Staking Claims with Scheduled Tweets - <AUTHOR> https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/08/staking-claims-with-scheduled-tweets/ <comment><USER2> An old trick to make predictions without influencing the outcome:

E.g. [https://twitter.com/gwern/status/1017575588641505280?s=20](https://twitter.com/gwern/status/1017575588641505280?s=20)

<comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagram#Establishment_of_prior...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagram#Establishment_of_priority)

<comment><USER2> Very cool old-school way. I also like the attempts at reverse engineering that led to the wrong interpretations but which were _true results_!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why do you need the date in the reply tweet?

-

As I understand it, the premise of the method is that, at day D, you already have written the contents of tweet Tr (to be posted as a reply to T) and so you can already compute its hash and tweet the hash as part of T on day D. Then on day D+N, you tweet Tr, which hashes correctly to what you said it would, and thus is extremely unlikely to have been tampered with.

Where does the date string contained in Tr come into play?

<comment><AUTHOR> Human readability. You are correct that the existence of the hash shows when the original message was written. But for human readability and understanding, I thought it was useful to have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Niantic (The Company behind Pokemon Go and Ingress) would do something similar for events in Ingress: They had a "measurement window", in which they would look at the state of the gameboard in a certain city and count stats (details irrelevant for the story here). The measurement window was 10 minutes long, but they would look randomly at one specific second and count the state at that second. Before each measurement window they would post a SHA hash on their twitter account, and release the string that lead to it afterwards (which was a bunch of garbage and a time like this: "52o5dfeis(} _)5eidfjsdkdbn 10:03:20 huner5465_ 2&e") Worked great for that proof :)

<comment><USER6> This sounds very interesting but I'm a little confused by the problem they were trying to solve -- what were they trying to prove knowledge of?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> patio11 wrote about "dropping hashes" here: [https://www.kalzumeus.com/essays/dropping- hashes/](https://www.kalzumeus.com/essays/dropping-hashes/)

</comment><comment><USER8> >Modern hashes like SHA256 are probably resistant to collisions in Twitter's limited message space.

Actually, no. 140 characters alphanumeric translates to 833 bits of entropy. This is significantly more than the 256 bits in SHA256, and due to the pigeonhole principle, collisions are guaranteed. That said, it's still nontrivial to bruteforce the hash, because searching thorough 256 bits is hard, but that's unrelated to the "limited message space".

<comment><USER9> Collisions are guaranteed, yes, but, you also have to keep in mind that the only collisions that matter are the _interesting_ ones. That is, collisions between two different messages written in different languages, and where both messages make some sort of sense. Although I don't have a mathematical proof of it, I'd have to wager that those types of collisions are exceedingly rare.

Edit: At least "exceedingly rare within the space of plain-text messages smaller than N characters," for some reasonable value of N.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yeah the key point is:

' And, of course, a person can post two hashes – for contradictory messages – and only publish replies one of them. '

<comment><USER11> Perhaps also state when the reply is coming in the initial tweet so if you don't meet your deadline, people can assume you decided to hide it.

<comment><USER12> Someone can also decide to simply delete their tweet. Unless you were closely monitoring the account, you wouldn't know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I made something that does this some time back: [https://tweetencryptor.netlify.app/](https://tweetencryptor.netlify.app/)

</comment><comment><USER14> Smart,

what about using words (like a password phrase) instead of a hash? You can schedule title of the upcoming tweet, so people can like it and "subscribe" to notifications

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure of any hashing algorithms which use words as their output. Or have I misunderstood your comment?

<comment><USER2> It's just a byte string converted to a hex string commonly. Chunk it into quads of hex and you can index into a 65k dictionary (the OED has more than twice that).

<comment><USER15> even better than a dictionary: use dicewords, which have already mapped numbers to a canonical list of words.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> My critique of this blogpost will have the sha-256 hash:2738490299aeefee10202fa46283bc856

<comment><USER16> I'll post in 25 years in the future once I brute force this hash.

<comment><USER17> There's actually an unlimited number of messages that will result in that hash. For all we know, that sha will also result from the hashing of "I'm a giant idiot" repeated an enormous number of times. I'd hazard a guess that there is probability 1 that this is the case.

<comment><USER10> Unless it is super long, I guess chance of not getting the original message by brute force is super super low

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A company which specializes on message integrity... surety.com

</comment><comment><USER19> Why would you use twitter for something like this when you could simply create a blockchain DAPP that runs on Ethereum? All you'd need to do is learn the Solidity language, compile it with Mist and purchase some initial startup gas to pay for the executions. Then, the integrity of your predictions would be guaranteed by a globally distributed network of several mining organizations, rather than dependent on one politically-suspect US tech company.

This seems like an ideal use-case for verifiable blockchain-backed applications.

<comment><USER20> > Why would you use twitter for something like this when you could simply

Ok, go on

> create a blockchain DAPP that runs on Ethereum? All you'd need to do is > learn the Solidity language, compile it with Mist and purchase some initial > startup gas to pay for the executions.

So much simpler than tweeting!

> globally distributed network of several mining organizations, rather than > dependent on one politically-suspect US tech company.

Yup, those reliable and impartial miners that noone really knows who they are, but we're 200% sure they're not mostly in China and could absolutely never be influenced by Chinese authorities?

<comment><USER21> I'm pretty sure the parent poster's tongue was cutting a hole through their cheek when writing the post.</comment></comment></comment>


Mozilla's New Fira Typeface - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mozilla/Fira <comment><USER2> It's designed by Erik Spiekermann:

[https://twitter.com/espiekermann/status/382189483031949312](https://twitter.com/espiekermann/status/382189483031949312)

<comment><USER3> To anyone wondering, this is kind of the typographic equivalent to "by the way, this JS library was written by John Resig."

<comment><USER4> Words I can understand, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very nice. It's awfully similar to Droid Sans, but the slightly lower x-height, and more more "playful" elements (like the gap in the lowercase 'g', the curve at the bottom of the lowercase 'l') make it bit more playful and legible. Above all, it feels more balanced, and accomplished, than Droid Sans.

Excellent work.

<comment><USER6> You know, I just don't think a humanist sans with a lot of character is the right choice for an operating system.

<comment><USER7> I wouldn't think that bubbly windows with cheesy drop shadows and gee-whiz transparency effects would be the right choice for an operating system, either. And yet look at the last decade's design trends there, too.

Honestly, a somewhat playful humanist sans looks just fine in context, and a lot cleaner than many other trendy OS designs recently.

<comment><USER6> I have to agree with you on that. I was really looking forward to iOS 7 being a step forward in that regard, but it's as bubbly as anything else, and inconsistent to boot. At least Helvetica is nice and neutral.

I think the word for all of this is _kitsch_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hey look, its already in the AUR:

[https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/otf-fira- sans/](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/otf-fira-sans/)

[https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/otf-fira- mono/](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/otf-fira-mono/)

[https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-fira- sans/](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-fira-sans/)

Who needs firefox OS (I do have the in-browser emulator running, though), I just changed my system font to this. I'll have opinions after a days usage.

<comment><USER9> Everything is in the AUR man ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting. The character for greek k (kappa - κ ) is wrong though. The vertical line of the greek k doesn't rise above the rest of the character. It might seem small but it really strikes as ugly and wrong for anyone used to the language.

<comment><USER11> Since it's on Github, consider filing a new issue if someone hasn't gotten to it already:

[https://github.com/mozilla/Fira/issues](https://github.com/mozilla/Fira/issues)

<comment><USER12> Are the italic versions actually oblique (slanted)? In other words, is there a typographic standard for labeling typefaces italics and oblique? I seem to remember that there is a distinction.

<comment><USER13> >is there a typographic standard for labeling typefaces italics and oblique

As I recall it, oblique type uses the regular glyphs just slanted, whereas a 'true' italic typeface employs modified glyph versions having additional calligraphy- or cursive-like flourishes.

In the following picture I've just made using Arial and Times, both fonts are claiming an 'italic' version. The Times one really is italic by the above definition, while the Arial one is 'oblique'.

[http://imgur.com/UVUZb5F](http://imgur.com/UVUZb5F)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Direct link to the specimen page: [http://mozilla.github.io/Fira/](http://mozilla.github.io/Fira/)

<comment><USER14> cool, they made the text contenteditable so you can see how things looks outside of their pre-canned text...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is a beautiful looking font and I could definitely see myself adopting it when typing papers.

I'd love to use it in my terminal, but my only problem is the zero isn't dotted or slashed. My terminal font is stupid-small (I think 10pt), and the 0 and O looking similar has bitten me in code a few times.

Well, shit...

<comment><USER16> Here's a programmer font intended to be very legible at 10pt [http://www.arcavia.com/kyle/Software/ProgFont/index.html](http://www.arcavia.com/kyle/Software/ProgFont/index.html) However, he accomplishes that feat by redesigning some english letters.

<comment><USER17> What are you talking about? This font is a disaster, everything looks the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not a fan. I just don't get why they adapted FF Meta. It's overly complex (the 'g' for example), and not a great display font. They should strive for simplicity, rather than individuality. Android's Roboto and iOS's Helvetica Neue achieve this, my personal preference being for for latter.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, the kink in the lowercase y, the gap in the g, and a few other touches don't scale down well IMHO. I am a big fan of the trend of designing free typefaces for general use like this, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm really curious as to why they would use images over font-face in the style guide examples [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/products/firefox- os/...](http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/products/firefox- os/typeface/). As a designer you want to see how the typeface performs in the wild, not snaps of it with some arbitrary aliasing.

It's not a bad typeface, although the kerning on the light weight needs a lot of work. If you're wondering what I mean, look at the word 'quick'.

<comment><USER21> >I'm really curious as to why they would use images over font-face in the style guide examples

>style guide examples

You just answered your own question

<comment><USER20> Could you elaborate as to how? Examples aren't synonymous with rasterized images. They use font-face in the example column where they display Open Sans.

It's not a big deal but I just didn't understand your response

<comment><USER21> It's mainly because the raster images are going to be more accurate than @font-face as they'll display properly amongst all browsers and OSes just like a PDF would.

edit: Also the most obvious reason (which I forgot to mention) is that they are type specimens and type specimens are (AFAIK) always done in raster images.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hmm. Looks like FF Meta optimized for screens. Odd that Mozilla and Erik Spiekermann felt this justified having its own name.

I made a quick side by side comparison between Fira and Meta Pro: [http://i.imgur.com/Oo3yeYx.png](http://i.imgur.com/Oo3yeYx.png)

<comment><USER23> Well for one thing FF Meta isn't free or Free and is probably also trademarked.

Having an OFL (Open Font License) font of high quality is a good thing.

Also OFL licensed is Andika ([http://scripts.sil.org/andika](http://scripts.sil.org/andika)) which I'm using in an app for children as the letters are mostly in the form that they would be handwritten was the best I could find in a few hours searching (free and paid) and most of the licenses for use in apps looked very expensive.

<comment><USER22> I agree, licensing seems the most plausible reason for releasing it under a different name.

Also, I like Andika. To me, it looks like a proportional-width interpretation of Monaco, a monospaced font that has shipped with Macs for the last few decades.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco_(typeface)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco_\(typeface\))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Looking forward to the next version of the typeface, Firaga.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm not a typography expert, so this looks like a hundred other fonts I've seen. Why does every OS need its own custom font?

<comment><USER26> Imagine Erik Spiekermann commenting here or on LtU how all programming languages look the same...

<comment><USER27> At my work, one of the astronomers once sent a feature request that ended with this sentence: "I am not a software engineer, but I know enough about programming to know that this must be easy enough to do."

<comment><USER26> It may be a case of grass being greener on the other side but working with astronomers sounds pretty cool.

I work on web stuff and get requests like that all the time.

<comment><USER27> This particular user is the exception. For the most part, they're pretty understanding of how overworked we are. They tend to be content with workarounds and don't expect good performance. This is mostly because they all write code themselves and their own code is pretty lousy. To them, what we do is just a means to an end and they're not interested in appreciating the journey, as it were.

On the other hand, this classic xkcd is occasionally accurate. You get a few of these obnoxious ones from time to time: [http://xkcd.com/793/](http://xkcd.com/793/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The dot on the lower case 'i' is so high! Outside of that, it looks alright, but still needs some work.

<comment><USER23> I think it is as much that the capitals are a little short but the i next to the capital F in Firefox is where it shows up.

Will be interested to see if it bothers me in real use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like it but I tried it on two different monitors and it looks reddish?

I'm guessing that's something to do with anti-aliasing but I haven't noticed it before...

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm not sure about the hinting on the font, or maybe it's the rendering in the browser. It just doesn't seem that smooth.

<comment><USER30> It's the serifs on the lowercase letters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Overall I like it a lot, but I don't like that the sides of the capital M are so slanted. It sticks out a lot in the third screenshot: [http://mozorg.cdn.mozilla.net/media/img/styleguide/products/...](http://mozorg.cdn.mozilla.net/media/img/styleguide/products/firefoxos/typeface/example.png)

</comment><comment><USER32> The typeface's original name was Feura: [https://twitter.com/espiekermann/status/359353798663221248](https://twitter.com/espiekermann/status/359353798663221248)

      Why change from Feura to Fira? English-speakers pronounce it as "Fjura", not "Foyra". And
      Fjura sounds like Führer. Not good.

</comment><comment><USER33> Does anyone know how/why Helvetica wound up the most appealing font?

Publishing content with Helvetica font seems to give the content an automatic, unconscious boost in credibility. Why is that?

It seems to be a primal reaction rather than a learned behavior. Helvetica looks the best to me because it looks the best, not because someone else said so.

<comment><USER34> There's a documentary about Helvetica that's available on Netflix (US).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetica_(film)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetica_\(film\))

<comment><USER35> Feel free to skip this movie. It's mostly old white dudes gushing about how great helvetica is.

<comment><USER36> The "old white dudes" of course being many of the top type designers in the world including Hermann Zapf who dislikes Helvetica, Spiekermann, and many others.

<comment><USER35> Doesn't matter how famous the designers are. It's still just a typeface. And the people in the movie are getting worked up over it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Letter spacing seems wide and overall kerning seems messy, but I don't know much about fonts.

Here's a link with some actual screenshot examples:

[http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/products/firefox- os/...](http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/products/firefox-os/typeface/)

<comment><USER38> It's designed so that the different weights take approximately the same width, so that does mean that the lighter weights have larger tracking (ie spacing between letters) than the heavier weights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I love the small g. Notice the differences between normal and italics (especially a, e, f, g, k). It's not just slanted, but curvier as well. Really makes it stand out.

<comment><USER40> The italics ampersand is especially stylized.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Nice! I wonder if they deliberately made it close enough to FF Meta that the Firefox wordmark is recognisable?

</comment><comment><USER42> Not a fan of it all, but massive congratulations for them including the different weights properly.

</comment><comment><USER43> Hm, currently no capital letters ''XYZ'' on the demo page.

</comment><comment><USER44> Nice font! The demo site could use taller lines. (increase line-height)

</comment><comment><USER45> The zero and O is similar aw. Other wise it's pretty nice.

</comment><comment><USER46> Nice font face, just a shame that Mozilla spends time making web fonts while their actual browser is crap at rendering them. Sa-a-aaad....

</comment><comment><USER47> I like it!

Clarity, share, curve. Bold, italicize.

</comment><comment><USER48> is this gonna be the default font on firefox desktop and mobile?

</comment><comment><USER49> Ugly as fuck. Can anyone make something that actually beats Helvetica Neue?

<comment><USER36> Adrian Frutiger's typefaces are very good. Univers and Avenir in particular have nice neutral designs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Fira mono looks good.

<comment><USER51> Indeed. I have two quibbles with it, which I've already submitted on Github: the position of the asterisk and the shape lof the lower case r (looks like a small caps i).

Otherwise a very good font.

<comment><USER52> Agreed on the lowercase r. Tried replacing the Source Code Pro with Fira Mono in Sublime and this immediately stuck out as annoying to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Obligatory link to xkcd - [http://xkcd.com/927/](http://xkcd.com/927/)

<comment><USER41> A font isn't a standard, it's an identity. "Oh, they're using a non-primary colour? I'll stick to RBY, _thanks_."</comment></comment>


The Pope Who Brought the Light of Science to the Dark Ages - <AUTHOR> http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/rd10q/3878/everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_dark_ages_is_wrong

<comment><USER2> If all you know about the "Dark Ages" came from your high school text books, then yes, "Everything You Think You Know About the Dark Ages IS Wrong."

The book looks interesting, but isn't unique in challenging these assumptions about the "Dark Ages".

As a popularizer of the Middle Ages, Monty Pythoner, Terry Jones is one of many who have championed that period as a much more complex era than we were taught:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/feb/08/highereducat...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/feb/08/highereducation.news)

If Abacus and the Cross looks interesting, you should also look for Terry's book Medieval Lives.

<comment><USER3> Terry Jones also made a BBC TV miniseries with the same name: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/feb/08/highereducat...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/feb/08/highereducation.news)

He also has an excellent article on how overrated the Renaissance was! [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/3507439.stm)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "A professor at a cathedral school for most of his career, Gerbert of Aurillac was the first Christian known to teach math using the nine Arabic numerals and zero. He devised an abacus, or counting board, that mimics the algorithms we use today for adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing. It has been called the first counting device in Europe to function digitally—even the first computer. In a chronology of computer history, Gerbert's abacus is one of only four innovations mentioned between 3000 BC and the invention of the slide rule in 1622.

Like a modern scientist, Gerbert questioned authority. He experimented. To learn which of two rules best calculated the area of an equilateral triangle, he cut out square inches of parchment and measured the triangle with them. To learn why organ pipes do not behave acoustically like strings, he built models and devised an equation. (A modern physicist who checked his result calls it ingenious, if labor-intensive.)"

<comment><USER4> The Sumerians had the abacus (2700BC), the Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, etc, etc, etc. Why credit it to this Gerbert guy?

Reference: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a bit too revisionist. There were a handful of men in dark age Europe with a deep interest in scholarship: Alcuin, Bede, Gerbert. But they were isolated individuals who imported ideas from the past and/or neighboring territories.

In fact, I suspect the average person's mental picture of dark age Europe is probably wrong in the direction of being too advanced rather than too backward, because we take so much of present culture for granted.

<comment><USER6> Chris Wickham's recent book "The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000" shines a light on this oft misunderstood period, showing ways in which it was darker and ways in which it was lighter.

<comment><USER5> Thanks; I didn't know about that book, but I just ordered a copy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article seems appallingly Euro-centric for someone claiming to challenge conventional wisdom about the dark ages. He makes passing reference to Baghdad as an important center of learning, but still focuses on the Pope.

To my mind this is less "Everything you think you know about the dark ages is wrong" and more that there were some occasional scientific luminaries in what was otherwise pretty much an intellectual backwater. They're definitely worthy of study, but it would be far better to remind people that the dark ages were mostly dark in Europe, and looking to the Islamic empires as well as out to China you see the centers of human progress, which contrary to the orthodox Western historical narrative did continue unabated.

It's definitely nice to see some study of European science in the dark ages, but I'd much rather hear more English-language writing about the Arabic scientific community.

<comment><USER8> > This article seems appallingly Euro-centric...

This is a silly criticism. The Dark Ages are by definition about Europe. If you'd like to see more books about what was going on in Islamic empires and China during the European Dark Ages, great, but that's not what this author's imagination was captured by.

<comment><USER7> The way history is taught in most US schools, The Dark Ages are about the world. I would expect someone trying to overturn orthodoxy to start with that. This subtly reinforces a worldview that paints Europe as central, when it was not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sensationalist headlines are often a sign of poor writing/thinking.

There's no way _everything_ I think I know about the Dark Ages is wrong. Don't insult my intelligence just because a smug title has a bit of snap to it.

Good thing it seems like the actual book has a more scholarly title.</comment>


Amazon Will Buy Target This Year, Gene Munster Predicts - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/amazon-will-buy-target-this-year-loup-s-gene-munster-predicts <comment><USER2> Maybe so, but from a submission quality perspective we all gain by waiting till these things actually happen. Most don't.

</comment><comment><USER3> This actually gives Amazon a backdoor entrance to CVS/Caremark medication distribution. You see CVS has been slowing down building new free standing locations because they've taken over all of Target's pharmacy.

If Amazon does actually buy Target I would look at CVS start delivering prescriptions and equipment directly to homes via Amazon's distribution system. This is yet another reason not to go to a competitor.

I would also look at all Targets to become order pick-ups for rural and high crime areas.

<comment><USER4> excellent insight - access to CVS would be huge for them

<comment><USER5> There's no way such easy access to prescription drugs could ever go wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For what purpose? Amazon's goal is to kill off traditional retail, as far as I can tell. Big box stores like Target are failing because their business model can't compete.

Amazon already bought Whole Foods, which gives them a large enough physical presence to do whatever it is they're going to do with it. Integrating that business with the rest of Amazon will already take years- why complicate it further?

My guess? Gene Munster owns some stocks in Target and wants to offload them at a price slightly higher than what it's currently at.

<comment><USER7> Everything is cyclical. You went from the Mainframes to PC era and not back to cloud computing (main frames). Amazon is kind of like sears.It started out as a catalog and then open retail store.

<comment><USER8> There's a certain sense of irony in Amazon taking part of the old Sears distribution building in Seattle for their physical grocery store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If Amazon is going to make a high dollar retail acquisition, I think Costco makes a lot more sense than Target. True warehouse stores that could be used for distribution, high income customers who don't mind paying a subscription fee and it is already headquartered in the Seattle area.

<comment><USER10> Costco would be almost 3 times the cost, using market cap as a basis.

<comment><USER11> Much less coverage as well. Not to mention different philosophies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> what's with all these analysts predicting mega mergers today?

> "Citi analysts see 40% chance Apple will buy Netflix"

Yeah, right. It's baseless cable news headline-bait garbage.

<comment><USER13> I actually think an Apple/Netflix merger makes a lot of sense. Apple sucks at online services and netflix could use the deep pockets.

<comment><USER14> There's no reason that Apple couldn't build a Netflix competitor and then ban Netflix from its mobile device platforms.

<comment><USER15> And that would be the day I switch to Samsung.

<comment><USER16> Yeah because Samsung is known for a free and open platform. Honestly I bought an S8+ in March and I don't think I'll be getting another Samsung device. They make their own apps for so much there are issues getting their phones to work with things built for Android. I have a car that supports Android Auto and it worked fantastically when I had my Nexus 6p but it has been unreliable and I don't use it anymore thanks to my Samsung device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was in Whole Foods yesterday and was half-expecting to see USB cables for sale between the tomatoes and the oranges—the real-world version of Amazon's product recommendations... :)

But then that got me thinking that Whole Foods just might be their first foray into retail and I could see them making other retail acquisitions in various niches to eventually cover a wide spectrum of goods.

Target seems more questionable as this would duplicate the logistic systems they already have.

<comment><USER18> I think the real-world version of Amazon's product recommendations would be a man offering you 30 more varieties of apples after you put a Fuji in your basket.

<comment><USER19> That seems to be standard with automated product recommendations. I recently purchased a coffee maker for my girlfriend. My Facebook account has become linked my credit card account, somehow, so Facebook has started showing me advertisements for the manufacturer of the coffee maker. There are at least a few faulty assumptions at work there.

<comment><USER20> Just in case you want to buy another! /s

Always thought those types of ads were odd. I _just_ bought the item you're advertising to me--and in most cases, why would I buy another one so soon?

In your case, I'm surprised it's not smart enough to say coffee maker purchased, how about we show some coffee bean ads? (And even in that case, you might make the argument that it'd be a second gift for your girlfriend.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Typical click-bait; An extremely bold prediction with an article that takes less than two minutes to read with a re-direct to another Bloomberg article about a less-sexy potential Amazon acquisition.

<comment><USER22> I don't know anything about retail but I'd have thought they were more likely to buy Kohls: Target seems pretty successful at what they do hence expensive, while Kohls seems sort of directionless but they have stores most places. They also have an arrangement already with Amazon for BnM returns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Gene Munster clearly does not understand how Amazon works. They dominate on efficiency which comes with scale. I do not think they want to the brick and mortar route, but could be wrong.

His analysis is flawed unless they can pick up Target cheaper than they would be able to custom fit/design their own stores.

I think they would want to own the least amount possible, but they may use stores as storage units if they decide to get into the logistics game.

The Commercial Real Estate in the Retail sector is getting whacked. (In english, it is getting cheap as real estate owners are willing to accept less rather than let a huge building go vacant and receive no income.) With that being said, they will drop a tenant if the likes of Amazon came knocking. The only issue is the leverage that Amazon has may or may not be beneficial for the owner of the real estate.

([http://www.businessinsider.com/store-closures- in-2018-will-e...](http://www.businessinsider.com/store-closures-in-2018-will- eclipse-2017-2018-1)) ([https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/12/20/here-26-reta...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/12/20/here-26-retailers- and-apparel-companies-most-risk-2018/950328001/))

With interest rates rising in the U.S, it will put more pressure on the retail sector for those whose leases are tied to expensive financing and did not lock in lease/rates.

With all this being said, I see this as very unlikely.

</comment><comment><USER24> This prediction is as accurate as "Apple Will Buy Netflix This Year".

</comment><comment><USER25> It makes sense in a way.

Retail is very similar to record companies or the movie industry. They've failed to innovate solely because they got lazy. They took for granted their position in the market.

A good position too. I mean, if you make believe the internet isn't a threat, which top business people most likely did, then I can easily see brick-and- mortar-rules-all mentality lulling top execs to sleep. Meanwhile, Amazon etc took over from a completely different angle, utilizing on-demand and internet tech.

An acquisition from traditional retailers may be appealing.

</comment><comment><USER26> This has been going around the Minneapolis subreddit and development forums in the last week or so, with a lot of doom and gloom about one of our biggest HQs moving out of the city.

I guess I could see why Amazon would want to do it, but I'm also a little torn on what it would do locally if Amazon didn't end up locating HQ2 here while pulling Target HQ somewhere else.

On the other hand, Loup Ventures is _also_ based here, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is just Gene Munster trying to get press by stirring up shit.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'd expect someone other than Amazon to buy Target (if anyone does), and stories like this will make the price seem more justifiable as a defensive move.

</comment><comment><USER28> Maybe then I'll get to use ApplePay at Target.

</comment><comment><USER29> If it takes drones to make brick and mortar restrooms not excessively laden with feces... then i welcome our new masters

<comment><USER30> Having spent a terrible summer working at Target as a cart attendant, I can explain at least part of the reason why their restrooms are gross. The job of cleaning the restrooms, as well as every other awful job that nobody wants to do, is given to "cart attendants", who applied thinking they'll just be pushing carts around all day and don't find out about these "side tasks" until their first day on the job. So these side tasks often go neglected out of spite and a lack of willingness to deal with that crap (figuratively and literally) for just above minimum wage. Why a gigantic store like a Super Target wouldn't hire a separate person as a "custodian" or "janitor" for such things is beyond me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Didn't we hear something about this already last year?</comment>


How to Go to Mars–Right Now - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/how-to-go-to-marsright-now <comment><USER2> Getting people to Mars has come a long way since Werner von Braun wrote "The Mars Project" ([https://www.wlym.com/archive/oakland/docs/MarsProject.pdf](https://www.wlym.com/archive/oakland/docs/MarsProject.pdf)) in 1953. Zubrin writes a good case.</comment>


A Critical Analysis of the Subscription Economy - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@guisebule/subscription-psycho-a-person-who-knows-its-a-good-idea-to-get-you-away-from-perpetual-licensing-b8dec71bf7d0 <comment><USER2> The case of Adobe is interesting. I think the move to a subscription model has been a hostile move for customers. The second you stop paying for the software, you lose the ability to open your old files.

This has allowed smaller software applications such as Sketch, The Affinity Suite and Capture One to grab marketshare. I think Sketch's current business model is perfect. Customers pay for a year of updates. If a customer decides not to upgrade, they stay at the same version as when their license expires.

I'm certain Adobe has made a good amount of money in the short term, but they've forfeited a monopoly. I'm more skeptical about their long-term business.

EDIT: Updated for clarity.

<comment><USER3> "The second you stop paying for the software, you lose access to any of your old files."

It seems you lose editing access, you still can view them. Still not great, but I wanted to clarify.

<comment><USER2> I've updated my comment. You don't lose access, but you cannot open old files.

I suppose you could use a PSD or AI to Sketch converter. I'm unsure about other file types.

<comment><USER3> I think you can open and view them with Photoshop, just not edit. At least that's my understanding.

<comment><USER4> I suspect you can still edit them with an older version of the Photoshop. PSDs have been around forever.

I am not arguing that subscription models forced by Adobe on users is a good thing. It is, IMO, horrible and is the reason I am still using CS3 for my photography hobby.

<comment><USER3> I left Adobe because of the subscription model. The fact that they don't handle Fuji images well made this decision easier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's worth considering what a subscription would be worth as a fixed cost. Like say the company was going to invest the fixed cost into the market, and take the interest as if it was continuous income from subscriptions. Or if a user wanted to just invest a fixed amount of money so the interest will always be there for to pay for the subscription.

At 5% interest, a subscription of $1 a month is worth a fixed cost of $240. Photoshop and Netflix's $10 a month is worth a fixed cost of $2400. Xbox Live's $60 a year subscription makes it worth about $1200, making it cost 3 times more than the console itself. World of Warcraft's $15 a month subscription comes out to a whopping $3600, making it 60 times more expensive than a normal new game (if you wanted to subscribe to it forever.)

<comment><USER6> Can you explain why considering the dollar amounts that would earn interest equal to subscription costs has any relevancy into how much these services cost?

Or put another way -- what?

<comment><USER5> Economically you can convert between a fixed price and a subscription price. A subscription has a fixed economic value governed by the interest rate. That is if you have a thing that generates $10 every year, you should be able to sell it for $200 (if the interest rate is 5%.)

I think this is something people don't often think about. But it makes it very easy to compare different costs and benefits that involve time. E.g. imagine a building is costing $1000 a year to maintain, and a new building would cost $50,000 to build. You can figure that it would be easier just to invest $20,000 and use the interest to pay for the maintenance. And save $30,000.

But if building a new building cost only $10,000. It would be a good investment. And you would expect to save more money than you would gain from anything else you could invest in with that money.

The same logic applies to subscription fees. If a software license costs either $120 a year, or a fixed price of $5,000. You should prefer the subscription. Hypothetically you could just invest $2400 and use the interest to pay the subscription. Saving $2,600.

<comment><USER7> > Hypothetically you could just invest $2400 and use the interest to pay the > subscription. Saving $2,600.

Except you do not actually use software forever, and there is also no market for licenses for 10-year-old versions, so you have to actually calculate it as an annuity.

So, if you expect to use the software for ten years, the NPV of 120$ per year would be about 900$ at 5% interest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The challenge with modern consumer software is that:

1\. Users expect their apps to work on their computers, tablets, and phones, which generally means you need to provide some ongoing service to keep your data synced between all of the devices. (For some simple apps you can get away with using a third-party service, e.g. Dropbox or iCloud, but many apps with complex data will need their own custom-built solutions.) Depending on the kind of data you are storing, this can get expensive.

2\. Users expect perpetual upgrades for every new version of iOS/macOS/Android/Windows that comes out. This obviously requires development work, especially since iOS/macOS/Android are annual releases at this point.

These ongoing costs imply that some kind of recurring revenue is necessary to keep the software running and up to date, which is why the move to subscription revenue has become more popular lately.

Besides, I question the premise that "perpetual" licenses have ever truly been perpetual except in name only: eventually that software you bought will stop working on newer operating systems and devices and you'll have to buy a new version anyway.

<comment><USER9> 1\. No they don't. Some may want it, but no one "expects" it and will gleefully accept your invalidation of their previous purchases so you can provide a feature they didn't ask for.

2\. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxXs0Yy5-0Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxXs0Yy5-0Y) For 2, yes, users may get mad when some vulnerability ends up leading to a leak of PII or worse, but to claim they "expect" it, again, no.

<comment><USER8> 1\. Yes, they do. Especially consumer software like 1Password or Evernote is expected to be accessible on your phone, tablet, and computer.

2\. I'm not talking about OS updates. I'm saying consumers expect their apps to be updated to keep them compatible with new versions of their OS. That means someone that bought your app for iOS 6 five years ago absolutely expects it to be updated to work on their new iPhone 7 running iOS 10.

Besides, Windows is probably the outlier here. People might hate Windows 10's automatic update system (which was clearly implemented poorly) but a lot of people update to the latest iOS, macOS, and Android versions right after they're released.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> While I don't like the move to a subscription model for a lot of software, I really couldn't finish this piece. I don't think it was very well written, mostly because it kept repeating the same points over and over written a little differently. It could have been much shorter.

I don't like the subscription model because in the end, for multiple subscriptions, it all adds up and ends up being more expensive. And that after spending a lot of money on a subscription you still don't own the software.

(Not to mention "season passes" for games.)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is actually the best feedback I have had on that article, thank you so much for commenting, you know proper critical feedback is the best kind of feedback. Truth be told, I hammer the same point how thrice, simply because my papa told me people were stupid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I know a lot of people here on HN think subscription models are pretty swell - personally I think they're not so great.

Sure, they provide revenue that can support security fixes - but at the cost of decimating the incentive to improve features to generate upgrade revenue.

After all, if spending more on development doesn't raise revenues much, but cutting down to a skeleton team of maintenance developers means that subscription revenue is almost pure profit, there'll always be investors pushing for that.

Seems to me that invites our industry to stagnate and stop producing value, if you don't need to make a better product in order to bring in revenue.

<comment><USER12> In my opinion software doesn't have to add features all the time. It would be okay for me if it kept doing what it's doing, except bugs get fixed and performance improves.

<comment><USER13> Yes, this was particularly evident at Adobe where they were scratching around adding features to justify the upgrade costs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As a counter point, I hope that by paying a subscription, I get a continuous stream of small patches with bug fixes, security updates, and design improvements.

I like the subscription model, especially if it has a free tier, because passionate customers can support the developer team and subsidize less passionate users

<comment><USER15> > a continuous stream of small patches with bug fixes, security updates, and > design improvements

That doesn't require a subscription. Plenty of companies offer a permanent purchase that comes with a year of updates or all minor-version updates or similar.

The option is there to treat it similarly to a subscription, but importantly you never have to pay and what you already own can never be changed or taken away.

<comment><USER16> One I know is Bitwig who recently changed their licensing model so you get 12 months updates with your perpetual license and can pay to continue receiving updates after 12 months[1].

[1] [https://www.bitwig.com/en/17/new-license- model.html](https://www.bitwig.com/en/17/new-license-model.html)

<comment><USER14> That seems like a good hybrid model

<comment><USER17> It's the old JetBrains model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Or in other words: You should not allow a company to build a monopoly on a skill of yours, because, as it happens with monopolies, they will end up abusing it.

</comment><comment><USER18> It is hard to classify Microsoft in the "#SubscriptionPsycho" category in regards to Office. They still offer perpetual licenses alongside the subscription model. However I do believe there is a huge marketing failure in making the distinction between the two product offerings.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a follow up to my previous article "To Catch A Liar: 1Password Edition" : [https://medium.com/@guisebule/to-catch-a-liar-1password- edit...](https://medium.com/@guisebule/to-catch-a-liar-1password- edition-4bfa30fbd7e4)

<comment><USER19> Completely agree with your analysis, and at the same time cannot fault 1Password for doing this since they are in a position to do it. They are potentially a hundreds of million dollar acquisition if they juice those sub numbers. But they have to do this NOW, because what they are doing is not that difficult, and come the day, as it always does, that Google spies an attractive mechanism to drive more people into their ecosystem and decides they don't want to acquire you, your business will (probably) evaporate overnight.

This, for the vendor, is the other edge of the subscription model. If another flavor of the day arises that costs less, your customer base can swiftly move to this new contestant, especially in the enterprise space, because unlike a fixed license, a subscription isn't a capitalized cost. For Adobe, with their massive ecosystem, this is less practical for their customers, but a password manager? There are already a host of commercial alternatives that to an end user are all more or less the same.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had not considered this angle, thank you for commenting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Seems like the point of the article is that subcr is bad for customers and therefore bad for biz... the psychos should have known better.

It's true that we pay more for stuff now vs. perpetual licenses (it's prob a book's worth of material, but "opt-out is better than opt-in" and Houshalter's point on chunking are most of it). But in exchange, companies have the ability to invest that greater profit __to a greater degree __in innovation, so in the long-term we, customers, should get more out of it than we lost in dollars.

First an observation: Adobe's decision to increase profit secularly (i.e. beyond any accounting nuances at the time of switch) by switching to subscription is actually TWO decisions. 1) the switch in revenue mechanism itself and 2) the decision to NOT invest the additional profit.

#2 is the crux of my point, but the "to a greater degree" thing is a 1+1=3 effect:

"more profit" is straightforward because subscriptions increase dollars in, often more than making up for any churn. That cash could be invested to accelerate innovation. It's 1-to-1 apart from timing issues (queuing "yearly up fronts" :D)

"to a greater degree" \- this is the special part. It is easier to spend more when predictability is higher. Or put another way, volatility is the enemy of spending to the "hilt". So companies like Netflix can spend (for our sake) more to the hilt when you have a tighter distribution as to where the hilt could be (vs. perpetual products which have poor visibility). Just ask any marketing person or sales person about how easy it is to spend in channels when attribution isn't a problem. BTW I define hilt as "as much as necessary to stay ahead of threats of competition/churn"

But yes, the company does have to choose to do this. Some are more relentless for their customers :). I just heard about the www.relentless.com thing lolz...

Quick aside: I saw this sick chart that compared 12-month lifetime value between Dollar Shave Club (subscription) and Harry's (previously per unit). Even though Harry's has always been branded as a more premium product, DSC made more money by the 12th month (even after churn). It's easy to forget that monthly click -_-

</comment><comment><USER21> Interesting take on it. For historical accuracy this was something that Sun talked about in the 90's, you sold someone some software, and that was the last bit of revenue you ever got from them. Except you still had the programmers who wrote the software to pay.

This then is the fundamental problem, when you finish the software do you fire the engineers that worked on it? If not, what do they do?

The fact is that software can actually be "done" and it happens every where. And it takes a special kind of engineer who will work on simply removing blemishes (bugs) and not write any new features.

And that fundamentally points at a really really deep problem, engineering software rather than just writing it.

If your software has very well specified and defined interfaces, and no 'escapes' then you can say it is engineered to be partitionable. And an engineer can be tasked with fixing one part, they can fix that part, and do the qualification tests for that part and then when they integrate it they can be assured the system as a whole continues to work as it always did, but now with a slightly different part. Not surprisingly this was a part of, if not the major part of, the notions in object oriented programming. Once the part (object) worked, you didn't have to think about it any more. An auto-mechanic doesn't have to know the physics of a an ignition system to replace a spark plug, a spark plug manufacturer doesn't have to know the geometry of every cylinder to make a spark plug.

Software as books. You don't go to the library and periodically buy updates to the books you own. Textbooks pull that off but even they know its really a scam. Pythagorean's principle hasn't actually changed and the last text book was just fine.

Open source kind of wins and kind of loses here. The poster child is gcc. Looking at the code base changes over time for a given architecture they start with a flurry of functionality changes, then smooth out to just bug fixes and the occasional optimizer tweak, and then when the noise floor of change frequency gets to a certain level you start seeing really sort of adhoc changes or perhaps changes that only help a very very small part of the user base. Its hard to capture both a gcc for ARM9 and gcc for ARM9 embedded in an FPGA fabric that can have optimized bespoke instructions. And yet they will try.

The author calls them psychopaths but they are the current generation of entrepreneurs which are building businesses based on rents rather than sales. Its all the rage, is not Uber a rent seeking business that simply takes a tax or rent for you using their app? The 'sale' was the car ride, the 'tax' is everything else. This works because collecting rent of $1 a month from a million people is "easy" they hardly miss it, and you're $12M/year richer for it. Selling them $12M worth of value is so much harder. Why push yourself? Everybody is doing it, the streaming company, the phone company, and even the maker of your coffee machine. If you haven't got an ARR you aren't a 21st century company these days.

<comment><AUTHOR> You divined my thoughts exactly Sir. As others have expressed in this conversation, we lament the rent seeking world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is a topic that could use a good article. This was not that article.

It's one thing to rail about the varios psychotics or psychopathics of this that or another. That's not the same as understanding the dynamics through which a situation emerges. What's particularly disturbing is when it appears that the outcome is inevitable.

I.F. Stone, writing in 1967 on the Arab-Israeli crisis:

 _The essence of tragedy is a struggle of right against right. Its catharsis is the cleansing pity of seeing how good men do evil despite themselves out of unavoidable circumstance and irresistible compulsion. When evil men do evil, their deeds belong to the realm of pathology. But when good men do evil, we confront the essence of human tragedy._

[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1967/08/03/holy- war/](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1967/08/03/holy-war/)

Let's look at the problem here.

In a commercial software world, there's a mismatch between cash flows and development. Worse, there's _also_ a conflict between market mechanims based on marginal-cost pricing, and the long-run average costs of development. There's also the tremendous variance in customers' ability to pay -- price discrimination -- particularly for enterprise software.

If you sell shrinkwrap, or some other form of buy-once software, then sustaining the development efforts for the _next_ version is ... difficult.

The two largest consumer softare companies of the 20th century, Microsoft and Apple, both sponsored that development through hardware sales. Apple did so directly, by selling its own hardware. Microsoft did it indirectly by way of per-CPU licensing of IBM-compatible PCs. Both companies avoided the significant costs of direct software sales.

The concept of recurring-subscription revenue is usually associated with periodicals, though that is a relatively modern development. The term doesn't emerge until the 19th century (previous usage was generally in a religious context), and it generally referred to _stock_ subscriptions. Another variant was the _subscription library_.

(See links below.)

In a magazine subscription, you pay for the right to receive _fresh material_ , but continue to possess any previously received issues.

The model for software subscriptions was in large part IBM's practice of _leasing_ rather than _selling_ computer hardware. Phone systems often followed similar practices. Hardware and software occupy different worlds in that hardware is fairly intrinsically limited: you have _a computer_ , or perhaps a rack, or aisle, or datacentre. But these are unitised, and you're not individually leasing, say, hard drives, CPUs, memory cards, or capacitors, within the computers.

My Debian systems typically have a few thousand individual software packages installed. For a proprietary OS, that number falls, but is still considerable.

Dealing with individual software packages on a subscription basis from here to eternity is itself a major complexity problem I'd, frankly, rather not have to deal with. It may work in instances, but not at scale.

At the same time, there are the financing and cash-flow problems of software developers.

How _do_ you bridge those divides?

[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*_NOUN%20subsc...](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*_NOUN%20subscription&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&direct_url=t2%3B%2C%2A_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bstock_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btrial_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Blife_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmagazine_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BAnnual_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Byear_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bgift_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bguinea_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmembership_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpenny_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0#t2%3B%2C*_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bstock_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc1%3B%3Btrial_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Blife_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmagazine_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc1%3B%3BAnnual_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Byear_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bgift_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bguinea_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmembership_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpenny_NOUN%20subscription%3B%2Cc0)

[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=subscription+*...](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=subscription+*_NOUN+&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t2%3B%2Csubscription%20%2A_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bsubscription%20list_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20price_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20paper_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20lists_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20rate_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20library_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20books_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20book_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20rates_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20concerts_NOUN%3B%2Cc0#t2%3B%2Csubscription%20*_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bsubscription%20list_NOUN%3B%2Cc1%3B%3Bsubscription%20price_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20paper_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20lists_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20rate_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20library_NOUN%3B%2Cc1%3B%3Bsubscription%20books_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20book_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20rates_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsubscription%20concerts_NOUN%3B%2Cc0)

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with you, this is a topic that could use a good article and as OP, I did not write it. My hope was that others would pick up the thread and run with it, thank you for pointing this out.

<comment><USER22> As a general suggestion: instead of looking for personality faults to explain some situation, look to systemic dynamics.

William R. Catton, Jr., has a concept he calls "futile vilification", short version: "There is no point to another morbid wringing of hands over mankind's alleged "greed" or immoral myopia."

Longer, quoted here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2v3251/william...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2v3251/william_r_catton_jr_author_of_overshoot_has_died/)

Donella Meadows has a concept of 12 leverage points. "Changing personnel" doesn't even rate mention.

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

The history of IBM, AT&T, and Xerox focusing on _leasing_ rather than _selling_ hardware is useful, as is a reading of the history of the publishing industry. Software is, in some ways, a development of that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, but nothing catches the eye or flares the nostrils as somebody calling somebody else a psycho :)

Thank you for this, I do intend to drill down into the subject a little more and this will make for good reading, as will this entire thread.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Reverse Engineering Pokémon Go Plus - <AUTHOR> https://tinyhack.com/2018/11/21/reverse-engineering-pokemon-go-plus/ <comment><USER2> Very interesting. I didn't know that Pokemon Go now had a companion device.

Referring to Pokemon Go Plus as PGP past the first few paragraphs of the write-up became confusing real fast, though.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's already a commercial product based on a reverse engineered Go Plus - the Go-tcha ([https://www.go-tcha.co.uk/](https://www.go-tcha.co.uk/)). It's based on some kind of fitness band chip.

<comment><USER4> Yes, but there hasn't been anything open source since the release of the device in 2016. There were a lot of people starting DIY Pokemon GO plus device, but all of them were stumped by the certification protocol.

Now we can build a clone using anything that supports emulating a BLE peripheral (Pi Zero W, ESP32, etc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm surprised (and maybe somewhat... relieved?) that the protection isn't that hard --- e.g. they could've made this _far_ harder with something based on ISO 7816, and yet not increase the cost much.</comment>


A Tech Star Blackmailed - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/21/world/middleeast/Iran-technology-arrest-spy.html <comment><USER2> Same happened to my father. He was kept for 9 months and tortured because he wouldn't agree to spy for Iran. Among the horrifying things that happened to him whilst there, he mentioned they would take him outside blind-folded, force him on his knees, and hold a gun to his head saying he needs to cooperate with them, or they will end his life right here and then the same will happen to his children.

The depression, anger, and sadness ruins lives. He was never the same.

<comment><USER3> How awful. I'm very sorry for you and your family. I hope you all can find ways to recover.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Tragic, but I wonder why anyone would consider bringing sensitive data on their phone or laptop on such a trip? If not the Iranians, the USCPB would almost certainly grab a copy of it all upon his return.

</comment><comment><USER5> This story is about Canadian-Iranian software engineer Behdad Esfahbod and his detention during a visit to Iran [1]:

> Esfahbod claims that he was arrested by Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps > intelligence echelon during a 2020 visit to Tehran. He was then moved to > Evin prison, where he was psychologically pressured and interrogated for 6 > days. Iranian security forces let him go based on his promise to spy on his > friends once he was back in United States.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behdad_Esfahbod#Detention_Iran...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behdad_Esfahbod#Detention_Iran_visit)

</comment><comment><USER6> I speculate he told people that he was visiting ahead of time which is a big no-no. There are countless stories of people getting mugged, knocked out, etc. at airports upon arriving in these hostile nations. It wouldn't have hurt to check travel advisories before visiting.</comment>


Immigration attorney recommendations - <AUTHOR>

i'm looking for recommendations for an immigration attorney...does anyone have good success with one? <comment><USER2> depends on what you are trying to do. send me an email (in my profile) and we can talk about it.</comment>


When Concorde was the future - <AUTHOR> https://www.1843magazine.com/design/look-closer/when-concorde-was-the-future <comment><USER2> Short on text, but a good selection of photographs.

For people really, _really_ interested in Concorde, I reccomend this thread: [https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde- question-100...](https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde- question-100.html)

(yes that's page 100!)

<comment><USER3> That 100+ pages Concorde thread on PPRuNe, with lots of technical details, anecdotes, and actual Concorde captains and engineers chipping in, is absolutely epic!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I saw one in real life for the first time this summer, at the Museum of Flight near Seattle. It looked beautiful of course, but the cabin was incredibly confined. Not like airlines are known for their cabin space, but I don't know if I'd take a faster trip in such a confined space over a cramped seat on a longer flight.

<comment><USER5> It may be worth noting that, while the Concorde had smaller seats than the first class seats of that era, those first class seats were still nothing like modern lie-flat business.

<comment><USER6> The point of lie-flat seats is to let you doze off on long trips. The point of Concorde is that even trans-Atlantic trips weren't log enough for that to matter. You don't get lie-flat seats in first or business class on many US domestic flights either, for the same reasons.

<comment><USER5> That's starting to change though. United is reconfiguring a lot of their aircraft for Polaris seating even domestically. The seats are more comfortable though I agree it doesn't make as big a difference on even long daytime flights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looking back the 1970s was also when mass tourism in Europe went in full swing. Paid holidays became a human right. While in the US low cost shuttle flights were the new railways.

<comment><USER8> And club of rome published the meadows report in 72. Odd.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> And soon:

When the AirBus A380 was the future

<comment><USER10> Sadly the A380 never was the future, it was a reincarnation of the MD-12 of the 1990s.

The only way to obtain a magnitude reduction in seat-km costs was to go all-in on advanced aerodynamics like a blended-wing-body. Once Airbus had shied away from that there really was no logical reason to continue.

<comment><USER3> Still, a wonderful plane for pax. Spacious, smooth & quiet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The main picture is F-WTSC . It was the test flight registration of F-BTSC, the plane which crashed in 2000.

</comment><comment><USER12> There is a popular video on YouTube outling the reasons why Concorde failed. Mainly it came down to market, expense, and not a business fit.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wuykzfFzE&t=12s](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wuykzfFzE&t=12s)

<comment><USER13> Sonic boom over land (IE - people) was also a big issue. They originally thought 3rd world countries would be ok with it. Which turned out to be wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am a bit puzzled by the pollution remark, wealthy people are flying private more than ever, the general public has more cars that are each bigger, and the General Aviation is recovering form 2008

<comment><USER15> Having tried to revise for exams while they landed a few miles away, I'm going to suggest that the article is including noise pollution as well as particulate pollution. It was bloody loud.

<comment><USER14> when I was the kid they were a Rhythm in my life, twice a day, at 11am and 5pm

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think the article is incorrect, they say that only British Airways and Air France operated the Concorde, but I believe Singapore Airlines did as well.

<comment><USER17> BA's G-BOAD was painted on one side in Singapore Airlines livery, and jointly operated for three round trips to Singapore via Bahrain; I don't know if any Singapore Airlines crew were involved in the operation.

A more obvious example of another airline is the Dallas to Washington flights (and on to London and Paris), which were operated by Braniff airlines crews within the US (as they couldn't be operated by any non-US airline), and the aircraft changed to US registrations for each of the domestic legs.

<comment><USER18> The Concord wasn't allowed to fly at super-sonic speeds while over the continental US, so the poor Braniff pilots didn't get to really have the full experience (other than in training).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As an aside, that advert for the Rolex GMT Master Chronometer says the price for the steel model is $255 USD. Today that watch lists for $9,250. Adjusted for inflation, $255 in 1970 would be only about $1700 today.

<comment><USER20> Mechanical watches have become status symbols.

<comment><USER21> But they haven't become more expensive to make.

Likely this points more to something like the skyrocketing wealth disparity which means $1700 is no longer enough to spend on a veblen good.

<comment><USER2> Perhaps the handmade ones have due to "Baumol cost disease"; it's highly skilled manual labour, not mechanised production.

<comment><USER22> Plenty of other watch manufacturers have gone toward partially or completely mechanised assembly of their mechanical watches.

I would guess that, if it hasn't become more mechanised in that time, it's because their margins have grown large enough that there's not much incentive in doing so.

<comment><USER23> Technically the margins haven't grown if the cost has also increased.

<comment><USER22> Well, it depends.

If the sales price increases faster than the costs, then the margins have grown. If the sales price increases slower than the costs, then the margins have shrunk.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Octo-Bouncer - <AUTHOR> https://electrondust.com/2020/03/01/the-octo-bouncer/ <comment><USER2> Five ball juggling robot: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9asDO_1A27U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9asDO_1A27U)

Three ball juggling / devil stick robot: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJEbs64Y2o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJEbs64Y2o)

Partner juggling: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83eGcht7IiI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83eGcht7IiI)

<comment><USER3> High speed rock paper scissors champ - [https://youtu.be/3nxjjztQKtY](https://youtu.be/3nxjjztQKtY)

Ishikawa Komuro Labs had a bunch of crazy high speed robotic vision and actuation system ~10 years ago. [https://youtu.be/-KxjVlaLBmk?t=65](https://youtu.be/-KxjVlaLBmk?t=65) if you watch the slow motion there's so much backlash in the system it's hard to believe it works at all, but somehow they factor all of that in. Crazy stuff.

That said, for a little side project this is very cool. The simulation idea is dope and the end result is fun to watch.

<comment><USER4> Yeh.. the scissors paper rock 100% winning rate.. robot is cheating.. every time its waiting till human has made a choice, easy to see in slow mo

Alternative is bunny carrot gun..

<comment><USER5> That's what the robot is supposed to do - it explains that on the slide at the beginning of the video.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Build one these but using something like micro mirrors [1], esp in microgravity this could be used for mass transfer and sorting of fine powders. The powders could be parked in clumps in an electroacoustic grid potential (ultrasonic phased array).

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

<comment><USER7> Sounds similar to some work NASA did with to "walk" lunar / Martian dust simulants off of glass using electrostatics, intended for use in colony habitat windows: [https://www.nasa.gov/content/scientists-developing-ways- to-m...](https://www.nasa.gov/content/scientists-developing-ways-to-mitigate- dust-problem-for-explorers)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> this is a amazing! I'm working on a flight controller and vertical stability system for a high power model rocket and it's so freaking hard. You have to be an expert fabricator, electrical engineer, controls engineer, and software engineer. You also have to have the drive and dedication to get it done. It makes the webdev I get paid to do seem so trivial.

</comment><comment><USER9> This article is really cool structurally, beyond the content itself. What I mean is that it's formatted somewhat like a programming tutorial (build X with Y in Z minutes) except that it's perfectly readable to people like me with very little hardware background. Most of the specific implementation details are abstracted out into links. I think that this kind of writing can be very effective for technical people trying to reach a broader but still technical audience.

Regarding the content itself, I think it's really cool that the author made a sound-absorbing box for the CNC machine, and I'm surprised that it is safe to totally enclose the machine like that. After spending last summer working at a 3D printing company that makes metal printers, I wonder how a 3D printer would compare to the CNC mill in terms of time to create that many small parts, I imagine it would only take one print-wash-sinter cycle, under 48 hours, about 1/4 of the article's reported machine time. That said the CNC mill used was very small.

<comment><USER10> The 3D printers you were using probably cost in the $100k-250k range. I think you can get tiny bench-top mills like that for something like $200.

<comment><USER11> And a CNC mill at a fraction of that $100k price point would probably be much more than 4x faster (due to spindle power and liquid cooling of the parts).

edit: Also since it looks like 2d work you can also use a fiber laser to cut it out which would probably be faster and less messy than a CNC but more expensive of a machine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Mechanically this seems like something that could also be built out of lego (technic). Instead working with metal it seems like everything needs to be custom machined.

Is there a reason there aren't similar kits of metal components with regularly drilled holes and so on that can just be put together in whatever way one chooses?

<comment><USER13> There are some kits, like Actobotics. Generic structural parts are inherently heavier and less stiff than custom-designed ones, so they're not usually suitable for high speed projects like this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is amazing! But based on the title I thought it would juggle 8 balls.

</comment><comment><USER15> "I basically ran my Benbox CNC 1310 (almost) nonstop for multiple weeks."

Wow. That's some serious dedication. What an excellent multi-disciplinary project, congratulations!

</comment><comment><USER16> This needs to be an exhibit at the San Fran Exploratorium.

[https://www.exploratorium.edu/](https://www.exploratorium.edu/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Why four servos instead of just three? You could still have a square surface with three, just mount to the glass underneath and maybe have a frame on the glass to provide the triangular mount points. That way each servo is truly independent, right now you only have 3 distinct degrees of freedom anyways so you've essentially made an "overdetermined system".

<comment><USER18> Intuitively I would assume three servos would require more precision, practically, even though theoretically it's no problem.

<comment><USER17> Well, no, it wouldn't take any extra precision. If anything, the current setup takes more precision as you have to keep all servos in sync or it'll be pushing one servo against the others. Right now you could unbolt one of the 4 servos that are on it and it would still work just fine. You wouldn't need to reprogram anything, just having 3 working servos and one completely disconnected would still keep it in the exact same position.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> That is awesome work and an awesome article. If that was a commercially available product for sale I would buy it, because, fun!

</comment><comment><USER20> Watching what it can do, it feels like this is the perfect machine to run one of those marble mazes.

</comment><comment> mewse-hn This is incredibly impressive.

My only domain knowledge for this thing is building a 3d printer from scratch, but the design and micro-manufacture of this thing, combined with the software that allows it to do what it does, is jaw dropping. Great work!

</comment><comment> scary-size Video of the machine and Windows app: [https://youtu.be/lYyAMDYzJQM](https://youtu.be/lYyAMDYzJQM)

</comment><comment><USER21> Why "Octo"?

<comment><USER22> There are only 4 motors, so it's probably named after the octagon-shaped opening in the frame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> 10/10 great work

</comment><comment><USER24> id be curious to know more about the planetary reducers. did you just need more precision? or torque? seems like servo motors would solve the second issue.</comment>


Ask HN: Life without social media – suggestions, ideas - <AUTHOR> I'm slowly, but steadily heading towards a life without social media.
Why?
Because it's taking a toll on my wellness. Because I'm sick and tired of wasting my time. Because I feel like I can't even read a regular-sized news article anymore, since content on social media today is so short and short-lived. And I really want to get out of those toxic shitstorms happening all the time.
My question for the HN crowd: for those of you who are not using social media anymore, or those of you who have reduced your usage by a fair amount. How do you manage your digital life? What services do you use instead? How do you get in touch with people, or how do you allow other people to get in touch with you? Or maybe it's a matter of different habits? Do you have your personal website like back in the day? <comment><USER2> >How do you get in touch with people, or how do you allow other people to get in touch with you?

Ask yourself, which people (or types of people) do you actually care about being getting in touch with you. Remember that 90%+ of people in your personal or professional will never get in touch with you. So there's no reason to go out of your way to ensure those people can find you.

For family, friends, etc, most everybody has a phone number, texting, and email. Probably the people who matter to you have your contact information. For new people, give them your phone number.

For work, a LinkedIn account is usually is sufficient. You don't even have to login on a regular basis. That gives people from your professional life a way to find you.

If you want to have a place to show projects, Github and the usual places like that are sufficient. Put your email there.

A lot of times people ask themselves, "What if somebody from the past wants to connect with me? Don't I need Facebook/Instagram/Twitter?" Honestly speaking, most people from high school, college, job 10 years ago, etc don't care if you are alive or dead. The ones that do and really want to connect with you will find a way to do so. I had a friend from high school find me on LinkedIn to get my phone number so we could catch up. Turns out we didn't have much in common anymore so that was the end of that!

<comment><USER3> _Honestly speaking, most people from high school, college, job 10 years ago, etc don 't care if you are alive or dead_

This. My guess is that most people know this, but are having trouble accepting it. But once we accept it, it frees us from a lot of behavior that is "expected" of us (like being on Facebook, for example) but have no real/lasting value whatsoever.

I had a friend that connected with me few weeks ago, after not being in contact for 14 something years - we're having a blast catching up and poking fun at each other. Point being, if someone really wants to connect with you, they will find a way - everyone has email and phone, isn't it? What more do we need than emails, SMS and phone calls?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I quit all social media, facebook possibly 6 years ago and the others gradually after that. I haven't had or watched a TV probably in 10 years. I use whatsapp right now to communicate with a handful of friends and family and github for work and open source. My apartment also doesn't have an internet connection so no netflix/youtube whatever. I tether my phone with JS and images disabled every nown then to read HN, send a few emails, download some docs or packages and thats about it. All of this happened over a long period of time so I can't tell if I feel better than before but I definately have plenty of time to read and cook. A bonus is I've also become less reliant on search engines / stack overflow to program.

</comment><comment><USER5> I write my wiki and stay in touch with people over it. It is my lifetool. I try to own data and my identity. I integrate communications by hand into my wiki. I write detailed letters to people that mean something to me now. I'm more social than I've been in a long time this way. I get to talk to people who demonstrate they care, and I have evidence that they do.

[https://philosopher.life/#Find%20The%20Others:%5B%5BFind%20T...](https://philosopher.life/#Find%20The%20Others:%5B%5BFind%20The%20Others%5D%5D)

Hey, you should contact me. We can talk about it!

<comment><USER6> > my wiki

This is an interesting idea. How is this more involved than a personal blog? Do you literally auto-bio your entire self into a wiki?

<comment><USER5>
        * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19013043
        * https://philosopher.life/#2019.01.27%20-%20drdeadringer%3A%20First%20Contact

        Hello [[drdeadringer]],

        It's a pleasure to meet you.<<ref "hi">>

        <<<
        > my wiki

        This is an interesting idea.
        <<<

        Thank you. You might check out [[Tiddlywiki|https://tiddlywiki.com/]]. I'm glad I did.

        <<<
        How is this more involved than a personal blog?
        <<<

        Perhaps the best TLDR answer to your question I can give is simply: it's as personal and involved as you want it to be.

        Imho, the value of your effort scales quite well with this tool (into obsession). In whatever best form and function fits your context, be as [[concise or precise|Ithkuil]] as you can about what matters most to you.

        I know it might sound obvious to you, as though it doesn't need to be defined or I'm being too pedantic, but I'm going to ask you to define "personal blog."<<ref "i">> Tell me what you think is failing, incomplete, or lacking in the essential practice? What should it be instead? What do you think counts as the fitting [[Tit For Two Tats]] method of [[Golden Rule]] cooperating with ourselves and each other in social media?

        I can tell you that telling ourselves the stories of ourselves is mind-bendingly difficult and non-linear. What is the [[good]] for the sake of which one thinks about their life, and what are the most effective means to those end(s)? I suggest to you the wiki is an astoundingly flexible teleological tool for exploring, methodologizing, coherentifying, and evolving all kinds of answers to those questions. I've yet to find any other such low-friction tool which enables me to connect the dots and fill in the holes in my life to this [[dok]]. It's a place to be autonomous and define myself with [[others]].<<ref jyu">> It's the best [[self-modeling]] development environment I've ever had.<<ref "sm">>

        If you are asking how much more involved my wiki is to me than a standard personal blog (or even a book), I can say my wiki is ~25MB of highly-dimensional (for me at least) plaintext in a single html file. I work everyday in it. What I spend my time doing in my wiki varies with my daily context, and it's clear my {[[Focus]]} continues to change year after year.<<ref "sl">> Even though I plan, I cannot say what kind of object this wiki will become in the next year; it's exciting.

        <<<
        Do you literally auto-bio your entire self into a wiki?
        <<<

        It is like having a second brain.<<ref "sb">> I am attempting to upload what I currently think matters most about my mind into this wiki. I appreciate having the chance to read and think about what I've written.

        For both conceptual and practical reasons, I can't auto-bio everything about my life. I do my best with what I've got; it's all I can do. I have to be reductive, empirical, put my tentpegs down in the desert, fix my goggles, and pick out what is salient. If I knew how to be a better philosopher, I would (or so I [[hope]]). Without even remotely espousing a form of relativism here: I can't sufficiently tell you what you need to put in your ~~beetlebox~~ wiki (I probably can't even do it for myself). I'm simply not [[virtous|Virtue is Knowledge]] enough to know the answers to the many questions your question is asking.

        Without reading the entire wiki itself for my current best answer, I believe {[[About]]} and {[[Principles]]} are the best [[antipleonasmic]] answers I have regarding what I'm doing in the wiki and why.

        Sincerely,

        [[h0p3]]

        ---
        <<footnotes "hi" "Thank you for {[[contact]]}ing me, please make yourself at home, and let me know if or how I can {[[help]]} [[you|drdeadringer]].">>

        <<footnotes "i" "I'm afraid I'm not so skilled at defining it. I think we're having a [[hyperconversation]] of some sort though.">>

        <<footnotes "jyu" "I am reminded of this letter: [[2018.12.05 - JYU: Thank You For The Gift]]">>

        <<footnotes "sm" "I'm being sincere even though I appreciate the irony in: [[Poem: I am the very model of a self-recursive modeler]] and [[Why You Might Hate Me]].">>

        <<footnotes "sl" "My daily snapshots show and [[audit]]s of my wiki show me a persistent identity in a way that no standard blog or journal ever would.">>

        <<footnotes "sb" "This isn't a new idea, but I think this is best version of the idea I can implement.">>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The way people talk about this stuff never quite fits with my experience... I gave up newspapers & most news about 7-8 years ago, TV about 5 years ago, which has been great. I'm 'still' on FB, but never read the news feed, just chat with friends in many countries & sometimes look at the recent pics of the person I'm chatting with. (I never see ads on FB, so all that debate seems weird to me) Sometimes (like today!) I spend too long on HN, noprocrast is amazingly effective for that. Ban myself for 6 hours until the habit to keep coming back is gone. Also have never had a mobile phone. People contact me by FB (mostly) or email (which I dont check so often) or my website (occasionally).

p.s. Not sure why people don't think HN is social media!

</comment><comment><USER8> I believe the problems we face with those platforms come from the "feeds", those infinite sources of attention-grabbing distractions from the actual social part of those networks (talking, commenting, discussing, planning...).

For this reason I only use messaging apps (WhatsApp and FB messenger mainly, which bothers me since it still feeds the beast..).

</comment><comment><USER9> > How do you manage your digital life? What services do you use instead?

I don't have anything that I consider to be a 'digital life'. I didn't replace social media with other services. I meet and talk to people in real life. I get in touch by knocking on their door, or calling them on the phone. I spend my time going on walks with my wife, talking to my children, playing card and board games at the kitchen table, painting in my studio, and making furniture in the garage. We go on hikes, and explore the mountains and deserts in the area.

I interact with far fewer people, and in many ways I am far more isolated than I used to be. But that is the point - deeper interactions with the immediate world around you is often more fulfilling than superficial interactions online.

</comment><comment><USER10> How do you manage your digital life? I am pretty active on reddit, github and stackoverflow. I use google photos to share my pictures. What services do you use instead? Whatsapp is the only social network I use on a daily basis. I have gone cold turkey and deleted all my social media accounts like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc. How do you get in touch with people, or how do you allow other people to get in touch with you? I share my Whatsapp number and Email address with people I wish to stay in touch with. Do you have your personal website like back in the day? I have a personal webpage where I provide all my links such as email address, github, google scholar etc.

</comment><comment><USER11> After the iOS update that included the screen-time function. I started tracked my Instagram time (the only social media I used). It went for 3-4 hours per day. A huge sink of time.

Where I currently live, Instagram is huge. Always keeping up with the Joneses, who is having dinner with whom, show if you visited the last fancy place, etc.

It took a toll on my girlfriend mental health, always comparing herself. So I put the example that is possible to delete your account.

At first, you get the 'fomo' to not look where everyone is or what they are doing. After a month you start getting personal messages. So people that truly care about you will reach out at the end (and viceversa).

</comment><comment><USER6> > How do you manage your digital life?

You just don't. It's like not turning on the TV, not buying the Newspaper, walking past the Bar and not going in. You just "nope". Sometime it takes a mindful "I will not", sometimes it takes a simple "I have someplace better to be". It depends.

Other times you have to actively "fuck off". You do the "unsubscribe me". You "mark as spam". You do a new email address. All of this as you needs must at your pleasure.

</comment><comment><USER12> Quit Facebook in November last year. Quit WhatsApp in 2017. Never really used Instagram. Sparingly use Twitter/LinkedIn, mostly for following super smart people in my industry. A heavy reddit user though (my mind somehow doesn't accept that reddit is a "social media").

I have never felt more better, both in terms of my mood and my mental health at large. My mobile screen time took a nosedive post quitting. I couldn't be more happier not knowing what 500+ of my "friends" are doing in real time.

As for managing digital life -- I now call/email some of my closest friends every weekend, and use SMS to communicate with members of my family every other day. That's about it.

Though it's been kind of tiring explaining to people the _actual_ reason I quit these platforms (privacy/lack of trust on these big corps to safeguard my sensitive private data), I've realized that it _is_ possible to still communicate well over email/phone call/text.

I don't have a personal website as of now, but I'm seriously considering building one -- mostly for acting as a 'first point of contact' when people search for me on the web.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I don't have a personal website as of now, but I'm seriously considering > building one -- mostly for acting as a 'first point of contact' when people > search for me on the web.

This is what I've been doing the last few days. I think that having our own place in the digital space is key to get back the autonomy lost to the big platforms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> One thing to note is that you can deactivate your Facebook account but still use Messenger, which is what I did. I'd prefer not to use messenger either, but I have so many friends from over the years that I use messenger a new primary way of talking with them that it's not likely I'd ever be able to convince all of them to switch to another platform. That being said, I still see this as a huge improvement; not having a news feed to look at has been a net win for me, and since college I hadn't used groups very much, so at least in terms of the amount of time I spent idly on social media, deactivating the account has been a huge success. I'd guess that one of the bigger roadblocks to doing this for a lot of people would be losing access to the events features, since many people use that as their primary way of notifying others of an event they're planning. The only advice I can offer here is to let your friends who often plan events know to tell you directly (or text/message/etc.), which may or may not work well depending on your set of friends.

</comment><comment><USER14> Figure out where the toxic shitstorms are coming from and cut those items out of your life.

In my case, the main FB news stream and TV news were the primary antagonizers. I stopped watching TV news and get my news from HN and Google News (even that's a struggle to hide the useless crap). For FB, there are several special-interest-groups about things I'm interested in (Fusion 360, woodworking, blacksmithing, etc) that are not prone to off-topic or sensational chatter (thank you, moderators!) and I installed 'News Feed Eradicator for Facebook'[0] which has cut way back on the unpleasantness and even turned FB into a positive experience.

[0] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/news-feed- eradicat...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/news-feed-eradicator- for/fjcldmjmjhkklehbacihaiopjklihlgg)

</comment><comment><USER15> I quit all personal social media years and years ago. I use a ton of email and text and am deeply involved in several real world communities and hobbies. I do have a LinkedIn I mainly ignore, just because it helps when searching for jobs.

If a person doesn't have real world interests or networks, I think they should take lessons or classes in things they like from people they respect and see what happens organically over a year or so. They can reintroduce their hobby's tech stack into their life as needed. For instance, I still watch a lot of YouTube (without an account) and read a lot of non-Reddit forums, like this one, because they help me learn things.

Not having social media is rarely an issue for planning and staying in touch with people and I rarely get asked about it. I still waste lots of digital time but I do it in ways I find more amusing than toxic.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm actually in a similar situation - I don't want to quit the Internet completely, I just wish to recover some time that I think is wasted on social media, and at the same time "escape" that often toxic environment.

I still want to read interesting discussions, but I don't want to read all the other clutter and BS.

<comment><USER15> I'm living your dream then! It's pretty good. It'll be ten fun tears "mega social media"-free next year.

I'll use any online tool if it has a point (usually work or hobby related) and doesn't bother me in terms of privacy, ethics, or the behavior of the other users. The cozy internet of happy, nice people of all ages and backgrounds doing stuff they love still exists, it's just hidden in smaller places built for specific interests. I consider HN about as general and large a community as I'm willing to frequent, and I only come here to lurk and listen.

My miscellanous private social life (no point other than that I love these people) is all phone, non-Gmail email, and text because IMO no company has created anything more funny and useful than group texts and hour-long phone calls. I do want to be a little elusive and hard to find so that people value my time, and I want my happy times with other people to feel more concentrated. It's the personal version of avoiding overexposure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't have any social media account anymore, my biggest problems are sites like hackernews where I waste my time.

I would love to ditch my smartphone for a dumb phone, but what I need is WhatsApp, because everyone uses it where I live and a good camera for taking pictures. Maybe one day :)

</comment><comment><USER17> I haven't used Facebook for 10 years now, and have not signed up for other social networks mainly to eliminate unwanted attention from family I was trying to avoid!

I do almost all of my communication through texting, messaging apps (RIP Hangouts), and email. It seems to work out OK! I do get periodic updates about what is going on with random people from my wife who still has Facebook but I can't say I would miss that if it was gone! She is stuck in because many groups she is involved with are organized on there.

Not even seeing what is going on in social media is great; I think not having it is quality over quantity in terms of interaction.

</comment><comment><USER18> It was actually very easy to break the habit for me. You'll find that things like books and movies are a lot more entertaining and enjoyable.

But I rely on Facebook a lot for work. I actually had to force myself to get back on it.

I would really prefer to quit, but they really are an unfair advantage to those who use it. HN would also fall into the same category imo.

<comment><USER19> > rely on Facebook a lot for work

Can you elaborate on this? I can't imagine how I would use it for work. Is it just as you might use linked, to keep in touch with past coworkers or more?

<comment><USER18> Yeah. Generally, I don't use LinkedIn, because it has an even more toxic culture than Facebook. I've also found that if there's a repulsion to adding someone on FB, that's a major flag in working with them.

Also FB acts as my blog and personal marketing - about 80% of job offers and contracts come from there.

I find it's a better source for tech things than HN too. HN provides perspective from the more senior group, while FB has the younger 20s group. HN's is a little more cynical and FB is a bit more open minded but arrogant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Personally, I closed my facebook and I did not regret one bit. However, it is safe to say that I was not a heavy facebook user. On the other hand, while I do not share much in Instagram, I check my news feed a lot. What I did: I decreased the number of people I follow, installed Duolingo and started learning Spanish!

</comment><comment><USER21> Uninstall the apps. Use the browser if you need to. The friction will reduce usage.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a simple, yet very good idea, thank you.</comment></comment>


Monitoring with Prometheus - <AUTHOR> https://www.prometheusbook.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Some useful background info in [https://www.kartar.net/2017/10/prometheus/](https://www.kartar.net/2017/10/prometheus/) on why Turnbull wrote the book, despite being one of the maintainers for a competing monitoring tool, Riemann.</comment>


Font comparer - <AUTHOR> http://www.fontcomparer.com/ <comment><USER2> Very cool! I'd like to see something interactive like this for programming fonts. I've done a little exploration in this space, too:

[http://1overn.com/2011/01/31/iterating-on-font-pair- comparis...](http://1overn.com/2011/01/31/iterating-on-font-pair-comparisons/)

</comment><comment><USER3> That's pretty nice...would be certainly helpful if it can allow us to use the different font sizes so we can test a lot more on one shot.

</comment><comment><USER4> Here's something else along the same lines:

<http://www.typetester.org/></comment>