Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game - <AUTHOR> http://asherv.com/threes/threemails <comment><USER2> Having a foot in the indie game developer community and another in startups, it's fascinating to see the HN comments in response to this post.

The indie game developers care about originality, passion, the sweat and hard months of work, the dedication to the craft. I think the point of Asher's essay is to show how much love and effort went into it, and that they were indeed the first to ship a full, polished game with that concept. That's where their pride and satisfaction comes from.

The startup people care about end user experience, how good the PR is, and ultimately how numbers matter more than everything else.

I don't think there's a wrong or right vision - it's two very different communities.

Indie game devs dream of making amazing games with other talented, inspiring people - and as long as they make enough money to live not too uncomfortably, they're fine. Their biggest dream is to receive an IGF award and see their game on Steam. Maybe make enough money to be able to start a studio with a bunch of their friends, but definitely not to "scale" to EA-size.

Startup people dream of growing their company to Facebook size, making billions of dollars, scaling, and being on Techcrunch.

It's two very different communities, and it's fun to see the two worlds collide.

Addendum: if you feel like this post is vindictive, bitter, etc.- remember: the best way to interpret a view different than yours is to understand that there is a worldview in which those statements are perfectly coherent, logical, and meaningful. Asher, Greg, and all the other people mentioned in this post are successful, highly respected members of the indie game dev community - not a bunch of guys who are angry for whatever silly reason.

<comment><USER3> They shipped the first version. They then decide to ise the term "rip offs" \- even though people developing one of the first very popular rip offs claim to have never seen Threes!

<comment><USER4> Are you referring to 2048?

They said they were based on 1024, and 1024 explicitly launched with an app store description along the lines of "Why waste your money on Threes, we're free".

EDIT: Found the quote. Surprise surprise it's no longer in their description.

"No need to pay for ThreesGames. This is a simple and fun gift for you, and it's free."

<comment><USER5> Which 2048 are you referring to? The creator of the one that hit it off on HN said that they weren't aware of Threes until after it took off [0]

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373927](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373927)

<comment><USER6> The very comment you link to says 2048 was based on 1024. And 1024 was indisputably based on Threes.

<comment><USER5> How does that negate my point?

<comment><USER7> the point is that you cannot download an iOS app without encountering its description, so to say that you know about 1024 and not Threes is deeply suspect.

<comment><USER3> That is incorrect.

Search for a game. The set of games is displayed with an install link and a screenshot. The description needs some scrolling.

(Edit: bizarrely heavy downvoting in this thread)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _> We know Threes is a better game, we spent over a year on it._

I played Threes, and I liked it. And I feel for these guys having to watch everybody and his brother pile on to the idea they had to work so hard to tease out into reality.

But here is some hard truth: none of that matters.

Nobody cares how hard you had to work to get from idea to product. All they care about is _what you have produced_ at the end of all that work. What makes it better or worse is how it stacks up relative to the competition -- even the competition that is shamelessly riffing off your core ideas -- not how much sweat you put into it.

And I gotta say, having played 2048, 1024 and Threes (the Android versions, at least), I think of the three of them 1024 stands up the best. It takes the core ideas in Threes and sands them down into a game that is easier to grasp and plays faster, without becoming so simple (a la 2048) that it becomes a game a script can beat. Threes makes you swipe-swipe-swipe after every game to get your score and "sign" it (why do I care about signing it?) before you can play again; 1024 just moves you straight on to the next game. Mobile games need to be simple and streamlined, and 1024 understands that imperative better than Threes does.

I say all this to help others understand why I would point to this essay as an example of how _not_ to respond to a problem like a barrage of cloners. It's because this essay sees the world entirely from the developers' perspective -- look how hard we worked! Look how long we labored! Look how subtle our decisions were! -- which is exactly the wrong angle.

You want your communications to speak from the _customer 's_ perspective, not from your own. Customers don't give you brownie points for how hard you worked on something. All they care about is how to get the best product for the best price. So if you put your heart and soul into something, and then someone comes along, tweaks your thing and makes it better, the way to respond isn't to ask people to respect how hard you worked; it's to look closely at the new thing, _understand why people like it better_ , and then bring that understanding to your next iteration or your next product.

<comment><USER9> > Nobody cares how hard you had to work to get from idea to product.

That was my initial reaction to that statement as well, but upon reading on I realized that's not the point they're trying to make. They're not saying "respect our efforts," they're saying "we spent a year on designing this to be challenging and replayable," and they go on to provide evidence for their claims of superiority.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's almost a shame they spent so much time talking about 2048; it takes away from the point I gleaned: to make something simple and "obvious" takes a ton of work. I've spent months on designs, and felt bad because the end design was so _obvious_. "Why didn't I think of that in the first place?"

<comment><USER10> Very true. It's easy to look at something someone else has done and say, "not a big deal." You don't see the sweat or the design process.

It's actually a big compliment, too. It signifies the design is conceptually sound and as small as it could be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have a friend who works at a successful mobile gaming company (not Zynga). He freely admits that what they do is rip off whatever games are most popular. Period. End of Story.

They even have a SWAT team that will go out and build prototypes in days and launch them on the App store as quickly as possible to get some users. They've even launched games with the exact same name as the popular game in hopes of tricking people into using their version of the game.

The entire thing is despicable to me, but I guess that's just the nature of the gaming industry these days. Most companies are ripping off each other, so true innovation is hard to come by, and isn't really appreciated anymore.

The funny thing is that he also admitted that they have run out of successful games to rip off, so they might actually have to build their own games.

<comment><USER12> I dont think mobile games are entirely indicative of what the gaming industry is. The rampant cloning and wild west nature is kind of a characteristic unique to mobile. Cloning and stuff still happens in other gaming mediums, but it has never seemed to be as bad as it is on mobile.

<comment><USER13> Rampant cloning and 'wild west' exactly describes home computer game development in the eighties. I don't think it's unique to mobile, or a modern phenomena.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Threes is the original game that 2048 (and its clones) are based on. This site starts off a bit slow (talking about 2048), however the hundreds of emails / screenshots showing the progress is insanely awesome. It's a great look into what it's like to build something from scratch.

Spoiler alert: at one point it was a game about argyle socks and monsters (Argoyle).

</comment><comment><USER14> Having seen their games ripped off and cloned dozens of times within a few weeks, the developers of popular iOS/Android game Threes could be responding with lawsuits and anger.

Instead, they are expressing grief (having been accused of cloning the... clones), understanding of how ideas evolve and an awesome release of 45,000 words of internal discussions, sketches, prototype designs of their work of 14 months to get to release.

If you're interested in game design, this is pure gold.

<comment><USER15> Putting aside my feelings on the morality of it all, this really is a fascinating look into the design process that goes into these games and software in general. These posts also show the human side of the design process; how the team responds when one member leaves or returns, what happens to the product, etc. In my short time working on software (and especially UI) with others, I've had many of these same conversations and issues come up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a great read.

As someone who pooped out a low quality clone of Threes for the purpose of teaching myself d3 ( [http://www.kongregate.com/games/honkskillet/menage-a- threes](http://www.kongregate.com/games/honkskillet/menage-a-threes) ), I can say that there is a mile of difference between the polish of Threes vs 2048.

Also, I agree with the 3's creator when he says that 2048 is essentially broken. I had played 3s before playing 2048. I got 1024 on my first play through, and the middle part of the game was so tedious I resorted to the alternating up, left strategy just so I could advance the game. It's a little weird that a clone of a clone got so much attention.

<comment><USER17> I think the tipping point was that 2048 was open-source, on github, and had some low-hanging fruit in terms of improvements or variations. Once the simple changes had been exhausted, the momentum was there to sustain attention for more elaborate but mostly still incremental changes. If everyone had to code it from scratch, we would have seen far fewer versions.

I think it's an interesting study in the possibility space of a design, a breadth-first search by the masses vs. the depth-first search by the Threes developers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I built a decently polished open-source clone of 2048 for iOS over a weekend, and from HN's front page it's obvious many could (and did) do the same for a variety of platforms and languages. It's popular to talk about how ideas are cheap and plentiful, and implementation is what really matters. But maybe Threes is an example where the opposite is true: implementation is straightforward, but the ideas, thought, and polish that goes into making the product truly spectacular are the distinguishing factor.

</comment><comment><USER19> They are in a tight spot.

This is one of the most simple, elegant and original game _ideas_ of recent times. One of those that make you wonder how has no one managed to stumble on it before. It is inevitable it got copied.

The reason why it got copied and why 1024/2048 got really popular is that they have overdone the original. The interface is just too funky, there's fluff, fluff and decoration. Rubbery UI makes you feel like you are fighting with the app every time you use it. There are also those smileys on tiles too. So what you have is an idea that looks more complicated than needed (with 1s and 2s being special) and the execution that looks cluttered. That's just asking for a simpler clone - exactly what they got in 1024 and 2048.

Now they have an unenviable task of trying to convince players that added complexity in their version is by design. That or try and slim down the game for faster pace (and perhaps add "basic" mode that mimics clones' simpler mechanics).

</comment><comment><USER20> Threes is a significantly deeper game than 2048 - see for instance this thread on reverse engineering the gameplay mechanics: [http://forums.toucharcade.com/showpost.php?p=3133680&postcou...](http://forums.toucharcade.com/showpost.php?p=3133680&postcount=451)

This is something the developers are known for. Greg's earlier game, Ridiculous Fishing, not only had it's own internal Twitter app ("Byrdr") with it's own ARG mini-game - including a fake website with SQL injection vulnerabilities and a voicemail hacking sidequest.

<comment><USER21> Ridiculous fishing is a piece of video game art. It's really blows all of it's clones out of the water (pardon the pun). You can't clone talent and polish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I love Threes, and I understand where they're coming from.

But this line "Others rifled off that they thought 2048 was a better game than Threes. That all stung pretty bad. We know Threes is a better game, we spent over a year on it. "

The fact that someone spent less time on a game, and based it on your game, does not make it a WORSE game. It's just unfortunate for you.

<comment><USER23> Though they explain why Threes is better in the next line. 2048 is "broken" and easy to beat whereas Threes is a deeper, more challenging game. I think they were trying to get across that they know that Threes is a better game because they spent over a year working out the design and ensuring that they didn't make a "broken" game like 2048.

<comment><USER8> But this exposes an underlying assumption in their thinking, which is that a _deeper_ game is automatically a _better_ game. I would argue that this assumption is mistaken, especially on mobile, where people tend to gravitate towards games they can play in short bursts during downtime. In that context "deeper" just means "harder to pick up and get into."

That's an arguable point, of course, but I just mean that it's not as axiomatic as they make it sound that Threes is better just because it's deeper.

<comment><USER24> They mention that. "But why is Threes better? It's better for us, for our goals." and then later: "that's what's better to us as game designers. We worked really hard to create a simple game system with interesting complexity that you can play forever."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What a good look into the process of game design. Tons of communication with team members, lots of pictures and scribbles to explain ideas, and the ever- growing list of tasks that take a prototype to a shipped game. It's amazing to think about the scope and scale of games that AAA studios can deliver at given that all of this has to happen between scores of developers.

</comment><comment><USER26> I felt the same sentiment when 2048 first landed. I was _shocked_ at how no one had really heard of Threes!

Then the developer put "Gameplay similar to Threes" or something like that on the page. I thought it was a nice gesture.

But, overall, I felt for the Threes developers. I'm glad to see this posted to HN.

<comment><USER3> I had heard of Threes! but only I was only vaguely aware of it as "a good game".

1024 and 2048 and the others caused me to buy Threes! so the clones get them at least one sale.

<comment><USER27> Same here. Although the games do operate on similar concepts, the differences are enough to make the gameplay quite distinct. Threes is undoubtably the better game. And getting hooked on 2048 made me buy Threes. The people who are amenable to buying paid apps won't be deterred by having a free, inferior, alternative and if the knowledge is out there, it could actually increase sales.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have been playing Threes for quite some time, so it came as a surprise to me when several commenters on HN assumed that 2048 was the original and Threes was the derivative.

</comment><comment><USER29> I just looked at 1024 on Google Play, and I have to say it would really sting to work on Threes for a year then read that "If you played 2048 in Hacker News, That [sic] you should know this is the original one."

<comment><USER4> Have you seen the original description for 1024 on the app store? I see they've updated it to be less tasteless, but luckily the internet never forgets:

"No need to pay for ThreesGames. This is a simple and fun gift for you, and it's free."

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Their comment that no one has yet to "beat" threes is in my opinion part of the problem. I get a kick out of beating something, having reached some goal (often in competition with someone else). So maybe 2048 is broken. Doesn't detract from my enjoyment of it.

Also knowing other people had "beaten" 2048 initially helped to made it more addictive.

<comment><USER31> I don't see Threes as a game that has to be beaten. I'm picturing the more classic arcade games like Donkey Kong or Tetris where you want to one up your friends by getting a higher score, and getting addicted until you get that high score

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> What the wha?

Give me a break, this same diatribe could be spouted by anybody who has built anything of significance. Yes, if you build something great, people will copy it, just as your precious snowflake was inspired by others as well. This isn't anything unique to gaming, it isn't anything unique to 3s, it is an immovable fact of life.

Are people copying the product we've poured the last 18 months into? Damn right they are, and if we don't do a better job of executing then we will rightfully get buried.

The gaming industry in general is incredibly derivative, it is the modus operandi. I ran a gaming studio for a while and you bet we did our share of "being inspired" as well as our share of "inspiring others". It is just a fact of life.

I think the thing that gets my goat here is the waxing on that 2048 is a worse game because it is easier and all the people who played that just don't "get" the careful 14 months of planning that went into 3s.

Let's get something straight here, 3s is a great mobile game, but it is just that, a mobile game for playing at bus stops. And the one and only measure of success there is how much fun people have playing it.

Flappy Bird is stupid, but it is also entertaining for no real reason. Chess on the other hand, is rather smart, and also entertaining. Both have their place. And yes, we can cry about how society is going down the drain and only appreciates dumbed down games, but 3s is pretty simple so let's not throw stones shall we?

Phew, ok, who needs a coffee?

<comment><USER33> Not sure if you've ever played it- it sounds like you maybe have not- but Flappy Bird is punishingly difficult, a fact which is commonly cited as part of its appeal.

<comment><USER32> No, I have played it far too much, high score of 111.

My point was just that the dynamic is simple, stupidly simple, but that doesn't make it unfun.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> PopCap have a good approach to cloning. It's basically, we love seeing clones because we enjoy seeing good games made, it increases the market size and the bad ones will sink anyway. They're confident in their ability to make really game games that will sell. They're sitting on one of the most cloned games of all time, but still manage to make good games and make money.

People seem to get stuck on the idea that a good game is good because of it's mechanic. Therefore if someone uses your mechanic, you're stuffed. A mechanic is only part of what makes a game really good. It's a similar mistake to having a feature focus in a product company.

It has been fun to see all the riffing off the Threes concept over the past couple of weeks. And I'm sure Asher Vollmer and team will benefit from it all. There is more interest in all the games, they'll have extra ideas from the clones that come out, they find out for free some ideas that don't work. It will help them raise the bar on Threes and make it a better, more successful game.

</comment><comment><USER35> > We wanted players to be able to play Threes over many months, if not years. > We both beat 2048 on our first tries.

I was addicted to Threes when I first got it. I played dozens of games per session, and multiple sessions per day. So it was definitely addictive. But, as it turned out, I only played Threes for about as many days. The flame that burns brightest burns out the soonest, I suppose.

<comment><USER36> I play Threes less often now too, but when I want to play something (eg waiting at the bus stop), I crack open Threes.

It's a super well polished game that you can play with 1 hand.

<comment><USER4> My play has gone down too, but for me it's because I seem to have hit a plateau. I managed to get a 768 once a few weeks ago, but haven't been close. Most of my recent scores have been 8-9k when my highscore is over 20k. It's kind of discouraging that I can't get near my score again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Lots of discussion already but I wanted to throw "patents" out there as that's what it made me think of first. You can patent game mechanics to protect them (to a certain extent). Is it possible to be against patents (as many geeks seem to be) while also being against people ripping off game mechanics? If so, how?

<comment><USER38> I came in here post this point. I recognize HN isn't a single human, but the popular positions are somewhat incoherent.

It is exactly this that the patent system is designed to solve. You spend all your hard work, time, and money developing something, and somebody swoops in and appropriates it. If you don't want to be able to protect ideas, this sort of thing is going to happen. It's a tradeoff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I think it's worth noting the timing of this post, which is that it came out a day after this article on the LA Times tech blog: [http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi- tn-2048-hit...](http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-2048-hit- game-creator-gabriele-cirulli-20140327,0,3285397.story#axzz2xH2mmVCq)

The article, without even so much as mentioning Threes, credited Cirulli with designing 2048 over a weekend, which rather blatantly missed the point that it was only possible to put together 2048 in a weekend in a world where Threes and then 1024 already existed. The article has since been corrected/updated, but I saw Asher tweet about it, and I imagine that their choice to put together this essay is meant to provide a comprehensive counterpoint to that school of thought.

</comment><comment><USER40> My instinct is to side with the Threes devs on this, but someone has to say it: It sounds like they spent a year on the cute little faces. Original Tetris didn't do that. Also, I'm pretty sure Tetris _was_ cloned immediately, at least privately, by pretty much any programmer with spare time who played it (because it's fun and easy to implement, like the Threes mechanic).

Is it a good thing that Threes is so hard it's like pushing a rock uphill, until you inevitably can't keep it up and it comes crashing down on you? If someone invented the 15 Puzzle today (the one where you slide the tiles around in a 4x4 grid), for example, but dressed it up and tweaked it so you couldn't beat it, people would probably start having fun with the possible version on the side.

</comment><comment><USER41> I loved threes, Played it for close to 20-30 hours during winter break. As soon as 2048 came out, I managed to get to 2048 on my second try based on my experience with threes. I play 2048 in my browser whenever I have a spare 5 minutes, and when I'm on the Bus, I still frequently hop into a quick game of Threes.

The mechanics of the two games are very similar, and obviously 2048 is a direct descendent of threes - but I wouldn't go so far to say that one is better than the other.

Threes has claim to originality, and first publication, so significant credit does need to go to Asher Vollmer, Greg Wohlwend and composer Jimmy Hinson of Sirvo for their original invention.

But, Threes does have some "issue" \- one is really poor startup times. It's slow enough that I am more likely to play 2048 in my browser, than bother firing up Threes on my iPhone. The piece assignment in threes, is also somewhat less pleasing to my experience than in 2048, for whatever reason.

Also - sometimes you are looking for nice quick fun - I get a nice rush of (finger mashing) 2048 to the 512 stage, and then very, very quickly racing to 2048 instinctively (plus the crush of defeat if I make a flickering mistake and get my pieces out of place).

Threes requires a lot more attention - I can't really play it at full-key- flick-speed - Not every game has to be chess.

If you read through the emails, and design history on the "making of" \- it really, really emphasizes how damn hard it is to build that original kernel of genius. And then the piling on of all the clones/knockoffs/descendants shows how trivial it is for others to stand on the shoulders of genius.

One challenge of the AppStore (and obviously the Android stores, and simply by definition the Web) - is that there is no real way to "reward" the original developers for their many months of hard work, when others can simply clone, tweak the artwork and mechanics (or in the case of Zynga, just the artwork) - and release and market their own duplicate of a game after someone else has done all the hard work.

But, sometimes this opportunity to reinvent is good - I've tried a _lot_ of podcast apps - because I listen to podcasts for about 4-6 hours/day, and, while "Cast" is my current preferred App, I'm looking forward to what Marco does with Overcast. I would have hated it if we couldn't have lots of diversity in that marketplace. (And I would have shot myself if I had to use Apple's (original, horrible) "reel-reel" podcast player).

Another approach though are apps like Vesper - It's "another" notepad app - but the developers (Q Branch's John Gruber, Brent Simmons, and Dave Wiskus), took months and months to polish and refine till it creates a totally different notepad experience (and, in my opinion, the best one on the iPhone) - isn't it good that they had the opportunity to build something in the notepad category, in a different way?

All in all though, I hope that Sirvo's Asher Vollmer, Greg Wohlwend and Jimmy Hinson get the credit they deserve for building the "first of".

<comment><USER4> > But, Threes does have some "issue" \- one is really poor startup times. It's > slow enough that I am more likely to play 2048 in my browser, than bother > firing up Threes on my iPhone. The piece assignment in threes, is also > somewhat less pleasing to my experience than in 2048, for whatever reason.

I'll admit that still puzzles me. I'm not sure what Threes is doing but it does seem to take an inordinately long amount of time.

Adding a 'loading' spinner just emphasized that I was being forced to wait.

It's actually effected my playing. If I go to open Threes and it pops straight up (it was still in memory) I'll play a quick game. But often if I get that 'startup screen' I'll immediately exit the app and do something else like check Twitter or Safari.

<comment><USER42> From the post, it looks like they used Unity to build the game, which as an engine is rather overkill for a 2d puzzler. The loading times are probably tied to this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> How _original_ can a game be? The first thing I thought back when I first heard of _threes_ was that it looks and plays like a radically streamlined- for-mobile-adult-market version of _Triple Town_. While partly understand the proud and grief those devs have, I consider those guys comparably well off, at least almost everyone is giving them credit and 1024 et al. are still nowhere in blatant rip-off territory as for example the myriad of _Flappy Bird_ clones.

</comment><comment><USER44> I rarely buy apps, but I bought Threes. I would hope that anyone who's played and enjoyed 1024, 2048 or the myriad knock-offs would at least go and buy a copy of the app. It's a great little game and totally worth $2 (indeed, I'd say it's on par with the quality and playability of the early Nintendo "Game Watch" devices, and that's very high praise BTW. IIRC they retailed for around $25 in the 80's, so Threes is actually underpriced.)

Threes invented a wonderful game mechanic, and I'm reminded of the amazing indie games particularly on Kongregate. It's really something special to see all the creativity and joy that a great computer game can create.

My advice to the Threes inventors would be: rise above the imitators. Indeed, see them for what they are, gestures of respect (with the exception of 1024, who's makers are just assholes). One concrete step I'd take if I were you is to request that the web knock-offs in particular at the very least mention and/or link back to Threes (perhaps an iTunes link[1]).

[1] [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/threes!/id779157948?mt=8](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/threes!/id779157948?mt=8)

</comment><comment><USER45> Rip-offs are sad, but the fact that you spent 14 months doesn't make it a better game. It means you took too long to make it. Threes is a great game that has done well, but the vast vast majority of mobile apps don't make enough money to justify spending 14 months on. I really hope that wasn't full time work.

Also, time/effort/money spent developing a game does not make it better or worse than other games. Some dead simple things are awesome, and some things that took forever aren't. Again, I have and like Threes quite a bit, but the time it took to make doesn't make it better than anything else. I haven't played the knockoffs, but if they are doing well I suspect they are decent games in their own right.

<comment><USER46> Inventing a new game is a creative exercise. I see it like writing a book. iPhone development took years. This reminds me of all the evidence that is pouring from Apple these days on the conference rooms, sketches, mockups etc.

<comment><USER45> I agree, but comparing an app to the iPhone seems a bit silly to me. This "ripoff" was apparently done in a few weeks and is currently #1 free app in the store. While obviously the original is going to take longer, I'm not sure it has to take 30x longer. And if it really does have to take 30x longer, that's probably a good sign that it's a terrible business model and you should only do this in your spare time as a hobby.

Frankly, the ripoffs are getting the original more exposure, and are probably helping their sales.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Does anyone have any stats on Threes' sales? I wonder if 2048 has significantly boosted them.

<comment><USER48> I bought threes after hearing about it in the comments of a thread about 2048, I'm sure other people did too

<comment><USER49> Me too, and it's probably only the third app I've ever paid for

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The original devs really care and that's lovely. I've always felt guilty about playing 2048 despite having bought Threes twice (once on Android and once on iOS.)

I don't know what I'd do in their position; feeling disheartened is definitely one. It's a great game - granted I'm not a fan of the sound design so get frustrated sometimes - the game itself is fun and addictive.

I don't think this post will convince as many people as they think to switch to the original, but I hope it does them some good.

</comment><comment><USER51> I do not recall being addictive to any iOS game, except for Threes.

</comment><comment><USER52> Don't slave for months producing easily replicable ideas in a market that is mobbed with people who replicate anything successful within days.

</comment><comment><USER53> I may be alone on this, but I have difficulty distinguishing OP's argument from [http://www.amazon.com/The-Quickening-Todays-Trends- Tomorrows...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Quickening-Todays-Trends- Tomorrows/dp/1879706709)

</comment><comment><USER54> >When an automated script that alternates pressing up and right and left every hundreth time can beat the game, then well, that's broken.

Except that it won't beat the game. You're lucky to get to a 256 block with that strategy.

</comment><comment><USER55> This is my very personal opinion on the matter:

It really pisses me off always I read from somebody how he got burned by a rip-off. If you do it right 2048 will make YOU famous and all future products of you will automatically get more attention, even if you don't make any money on Threes (which is a way worse name than 2048 in the eyes of hackers, btw). Talk to blogs, Youtube reviewers and to us HN users and show us how awesome your product is and if it is really better than 2048 then you will automatically win the crowd. Think about how much attention (and money) PSY now gets for everything he does, although he didn't get as much money directly from Gangnam Style as he could have gotten.

Just complaining and hoping that people will support you because it would be fair is cheap, sad, and it won't happen anyway.

</comment><comment><USER56> The problem (for the developers) with Threes is that it cost $1.99 to buy. If they made the app free and monetized with ads/iaps (ie, how all major apps monetize), they would have a much more successful app.

</comment><comment><USER57> Threes shouldn't be knocking their 'rip-offs', they generated a ton of publicity for the original game. Without playing 2048, I probably never would have heard of Threes.

</comment><comment><USER58> From the very end - these guys sound _REALLY_ bitter:

"""If you read this whole thing. Thank you. Wow. If you scrolled down here and skimmed it or just wanted to see if there was a prize at the end, well, you're here. It's about the journey, man.

Hopefully this post points to what we're getting at when we say that making these tiny games is littered with hard and painful times that are full of uncertainty and self-doubt. You never know if something is really going to work. It's not easy. But cloning or ripping off a design in a week, that's a bit different isn't it?"""

<comment><USER4> Things weren't that bad this time, but they've been seriously bitten in the past. As (one of them) got close to releasing their game Ridiculous Fishing last year, a competitor quickly cloned it and _beat them to the app store_ and got a high ranking. They nearly canned the game because of a ripoff.

Truth is, the app store is a pretty scummy market.

<comment><USER59> How did it get cloned before it was on the app store?

<comment><USER4> I went to look it up and saw I was missing a part of the story. They first released the game as a flash mini-game called Radical Fishing. The whole strange story is here:

[http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/5/3461458/cloning-case- files-...](http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/5/3461458/cloning-case-files- vlambeer)

<comment><USER60> That was a lesson on how NOT to launch idea you want to monetise — why anybody would want to pay fro something they have already for free? :)

<comment><USER4> They may not have realized how successful a concept it was until they had released the flash version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> It's not all bad for them, I found out about threes because of 2048 and came to the conclusion myself that threes was a better game and decided to pay for it.

</comment><comment><USER62> I made this list with some of the variants of 2048

[http://abimaelmartell.com/2048-showcase/](http://abimaelmartell.com/2048-showcase/)

</comment><comment><USER63> I probably would have purchased Threes if it weren't for the clones. Loved the process documentation. All I can say is keep up the good work. Fuck the haters.

</comment><comment><USER64> There is even an Atari 2600 port of the 2048 game!

[http://javatari.org/games/2048](http://javatari.org/games/2048)

Amazing...

</comment><comment><USER60> I tried to install Threes on Android, no ART support => I don't care anymore, playing 2048 and the clones :)

</comment><comment><USER65> On Android, 2048 is 0.7mb. Threes is nearly 30! Surely that factors into some people's decisions.

<comment><USER4> Do you normally check the size of games?

I wouldn't even think to check that. At 30mb, Threes isn't that big (Retina assets and all). I would certainly understand your point if it was 300, but that doesn't seem excessive.

I can only think of a single game I've run into on my iPhone that surprised me with it's size. I'm not sure what it was (maybe an old version of Scrabble?), but it was a word game that was hundred of megs and didn't have much in the way of graphics.

<comment><USER66> Well, my device has just over 40Mb of internal storage. So, unless the app allows you to install to an SD card, it matters a lot!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> > Like it's not ok to feel the way we do some of the time. But we do.

With that in mind, and with all fairness to the creators of Threes for their hard work, as evidenced in the article, I feel put off by their choice of the word 'rip-off'.

I say this as someone who has never played Threes, and never would have, but enjoyed many of the different forks and iterations of 2048.

</comment><comment><USER68> Who's the "Johnny" mentioned in a couple of the emails? Another game developer?

</comment><comment><USER69> This is interesting, I don't particularly like the tone, but I would love to see a graph of (even relative) app downloads with the release of 1024 and announcement of 2048 (and all the various forks) on it.

I bet there's an effect there.

I bet it's in Three's favor.

And I bet any freshman-level stats student could rigorously show it.

</comment><comment><USER70> That was a lot more article than I expected from the title. Wow.

</comment><comment><USER71> I had tried threes.. But I didn't like it. I do like 2048

</comment><comment><USER72> Anyone notice parallels to the software patents debate?

</comment><comment><USER73> Original Game? Ever play Triple Town?

</comment><comment><USER74> This is a shamefully non-responsive web page design for a company that builds mobile apps. The sidebar is set to cover the main text even with my page width set to almost 1000 px wide. Even worse, the sidebar is a fixed position and on top element that I can't scroll away from or out from under.

I expect better web design from the team behind Threes, which I bought and liked.

</comment><comment><USER75> Okay, Okay. I get the crying from the threes developers and all, but there is a key difference between why 2048 did phenomenally well and threes didn't.

2048 is a game that was HACKED together and displayed on HACKER news and made open source for the sole purpose of independent HACKING, and indie creativity.

In fact, 2048 has got to be the best case study of how HACKING went viral, not so much about how the game went viral, even if that is what theoretically happened.

From that perspective, the THREEs game is just collateral damage and not really what matters here. The Threes game's developers in effect are all crying about how people are misusing their ideas, copying all the wrong details, and not copying what is the true flattery of the game in the first place. And they wrote a blog post to brag about it all! But little do they understand that people (hackers) take what they like and leave the rest.

<comment><USER76> 2048 was free. Threes wasn't. That's literally the only reason it has more downloads. Threes was #1 on top paid for a long time.

<comment><USER77> This is literally the point that makes me get upset: Cloning a game, because specific people doesn't agree with decisions taken by the developers (features, pricing, etc.).

Is it really that hard to let indie projects have a chance?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> The worst part about this is that neither the 1024 or 2048 developers do so much as acknowledge Threes as the original inspiration. It's really pathetic. Just some losers pretending to be something they're not. Common shithead piracy.

<comment><USER79> You've let your vitriol get in the way of fact-checking.

Found at the bottom of [http://gabrielecirulli.github.io/2048/](http://gabrielecirulli.github.io/2048/) :

"Created by <a href=[http://gabrielecirulli.com/>Gabriele](http://gabrielecirulli.com/>Gabriele) Cirulli.</a> Based on <a href=[https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/1024!/id823499224>1024](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/1024!/id823499224>1024) by Veewo Studio</a> and conceptually similar to <a href=[http://asherv.com/threes/>Threes](http://asherv.com/threes/>Threes) by Asher Vollmer.</a>"

[Please ignore the idiot URLifier.]

<comment><USER78> [https://web.archive.org/web/20140310210707/http://gabrieleci...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140310210707/http://gabrielecirulli.github.io/2048/)

<comment><USER79> That's cool. Four days later, there's a shout-out to Threes:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20140314133031/http://gabrieleci...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140314133031/http://gabrielecirulli.github.io/2048/)

It looks like the guy credited Threes within four days of his game's release, and has yet to remove that credit. It's entirely possible that he was only aware of 1024 at the time that he made is game.

Please get angry about something that matters. We _need_ people to not waste their anger on unimportant things. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> nice, but simplicity is the key to mainstream

</comment><comment><USER81> I saw 2048 on HN, but downloaded 1024 because I wanted to play on an iPad rather than a desktop. I like 1024 better than 2048 because it has a little more richness.

Yesterday, I tried to pay and download Threes, but it said it requires iOS 6. I never upgrade my iOS devices after too many screwups from Apple. So not sure if I will ever play Threes.

I don't know much about iOS development, but I wonder why a game which is basically a 4x4 grid doesn't work on every single version of iOS. 1024 works just fine.

<comment><USER82> > I wonder why a game which is basically a 4x4 grid doesn't work on every > single version of iOS. 1024 works just fine.

It's pretty much an effort vs. payoff thing; the dev environment get nicer each iteration, and iOS < 6 is in a fractional minority.

<comment><USER4> Yep. iOS 6 has some nice APIs, iOS 7 is even better.

According to a company called Mixpanel Trends [1], iOS 7.x is currently on 89% of all Apple devices. iOS 6 is just under 10% and iOS 5 and before is under 1.5%.

Since you can't downgrade and devices ship with the latest version, that means that anyone running iOS 5 or iOS 6 is also running an older device with lower performance. If you're doing a resource heavy game it may not even run well on those devices even if you did work to support them.

1\. [https://mixpanel.com/trends/#report/ios_7](https://mixpanel.com/trends/#report/ios_7)

<comment><USER81> Sure, but my point is that this doesn't qualify as a "resource heavy game" at all.

<comment><USER4> Threes certainly wouldn't no. But the ease of development and small size of the lost market makes it a pretty easy choice for many developers.

Even finding a way to test software on iOS 5 or 6 is a _huge_ pain. Apple makes it very difficult to test on anything other than the latest version unless you happen to have a device with that OS laying around.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


RetroShare: secure communications with friends - <AUTHOR> http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/

<comment><USER2> Hi HN,

I'm part of the Retroshare-dev team. We'd be interested in hearing any feedback / questions you have.

We have an very active community, especially in France and Germany that uses Retroshare daily. Development effort is continuing at a rapid rate. The existing release is a little out of date, but we expect to have a new stable release out before the end of February.

You can get status updates via twitter: @retroshare

drBob.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reminds me of WASTE:

<http://waste.sourceforge.net/>

<comment><USER4> Many many fond memories of WASTE file transfers.

</comment></comment><comment> mike-cardwell Would really like to play with this, but when I run it on Ubuntu it bombs out, leaving this on the CLI:

      SSL Library Init!
      AuthGPGimpl::VerifySignature() FAILED
      AuthSSLimpl::AuthX509() X509 NOT authenticated
      AuthSSLimpl::InitAuth() validateOwnCertificate() Failed

EDIT: It works if I don't use my existing GnuPG keypair. Suspect it's bombing out because I removed the master key from the keyring leaving only the subkeys. Will do some more testing and bring it up in the forums.

EDIT2: Works fine on a brand new keypair. As soon as I add an additional signing subkey, delete ~/.retroshare/ and try again it bombs out. If I then delete ~/.retroshare/ again, and then remove the signing subkey, it starts working once again.

<comment><USER5> Works for me on ubuntu with my GPG

<comment> mike-cardwell It only stops working for me when I create a signing subkey. Do you have a signing subkey?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> @RetroShare users: Can we setup a hacker news community like thar on Google Plus [0] there? That might kick up adoption.

[0] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3452912>

</comment><comment><USER7> Also worth a mention:

<http://www.oneswarm.org/>

<http://www.alliancep2p.com/>

</comment><comment><USER8> I tried to setup the nogui version some time back. Couldn't figure out how to, and the documentation is really scarce. Had no luck on the forums either.

Paperwise, the technology seems solid. The only piece of advice to keep in mind is to not approve keys you don't trust.

</comment><comment><USER9> I installed it on Windows, but it complained about the wrong version of GNUPG and didn't run. (I have 2.something for Engigmail installed.) Is there a way to install both of those at the same time?

<comment><USER10> Try the "portable" version. That one has the correct GNUPG installe dinside Retroshare's folder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use retroshare all the time as a desktop app, and in a browser. Still a bit of work to be done, but is my favourite way to do encrypted chat, with my GPG key, and has other cool features.

</comment><comment><USER11> Alternative RetroShare client (Addon) is found here:

<http://interface.sf.net>

<comment><USER11> with chess game f2f

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Seems nice, but not terribly stable, i.e segfault after giving my connection details

<comment><USER13> What version is this, and what OS? Been using it for three years now. great for browsing through forums and such. Its getting there.

<comment><USER12> 0.5.2a Debian GNU/Linux

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> offtopic: I love how with Github I can get to the source in just a few clicks. Its still a scavenger hunt with sourceforge.

<comment><USER15> fyi the repo on GitHub is a bit behind SVN where all the main work happens. Due to the size of the repo and the slowness of SF syncing takes ages :(</comment></comment>


Scientists discover the most relaxing tune ever - <AUTHOR> http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/music/scientists-discover-most-relaxing-tune-ever

<comment><USER2> Sample size of 40 women ... most relaxing tune ever ...

What is this linkbait trash?

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds similar to <http://bluemars.org/>

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if it can be weaponized?

</comment><comment><USER5> Thanks to this other Hacker News front page post (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668301>) I was able to download THIS Hacker News front page post.

Now that is service.

</comment><comment><USER6> Sounds like the music in the game Osmos.

<http://www.hemispheregames.com/osmos/>

<comment><USER7> Agreed. Osmos is a game I look to when I want to show someone how games should sound.</comment></comment>


Robots on the dance floor (.JS only experiment) - <AUTHOR> http://robotics.ovh/?exper <comment><USER2> If you hold the joint of one of them for a long time, a much larger robot appears.

Also press F12 to send them all flying upwards.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hint: interact with robots ;)</comment>


Lessons Learned Building a Git-Based Knowledge Base for My SaaS Product - <AUTHOR> https://www.wisecashhq.com/blog/lessons-learned-creating-a-git-based-knowledge-base-for-my-saas-product

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sharing everything I learned building this, as well as a Jekyll template you can start from.</comment>


A Generation's Vanity, Heard Through Lyrics (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/science/26tier.html <comment><USER2> I'm reading The Stranger and finding it very relevant to our times. It's a depressingly boring read, but it gives an accurate insight into the way most young people are experiencing life. Worth a read if for nothing else than to identify which of your attitudes are too eerily similar to the main character's. Also highly recommend The Trial for similar reasons.

<comment><USER3> The Trial by Franz Kafka? Color me curious - what about that book is relevant to the experience of young people today? From what I remember of the book, a young man is put through criminal proceedings for an unnamed crime that he was not made privy to - and it essentially encapsulated what a bureaucratic and litigious dystopia of a society would look like - but again, I'm curious how you draw the connections between that to the experience of young people today.

<comment><USER4> > young man is put through criminal proceedings for an unnamed crime that he > was not made privy to

Can't say I read it myself, but what you said seems like a pretty good metaphor for what it's like dealing with people who make generalizations about Millennials. Particularly when it comes to accusations of entitlement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is just fuzzy reasoning that draws conclusions not justifiable from the facts. It wouldn't be reprehensible if not for the fact that academic credentials are being thrown around to give an heir of legitimacy to what would be charitable to call opinion.</comment>


Cruelty of Call-Out Culture - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/opinion/call-out-social-justice.html <comment><USER2> It's a good op-ed and I largely agree with Brooks but I find this point interesting:

> I'd say civilization moves forward when we embrace rule of law, not when we > abandon it.

What Emily did that got called out (cyber-bullying) isn't against the law, nor do I think we want it to be (for freedom-of-speech reasons). Shaming Emily for her prior abuse isn't necessarily a problem but social media knows no bounds and takes it way too far. Destroying Emily's life is probably not justice.

<comment><USER3> It's an issue of scale. If someone acts against societal norms and is "called out" for it from within their social group, that can be a good thing. We all sometimes need a reminder that we're acting like a dick.

Bring that to the scale of social media and it's a disaster. Suddenly thousands of anonymous strangers are piling on them and they're ostracized from their social group, out of a job, a home, etc.

<comment><USER4> It is scary. I probabbly have done many things that someone could misunderstand or misrepresent and .... probabbly could get a lot of people angry at me. Not that I did it, but then once the wave starts I don't think it matters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The problem with this essay is a fact that Brooks completely elides, namely that "call-out culture" only exists because the existing institutions that were supposed to be dispensing justice were _completely failing to do so_ for this category of offenses.

The Harvey Weinsteins among us could go merrily through life abusing dozens of women, and those women had no legal, social or cultural channels open to them to seek redress. All those channels were in fact lined up _against_ them -- coming forward in such cases would just mean that the _woman_ would be put on trial, both figuratively in the court of public opinion and sometimes even literally, as the abuser's lawyers could drag them into court for defamation or libel/slander. Not to mention that the victim would frequently become unemployable as other powerful people closed ranks to defend their friend, the abuser.

I don't disagree with Brooks that what has emerged is basically vigilante justice, and vigilante justice is by its nature coarse and indiscriminate. We don't want a society where vigilantes are roaming around dispensing justice. But when large numbers of people who have suffered wrongs have no institutional channels through which they can seek justice, the emergence of those vigilantes is inevitable. People will only suffer in silence for so long.

Brooks' solution is that we should "embrace rule of law," but by that he seems to mean the laws as they stand today, and what that misses is that those laws are not protecting half the population from systemic abuse. If he wants people to respect the laws, _the laws need to change_ so that people who don't have a way to seek justice in our system today can have one tomorrow. That would be good for everybody (except the abusers, at least).

But here, Brooks is conspicuously silent. He has lots of things to say about how we should all respect the law, but offers no suggestions on how to make the law _worthy of respect_. So for the abused, his "solution" boils down to: accept your fate. The problem isn't that you were abused, it's that you spoke up about it. Be quiet, sit down, shut up and contemplate the Majesty of the Law.

The irony of which is that _Brooks ' approach only guarantees the further flourishing of the vigilantes._ When people can't look to the law to protect them, they inevitably look elsewhere. By his own logic, he, of all people, should be clamoring for the system to change so it protects those who are not protected today. That would be an actual effective way to foster respect for the law. Otherwise you're just telling the prey to have more respect for their predators.

<comment><USER4> I find it unlikely that Brooks would only support the law as it stands today. I think it is a bit much to just assume he supports just that.

This is one of those situations that observing the cruelty of call out culture doesn't have to mean you support Weinstein or the systems that allow for it.

I feel like your approach here is way too binary.

<comment><USER5> _> I find it unlikely that Brooks would only support the law as it stands today. I think it is a bit much to just assume he supports just that._

If only he had a column in the _New York Times_ where he could tell us what he thinks on the subject!

<comment><USER4> I don't think it is fair to assume that because he didn't say what you wanted him to that he must support something else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Witch hunts by another name.

<comment><USER7> Not quite. In this case she was, in fact, a "witch". She did the cyberbullying.

It's never made clear, however, if the first guy was actually guilty of what he was accused of. I think that's more of a witch hunt, because we're vilifying people based on a single accusation - without proof or corroboration. Of course there may be more to the story here, it just hasn't been told in this particular article.

<comment><USER6> Does cruel and unusual punishment mean anything to you? An emoji a teenager sends should not ruin their adult life.

<comment><USER7> I never suggested it should. I was simply commenting on calling this a "witch hunt" \- I offered no opinion on how fair or just any of this stuff is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > _Really? Do we really think cycles of cruelty do more to advance > civilization than cycles of wisdom and empathy? I'd say civilization moves > forward when we embrace rule of law, not when we abandon it._

This is a puzzling position to take given that the primary tool of the "rule of law" is cycles of cruelty - prison, policing, and war. Compared to those, making Emily feel bad (and making her feel bad in a way she's okay with!) isn't cruel at all.

<comment><USER9> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Steve King is the symptom of NW Iowa not being heard. Tyson with help from the Obama USDA killed off all local meat processing by enforcing even small town meat processors to have a _full time USDA inspector_.

They see the Mexicans working at Tyson, not the corruption that turned Iowa's animal feeders into Tyson's bitches.

</comment><comment><USER11> >A post denouncing Emily also went viral. She, too, was the object of nationwide group hate.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

>The guy who called out Emily is named Herbert.

Ditto. Judge not, or be judged. I won't cry on the day the mob rips Herbert apart.

And the cycle will continue until everyone's broken or tired of breaking people.

<comment><USER12> i don't know why the parent was voted down. The vast vast majority of humanity understands people make mistakes, change, and grow over time. If you're going to subscribe to a community where being excommunicated is as easy as in the article then there's only so much sympathy you can expect.

It's a case of "play stupid games win stupid prizes".

<comment><USER11> My guess - it was overloaded with homilies.

But maybe the "push-button" denunciation culture has an agenda. We could be approaching a time where certain things we still take for granted today - e.g. good jobs - will become a lot scarcer. And how would one gain an edge? By destroying the competition by any means necessary.

Or so Peter Turchin and those who follow Structural-Demographic Theory seem to think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> /u/Reedx, this isn't addressed to you, but...

NYT, if you want credibility on the issue of "call-out culture" and "social justice", for God's sakes, don't have a Republican columnist write the piece. I know David Brooks is a genteel Never Trumper. It doesn't matter. You don't build credibility to talk about an issue by speaking _as the enemy_.

<comment><USER4> > I know David Brooks is a genteel Never Trumper. It doesn't matter.

Yeah it does matter. Are you calling out Brooks and just dismissing anything else about him ... as a person so you can call him out?

Are you trying to illustrate the point of the article in a weird way?

<comment><USER13> I'm not calling him out. I'm saying that he has zero intellectual credibility to describe these issues accurately.

For instance:

>But the "Invisibilia" episode implicitly suggests that call-outs are how humanity moves forward. Society enforces norms by murdering the bullies who break them. When systems are broken, vigilante justice may be rough justice, but it gets the job done. Prominent anthropologist Richard Wrangham says this is the only way civilization advances that he's witnessed.

>Really? Do we really think cycles of cruelty do more to advance civilization than cycles of wisdom and empathy? I'd say civilization moves forward when we embrace rule of law, not when we abandon it. I'd say we no longer gather in coliseums to watch people get eaten by lions because clergy members, philosophers and artists have made us less tolerant of cruelty, not more tolerant.

Here Brooks straw-mans Wrangham and Brooks' other ideological opponents. Many/most of us would not say that "clergy, philosophers, and artists have made us less tolerant of cruelty". We would say that, as a society, we no longer gather to watch people being fed to lions because _the lowest sectors of society have gained enough power to prevent themselves being fed to lions_.

This difference in lens derives directly from Brooks' being a Republican: he comes from what has traditionally been called an "idealist" tradition, and he illustrates that here. He thinks that _ideas move history_ , so better ideas (from philosophers, artists, and clergy) make society better.

In other traditions, particularly the one he's attacking, the engine of moral progress is the gradual, halting, progressive _balancing of power_ across individuals and groups.

To successfully attack the "balancing of power" model, you have to actually name that model, then show counter-evidence. Brooks has instead casually elided the model he hopes to attack in favor of pillorying his purported opponents as _incompetent_ at applying _his_ model.

If you have a severe fever, you might have mononucleosis, and you might have meningitis (this happened to someone I know). Or you might have the flu. If I think you have the flu, I can't label running a test for mono as _incompetent treatment of the flu_. It's testing an entirely different hypothesis which stands on its own.

This goes to the heart of Brooks' conclusion:

>The problem with the pseudo-realism of the call-out culture is that it is so naïve. Once you adopt binary thinking in which people are categorized as good or evil, once you give random people the power to destroy lives without any process, you have taken a step toward the Rwandan genocide.

If you think that ideas drive history, call-out culture is the first step to the Rwandan genocide. If you _don 't believe that in the first place_, you have no reason to accept the conclusion: preventing an "American Rwandan genocide", in your view, might require something else entirely, or such a genocidal war may be _a priori_ so unlikely that it's no more worth "preventing" it than spraying "tiger repellent" on oneself when going outside.

<comment><USER4> I really think that you're about 8 layers way deeper into a context that simply isn't the case here.

I don't think the article was written as some sort of Republican or any kind of attack on ... whatever it is you think it is.

I think this really is more about behavior and our choices and the consequences in this day and age. That's it.

In some strange way your post also seems a bit like how the call-out stuff happens. The context of some event is skewed and there's no way for some folks to see anything else.

<comment><USER8> It's an attack on the people who think call-outs are appropriate, which is overwhelmingly a left-leaning tool.

In particular it's noteworthy that when the left calls itself out, it reacts as the left desires (see Emily in this article, or Al Franken, or John Conyers, or ...), and when the left calls the right out, the right attacks the legitimacy of even being called out in the first place and starts making arguments about the "rule of law" because the law tends to be on the conservative side (since conservatives are, somewhat by definition, those who are on the side of what the law presently says). It's not new, and it's absolutely relevant context for this article.

<comment><USER4> I mean by your description you can't call out call out culture without it being some partisan thing?

That seems absurd.

<comment><USER14> > In particular it's noteworthy that when the left calls itself out ...

Happily, the GP's statement makes an empirical claim, so there's at least some hope of it being testable.

That said, since the GP is making a questionable generalization about two large populations, it would be helpful it he/she provided a larger body of supporting examples.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> TED Talk about this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI)</comment>


What a Developer Job Posting Should Look Like - <AUTHOR> http://pragprog.com/help-wanted/software-developer <comment><USER2> A developer job? It sounds like support/sysadmin.

A pay pal transaction not completing due to a network outage is an ops issue not a dev issue.

Also, what's the pay? When you talk to actual developers the biggest issue is the problems finding out what the job actually pays. I hate talking to recruiters that won't tell me what it pays. When you don't tell me what it pays that clicking sound you hear is me clicking the back button. It's a job, I go there to get paid, not take shitty pay to hear platitudes about how we're doing what we love.

If I want to take a chunk of my salary to have people go blow smoke up my ass I'd rather see a professional of my choosing.

As far as the gerbil thing is concerned, it's called producer/consumer. You use a message queue (SQS?) to store the work and you use the gerbils to 'consume' it. You store the state of the books in something called a "database" and you store the "master book" encrypted publicly on a CDN. The server puts a message in the queue telling the gerbil how to customize the book along with the URL for the master and the key to decrypt it. For pragmatic programmers they sure go out of there way to obscure that it's a simple producer / consumer model using SVN and a bunch of caches as a message queue / database monstrosity.

As for the coderay thing I'd rather just use the F# syntax parser from F# and decorate the AST as F# is my favorite language and it would take a couple hours to do it that way. As a pragmatic programmer I don't much care to implement a half assed parser in another language.

<comment><USER3> Took a very quick look at Coderay. If I'm not mistaken, it looks like a Regexp-based parser/compiler, rather than any sort of parser with an actual grammar.

To be honest, while my inner nerd shudders at this, it makes a little sense as some of the languages in that list (Ruby) have only recently had formal grammars defined.

That said, I think it would take me more than ten minutes to implement a scanner for F#, which I don't know, using Coderay, which I also don't know.

I could probably get it done in about a day, maybe two for debugging and testing.

There is no way in hell I would spend that kind of time on a job application, and as a nerd that has gone into management, I wouldn't ask an applicant to do so either.

What has worked well for me in the past is to ask for either a link to their GitHub repository, a code sample, or have them solve a quick five-minute problem over Skype or IM.

If the interviewee passes that bar, we then do something more in-depth during the interview as a pair, timeboxed to about half an hour.

This has proven effective at weeding out the untalented and unworkable, without asking potential hires to sacrifice a huge amount of their time.

<comment><USER4> Ruby does't have a grammar? MRI Ruby, the oldest and creakiest of its implementations, is parsed with a 6000 line Yacc grammar.

<comment><USER3> If I remember correctly, Matz didn't approve a formal grammar for the language until a few years ago, with the idea that any language that can run rubyspec is Ruby.

E.g., the language was defined not by a formal specification, but by implementation.

Then again, my memory is known for being incredibly unreliable; I could be wrong on this one.

<comment><USER5> You're both right.

<comment><USER6> Right, you rarely have to use the formally specified grammar to parse a language, so long as whatever parsing technique you use doesn't violate the spec. A 6000-line yacc file probably isn't an easily-read formal grammar and does more than a formal syntax specification would require.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is something in this job posting I like a lot and will steal: the "day in the life" section.

The tonal problem I have with this post is that it is about Dave Thomas. Any steps it takes towards being about the candidates it tries to attract are incidental. Roughly measured, it's roughly 50/50 filtering/sales. Better than most job postings! But in this market, not good enough.

Recruiting is sales. If you can grok the articles telling you not to shove signup forms into the faces of first-time visitors, it should be obvious why you don't want to demand a code sample in your first correspondence with a candidate. Lots of hiring managers will think this is entirely reasonable (the average candidate quality for a dev job is indeed poor), but that's an expensive filter applied way too early in the pipeline.

Also, the graf about health insurance is written evasively. Netflix says "we give everyone $10k; they can use it to buy one of our plans, or handle it themselves and pocket the difference". That works. Not having a group plan? That sucks a lot. If we didn't have one, I wouldn't trumpet it in a job ad. If I had to mention it, I wouldn't write it in a way that begged the reader to ask "ok, exactly how much higher than a normal salary are we talking about?".

My cynical internet self assumes "not enough to cover the huge cost of private health insurance".

(And providing your own computer? I hope that's just misworded, and they mean "we'll buy whatever you want". Otherwise, talk about penny-wise pound- foolish...)

</comment><comment><USER7> The ad is pretty good but could be improved if they find they are not getting enough qualified candidates. Maybe they are getting plenty and there is no need for changes. But if so I recommend the following.

I would change "software developer" to "site administrator" given that the first example in a typical day's work deals with resolving web site issues.

With the F# syntax highlighter code required to apply, I'd feel more comfortable if I knew they already had one and this isn't an issue of trying to get free work out of people. Also, requiring it to be implemented a certain way is out of scope and unnecessarily narrows the field by rejecting qualified candidates who aren't going to learn their special tool.

The salary offered should be clearly listed.

And finally, the no health care provided is unacceptable, which seriously will restrict the caliber of candidates interested. If this was a contractor position, which would be reasonable given that it is remote and the contractor is expected to own, use and maintain all their own tools, then that would be perfectly fine, however the rate would of course reflect that of hiring a contractor/consultant. But as an employee, in 2011, there are plenty of software employee jobs that provide benefits and very few serious ones that don't. Because the rate is not quoted I am highly skeptical that the claim that the rate is higher to compensate for lack of benefits is correct.

<comment><USER8> _And finally, the no health care provided is unacceptable_

If the salary really is higher to compensate, I'd count that as a plus. Having an individual policy not tied to your job is much better.

<comment><USER3> Getting an individual policy in the US is almost impossible, and amazingly expensive otherwise.

I currently have a US healthcare plan that covers emergency care only (I live in Japan, so this isn't a big deal). This means it doesn't cover things like 'seeing a doctor' or 'getting antibiotics for a lung infection', which is why I need to cut a check to the urgent care center I visited a few months ago when I was in-country.

Fortunately, the total bill was only about $150.

For this amazing service, I -- pardon the pun -- cough up $120 a month to Blue Cross. For a health care plan that, by and large, does not cover health care.

This is more than the cost of full coverage through the national healthcare system in Japan.

Should I desire a comprable plan, I'm looking at somewhere between $500 and $1000 per month. I'm healthy, thirty years old, don't smoke, am not overweight, and exercise regularly. If I wasn't any of those things, the numbers would be worse.

So, no, healthcare is mandatory for any company I work for in the US.

<comment><USER9> > This is more than the cost of full coverage through the national healthcare > system in Japan.

Wait, what? I'm curious how you can manage to pay $120 for full coverage in Japan. I'm currently unemployed and will have to pay Y45000 (almost U$600) a month for national healthcare. When I was working I had private insurance provided by the company and of course the company paid part of it, but my share was still way over Y10000.

<comment><USER3> Do you have a family?

<comment><USER9> No, I'm single. I'm genuinely curious on how you can pay so little.

<comment><USER3> Me too, now...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Tangent: I saw the "A Design Challenge" that the job submission should should include a document that addresses the issue.

 _As each instance starts, it boots its AMI. That image includes a snapshot of the checked-out eBook repository as of the date the image was created. Each gerbil, as it starts, updates this cache to get the latest version. This involves checking out perhaps 500Mb of data per instance, as new books will have been added and existing books updated since the instance was frozen. As a result, it will often take 30–45 minutes to start 10 instances._

Am I off base here thinking that a fairly obvious solution to address the 30-45 minute cold start is to NOT pull the entire library of book templates from svn at startup? Rather, why not simply update just the template(s) currently stacked up in the job queue? So instead of a 500MB pull your looking at maybe 1 or 2 before you can start processing a job in the queue.

I wonder if this "challenge" is an existing problem or something they've already addressed. Has relying only on "on demand" cache updating been tried already (seems like it would have been since it seems like an obvious possible solution) if so what was the result?

<comment><USER11> Maybe this is too pessimistic, but perhaps the challenge is just serving to filter out people who don't know what version control, EC2, or caching are, or who can't form a mental model of the problem based on the short description provided.

<comment><USER10> Perhaps the intent of my comment doesn't convey well. I'm not really trying to judge the quality of this challenge. Actually, I just thought it was interesting and was curious if my initial "obvious" solution would actually provide improvement. Ie, I was trying to ascertain if this was one of those the obvious idea is the worse idea scenarios.

Obviously the best solution would be to keep updating the base instance image with new books so it could start up up to date as was suggested in another comment below. But ignoring that possibility what other options can we explore to increase performance? I just genuinely wanted to discuss the problem and find out if its nature was one that got more interesting the harder you looked at it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wait, what?

* It's really a 'jack of all trades job'

* combined sick & vacation time is a crappy practice.

* No benefits

* Must supply own equipment

I'm sorry, but that's either a consulting gig (with the rates that come with that), or it's a co-founders gig. Or a very young developers game, looking to cut their teeth.

<comment><USER13> I was okay with everything posted 'til the "no benefits" thing.

I look at it this way: I like "jack-of-all-trades" jobs. Maybe you don't. That's okay, and not a poor reflection of PragProg. The combined sick/holiday time is okay with me, too, especially since you will be working remotely. I have a very similar arrangement with my employer (though I'm in the office several days a week), and I've never taken a sick day. If I don't feel too hot, I just work from home. Sure, you may get very sick, and take a few days here and there, but little stuff that might keep you out of the office in normal circumstances probably won't keep you from working remotely.

As for the benefits, I echo tptacek's sentiments above: give the vast amount of detail provided for the job itself, glossing over the lack benefits is a bit troubling (especially for someone like myself who is sole benefits provider for his family).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm not an expert how to write job posing (and Dave Thomas is an excellent writer), but this is more like "what a developer job posting should NOT look like" then "should look like"

Two important things and one less important:

* job description is more for system admin and not for a developer - your audience will be confused

* if you do not offer either health care or a pension plan, this is then essentially a contracting gig. You probably need to provide exact salary in this case. Probably you need go to hourly rate. In practice, there are only two type of jobs for developers in US: job fully loaded with all benefits and contracting gig. There is very little between.

* less important: too wordy and just too long without exact facts (you know engineers do not like

<comment><USER15> Am I the only developer who thinks this looks like their own job (albeit with different technology and health insurance)?

My job breaks down to something like 25% tech support, 65% fixing other people's bugs, 10% developing new features. Maybe I'm just bad at managing my career or something.

<comment> Zeus-TheTrueGod Just think a bit, why are you still on this job? Are you a mediocre programmer ? Are you poor either mentally or lack a power of will ?

Of course someone should fix other people's bugs and someone should do tech support. As well as someone should be a slave, someone should work as a cleaner or keep streets clean, but why you should do this boring stuff ?

<comment><USER16> I cannot talk for your the grand parent, but I can think of a million reasons to have such a job. Great colleagues, good benefits (vacation, health-care, etc.), tied to a small town without good opportunities, ...

By the way, fixing other people's bugs and tech support may not always be quite as boring and demeaning as you make it out to be.

Your disdain for menial work is misguided. There's more to life than your work.

<comment><USER15> The small town effect would seem to apply in my case. I'm not too close to a major metro, but some insane people commute from here.

Maintenance isn't so bad except for how it's managed. michaelochurch addressed this well in his reply [<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3024752>]. I could do with less tech support, but haven't gotten around to automating it away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> No health care for a full-time position? Not a great template.

<comment><AUTHOR> It says they pay extra to compensate. This gives the employee to choose their own health care provider. I would think that is better than having it chosen for you buy your employer.

<comment><USER18> Other things being equal, more choice might be better. But other things aren't equal, thanks to (a) economies of scale, which make insurance cheaper for larger pools, and (b) favorable tax treatment for health insurance when it's part of employee compensation.

<comment><AUTHOR> True, but decoupling who performs surgery on you children and your current employer may be worth something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Big flaw #1:

When I land on that page from a link, it is not immediately obvious that I am looking at a job posting.

You should always always always let me know what I'm looking at within 0.5 seconds of me glancing at the page.

</comment><comment><USER6> What an actual day might look like:

The first 3 emails take almost the entire morning. In the 15 minutes before lunch, instead of working on the new delivery feature you and dave specced out, you pull up Hacker News and read an article or two before taking your lunch.

After lunch, more support issues demand your attention. After an hour or so of correspondence and follow-up you manage to get started on the interesting distribution project, having blown off the F# syntax highlighting thing which you won't have time to do tomorrow morning, either. By the end of the day, you've barely started on the distribution project and send an email to Dave with a cautiously optimistic update.

</comment><comment><USER20> Sorry to stir all this bile, folks.

Yes, the job involves keeping stuff running. If you're not interested in making sure stuff keeps working, we're not interested in you. Sorry.

Yes, we already have solutions to the architectural challenge, and we don't currently actually need an F# parser. Both are just exercises.

The combined holiday/sick days? I went with that because I though it was fairer than the standard n weeks vacation plus sick days. If you want to apply and ask for the separate vacation days, it doesn't bother me.

And we don't offer health insurance because no one else on our (small) staff wants it, and we can't start a group scheme with just one person (we checked).

Dave

</comment><comment><USER21> "You'll be working from your home. You'll report to Dave Thomas, but you'll also be working with other senior staff both to help resolve issues and to work on enhancements to our systems."

I think this is a great section. Too many employers lack the confidence and business awareness to encourage the idea of working from home. You don't need someone sitting at a desk next to you so that you can bother them every few minutes. If your requirements are communicated efficiently and documented properly the developer's physical location is completely irrelevant.

</comment><comment><USER22> Please solve our design problems for free, and in turn we'll think about hiring you.

<comment><USER23> What's sad is that this is exactly what we think of when we see these. But considering the source, I'd bet these problems are solved already.

I do this all the time. I already have the answer, I just want to see how the prospect would do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Nice job posting. I'll be watching the coderay submissions to see whether they'll contribute the F# scanner :)

</comment><comment><USER25> Thanks for putting the location (or in this case lack of location) of the position right at the top.

I'm amazed at how many postings make this hard to find or leave it out entirely.

</comment><comment><USER26> Could't you address the design challenge with auto-updating the AMI instances?

<http://pragprog.com/wikis/wiki/ADesignChallenge>

[http://shlomoswidler.com/2010/01/creating-consistent- snapsho...](http://shlomoswidler.com/2010/01/creating-consistent-snapshots-of- live.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> _be a US resident_

Any particular reason? A lot of US companies are looking further afield because they can't find the talent in the US.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_visa>

Disclaimer: I don't qualify, I come from the land of potatoes, I just live in Sydney and get hounded by US recruiters for my troubles...

<comment><USER28> >Any particular reason?

I'm thinking tax purposes. When you're a small outfit, the extra paperwork burden that comes from hiring people in other countries, without visas, probably would make it not worth your while.

<comment><USER29> In the US, you have to get the applicant through a lottery system. It used to be a high percentage would get through, but the last I heard, it was more like 50/50. So, if you hire a lot of people, and have 30 with visas and get 15, that might be ok. But, if you only need 1, it's too high stakes.

<http://www.ericsink.com/entries/H1B.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is the combined vacation/sick thing common in the States? I've never seen it until I worked for a US company (I'm in Canada). Everywhere else either gave 3 weeks vacation and unlimited sick (with HR policies to deal with abuse), or banked sick time separate from vacation.

<comment><USER31> I don't think it's common. I had never heard of it until I started my current job which has that policy. As a young guy who doesn't get sick often, I'm happy to have it pooled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Looks like a job as a system administurbator cleaning digital bed pans, with occasional programming.

</comment><comment><USER33> I skimmed the page five times before I ever saw the words "Software Developer." Everything about that page screams TLDR.

The information contained is informative but it doesn't even have a decent summary.

<comment><USER18> The words 'Software Developer' are in 260% type at the top of the page.

If they're looking to weed out unsuitable candidates, TLDR might be a feature rather than a bug.

<comment><USER33> But that 260% type is also the same color as the top bar so it blends in. That's just poor design.

This is the internet, people don't read walls of text. If that's a weed out feature then you're doing it wrong.

<comment><USER28> It's Big, black text on a white background. It ain't exactly camouflaged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Beside some technical mistakes, this kind of job advert really makes me want to work there. I prefer transparent companies that pride with a good developer workflow.

</comment><comment><USER35> Why don't they tend to look like that?

<comment><USER36> I don't intend to stand up and defend obviously terrible job postings, but consider the source here. The fact is that many people just aren't fantastic writers. Pragprog.com is a publishing company. If that posting were written by Dave Thomas himself, that means it was written by one of the most successful authors in the Ruby community.

Success in authorship means that you must be a good writer in general. Success in technical authorship means that you must be a good writer, as well as exceptionally good at organizing complex information (like a job description) and expressing it in terms that people can understand.

To answer the question directly: "Why don't they tend to look that?" Because most people can't write nearly as well as Dave Thomas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Sounds like a dream job, sadly I do not qualify :)

</comment><comment><USER38> I dunno man, that's awfully wordy.

</comment><comment><USER39> Combined sick/holiday leave is a rather shitty practice. I shouldn't have to cancel my vacation or take unpaid leave (if that were even an option) just because I got strep throat earlier in the year. I'm not in the market but if I were I would pass.

<comment><USER3> I prefer the combined leave, and it makes more sense from a management perspective. When you have separate pools for sick and vacation time, your employees tend to fall surprisingly ill around national holidays, planned vacations, and major social events.

With the combined pool, there's no pretense -- take time off when you want to.

Of course, we're assuming that you get a sizable pool for both... four weeks (twenty paid days) is reasonable, although were it my company, I'd offer five. The 'four week notice' policy seems a little high for taking the odd Friday off, and is totally out the window when it comes to sick days, but overall their vacation policy sounds pretty kosher.

<comment><USER40> In practice the two kinds of leave are treated differently even if they're from the same pool since vacation has to be requested in advance and sick time usually cannot be requested in advance. Unless you can schedule your accidents, injuries, and infections 4 weeks out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It doesn't seem like a great job. It seems like a 65th-percentile software job. And I have to give major props to the writer for having the courage to describe what the job _actually_ entails rather than sugar-coating the role.

Of course, most job postings aren't so brazenly honest. For young readers: the most important skill to hone during your 20s is bait-and-switch detection.

</comment><comment><USER42> Salary range not listed = low budget

<comment><USER43> I'm not sure that I've ever applied for a job that listed a salary range in their ad. And, actually, my take is exactly the opposite of yours. Almost without fail, every ad I've seen with a salary listed was lower than I would consider.</comment></comment>


Microsoft Acquires ADRM Software - <AUTHOR> https://seekingalpha.com/news/3584227-microsoft-buys-industry-data-model-provider <comment><AUTHOR> This seems to further fortify Microsoft's position as having the best data platform of all the cloud providers. Others agree?</comment>


Donkey Kong and Me - <AUTHOR> http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=987

<comment><AUTHOR> discussion & source code here ~ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=303572></comment>


Apple's tech allies oppose the FBI, but still want your data - <AUTHOR> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_APPLE_ENCRYPTION_PRIVACY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-27-13-12-19 <comment><USER2> The article title (and some parts of the article) argues that tech companies are being hypocritical by opposing the FBI since they still gathering your data.

This is a silly concern that is easily dispelled.

The cost of a company mishandling my data is much greater than the government mishandling it. If there is a data breach within a company, there is a huge chance that users will flee to a competing service if there is one available. No such recourse is available for citizens if there is a data breach within government.

While I believe strongly in the power of our vote and voice, we can't solve FBI data breaches by voting in new congressmen. Hypothetically speaking, if the FBI had a database of all our SSNs and home addresses and they were stolen, then no elected official would be held responsible.

So, I see no problem in "Apple's tech allies" opposing the FBI and still making money from ad revenue. The largest tech companies are more secure than the government. I would still like tech companies to give me services that are _more_ secure, however they are infinitely more knowledgeable about technology than our government.</comment>


When Star Trek's Spock Met PLATO - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/when-spock-met-plato/ <comment><USER2> This is an excerpt from my book THE FRIENDLY ORANGE GLOW which was just picked by WIRED as a Top Tech Book of 2017.

[https://www.wired.com/story/the-top-tech-books- of-2017-part-...](https://www.wired.com/story/the-top-tech-books- of-2017-part-2/)</comment>


LibreOffice under the hood: progress to 5.0 - <AUTHOR> https://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2015-08-05-under-the-hood-5-0.html

<comment><USER2> The continual code clean-ups are very nice to read about. With the added interoperability improvements LibreOffice will surely increase its market share.

<comment><USER3> It's already claiming download numbers equal or better to Apache OpenOffice, at last. And when the full Android version (not just a viewer) is finally released, it should be _enormously_ popular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Always a delight to see how much fixes are made to LO.

Btw ReleaseNotes : [https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/5.0](https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/5.0)

<comment><USER5> Yes. Unpredictable bugs have been my major concern with it forever. I'm never confident that it hasn't silently deleted some pictures from my documents or break the pagination. So I use all sorts of dirty hacks to try to detect corruption. It used to do that quite often. So it's great to see they're finally taking bugs seriously.</comment></comment>


Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

<comment><USER2> I think Philosophy of science is very good and contemporary. Also skeptics and stoics can be good read.</comment>