22-Year-Old Lidar Whiz Claims Breakthrough - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/sensors/22yearold-lidar-whiz-claims-breakthrough <comment><USER2> It will be interesting, to me, if there are any observable effects on nature exposed to 200 meter blasts of IR type wavelength stuff.

I mean, maybe it'll scare off deer, or pull them in closer to see what's up? Any number of species with un-intended consequences. Insects in the desert. Pidgeons in the big city. Gulls on the coast.

Maybe it's totally harmless, but I'd like a study that verifies mass adoption would not have ecological consequences.

<comment><USER3> Your comment spurred me to search for information about near-infrared vision systems in animals. NIR vision appears to be entirely absent from vertebrates. (I am not claiming that it is _present_ in invertebrates, only that I found stronger claims about absence from vertebrates.)

See "The Verriest Lecture 2009: Recent progress in understanding mammalian color vision"

[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c9df/0b61e4a45e10577c001513...](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c9df/0b61e4a45e10577c001513a4fc1432696b3c.pdf)

Particularly Figure 1. Vertebrate photopigment sensitivity drops off rapidly toward the near IR (~700 nm).

I found this fascinating related (but not peer reviewed) document on arXiv, "Did Evolution get it right? An evaluation of near-infrared imaging in semantic scene segmentation"

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.08815.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.08815.pdf)

The author performs semantic segmentation with convnets using conventional visual-spectrum images and compares performance with images spectrally extended into the near-infrared. He finds that adding the additional NIR band did not improve task performance -- hence that evolution "got it right" by not expanding vision into a wavelength region that fails to improve semantic segmentation. I'm not sure how good this work is from a professional biologist's perspective, but I found it damn interesting.

EDIT: note that this laser operating at 1550 nm is far from the long wave IR (~8000 nm and up) that various animals sense to detect prey body heat.

<comment><USER4> Vampire bats use modified capsaicin (chili pepper) receptors in their nose to detect infrared light:

[https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/nature...](https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/nature10245.html)

They use this to find their warm-bodied prey, but of course it's only detection, not vision.

I learned this today, and now I'm happy I did.

<comment><USER5> I was about to ask if you work where I do, then I saw your username, then I remembered that you hired me through HN..

<comment><USER6> You guys seem to have amazingly interesting jobs. Please hire me, I'm your future-colleague.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's a video here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasQG3fR8Mo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasQG3fR8Mo)

</comment><comment><USER8> So it's a LIDAR + galvanometer scanner in a box? This is nothing particularly novel in itself, except they seem to have solved the scanning-speed problem. If you look at the videos of the scan, you can see that rather than the ring- like scans you'd get from a Velodyne system, you get a kind of snake-path. They're scanning (extremely quickly, by the looks of it) with a mirror and doing a kind of raster pattern.

From a skim of their patent it's a multiplexed system - [http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0131388.html](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0131388.html)

Seems like they're using a galvo to scan the LIDAR and they're beamsplitting the laser to get multiple returns.

<comment><USER9> > except they seem to have solved the scanning-speed problem

By way of a GaN chip, which is the standard solution for anything requiring super high clock speeds.

Considering another company is pitching a $50 solid-state LIDAR for autonomous vehicles, I don't think this qualifies as a breakthrough[0]. It's just the market pushing prices down.

[1]: [http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that- think/transportation/sens...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that- think/transportation/sensors/osrams-laser-chip-for-lidar-promises-supershort- pulses-in-a-smaller-package)

<comment><USER8> I was thinking more of the mirrors. I've used galvo systems at work before, and the off the shelf ones couldn't come close to the sorts of speeds they're showing off. Especially not in a raster pattern. 3D LIDAR using galvos has been done before for space applications (one was used on the space shuttle, or at least a ground-based model), they used a lissajous scanning pattern which is much kinder on the motors because you can do continuous movements rather than making the mirror do a rapid turn at the end of each row. It's called TriDAR:

[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SPIE.6220E...7R](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SPIE.6220E...7R)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Back when the only really powerful lasers that could be found for optical tables were IR, I know a couple of guys who lost enough of their retina to be considered legally blind from light they couldn't see. One of them told me, "You know you're in trouble when your eye starts to hurt and you realize your safety glasses aren't on."

<comment><USER11> As someone who works with lasers on a daily basis - this is my nightmare. Luckily they're almost always overlaid with visible light (except during some special production steps), making things much safer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The actual candor around the limitations, from a potential beneficiary of the Lidar boom, is refreshing.

<comment><USER13> My thoughts exactly. Issues with rain/snow are a common concern, but I had never heard of the "dark car problem" :

 _Current lidar systems can't see a black tire, or a person like me wearing black—Velodyne's [Puck] wouldn't see a 5- to 10-percent reflective object [30 meters away]. It's the dark car problem—no one else talks about it!"_

<comment><USER14> Considering nearly every pedestrian walking along the streets near me at night is wearing dark clothes (and there are typically no sidewalks) that's a terrifying statement.

<comment><USER15> It's not a problem at night. It's a problem during the day, when everything is washed out. The lidar can still see something there, but not how far away it is.

<comment><USER16> I'd speculate that the biggest hazard would be a stationary object (tire in the road). If so, pedestrians crossing traffic seem less likely to cause problems.

<comment><USER15> That would show up as a kind of "hole" in the road. Clever software would be required to see it as a danger.

<comment><USER17> Isn't the asphalt (without lane markings) black as well? How does it recognize a black object in a black background? I don't see it showing up as a hole in that scenario.

<comment><USER15> aslphalt is a few times more reflective than rubber

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's interesting that he uses InGaAs, that's a relatively expensive material and closes off the possibility of silicon photonics.

<comment><USER18> Not necessarily. Bonding III/V materials onto Silicon is a thing[0].

Not to say it would be easy, but it should be doable.

[0][https://optoelectronics.ece.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/201...](https://optoelectronics.ece.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/2017-02/Davenport%20Heterogeneous%20Silicon%20III–V%20Semiconductor%20Optical%20Amplifiers_0.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The article states:

"Current lidar systems can't see a black tire, or a person like me wearing black—Velodyne's [Puck] wouldn't see a 5- to 10-percent reflective object [30 meters away]. It's the dark car problem—no one else talks about it!"

How are the current autonomous vehicles from the Google, Uber et al compensating for this shortcoming?

If anyone has some recommendations for learning more about Lidar that they could share I appreciate it.

<comment><USER20> Using more than one sensor helps, radar could see a black car, while lidar not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The article mentions that the primary advantage of this approach is that it provides the long distance coverage necessary to handle highway speeds. It also states that, because of the device design, you'd need 4, one at each corner.

It seems to me that you don't need 200m coverage to the rear, and maybe the rear of the vehicle could be handled by a less expensive 360-degree lidar unit?

</comment><comment><USER22> Can someone clarify this: "...particularly at 200 meters and beyond. That's how far cars will have to see at highway speeds if they want to give themselves more than half a second to react to events."

200 meters, half second? That would mean the car is covering 1km in 2.5 seconds, or 1440km/h. Not sure what type of car is going that fast.

<comment><USER23> My reading is that the half second only accounts for reaction time, not stopping distance. Two cars head on at highway speeds would barely be able to stop from a 200m detection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I wonder if this is a problem that can be solved by public-private partnerships. What if we have a public utility that maintains a network of cameras throughout the city that can be used to create a real-time self driving guidance system. Users of the system would pay fees to patch into the data feed so that their cars can use that data. The utility would turn the data into anonymized object data. Since we would want to have standards around this type of infrastructure data, it would be regulated in the early days and then can move to deregulation where third party providers can layer other data and analysis into the stream. This could be cheaper and more effective than the current attempts at per-car LIDAR with all of its limitations. Alternatively, you could aggregate the data collected by all of the cars and provide a single vision of the local area that is not limited by your single LIDAR unit.

<comment><USER25> Think of the nightmare situations if that infrastructure data was hacked...

<comment><USER9> In the US, most local Governments capable of rolling out such infrastructure already record everything a lot of information. Seattle public transit records everything (including audio!). Many have license plate scanners in busy streets. Then they have a roving band of police who with dash and body cameras.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, but I'm thinking about a situation where the data is modified to cause your vehicle to drive to the wrong place. Like that fellow who was following his car navigation system directions and drove up a bike path and crashed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's interesting that the perspective in this article is that the high price is unimportant. Isn't the problem with existing spinning mirror Lidar that it's expensive? It makes me think there is some other advantage that solid state Lidars have to generate so much investment.

<comment><USER8> Moving parts and economy of scale. If you want to buy an industrial 1D LIDAR off the shelf today, you're looking at a few thousand dollars. A galvanometer scanner like these guys use is again, several thousand dollars (just look at Thorlabs for a basic system). InGaS array sensors are also not cheap.

Frankly I'm skeptical that a galvo based system will last long in the real world.

In principle, flash LIDAR solves all of the problems. You can image an area at long distance in real-time. It has no moving parts and it's presumably amenable to MEMS production. Basic (non-MEMS) units from people like ASC cost tens of thousands. We just need someone with a serious bankroll to develop one. We saw exactly the same with Time of Flight cameras. Microsoft bought Canesta and suddenly a $5k+ camera cost $100.

<comment><AUTHOR> You seem to know a lot about LIDAR, I'd love to chat sometime if you'd be interested. I couldn't find your email anywhere. Care to give me a ping at sixsamuraisoldier[at]gmail[dot]com?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wonder how the tradeoff between precision, speed of movement, and robustness of the system was handled. Will a moving car on a bumpy road suffer from corrupted signals?

</comment><comment><USER28> As a cautionary warning, a laser with a 1550 nm wavelength can still cause damage to the human eye. I don't know how collimated the laser in this system is but when we piped this color of light down single-mode fiber, looking in the other end could leave you with a dead spot in your retina.

<comment><USER29> They said in the article it was low mW.

Yes, looking at the other end of a laser fiber is stupid, particularly when your eye can't see the wavelength. If you're working with 1550nm light and single-mode fibers you should know that, and if you don't you should've received better laser safety training.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> >But, because it hasn't got the 360-degree coverage of a rooftop tower, you'd need four units, one for each corner of the car.

The technology is certainly interesting and it does have its advantages, but the need to use 4 of these units, for complete coverage, isn't exactly going to make it cheap.

</comment><comment><USER31> Pencil beam with fast scans coupled to a moving, unstabilized platform can introduce stitching/alignment problems that must be solved to maintain high accuracy.

I wonder how well this system does it -- it is not trivial.

</comment><comment><USER32> Maybe I missed it, but I see no actual power output, just multiples of some standard. IS this thing putting out 5mW or 1W?

<comment><USER15> probably tens of milliwatts, normal lidars are fractions of a milliwatt average output. The HDL-64 has a max laser power of 1mW.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This website is really frustrating to use.

<comment><USER34> It's fine if all JS is disabled using uMatrix

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> What is the output of LIDAR ? A point cloud or stripes ?

What are the specs of the output of a LIDAR such a Velodyne or this one ?

<comment><USER8> It's a point cloud, but you get stripes because of the way the systems scan.

Unless you're using a flash LIDAR (mucho dinero), all LIDAR are single point sensors which have to be scanned. That is, you send out a pulse of light and a single photodiode detects the return signal.

A Velodyne LIDAR has up to 64 rx/tx pairs arranged into a grid which is rotated rapidly, so you end up imaging a series of rings around the sensor.

Specs - the best LIDAR systems scan at around 1Mpt/second over a full hemisphere. The Velodyne system gives you around 20-30k measurements in the field of view a typical car camera. Accuracy is centimeter level.

Stripes are produced by laser triangulation systems, but they're not true LIDAR. You project a line and look at how the image of it shifts compared to a known distance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> You can be super-human with just cameras. Lidar is not required.

</comment><comment><USER37> The article is unbearable to read.

</comment><comment><USER38> Just because I can't see infrared doesn't mean it won't damage my retinas through my fully dilated pupils at night when you pump up the power by 40x.

Edit: Emphasis on _fully dilated_. The amount of infrared energy that reaches my retinas in daylight is reduced due to pupil contraction.

Additionally, this has moving parts so what if it suddenly fails to spin and you are exposed to a continuous IR beam with fully dilated pupils at night? I'm sure that it's possible for it to heat and damage your retina in this failure scenario.

<comment><USER15> Nah, you'll be fine. You receive a couple hundred watts of near infrared radiation (ie the 1550 nm in the laser) just by being in direct sunlight. That's spread over your entire body, of course.

The laser in this lidar has a power of ~40 mW, which technically puts it out of being a class 1[1] laser, ie you can shine it directly into your pupil _through a magnifying glass without fear_. However the class is just a guideline.

Using a maximum permissible exposure chart gives a better sense of danger. Lidar pulses are on the order of 10 nanoseconds, or 1/100th the smallest division on this chart[2]. Even so, you can see that the maximum safe power for 1550 nm is somewhere between 8 and 10,000 watts, at least 800x more than the lidar emits.

1550 nm doesn't chemically damage biological receptors. The damage would have to be thermal, but the laser is pulsed for an incredibly short time and even if it wasn't it's well under what you can be exposed to indefinitely.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety#/media/File:Laser...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety#/media/File:Laser_class_EN_60825-1.en.png)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IEC60825_MPE_W_s.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IEC60825_MPE_W_s.png)

<comment><USER38> > You receive a couple hundred watts of near infrared radiation (ie the 1550 > nm in the laser) just by being in direct sunlight.

The visible light in sunlight makes pupils dilate, decreasing the amount of infrared energy that reaches and heats the retina.

<comment><USER39> You don't think the safety charts don't already understand that effect?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Start here to learn R - <AUTHOR> http://r-exercises.com/2016/07/22/start-here-to-learn-r/ <comment><USER2> All the tutorials involve using base R packages. While OK for a tutorial, _this is not reflective for real-world data analysis_ both in performance and usability, a lesson I have learned the hard way. (After using it for three semesters in college, I almost quit R completely in frustration)

I recommend going straight to the Hadleyverse packages for the common use cases, and read the vignettes for the common use cases: readr for reading files, dplyr for manipulating data, ggplot2 for plotting (the most important package!), and tidyr for reshaping data into a ggplot2-friendly long form.

Wickham himself has a very beginner-friendly, free book for learn R using his packages: [http://r4ds.had.co.nz/index.html](http://r4ds.had.co.nz/index.html) (far better than any tutorial I could write)

<comment><USER3> While I appreciate the hard work Hadley has put into this ecosystem, and I detest the language wars, I can't help but feel that the world would be a better place if Hadley had put his effort into python DS modules instead.

Hadley's work puts R almost at parity with python (at best!) for munging, and for academics, this long-term trend of domain languages like R or SAS becomes counterproductive. It's as if he's leading us to a local optimum.

<comment><USER4> S (R's ancestor) was developed in the mid-70s and 80s, at least a decade before Python was written. Then couldn't your argument be applied to those working on Python data science tools? Variety is the spice of life. :)

<comment><USER5> No, because the issue isn't that new programming languages and their libraries shouldn't be developed (and I'm a big fan of new languages with new paradigms) but whether the new languages should be general purpose or not. I'd argue that the development of S was misstep, and one which would have been completely forgotten by now if not for R and the libraries written for it.

<comment><USER4> Before S there were onerous Fortran routines. Rich Becker, one of the authors of S gave a really interesting talk about this at the useR conference this year, you should check it out if you haven't already: [http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2016/07/rick-becker-s- ta...](http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2016/07/rick-becker-s-talk.html)

You say that developing S was a misstep, what decision would you have made instead? Build on Fortran?

<comment><USER5> option 1) S was created at AT&T, the home of UNIX and C. Imagine if statistical functionality had been made a standard part of C rather than developing a new language. While C is maybe not that popular anymore, current languages like Java and C# inherit from it, and we would have a world in which statistical functions were taken as given as part of the default libraries of any language.

option 2) Use another standard language like LISP. This actually was done in the excellent LISP-STAT system. Unfortunately it came out at kind of the wrong time for LISP. These days LISP is kind of undergoing a renaissance with Clojure, Racket, LFE, etc., but in the 1990s it was more associated with the failed AI efforts of the symbolic school and LISP was just seen as this weird thing with lots of parentheses by many people.

The thing is I use R every day. But like everybody else, I bury it under lots of add ons like Hadley's and others to make it palatable by hiding as much of the absurd R syntax as possible. That's like dumping ketchup on foul tasting food. Is this really what we want to do?

<comment><USER4> That'd add a lot of baggage to C that's really beyond its core mission. It'd also slow down development of statistical interfaces (that lag far behind the stability of systems interfaces). Thank you for responding, but I'm not convinced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A paid alternative is also datacamp.com Has videos and interactive exercises you can do directly in the site. And btw, I am not affiliated with them, just a user.

<comment><USER7> I've found DataCamp to be pretty good too. Have you tried DataQuest [1]?

It's mostly Python (a little R), but just wondering what others think.

[1] [https://www.dataquest.io/](https://www.dataquest.io/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> These are interesting exercises. I would also add that what it means to learn, or begin to learn, a language in general but R in particular could vary widely.

Some people actually need to learn statistics while they are learning to express those concepts.

Some people need to learn idiomatic R. I really didn't think of R as very functional till I took Peng's (excellent) Coursera course.

Some people need to get a sense of the libraries available.

This is an intro to get some practice in the the classical, original purpose for S, Splus and R: linear algebra operations in R.

</comment><comment><USER9> > If you're completely new to R, we suggest you simply start with the first > topic, "Simple manipulations; numbers and vectors".

Where is this? I couldn't see anything with the same name.

The first thing in the list: [http://r-exercises.com/2015/10/09/vector- exercises/](http://r-exercises.com/2015/10/09/vector-exercises/) starts by telling me I need to have read something else, which is a chapter in a long PDF.

I applaud the effort, but this feels confusing and I'm worried about people being discouraged right as they start.

</comment><comment><USER10> if you are on Windows and want to try R and don't mind preview software, check out:

[http://microsoft.github.io/RTVS-docs/](http://microsoft.github.io/RTVS-docs/)

</comment><comment><USER11> I personally prefer video courses, like those on Udemy:

[https://www.udemy.com/data-science-and-machine-learning- boot...](https://www.udemy.com/data-science-and-machine-learning-bootcamp- with-r/?couponCode=DATASCIENTIST)

</comment><comment><USER12> Also swirl (similar exercises to teach yourself R)

[http://swirlstats.com/students.html](http://swirlstats.com/students.html)</comment>


Facebook to block news on Australian sites after new law, riling lawmakers - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-media-facebook/facebook-to-block-news-on-australian-sites-after-new-law-riling-lawmakers-idUSKBN25S36J <comment><USER2> Yesterday's discussion on this - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24337269](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24337269)

The only update is the (predictable) response from Australian lawmakers and lobbyists.

While this law is idiotic at all levels, I'm secretly hoping that Facebook & Google do implement a complete news blackout for a significant amount of time just so we can see how it affects Australian society.

Another angle people don't seem to be mentioning enough is just how scarily easily a major government effectively banned its citizens from discussing any news online. How hard would it be for them to include Reddit (or HN), for example, in the list of entities that are subject to this law? If they did, this post likely wouldn't be allowed in Australia.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure what law you're talking about here, because requiring Google and Facebook to pay news sites for reposting their content is very different from "banning its citizens from discussing any news online".

There's nothing stopping them from just turning it into a hyperlink like it would've been in the old days. Sites grab excerpts and thumbnails of the target URL in order to keep you on their site longer and minimize the number of clicks away.

<comment><USER4> > _requiring Google and Facebook to pay news sites for reposting their content > is very different from "banning its citizens from discussing any news > online"._

Part of the law says that Facebook has to grant access to News Corp. so they (and they alone) can moderate any and all comments posted on Facebook about any of their articles.

So, actually, yes, it's exactly that.

<comment><USER5> I believe this question has been addressed and clarified as limiting the moderation of content to the news organisations' own Facebook pages only, not a general ability to moderate discussion of their articles posted elsewhere by private citizens.

<comment><USER6> 52S User comments

(1) Subsection (2) applies if the registered news business corporation for the registered news business makes a request, in writing, to the responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service to do any of the following:

(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided with flexible content moderation tools that allow the registered news business corporation to remove or filter comments on the registered news business' covered news content that:

(i) are made using the digital platform service; and

(ii) are made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business;

(b) ensure that the registered news business corporation can disable the making of such comments;

(c) ensure that the registered news business corporation can block the making of such comments:

(i) by particular persons; or

(ii) in particular circumstances.

(2) The responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service must comply with the request.

<comment><USER7> Exactly, "on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business", i.e. on the news site's own personal page, which is already possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If the news orgs feel they have something of value, shouldn't they welcome this move, as it will hurt Facebook?

They are asking for payment for their service. Presumably Facebook will lose more value from this than what they are being asked to pay, otherwise why pay?

They're tipping their hand here. They know that what they have is not as valuable as what they're asking for it, otherwise Facebook wouldn't be willing to give up that value.

<comment><USER2> In terms of pure economics, they should be the ones paying Facebook.

<comment><USER9> Is this because Facebook distributes their content?

<comment><USER10> I don't think Facebook even distributes it, they advertise it. Much like HN is doing for Reuters' content in this very thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Crikey's Bernard Keane has a great take on the issue & sovereign risk[0]:

 _Now the government is pursuing a policy that, in its rejection of the rule of law and its arbitrary market intervention at the expense of investors and corporations, is the perfect embodiment of the idea of sovereign risk. And exactly no one is pointing it out — because Australia's media companies are the beneficiaries of it, and the targets of it are two of the most hated companies in the world._

 _The government's proposed News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code would be a draconian regulation to force two explicitly identified companies, Google and Facebook, to hand an unlimited amount of revenue over to Australian media companies, justified by a fiction that those companies steal news content.[...]_

 _The code is justified by a News Corp lie, that Google steals news content and makes billions of dollars from it. The ACCC forensically compiled evidence that this was false. Knowing that the News Corp claim was wrong didn't prevent Treasurer Josh Frydenberg from spreading it himself. But the only theft here is what is proposed for Google and Facebook._

Apologies to HN/YC for introducing risk by quoting from and linking to an Australian news article :)

[0] [https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/08/28/google-facebook-accc- ch...](https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/08/28/google-facebook-accc-changes/)

<comment> blaser-waffle Man I didn't realize just how badly News Corp owns Australia. Lobbyists are bad in the US but you can at least post news stories on most forums...

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Facebook is undoubtably the scummiest company of our generation, but this is the correct and only response here.

I continue to be surprised when politicians fail to think through the logical response to their actions. Either they failed to anticipate this, and they're naive, or they did and they went through with it anyway?

<comment><USER8> This law was pushed by News Corp and is exactly the response they were hoping for. Their goal is to be the only game in town, because they know they can survive without FB and Google, and no one else can.

<comment><USER12> Will take your word for it (I haven't looked into it).

Do you think the politicians are just feigning surprise/insult here in response to Facebook's actions as that's what would be expected of them?

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure they're faking it. My guess is that News Corp's lobbyists are so persuasive they convinced the politicians that Australian news would die without this law.

<comment><USER2> The guy overseeing this law is 70 years old, so I'll tend to believe it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Once the people at these news orgs ask their analytics team to show them how much of their traffic comes from Facebook, I'm sure they'll scrap the push for this law real fast. If not, their traffic (and therefore revenue) will drop immensely. Very few people go directly to news sites now. Liking a news page and then seeing what pops up in the feed is how most people consume their news (which I hate, because it fuels the headline click bait, but it's just a fact).

<comment><USER8> The problem here is that the news orgs know that most of their traffic comes from FB and Google. They don't like this law either.

This law is being pushed just by News Corp, who knows they can survive without FB and Google. This is exactly the outcome they were hoping for.

The way the law is written, they don't have to pay the news orgs until those orgs request it. Perhaps one option is for FB and Google to keep linking to any news site that doesn't ask for money, and when one asks, just drop them.

<comment><USER14> > The way the law is written, they don't have to pay the news orgs until those > orgs request it. Perhaps one option is for FB and Google to keep linking to > any news site that doesn't ask for money, and when one asks, just drop > them.

They thought of that. The law explicitly says that FB etc. shall not "discriminate between registered news businesses and news businesses that are not registered news businesses".

<comment><USER8> Yeah, but that is very nebulous. What defines a news organization? I suspect the lawyers could figure out a pretty easy workaround.

<comment><USER15> It's defined in the law and up to the whim of the treasurer.

This is a really, really misguided law (and that's being generous).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As long as they ban ALL news this will make Australia a much better place.

Facebook is a hive of fake news, rumors and fearmongering. If users had to go to alternative websites to obtain news they'd be far more likely to land upon reputable outlets like our ABC.

<comment><USER17> Or be far more likely to get their news via memes.

I can already tell you that large amounts of people's primary source of information is meme bottom text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "We can't believe Facebook has the gall to obey the laws we wrote!" \- Australia

<comment><USER19> If they just did it, that would be less childish.

Right now they're telling everyone in Oz their internet is at risk and responding with an ultimatum just for show. (And public support?) I'd hope they have someone discussing the actual issues with the relevant government people.

I mean, the law is stupid enough that both Google and FB can respond with specific issues they have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's incredible how the ACCC has the nerve to say Facebook response amounts to Facebook holding Australian's to ransom!

Never mind the draft law as it sits is literally designed to take money from Facebook and Google and put it directly into News Corp. pockets. This is not about the government collecting tax dollars for the good of Australia, this is the government collecting tax dollars for the good of Rupert Murdoch.

Incredibly because of the tight control he has over the media he can ensure his version of the truth gets repeated over and over until a very large number of Australians will simply believe it as truth.

Fake news is alive and well in Australia thanks to one company owning an enormous chunk of all media.

<comment><USER20> I'm curious what percent of advertising revenue has moved from journalistic corporations over to Google and Facebook.

I think the places that used to employ journalists to gather news served a role in our society that Facebook and Google have not stepped into. It COULD make sense for a government that saw value in that industry to prop it up. The same way it makes sense for the USA to keep at least one or two foundries operational.

<comment><USER2> Framing the conversation as Google and Facebook directly taking revenue from newspapers isn't at all accurate, and just fuels public anger and laws like the one we are discussing.

The core problem is that people aren't buying newspapers and magazines anymore, instead getting their news online. Since there is no barrier to entry for online journalism, the space is dominated by low-effort clickbait and fake/sensationalist news. People prefer to consume all this for free instead of paying a reputable source.

Now, completely independent of all this, Facebook and Google have set up massive communities of users online and have perfected the art of monetizing them via ads. Regulating both these companies or removing them from the equation entirely (as they are planning to do themselves) does nothing to solve the news problem above.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Am I reading this right that a user or the news org itself can make a post linking to a AUS news site on Facebook and Facebook would have to pay the news org for the post under this law?

<comment><USER4> Yep, that's correct.

It's also just the start of the insanity. Google and FB also have to provide details of their ranking algorithms (and give 28 days notice of any upcoming changes). The law also only applies to Google and FB (not Twitter, not email, etc.) AND money only has to be given to News Corp. Not the ABC, SBS, etc.

There are plenty more 'WTF?' items in there, but it all boils down to Rupert Murdoch owning the government, and making them write laws to do his bidding.

<comment><USER7> No they don't, they only have to provide details of why they downranked the website if they do so. This is to avoid them intentionally downranking the papers to hurt them. Stop spreading lies.

<comment><USER21> Ok, but if they get all of their employees to post links to their website, they get paid by Facebook for that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Riling lawmakes, or is it Rupert Murdoch that's annoyed ?

</comment><comment><USER23> Haha, the Australian politicians are trying something from the United Fruit Company and Dwight Eisenhower playbook except they look like three kids in a trenchcoat trying to play a man.

They just look like morons.

</comment><comment><USER24> In Australia if you play the radio/CD/stream music in a business you have to pay a license fee.

If the hairdresser turns on the radio, they have to pay.

[https://www.smallbusiness.wa.gov.au/blog/playing-music- your-...](https://www.smallbusiness.wa.gov.au/blog/playing-music-your- workplace)

I'm not sure why Australians are happy with this but not with what the ACCC is doing?

That said, it's fun to watch this go down.

<comment><USER25> What Google and Facebook are mostly doing is telling you to go and listen to a particular song somewhere else. Linking to content. Driving valuable traffic to the content provider's sites. _Their sites_ , where the news content providers can show _their own ads_...

I think most Australians wouldn't be aware about the playing music in small businesses thing too, so I wouldn't use that as a benchmark.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is the only rational move for Facebook. I highly doubt AUS news doesn't move the needle enough for anyone to care. Even for way smaller firms than FB.

</comment><comment><USER27> This will leave an enormous black hole in news discovery.

The real question is what new discovery methods will fill this massive hole.

It won't be newspapers, that's for sure

<comment><USER28> Unfortunately, lots of people don't cite news articles at all. They just post memes.

But for people who do want to post a news article, it seems like there are lots of workarounds, like quoting and citing, or an indirect link through Twitter.

It will be a question of how smart Facebook is about blocking stuff. I'd guess they wouldn't be any smarter than they have to be to maintain plausible deniability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Oh no!

Anyway... _goes off to read news on actual news sites_

</comment><comment><USER7> As an Australian, this is fantastic. Why should Facebook and Google get to show news content for free? The only people unhappy about this, from what I have seen, are Facebook and Google. Big tech bullies, having a sook with their lobbyists and website warnings. Good riddance.

<comment><USER26> This law won't live past a year, it's already failed. If it does it's only going to create fewer independent news sources in Australia.

So your hopes of this somehow punishing Google/FB and benefiting the people of AUS long term is probably very misguided.

Google/FB don't care about a subset of a percentage of it's traffic from a small western country.

Twitter and Reddit don't provide any less biased discourse either. And I'm not sure people are simply going to go back to visiting the homepages directly - at least enough to replace the traffic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'd be curious to see how FB implements this; I assume something pretty basic like a blocklist of domains. That would be an interesting list to read. It's obviously still yet to be implemented as I was just now able to share a link to an ABC website news story.

</comment><comment><USER31> Seems like this could open doors for search engines that are willing to pay royalties. Bing anyone?

<comment><USER15> It's not worth it.

If anything, the news orgs should be paying fb/google for giving them traffic at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> As an Australian I support blocking Sky news "content".</comment>


Ask HN: Why do so many "Ask HN:" posts seem to cluster together? - <AUTHOR>

I have noticed that quite often. Ask HN posts seem to clump together. Does anyone know if this is:<p>a. pure coincidence b. how HN ranks posts c. Some statistical correlation that exists between ask HN posts, that binds them more tightly than other posts. I would think it has to do with ask HN posts' objective: to be answered. d. total fluke just my experience <comment><AUTHOR> <http://imagepaste.nullnetwork.net/viewimage.php?id=2494> \- a screenshot

</comment><comment><USER2> There's a special penalty that gets applied to Ask HN posts, I guess that's what's responsible for any clustering.

</comment><comment><USER3> My first guess would be triggering (Person B sees a post by Person A and decides to post their own).</comment>


Securely access your files from anywhere on the net - <AUTHOR> http://itwin.com/

<comment><USER2> "Two ends of a cable without a cable", the iTwin device gives LAN-type connection between 2 computers without the use of cables. This means that you can access your desktop with your laptop from anywhere in the world, or vice versa. This also means that 2 people can share information (unlimited access) on their PCs despite the distance between them, without installation.</comment>


AngelList just spammed my entire network "Accidentally" - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/angellist-playing-dirty-users-connor-gallic?published=u <comment><USER2> I used to really like AngelList and thought of it as a great replacement for LinkedIn, but recently they seem to be more on a track to morph into LinkedIn. Unless something has changed, and it doesn't sound like it has, almost every profile update requires an email exchange to occur. The new "who's viewed your profile" feature is eerily familiar of LinkedIn (i.e. turn your profile to private so people don't see). I hate to see them fall into the same hole as LinkedIn.

</comment><comment><USER3> I got a notice about profile being viewed in "private mode". Then "click here to see who it was". I have the cognitive dissonance.</comment>


How do i bill for open source software? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
i have an idea of a startup which will change a lot in security field, post-Snowden. The problem is, it will only make sense if it's open source (because otherwise it can't be trusted). How do i bill for this? It is about 80% for corporate market, rest of privacy-concerned individuals (power users).
Any idea is appreciated.
without solving this question, i will probably never move past MVP because it's hard to get funding without a solid way to bill your users, few will pay if they can cut a few lines from code, run make, and have it for free. <comment><USER2> The same way you bill for any other software services.

Seriously: No startup or SAAS is really charging for their actual software. The whole reason an MVP works is that you are selling an idea, and a solution to a business problem, not some code. The actual execution of the solution is an implementation detail. That's why many people can get paying customers before they've written a line of code.

Also, I think you overestimate a corporate customer's ability and willingness to clone a repo, edit and run a build script, and host their own solution. Corporations pay money to _remove_ problems from their business. Evaluating a new open source package, ramping up on building/running/customizing it, and then maintaining it in-house all sounds like _adding_ a pain point to your average company.

In short, are you meeting a need, and solving a problem that businesses have? If so, then people will pay you money for that. After that it's just a matter of marketing.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would look at this exhaustive list of revenue models and see if you can find a company that does something similar to what you're contemplating.

[https://hackpad.com/Web-and-Mobile-Revenue-Models- Ch2paBpUyI...](https://hackpad.com/Web-and-Mobile-Revenue-Models-Ch2paBpUyIU)

There are any number of things you can charge for with an open source project: commercial use licensing, documentation, support, advanced features, implementation consulting.

</comment><comment><USER4> GPL3, then charge target market for a different license and upgrades/support.

I saw someone else doing this and they said it was working well for them (sorry do not remember who).

<comment><USER5> Was it x264? It has a dual GPL2/commercial licence and I believe they have been pretty successful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> kickstarter? There are a few projects at kickstarter like this type already.</comment>


Ask HN: Where do we find freelancers/partners for frontend implementation? - <AUTHOR>

Shall we work with companies like psd2html.com / thesiteslinger.com / pixel2html.com / netlingshq.com / markup-service.com etc. or are there other ways? What or which services do you prefer?
We're a small agency from Switzerland and we're looking for a (if possible long term) partnership in frontend implementation (HTML, CSS, JS). These kind of guys are quit rare in Switzerland so we're looking worldwide. There is no need to come to Switzerland, we can work via E-Mail and e.g. Skype.
Thanks for hints! <comment><USER2> Can you give a description of what your company is doing? For lots of one-off work, freelancer or something similar might work. How complex are your UIs? Are you doing design in house? Where is server-side dev being done?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry, I forgot to write about this: We're allink.ch and we do a lot of Brand and Web Design/Development. ATM we create everything inhouse, from Design, over Frontend until backend (Django). But as I mentioned above, our Frontend guys are quit busy so we're looking for freenlancers/partners.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Filmgrain, a realtime movie + Twitter app - <AUTHOR> http://www.filmgrainapp.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's the launch blog post, too, if you're so incline. [http://blog.filmgrainapp.com/2013/06/15/filmgrain-is- live/](http://blog.filmgrainapp.com/2013/06/15/filmgrain-is-live/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Very refreshing to see an Android-first app. Great job all-around.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot. Also, it's definitely possible an iOS app is already in the works :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The design is simple but nice. Congratulations on launching your app. Is this a 1 off or a business for you?

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually built this with two friends and our goal was to build something together and play with realtime in an app. As far as our plans, getting this far feels great and we're excited to see how people feel about the app. If people like it even a little, I know we'll keep going.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very cool, works well on nexus 4 and 7. Nice, simple UX. Consider me a fan.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very cool. Could you share a little bit about the backend?

<comment><USER6> We are planning to write about it soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's beautiful, well made, and useful. Nicely done.

<comment><USER6> Thank you! We are not designers so it was hard for us.</comment></comment>


The Black Death may have transformed medieval societies in sub-Saharan Africa - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/black-death-may-have-transformed-medieval-societies-sub-saharan-africa <comment><USER2> > Whatever calamity struck medieval sub-Saharan Africa, its impact was > lasting. Akrokrowa was abandoned by about 1365, and Kirikongo was never the > same. The settlement stayed small, the ceramics got much simpler, and the > culture changed to more closely resemble that of the nearby Mali Empire. "It > does seem to be a break," Dueppen says.

I like to bring up black death in discussions when people complain that our current time is "difficult". In southern Europe in the middle of the 14th century, it is likely that around 80% of the population died over a few years. In Milan, town officials closed buildings with bricks as soon as they learned that anyone in that house was infected (with the people still inside, of course). Also, the social impact of this disease is often forgotten: I read somewhere that any interpersonal relationship between 2 or more people was effectively destroyed, because the other may already have been infected. Parents refused to take care of their own children, and people saw no reason to do long-term planning anymore (including farming). An epidemic like that basically decomposes the fabric of society, and therefore culture, very quickly, in a way only few other catastrophes are able to, and it may take centuries to recover from that. Or the society will never recover at all:

> Historians have found previously unknown mentions of epidemics in Ethiopian > texts from the 13th to the 15th centuries, including one that killed "such a > large number of people that no one was left to bury the dead."

<comment><USER3> The strange thing is that Europe recovered quite fast. The survivors (or more, their children) ended up significantly better-off, for a century or so, basically because there was more land per person, so you could just farm the better parts.

Whether something like that happened in (say) Ethiopia too, will I guess be even harder to figure out than whether they had the plague at all.

<comment><USER2> > The survivors (or more, their children) ended up significantly better-off, > for a century or so, basically because there was more land per person.

Indeed, this is something I always found extremely fascinating. The plague destroyed the very rigid social and economic structures of medieval Europe. Simply put, they had to take _anyone_ as a goldsmith's apprentice, even some poor farmer's kid, because everyone else was dead. I am quite sure it is no coincidence that the Renaissance appeared 1-2 generations after the black death, and always held the secret opinion that European culture was basically born in the fire that was the black death epidemic.

> The strange thing is that Europe recovered quite fast.

Easy answer: the plague was much, much, much more devastating in Ethiopia than in Europe, leaving no one behind to recover from anything, or to tell the harrowing story.

<comment><USER4> > I am quite sure it is no coincidence that the Renaissance appeared 1-2 > generations after the black death, and always held the secret opinion that > European culture was basically born in the fire that was the black death > epidemic.

I've heard that hypothesis from both popular and scholarly sources before. Pretty sure it's a broadly held theory.

<comment><USER5> > I am quite sure it is no coincidence that the Renaissance appeared 1-2 > generations after the black death,

The opposite - Black Death had delayed the Renaissance for circa 2-3 generations. It was already happening and then the plague came and the Renaisance have played out later in different times and with different people and ideas.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_renaissances](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_renaissances)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > in sub-Saharan Africa while excavating the site of Akrokrowa in Ghana.

Article never says if this is modern Ghana or the Ghana Empire. Elsewhere it uses "Nigeria", and then goes back to talking about Akrokrowa being near the Mali Empire.

I wish it will be a bit more specific. There seems to be a dearth of historical/archeological information about the site that is modern day Ghana (save legendary accounts from various tribes) before the Portuguese arrived at Elmina.

</comment><comment><USER7> Plausible explanations, but the evidence is flimsy at best</comment>


Uses For A Message Queue - <AUTHOR> http://blog.iron.io/2012/12/top-10-uses-for-message-queue.html <comment><USER2> Not listed: ability to route through very restrictive network setups ("galvanically isolated" networks.) MQs, being latency insensitive, can even go over protocols like e-mail.

<comment><USER3> Nice one. #11.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Side note, I think the picture are of White Geese and not ducks.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had the same thought. However.

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/david-hilgart/4142396713/>

If the photographer calls them ducks, who am I to argue?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great stuff. We used message queues when rewriting major components from an ancient VFP Client heavy application to newer C# code running on an application server. It enabled both asynchronous work as well as ordered operations.

</comment><comment><USER6> In the freezing cold at Clapham waiting for a train, so not much time here to dig deeper. However, the elasticity part is interesting, and I'd like very much to know what that _really_ means in context.

Other than that I've worked with messages queues a lot over the years, 'specially in the late '90s/early 2000's. Cutting to the chase - I have a problem with message queues, in that they tend to add a lot of bloat (in terms of both deployment size and integration cost) and in return don't solve a very difficult problem.

First and foremost, "message queue" is really just store and forward. This is hugely relevant in today's mobile world. Being able to edit a row in a database while on the London Underground, and knowing that it will just sync up the next time I connect to a network is a big thing.

That said, other than elasticity I'd like very much to know how this is different to MQ Series or MSMQ. Things like in-order delivery and guaranteed delivery are not a big deal to achieve.

Guaranteed delivery is super easy. When uploading, you call and the server with your payload, and inspect the server response. If the response is an acknowledge/success you've guaranteed delivery. Downloading a message requires two calls - the first to get the payload, the second to confirm back to the server that you've received it. Again, guaranteed delivery, done! If either the upload or download fails then just keep trying until it works. It doesn't matter if the server gets the data 20 times, it only needs to record one receipt. "Only once" delivery is the same - the server just discards subsequent uploads from clients that didn't get the appropriate response, for whatever reason.

In-order delivery is solved by adding a sequence number to the batch/payload packets. You can actually send them in any order you like -- the server simply re-assembles the messages in the required order when the whole batch has been delivered. Where messages are spaced apart in time this is even less of a requirement.

What's really interesting to me, and what isn't mentioned at all, is whether they do push from the server. Everything there can be done using client pull. MSMQ and MQ Series both fall down with push, because you can't see through a NAT'd network.

Finally, store and forward, by definition, provides resilience and buffering. The same concept of store before forward means that any half-decent implementation will handle spikes (hence my question on "elasticity"). Async comms are always a good idea, because they help you scale. Not sure how others do comms, but I haven't used a synchronous call since .NET first came out in 2002.

I think real innovations around store and forward/message queues come from performance (relevant especially on mobile networks, where I prefer to avoid chatty formats like XML or JSoN), and security (encrypting a bitstream without requiring SSL). Because of this I wrote a library that I simply drop into every one of my mobile app projects. It took me a week to build and stabilise (I add that to demonstrate that this is not a difficult engineering problem - and I'm no rocket scientist by any stretch of the imagination).

The other innovation that's a fair bit harder to solve, is when a single item is edited by two parties while one is offline, and then merging the updates when both versions sync up.

[Edit] I've had a look now, and elasticity means little more here than the caching nature of message queues (the store part of store and forward). As an architect I see yet another middleware vendor, albeit with hipster terms like spike and elasticity. As a programmer I imagine they solved this problem for themselves the same way I did - and if they can make some money from their efforts then they've done more with it than I have, and I think that's awesome for them!

<comment><USER7> _Guaranteed delivery is super easy._

Oh, then why do you propose a wrong solution right there in your next paragraph?

 _you call and the server with your payload, and inspect the server response._

Wait, what if the response gets lost on the way? Are your messages idempotent? Do they depend on state on the other end? How long are they valid? Is each message atomic?

You may want to take a look at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem> and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_commit>

Guaranteed delivery can become quite tricky depending on which constraints you can and cannot enforce in your system.

<comment><USER8> Completely agree. One small correction: "Guaranteed delivery can become quite tricky" should roughly be: "Guaranteed delivery ARE quite tricky, if not, you have not run into all contraints yet."

<comment><USER6> Can you actually list these constraints? If not all, at least _some_ examples? I've not encountered any I'm not handling [1]. My code has been running on various device types and under all sorts of loads for years, and have yet to encounter something not handled as described above.

[1] If you're referring to guaranteed delivery in the sense of guaranteeing that your message is delivered to _a person_ that is guaranteed to action the message, then this is not the same problem that message queues attempt to solve. Such a scenario requires non-delivery timeouts and re-routing along a routing table, culminating in what the military world calls a "guaranteed action point", which is staffed by real people 24 hours a day.

I built a prototype based on Exchange and SharePoint once that tries to do this. It's difficult, but not impossible. The real issue we faced was cultural, in that a commander sending a message just "felt better" when sending a courier on a motorcycle, as opposed to clicking send in Outlook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> old news

[http://blog.pasker.net/2008/06/16/you-might-need- messaging-i...](http://blog.pasker.net/2008/06/16/you-might-need-messaging- if/)</comment>


The Ten Days that Disappeared - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/10/1008gregorian-calendar-skips-days/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

<comment><USER2> Something most readers are probably already aware of, but I found this post interesting as I'd never considered what the acutal social, economic, political, etc, ramifications were for the world when this happens.... I'v previously always thought of the in purely academic terms "Yeah, that was a good move, makes sense. Good for the Pope."

<comment><USER3> Certainly makes the IPv4 to IPv6 transition look like a walk in the park . . .

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Other interesting date facts:

February 30th actually happened. In Sweden in 1712: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_30>

Friday followed Friday. In Alaska in 1867: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Date_Line#Histori...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Date_Line#Historical_alterations)

</comment><comment><USER5> The Unix cal program uses the switch in Britain for this shift.

cal 9 1752

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't understand why they didn't instead drop the next few leap days. How impatient can you be when cathedrals may take centuries to build?

<comment><USER4> Spreading the change over 40 years ran the risk of having a new pope reversing the decision. Sweden tried to do it this way and failed.[1]

I would also suspect that vanity played some role. If you start the slow transition you don't get a new calendar named after you.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_30#Swedish_calendar>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Dershowitz & Reingold's "Calendrical Calculations" touches on this. The book goes describes how to represent calendars, and how to convert between them (Gregorian, Julian, Ethiopian, Islamic, Hebrew, Hindu, Mayan, and French Revolution, among others). Includes Lisp code!</comment>


HN: Merry Christmas (Did HN just RapGenius me) - <AUTHOR> A little less than an hour ago, I suddenly noticed the HN header color had become deep-red.
http://oi39.tinypic.com/2v2t8ut.jpg
My first thought, "Damn, I've been hellbanned on Christmas" aka "HN is pulling a RapGenius Christmas on me", thankfully on examining the index there the numbers on the ordered list alternated between red and green and then I realized it may just be for Christmas!
Thought I'd add a post for others, in case there is anyone else who gets spooked like me :) <comment><USER2> Okay, but, it is time to fix those unconventional navigation items up there.

Come on, it's been 71 days already. Can we fix them already? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6550469](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6550469)

I could fire up a vim and fix them if I were the developer. The time it took them to add the color changes would be better off for something long past due.

<comment><USER3> I hadn't noticed your poll, or your criticism. But I've gone and looked now, and, quite frankly, I'm shocked.

I'm shocked that _so_ many people on a site called Hacker News haven't explored, experimented, and generally poked and pried. I'm amazed that so many people just assumed the "New" meant "Make a new post", and that "Ask" meant "Ask a question", and didn't actually try them out!

Do you really need every little detail spelled out for you? You claim your criticism was genuine - in return, this is a genuine question!

Did you really not explore?

<comment><USER2> I don't know about others, but I did explore (which you can tell from my comment) and hence why I constantly feel the whole nav is broken and useless for the most part.

> Do you really need every little detail spelled out for you?

UX is essential and nav names should be as self-explanatory as possible. Naming New instead of Newest or Latest can be confused with "Create", hence I said Submit vs Create vs New. Even though HN is supposed to be a somewhat geeky place, UX is still important. If nav is a low-hanging fruit, then instead of coloring on Christmas, fix those navs in 3 minutes. If you can't even do that, I call that bullshit and lazy.

If we go to stackoverflow, most of the navs are pretty self explanatory. Threads and comments are the worst. Threads show my latest comments, whereas comments show the latest comments from everyone. How the hell do we come up with these names in the first place? It sounds like legacy stuff that the developers never bother to remove or to fix. It is as if forward arrow is now downward arrow and backward arrow is the forward arrow. One word: mind fuck.

I will give the creators a little credit because creators will have blind spot; they just don't notice the inconvenience as much as users do.

And the final point is that nav should be helpful and is usually served as shortcut. So if I want to see all my threads, threads should show topics. Instead, the links under my profile makes more sense to me and I always end up (and some others too) clicking profile -> comments / submissions. That's two steps. :(

<comment><USER3> Personally, I find StackOverflow un-navigable. Every time I visit I need to click on links again to find out what they do - nothing is obvious, everything is obscure and/or opaque. HN, instead, seems to me a breath of fresh air. Clean, simple, and to me, the labels are obvious.

In short, don't assume everyone thinks the same as you. What seems clear is that I don't. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, it simply means we're different. But that doesn't then give you the right to claim the interface is "wrong" or "bad" or whatever, just because it doesn't match the way you think.

<comment><USER2> To be fair, everyone has different preference and how they interpret things. But it doesn't mean there isn't some common UX principles out there and how majority of people see or read things. People make tools and make compatibility with how people use the tools. A iOS news app can introduce sideway swipe or up-down swipe for users to flip back-and-forth, but the app wouldn't ask the user to draw a circle to signal next page and triangle as previous page. Why? Because swiping up/down, left-right looks more intuitive and simpler, more align with how we work with a physical book.

[http://uxmag.com/articles/guiding-principles-for-ux- designer...](http://uxmag.com/articles/guiding-principles-for-ux-designers)

[http://uxmag.com/articles/the-secret-to-designing-an- intuiti...](http://uxmag.com/articles/the-secret-to-designing-an-intuitive- user-experience)

[http://www.uxbrainstorm.org/user-experience-design-as- applie...](http://www.uxbrainstorm.org/user-experience-design-as-applied- psychology/)

How is "new" more clear than "newest" or "latest"? Are you telling me, from the first sight, that there is no doubt that "new" means "newest submission"? And by looking at "threads" you can tell it means "my latest comments"? Of course not. You said people should explore so you are putting the hard work on users.

This is a simple site. We don't need some confusing nav names like threads and comments when the results don't really agree with the title. What constitutes simple and intuitive? You don't call your sign up page Santa and logout page Buddha.

1\. new's actual link is newest, don't save 3 char.

2\. threads makes no sense. Threads by convention means a collection of post from BBS. Gmail and Google Group enables thread style which expands to an original post and a series of replies. So calling it threads when it actually means MY COMMENTS is reinventing the word.

3\. comments is confusing to me, at least, at first glance means global latest comments.

4\. ask, what the hell? ASK HN? Where is show (SHOW HN)? Actually, what the hell is /ask anyway? Doesn't that makes it more like "a url to ask a new question"? How does the filter actually work?

5\. jobs, okay fine. I did think of job posts.

6\. submit, fine, but it becomes confusing when you look at new.

And stackoverflow. While you are entitled to you opinion, I will argue that stackoverflow isn't so bad. [http://stackoverflow.com/](http://stackoverflow.com/)

When it said Questions it means Questions, all the questions. When it said users, it means a list of users. When it said tags, it means a list of tags. Though each link provides a filter, so you can filter questions being newest, being feature questions. Sure you can call Questions "Problems" instead. The point is that when you name something, it should match the result it is going to return as much as possible.

And you are telling me that text does not match with the display result? If I tell you click on users, do you expect to find a cheeseburger? No.

A good UX means users don't need to memorize how he got to page X as much as possible. It means there is some path, which is easy to follow. I don't have to create my own solution: click on profile, click on submission / comments. This is like designing a good url and good RESTful URL. Try to make the url match with what it is intended to do and present.

And finally, I do have the right to claim it is wrong or bad, because I am a user. If you think a user cannot criticize or claim that the interface sucks, then app creators don't need feedback at all. Since you claim to be a mathematician, then I can say that a proof is poorly written and hard to follow when the proof uses some confusing, creative notations when the conventions one are good enough to use in the first place. Why draw a knot when QED is good enough.

<comment><USER3> It's gone midnight here, and I lack the time and interest to debate this. I disagree with you on nearly every point, but there seems little to gain by arguing it. I agree that we disagree. More, I don't really care, except to say that this is nearly the only site I find easy to use, and almost immediate to understand. Just a datum for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had the same shock moment too :)

It reminds me of the Slashdot 1st April "Pony" edition [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slashdot_omgponies.png](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slashdot_omgponies.png)

</comment><comment><USER5> I didn't notice because I use a custom color for the header bar (settable on your profile page). I only noticed when I went to reply to a message.

On that page _the custom header color is not respected_.

</comment><comment><USER6> What surprised me was the time of day it happened. 1-2pm EST?

<comment><AUTHOR> That surprised me too :)</comment></comment>


Whatsapp extremely popular among diplomats - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/04/why-do-diplomats-use-this-alien-whatsapp-emoji-for-vladimir-putin <comment><USER2> What go possibly wrong :)

Really, are foreign diplomats really that stupid using an NSA-observed insecure group messaging app? Some of those messages are very interesting to the NSA and USA politicians. Or do they don't care anymore?

I wonder how many US companies already have access to the NSA trove. Hillary might like the idea to sell this info.

With Signal you can send messages to groups also. Not syndicated, which is the killer feature for secure communication.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this a marketing piece to raise the price of zero days for Whatsapp?

</comment><comment><USER4> Government is a joke.</comment>


How to deploy your code from GitHub automatically - <AUTHOR> http://shinyplasticbag.posterous.com/how-to-deploy-your-code-from-github-automatic

<comment><USER2> Soon: google for 'inurl:github_update.php' and click each result.

Better alternative: use something like Capistrano to automate deployments. It's not Heroku-style automatic after a push, but it's pretty close.

Still, points for ingenuity.

<comment><USER3> github_update.php wouldn't be linked to by any of your pages, so it shouldn't show up in the google index. You could also force it to accept some password as a GET parameter for a wee bit more security.

I agree though, this is still a really simple way to automate deployment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Note that I didn't actually call my own github_update.php, and there's no reason for anyone else to — call it whatever you'd like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Also, why should a web server have R+W access to a directory it's serving? It should be RO, or at worst, R+X. (Excluding an uploads directory)

<comment><USER5> Well, (semi) automatic updates would be one use case, as the article details. Furthermore, many apps do require write access to at least a couple of directories to write log files and static content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How about just adding the Git repo as a remote, and pushing to it over SSH?

<comment><AUTHOR> The point was magic, automatic updates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> lol, webhooks

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that was my first thought, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Security issues abound, although I'm sure there are ways to make this adequately safe to do.

Me, I do something vaguely similar, but using Dropbox instead. The webserver is running on a git repo that is in a Dropbox. When I commit and push to the repo (locally) the webserver picks up the changes automatically.</comment>


FCC hits robocaller with agency's largest-ever fine of $120M - <AUTHOR> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/22/fcc-hits-robocaller-agencys-largest-ever-fine-120-million/103102546/ <comment><USER2> So basically robocalls can only exist because of second tier telcos who cater specifically to them. They have enough legitimate traffic to essentially launder spam. They charge robocallers more and know exactly what they're doing.

A lot of people deal with robocalls incorrectly by declining calls from unknown numbers. Don't do this.

The correct solution is to answer the call, say nothing and hang up after 3 seconds.

If it's a real call you'll hear background noise most of the time or the caller will say "hello?" Or they'll call back thinking something went wrong. Most robocallers are programmed to do nothing until they hear a voice.

But the critical part of all this is hanging up within 6 seconds. This is the one thing that hurts the telco knowingly supporting this. If a telco has too many such calls they essentially get punished as a bad actor, which is why they need legitimate traffic. I think robocallers and their telcos have wished up to this as I suspect they'll stop calling you if you do this.

When I started this I got 2-3 robocalls a week. Not a huge amount but annoying. Now I think it's been at least 2 months since I've gotten one. It could be that crackdowns on robocalls are yielding results but I'm not convinced.

<comment><USER3> The whole point of blocking calls from unknown numbers is that your phone doesn't ring or distract you. Picking it up is obviously not a solution.

<comment><USER4> I believe that cletus's suggestion is that the short-term inconvenience of picking up on a few such calls will yield the long-term reward of reduced or eliminated robocalls.

<comment><USER5> I think it's incorrect. If you pick up a robocall, you get flagged as a legit number. They'll call you more, not less.

<comment><USER6> > say nothing and hang up after 3 seconds.

The "say nothing" is the important part here I think. Most robocall systems would wait for some kind of voice before starting their spam and that's the point where they probably mark the number as 'legit', not as soon as you pick up as they don't know if it's an actual person that picked up.

<comment><USER5> It just seems unlikely. I suppose it's not impossible, but in my experience robocalls start immediately. And maybe it would work if you pressed "mute", but without that, you'd leak environmental noises into the call. (People talking around you, cara going by on the street...)

It might just be a trick that people pass along regardless of effectiveness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> IMHO, the way to stop robocalling is to go after the services that employ them. If they're asking people to buy something, follow the money and slap a fine on the seller instead of the robocalling service. Robo calling profits ought to dry up as vendors become wary of using them.

<comment><USER8> The problem I see with this is:

If a business wants to damage their competitor, they can just start making robocalls on their behalf.

I like your idea and would like it to happen for pretty much all advertising, but it seems like it can be easily abused.

<comment><USER9> Of course you won't just follow the "product". You'll follow the money, too. And that will probably very clearly _not_ lead to the target product that you're trying to damage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've quit answering any unknown calls due to this out of control robocall spam. At first I felt tinges of anxiety thinking that I might miss an important call, but that passed very quickly. Now I figure that if it's really important the interested party will find another way to reach me (email, sms) and I feel zero anxiety. It's an interesting change in behavior. I'd almost be willing to use an app that restricted calls to my address book plus a whitelisted group of vetted companies.

<comment><USER11> My attitude as well. If someone wanted to get in touch with me for something important, I imagine they would leave a voicemail or text or email me.

In my iPhone I have "do not disturb" setup and it only allows people in my address book through.

<comment><USER12> I ended up subscribing ($19/yr) to NoMoRobo and it's worked well so far. Hiya was moved to a secondary position. That and T-Mobile's Call Protect (free) and the number of junk phone calls has dropped to maybe 2 a week, where it was up to 5-7 a day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of declining an "Unknown Number". Correctional complexes do not identify the number as only the inmate can call out and no call back number is provided.

However I have not received any spam from "Unknown Number" due to this herd immunity to unknown number spam, which I am grateful for.

Given my area codes are no longer where I live, I just assume numbers close to mine are accidents and don't bother answering them. Voicemail seems to validate this when a message is left.

<comment><USER14> I think that for the most part, people aren't talking about when the phone literally says "unknown number", but when they've received a call from a number similar to their own that they don't recognize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I made the mistake of registering a .us domain and using my regular phone number, after six months I've started receiving the infamous robo IRS calls. The robot call is listed as being from 1-866-978-6618 and in the voicemail requests that I call back that same number. Online this number is listed as being used for the IRS scam in June 2017. How does a scammer set up an 800 phone number without having it traced back to them? Why is this number still operational after a week of scam calls?

<comment><USER16> I've resorted to only using a google voice number for my domains. It's insane how much spam you get from being forced to provide contact info to the public.

<comment><USER17> I have a VoIP line that goes no where (no voicemail, just drops the call) for things like this. Absolutely no legitimate communication will be made to my whois contact, so why bother routing it anywhere?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I probably get about 5 spoofed Caller ID robocalls a day between my cell and my landline. I don't pick them up but they're still enough to jerk me out of whatever I'm doing.

I just wish there was an easier way to report them. At this point I've given up on the going online and filling out a form which basically requires me to have listened to the whole spiel to answer fully. I block the number but it's pretty pointless as they rotate at least the last four digits.

<comment><USER19> What's worse is false positives. It conditions you to ignore any calls you don't immediately recognize, which can have consequences if someone is trying to get ahold of you for some timely legitimate reason. Some people don't leave voicemails, either.

<comment><USER18> Which makes the local ID spoofing especially annoying. I'm pretty sure no one in Florida has a reason to contact me. Someone ostensibly in my town? Not so sure.

Cell phone is actually easier because it's not a very local number anymore. But it also means I have to set it to Do Not Disturb while traveling across time zones. So no one can get me in the middle of the night in a legitimate emergency.

<comment><USER20> This is the one time in my life that I've been glad to have a number from a place I don't live. All the hassle of trying to explain to people that yes, my area code is actually an area code, no it isn't from around here, etc. All absolved when I know I can ignore any number from my area code, 'cus who the hell wants to call me from there? Nobody.

<comment><USER14> Mine is from close enough that people recognize it, but far enough that the only people from there that would ever contact me are family members, and of course I already have their numbers programmed in. It _is_ very convenient!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> How about CAPTCHA for unknown calls - numbers not in your contact list will be required to answer something only a human is capable of answering before getting through to you.

Or another approach that Google does with Google Voice is to ask the caller to identify before the call goes through. Then the phone rings on your side and you hear the name of the caller before you decide to answer.

<comment><USER22> I'm working with a friend to build this. You can sign up to beta test at [https://quitcalling.us](https://quitcalling.us). You can also text a telemarketer's number to 865.407.2730 and our system will file a complaint with the FTC on your behalf.

<comment><USER23> This is only effective against the relatively honest telemarketers that use correct Caller ID information. The really bad ones, like the one involved in this article, use spoofed Caller ID -- reporting them to the FTC is a waste of time for everyone involved.

<comment><USER24> It wouldn't be if anyone actually followed through on the complaint. Each company knows who sent them the call, even if the caller ID is misleading. (Though you might have to keep digging though several companies to find the actual call sender.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> When I get a call from a spoofed number, can my carrier tell which carrier sent them the call? After I started getting a lot of these, I called T-Mobile, who proceeded to be completely unhelpful and offered to block it based on the caller ID number, acting as if that would somehow help.

<comment><USER24> Not really. They'll know who immediately delivered it to them, but then need to get that company to reveal their customer. This chain may run several companies deep.

I've seen a ton of these complaints come through. They're basically ignored or given a useless "that caller ID has been blocked" response just to say something was done. At the end of the day, sales wants these calls to keep flowing so they're not gonna get too hard on customers unless they're really abusing the betiejr (placing tons of no-answer or short-duration traffic).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can someone explain what "neighborhood spoofing" technology is? Is it legal (beyond the fact that it lets you spoof and match the first few digits)? Can anyone do it? What's a legitimate use case for it?

<comment><USER25> It's just spoofing caller ID. Caller ID has no verification or security around it, other than what a provider might optionally choose to put in place.

Here's how to do it with the open source asterisk pbx: [http://allanfeid.com/content/caller-id-spoofing-w- asterisk](http://allanfeid.com/content/caller-id-spoofing-w-asterisk)

Or, just find a cheap VoIP provider that doesn't verify control of a number before allowing it to be used as CID. Voip.ms lets you spoof CID right from their web based config: [https://wiki.voip.ms/article/Caller_ID](https://wiki.voip.ms/article/Caller_ID)

The legit use cases are where you spoof a different number that's still your number. Like your landline presenting your cell number. Or a business presenting the main number for all phones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The CallKit blocking list feature in iOS 10 helps with this, at least in the case where the caller is not spoofing a legitimate number.

I have a Miami area code and robocalls were a constant problem until I installed Nomorobo.

<comment><USER27> The CallKit framework is definitely a welcome addition, and Nomorobo is quite good. I am actually working myself on a new app similar to Nomorobo, but with some additional features that so far no other app using CallKit provides. I decided to write such app because of the daily robo/telemarketers calls I am getting.

<comment><USER28> I will pay well for this provided you do not harvest call activity and your TOS has teeth against that.

All others I've found so far harvest and resell your call network.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The first time I've received a robocall here in Russia I was really amazed at the impudence: it's bad enough when a live person calls you, but when you get a robocall? Immediate blacklisting of the number and the brand. And when I'll get another one, I'll probably go out of my way to report to some agency.

IMO this is nearly as bad as a stranger insulting you in the street: they're at least a live person taking your time.

</comment><comment><USER30> How is it that we haven't solved this yet the same way we solved email and blog spam? Why can't I mark a number as spam on my phone and if "enough" people do that the number will be automatically blocked. This could just beer implemented by a single phoned manufacturer and already have a significant impact. Not mentioning of one of the big ones like Apple did it.

<comment><USER31> The Google dialer already marks numbers as spam. If a call comes from a spam number, the dialer pop-up is red instead of green and says "Suspected spam call". There is also a "report not spam" button.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Great, now I know who was kindly calling me several times a week on behalf of Marriott offering a "free hotel stay".

</comment><comment><USER33> Awesome. I think I was called by these guys, and I reported them to the FCC via Do Not Call Registry, which I'm on.

</comment><comment><USER34> I got hit by this several times a week for over a year and then it suddenly stopped a month ago. I was always confused how they were allowed to spoof phone numbers with my area code and first 3 digits.

</comment><comment><USER21> The best solution imo is to block any call from a number that is not on your contact list and direct all other people that need to reach you to email. Your friends and family can still reach you and legit people who need to reach you can still reach you via email. Email spam filters are much better at blocking unwanted traffic.

It's far from ideal, and people might give up and not try to pursue getting to you but the situation with robocalls has got so much out of hand that drastic measures are needed.

<comment><USER35> Rather than go that drastic, you could simply get one of those answering service apps that require the user to announce themselves and press 1 to get through. You can set that functionality to only happen for numbers not in your phone book.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Actually I am wondering how much these companies can make by doing this so that they may be able to afford the $120M fine.

<comment><USER35> I'm assuming that is a fine meant to completely destroy your company. I would be very surprised (and angry) if they are able to pay that fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm guessing they couldn't afford to lobby Ajit Pai.

<comment><USER37> Perhaps they'll be comforted by this notion: his future lobbying efforts will be that much more effective when he mentions what a shame it would be to donate too little, like those poor robocallers did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> They should triple the fine.</comment>


Why don't developers in the Bay Area use Mathematica? - <AUTHOR>

Is it because it's not marketed to developers?  Is it because of price? Is there a need for a general purpose data analysis platform? <comment><USER2> The "starter" edition is $1,000 and the standard edition is $2,500.

That pretty much kills any sort of use for side projects or lifestyle businesses until after getting significant traction...by which time most people realize python and numpy/scipi is plenty good enough.

<comment><USER3> Mathematica is free on the Raspberry Pi.

(Of course I'm not saying you want to base a business on that, but just that it's a cool way to get Mathematica and play with it.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pretty clearly the issue is that it's proprietary. It's astounding this is still the case. Has Wolfram ever given his reasoning behind this? Presumably he wants to capture enterprise customers, but there are other ways to do that (optimized compilers, specialized featuresets, virtual machines, IDE licensing, support, etc.) In this day and age, there is no reason for a programming language to be closed source.

</comment><comment><USER5> My big problem is the price. It's just outrageous for software that I just want to hack on something every once in a while.

<comment><USER6> individual version is like $250 or so.

<comment><USER7> Only for nonprofessionals ($295). For commercial use it's much more expensive: [http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/pricing/industry- individu...](http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/pricing/industry- individuals.php?desktop)

<comment><USER6> Yeah.

Now if I was establishing a hedge fund, maybe it might be worth it?

<comment><USER7> But then don't expect employees to learn/work with Mathematica in their free time or between jobs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The fact that it's proprietary, closed-source software probably doesn't help.

</comment><comment><USER9> Just wondering, do you see this more outside of the Bay/Valley or in other countries?

</comment><comment><USER10> language is proprietary, nothing preventing it from going South overnight

</comment><comment><USER11> Try Axiom</comment>


The Invisible Side of Design   - <AUTHOR> http://speakerdeck.com/u/smashingmag/p/the-invisible-side-of-design

<comment><USER2> My favourite quote: "Some things are so well designed that we don't notice them anymore."

Also, note the site where they shared these slides. It's not slideshare.net, it's speakerdeck.com. It's easy to guess why they went with speakerdeck.com... Compare to

[http://www.slideshare.net/bud_caddell/how-do-you-design- for-...](http://www.slideshare.net/bud_caddell/how-do-you-design-for- creativity)

<comment><USER3> IIRC, I read this (or something very similar) in Don Norman's book "The Invisible Computer".

<comment><USER4> It is a common and popular observation, so it gets mentioned in virtually every book (or a documentary) on design.

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately there are still too many good traditional designers (who hopefully understand this observation) that are unskilled at interface design, and too many good interface designers unexposed to the history of design theory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't mind high level overviews of concepts if they manage to successfully lead the reader to the core of the idea. However, this slideshow was not effective at communicating anything to me. At some point during the second half of this "presentation" each slide seemed to have some vague phrase or sentence that was followed by 3-5 screenshots with no explanation of what the relationship was to the context the screenshot was given in -- I started to wonder if substituting those screenshots with random ones would have any impact on the value of the presentation.

If anything, I think the awful slideshow "player" UI on this website did a better job at explaining the lack of "invisible design" than the slideshow did. I spent almost a minute trying to find a play button, because from the look of the UI I was expecting a movie. When I hit the fast forward icon I thought it just took me to a preview screen for another unrelated video.

I understand how that may seem like an overreaction given that we're used to losing more time on more meaningless things, but a good UI should only take a split second to understand.

</comment><comment><USER7> <off-topic>I like how the site speakerdeck.com make it simple and amazing.</off-topic>

<comment><USER8> Ticks me off, however, that they litter the browser history with a tons of pages, but make it impossible to use them for anything, i.e. pressing the browser back button doesn't do anything (Chrome 14.0.835.202 on Mac OS X).

<comment><USER9> I'm a tab junkie. Everything not within the same domain typically goes into a new tab. I know what you mean though. You would have gone nuts at that HTML5 history game

[http://www.geek.com/articles/games/first-ever-browser- addres...](http://www.geek.com/articles/games/first-ever-browser-address-bar- game-created-in-html-5-2011038/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Funny how they speak about not getting stuck in the "design trends trap" while using a slab serif font and 1px drop shadows under the text...

Interesting stuff otherwise.

<comment><USER4> What would you rather have him use? Papyrus? :) And 1px drop shadow is there for contrast to improve legibility of light on bright, not because it's trendy.

<comment><USER5> > Papyrus?

Trajan!

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t87QKdOJNv8>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> repeatable "inspirations", design trends, and cliches all seem like a bad thing when you talk about it from a pure design perspective. but that is the primary difference between print and web design. web design is not just about making something look pretty, you are designing a user interface. and the most important thing in UI design is to use recognizable widgets, so that users know what to do and what to expect without any instruction or learning process. your awesome organic and original design might look great, but if people can't figure out how to use it it's all for nothing.

i think it's telling that the first few examples of "good" design are all non- interactive.

</comment><comment><USER12> Talking about not being _too much_ inspired by others, I'd love to know what colours were used all over these slides. This blue background is beautiful, add to that the cute green and white text..

<comment><USER5> > I'd love to know what colours were used all over these slides.

#1F282D, #F1F399, #BE4B14, #0164C9, #229214, plus a curious smattering of #FFFFFF and #000000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think it serves a great purposes; clearing out some myths about design. There are too many people right now believing design is nothing more then beauty. It's about form and function which beauty follows when designed correctly - not the inverse.

A great presentation to keep, always useful!

</comment><comment><USER14> Anyone know what software he used to create the slides? They're beautiful, and i'm 100% sure he didn't use powerpoint!

<comment><USER15> Actually, I'd say it's entirely possible he used PowerPoint. A lot of designers will simply prepare their slides in a design-focused app such as Illustrator and then export them as images to the presentation app.

<comment><USER14> Wow, that sounds painstaking. Although you're probably right, you'd need to be working in something like illustrator to get results that look that nice.

<comment><USER16> I think you'd be surprised. The latest PowerPoint versions are surprisingly powerful. Duarte Design did some work with it to demonstrate it's power.

However, I would acknowledge that it's painstaking to make a deck that pretty because some of the elements like fonts are not built in and PowerPoint's interface doesn't necessarily make it straightforward to change the elements that make this deck stand out to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This presentation sumaries the capstones of design nicely.

One point I wildly disagree with: That design is not nearly half cultural pulse. To ignore the very real pull of culture, and to do your own take on it, is to build unsellable design. Moreover, customers hear this cultural leitmotif and respond because they get the reference. This is the true balance of great designers. Finding their part in the chorus.

Imagine we're talking about clothing design. It is a large formal event, a wedding or professional conference. Everyone wears the same thing out respect for the idea. If someone were to come in with a red tuxedo it may excite a few, but the last thing you'd call them was a creative visionary. Moreover, this event requires pants - and to not do so is bad news.

<comment><USER18> "Imagine we're talking about clothing design. It is a large formal event, a wedding or professional conference. Everyone wears the same thing out respect for the idea. If someone were to come in with a red tuxedo it may excite a few, but the last thing you'd call them was a creative visionary. Moreover, this event requires pants - and to not do so is bad news."

Well, unless you're Karl Lagerfeld.</comment></comment>


We need a NEW really-Private sort-of-Facebook =  - <AUTHOR>

anyone?<p>It should be :
- 1) open-source
- 2) ... <comment><USER2> Or do we? I'm not convinced we need Facebook for anything beyond getting a fix to Facebook addiction. See my rant: [http://everything2.com/title/Facebook+destroys+real+relation...](http://everything2.com/title/Facebook+destroys+real+relationships)

<comment><AUTHOR> well, we do not need Facebook. But we do not need directories or bathrooms, it just happen that they exists. So, if facebook, is existing it means that are a few millions of people out there that found it at least entertaining if not useful. From there, my resquest: Is it possible to conceive and develop a social service à la Facebook, but open-source, where the rool is privacy and not ads ? ;-)

<comment><USER3> ugh, market research much?</comment></comment></comment>


LCE: Don't play dice with random numbers - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/Articles/525459/

<comment><USER2> Extra points for pointing out that SGI used a lava lamp as a seed source for a RNG!</comment>