Horseshit - Joshua Topolsky responds to MG & Gruber  - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/15/2638611/horseshit <comment><USER2> As I once wrote here, Gruber and MG are not columnists or even pundits. They are simply Apple evangelists. They preach a faith-based approach to Apple's superiority where no amount of evidence can sway them.

Josh's description is dead accurate, but those of us who have been paying attention have known this for a long time.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3068516>

<comment><USER3> Let me point you to the Pyramid of Refutation. <http://i.imgur.com/QhGkT.jpg>

Most arguments that I read that argue against Gruber and MG's point of view resort to either ad hominem or respond to tone.

Calling Gruber and MG Apple evangelists does not refute their central point.

I like Joshua Topolsky and The Verge a lot. I think they produce the best reviews in the business. Their audio and video casts are funny and informative. JT is probably the most informed Android reviewer. He's probably the most informed gadget reviewer.

JT: "It doesn't get under my skin because I fundamentally disagree that Android 4.0 lacks the polish of iOS."

JT: "I don't disagree with Gruber and MG. The iPhone is an amazing device. ... Not seeing it is not the issue — the issue is not being able to see it any other way."

JT's argument is that these are not verifiable facts we are discussing. We are discussing opinions. But he also states that Android is polished.

We would all be better off if he wrote an article titled "Android Is Polished" and listed the polish point for point.

<comment><USER2> _Calling Gruber and MG Apple evangelists does not refute their central point._

What's Gruber's central point? To quote Gruber: "You either see it or you don't."

How do you refute that? His central point is that you can't attack my central point, because you can't see it. His central point is that you can't see god, because you don't have enough faith. It's not falsifiable.

Give me falsifiable metrics that could, at least in theory, be refuted and I'd be happy to look at them. But you can't trot out the pyramid of refutation when they've made your central point vacuous.

<comment><USER4> "It's not right. It's not even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli[1]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "It gets under my skin because it is a pompous, privileged, insulting, and myopic viewpoint which reeks of class warfare — and it is indicative of a growing sentiment I see amongst people in the tech community."

You know what I've seen an upward trend of? People taking themselves and everything they see _entirely_ too seriously. "Class warfare"? Seriously? This is a _phone review_.

<comment><USER6> I think it's a more cogent and more substantial point than it might seem at first glance.

Anecdotally, I honestly do notice a class axis between iPhone and Android (though there are other axes, too). Just like there was a class axis between Facebook and MySpace for a while.

<http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html>

No one denies that consumer electronics can be status symbols. They can also be counter-status symbols.

And I think what Topolsky is reacting to here is the subtext of division. "You either see it or you don't," implies "I see this and you don't" which implies "I'm better than you." Which is an attitude in general that can exacerbate class differences.

And, as kenjackson has noted elsewhere, there's a distinct sense that some evangelists don't just observe the success of their chosen subject, but cheer them on and -- worse -- enjoy the failure of the others.

I think it's a good thing to expose. It's a better, more useful division that Topolsky is making here, I'd say: between advocates and observers, not between Android fans and iPhone fans.

<comment><USER7> In related news:

 _Snobby Robbers Only Steal iPhones, Refuse To Take Droids Or Blackberries_

[http://www.cultofmac.com/135564/snobby-robbers-only-steal- ip...](http://www.cultofmac.com/135564/snobby-robbers-only-steal-iphones- refuse-to-take-droids-or-blackberries/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> >Let's not let our preferences (and that's all they are, preferences, not empirical facts) dictate how we think about and relate to other people.

I don't understand why people get so caught up in something they literally had nothing to do with other than giving their money away to achieve.

While the products we buy have value, the consumer played no role in that value. You didn't invent it. You didn't make it better. You didn't do anything but buy it.

I guess the fact that people put value where no value exists is a testament to the power of marketing.

<comment><USER9> Here are some rational reasons why consumers might publicly and self- interestedly advocate for products they have already purchased:

1) If the product maintains a good reputation, early adopters will have been seen to have good taste or perception, which is socially valuable.

2) If you have developed expertise in a product that grows in popularity, you have the potential to be a resource to late adopters. Whether that potential is exercised or not, it represents a certain amount of social, and in some cases professional, capital.

3) If your product becomes disfavored, it may become unsupported. This means that you likely have a shorter usable lifetime for the device, fewer support options (official, 3rd party, and community), and fewer future options for peripherals and software. Each of these network-value losses means less personal wealth.

Also, there's some evidence (see e.g. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect>) that people often overvalue past purchases even beyond the level that rational assessment would indicate.

<comment><USER8> All are examples of why one might defend their preference, which isn't the issue. I quoted the issue; why one would allow their preference to "dictate how we think about and relate to other people."

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure I understand--isn't defending a preference one way people relate to certain other people?

If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's actually true or evidenced here. All of these people have professional stakes which are in play in a heated debate they're having with a very small number of other people who also have professional stakes. But I'm sure Gruber and Topolsky and others go home and have lots of relationships with people that do not involve any of this.

I feel similarly about "think about": as heated as this language is, I don't know that we can easily characterize what Topolsky thinks about Gruber and Siegler overall.

<comment><USER8> >isn't defending a preference one way people relate to certain other people?

I took that quote and that post to refer to the negative implications of treating people differently based on personal preferences.

>If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's actually true or evidenced here.

Not all encompassing "all", but it happens quite a bit. Many a "flame war" have stemmed from something as trivial as personal preference. The very example we have is a public example, which is good for outlining the issue, not defining it. I understand these people have professional reasons to pick one over another. I understand why one would defend their preference aggressively. But as the article implies, there are ways of doing so without putting down the other person for a difference of opinion. That is the overall lesson.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I do think Josh Toposkly overreacted. MG's analogy was not great either, it needed a couple of caveats (see next para). But, Just because a Mercedes is being compared to a Honda doesn't mean that there's some sort of a class issue at stake.

Honda is a fantastic engineering company. In terms of drivetrain technology they are right up there with the very best (for lower capacity engines, I'd say they are better than Mercedes, but I digress). However, Mercedes (especially till the early nineties) was about attention to detail, not just the drivetrain, but each and every part that went in, was famously "over- engineered". If I may, my interpretation of the analogy:

a. Honda's focus is on the engineering (drivetrain to be specific), they are willing to do an average (nothing special, but not bad) job for the rest of the package. That includes average interiors, average ride quality, average styling etc.

b. Mercedes tries (or did try) to do a stellar job in each of those categories listed above.

So, if Android is Google's engineering, Google let's Samsung get away with a plasticky phone (I have used the Galaxy nexus for an hour and a half today). Yes, even now the feel of the phone in one's hand is not even comparable to the iPhone 4.

But the analogy falls flat because the Galaxy Nexus is more expensive on contract than the iPhone. Price matters, the pricing helps Mercedes devote resources to develop the products the way they do.

Gruber, got this wrong too. His own quote "You either see it or you don't. If you don't, that's cool, enjoy your Nexus. " is correct, but it's correct on it's own, not with MGs quote.

<comment><USER11> I saw the Mercedes / Honda analogy falling flat in a very different place.

If you sit in a $50,000 Mercedes, and can't instantly tell that it's a more refined and luxurious experience than a $20,000 Honda - why the fuck would you buy the Mercedes?

<comment><USER12> Exactly. The Mercedes is not $30,000 better than the Honda. You're paying for status. Why would you do that unless you were making a statement about your salary, position etc?

<comment><USER13> I don't think that was the point, I think the point was there is an immediate and obvious difference between Mercedes and Honda. Everyone can notice it, even if they aren't experts on cars or design.

> "You either see it or you don't. If you don't, that's cool, enjoy your > Nexus.

That doesn't happen with a Mercedes and Honda. Not noticing a difference and not wanting to pay for the difference are totally different things.

<comment><USER12> _"Everyone can notice it, even if they aren't experts on cars or design."_ I'm not so sure about that. I think Siegler's point was that he believes there's a select portion of society that can appreciate the difference between the Mercedes and Honda. That's why Topolsky interprets it(correctly IMO) as a class thing.

<comment><USER13> Maybe I'm off, but I think Topolsky interprets it as a class thing because Mercedes are expensive and many people can't afford them.

Do you think your average Honda owner would upgrade to a Mercedes if the money was the same? I do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _tl;dr_ : Gruber is too smart to pull shit like this, which makes his pundit- like editorializing even more disappointing.

Gruber recently addressed criticisms about his lack of "objectivity" on The Talk Show [0]. He substituted the word "fair" for "objective," then demolished a straw man where people want "$FAIR coverage" from him, where $FAIR = "don't pick on the short kid."

Here's the problem: "objective" doesn't mean "fair." Like Dictionary.com, [1] I use "objective" as in "report the whole story, and stop spinning everything to accommodate your world view." This is what Fox News does, and I've started noticing that Gruber does the same thing.

Consider that his "linked list" articles take two forms: positive links on Apple performance [2], or negative links on Apple's competitors with snarky commentary [3]. Take the Galaxy Nexus: if someone wants one, they just don't get it! [4]

Or...they're like my brother, a graphic designer who wants to do more with his phone. Or they're a coder like me, worried about a future where closed systems dominate. Or they're like my friend, who hates the elitist Apple attitude--the one where people who don't buy Apple products "just don't get it." Or they want a cheap feature phone, and don't have the $99 for a iPhone 4 right now.

Gruber is too smart to make generalizations like this. Hell, he likes David Foster Wallace -- whose books aren't exactly high-school reading -- and posted this a few weeks ago:

 _That's why Wallace's work serves as a beacon, a yardstick, for my own._

As incisive as his writing could be, DFW almost always eschewed cynicism in favor of humanism and emotional sincerity. In a way, Gruber's recent stuff provides the _opposite_ : an unyielding pro-Apple view, a scoop of cynicism and disdain for Apple's competitors, and a black-or-white view of the mobile scene that doesn't reflect reality.

Seeing this from someone as smart as Gruber is really a disappointment.

[0] <http://5by5.tv/talkshow/71>

[1] <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective>

[2] <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/13/nielsen>

[3] [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/05/verizon- google-w...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/05/verizon-google- wallet)

[4] <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/14/siegler>

<comment><USER15> tl;dr - gruber knows exactly what he is doing, which is generating page views. the market for information is greatly surpassed by the market for confirmation

clearly he is a reasonably intelligent guy who puts a lot of thought into his writing. whether or not he really believes everything he posts, i don't know and don't care.

the thing is these type of posts serve a very specific purpose: to activate the apple fan's and generate page clicks.

we live in a world where the way to drive traffic in the tech blogosphere is to post rumors, and predictions about apple (and to some extent, other big tech cos). readers then seek out stories that confirm their pre-existing views --the market for information is greatly surpassed by the market for confirmation (see: fox news). and this works both ways, i imagine that gruber/seigler are getting lots of page views from people are angered by the whole apple fanboy thing, and want to have the satisfying feeling of knowing that gruber/seigler are just two more unthinking fanboys.

<comment><USER14> I had a bit about the irony of Gruber quoting PG's "Trolling" essay, but took it out. It really seems like Gruber trolls for views and ad money at this point.

<comment><USER16> He doesn't get my ad money, I stopped clicking any link to daringfireball a long time ago....

<comment><USER17> I don't think you'll missing anything. I just go there when I like to read a bit of the holier-than-thou attitude of Apple fanboys. Reminds me of the earlier Ruby / Git attitude which has, fortunately stopped. I couldn't stand these weenies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> MG's point is completely valid. The world is divided into two groups: those for whom the little details like UI responsiveness are supremely important, and those who don't notice it or don't care so much.

I'd also note that gadget sites like The Verge are incentivised to make Android _seem_ interesting and competitive, even when it doesn't live up, because their business model is based on churning out large numbers of announcements and reviews. If they acknowledge that the devices are second- rate then why would their readers care to click their pages?

<comment><USER19> Josh's problem is with the way MG put it. He framed it as "Mercedes vs Honda". There's a strong, implicit class implication there.

If you took price out of the equation and just looked at the two products, the comparison may be apt, but Josh is staring the price matter in the face and calling foul. I can't say I blame him. I drive a luxury brand car, but I cringe a little bit when people ask me what I drive because I'm concious of the fact that people associate brand, value, and quality.

A better analogy might have been artwork. Some people will look at the Mona Lisa and see a painting of a plain woman. Others look at it and see one of the greatest paintings ever created. But like Josh points out, the world is not black & white. Some will see the quality of the Mona Lisa, but will not care. They may like other styles better. They may prefer work from an entirely generation.

Josh is opposed creating class warfare out of device functionality. In my view, MG's assessment of iOS as "more polished" is true, and I happen to place a high value on that polish, but I understand that I trade other aspects of the device in order to obtain that polish. Others won't make that same choice. Others won't see the polish at all. That doesn't make those people better or worse than me. It only makes them different.

<comment><USER20> "Josh's problem is with the way MG put it. He framed it as "Mercedes vs Honda". There's a strong, implicit class implication there."

Except that you can get a cheap used Mercedes for less than a new Honda, if you can't afford a new Benz and value the workmanship (or brand) enough to take the risk. And Honda made the NSX. There are Acura models priced in the same ballpark as lower-end new Mercedes.

Honda had a Formula 1 racing team until 2008. It was sold off, and was eventually bought by Mercedes Benz.

So the 'class' question is muddled, to say the least. Unless you think the NSX is the car of the proletariat and a 1990 Mercedes with 100,000 miles is the vehicle of the 1%.

<comment><USER21> I'm not sure if you're being humorous but if not then this over-analysis of the analogy doesn't really serve any useful purpose.

For all intents and purposes Mercedes=quality+luxury while Honda=cheapy+functional and this was the primary meaning behind the analogy utilized in Siegler's article.

<comment><USER20> I'd say Honda = affordable and dependable, not especially luxurious or loaded with features, but not necessarily cheap either. There are Honda models that start near $30k, and other models that start around $20k but have configurations over $30k.

I'd think Kia or Hyundai would would be seen as the "cheap" brand.

And the Honda company certainly doesn't shy away from serving the luxury market with their Acura brand.

In any case, the comparison of Mercedes vs. Honda was about fit and finish and creature comforts, not price. It works just as well when comparing a loaded, well-kept $9000 used Mercedes to a brand-new $15,000 Civic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I read the cited quote, "Unfortunately, the system still lacks much of the fine polish that iOS users enjoy. The majority of Android users will probably think such criticism is bullshit, but that has always been the case. I imagine it's probably hard for a Mercedes owner to describe to a Honda owner how attention to detail makes their driving experience better when both machines get them from point A to point B. As a Honda owner myself, I'm not sure I would buy it — I'd have to experience it to understand it, I imagine. And most Android lovers are not going to spend enough time with iOS to fully appreciate the differences."

And realized it sounded best when read with the Comic Book Guy voice, and anything that sounds appropriate with that voice _is_ a bit snooty.

<comment><USER23> I'm going back and re-reading some of the rest of the DF blog with that voiceover... brilliant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> _"You either see it or you don't."_ was surprisingly bad, even by Gruber's standards. It's not an argument. It's dismissive and incredibly conceited. What does he even mean when he says that? I honestly don't think he knew while writing it, and I doubt he can rationalize it.

It's actually a great opportunity to expose Gruber's arrogance.

<comment><USER24> Of course Gruber is dismissive; he's always dismissive. (Yet I read him every day.) He thinks he's objective because he criticizes both Apple and Google's missteps; he's wrong because he smartly and analytically criticizes Apple, while he sticks his tongue out at Google.

John Gruber will be a great blogger when he grows up.

<comment><USER25> I've been reading the guy since about 2004 I think and I feel he's become more combative and biased over the past few years. Or maybe he just wasn't very motivated to go after the opposition when it was Microsoft. From what I understand of the guy I guess he might have felt that pointing out Ms's many missteps a few years ago was like shooting fish in a barrel, why take them seriously, hell the vibe I get from him nowadays regarding Microsoft is one of encouragement.

Still, the guy is damn insightful, you can't take that away from him. If you wish to understand Apple you have to read him, which is why I still do, despite his flaws.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "For starters, it assumes a childish, simplistic, and pedantic worldview: expensive things or those that are ascribed more value by a segment of the population are inherently "better" than other things. Obviously everyone wants and needs the more expensive thing if they have an opportunity to get it. The Mercedes really is better than the Honda."

Hold your horses - isn't the Galaxy Nexus the same price as the 32GB iPhone 4S? How does the expensive argument come into play here?

<comment><USER12> I mentioned this in a reply to another post, but I think Siegler's point was that he believes there's a select portion of society that can appreciate the difference between the Mercedes and Honda (price aside). That's why Topolsky interprets it(correctly IMO) as a class thing. The riff raff according to Seigler and Gruber _'don't get it'_ < insert snooty tone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm routinely offended by things MG Siegler says about Android but I actually found his article refreshingly open about his biases (not that he ever really hides them). In this piece he's at least very open that he's talking about perception and the war over "tangible" issues is pretty much over (in that both platforms are sufficiently good).

My main problem is that just as the intangibles matter on the iOS side they also matter on the Android side, but the Android ones don't seem to get any merit. The fact that I'm free to use my device how I want, write an app for a friend, give it to them for their birthday, share it by email. The fact that the Android ecosystem lets _me_ choose the kind of device I want, how much I want to pay for it, how it should look and feel and behave. Those things are in many ways intangible because many of them are just potential things that I don't actually do but the ability to do them is important to me. So sure, "you either see it or you don't" is a fine statement, but it goes both ways: you either value your freedom or you don't.

<comment><USER18> That response repeats the party line about Android being "open", but part of the narrative that MG and Gruber keep pointing out is that it's just not true. The carriers lock things down and fill your phone up with unwanted junk far more than Apple does.

"Open" means open for the carriers to do what they want, not for you to do what you want.

<comment><USER27> > The carriers lock things down

I don't believe there are any carriers any more that stop the user installing from non-market sources. Many offer ways to unlock the boot loader so you can completely control the device. You can always buy a Nexus device. These are all forms of openness (although I would tend to call it "freedom" since that more accurately describes it).

> it's just not true

As I point out above, it's very true. What I think iOS advocates point out is that it's not practical: no regular consumer uses these things in practice (although the Amazon Appstore might be an example). What matters in practice is how the device comes out of the box because 99% of people just use it like that. I acknowledge this, which is why I say it's an intangible feature of Android. You only value it and benefit from it indirectly. I guess my only point is, if the Sieglers and Gruber's of the world want to claim intangible things as assets for iOS then they should be acknowledged for Android too.

<comment><USER28> Even if 99% of consumers use Android devices just as they come out of the box, the existence of escape hatches is still an important check against carriers, manufacturers and even Google.

For instance, nothing like Apple's in-app purchase crackdown could have happened on Android. The big players (Amazon, B&N, Netflix, Hulu, ...) would have just taken their apps out of the Android Market, clearly communicated to their customers where the apps were now and moved on.

Similarly, as I understand it, it was the Android hacking / ROM development community that discovered Carrier IQ in the first place, specifically because they are taking apart the software on their phones and trying to understand every bit of it. Personally, I find the contrast with the iOS jailbreaking community quite instructive. Once they knew there was something to look for, they found the Carrier IQ traces in iOS quickly enough. Nevertheless, without the initial pointer, they didn't notice anything..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think Topolsky's analysis of MG Siegler's and Gruber's comments are absurd. Sure, I don't know exactly what they were thinking when they wrote what they wrote, but it's hard to imagine that Siegler and Gruber would implicitly or explicitly make it about class.

I saw a special the other day on CNBC called BMW: A Driving Obsession and it really opened my eyes as to the incredible attention to detail that a car maker like BMW has when building a car. Just check out how much effort they spend just on getting the little sounds the car makes just right at 16:00 and 20:55 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OPSCh3Ys_B8) If that's how much time they spend on just the sounds, it's not difficult to imagine how much effort they put into everything else. Heck, at 29:03 one of the BMW designers even says they use Apple products as inspiration.

Now, if you agree that iOS is that much more polished than Android, I think this is a pretty accurate metaphor and any class distinction Topolsky inferred from Siegler's Gruber's comments are of his own creation. I doubt Gruber and Siegler would ever admit to it even if it were the case so I guess we'll never know.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is Hacker News. Can we please eschew blog posts like these? Yes, it gets the blood boiling in a satisfying manner. But it is also shallow, plays on predispositions, and always -- always -- leads to more heat than light.

<comment><USER31> OMG, THIS IS HACKER NEWS!!!111

What I've actually grown to hate about Hacker News over the years is this particular "holier-than-thou" attitude like yours. It just seems like there are so many people on here that are offended by the slightest amount of conflict or controversy that they'd be much better-off living in a plastic bubble than in the real world.

<comment><USER32> I'd argue we're fine with controversy and conflict where it's warranted, but phone wars are easy to get into and are about as interesting and useful as arguing about game consoles.

<comment><USER33> It's a fine tradition it seems... Atari vs Commodore, Amiga vs PC, Sega vs Gameboy, Mac vs PC, PS vs Saturn, Dreamcast vs PS2, and so on... These days it's iOS vs Android.

In some bizarre way, if these are the "controversies" we're having, then we're doing quite well in general ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The fact that MG chose a Mercedes and not, say, a stretch Hummer, is important -- a Mercedes is (mostly) expensive because it's made with care and precision, not because it's an abstract status symbol.

<comment><USER35> I think its more to do with the fact that he is trying to convince himself he paid as much as he did because it was for quality. As in, the same reason people call them smart phones, because who in their right mind thinks paying that much to own and use a phone is intelligent...

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> On a related note, I was rather disappointed by the second episode of _On The Verge_. Bringing an Apple sycophant like Gruber on the show doesn't seem to have any practical value, as far as I can tell. From the production values, it's clear that they put a lot of effort into putting together a professional, cable-quality program. Kind of sad to see all that work go to waste.

<comment><USER18> "Practical value"? How does any of this stuff have any "practical value"? Gruber has one of the most popular tech-related sites on the internet, and a huge readership that overlaps with The Verge's. Seems relevant to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm sorry, but Joshua Topolsky is turning this into class warfare on his own. I can understand how one might make the jump to class warfare when comparing a Honda and Mercedes in a different context, but in this case the reviewer was talking about the quality and attention to detail put into the car (which of course means it costs more, they put more time and effort into creating it).

When I read MG's statement out loud, it made perfect sense to me. When I read Topolsky's immediate jump to class warfare, my gut reaction was that HE was the one who sounded absurd and should be embarrassed.

I do not disagree that Gruber and MG are most definitely flying Apple flags, but I think this article is a complete overreaction.

</comment><comment><USER38> I like tech and I really don't care who it comes from. I love Windows 7 but routinely use Ubuntu in a VM. I think the Mac Air and the IPad are some of the most revolutionary products in my lifetime. C# is my favorite language but always find myself using Python first. I like to read a lot of tech reviews and I understand that each reviewer has their own set of biases. I used to find myself getting upset with commentary from MG & Gruber. Even Scoble for that matter. And yes honestly, their style of writing came off to me as almost a bit classist some of the time.

Now, I just don't care. I realize that I was getting upset by their writing because they are such good writers. Its the same way that the democrats get mad at Rush Limbaugh. You may know that he said something wrong and on the border of crackpot but he is just so damn good at doing it. If someone else said it, you would write them off as a lunatic. His style is partly meant to convince but it is also partly meant to incite as well.

So yes, MG and Gruber are bias and when it comes to tech reviews I just don't trust them. Whether it is pro Apple or anti another product. And in the case of Scoble, his silicon valley tunnel vision turns me off. But I will still read their articles because they are good at what they do. And if I start to get a "WTF?!" moment then I will just calm down and realize that it is part of the entertainment package that comes along with reading them.

P.S. If you're a sports fan, Grubers sports tweets are way more maddening than his Apple lust.

</comment><comment><USER39> People like to put their mouth where their money is more than they like to put their money where their mouth is. Tech partisanship is largely because of this -- if you dropped a serious chuck of both your time and money on a product, and there's a competing product, you want to defend your critical thinking skills by asserting that the product you bought is better than the other. The more insecure about it you are, the harder you defend.

Also, if you're in the media, it always pays to stir the pot. Always.

</comment><comment><USER40> tl;dr: Believes poor attention to detail is imagined, doesn't properly set HTML list. That's the poor attention to detail we're talking about.

Which sounds snarky, but if you are going to be a blogger publishing on the web and want other people to take the time to read your stuff, to not properly use (or understand?) the basic building blocks of your craft is disrespectful to your audience.

</comment><comment><USER41> I could understand where this guy was coming from better if this article had a less condescending tone. Instead this just sounds like he's whining that MG and Gruber are Apple hipsters that think they're better than everyone who owns a non-Apple device. He then proceeds to evoke "class warfare" without about as much relevance to the actual subject matter as Fox News.

</comment><comment><USER42> On one side, apple evil, on the other side google evil. No wonder people are getting so worked up when they choose sides.

<comment><USER18> Or, more reasonably:

One one side, apple not evil but a capitalist corporation, on the other side, google not evil but a capitalist corporation.

I can't think of a good argument why either company is "evil".

<comment><USER21> Some would argue that 'capitalist corporation'='evil'. Having the same rights as an individual (and in some cases more) corporations often exhibit traits that, if observed in an individual, would result in that individual being diagnosed as a psychopath. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film)>

<comment><USER18> "Evil" isn't really a useful term, it can be taken too many different ways. How exactly would you define "evil"? And how does that definition relate to capitalist corporations?

<comment><USER42> <http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22evil%22>

<comment><USER18> How does that answer my question? I know how to type something in Google, but that doesn't narrow down the definition being discussed here.

<comment><USER43> I've decided to start flagging posts that merely link to LMGTFY. Even on /b/ that would be considered stupid.

<comment><USER42> It's my last line of defense when someone brings out the quotes and asks me to define good and evil. It doesn't take that much imagination to at least understand the idea that some people consider some huge corporations evil.

<comment><USER43> I hear people say "evil corproation" a lot, but I'm not quite sure what they mean. Do they mean, "don't care about individual customers, because there is no economic value"? Do they mean, "break into people's houses at night and wreck up the place"? Do they mean, "release an open-source phone software stack"?

Just because people parrot the same line again and again doesn't mean it makes sense.

<comment><USER42> I take it to mean that the one expressing that sentiment doesn't have the same interests as the corporation mentioned in a shared matter, like open/closed platforms, like freedom (maybe wanna rip that DVD you own so you can view it on the iPad because it's even not available for iPad), or maybe you don't want to be tracked by facebook and googles supercookies (via like buttons and, google adsense/analytics).

Another thing would be removing all crapware that comes with a new windows computer, or having to buy a "clean" windows just to get rid of that. Another big evil is Microsofts requirement that all netbooks can have max 2G of ram. That's clearly not in anybody elses interest but Microsoft.

Interests are not aligned. Annoyment ensured.

Then there are _real_ evils of course, like using slave or child labour, destroying the environment and funding wars by using natural resources like Coltan.

[http://www.earthworksaction.org/earthblog/detail/banned_by_a...](http://www.earthworksaction.org/earthblog/detail/banned_by_apple_new_iphone_app_exposing_the_dark_side_of_electronics)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> There's no "class warfare" here Josh.

The only people that read either of your words are just us nerds of a feather fretting over which miracle of technology is more perfectly refined.

So give us all a break.

But I clicked dammit, and that means you got paid, and get positive reinforcement to engineer more drama.

</comment><comment><USER45> Joshua, dude -- relax.

It's MG and Gruber. Nobody (and I mean nobody) who values straight commentary listens to these guys.

Of course they're Apple shills. It's what got them notoriety and made their reputation. They're not going to turn on the hand that feeds them.

</comment><comment><USER46> To sum it up:

[http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/08/21/the-illusion-of- asymm...](http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/08/21/the-illusion-of-asymmetric- insight/)

<comment> buff-a Ha! All those people who don't understand this are ignorant fools!

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm all for opinionated content and debating on topics, but this essentially boils down to a nerdy slap fight over fucking _cell phones_. Class warfare, eh?

</comment><comment><USER18> MG responds... <http://parislemon.com/post/14286785030/horseshit>

</comment><comment><USER48> When Gruber says, "You either see it or you don't,"he means, "If this is important to you, you will notice and value it," not, "If you don't see this, you are an unsophisticated yokel who should stick to pay-phones." JT hears Gruber with a tone of dismissiveness that just isn't there.

<comment><USER43> Gruber has spent his whole life writing articles with the tone of your second interpretation. Why did he suddenly change styles today?

<comment><USER48> Seriously, "his whole life"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> wow, who cares.

<comment><USER50> exactly

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> National Enquirer, meet Hacker News.

<comment><USER52> Truly. The saddest thing about these posts is that some segment of the HN population thinks they are worth reading.

<comment><USER18> And yet you not only clicked on the post, you read at least some of the comments and contributed yourself. Hmm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Details do matter. On this we can all agree. So why is this quote so hard to understand?

Oh, it was said by people you don't agree with, on a polarized topic, and responded to with class. Shades of gray indeed.</comment>


Lisp: a cult I almost joined (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://fluff.info/blog/arch/00000127.htm <comment><USER2> Lisp(and specifically common lisp) is one of the top languages people who don't know it like to criticize. That wouldn't be a bad thing if the criticism was any good. Every time i see a blog post about some "problem" with lisp the chances that it has something valuable to say are low. And calling a language community a cult is beyond offensive.

<comment><USER3> I want to both upvote you (`` the chances that it has something valuable to say are low'') and downvote (``is beyond offensive'') at the same time.

See, his arguments about Lisp community being a cult stand. Yours are purely emotional.

Now we could agree that there is a very good reason to be cultic about Lisp -- it _is_ the best thing since the sliced bread etc. etc. and people should _just_ use it -- but that's another matter.

In a way, he pre-empted your reaction with ``If such jokes reliably meet with stifling social disapproval, it's a cult.'' ;-)

<comment><AUTHOR> I absolutely love Lisp, but I'm not in the least bit offended at someone describing some aspects of the culture as cultish.

But the thing is.. the very same thing could be said of most other language enthusiasts.

Look at all the endless hype from Python and Ruby fans (especially when they compare their favorite language to Perl).

Or look at some OCaml or Haskell fanboys and their attitude that static typing is The True Way and only ignorant savages would prefer a dynamically typed language.

And this doesn't even touch on the vi vs Emacs holy wars.

There's plenty of fanboyishness, exclusivity, and and chastisement of outsiders in many computer fields. And I dare say it's not really limited to computers either. I'm not sure if "cultish" is really the most appropriate term, but I feel no offense at it.

The whole discussion reminds me of these images:

<http://www.deimeke.net/dirk/blog/uploads/G7WyP.gif>

[http://www.rubyinside.com/holiday-fun-how-programming- langua...](http://www.rubyinside.com/holiday-fun-how-programming-language- fanboys-see-each-others-languages-2911.html)

<comment><USER4> don't get me wrong, i like lisp a lot. but i think lisp has a bad image because many lispers (not all) are nitpickers. lisper think they are cool, but they are not. they don't let anything new in their language. they stick to s-expressions like they are the holy grail. they stick to the funny function names as if they were given by god. they are the most conservative language community (maybe apart from COBOL). look at all the disregard they had for arc. this could have been a beginning to dust off the fossil language and remove all the warts. but they did not like it. instead lisp is still the language that it was 50 years ago. <\rant>

<comment><USER3> _> instead lisp is still the language that it was 50 years ago._

I beg you to differ. The original, McCarthy Lisp was a succinct, powerful, flexible, dynamic language based on a small set of axioms.

Through times, a lot has been thrown out for sake of performance (which was understood to require compilation). Um, well, in case of Lisp, it means a lot of cruft has been _added_ (some say, bolted onto) -- the simplicity etc.etc. was lost. Those days functions aren't even lists anymore, and scoping is _lexical_!

With a few notable exceptions. Which are either hold-outs, or back-to-the- roots/back-to-what-worked-better efforts.

Arc is closer to the original Lisp. Also, is more pleasing to use. Not a coincidence.

<comment><USER2> People keep saying that but i don't get it. Can you give me an example of the cruft you are talking about? Its one of those other myths i keep hearing about our cult.

p.s. Arc is more pleasing to use to you, I would certainly not choose it over common lisp or clojure, but maybe over scheme.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _"And lisp modules? Well, every part of the code can modify every other part. You can write a whole new grammar if you're so inclined. None of this helps with the goal of downloading a random package and easily calling whatever you want from it with minimal hassle."_

This is bullshit. Python can also modify it's own code at runtime and yet it's one of the most package-complete languages. But it has a single defining implementation, so if you write your package, then every Python user will be able to use it.

Have a look at Clojure and the rate it's gaining new libraries. Lisp features don't seem to hinder that. A single implementation (and what follows - non- fragmented community) helps it greatly.

<comment><USER6> I suspect you're misunderstanding the logic of his point. He's saying that fancy feature X (runtime-modifiable everything) doesn't help with necessary feature Y (simple package management), and _not_ that X prevents Y.

Clojure and certain Scheme implementations prove that X and Y are compatible, but most CLs have atrocious package management when compared with Python, Ruby or even Java. Lisp's extreme flexibility doesn't remedy that at all.

<comment><USER7> > Lisp's extreme flexibility doesn't remedy that at all.

Why would it? I'm not sure I understand the argument.

And also, just for an example: In my experience, Clojure's package management beats Rubygems for purposes of a project. You specify your dependencies and their versions (including the Clojure language itself) and a script updates them from the whatever repos you specify. It's taken the Ruby ecosystem some time to come up with RVM and Bundler which accomplish the same things. These kinds of things (package management) are available for Lisp languages today.

Of course CL only recently got <http://www.quicklisp.org/> which seems to make some strides in this area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _When I was in Morocco, several different people told me that Neil Armstrong converted to Islam after seeing the Earth, and that Cat Stevens converted. At first, this was OK, but soon, after the third person or so mentioned this pair, I got to wondering, maybe they're the only ones._

Neil Armstrong did not convert to Islam; that's a fabrication.

Cite: Wikipedia makes no mention of this, and Google search reveals many people claiming it's a commonly-believed fabrication.

<comment><USER9> Wow, it's interesting how they haven't given up on Cat Stevens over the years. I guess they don't realize that the average youth these days doesn't even know Cat Stevens, let alone give a crap about him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Come on, there are lots of self-deprecating Lisp jokes, my favourite being:

An elite hacker broke into a government system and found the code of a secret NASA project. He tried to download it, but the sysadmins noticed the intrusion and eventually cut the hacker off. He only managed to get the last 40 kB of the source file and unfortunately, because the project was written in Lisp, it contained nothing but closing parens.

<comment><USER11> That makes no sense. Who downloads files from the end up?!

<comment><USER10> Elite hackers from jokes?

<comment><USER11> Suspension of disbelief ruined!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Read the comment by Dan Weinreb. It is much more insightful than the article itself.

<comment><USER13> It's good, but the list of "success stories" that he links is not very impressive (scheduling software for NASA is by far the coolest stuff). Python has <http://www.python.org/about/success/>; Ruby has e.g. (early) Twitter and Metasploit; PHP has e.g. Facebook and a crushing market share; C has a zillion stories starting with the free Unixes. Yes, these languages have their issues. No, scheduling software does not beat Unix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The article is based on an entirely false assumption about the nature of lisp culture:

"So, I can't find any self-poking jokes about lisp. Self-deprecating Unix jokes, no problem. Jokes about frigging text editors, hilarious. But lisp has nothing but theological proselytizing."

Richard Gabriel's "The Rise of 'Worse is Better,'"[1] while written from the perspective of a lisp lover, informs the "Why is lisp a failure?" question. Mark Tarver's "The Bipolar Lisp Programmer"[2] is another essay the ruminates on the failures of lisp. And of course there's the recently-posted-on-HN "How I lost my faith"[3].

I'm struck by how personally lispers take the weaknesses of lisp. In part because I feel the same way, which isn't surprising given that I'm a lisper—bicycles saved my body, Scheme saved my soul—and have a problem with taking failure very personally.

In conclusion, I don't think the author knows what he's talking about.

[1]: <http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html>

[2]: <http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/bipolar.htm>

[3]: [http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6f75cfb5a2...](http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6f75cfb5a289d3f6)

</comment><comment><USER15> As a member of this cult with absolutely no sense of humor, I would like to mention that we drink very delicious Kool-Aid, and we are allowed to wear two different colors of sneakers. And after the comet we will join as a spaceship lands, I have been promised a cushy job at our destination. (secret-lisp-cult- message <COMPILED-LEXICAL-OBJECT PUBLIC-KEY>)

</comment><comment><USER16> Very strange that he describes the MIT approach as "good" and the New Jersey approach as "not good enough" -- I have always understood them as "good" and "good enough". As in: why didn't we succeed? Because good enough was good enough.

Based on this misconception he draws the conclusion that the Lisp folks think the C/Unix approach is "evil", which is just silly. Maybe this is why he thinks it's a cult.

</comment><comment><USER17> Surely this proves Lisp is a cult: <http://pics.livejournal.com/codedot/pic/0002t3b1>

</comment><comment><USER3> gnosis: could you please break the usual `no editorializing the title' rule for once?

I believe it's interesting and informative and deserves more than a cursory pass, but without `Lisp' in the title, it's hard to spot.

<comment><AUTHOR> I considered adding Lisp in to the title, but wasn't quite sure how to phrase it.

      "A Lisp cult I almost joined" ?
      "A cult I almost joined [Lisp]" ?

Also, there's something to be said for keeping the title as is, as it's a bit more mysterious.. and may pique the reader's interest to find out what the cult is. Putting "Lisp" in the title kind of spoils the surprise.

<comment><USER18> Lisp: a cult I almost joined (2005)

<comment><AUTHOR> Alright. I like this phrasing. It is less mysterious.. but at least those interested in Lisp can find it.

You know, I was just thinking.. this is yet another reason for HN to allow tags. As with tags the title could remain untouched and we'd still be able to categorize it as a Lisp-themed article, and even that it came from 2005.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Uh oh, he's onto us with that part about the desire to make things easy. We'd better post a bunch more essays about how Lisp is a language for geniuses only. He hasn't caught on about macros yet, but its only a matter of time before he starts looking at his own code and thinking beyond the limits of what functions can do to help you not repeat yourself. And then the jig is up.</comment>


PCMag's Original Interview With Bill Gates From 1981 - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389282,00.asp

<comment><USER2> What a great interview. Say what you will about Microsoft, Bill Gates is a smart, smart man.

There are so many great quotes in there. Considering the time the interview took place, he did a great job of anticipating what was coming:

      * transition of interesting jobs from hardware -> software
      * user experience becoming more important than performance
      * the importance of networking

Well worth the read.

I was about 2 months old when DOS came out. Can't imagine where I'd be without the PC revolution.

<comment><USER3> > Can't imagine where I'd be without the PC revolution.

Probably it wouldn't be much different. The revolution would have happened anyway, but with Apple, Atari, Amiga or someone else.

And perhaps multitasking GUI OSes would be mainstream 5-10 years earlier ;)

<comment><USER4> BUT, a big thing in favor of MS is that DOS/Windows didn't sit on proprietary HW. Apple/Atari/Commodore were all proprietary systems. I'm not sure if we would have seen the rapid rise of video cards in any of those systems.

Hindsight is 20/20, but all things considered I think the tech world is in a pretty good place today.

<comment><USER3> IBM PC was proprietary as well. "IBM PC-compatible" clones with reverse- engineered BIOS were made _despite_ IBM, not thanks to them.

<comment><USER4> But the OS was licensed to IBM. MS could sell it to any HW vendor. The HW, with respect to the OS, wasn't proprietary. The MacOS wasn't simply licensed to run on Macs, it was built by Apple to only run on Macs. Despite some toe dips, there never any attempt to really license it.

The _mistake_ IBM made wasn't the HW. It was that they let MS license them the OS on a non-exclusive basis. A genius move when you consider it -- most people would have had little belief there'd be a huge MS-DOS market once IBM entered the fold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting! The single page view is at [http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=278114,00.asp?h...](http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=278114,00.asp?hidPrint=true)

<comment><USER6> Fun read - I especially liked the last statement of the interview:

>> Software is a great combination between artistry and engineering. When you finally get done and get to appreciate what you have done it is like a part of yourself that you've put together. I think a lot of the people here feel that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "But, I'll just mention two things that are critical in Multiplan.

The first is the use of naming. You are not put into a mode where you have to use "A10," "B9," "C14," and things like that, which you have to do with VisiCalc. If you want to say that taxes are 6% of sales then you say "taxes are .06 times sales." If you want the sum of all the profits you say "SUM (Profit)" and so we deal with data on a name basis which is the way people are used to dealing with it."

Am I the only one that would love to see this impleneted in spreadsheet software today?

<comment><USER8> It is there in Excel and Google Docs already :)

<comment><USER7> Guh. Right you are: named ranges (<http://www.contextures.com/xlnames01.html>).

I learned about this feature years and years ago and never used it. Maybe it wouldn't actually be all that helpful afterall. If only I could downvote myself.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: First Startup Launch Checklist? - <AUTHOR>

Launching my community based startup in a couple weeks. It's a rails app. I'm a frontend dev and found a great guy on HN to help with the backend. Figured instead of trying to perfect it, I should launch and go from there. Any tips for me? Feeling anxious about it, but I'm prepared to fail or succeed. <comment><USER2> Analytics. The most valuable thing that can come out of an early launch is insight as to what works and what doesn't. Where are users losing interest and not engaging?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Do you think Google Analytics would suffice or should I use additional sources?</comment></comment>


Name.com Tells Customers To Change Password Due To Breach - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedomains.com/2013/05/08/name-com-tells-customers-to-change-password-due-to-breach/

<comment><USER2> Well, name.com seems to be taking this in good humor on Twitter:

"@HackThePlanet Can you just send a postcard next time?" <https://twitter.com/namedotcom/status/332304801050271744>

"@xDictate Yes. It's been a huge pain in the ass, yet it's hard not to appreciate great technical savvy." <https://twitter.com/namedotcom/status/332308994255384577>

Regarding elephants: "@BobSnooks Even though it feels like we're getting trampled by them, we still won't shoot." <https://twitter.com/namedotcom/status/332232278078001153>

Hopefully this is an indication they'll be willing to release full details of the incident. In contrast, Linode seems to take their image _way_ too seriously and refuses to say anything that might make them look bad. (Of course, _not_ saying anything makes them look worse, but they don't seem to realize that.)

</comment><comment><USER3> For anyone who wasn't following HN yesterday:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5667027>

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5667391>

<comment><USER4> i changed my password yesterday when i saw that. took name.com quite a while to contact us...

<comment><USER5> I find it interesting that one HN story can lead a huge corporation to take such drastic action. We don't even know if any of that is true!

<comment><USER6> Name.com seems to think it's true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Notice they said "encrypted" passwords not (salted password hashes) passwords.

I don't trust "encrypted" password because my experience with Host Gator: I contacted Host Gator support to reset my password and they were able to send me my previous PLAINTEXT password. I asked them how this was possible and they told me that the passwords were encrypted and only a few people had access to it.

People who also have access to it: Anyone who can see the Host Gator email que and the mail-servers the email passed through.

I promptly closed my account with them.

<comment><USER8> Encrypted is not the same as hashed. An encrypted password could be secure as long as the means to decrypt the password, for example the key used to encrypt, is not leaked. Sending you passwords over email however is horrible.

If your password is hashed, which it usually should be, then the service would not be able to give it to you. The reason services sometimes instead opt to encrypt instead of hash is for support reasons. Encrypting a password could be ok, as long as they never expose the password over something like email.

<comment><USER9> "The reason services sometimes instead opt to encrypt instead of hash is for support reasons."

I've seen _very_ few good reasons for encrypting passwords instead of hashing them - and that's certainly not one of them. Sure, "support" might need access credentials to my account - but it needs to be _their_ access credentials, not mine. Sure, you can build the infrastructure required to securely manage encrypted passwords and the decryption key storage - but you can almost certainly build an alternative system where support never need _my_ password instead.

<comment><USER10> I read "support reasons" as needing to send the customers their passwords in case they forget it. Resets are better, sure, so it's not a good reason, but at least it's an actual reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Name.com user here. This is the first time one of my registrars gets compromised and I'm not sure I understand the (potential) severity of what has happened.

What would HN suggest doing in a case like this (aside from changing passwords)? Just let it be? Monitor credit card? Change registrar?

Looking forward to your feedback.

<comment><USER3> I try not use credit card online while other choices are given. Name.com only has my paypal account name (if they save this kind of information).

However I still changed my credit card since it was in the Linode database.

I considered changing registrar. But I really can't know to which one I can go. How do you know they won't be (or already are) compromised?

<comment><USER12> At least in the US, having your card number stolen is such a small deal that it hardly seems worth worrying about. Just keep an eye on your statement, which you should really be doing anyway. You don't have to pay for charges you didn't authorize. In my experience, the card issuer typically detects the fraud automatically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The article implies this is the first time they've notified customers, so they've either been unaware (seems unlikely since the FBI had a mole in HTP, who have claimed responsibility) or just not disclosing it? Is that true? I can understand why people are annoyed at Linode and everything, but this seems ridiculous if it's the first time.

</comment><comment><USER14> It looks like they may have used RSA encryption with a 4096 bit key [1] and as far as I know, if the private key is not compromised; this is pretty darn secure...Can anyone confirm?

[1] - <https://twitter.com/namedotcom/status/332260201535266816>

<comment><USER12> HNer kouiskas suggests it is a weak, unsalted hash. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5677550>

<comment><USER15> That seems to be for the password, right? Credit cards should be encrypted with a much stronger algorithm (hence the reference to the private keys).

<comment><USER12> Oh, I guess so. I'd be much more concerned about my password than my credit card.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Well, that confirms at least part of the Linode story.

<comment><USER16> What exactly wasn't believable about it before? Linode confirmed that someone cracked into their system on their blog, which I consider as being confirmation enough for everything.

<comment><USER6> Linode confirmed they were cracked, but the HTP write-up in <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5667027> included a lot of additional details, much of it hard to confirm.

FBI moles, compromise of a fairly large registrar, etc.

<comment><USER16> I guess I just didn't see a reason for HTP to lie about it, especially with several smaller pieces out there confirming large portions of it.

I suppose I don't understand why it's necessary to know if HTP was being 100% honest when the big details have been confirmed.

<comment><USER6> This is the first confirmation I've seen of Name.com being hacked. That's a fairly significant sticking point, particularly as the known attack vector on Linode was a ColdFusion exploit, not a complete takeover of their registrar...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Oddly enough, as a name.com customer I kind of surprised that I found this out through HN first.

<comment><USER18> Did you not get the email? I'm a Name.com customer too and I didn't get this email.

<comment><USER19> I got the email an hour ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Name.com seems to be on the same path Go Daddy was 8 years ago (sans scantily clad women for marketing).

I wouldn't appreciate the "humor" (Twitter) around this event if I were a customer. My only hope is that if anything like this happens to Gandi that they handle it with, true to style, no-bullshit transparency - spare the crap.

</comment><comment><USER21> I made an account on name.com 5 days ago. Anybody know when the breach happened?

<comment><USER22> It was back in April, in association with an attack on Linode [1]. See this HN comment by RoboTeddy from yesterday for a great summary of the group's story about these attacks [2].

However, Name.com has not disclosed much information. I don't know if they were aware of the attack until the group released their story yesterday. The systems could have still been compromised.

[1] <https://blog.linode.com/2013/04/16/security-incident-update/>

[2] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5667391></comment></comment>


Boeing's 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers - <AUTHOR> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeings-737-max-software-outsourced-204657048.html <comment><USER2> More discussion here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20309052](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20309052)

</comment><comment><USER3> People in the industry would instantly recognize that there are many layers to a big system and some are less critical than others. There is no proof here that the contractor touched any critical flight system software.

But this is written for a general audience who are unable to tell the difference. The piece rides on the narrative that Boeing was careless, which may be true overall wrt 737MAX, but not necessarily in the aspect the article is premised on. Hence, clickbait.

<comment><USER4> These planes run over $50 million each, and even a misprogrammed galley oven could potentially bring down a plane in flight. Given that, would you be happy that they outsourced any engineering in this way?

<comment><USER5> Didn't SwissAir 111 crash because of faulty in-flight entertainment systems? I think there's precedent for lower-rung stuff having unexpected and outsized impact in aviation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The real kicker is that the software worked exactly as intended.

It wasn't the programmers' fault that the planes went down. It was the specs they were given that were bad.

<comment><USER7> Anyone that has ever worked with outsourced developers knows the truth of this.

If you give them a spec or requirements, they will do _exactly_ what that thing says. Even including the typos or grammatical errors.

I don't blame them. They have no incentive to care beyond this type of business transaction.

But applying this model to anything other than vaporware is terrifying.

<comment><USER8> > They have no incentive to care beyond this type of business transaction.

I don't know if it's even a matter of incentive. Even when we hire local developers from some particular cultures, it's not part of their culture to question "authority" or be independent thinkers. So, they too will do exactly what we ask because they trust us as the experts or think that we'll be displeased if they don't do precisely what we asked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Rabin, the former software engineer, recalled one manager saying at an all- hands meeting that Boeing didn't need senior engineers because its products were mature."

Doesn't exactly make me confident in flying in their planes...

</comment><comment><USER10> I remember reading an article about the MAX fiasco that stated something about how all software engineers working in aeronautics could be assumed to be senior and extremely capable. I wondered how they could be so sure, with companies like IBM kicking out seniors (in both senses of the term) to lower costs, the rise of "code schools," and the lure of outsourcing. Not surprised to read this at all.

At least in other industries cost-cutting just kills the business instead of killing actual human beings.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is pure scapegoating. The "9$/hour" engineers wrote code exactly like Boeing asked them to. In other words, it's a mistake in the requirements given by Boeing designers and not the cheap engineers who wrote the code.

</comment><comment><USER12> To all those who are criticizing 9 dollar per hour is actually top tier salary in india. It translates to 18 lakh rupees per year which adjusting according to PPP with respect to Cali or ny around 100k dollars.This is honestly confirmation bias for Americans who think outsourcing is bad . Which kind of is but don't think in this case.

</comment><comment><USER13> You know the old saying: I would never fly in a plane designed with software using floating point.

I think it needs an updating: I would never fly in a plane with software written by $9/hour coders.

<comment><USER14> Is that a saying? Lots of critical systems use floating point numbers.</comment></comment>


Twitter sees massive usage and some delays, but stays up for Obama's inauguration - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2009/01/20/twitter-sees-massive-usage-and-some-delays-but-stays-up-for-obamas-inauguration/ <comment><USER2> How notable is it really when a company has had over $20M in funding and they manage to keep their site online?</comment>


Ask HN: Advice for husband struggling with 2-career marriage? - <AUTHOR> I'm 40 and am a full-time software engineer.
My wife started working as a therapist, then found a career in sales and quickly moved up to a Director-level role leading a sales team. She's proud of her success and does a pretty good job juggling that and family life.
We have two young kids.
I realized I have an issue with my wife's job, feeling like it takes priority over our family. I feel I sacrifice small things regularly to allow her extra freedom for her job. I feel she budgets a disproportionate amount of energy and focus on her job, ignoring or putting off family-related duties or obligations that have a negative effect on the entire family.
When I think about my wife and her career, I'm proud of her success and I don't think I have any issue with her earning more than me or having a "better title." But I seem to have some issue with feeling less important than her job because I get annoyed when I feel that way. She tells me I'm unsupportive of her because I'm jealous of her success, but I just feel like I'm fighting for some respect for myself and I worry about a slippery slope of further sacrifice.
When we started dating, my side gigs got in the way of our dating lifestyle -- meaning it wasn't totally acceptable for me to spend hours on nights and weekends doing contract work. The income was not necessary, so I slowly let it fade away. It was never something I felt actively bitter about, but no doubt it was a sacrifice I made to have more time for her. It comes up now because when she needs extra support for her job, it's at my expense, and if I give her grief for that, I'm being unsupportive.
I'm realizing that what I'm dealing with might be a somewhat recent phenomenon, but also probably fairly common these days. I really do want my wife to be successful and happy, but I also don't want to be required to live with this feeling of sacrifice. I'm trying to figure out if my feelings are rational or irrational. <comment><USER2> Couples therapy.

There's no real good way to really address this over the internet.

You might end up shopping around a few different therapists as different relationships tend to IMO respond better to different therapists.

Don't worry about irrational or rational feelings, it is how you feel, that's ok. Same goes for her feelings.

</comment><comment><USER3> > I'm trying to figure out if my feelings are rational or irrational.

Your feelings are your feelings, rationality doesn't not come into play. Your emotions do no define you unless you have allowed them control over you actions. Processing and reconciling them with your identity is the only way to the other side.

> When we started dating, my side gigs got in the way of our dating lifestyle

You aren't dating your wife anymore. I have no idea how much time has passed, but your decision to take on less side work then, should have no bearing on how much time your wife dedicates to her career now.

> She tells me I'm unsupportive of her because I'm jealous of her success

If the words, 'You are jealous of my success' came out of her mouth, I would love to know what action or statement it was in response to. Are you supportive? Are there things that she wants from you that you are willing and able to do? Are there things you are not prepared to do? Discuss with her honestly about your needs and short comings; with no expectations except that she will hear you say the words.

> I just feel like I'm fighting for some respect for myself

Do you respect yourself? Long term relationships are work and can cause our identity to be deeply tied to another. Reconnecting and accepting yourself is difficult but is require for true lasting self respect. It cannot be found in anyone else.

> I really do want my wife to be successful and happy, but

Is your wife happy? Is she in pain, over worked, lonely? Camaraderie around a shared pain or difficulty can be reconciling.

> I also don't want to be required to live with this feeling of sacrifice.

You are married with children, sacrifice is the life you signed up for. It is the blood, sweat and tears of raising the next generation, this is life. That could be a bad choice for you personally, but realizing and coming to terms with the facts of your situation is the first step to finding out how to make it better.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

The comment about jealousy of her career was part of a recent spat that came about because I was annoyed at a situation related to her work travel. She was going to be away for just a day and a half, but then asked to take the morning before to exercise because she had been too busy at work the previous day and she uses exercise as her escape, so she "needs" it. In my mind, that is clearly saying, "my job was more important than exercise [OK, no problem], and now my exercise is more important than my family." On the surface, that's not a terrible statement, but then my mind says, "so that implies your job is more important than your family," which to me is not OK. Ultimately, it's not a big deal, she can go exercise in the morning, I can handle the kids and get them off to school, and me to work. But this situation really makes me angry about her priorities. As soon as I voice that, it's a fight and she actually turns it into an argument about feminism and says I'm trying to make a power play and keep her down. It's actually bizarre to me, to the point that I can't tell if I'm crazy because of the way she is reacting -- have I really said something to bring on a fight about feminism?

> Do you respect yourself?

That's a great question, and I always thought I did, but maybe not like I should. I'm healthy, I have a good job (by most standards, extremely good), but am I living up to my full potential? Probably not, and maybe that is disappointing.

> Is your wife happy?

Right now, I'd say definitely not. She is overworked, and outside of work she is going through a lot with a crazy family situation right now. She recently told me she cried twice in her office one day, but then refused to talk to me about it because "it's too stressful to talk about." That was another issue that made me feel like I'm on the outside and her job is on the inside.

> sacrifice is the life you signed up for

Yes, I know this. The thing I'm having a hard time coming to terms with is the disparate sacrifice between the two of us.

> realizing and coming to terms with the facts of your situation

I think this is the biggest thing I need to get out of this. It actually felt like a weight was immediately lifted when I was able to realize and vocalize this feeling that I might subconsciously be trying to sabotage her job because I see it as a higher priority in our relationship than me. I'm now wondering if I can embrace this role as the family catch-all that picks up responsibilities she's unable to share instead of feeling resentful about it. I'm hoping as long as I can recognize it as what it is, I'll be OK with it in the long run. But as I mentioned before, the thought of a slippery slope of sacrifice scares me. It's really not type of person I've ever been.

<comment><USER4> > Right now, I'd say definitely not. She is overworked, and outside of work > she is going through a lot with a crazy family situation right now. She > recently told me she cried twice in her office one day, but then refused to > talk to me about it because "it's too stressful to talk about." That was > another issue that made me feel like I'm on the outside and her job is on > the inside.

It looks like your wife is in a crisis now. It would only make sense for you to be supportive, by picking up a disproportionate part of chores or whatever, so that she can get her back on her feet. However, if this situation persists for a long time, I'd say you two should have a talk about her being in constant crisis mode (with stress, crying etc.) being bad for both of you, and what can you do to change it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good insight, thanks. I do notice some bouncing from crisis to crisis with her. Not that all of them are manufactured -- some are very real and unavoidable. However, she has a tendency to fall into the role of victim, where these things in her life happen to her, and she's just trying to survive. I would LOVE to figure out how to help her out of that mentality and take ownership of all aspects of her life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 1\. I strongly suggest therapists — one for your and one for you and your spouse. You may want someone more oriented towards coaching at the start. Note that a couples therapist is an advocate for the couple, while an individual therapist is for you. This will matter if your spouse might have some sort of trauma, personality disorder, etc.

2\. Your wife seems to be in a place where she is asking herself a lot of challenging questions. You seem to know this cognitively, but you don't seem to be accepting it emotionally. Given the situation you described in your post and some of the replies, I'm not surprised her behavior is erratic. That doesn't make it "right", but it does mean that one shouldn't really be surprised.

3\. Note that when she uses low blows like playing the feminist card (assuming that it's an exaggeration), thats a sign of desperation and confusion on her side. Simply put, if you really are against her success, she should just leave — I imagine that's not really what she wants.

4\. I'm not sure where you are located, but dual incomes with kids to me suggests that some of that extra income should go into help around the house. This can be via a nanny, a house cleaner, someone to drive the kids around, etc. The amount you choose to spend has a potentially wide range, but the utility can be undeniably helpful. In many families this is done by extended family members, but if you don't have that option, paying money works. I see lots of dual-income couples not near their families try to be superheroes and maintain a high-paced lifestyle all by themselves — that's insane.

Best of luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your insight, good things to think about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Don't discount your own feelings. They are real, and are forever with you. Whether you can come to terms with the situation or push for a compromise is something that you will have to answer for yourself. I think most healthy relationships are built on communication/understanding/compromise, so you should be able to express issues and needs and reach an equitable arrangement.

</comment><comment><USER7> Lots of great advice here already (especially #1 and #4 from @csa), so I'll only add two things:

1\. A good exercise for you and your wife: take turns expressing how you each feel and why you feel that way to one another. Then, take turns describing the other person's feelings and frustrations _back_ to each other. Sometimes the biggest source of frustration comes from feeling unheard. Doing this forces you to actually listen (vs. waiting for your turn to talk) and helps demonstrate that you're at least hearing and understanding where the other person is coming from.

2\. After talking to your wife, you may find out that there really is an unfair imbalance right now. If so, it's important to get a sense of whether this imbalance is short- or long-term. Most couples where both partners work take turns prioritizing each other's career. It sounds like you just need to find out if what's happening right now is forever or not, and maybe get a little more recognition from her for how much you're stepping up right now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, it's so easy to forget that we'll never understand each other without listening to each other.

Re: 2, I am beginning to embrace my role as it is now, and I feel so much better about it already. Whether it's short- or long-term, I can take pride in my ability to enable her to be the best mom and wife she can be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well, think of it this way: why should you necessarily be the one resentful that she's pursuing a career rather than homemaking full time? Why shouldn't she be the one resentful that you're pursuing a career rather than being a full time homemaker?

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a really important moment in your life. You're on the right track asking questions about it. I do have some actionable steps you can take.

1\. Please, please read the book "The Five Love Languages". Don't say another word to her until you have this short book in your head. It will explain, right away, the things you _need_ from your wife to feel loved and happy with her. You have noticed resentment building in you (its good that you're self aware and willing to talk about it). Being resentful can lead to you being really aggressive in an argument which will drive her even more into personal goals and then your marriage is over. Remember, she is still the one you fell in love with. Right now, she is _high_ on success.

2\. When a person is selfish, it is extremely hard to take away the euphoria they are feeling. For the purposes of this online discussion, it maybe you who are selfish. However, because you're the one asking about it, know that you will be the one to start the both of you down the right path. You will be the one who understands what is really going on. That is a big job, and you'll have to commit yourself to making the marriage last and work in a _better_ way.

3\. People are selfish. You, your wife, your children, the guy who cut you off in traffic ... the people at work who think your wife is amazing _your husband just doesn 't understand you_. She won't listen to them, unless its been your tenth argument and you yelled at her again and have not met her _love language_.

4\. You can be totally happy with your wife. She can totally respect you. You'll need to use forgiveness and an ongoing understanding about how great marriages work. You learn about software techniques all the time, you're on HN after all! So now, spend a few moments learning about great marriages and how they work from the book, "The Five Love Languages".

5\. Imagine, try to really imagine this, that your wife is unfulfilled as a person and as a wife. She does not have bad intentions. She is emotionally starving for something missing in her life. What if you could do, say, or in a small way meet that emotional need? Would you be willing to do it? If you're not, then someone or something else will!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I've heard about this book a few times now, so I've just ordered it for myself (and maybe my wife).

And jeeze, #5 there is speaking directly at me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Trust your gut in these situations, and dont let anyone else tell you that you are being irrational.</comment>


Ask HN: Is inkbook a usable android tablet? - awinter-py Saw the inkbook e-ink reader has a (bootleg?) android OS on it that can sideload apps.<p>What's the experience of text entry / web browsing on these devices?<p>(obviously video isn't going to happen). <comment></comment>


How Location-Based Apps Can Stave Off the 'Creepy Factor' - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/location-based-app-creepiness/

<comment><USER2> The article refers to many privacy related patterns discussed on our project <http://privacypatterns.org></comment>