Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up? - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442 <comment><USER2> Non-paywalled tldr plz

</comment><comment><USER3> 1\. This is in the opinion section of the WSJ, not a serious scientific outlet.

2\. Why does it matter if old predictions were correct? We care about _today 's_ projections, which should be more accurate (given more data and better models), and _today 's_ global-warming-related problems.</comment>


Google-funded US geothermal survey: vast clean-energy source found. - <AUTHOR> http://www.smu.edu/News/2011/geothermal-24oct2011.aspx

<comment><USER2> Does anyone know if something like this is in the works for Canada?</comment>


Free realtime tech support service - <AUTHOR> http://homifix.com/

<comment><USER2> I can't find out how the company makes money to sustain itself? Is it entirely donation based? Or is it perhaps monetizing referrals for new products that customers may need to buy. It might be hard for some users to trust a free service if they don't know where the money comes from.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would assume that at this stage its using private funding and any donations it receives. The monetizing options could be quite a few, from referrals, to 1st/2nd level tech support outsourcing, product recommendations when someone realizes they need a new spare part or an accessory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Greets from firstname.lastname@example.com

To answer your question, we have various income streams which Vahn_Kaiser predicted... 1) we mainly outsource our services to Tier 3 and Tier 2 Tech device manufacturers. Also, donation and "Deal of the Day" which will be introduced this coming June are a couple of additional income streams.

Hope that helps... :-)</comment>


Code Substitution Done Right - Switch.vim - <AUTHOR> http://www.vimninjas.com/2012/09/12/switch/

<comment><USER2> I'm a couple years into full time MacVim use. At this stage I'm simplifying and dropping plugins in favor of mastering builtins. I'm also separating graphical config from standard and working on a repeatable system to push a barebones config up to new servers as I access them.

So I'll pass on this plugin for the time being. That said, this new blog is fantastic and I'm bookmarking all the articles for later.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't get it. How often do you need to change between complete opposites? (should/should_not, true/false, &&/||) And what's the point of changing "predicate?" to "true and (predicate?)" or "false or (predicate?)"

<comment><USER4> I wrote a similar plugin called vim-cycle, it's a bit different but basically the same concept.

<https://github.com/zef/vim-cycle>

I really use it all the time and find it extremely useful, but not exactly in the way he seems to in the video. One of the ways I frequently use it is for CSS, where there are related words that can frequently change, like margin/padding, top/bottom, class/id, png/gif/jpg, absolute/relative, or in Ruby if/unless, present/blank, else/else if. Things like that...

The mapping I use is the same as is used to increment and decrement numbers in Vim, which is very natural to me so it's a really easy way to switch things much more quickly than typing them.

You can see the pairs I define by default in my plugin here:

[https://github.com/zef/vim- cycle/blob/master/plugin/cycle.vi...](https://github.com/zef/vim- cycle/blob/master/plugin/cycle.vim)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Annnnnd another tutorial that shows me how vastly underwhelming my vim skills are.

Though looking back a year ago, I struggled to navigate, let alone copy and paste. Step at a time, right? RIGHT?!

<comment><USER6> I recently moved to vim as well. Everything I'm doing I'm pretty much aware that I could probably be doing it in some superdooper quick way...

I'll get there though. Eventually.

<comment><USER7> Just keep going and refrain from copying verbatim other people's config and using too many plugins.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This looks cool but I'd like filetype-independent definitions. For example, to convert a ruby dictionary pasted into a .js file.

<comment><USER9> Well, in your case, you could put a definition for javascript. The built-in "ruby hash style" transformation should work for this:

        " in ftplugin/javascript.vim
        let b:switch_definitions =
              \ [
              \   g:switch_builtins.ruby_hash_style
              \ ]

With this, in a javascript file, you can turn ":foo => 'bar'" entries into "foo: 'bar'" ones.

If you do need global (non-filetype) switches, you could define some by placing them in the g:switch_definitions variable. Read up on the docs if you want more information.</comment></comment>


What we're learning building an online tech community in Stockholm, Sweden - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/what-i-learned-building/9e5e4cdc8717

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi all. We're building an online tech community in Sweden - it's going really well so far - and we'd love more feedback.</comment>


Google praises 86-year-old for polite internet searches - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/16/grandmother-nan-google-praises-search-thank-you-manners-polite <comment><USER2> My initial thought was that Google had been tracking all of its users for politeness as some sort of experiment.

<comment><USER3> You could use the google predict api to to language analysis, ex this is a happy tweet, this is a sad one, etc. I bet there's someone on the team playing with just such implementations. [https://cloud.google.com/prediction/](https://cloud.google.com/prediction/)

I mean, what would you do if you had access to over a trillion searches?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My girlfriend does a similar thing with Siri. As a result, a lot of the reminders she creates on her iPhone end in "thank you". She's well aware it's a program and not a human being; I think, in her case, something about speaking a request aloud just automatically engages the politeness filters.

<comment><USER5> I always speak politely to digital assistants. Not sure why, I guess I inherently don't like barking orders at people or things.

Or I'm just preparing to be one of the "good ones" after the inevitable robot revolution.

I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR NEW ROBOT OVERLORDS

<comment><USER6> I'm happy to provide politeness to the digital assistant. Until it's misunderstood the request several times now and I couldn't be clearer or in a quieter room ...

Subject change: it'd be nice if these things provided feedback like how much noise it hears, how clearly it thinks I'm speaking, how well it thinks it understood, etc. This would go a long way to helping those moments when I'm being impatient because it's just not understanding.

<comment><USER5> I once got very frustrated with Siri until I realized I had left my earbuds plugged in and the bell mic was hanging under my countertop.

Classic ID-10-T error.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Obviously Google has implemented their search back-end using INTERCAL (Compiler Language With No Pronounceable Acronym [0]) which requires 'PLEASE' modifiers to be inserted, lest the compiler returns an error due to insufficient politeness. However adding too many and being overly polite also results in a compiler error... Other awesome features include the 'COME FROM' statement, instead of 'GOTO', and ending programs with 'GIVE UP' (or, of course, 'PLEASE GIVE UP', as in the wiki example!)

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

<comment><USER8> And, of course, "WRITE IN inputs a number written out as digits in English (such as SIX FIVE FIVE THREE FIVE), and READ OUT outputs it in 'butchered' Roman numerals."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > "she thinks that there is someone – a physical person – at Google's > headquarters who looks after the searches"

And in this case there actually was a person looking after her search and replying.

<comment><USER10> Kind of reminds me of College Humor's 'If Google was a Guy' series.

Though they had Google dealing with their usual searches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It reminds me of when, in the early days of consumer GPS, a friend of mine was a bit shocked at my insensitive impoliteness of completely ignoring direction after direction. He thought it worked as a service where someone was personally tracking the car via satellite and sending back directions.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't use please/thank you in written correspondence with computers, but I try to be polite when talking to Siri in front of my kid. Unfortunately, extra words (even pleasantries) tend to muck things up. More thoughts here: [https://medium.com/@nicklum/siri-shes-no-miss- manners-600206...](https://medium.com/@nicklum/siri-shes-no-miss- manners-600206840d9c#.ilzvue9tc)

</comment><comment><USER13> The query is asking Google to do the translation, but ironically, it's not really Google that answers that query...but it does manage to find the software company that has created an app that enumerates all the Roman numerals in a SEO-friendly way. The answer does exist on the page, but only after scrolling past a huge ad for some translation software: [http://translation.babylon- software.com/english/Mcmxcvii+(ro...](http://translation.babylon- software.com/english/Mcmxcvii+\(roman+numerals\)/)

It reminds me of when I came back from the doctor's office and was curious whether my blood pressure really was normal. I googled "is 118/90 high blood pressure" and the first result is a site that enumerates every combination of systolic/diastolic number: [http://foenix.com/BP/is-118/90-good-blood- pressure-or-high-b...](http://foenix.com/BP/is-118/90-good-blood-pressure-or- high-blood-pressure.html)

<comment><USER14> The same with phone numbers -- whenever I get one on my caller ID I don't recognize, I google it and it returns a number of sites that collect comments on scammer phone numbers -- and they enumerate every phone number so that it turns up in searches.

<comment><USER15> You might not be able to get the exact caller ID info, but try this: [https://www.alcazarnetworks.com/data_services_lnp_lrn.php](https://www.alcazarnetworks.com/data_services_lnp_lrn.php) you can at least look up carrier details

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Grandmas are the best.

</comment><comment><USER17> Well, thank YOU!!! Now I can't get a meaningful answer when I want to translate roman numerals and use a similar search. All I get are links about this grandma and her search.

<comment><USER18> I presume you're joking, but if not, just enter the Roman numerals into the search box and Google's first response will be the decimal equivalent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I had a similar experience showing someone how to use siri. I told them it could call someone for them, so they said

"Please connect me to john doe. j o h n d o e"

siri was pretty confused.

</comment><comment><USER20> Good to know The Guardian is covering the hard hitting issues such as frivolous tweets.

<comment><USER21> It started a bit before he left but it feels it's gone rapidly downhill since Alan Rusbridger left. So many headlines ending in question marks. Twitter based articles. Unimportant topics etc

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It would be a nice easter egg is google responded to please and thank you in some way.

<comment><USER23> Seems like they already know how to intelligently strip off the "please" and "thank you" for most requests. I bet it'll be there by the end of the week

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I wonder how long before my search bots refuse to help me unless I ask nicely.

I recall Siri getting snippy when I swear at it.

</comment><comment><USER25> "Open the pod bay doors please, Hal." "Open the pod bay doors please, Hal." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSIKBliboIo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSIKBliboIo)

Unfortunately, in this case, please wasn't helpful.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've had to become politer trying to instruct Siri as realised my children were copying my style of question. I wasn't swearing, just being sarcastic at lack of recognition and I didn't want to encourage that.

</comment><comment><USER27> Feel a bit bad that this headline immediately said Onion to me

</comment><comment><USER28> That was a very nice gesture by Google. Made me smile!</comment>


Breast cancer: Scientists hail 'milestone' genetic find - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36168717 <comment><USER2> Link to paper: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17676.html)</comment>


It's time to give Firefox a fresh chance - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/15/17239548/firefox-chrome-safari-competition <comment><USER2> I never gave up on Firefox. I always knew Google Chrome was sending back telemetry data or whatever and never looked back. Also with how many sites are "only working in Chrome" these days I still hold the claim that Chrome is working itself to being the next IE in terms of breaking the web for people using other browsers. I still hold respect for Chrome in other areas though.

Firefox was always complained about but honestly I never noticed any differences that mattered especially with how ad encrusted the web has become these days. In fact I could never enjoy Chrome the same way I enjoy Firefox it just behaves and feels the way I've grown to know and enjoy.

We have a major issue with websites poorly supporting mobile browsers and websites being cross-browser friendly overall. The web still feels a little immature in these respects.

<comment><USER3> What sites only work with Chrome? Even though Safari has a minuscule desktop market share, I can't see most sites being incompatible with iOS.

<comment><USER4> It's not so much about "sites", as it is "apps". The most recent instance I recall is this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16467387](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16467387)

Open this page in a browser other than Chrome: [https://pagedraw.io/tutorials/basics](https://pagedraw.io/tutorials/basics)

<comment><USER3> That makes sense - no it's not right. A "web app" can get away with only being compatible with Chrome on the desktop because they would likely have a native app for mobile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I switched to Firefox as my primary browser a couple of months ago, and have been happy enough that I haven't looked back. It is significantly more smooth and performant than it was; the work on Quantum cannot be understated, and the minor fiasco with their extensions ecosystem, though painful, I feel was the right move. With that said, a few anecdotes keep jumping out at me:

\- Pocket integration. Dive into about:config, turn it off, lather rinse repeat on every device and every fresh OS install. I have about a dozen.

\- The default theme has two large "spacer" elements that shrink the address bar towards the center. These might not bother anyone else, but they drove me nuts; fortunately they can be removed with the customization menu.

\- Bookmarks sync well (yay!) but don't always retain the same ordering on each device, which gets a bit confusing. I can work around this easily enough, but it's not quite as smooth as the same feature on Chrome.

\- JavaScript performance is not as fast as Chrome. This is normally a non- issue, but occasionally I'll run into someone's ShowHN demo here and find that while it technically works, the performance is sometimes quite slow. Ditto for anything using WebGL. Again, mostly a non-issue, but I do find myself firing up Chrome to run the odd app.

Most of these issues are relatively minor, and fortunately Firefox still has a fantastically intelligent community, so any time I ran into an issue the solution was a quick search away. I think the value add in feeling like I'm in more control of my browser is well worth it, and I hope Mozilla continues moving in this direction. More competition is good!

<comment><USER6> I know there was some controversy when Firefox integrated (and then acquired) Pocket, but I don't quite understand why people were so upset. My understanding (from having talked with folks at Mozilla) is that the suggested stories are personalized on the client side—so any info used to customize the stories for you isn't flowing back to Mozilla. Instead, they deliver a bunch of stories to the client, then the client sorts out which ones will be recommended. From a privacy perspective, this seems like a good way to do things. And I personally find the suggested stories to be interesting sometimes, and never creepy/inappropriate.

Regardless, it's good to know this can be turned off.

<comment><USER5> I had no idea it was all clientside! That makes me significantly less worried about it. I guess I'm so used to recommendations being done serverside that I'm jaded by default.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's my favorite metaphor to explain Chrome and Firefox.

So, imagine you have two cars to chose from.

The first car, called Chrome, is really cool - it's quick, it's nice, it's reliable, it's comfortable. There's just one thing.

There's a guy on the back seat. He's always there. He writes down wherever you're going. When you go shopping, he makes a copy of the receipt. When you drive with someone, he listens to the conversation and makes notes. Which addresses are you visiting? And how long time do you stay there? And when you make a phone call, he listens and makes notes.

He then keeps this information forever, and sells it to various people and companies. They study you, like a bug, to see what makes you tick. So they know what you like and what you want, and what you're afraid of and where are you in life and so on. So they can manipulate you better into not just buying shit, maybe, but maybe to do more sinister stuff, like manipulate elections.

Of course, the Chrome car makers own some of the important roads, and they make them hard to use in other cars, because they want this dude watching you.

Then there's the Firefox car. It might not be as comfortable or as quick. I think it is, but different people have different experience. But either way, there's no dude making notes. In fact, when there are dudes making notes by the side of the road, the car tries to hide you and protect you!

Or you can use the Safari car, if you get the more expensive garage I guess, whatever.

Why the fuck would anyone use the Chrome car.

EDIT: and the long term Firefox car dfivers say things like "they change how the car looks, might as well go to SpyCar." or "there was some pressure on CEO of FireCar making company for political stuff, might as well switch to SpyCar." And my mind just goes blank?

And the dude on the backseat laughs and laughs as he profiles them so he can manipulate them.

<comment><USER8> Unfortunately the Firefox car, running on Android fuel, has awfully weird driving (scrolling) physics that for some reason are different to every other car. If they fixed that I might be inclined to have another look, but they've had many years and still haven't addressed it.

<comment><USER9> Can you explain more about that? I use Firefox on Android 8.1 and haven't noticed any issues with scrolling.

<comment><USER8> The scrolling physics were different to every other app I used. This was the same over many years with many different android devices. I don't know what else I can say about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a non-front-end dev, I really don't get how the browser matters for any end-user. I've never liked Chrome much and have always stuck with Firefox, partly for it's philosophy, but also because it has all the things I've gotten used to.

Firefox also has many features that make the web usable for people who aren't born with perfect vision and hand coordination. The plus is that these extensions make the web faster.

When I use Firefox, I feel like the browser belongs to me. Chrome feels like an Apple version of websites, mostly dumbed down and hostile to changes.

I will say that Chrome is unmatched for front end work, but that's a horrible reason to tell the average end user Chrome is the best browser.

</comment><comment> andy-wu I tried Firefox on OS X but it maxes my CPU frequently, doing simple tasks like scrolling or loading small gifs on Reddit, slowing my system down significantly. I noticed my fans spinning much more frequently than Chrome. It appears to be linked to using scaled resolutions [0]. Until this is fixed, Chrome is significantly faster for me, which is disappointing because I like everything else about FF.

[0] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?format=default&id=...](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?format=default&id=1404042)

<comment><USER11> I use Nightly on OS X for web development work every day and don't see anything like this. Including using multiple screens with scaling (although I almost never work on the battery).

The one annoying issue that I do get is occasionally Dev Tools will stop working for a window and I have to close and open the Tools windows. Outside that, no complaints on OS X.

<comment><USER12> Tbf I get that issue with dev tools issue with Chrome as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's odd to see Firefox being called a memory hog just a few years back. As far as I can tell, Chrome has used more memory pretty much always if you have multiple tabs open.

(Firefox may have been slower on slow hardware, but that has never been an issue for me.)

<comment><USER14> I really wish [https://areweslimyet.com/](https://areweslimyet.com/) was still updated (and more comprehensive, ala [https://arewefastyet.com/](https://arewefastyet.com/)).

</comment></comment><comment> shady-lady I kept with firefox through it all but started use Chrome for dev exclusively. The only reason I stuck with firefox was Tree Style Tabs.

While I'm delighted at their recent improvements, I still can't help but wonder if they are putting the ~500 million they get each year to good use.

There are still features in the browser that are quite lacking:

\- history -> history viewer is still so ~basic~. most query constructs that could be run against the history db should be exposed through the UI. I also think it would be great if I could see the path I took to a url history(e.g. linked browsing)

\- sync isn't done. I feel sync should also sync settings* from about:config & extension settings. I also would like to see the upper limit massively bumped up from the Mozilla sync service.

These may seem like big asks but Mozilla is taking in 1/2 billion a year [1]

* for those settings where it makes sense to sync.

[1] [https://www.computerworld.com/article/3240008/web- browsers/m...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/3240008/web- browsers/mozillas-record-2016-revenue-funded-its-firefox-quantum-browser.html)

<comment><USER15> > These may seem like big asks but Mozilla is taking in 1/2 billion a year

It takes a huge amount of money to build and maintain a modern web engine and browser.

<comment><USER16> Mozilla is like a modern American university. There is a parasitic growth attached that is only concerned with funneling more resources to itself in the form of bureaucrats and intersectional evangelists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I never left FF. It's been a great browser for me and I've never been tempted to leave. Recently though since the big update that rendered half the add-ons I came to rely on useless - I'm in limbo with no alternatives to them or half- hearted promises that the dev will get round to porting them "sometime".

Chrome has a lot of them as well as alternatives available and for me this is where I do consider jumping ship.

I completely understand FF wanting to change things up in the name of performance and modernising but I do feel they didn't really appreciate how important add-ons are to keeping people using it.

A lot of those add-ons are many years old but still had 1000s of users who suddenly were in the same situation as me.

<comment><USER18> Can you list some of the addons? I too have been using Firefox since it was called Firebird and had a whole host of addons. Interestingly I just continued using Firefox and now don't miss them much. Addons I used to use include FireFTP, FireSSH and the SQLite addon. I now just use other applications. I am guessing the Vim addon is one the ones you need?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> But the witchunt and purge of Brendan Eich. For love of diversity and civility, can't use Firefox.

Try [http://brave.com](http://brave.com) instead. They're actually developing a way to democratize ad revenue so that it is directed back straight to creators themselves. Innovative, hopeful solution for a salient long-term problem that everyone else seems to be throwing their hands in the air and shrugging over.

</comment><comment><USER20> Recently I switched to Brave on mobile, and I am planning to switching to Brave on mine laptop.

I want privacy-first browser. Period.

I also was backing Mozilla foundation (small sums) for 5+ years in hopes they will focus on browsers. They did not. They are cutting deals with ad serving companies, they are spending resources on mobile os, they are spending resources on VR browser and I don't know what else.

Good luck to them, but I want fast and reliable privacy-first browser and they are not that right now. Brave is.

<comment><USER21> I've been using Brave as my main browser on my laptop and phone for half a year now and i can tell that I had no major issues with it, the experience is really smooth and easy + as you said it is really focused on privacy, would recommend checking it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The performance boost with quantum was enough for me to go back. Chrome still seems snappier sometimes, but it's close enough.

One thing I _do_ miss notably is Chrome's task manager. Being able to see which pages are spiking memory or CPU and kill or close them is super convenient if you've got dozens of tabs open and notice machine performance is becoming an issue. Is there anything like that out there for FF?

<comment><USER23> It's no task manager, but there's about:performance (and, unrelated, there's also about:about).

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Author thinks Chrome is the best browser so whatever.

I've been using Firefox for the past 4 years and while the latest version is certainly the best thus far, even when Chrome performed "better" I'd still not use it for a myriad of reasons mostly revolving around the fact that everything Google does these days is crooked.

Author mentions the built in ad-blocker. Did you know Google also banned AdNauseum from the play store for no reason other than it is _too disruptive_ to the online advertising marketplace?

If I wasn't a professional web developer I wouldn't even have Chrome installed. Google can DIAF.

<comment><USER25> Especially as a web developer, I gave Firefox a second chance and tried to use it's FirefoxDeveloperEdition - but debugging JavaScript was so painful. It somehow felt so slow compare to Chrome's JS debugger.

Has anyone else felt this too?

<comment><USER26> Yes. However, that's a recent development. Mozilla apparently overhauled the entire DevTools stuff. It's not even feature complete at the moment and it's really f*cking terrible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have tried switching to the newer version of FF but have found that I just can't live without Chrome's built-in "Translate to English" feature. I realize that this probably isn't that important to most users, but for me it's something that I use almost daily. I checked briefly for FF plugins that offered the same functionality, but quickly got the sense that nothing was going to match the quality of Chrome's implementation, so I switched back to Chrome as my default browser.

Has anyone found a worthy replacement for Chrome's translation feature in FF?

<comment><USER28> Quick google search found me this[0] which seems like a decent replacement. I'm only guessing on the specific feature set you find useful, however.

[0]: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/s3google- tran...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/s3google-translator/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> _> If I were committed to using only iPhones, iPads, and Macs for the rest of my tech life, I might still be on Safari. Its performance is great on both iOS and macOS... and it offers a choice of ad blockers among a reasonable selection of browser extensions._

 _> But I'm writing this in Firefox today for a very simple reason: cross- platform compatibility.... I need a browser that knows me as well on a Huawei smartphone or Lenovo ThinkPad as it understands me an on iPhone X._

Summary: Safari is actually great. Use Firefox if you use non-Apple devices.

</comment><comment><USER30> The thing with the FF was it did not support U2F tokens in Linux correctly when I tried it few months ago. U2F requires some "U2F addon" that is incompatible with Quantum.

This is a no-go for me as I have numerous websites secured with Yubikey and without this the browser is just "YT/Facebook viewer"...

As soon as this changes, I might give it another chance.

\----

EDIT: Oh, FFS I just tried to look it up again and found property "security.webauth.u2f" which seems to be false by default. After enabling it U2F works! Geez, why would you disable that id default -_-

<comment><USER31> I think it is disabled by default because it doesn't work with the U2F sites that aren't standards compliant (e.g. Google, Facebook). It's one thing if you have to go in and enable the feature and find out it doesn't work everywhere, it is something else entirely to have the feature "randomly" working on some sites but not others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Thanks but no thanks. I really tried to switch from Chrome multiple times, mostly because I find Chrome to take too much memory, the tracking, etc.

Every time there is some kind of update, either for speed, less data tracking, vpn, etc. I give it a try and always end up being disappointed, even on things that should be so obvious and simple, like scrolling. Even recent versions for FF on a brand new macbook pro, scrolling lags.

FF always has a great story that really makes me wanna switch, but I won't waste time for this one, sorry.

<comment><USER33> So Mozilla _actually_ made some major improvements, but you don't want to try switching again because you tried it before on occasion of some minor updates?

<comment><USER32> Not on _minor_ updates. I've tried to switch during the past years _everytime_ there is a similar update. Every new version is "blazingly fast" and "much better" and promise that it's "time to switch".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Firefox, on occasion, cannot play videos above 4fps until I restart it.

After running for awhile, Firefox slows my entire system down to the point there is a 250ms-500ms delay for every key press.

Despite all this I keep trying to make FF my primary browser, but wow it is hard.

I'm actually using Opera as my day to day, it has hotkeys that are just a little bit better than Chrome's, backspace still does what I'm used to it doing (going back a page) and the "jump to last tab" hotkey is super appreciated.

<comment><USER35> Your computer may have memory issues, I've seen similar symptoms before.

<comment><USER34> It is possible, but I can run Opera with hundreds of tabs for days on end with no problem.

With performance degradation over time, it is hard to determine if it is hardware slowly fading, or software bloat running its natural course.

I should run a mem tester though.

Fwiw I can load the same page up in Opera or Chrome and it will smoothly play, while FF trips over itself in the background.

<comment><USER36> I saw the same behavior that you describe. The problem is, there are still serious bugs in the "old" (e.g. Gecko) code, not in the "newest and greatest" "new features" code. And just recently they fired exactly the developers fixing such bugs:

[https://www.cnet.com/news/layoffs-mozilla-taiwan-changes- fir...](https://www.cnet.com/news/layoffs-mozilla-taiwan-changes-firefox-work- in-asia/)

"Taiwan programmers working on Gecko, a core part of Firefox, lost their jobs, one person familiar with the layoffs said. That's global open-source work, in contrast to newer, regional projects coming from Taiwan"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This article starts with the headline, "Because everyone using Chrome for everything is a bad idea" and it's right about the need for diversity in browsers. But that doesn't mean just Firefox or Chrome.

On the contrary, for technically inclined users it's time to consider giving up on Chrome, Firefox, Safari and all the other locked-down anti-user walled gardens that violate software freedoms. I know this is a niche belief system but among the types that read hackernews more care than average.

Firefox held out much longer than most but the pressure at Mozilla to make it 'safe' for grandma (only add-ons signed by Moz) and 'safe' for consuming commercial media (DRM black box, no exceptions for research) won in the end. It has become Chrome if only in target demographic and feature prioritization. Just switching from Chrome to modern Firefox won't create the browser diversity argued for in this article.

<comment><USER38> Then what do you recommend switching to?

<comment><USER37> I'm intentionally refraining from recommending anything specific because that gets comments in these threads downvoted and killed. There are plenty of good Firefox forks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I regularly do, but there's always something that sends me back to Chrome. Currently it's the inability to see all of the permissions an extension requires without digging through its source:

[https://imgur.com/a/k4rk0](https://imgur.com/a/k4rk0)

Note the "Access your data on 5 other sites".

</comment><comment><USER40> I'd love to, but its still very clunky in some cases. Some examples:

It decided to make its interface language not English. Now I cant set it back, the stuff recommended from the net does not work. this also underlines all the text I type in English.

Tab tearing is way better in Chrome.

Scrolling with a touch pad feels...odd. Its lagging a bit, somehow the physics are off.

</comment><comment><USER41> Question on those using firefox as a daily driver on OS X. Comparisons batterywise to safari how much less battery life do you get in general with firefox now?

That is my #1 reason for sticking to safari for now. That and I need to find out what extensions I need again after the switch to the new extension model.

<comment><USER42> Both Chrome and Firefox seem to use slightly more battery than Safari on my 2016 MBP. When I say slightly more, I mean that according to Activity Monitor, they both have ~3x more "energy impact", however in practice I haven't noticed a difference in my battery life.

The major difference with Firefox is that on some websites (namely Google Maps, Youtube, Twitch, sometimes Gmail), Firefox spikes my CPU usage/temperature/energy usage to _absurd_ levels (I'm talking 90+ degrees celsius), so much so that I find Firefox unusable because I don't enjoy having a brick of near-molten aluminum in my lap whenever I watch a Youtube video. Chrome and Safari don't seem to have this problem.

<comment> andy-wu Yep, I experience the same issue on a 2015 13" MBP. Appears to be an issue w/ FF and OS X scaled resolutions ([https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?format=default&id=...](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?format=default&id=1404042))

<comment><USER41> Oof, that bug doesn't inspire confidence that this will be a worthy experiment. Thanks for the link though, I'll test against a fresh install of osx on a laptop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Switched to waterfox, and never looked back. Most of us won't go Chrome, because we'll still have a secure gecko-based browser that won't violate our privacy.

When Servo matures into something useable daily (it's almost there) we'll abandon firefox/gecko entirely.

</comment><comment><USER44> Firefox Quantum is extremely fast and feels much faster than Chrome / Safari.

I encourage everyone to try it for a full 5 days M-F and see if you feel the same way!

<comment><USER45> I have used Firefox as my primary browser for as long as I can remember, so I don't know how to compare its speed to Chrome in general. But animations are stutter filled and janky in Firefox yet work buttery smooth in Chrome on the same laptop.

Hope that it is something which can be resolved eventually because it would be nice to not have to keep Chrome on hand for such occasions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I use both Firefox and Chrome and find that the most noticeable difference is the time to open a new tab. Chrome is always fast, but Firefox sometimes lags.

On the other hand, I find that when my fan is spinning up, it's usually because of tabs in Chrome.

<comment><USER46> Yes, this is my only fault with Firefox. I'll open a tab and start typing, then (when I guess the tab is ready) the url bar resets and I've lost everything I've typed. This is super frustrating!

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> It was my primary browser until the new version killed all my critical extensions

<comment><USER48> The Firefox Extensions Challenge ([https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2018/03/15/firefox- quantum-e...](https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2018/03/15/firefox-quantum- extensions-challenge/)) with prizes for winners has just ended...

So Mozilla are at least aware this is a problem for some users.

Curious what good new extensions come from it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I've been using firefox since 2004, and before that, sea monkey.

Why change a good thing?

</comment><comment><USER50> I've been using Firefox as my primary browser now for approx. the last six months. I used to flip-flop between safari and chrome (chrome needed generally for work and Linux).

I've gernerally been extremely happy with it. The battery life is not as good as Safari, but it feels faster. I do run into issues with some extensions, specifically google Meet (I think that is being fixed?).

The biggest annoyance, and I didn't look too deeply at how to fix this, is custom cert mgmt. The system certs appear not to be used (I think?) and for custom CAs, they must be associated both in the browser and on the OS (macOS and Ubuntu). I've also noticed some sites cause, or did cause, very large CPU usage, Travis-CI was one.

Anyway, I'm generally very happy, and am glad that I now have a primary browser experience that I enjoy across all platforms. (If Apple had a safari version on Linux, this might have been a bigger question, I think they would do well to release one)

</comment><comment><USER51> I know I'm a lazy, spoiled brat, but can anyone describe their Android + Desktop experience in regards to password managers?

I use Chrome + LastPass, which has icons on desktop and autofill prompts on mobile. It's easy and integrated. The last thing I want to do is have to switch between apps, copy and paste each time I log into a web site.

</comment><comment><USER52> I started using firefox back in march of last year. It has gotten way better. There are few annoying bugs I found(like this, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mywhU2zu87c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mywhU2zu87c)). I have not been able to replicate them consistently, So they are pending on bugzilla.

There are also some cases when websites like thepiratebay.org refuse to open, At first, I thought this might be some Mitm or DNS based block set by the ISP but then chrome opens it just fine, Don't know what happened there.. :/

There are also some lazy developers like the one at Mashape who most likely don't test their website on Firefox because if they did, They'd know there Login/Signup system is broken on firefox for the last 7 months!

Ignoring few third party related issues, It's pretty good and I use it on both Android, Linux and windows.

</comment><comment><USER53> Tried and gone back to Chrome. The thing is chrome is Rock solid and can not remember the last time even a tab crashed.

</comment><comment><USER54> I have been using FF as my main browser for years. While most of the world moved to Chrome-I stuck around because Chrome's bookmark sync would rearrange every bookmark in a bookmark folder. This was years ago, but then I started getting concerned about Google's tracking and have stuck with FF since. (I gave Chrome a chance years later-same exact issue.)

During this time I kept running into reasons to keep FF besides the bookmarks:

\- I have noticed Chrome isn't as speedy and responsive as it used to be.

\- I found plugins that suspended unused tabs so I can have 40 open with minimum issue pre-FF Quantum and keeps memory usage down.

\- There are other plugins that I couldn't find in Chrome's store, such as the SQLite browser. (Now I use DB Browser from the Arch repos.)

\- Chrome's memory usage shot up over the years. It always used a lot of memory with all those processes to sandbox the tabs, but FF kept getting more features without so much bloating.

\- I have seen a few sites that FF does not like, but I have also seen different sites that's didn't play well with Chrome too.

\- Google's business is in ads and tracking-how long until they ban ublock origins?

However FF still has issues that were never solved or crept up:

\- Website PDF printing on Linux is terrible-the websites look mangled while Chrome can take the same sites and print out a decent PDF copy.

\- Chrome is usually first to have features that could be the future of the web. Subtitles for HTML5 video-webvtt. WebAssembly, I had to use Chrome to use FF's own webassembly tools because I didn't use Nightly.

\- Chrome's PDF reader works better than FF's open source JS one.

\- Pocket... back when it first announced I wondered why...? an organization committed to open source and open standards used a closed source service backend and if I remember at the time, a proprietary connection. It was the first time I considered going back to Chrome. I have an instapaper JS booklet that will save any page I am on to instapaper; does the same thing without an annoying little icon in my toolbar.

\- Mr Robot... why......? This is the Orwellian worry I had that Google would do with Chrome. Never affected me, but did piss me off.

The Pocket and the Mr Robot were real issues to me that made me consider finding another alternative.

<comment><USER55> > Chrome's PDF reader works better than FF's open source JS one.

Note: while Chrome's PDF reader wasn't open in the beginning, it is now: [https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/](https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/)

<comment><USER54> Ah, thank you for that info.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I want to use Firefox for everything. Unfortunately my company relies a lot on Google Hangouts and Meet for video calls. Google has implemented both in a way that seems to be incompatible with Firefox (I know that the non corporate version of Hangouts works with Firefox since a few months ago).

</comment><comment><USER57> I've always preferred Firefox and rarely used Chrome, until a few months ago when FF started eating CPU so badly that I now use Chrome almost exclusively.

I have no idea what causes FF to use 100% CPU, but it happens consistently, every single time I use FF for any length of time. Browsing Twitter will do it, YouTube will do it, eventually _something_ will do it. Maybe it has to do with video? I don't know, and I don't have the time or (probably) the knowledge to try to figure it out.

Until/unless Firefox fixes whatever bug is causing this, I'm forced to stick with Chrome (which just works, hour after hour, day after day).

</comment><comment><USER58> I'd love to try Firefox but I can't switch until the extensions I use fully support it. To give just one example, Checker Plus for Gmail can't keep Firefox running in the background unlike in Chrome... which makes it far less useful.

</comment><comment><USER59> Google is the new Microsoft. Every time I click on a link on Gmail mobile app, it asks me, by default, to install Chrome instead using the default browser. Even though there is a "don't ask again" checkbox, it always asks again next time.

</comment><comment><USER60> It's a pity Mozilla is pushing for a dumbed down version of its core principles, if I were them I'd:

\- drop the whole cartoonish nonsense, childish errors such as "Hmm. We're having trouble finding that site." should be swapped back to something more useful (or at least give me an HTTP error to look up on top of that stupid cartoon)

\- quit pushing for pocket and other proprietary nonsense

\- stop messing with user data to please tv series marketing teams

\- stop babysitting the user with paternalizing "you've been using the computer too long" health-conscious snippets

Give me back the browser for nerds I need to get stuff done, make me fall back in love with FF.

(full disclosure: posted from FF)

<comment><USER15> > quit pushing for pocket and other proprietary nonsense

Mozilla owns pocket and is in the process of open sourcing it. Some parts are already on GitHub.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Since Firefox permanently broke Pentadactyl, I've been wanting to switch to Qutebrowser, but Qutebrowser doesn't yet have NoScript or RequestPolicy functionality, so I'm stuck with Firefox for now.

<comment><USER62> Brave browser has NoScript in settings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Have been on Firefox for 5 or so months now, whenever they first released the beta version of Quantum.

It's been fine, really can't fault it. I don't really think about it to be quite honest, it just works.

</comment><comment><USER64> Wow! He actually recommended to use the browser password manager... Yes, I use FF and have since it came. I did try Chrome a couple of times but it was just a resource hog and ugly. With FF I could get it to look as I wanted and the extensions worked better.

So I agree with his decision but not his arguments or recommendations. They are just crap. The best way to protect your passwords is via a password manager that is not in plane text. Like Pass or Keepass. Pass is my fav as it is extremely portable.

</comment><comment><USER65> I kicked the tyres on the new Quantum'd Firefox. Oddly I found that the GPU utilisation on my MacBook Pro is significantly higher than Chrome, even higher than Safari. Playing a YouTube video would make the MBP's fans spin significantly faster than normal which meant it' wasn't overly usable. The numbers were roughly 750 Mhz Firefox, 550 Mhz Chrome and 450 Mhz with Safari.

Not sure if it's an option I've got configured, I'd love to find out what was causing this though!

</comment><comment><USER66> Funny how every 6 months there's an article saying that. Truth is with Mac OSX, only Safari and Chromium are RAM efficient. Not blaming Firefox tho.

</comment><comment><USER67> Firefox is fairly unusable performance wise with google maps and surprisingly facebook. Those are two huge apps that I feel like are table stakes for a web browser. Facebook is even more surprising, since it isn't an amazing webgl program rendering a complicated map view, it isn't created by a direct competitor and at facebook's size, making something work better for %1 of users is a big gain.

</comment><comment><USER68> I finally uninstalled Chrome from all my setups today. I have chromium for occasional testing left, but it is Quantum on desktop and Fennec on phone now.

Best things I've loved since I switched:

\- Cookie AutoDelete, keeps a whitelist of domains and deletes the rest, which works nicely with:

\- Multi-Account Containers: Create multiple cookiejars

\- Decentraleyes: Caches JS files from CDN servers for faster loads.

</comment><comment><USER69> I have done - and it's awesome on Windows / Fedora. But it's so janky and slow on Android, this is on a Pixel 2 XL. What is so wrong with the Android version?

For the record i've tried to move across for ad-blocking which Chrome doesn't provide, and I do need the account sync. Firefox is just as janky without any plugins on Android.

<comment><USER70> On Android it's supposed to still be getting better, although it's taking quite a while now and I feel it's not the main focus (apparently it's hard to fix the codebase, so IIUC they're getting there through a detour by first focusing on the embeddability of Gecko - which will take a while). That said, Nightly is already somewhat better, so I've been using that to relative satisfaction for a while now. You might want to give that a try.

<comment><USER69> I was on the beta when I wrote that comment - tried the nightly and though better is still a jank fest. It's the reverse of the desktop where Chrome has gone awful and FF is nice. The biggest thing is the scrolling behaviour on FF which is truly horrendous. Is this just me? There's also a click-lag. I'm not rooted, have minimal apps, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Digital-Citizen The article is riddled with what's wrong about proprietary (nonfree, user- subjugating) software. Paragraph 2 is almost entirely made up of these problems:

"the best web browser" \-- has no meaning without clearly identifying the criteria by which one considers anything best, worst, or any rating in between.

"If a friend were to ask me what the best web browser is, I'd answer "Chrome" in a heartbeat, so don't mistake this as a screed against Google's browser." \-- because any deep criticism of a nonfree browser, or a nonfree browser from a spying organization would, by default, be a "screed"? No respect for freedom of speech here, and that's no way to treat your friends. This line and much of the essay comes off as a way to validate the idea that we need not consider anyone who looks out for their own software freedom, the software freedom of their friends and other computer users in general, or their (very much related) privacy interests. The allowable limits of debate are set: technocratic functionality (such as the effectiveness of an ad-blocker, vague notions of competition and "unhealthy growth" without mention of software freedom are considered right and proper to get into. Please restrict any discussion to such proprietor-affirming ideas. Anything outside these boundaries is "a screed against Google's browser".

"I still see it [Google Chrome] as the most fully-featured and trouble-free option for exploring the web." \-- so this further reinforces the above: privacy is not a feature and the loss of privacy (where Google decides how much privacy to grant each user) is not to be considered a "trouble".

Nonfree browsers are unethical and problematic for the same reasons which apply to all other nonfree software: we need and deserve to control our own computers. This doesn't just apply to those who write software, but to all computer users. Therefore we all need the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software (software freedom). Users who can't or won't learn to program can either choose to learn or get someone they trust to vet and improve software on their behalf. More technically-capable users can help everyone out by vetting and improving published software for their own sake. They can help their community by sharing their improvements under licenses that respect our software freedom. These are deeper more thoroughgoing reasons to reject nonfree software and run only software that respects your software freedom.

</comment><comment><USER71> The only issue for me regarding Firefox is when I'm on a Mac laptop not connected to power. It is still eating far too much battery compared to Chrome – Safari is no contest. This may be related to the unhealthy number of tabs I keep open.

Other then that, it feels great and is improving.

</comment><comment><USER72> I mean...Firefox is completely rewritten from the ground up in Rust, a language invented by Mozilla because they rock and they're absolutely killing it. Given that it's the browser with the latest full bore rewrite, shouldn't we expect it to be the coolest atm?

<comment><USER73> It's not a full rewrite, but many core parts have been rewritten. (Possibly most notably the UI).

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> I didn't actually notice that Firefox had become uncool. What is it about Chrome that people like better? They seem basically indistinguishable to me, so I use the one that isn't from Google.

</comment><comment><USER75> Attempting another switch thanks to this post. Installed on desktop and all mobile devices, settings imported from Chrome, everything set up with Firefox Sync... we'll see how it goes.

</comment><comment><USER76> I'd love to switch to safari, only thing holding me back are the chrome dev tools (which I really like). Is there any alternative for this on safari?

</comment><comment><USER77> I never left!

There was a noticeable gap between the two browsers for several years. Not anymore.

The plugins to put my tabs on the side panel also kept me in the fold.

</comment><comment><USER78> 2 things chrome still has above ff for me:

\- NO bar above the tabs \- I CAN double-click to select independent word in url

<comment><USER79> For the latter, if you're willing to go into about:config, try setting browser.urlbar.clickSelectsAll to true, and browser.urlbar.doubleClickSelectsAll to false and see if that gives you the desired behaviour.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Too bad firebug was discontinued.

<comment><USER81> Wasn't firebug integrated into Firefox dev tools?

<comment><USER80> Subtle differences that make it less useful. It is very close but it is the little things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> re: "The thing that woke me up to my over-reliance on Chrome was when Google implemented an ad blocker directly into the browser."

So what ever happened to that anyway? Has anyone noticed any ad blocking?

</comment><comment><USER83> Ever since the Mr. Robot Looking Glass add-on marketing disaster I have decided to give Mozilla a few more years to get their shit together with Firefox. Something is seriously wrong at a company if something like that can happen.

</comment><comment><USER84> _> If a friend were to ask me what the best web browser is, I'd answer "Chrome" in a heartbeat_

It was always Firefox for me.

</comment><comment><USER85> Never left. :D All the recent developments are very welcome, and help keep FF relevant and useful to me.

Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER86> love it...mostly

But some videoa won't be played.

Also the scrolling on Android ia rather sluggish

</comment><comment><USER18> I have been using Firefox since it was called Firebird. Off late one of the reasons, adoption isn't climbing is because Firefox is not included as one of the supported let alone allowed pieces of software in corporate companies. At my last company, security guys went as far as to classify Firefox a risk. They instructed Desktop Support to remotely uninstall Firefox off users machines. Most people I support would rather use the same software at home that they use at work. I admire what Mozilla is trying to achieve and have always promoted it to people asking me for IT software to use.

Edit: It wasn't my decision to classify Firefox as a security risk. Just stating that in corporate organizations I have worked using Firefox is not encouraged at all.

<comment><USER10> Why did your security classify Firefox as a risk?

<comment><USER18> It was just after WannaCry was big news. They had installed some Blucoat or something along those lines. I think Firefox didn't play so nice with the monitoring software hence it was classified a risk. I have to add that the Security Director wasn't a security expert, highly ambitious and was never going to entertain anything he didn't understand.

<comment><USER87> _the Security Director wasn 't a security expert_ \- not ideal..</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you have domains at multiple registrars, or do you stick with one? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I stick with one because it's exhausting trying to research which ones are shady.

</comment><comment><USER3> Multiple, because hey, internet discount deals</comment>


Ode to the App Review team - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/3100131471 <comment><USER2> Ode to the TSA Screeners

Thanks for touching my junk. I love you guys. No, not for the touching (though sometimes...). What I really love is how your pointless security theatre makes me feel safe and secure.

And your swiftly growing and unnecessary bureaucracy is only getting faster. Not like last year when you made me miss Christmas with my family, or that time a business deal fell through because you wouldn't let me on the plane or tell me why. Now your line of junk touchers is really humming and I'm barely there for an hour or so. What a smooth operation, my hat's off to you.

After all, I make money from flying and it's all down to you guys. Not the pilot, or the air-traffic controller, or the baggage handlers or engineers or stewardesses. No, it's all down to you guys and I salute you. And if my taxes are paying for this meaningless charade, all the better.

It's not like there is any alternative. I've read about other countries where they don't touch your junk and let you bring your own peanuts without a surcharge on the official news sources and it seems like planes are just falling out of the sky left, right and centre because someone didn't get their junk touched or peanuts confiscated. I'm so glad I don't have to put up with that.

God bless Apple, sorry..., America!

<comment><USER3> That's some top shelf snark right there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Meh, ode to nothing. The App Review process sucks. I develop apps, and it's the second biggest pain in my behind, next to the App ad hoc provisioning process. We deal with it, but thank you sir, I don't want another.

1\. It's capricious.

2\. It doesn't catch actual bugs, and then you have to wait to fix them.

3\. Apple doesn't engage you easily on questions of whether something or another will result in rejection.

4\. Apple changes the rules and block random releases, without communicating rules changes until they reject you.

5\. Apple makes it harder to plan marketing campaigns.

I haven't had a new app rejected in probably over a year, and only rarely have they blocked one of my releases, but every time it sucks, and I don't know why they bother.

<comment><USER5> >> 2\. It doesn't catch actual bugs, and then you have to wait to fix them.

Apple aren't your QA team.

<comment><USER4> They claim that is part of the reason they review apps, and Marco in his article claims they raise the quality of apps.

<comment><USER6> Both these claims can still be true. I have had a but get through twice, and eventually it was picked up by the app store reviewers, because it was such a hard to replicate bug.

It is certainly true that some QA is better than no QA. Even professional QA's miss some stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For any of the developers who were there from the start, the decrease in review times speak for themselves. New developers flock to the forums with posts such as "Stuck in review for more than _one week_ ". If only they knew what it was like years ago.

They are the spoiled generation of iOS developers. :)

<comment><USER8> Hell, I remember what life was like _before iPhones_!

<comment><USER7> If this was Reddit, we'd see a long chain of comments continuing this trend.

 _Before smartphones_

 _Before phones_

 _Before electricity_

etc.

I enjoyed your comment, but I'm just warning everybody else that don't have to feel the need to comment on it.

<comment><USER9> I don't remember what life was like before Reddit.

<comment><USER10> Well, I certainly had more useable time. Stupid addiction. Mainstream reddit manages somehow to be just interesting enough to justify reading it. Even though 95% of it is trite.

<comment><USER9> Oh, I just mean the memes, I've never been a Redditer except for the occasional use of their reading lists. It's kind of like asking "what was the internet like before 4chan? What did people _say_? Did the internet, in fact, _exist_ before 4chan?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> He brings up a fantastic point on the willingness of customers to spend money. It seems iPhone users spend much more on apps than android users (anyone have data to confirm?).

That said, it seems to me like this isn't just app discoverability and trust -- having your apple id and CC# already setup from day one for most users seem more likely to be the cause. Here's a discussion on Quora about it: <http://qr.ae/kY5p>

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't understand this article at all. 99% of iOS users have NO idea that Apple have such a ridiculous screening process, so why would they download freely with the idea that Apple is the crazy gatekeeper?

Secondly, there is a TONNE of copying going on from what I can tell. Dozens of clones of the same games and apps pop up all the time, and while there is no blatant copyright theft, there is still some level of IP theft. Not only that, Apple completely rejects apps when they want to monopolize a particular segment (see: Sony eBooks bannage).

Finally, the reason why it's "getting better", is because Apple has been doing this for years now. Not only that, I'm sure they've streamlined their processes, and hired boatloads of extra reviewers.

I'm tired of seeing marco.org posts skyrocketing to the front page. He's a serious Apple fanboy who, most of the time, provides no real content to the HN community.

<comment><USER13> For the first point, they don't need to know exactly _why_ the apps from the App Store won't break their phone---they can just learn it from experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm in total agreement, we've been publishing to the store since 2008 when it first opened.

However, ironically enough a big app we've been working on was rejected last week due to this violation: "4.3 Apps that use location-based APIs for dispatch, fleet management, or emergency services will be rejected."

I've had absolutely no luck contacting anyone within Apple for more information. Last week we also field tested this app with major government emergency response services (ems, police, fire, etc.) within Texas with both success and enthusiasm that a product like ours is coming to market. It's unfortunate seeing that Mr. Jobs recently took a medical leave of absence. Not that he needs it, but an American studying abroad sure might.

<comment><USER15> " major government emergency response services (ems, police, fire, etc.) "

I can just imagine what the liabilities for Apple would be on that one. Somehow I think they'll be quite content to avoid it by simply not allowing any emergency service apps in the App Store.

<comment><USER16> Why does Apple have to be liable for everything you put on _your_ phone? Is Microsoft liable for the viruses and spyware that people install on their Windows PCs?

The liability argument is weak, though Apple may have made the case itself by its stringency with the App Store. Now one could say that there was a reasonable expectation nothing he/she could get from the App Store could cause a problem in his/her life because Apple publicly embarked on a vetting process before offering the app for sale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I love ya Marco, but this one felt a bit sappy.

I've had good and bad experiences, and really no complaints save being pushed to the back of the queue upon rejection, but I do fantasize about creating web apps and being in control of my own release cycle.

</comment><comment><USER18> Very odd to read, after the Android Market has been running for quite some time, that "The result of [app store review] is that Apple can more easily let us use their payment system without scaring their lawyers, devaluing their store's image, or incurring high fraud and chargeback fees from their payment processors."

Google certainly has lawyers, and the (former) try-before-you-buy policy was a much more direct answer to fraud and chargeback than stringent app review. As to reputation, the Android store's poor rep is more due to the absence of particular good apps (or the difficulty finding them) than the presence of crud (which Apple's store has in abundance) --- and I don't think you can credit the review process with attracting good developers. Most of them hate it.

It's also funny that he doesn't mention the one thing that the review process _does_ do for end users --- it makes sure that apps conform to Apple's UI guidelines. They can be obnoxious about this, as in the flat rejection of camera apps that use the volume buttons as shutter controls, but the consistency is probably a net win for users overall. Though for Android, manufacturer reskinning is probably a bigger problem.

But it's been used in directly anticompetitive ways (the Google Voice holdup, which let to an FCC investigation; the current Sony reader payments flap) that it's really hard to deny that that's one of the points of the exercise from Apple's perspective. And fanboy rationales which ignore that awkward fact are getting really tedious.

</comment><comment><USER19> Huh, I was expecting an actual poem. "O App Review, the week just flew."

<comment><USER20> Indeed, the bar has fallen pretty far with this title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The review process has come a long way, folks. It's still nowhere as explicitly documented as, say, Sony or Microsoft's review process for video games -- which is both a strength and a weakness -- but the transparency _has_ slowly gotten better each year.

What impresses me the most, though, is the payment system, which he mentions. I don't mind Apple taking a 30% cut of my sales, because they are not just taking care of all the merchant details (e.g. payment processing), but they are giving consumers confidence that they aren't throwing money into the void. Furthermore, the one time I've had a problem with a payment on iTunes, I was reimbursed for the problem, and got my download for free.

What more can end users ask for?

</comment><comment><USER22> _> >"Think of the crappiest iPhone app you ever saw that made it into the store. Now imagine what they must reject. ↩"_

imo Marco is mistaken in his assumption that approved apps are always less crappy than rejected apps.

The "crappiest iPhone app" that was approved is likely to be worse than many rejected apps.

<comment><USER23> That's just an arithmetical reality. It is not indicative of a problem.

It's like saying that the the shortest child to ride a roller-coaster is shorter than the tallest child to get refused.

There is always a fuzzy edge in these situations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I cannot feel benevolent towards a system that wants to ignore the reality of the world surrounding it. Apple has rejected an Android magazine from being sold (as if it's not possible that someone would own an iPad and an Android phone -- and as if it's possible such a magazine would sway people away from iOS!) and the latest idiocy is requesting the removal of "Available in Kindle edition" from an eBook. There is just no excuse for this.

<comment><USER25> > There is just no excuse for this.

Sure there is. It's their store and they do whatever they want. Not sure how does that involve ignoring the reality of the world surrounding it, but Apples seems to do quite well regardless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Come on. The opaque process still sucks no matter what anyone says (that's because is down to a single person's interpretation). And related to the DMCA notices [http://blog.wolfire.com/2011/02/Counterfeit-Lugaru-on- Apple-...](http://blog.wolfire.com/2011/02/Counterfeit-Lugaru-on-Apple-s-App- Store-developing)

<comment><USER23> Yes it sucks but it sucks far less than the alternatives.

The App Store wasn't created and isn't curated for the benefit of developers - it's all about users: non-technical users who want to use their devices safely and who would blame Apple the moment a 3rd-party app caused a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> People on HN say all the time, "Just because it isn't for you, doesn't mean there isn't an audience." For example, see the defending comments on the Ze Frank post today.

Many of the apps Marco writes off as "crap" could easily fall into this category. Yes, it is true that the Android market is filled with "Sexy girls" wallpapers, but there certainly appears to be an audience.

That said, I'd be much more supportive of the App Store if they simply provided another way to get apps for those who standards aren't 100% congruent with Apple's.

</comment><comment><USER28> why this guy keeps acting as Apple PR, and people even upvote this kind of articles?

If there is something that sucked, sucks, and will probably suck is the Apple app submission process and review process. It's not easy to get this right, as the approval rules are the kind of rules that are very hard to apply in a consistent way in large scale. This can be a partial justification maybe, but the whole process is slow, prone to make mistakes, company-biased (think at Google Latitude and so forth) and in general a pain in the ass for the developers. Note exactly something to Ode.

</comment><comment><USER29> I guess. Other platforms (WP7, Android) sandbox their applications equally well and respond to DMCA notices to takedown illegal clones, etc. I don't see that as being unique to the Apple App Store or necessarily a function of their review process.

>So we have a huge number of potential customers who are very comfortable installing a lot of apps and can buy ours by simply entering a password.

And Android doesn't even need that. Nnow anyone can instantly remote install an app from the convenience of their browser. I think even that beats the iTunes value proposition of having a desktop presence.

<comment><USER30> I am not sure Android sandboxes that well. (I dont have much knowhow of android sdk btw). But from the applications that are available on the android market - I know that people android apps can do more harm than on iOS, they have more power in android (for example, there are anti-virus apps on android! task killers!, apps can access your photos without you knowing it and upload them somewhere, app launchers, integrate with dialer, etc)

<comment><USER31> _I am not sure Android sandboxes that well._

Android sandboxes far _better_ than iOS. It has a more granular, integrated security system.

The existence of "anti-virus" and task killers speaks more about customer ignorance and the placebo effect than it does to the platform.

I think the App Store review process is actually dangerous because it implies something that isn't true. Apple makes zero guarantees about the quality of safety of the applications.

<comment><USER30> Granularity is good -- but as far as I know people ignore the security permissions warnings, because they are hard to understand, and its difficult to understand why would an app need them, and most people generally just click yes. So practically, it does not really help (thats the impression i got from reading online) For anti-virus apps, its not about why people buy (customer ignorance), but their existence and feasibility implies apps have the power to monitor the system closely. App store review helps ... when android store lists apps like these: <http://photos.appleinsider.com/android.market.ios.002.jpg> how can you trust the android store more or equal to the apple app store?

<comment><USER29> Those are completely irrelevant problems. The problem you cite is the nature of the beast with an open market. I think you'll have a hard time finding Android fans willing to sacrifice the open intentions of Android and Google's Market to prevent copyrighted apps from getting into the Market.

I find it funny, that image, as if some random bloggers "indictment" should motivate Google to action. They're handling it just as they handle Youtube, and I think it's brilliant. If you see your material in the Market, file a DMCA. Problem solved.

Yes, customers ignore permission warnings, but again, that's an unrelated issue, and surely you're not suggesting that Apple's lack of a permission list is better simply because users sometimes ignore it when offered.

In terms of security, both from a disclosure, per-permission level granting and sandboxing perspecitve, Android has a superior model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> How can the app review ensure that, say, you don't have a timebomb in your program after which you start sending off private data? Apple doesn't ask for the source code, does it?

<comment><USER6> They do not do that, nor can they without examining the source very carefully. There have been cases of apps getting through with illegal functionality in.

<comment><USER32> But then all the app store gives people is a false sense of security. The willingness of people to trust arbitrary App Store apps should be condemned, not celebrated.

<comment><USER23> Not true.

By regulating the process - and the payment - Apple is able to instantly remove an app as soon as it is found to be malicious and refund anyone who paid for it out of the developers pocket.

<comment><USER32> But that's independent of the _review_ process. They could do the same thing without a review.

For comparison, the Mozilla Addons review process requires you to provide them a copy of the (unobfuscated) source code. You always have the option of self- hosting, of course.

<comment><USER23> Could you imagine the fuss they'd be if Apple started to demand our source code too!

<comment><USER32> If you're going to have a review process at all, you should at least add something of value. Either ask for source code (and deal with the backlash) or don't have a review process at all. A two-level review system (one with source code, one without) with appropriate warnings is fine, too.

The app store review process as it currently stands is worthless, useless and meaningless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> [This comment has been approved by the Hacker News Review team]

Great article!

<comment><USER29> Funny that this comment is downvoted considering the (in my opinion) exceedingly rude act of quietly silencing users here.</comment></comment>


The Paris Time Capsule Apartment - <AUTHOR> http://messynessychic.com/2012/05/09/the-paris-time-capsule-apartment/ <comment><USER2> The painting and the love affair are interesting, but, as a landlord, I found myself wondering: How does an apartment remain untouched for 70 years? How was the rent paid without interruption? How were rent increases handled (or did the rent remain constant for 70 years?)? How did the landlord not have to access the apartment when the other parts of the building/infrastructure were renovated/upgraded over the decades? Also, Pigalle was/is a bit of a rough neighborhood, so why wasn't there a break-in over those 70 years?

</comment><comment><USER3> Truly a treasure for the world, the Portrait is stunning! thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER4> I liked this article the first time around. Seems like HN needs to do a bit better job recognizing future submissions of the same article --

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5603352>

Personally, I think a mix of topix makes sense on here. History, specifically, an unexpected time capsule being one of them. Very similar to the Gritty NY photos also from a couple of days ago --

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3900275>

<comment><USER5> It would be nice if HN included, or just auto-linked, previous discussions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The Redditisation of HN marches on.

<comment><USER7> From <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

_What to Submit_

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. _That includes more than hacking and startups._ If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: _anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity._

<comment><USER8> Sure, but this was front page on HN not even 2 months ago.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What software products do you pay for that you like the least? - <AUTHOR> Came across this thread on twitter: https://twitter.com/hnshah/status/1119426019494989824?lang=en asking the same question. Curious to hear HN's answer. <comment><USER2> The forced Windows pre-installation on laptops, which I don't even use since I install GNU/Linux

</comment><comment><USER3> I bought Steven Slate Drums 5 and honestly I don't like it. I wasted 93€ on it but I prefer Addictive Drums 2 MUCH more.

</comment><comment><USER4> Windows.</comment>


Cloudkick Labs - command line interface, Android app, and... - <AUTHOR> https://www.cloudkick.com/labs

<comment><USER2> I like what these guys are doing but the Android app seemed very limited feature wise.

It shows me the headline status for my server (CPU, RAM, disk space) but no graphs or historical reports or, from what I can see, admin functions

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the app is limited at the moment - but don't worry this is just pre-alpha-rc1 :) just one of the several projects to come out of our 24hr office hack-a-thon. Also, the app is open source, check it out here <http://github.com/cloudkick/cloudkick-android>

<comment><USER2> That's cool. I actually missed it was a hack-a-thon app + open source! :P

Rolling in an SSH client would be teh bombz btw

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> A bit off topic, but is adding Windows Azure as a provider on your radar at all? We'd buy this in a heartbeat.</comment>