This is the range of scales we're dealing with.

What would it look like if we layered government so that at no level was any group larger than tribal size (~150)? In the US you'd only need 4 levels to cover the entire population, roughly corresponding to: neighborhood (150 people), town (~20,000 people), city/state (3-4 million people), country (327 million people). At that scale, each representative can be on friendly personal terms with a) everyone in the constituency they represent and b) every other representative at their level. So the access to government ought to be much better with this system. In the US, local and federal governments are divided - there's not a lot of continuity between the town government and your friendly local congressperson.

<comment><USER8> My friends/partner and I are designing neighborhood models to go along with these ideas with the goal of experimenting with them on land we give back to native tribes. I'd love to talk to you more about this if you're interested. My contact info is in my profile, if so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Surprised to see Ferguson assert that the UK is more than 400 years old. The UK came into being in 1801, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It's predecessor was the Kingdom of Great Britain, itself created in 1707 with the Act of Union between England and Scotland.

<comment><USER10> He's probably equating the union of the crowns with the creation of the UK. His political views are well known to be very passionately unionist and critical of Scottish nationalism so he's motivated to overstate the historical reach and influence of the UK as much as possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have very little doubt that countries are like their own people. If anything, for the simple fact that democratic governments are the expression of the people's predilections, fears, shortcomings and traditions.

When an emotional undercurrent or specific attitude is present in a population- be it the result of current events or of a longstanding cultural heritage, then it will reflect at state level. Thinking of interpreting history as the result of external conditions and the choices of few people in power is like trying to interpret the behaviour of a person as the combination of external events and individual neurons firing.

<comment><USER12> To oversimplify, think of a human population as an information system, and ask

\- where is the state kept, and

\- where is the state mutated?

There is some state kept in objects like books and buildings and databases.

But the individual human brains are the greatness/shame of the nation.

There is a cognitive crutch "The American People" that is frequently leaned on, but the large the population symbolically aggregated for the assertion, the less meaningful it seems.

Hence my disagreement when someone says:

> I have very little doubt that countries are like their own people.

It gets really hard to make any point stick at scale.

<comment><USER2> A common phrase of politicians and commentators objecting to some policy with which they disagree is "That is not who we are as a people!"

Unless backed up with really good polling data, the phrase is total nonsense.

<comment><USER12> I'm attacking "as a people".

It's a flag indicating: "hogwash".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Personhood includes identity, character and personality. Ascribing most of a countries' personhood to a personality and a therapeutic perspective does not eliminate the character and identity the greater story of a nation instills in it's populace and they grow to inhabit.

There are more lines you could draw against the title, but the content of the article is so narrow I don't know which would be the most productive to add.

The culture and character of a nation is a useful guide stone for the beginning of any expectations one could have interacting with said country.</comment>


Be worried about facial recognition technology - <AUTHOR> https://www.iafrikan.com/2019/09/02/this-is-why-you-should-be-worried-about-facial-recognition-technology/ <comment><USER2> Is there a good list of essays defending the principle of the right to privacy to counter the idiots who vomit the "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" line?</comment>