Skype 5 for Mac - <AUTHOR> http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2011/03/30/skype_5/ <comment><USER3> _Skype has noticed that there is a discrepancy in quality between the two versions, and has decided to make the two versions more similar to each other. Unfortunately, instead of making the Windows version of Skype better, they've decided to fix the discrepancy by making the Mac version of Skype more like the Windows version._

This is the number one reason that I prefer Mac-only products to products that are available on both Windows and Mac.

Invariably, the companies decide that since they have 4x the sales on Windows as on Mac, the correct course of action is to build a product that is identical in almost every way with just a very thin GUI "skin" on the outside that is Mac or Windows specific. I don't know if this is because they think that the Windows sales "validate" the UX design or if it's an attempt to save money by having a single code base (or both?), but the results are invariably awful on the Mac.

Windows users are not interchangeable with Mac users. What "works" for someone who was given their PC by the IT department does not work for someone who deliberately chose to buy a product with a tiny market share.

<comment><USER4> I wonder if you realize that _because_ the Macs have a "tiny market share" (as you describe it) it's just easier (cheaper, too) to produce a re-chromed version of your software rather than writing a completely new interface just for those users. Also, it's a plus for the users coming from the PC market because they don't have to relearn the interface.

<comment><USER3> _I wonder if you realize that because the Macs have a "tiny market share" (as you describe it) it's just easier (cheaper, too) to produce a re-chromed version of your software rather than writing a completely new interface just for those users._

Considering that I wrote that companies might think it's cheaper, I'm going to go with yes, I realize that companies might think it's cheaper.

Likewise, it's also cheaper for PC Manufacturers to sell me junk PCs loaded up with BloatWare, yet I buy Macs. Just as it's perfectly reasonable for company A to make a product that user B finds repellant, it's also perfectly reasonable for a company to make a Mac product that sucks, and it's equally reasonable for a Mac user to avoid it at all costs. Neither party is wrong in any sense, any more than WalMart is wrong for not selling full carbon mountain bikes or Ibis Cycles (a specialty manufacturer who lays their frames up by hand in the USA) is wrong for not rebranding a Chinese steel MTB at a $500 price point.

 _It's a plus for the users coming from the PC market because they don't have to relearn the interface._

This is not as sound an argument as the one we agree on. Replicating the PC experience with your Mac product works if you have all these PC users at the office and one day IT removes their PCs and replaces them with Macs. Or if you have a company with Macs and PCs and IT support costs show up in a report somewhere, but Mac user frustration with a poor interface is "off balance- sheet."

But if someone owns a PC and decides to _switch_ to a Mac, it's because he explicitly doesn't like the PC experience. Replicate the PC experience on his Mac, and you may find that he switches products as well as computers.

<comment><USER5> The problem with the Mac way is that its all consuming. You completely need to reorient and reshape your world view to get past the uncanny valley of your typical Mac fan. No matter how much you polish your QT / Gtk/ Swing UI it will not pass muster. On the Mac platform native apps seem to dominate - <USER2> textmate vs jedit/emacs/vim, omnigraffle vs visio, parallels vs virtualbox / vmware. Which suggests that if you are a cross platform company you might have to cede the "high end" mac purist to a Mac specific app.

<comment><USER6> Having downloaded it I can't seem to find a trace of any pascal but plenty of nib files.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This change butts up against what I think is a fundamental, unsolved UI issue. Power users often don't realize how much if an issue "getting lost" is for novice users. Dave Worthington's Mom said[1] of the iPad:

        Well, it's too touchy. Even though I'm better with it now… if you happen
        just to move your hand or something, you know, then all of a sudden you're
        out of what you're in. That's bad I think.

Notice she doesn't say "you go back a page" or "you've opened something" she says "you're out of what you're in". Anyone whose done some usability testing knows that users all the time get "out of what they're in" and are completely lost. And as the designer you are screaming in your head "You've just gone to your Account page! Just click the huge red "Back to my movies" link at the top of the page you ninny!" All. The. Time. Bless us, designers and users both.

I call this an unsolved problem because the options are equally bad:

1) Have one panel where you replace the contents frequently. Like a web browser. Unfortunately, as the article points out, prevents doing two things at once. And it forces people to learn often complicated mechanisms for navigating from state to state.

2) Show multiple panels at the same time. Takes up a lot of space, especially when there are lots of panels. Can be confusing at first.

3) Show multiple panels, but with the ability to close panels. This introduces the UI problem of reopening them. You can allow people to shrink/move around the panels independently, but that gives the user even more ways to lose something.

There are more advanced ways to deal with the problem. Zooming User Interfaces[2] were meant to deal with this somewhat... by giving everything a place and a context, they were supposed to allow you to maintain a good sense of where things are. But in practice, they turned out to be even more disorienting than a contextless browser window because navigation is less constrained and there are so many more places to get lost.

Microsoft, with WP7 does a little innovating here with their panoramic view control[3]. It puts UI elements in a context and lets you see a little bit of that context, without forcing people to do free navigation in a virtual space.

As for Skype, I won't argue that the new version is better for anyone, because I haven't seen the user testing. It's obviously worse for one person, but even objectively better designs are sometimes worse for power users who have deeply entrenched workflows in the old product. I do think there's a reasonable chance that they made the change because of user testing and that novice users are fundamentally happier in the new version. Again, I don't know because I haven't seen the testing.

But I will say that the OP is wrong about something. His problem is not the overall decision to integrate the video and chat into one window. His problem is that they hid the "open a chat for this person" button. If they had left the windowing exactly the same, but removed the "open chat" button from the user list and made you mouse over a video window to see it, he would've been equally lost.

The problem isn't that they made the wrong choice among flawed windowing models. The problem is they didn't do the work of making the UI work well within the constraints the windowing model provides. If they did extensive testing with a variety of users (including both novices who get lost, and advanced users who construct massive structures of windows to coordinate with dozens of people) they would've caught the video/chat bug.

[1] [http://technologizer.com/2011/03/28/my-mom-reviews-the- ipad-...](http://technologizer.com/2011/03/28/my-mom-reviews-the-ipad-her- first-computer/) [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooming_user_interface> [3][http://www.kotancode.com/2010/08/12/preview-of-the- panorama-...](http://www.kotancode.com/2010/08/12/preview-of-the-panorama-and- pivot-controls-for-windows-phone-7/)

</comment><comment><USER8> I concur with the Skype 5 degraded UI. I also have a warning to others:

After struggling to see the benefit of Skype 5, I wished to downgrade back to the previous version. However, I couldn't find a link anywhere on the Skype.com website for previous versions. As a result I searched on Google and found a third-party website offering previous versions for download (<http://mac.oldapps.com/skype.php?old_skype=37>).

I downloaded and installed the older version, and logged into my account. Later that night I received an email from Skype confirming a purchase for an "Online Number" that I hadn't made. I immediately logged in to investigate and I could see the transaction pending. I managed to log into Paypal and remove Skype from my trusted billers in time.

I believe that the version of Skype I downloaded was stealing login credentials. Let this be a warning to others that are trying to roll back their Skype client!

I emailed Skype's security team (after long minutes trying to find a very hidden contact link on their site). The response was cookie cutter, but ridiculously contained a sales pitch for the very feature that was just illegally purchased from my stolen account! This was infuriating - like a slap in the face from Skype considering my state of mind:

If you'd like to get more out of Skype, why not learn about all our great features - like Online Numbers? Anyone can dial your Online Number from any phone or mobile, your Skype rings and you pick up the call – wherever you are in the world. Find out more at [http://www.skype.com/go/onlinenumber/](http://www.skype.com/go/onlinenumber/);

<comment><USER9> Gak! Thank you so much, I downloaded and installed their software this morning. I've deleted it and changed my skype password, I hope that's enough.

Version 2.8 can be found on Skype's website (Techcrunch linked to it in a recent article): [http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your- computer/maco...](http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your- computer/macosx/2-8/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I refuse to upgrade to Skype 5 after trying it once and accidentally upgrading a second time when the app tried to auto upgrade itself. The horrid UI combined with Skype's stated desire to bring ads to the client makes me search for an alternative which sadly there isn't.

In a business setting I would say that 90% of the time Skype is used as an IM client because of its working persistant groups and functional file transfers.

Entrepreneurs take note, there's an opportunity to make a competitor to Skype even though many would say that's crazy since Skype is so entrenched. However Skype has failed to innovate and is regressing in user experience. If someone nails the group chat features first and give table stakes for the voice/video chat we'd have a viable alternate for business use.

<comment><USER11> What's missing from skype that isnt provided by AIM or GTalk? Is it the ability to make phone calls?

<comment><USER12> I have been unable to find an alternative that allows me, a Mac user, to do a video chat with my girlfriend, a Windows user, with no fuss when both of us are behind separate NATs.

<comment><USER11> Not even AIM? I find that hard to believe

<comment><USER13> It's absolutely true. I haven't used AIM much but a while ago I was trying to find an easy way to talk to my parents. When you want a hassle free experience, Skype so far is the only option.

<comment><USER14> It's absolutely true. I haven't used AIM much but a while ago I was trying to find an easy way to talk to my parents. When you want a hassle free experience, Skype WAS the only option.

It's now no longer hassle free. Like the OP I find the new Skype wretched, now use it less and would jump at helping my contacts and I switch.

Question: How many Mac users are in the internal Skype testing program? I'm guessing not many

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Saw a tweet recently that summed it up nicely: "@anildash: Seems like Skype and iTunes are battling it out for the RealPlayer Memorial Award for Most Annoying Desktop Client App."

If you remember RealPlayer, know Skype for Windows, know iTunes for Windows, you'll know _exactly_ what I mean.

<comment><USER16> Why are the most essential programs in life the ones that always have the most obscenely bloated updates?

<comment><USER17> The only reason iTunes seems to be essential is because there is almost no competition on OSX. Its a fairly horrible music player / media organizer compared to most Windows based software.

I only use Skype to video chat with my daughters and it could be easily swapped over to Google chat + Video.

<comment><USER16> I'm not talking about just iTunes and Skype, though. I can think of several consumer programs that have become more bloated with worse UIs over time- AIM, Ad-Aware, Windows Media Player, Firefox...

It seems rather inevitable.

<comment><USER18> What do you dislike about Firefox's UI? I could never go back from Firefox 4 to Firefox 2 or 3.

<comment><USER6> The windows ui got a bit worse(no menubar by default right)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I remember when Apple released FaceTime, they said it'd be an open industry standard. See:

[http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/07/apple_announce...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/07/apple_announces_open_standard_facetime_video_chat_for_iphone_4.html)

and

[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177819/Jobs_has_loft...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177819/Jobs_has_lofty_goal_for_iPhone_4_s_FaceTime_video_chat_with_open_standard)

Seems striking that it's been nearly a year and we haven't heard a peep about making it open. I would presume that if it were, it _could_ be possible to bridge the two protocols or eliminate the need for skype.

<comment><USER7> I just did some searching around to confirm this, because I had thought Apple released the spec back when they announced it, but you're right. Not a peep.

It sort of behooves them to release it... it would build support for FaceTime, which would make their phones more useful.

But it seems pretty certain they don't want other phones to be able to check that FaceTime box on their marketing materials just yet. I know being able to chat with my mom and sister who both have iPhones is one reason I'm considering buying one.

Seems low to announce it as an open spec if you don't have any intentions of opening it any time soon though.

<comment><USER20> They'll release it in two years but it's going to be the best spec ever written for a mobile device. Just wait til Gruber sees the indentation in the sample code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I can echo the article's sentiments. I upgraded to the new client a few weeks ago and cannot adequately express the horror I experienced when my clean, intuitive UI/UX went away and was replaced by some forsaken window vomited up from a designer's darkest nightmare.

In what possible world does coverflow for contacts make better sense than just a simple list?

It took actual time for me to figure out how to find my contacts and place a call. I hold a degree, I am not an idiot. For a program designed specifically for the purpose of calling people, for that functionality to be that un- intuitive is simply mind-boggling.

<comment><USER22> I think the most horrible part of that is that I continue to experience the same shock I felt when I first saw it each time I bring it up. It is like I'm seeing it again for the first time and have to reorient myself. I'm wondering how many times it will take for me to rewire my brain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> We have been converting a lot of groups from Skype to HipChat [1] lately and I'm surprised how many of them cite the UI craziness as a major reason for wanting to leave the platform. Obviously good, consistent UI is important but it always seemed like the general public had an amazing ability to deal with crappy UI. Apparently there is a breaking point.

One thing that's particularly annoying about Skype's UI is that you have no idea how to help a coworker using a different operating system because the layout is totally different. Certainly doesn't help adoption.

1\. <https://www.hipchat.com>

</comment><comment><USER24> As a dev with a remote team, Skype 5 is probably my most-used desktop application on OS X, besides my IDE.

The other day, after upgrading, I could not for the life of me figure out how to bring up the number key pad while on a voice call. I needed to "press 1 for X", but I couldn't do it. This used to be easy in Old Skype.

If a power user like myself can't figure something out, chances are it's too difficult or hidden for casual users too.

</comment><comment><USER25> "Something I've noticed even casual Skype users do is to send URLs by text chat during a videochat. Well… How do you do that in Skype 5?"

That burned me in a Skype call yesterday (first time using it since the new version upgrade). I had to send the link by email instead. I also couldn't figure out how to hang up a call, so I had to quit the app!

<comment><USER26> I don't have anyone to do a test video call with right now but I'm pretty sure you can drag the divider bar at the bottom of the window up and it will reveal the chat box again.

Can anyone confirm?

P.S. I personally think the new Skype 5 for Mac is a disaster

<comment><USER25> Yup, the linked article describes that as well - wasn't much use for me when I was on the call though!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> What other options are out there that are (a) cross-platform and (b) can be set to auto-answer video calls?

Skype has been in our plans for our poor man's Telepresence setup, but at the same time, I've never been super comfortable with relying on Skype, particularly with their bare-bones Linux support.

</comment><comment><USER28> This post is right on, if a few months late. I recall testing the Skype 5 beta last fall and could not believe the step backward in usability. On the skype forums many users (including myself) left detailed UX feedback, with many topics titled things like "5.x user interface is thrill of horror". Sadly most of the user feedback has been ignored and the final product shows little improvement on the beta.

</comment><comment><USER29> Skype on the Mac has always just been downright awful. The software is extremely buggy and confusing. Maybe some of my problems are with settings I can change, but that is bad UX in my opinion. When I get chats, I hear a noise, but then can't see who sent me the chat until I go to my buddylist and scan for a number indicating the number of messages next to someone. There's also that whole mood message thing which just dumbfounds me. The thing is though, as long as I can click a button to video chat my parents, these issues are ignorable for my usage, which is frustrating and relieving at the same time.

<comment><USER30> >There's also that whole mood message thing which just dumbfounds me.

My friends and I have come up with a pretty good use for the mood message: with a custom chatstyle I hacked together, if you set your mood message to a hex color, the header on your message shows up in that color. It's great for our multi-person chats to keep messages straight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> One can get Skype 2.8 from Skype.com if you're worried about getting malware or problems from other sources as mentioned earlier. Took some digging.

[http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your- computer/maco...](http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your- computer/macosx/2-8/)

</comment><comment><USER32> I try not to publicly complain too much, but when I got this upgrade a month ago I was shocked. Its so bloated and unevenly proportionate for use. It seems like they are trying to take up as much real estate on the desktop and compete for the attention of the user , i.e. move them away from gmail/gchat etc.

</comment><comment><USER33> So far the best thing I like about it is that the upgrader offers a "Skip This Version" button. And I'm thankful I know lots of early adopters.

</comment><comment><USER34> Skype 5 is what really got my company looking for a different chat solution. The protocol and features are still generally wonderful, but the client is just _horrible_ now.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm going to have to downgrade. My mother sometimes uses skype on my computer to chat with relatives, but the auto-hiding toolbar that now owns the buttons to stop a call or activate/eactivate the camera confuses her. It confused me for ages, since if you move the mouse off the video area to the top the toolbar stays permanently, but if you move the mouse away to the bottom it auto-hides. Took me several sessions to find how to reach the chat window as well. Gah!

</comment><comment><USER36> Skype 2.8 UI was messy, with windows popping up everywhere and sidebars going crazy. Skype 5 is just perfect, and in all honesty can't find anything wrong with it a part of the chat while calling thing.

<comment><USER37> Agreed. I have no idea why the author prefers the 20 window view <http://cl.ly/5cqD> to Skype 5 <http://cl.ly/5cmT> I've hated Skype's UI until now. Personally, I think everyone's greatly mistaken for thinking otherwise.

<comment><USER38> I prefer it because I don't have to click five times to see everything I need to see, every time I haven't looked at Skype for half an hour. And I prefer it because I don't have to constantly switch between chats just to see what people are writing. I apologize for being mistaken in this, of course :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Additionally to the very spot-on dissection of Skype in the article, what I find amazingly frustrating about this version is the list of recent calls in the left-hand menu thing. I call a lot of numbers in Australia, and where it used to show the full number, now it only shows the first 2-3 digits (i.e. the +61). When I click on that to hopefully see more about which damn number it is, the title of the right hand chat/history screen thing is "+61..." ARGH. NOWHERE does it show the full number. How am I supposed to know if it was my mum, my sister, or my brother I called? Very frustrating.

I discovered more recently that if I mouse-overed the number in the left hand menu it would eventually pop up in a tooltip, but _eventually_ is the operative here. I have to wait a full 5 seconds or so for it to show up, and that's a long time in annoyed-liedra time.

I hope they fix a lot of this up, because at the moment it's just rubbish.

</comment><comment><USER4> Great, now they just need to update the Linux client to 2.2 and we are all settled!

Seriously though, Skype has shown they don't give a crap about their Linux users.

<comment><USER40> Surely they'll release 2.1 first; it's still beta, for the last 2 years AFAICT.

[http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/get-skype/on-your- computer/l...](http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/get-skype/on-your- computer/linux/)

>"Skype 2.1 Beta 2 for Linux > >We're excited to announce a new beta version for Linux, with extra features and better sound and video quality ..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Does anyone have a recommendation for a cross-platform (Mac/Windows at least) video chat program usable by casual users and which works fine through a NAT? Skype is quickly becoming annoyingly unusable for the reasons the article discusses (and more).

<comment><USER41> Does gtalk not work through NAT?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I've never seen my coworkers as universally excited as the day one of them posted the old version of the Skype for Mac dmg in our campfire room.

I'm exaggerating, sure, but everybody was thrilled to get rid of the Skype 5 horror.

</comment><comment><USER43> Previous discussions: <http://searchyc.com/submissions/skype+5?sort=by_date>

</comment><comment><USER44> Just to add, for a good percentage of mac skype users, video doesn't work in 5. It doesn't work for me on either of my macs and I had to downgrade.

</comment><comment><USER45> <http://www.oldversion.com/Skype.html>

<comment><USER46> OldVersion is for Windows software only.

<comment><USER47> <http://mac.oldversion.com/Skype.html>

<comment><USER48> be careful (see other comment in thread): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387945>

<comment><USER47> Ouch. Thanks for that.

For people who haven't followed the link, 2.8 is available from the source at [http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your- computer/maco...](http://www.skype.com/intl/en/get-skype/on-your- computer/macosx/2-8/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I have used the Feedback function to complain, and they fixed the spacing a bit from beta to release.

I can "fix" the windows version by turning off a lot of the "Today screen" and superfluous information bars everywhere. To make it look more like the old Mac version.

<comment><USER26> To me the biggest two things:

1) The dial pad is one of the only things still in a separate window, which is a pain when entering conference call passwords (which is what I use Skype for half of the time). Before you could just click in the call window and start hitting numbers.

2) I can no longer have two different chats open side by side.

Aesthetically I actually don't mind it. It's the huge step backwards in UX that I hate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Irrelevant and not surprising considering the author but thats a very clean and sexy looking blog.

</comment><comment><USER51> do you think skype will come to its senses and revert their ui changes? or is it motivated by something else, like increasing screen real-estate for eventual advertising?

</comment><comment><USER52> for those looking to reinstall Skype 2.8 for Mac: <http://mac.oldapps.com/skype.php?old_skype=37>

<comment><USER53> See comment above before installing this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387945>

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> We use Skype to communicate at work and pretty much curse Skype 5 every time we use it. My personal favorite interface feature is that double clicking someone when you're video chatting between multiple people MINIMIZES that person. I've watched no fewer than 10 people double click the main presenter in chat only to make a face and start fiddling with things when it does the opposite of what they want.

</comment><comment><USER55> Ha: I happen to love the new Skype version

<comment><USER56> We would all honestly love to know why?

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I've been grumbling for a while that the Linux client was still on version 2.1, but I guess that's something I should be thankful for. (Though these days with the pidgin and gnome-do plugins I rarely interact with Skype directly; I don't know how people can work in chat rooms without nick coloring.)

<comment><USER4> What really pisses me off about the Linux version of Skype is that it doesn't support multiple telephone numbers per contact. You are stuck with either using the first number in the number list (not always an option), creating multiple contacts, or manually entering the secondary phone if the person you are contacting is not available on their first phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Agree with you so well, and thanks for the link back to 2.8, which I've gratefully reinstalled.

</comment><comment><USER59> There is still no way to turn off birthday notifications on Mac OS X. That is, any time it is any one of your contact's birthdays, Skype sends you a mandatory message about it which requires user action to dismiss.

</comment><comment><USER60> A nice interface suggestion just came up on Techcrunch: <http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/30/skype-5>

</comment><comment><USER61> A small remedy is the "Contacts" window (command-3) -- but it doesn't show waiting messages.

Thinking about a downgrade myself...</comment>


Apple to 'ban iPhone gig filming' - <AUTHOR> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3641676/Apple-to-ban-iPhone-gig-filming.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

<comment><USER2> The Sun? This is worse than linking to a story from El Reg (but not quite as bad as linking to the Daily Mail).

This is probably where the 'story' was concocted from [http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2011/06/apple- wo...](http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2011/06/apple-working-on-a- sophisticated-infrared-system-for-ios-cameras.html)

What ifs in the case of it actually being implemented....

This would give room for anyone to knock up a quick photo-b-gone in the style of tv-b-gone just to ruin peoples day for lulz.

I also wonder of this wouldn't be of interest to 'the authorities' to cut down on people getting decent coverage of civil unrest.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm ok with apple controlling the app and UI side of the iphone experience. But that's as far as their control should go. This technology is just silly. I don't care where I am, I'll always expect to be able to snap a picture or a quick vid of me and my peeps - if I ever find my camera disabled just because I'm at a live concert venue, that device is going in the bin.

And from a commercial viewpoint...

 _The companies are often left frustrated when videos of shows appear online via websites such as YouTube which let users watch them for free._

... this is complete hogwash. The "piracy is damaging my bottom line" only makes sense when they're selling the stuff themselves, which come on, they rarely do. When was the last time any of us went to a live concert which was later made into a dvd?

Anyway, I seriously doubt this technology ever sees the light of day. Apple already has plenty of leverage over record labels as it is, methinks.

<comment><USER4> There's no link to the patent, so it's hard to be sure, but they're talking about using an infra-red emitter. I would imagine that you just set the emitter up on the stage, and any attempt to photograph the stage gets blocked, but you are still free to take photos of your friends or anything else that interests you, so it wouldn't be infringing on your rights (not that anyone has a 'right' to take photos, at least as far as I am aware, but IANAL), except to take photos of the event.

Personally I would prefer that the technology just tags the photo as having unauthorised content, which would could be easily checked by photosharing sites. That way you can keep your photos and use them privately, you just can't stick them up on flickr or youtube... Of course, I can think of about a thousand ways of getting around that - including re-encoding the images in someway so that the tags are scrubbed, and to stop _that_ you would have to introduce DRM, which is just bad bad bad from a usability point of view.

Summary: this is just an absolutely silly idea if it really does block you from taking photos _of_ an event, but at least it should allow you to take photos _at_ the event

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is beyond. Where does it end? Governments and corporations will no doubt misuse this technology. Imagine a corporate HQ with this at the gate. Maybe a tank with this on the turret or riot police with this on their helmets.

I, for one, would not buy a phone with this "feature".

</comment><comment><USER6> I go to a lot of gigs, I average about 80 a year. I also film quite a few, with bands permission, with a semi pro camera. I do it for free and the bands use them as promo material for their niche.

In my experience most bands have got used to being filmed pretty much all the time. They film nearly everything backstage and nearly every band films themselves on stage. The only bands that would care are brand-bands that want to control their image.... because all they really have is image and lack substance.

Having said that: It really annoys when I'm at a gig and I can't see the band because of a wall of camera phones between me and the stage.

</comment><comment><USER7> Conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm having a hard time believing this. Will iPhone users really allow this?

I don't even go to concerts, but just them telling me I couldn't use my phone as I like would see me switching to something else.

<comment><USER9> Apple patents everything it possibly can so they won't get sued. Very few patents are actually used and this one sounds ridiculous. It's much ado about nothing.

<comment><USER10> Precisely. And patent trolls were in the news _just last week_ , so you'd think someone might be able to put two and two together and realize that Apple is going to patent every crazy idea that they can afford the fees for, just to bolster the portfolio.

But, as the other commenters are saying, intelligence is too much to expect from a tabloid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Sun to "print sensationalist stories"

<comment><USER12> The Sun, turning a profit thanks to old men who can't find topless models any other way since 1969.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_cut-off_filter></comment>


Dear young people, "Don't Vote" [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0e9guhV35o <comment><USER2> Divide. Divide. Divide. Perhaps its time for a new approach.

</comment><comment><USER3> Damn, if I was old I would be super hurt by this video. Apparently old people are Trump supporters, indifferent about school shootings, against climate change, against social justice, senile, selfish, and have no care the lives of their children or the generations that follow.

And I personally dislike pretty much everything about this video's message. You should vote because you like the candidates you're voting for, not because you hate their opponent. Your fellow Americans aren't your enemies -- you vote to make your preferences heard, not to drown out others.

<comment><USER4> Am old. Not hurt. (Nor rich, I might add.) But when one side is constantly taking shots at you, and the other side is welcoming you with open arms, well, it's hard to ignore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ralph Nader spoke recently at the Politics and Prose bookstore in DC about how few people it takes leading through action to get change done if public opinion backs them.

[https://youtu.be/OWxc_kYmPTE](https://youtu.be/OWxc_kYmPTE)</comment>


Britain is the new China? David Cameron threatens to block social networks. - <AUTHOR> http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/8/11/cameron-threatens-shut-down-uk-social-networks/

<comment><AUTHOR> Unbelievable. Why is it that the Government never consults groups which know about internet privacy and freedom like the Open Rights Group but consult "Consumer rights groups" which usually work on retail issues.

I'm not sure if any UK political party has got the grasp of this issue. I hope it's a case of not understanding technology enough or the reason old media and new media rare very different in terms of freedom and not that they actually feel you can just block sites/users. This wouldn't make any kind of difference and i'd rather have these people posting in the public view than via the thousands of other means of communications they have to choose from.

If this is how they feel why hasn't every Criminal in the UK been banned from having a landline or buying a mobile phone.

</comment><comment><USER2> It would be interesting to check to see what David Cameron said in response to North African governments like Egypt who did the same thing this year.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm surprised they wouldn't prefer to leave them up but subpoena the data afterwards (or even require realtime backdoor access to it).

</comment><comment><USER4> First I would like to see him try. second If he does this then people will have a genuine reason to protest, not a good idea at all.</comment>


I Got Fired Twice – Am I Unemployable Now? - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2018/03/13/i-got-fired-twice-am-i-unemployable-now/ <comment><USER2> If you got fired for cause twice, definitely not a good sign. If you got "laid off" twice because you got up the nose of your boss then that's not so bad, there's lots of jerk bosses, team leads etc. If you got laid off but "black listed" by a powerful company/person in your area, you might consider moving.</comment>


Evil 32: Check Your GPG Fingerprints - <AUTHOR> https://evil32.com/

<comment><USER2> This page is absolutely correct that you should not use 32 bit key IDs, ever.

However, some of its information about GnuPG is out of date. As of version 1.4.17 (released in June), GnuPG no longer blindly accepts responses from key servers:

[http://git.gnupg.org/cgi- bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commit...](http://git.gnupg.org/cgi- bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commit;h=5230304349490f31aa64ee2b69a8a2bc06bf7816)

[http://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1579](http://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1579)

The fix was backported to wheezy-security as well:

[https://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=725411](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=725411)

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's a pretty comprehensive guide:

[https://help.riseup.net/en/gpg-best- practices](https://help.riseup.net/en/gpg-best-practices)

</comment><comment><USER4> I love gpg but openpgp tooling is just ancient piece of crap from CLI perspective.

\- writing gpg just gives you cryptic "gpg: Go ahead and type your message ..." without any more information.

\- `gpg --list-keys` apart from being hard to remember* has a table of misaligned values without any headers.

\- I still can't figure out how to make use of gpg-agent.

* I always tend to write --keys and I get another non-helpful info error "gpg: Option "--keys" is ambiguous")

</comment><comment><USER5> See also: Trolling the Web of Trust[1]

The slides from Micah's original OHM2013 presentation are in trollwot.pdf

0xdeadbeef keys[2] have been around for quite a while, too. Generating a custom 32-bit key ID using a simple unoptimized brute force program takes under an hour on a midrange PC.

[1] [https://github.com/micahflee/trollwot](https://github.com/micahflee/trollwot)

[2] [http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0xdeadbeef&op=index](http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0xdeadbeef&op=index)

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting, this article from 2011 shows the Debian community moving from short 8 char IDs to 16 chararters one.

Now I'm really confused, and I have to ask:

Why are we calling a 8 hexadecimal character word 32 bit when it reuqires 64 bit to encode, or a 16 hexadecimal character word 64 bit when it take 256 bit to encode?

<comment><USER7> Because while 8 characters of hexadecimal stored directly as themselves as individual bytes occupy 8 bytes, each pair of hexadecimal characters only encodes up to 1 byte of binary information.

00 -> FF only covers 0-255, which is the range of binary values representable in 1 byte.

The bit length they're talking about isn't about how many characters are in the human readable IDs (hex) but instead the technical range limit of the ID numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> So how do I know if my key ID is 32 bit?

<comment><USER9> It's not a property of the key itself, it's about how we communicate about keys.

For example, consider the key of Ryan Lackey, who posts here on HN. Some people (and software) might refer to that key as D2E0301F, which is its 32-bit key ID. A more secure way to refer to the same key is

B8B8 3D95 F940 9760 C64B DE90 07AD BE07 D2E0 301F

which is called the fingerprint of the key. Both of these forms exist for _every_ PGP key. Notice that the 32-bit key ID is the rightmost 32 bits of the fingerprint (D2E0 301F → D2E0301F. The problem with this is that it is easy (according to the linked article, now takes only four seconds) to make some other key that will also have 32-bit key ID D2E0301F, so if you tried to find or verify Ryan's key using only that ID, someone could trick you into using a fake one.

Another form sometimes used today is the 64-bit key ID, which is the rightmost 64 bits of the fingerprint (in Ryan's case, 07AD BE07 D2E0 301F → 07ADBE07D2E0301F).

Key IDs and key fingerprints have always both been part of PGP, but the idea was that you might use the key ID to download or talk about the key, and then use the fingerprint to verify that you had the right one. Some people have been skipping the second step, or might not even know it was ever there.</comment></comment>


Most For-Profit Students Wind Up Worse Off Than If They Had Never Enrolled - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/for-profit-earnings/485141/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> How would the not-for-profit students fare if you break it down by major?</comment>


The Cold War bunkers that cover a country - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181102-the-cold-war-bunkers-that-cover-a-country <comment><USER2> We still have them in Denmark too, I can see two from my apartment. For a long time, and possibly even today. You were required to build bunkers if you build an apartment building. Sometimes that was done by building the basement in such a way that it would hold storage units that could easily be converted into bunkers. Other times it meant building actual bunkers near the apartment complex.

A lot of the cold-war stuff was rather secret and simply build into the design of public buildings.

My school (from age 6-14, not sure what that's called in English) had really wide hallways, wide doors, wide elevatory and a huge basement full of stuff that no one outside of the school administration really knew what was. Turns out my school had been designed and build to be converted into a hospital in the case of nuclear war.

Later when I attended the next step in my education, my gymnasium had a water leak. To everyone's surprise the city closed the entire school for a week and brought in specialists to fix it even though it would typically be up to the local administration to do so. 25 years later we learned that the command center bunker for our region was located under the school.

My story might sound special, it's not. Almost every public building from that period had a secondary cold-war purpose, but the extend of it has only recently been revealed. It really impresses me, just how prepared our society was, and that my generation never really noticed. Maybe our parents did but mine have never shared much about their cold-war experiences.

Ironically the secrecy didn't actually work. Recently when Russia opened their soviet archives, it was revealed that they knew every location of every command centre bunker we had, or at least admitted to having.

<comment><USER3> > Ironically the secrecy didn't actually work.

If Russia knew the location of every command center bunker with less than 100% certainty, then it did work. If instead of the actual command center they knew the location of the 10 potential alternate locations, then they would need to spend 10 nukes instead of 1 (pretty much any concrete bunker is able to withstand anything but a direct hit from a megaton-size nuclear bomb). That complicates a lot the nuclear calculus, even when you have thousands of warheads. In the end, this may have been a small factor in the fact WW3 never happened.

<comment><USER4> What is the distribution between fission nukes and thermonuclear nukes?

<comment><USER3> Virtually all nukes nowadays are thermonuclear bombs. If your question is how many bombs have a yield at or above 1 MT TNT, and how many below, then the majority of the current warheads is below. More precisely, currently maybe 90% of the US warheads have a yield between 100 and 455 kT TNT. The largest active warhead in the US inventory has 1.2 MT TNT yield. A rule of thumb is that the more advanced a nuclear program is, the lower the yield of their nukes, the reason being that the a more precise missile can destroy an ICBM silo with a lower yield.

<comment><USER4> This is a late reply, but does this mean that even thermonuclear bombs still direct most of their payload above the ground?

<comment><USER3> Nuclear bombs (both fission and fusion) direct energy symmetrically in all directions. So any bomb detonated at or above ground level will direct half of its energy towards space. The other half eventually produces damage on the ground, but there are 2 models: surface burst, and air burst. The air burst produces a shock wave that hits the ground and is reflected, and then interferes constructively with the front of the wave that comes at an angle. Generally strikes are designed to maximize the effect of this constructive interference, this was the case with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, even this "doubled up" shock wave front is not really that destructive, so any half backed blast resistant shelter can survive it (it doesn't even need to be a concrete bunker, a well designed dug-out shelter will still do it). A surface burst will vaporize a semi-sphere of ground, and no bunker will survive, including even a missile silo, but then the blast effects will be much more localized while the radioactive fall-out will be increased maybe one thousand fold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Evan Hadfield did an episode of Rare Earth on these.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSEpkalRgvU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSEpkalRgvU)

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting article. But even more interesting than the article, it makes me wonder at how our memories work.

The article mentions Albania, which is forever etched in my memory from a skit on the old tv show 'Cheers'. I probably hadn't seen the show for 25 years, but I can still remember every word of this short ditty about Albania:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F_tT-q8EF0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F_tT-q8EF0)

The power of music!

</comment><comment><USER7>
      'Treasure' of a different sort turned up in one bunker in 2004. Some 16 tons of mustard gas canisters were found in a bunker only 40km from Tirana – the US had to pay the Albanian government some $20m to safely dispose of the weapons.

Why was that something the US had to pay for?

<comment><USER8> Probably because the Albanian government did not have resources (or will) and US did not want to exists a change that this will end up in the black market.

<comment><USER9> Yep, same reason the US paid for various former Soviet states to secure or dispose of their nuclear weapons. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn–Lugar_Cooperative_Threat_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn–Lugar_Cooperative_Threat_Reduction)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I saw a replica of one of these dome bunkers was at the 2000 World Expo in Hanover, Germany as Albania's booth display. It seemed a bizarre representation of a nation I knew nothing about.

</comment><comment><USER11> Sweden didn't have the little firing posts, but a huge amount of underground space for residents to wait out bombs and fallout. Here is the government informing you were to find your nearest shelter: [https://gisapp.msb.se/apps/kartportal/enkel- karta_skyddsrum/](https://gisapp.msb.se/apps/kartportal/enkel- karta_skyddsrum/)

<comment><USER12> Finland still has a requirement of air raid shelters to all buildings exceeding a certain size. In practice, these often have a double function of working as storage space during peacetime.

<comment><USER13> Same in Norway. It was ignored for a while but it is being taken seriously again now.

<comment><USER14> Why? What is the threat model? Doesn't make much sense in case of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. With modern warfare they are becoming less valuable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> background: these were placed in strategic places, the places where an invading army would likely pass. So the idea was that invading army would be attacked by well protected soldiers. They are so strong, they'll probably be here for 10,000 years. Made of super-strong concrete with crushed stone as aggregate and plenty of steel. Might even survive a direct artillery hit but of course the waves would kill everyone inside. The sad part...a decent house might have been built instead of one small bunker.

There's so much steel in there that it is economically feasible for people to destroy them to sell the scrap. A lot of them met their end this way.

<comment><USER16> My experience in driving through various parts of Albania is that they aren't just in strategic places but they were everywhere and that in much less than 10000 years they will all be gone. Even in the couple years between my lasts visits (I was in Tirana and Durrës last week) was that development is coming and it wont be all that long before Albania will be a place where people talk about the old days when things were much less expensive and more accessible. I might be wrong but to me it feels like it's headed in that direction. I may be biased, I really love Albania and so I do hope that they finally have the time, stability and space to enjoy some prosperity.

<comment><USER15> The 10k year thing was a guess based on their strength, not that people will keep them for future use. But yeah, development is coming and prices are through the roof, not supported by local salaries. Albania is extremely safe, any killing is targeted at specific people. Mistakes rarely happen.

Again, they are not everywhere, randomly. Now roads have changed and may seem that way, but the idea was to harass an invading army. You and your father as soon as you learn the news via sirens and media, grab guns, go to a bunker and start shooting at US Imperialists ;)

<comment><USER16> I have a long and humorous story about an accidental drive through Northern Albania. We were on a lot of small roads through little villages and farmlands and I just saw them dotted everywhere, in the middle of fields, in lots of other places. It really felt like someone had a metric based on the number built and went after it. I will say I didn't see as many in the south. But my first visit was in 2013 so a lot could had already changed by then from the old days.

Interestingly enough - in line with your last comment. My son cut his leg deeply on that trip and we needed to take him to a doctor to get it fixed up. That was not difficult and the doctor was a really nice guy but at one point he said to my son, "Not long ago my job would have been to kill you." I thought it was funny but my son didn't enjoy it as much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The Allies made short work of the German bunkers during D-Day.

<comment><USER18> Yeah I was surprised how the pictures show bunkers in hillsides, their gleaming concrete dome exposed and very visible.

It would be such a little thing to dump the earth they excavated when building the bunker back on top of the thing and spread it around so grass grew etc, hiding the damn thing.

Imagine being a soldier sat in one. It would give the feeling of 'please shoot at me!' rather than the feeling of security, surely.

<comment><USER17> Even when the bombs don't penetrate the concrete, the shock waves are disabling to the inhabitants. Since the bunker is in a fixed position, once the artillery is zeroed in on it, you just pound it till it breaks, and there's nothing the inhabitants can do about it. Ground attack airplanes firing at the gun ports, enveloping the bunker with napalm, phosphor bombs, etc., all are effective and fairly cheap to do.

For accounts of this by survivors,

"D Day Through German Eyes" by Eckhertz

<comment><USER18> My point about camouflaging it by having a nice turf over it was to avoid its position being fixed in the first place.

<comment><USER19> What is the point? either you construct it in secret and hope the secret is safe (no spys!), or you construct it in public so the enemy already knows where it is. In the first place you hope the enemy doesn't know. In the second place you know the enemy already knows so you mitigate that by either having so many that the enemy cannot deal with them all, and/or you mitigate by making the strong enough to withstand an attack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Those bunker reminds me of an expo near Paris, on the fortifications built around Paris between the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and WW1. The idea was coming from the siege of Paris during the 1870 war and the French army built a ring of forts around Paris, at great cost. And all those forts ended up outdated when the next war with Germany arrived.

</comment><comment><USER4> That picture of Gjirokaster is rather beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER21> They should put them on Airbnb</comment>


Ask HN: Advice on where to incorporate a SaaS startup, we can't in our country - <AUTHOR> 	We are building a SaaS targeted to European companies. We are based in a latin american country where the exports of services is treated the same as the export of, for example, a container full of apples: For each SaaS subscription over a $1,000 we sell, we need pay a customs agent a fee (starting at ~$150). Also we would like to use Stripe and their broad range of european payment methods, and Stripe is not offered in our country. As incorporating in our home country is not an option, we are looking for a place to incorporate.
We can incorporate a company in Europe, to be "closer" to our customers. Ireland seems a good option as they speak English, and they will stick to the European Union. There are some tax advantages as well, but I don't expect to see much profits anytime soon. In the other hand, for non-EU residents, they require to buy a $1,000/year insurance (plus the registered office fee, the company secretary fee, etc) and there are not many resources and tools on how to operate your irish company. I fear that I will have to hire a lawyer or an accountant for even the smallest question. Also it looks like that I need to fly from my country to Ireland to open the bank account.
The other alternative is to set up a Delaware C Corp or LLC. There are plenty of resources and tools to help you run your business and there are services (Stripe Atlas, Gusto) that makes it easy to start and even get a US bank account. Also, if everything's goes well, we may look for US investors and I guess it is easier for them to invest in a well-know structure, such as a DE C Corp. On the other hand, it seems odd to have a Latin American-based US company selling to Europe.
We are talking to lawyers to sort this out. But it would be very helpful to know your experience and opinions as fellow entrepreneurs and investors. <comment><USER2> Why not Belize?</comment>


Why doesn't anybody copy Apple? - <AUTHOR> http://www.asymco.com/2013/02/19/why-doesnt-anybody-copy-apple/ <comment><USER2> As the author points out, Apple is fairly unique in its command of vertical integration. Its products are unique not on their feature merits, but because of the way they are conceived, designed, built, sourced, manufactured, shipped, marketed, sold, opened, held, and used.

There's another part of this: Apple is fairly unique amongst it's (asymmetric) competitors (e.g. Google, MS, Samsung) in that it only focuses on one customer: The Consumer.

In my experience the behaviors and culture of an organization (large or small) that focuses on the Consumer as a customer is _diametrically incompatible_ with the behaviors and culture of an organization that focuses on Business as a customer. (I feel super strongly that this is a key reason Microsoft's products are often good, but not excellent; the consumer ones and the business ones).

EDIT: I decided to write a full blog post as a response: [http://ceklog.kindel.com/2013/02/19/why-nobody-can-copy- appl...](http://ceklog.kindel.com/2013/02/19/why-nobody-can-copy-apple/)

<comment><USER3> It seems like this "diametric incompatability" could be a good subject for case study blog articles.

Off the top of my head is the shifting of "sponsored links" to take over the initial position in some Google search results. It seems like you'd have a lot more examples of "where these companies get derailed". I know I'd find value in that. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If it were easy, everyone would be doing it.

Consider the TV question: there are boxes that are technically capable of providing the "anything you want to watch, anytime, anywhere." You can buy a Roku or a Raspberry Pi running XBMC right now for less than $100. The remote control interfaces are tolerably intuitive.

The problem is content. The winner in this space will provide "everything, anytime, anywhere." You're not going to get all the major US networks, world networks (BBC), cable juggernauts (ESPN, HBO), to agree to the "anytime anywhere" model.

Therefore it's a social (ie: legal) problem rather than a technical problem. As long as the legal system remains a quagmire of international content deals, you're not going to get first-run Japanese anime, Eastenders, Game of Thrones, and Michigan State football games on your TV on a single Roku-like box unless you're a pirate, a VPN whiz, or both.

</comment><comment><USER5> Toyota has a known, controlled and improved process with has been copied (with various success) accross the whole industry. It was possible because Toyota process are conscious, observed and controlled.

Apple process are not conscious. They probably have a lot of talented and devoted persons each doing their best and at the end, it works (at least more often than competitors). However, this is mostly inconscious and hardly repeatable.

That's why there is this Jobs tale: everybody think that if a company has a Jobs clone, he would probably replicate the same spirit, attract same talents and produce same results. This kind of recipe can not be repeated with enough confidence to become an industry standard (such as lean, for instance).

</comment><comment><USER6> Are we sure that Microsoft/Google/Samsung/Etc project managers aren't telling themselves that they're "doing it like Apple does it?"

I also believe that apple has/had a design critique culture that most people in technology and business wouldn't be able to recognize for what it is/was -- including most apple employees. Although there is supposedly an uptick in MFAs getting jobs in tech, so maybe some folks do see it.

</comment><comment><USER7> Because Apple products really aren't that much better than everything else? I have a top-of-the-line iMac and I have just as many problems with it as I do with my windows machine. Little stupid problems that shouldn't happen, too, like not recognizing headphones (hardware) and not playing well with standard third-party software.

<comment><USER8> Got examples? This was the case back in 2005 when I had an iMac (flaky support + lots of "repair disk" issues), but recently I was surprised that my 2008 MB Unibody (+aftermarket SSD) had better support for things like my BT headsets than my 2011 Thinkpad and in general just does it's job quietly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Apple likes to sue. The end.

<comment><USER10> Everyone likes to sue.

<comment><USER9> Apple really likes to sue? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you believe Apple, people copy them all the time.

</comment><comment><USER12> Because it's hard work.</comment>


No lockdown, please, we're Swedish - <AUTHOR> https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-lockdown-please-w-re-swedish <comment><USER2> These articles always give a sense that it's business as usual in Sweden. It isn't. I have been working from home for three weeks now, but I have had to go into central Stockholm a couple of times, and it is almost eerily empty. Restaurants and cafés have a handful of clients, spread out in the corners, at peak lunch time when they would normally be crammed full. Shops are open, but the client-to-staff ratio is close to 1:1, and most have reduced their opening hours. Some article mentioned that cinemas are open. This is technically true -- they haven't been ordered to close -- but the big chain that runs most of them has shut those down on their own initiative.

I don't claim that the level of restrictions is optimal, or that tighter restrictions would not be beneficial, but business as usual it isn't.

<comment><USER3> One of the reasons the government hasn't ordered a police-enforced lockdown here is that it probably wouldn't make much of a difference. Most businesses and people are already following the government's recommendations by staying at home as much as possible.

That said, there are some laws in place. Since three days ago you are no longer allowed to visit retirement homes for example.

[https://www.krisinformation.se/en/news/2020/march/national-b...](https://www.krisinformation.se/en/news/2020/march/national- ban-on-visiting-retirement-homes)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This whole article was pretty...odd to me.

I felt like it spread disinformation to glorify Sweden's decision to not implement lockdown. The decision to not suspend civil liberties is a complicated one, so I don't want to go into it; but lines like, "Stay at home if you feel sick," are EXTREMELY dangerous because much of the danger of COVID-19 is due to people being asymptomatic for such a long time, meaning people potentially transfer the disease to others even though they don't feel sick.

<comment><USER5> On one hand I wish nobody harm.

On the other hand I'm sick and tired of the highly polarized modern world where you see idiots opposing common sense things such as vaccination -- maybe those people really need to suffer the natural consequence of their stupidity; swedish people seem to have a lot of common sense built into their society, so maybe, hopefully this decision won't negatively affect them.

<comment><USER6> I hear what you are saying, but quite frequently it's not stupidity, just ignorance.

It is true that in a highly connected world anyone could educate themselves on the benefits of vaccines, but it can be hard to overcome long held beliefs (passed down through education) or peer pressure (in communities that reject certain scientific facts).

All that I'm saying is that while these people might now learn through pain and suffering, I don't really feel they all deserve it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I find this paper very undesirable, outrageous and borderline conspirational.

> "There are many experts in epidemiology and virology who are highly critical > of the lockdown strategy. Few are willing to talk on record."

I mean that's a pretty easy statement to make. Surely if nobody speaks those ideas can't be scientifically challenged.

> "This Swedish exceptionalism is about principle, not epidemiology."

The lockdown strategy is very country dependant, depends on how quickly the infection spread, how much the health system can cope with. There is no principle in that. Some countries are really struggling now and Sweden would do exactly the same in these situation.

There is a certain "show off" attitude in this article which is highly disrespectful in regard of the situation elsewhere.

<comment><USER8> And I don't think it reflects the sentiment here in Sweden either, there is a lot of internal critique and a lot of people want harsher methods (regardless if it actually does anything).

Sweden have rising deaths and will be hit hard like many countries and we have some of the lowest amount of ICU beds per million inhabitants in Europe, they are of course trying to build out but have problem staffing them as well.

I don't think Sweden will land on a low death toll but the question will be if a more complete shutdown would have helped.

<comment><USER9> _"we have some of the lowest amount of ICU beds per million inhabitants in Europe"_

Yep, that really sucks and for me that is more scary than the harshness (or lack of harsness if you will) in the imposed restrictions.

AFAIK, after the cold war we got rid of most of our field hospitals that we had.

 _[Edited to add comment about field hospitals]_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is such bullshit. As soon as the body count starts to rise all this nonsense is going to out the window and the "exceptional" Swedes will be ordered to cower in their homes just like everybody else.

<comment><USER11> The thing is, at least for now, they seem to be in line with other countries that took all the measures. Sweden has a very similar number of cases/deaths and population as Portugal which locked schools 3 weeks ago, and the rest of the country 2 weeks ago, but Sweden [1] had the initial reported cases many weeks before then Portugal [2] (for deaths [3]). (I couldn't find number of tests done in each country so that may be a variable there that may mess these values)

I guess the next couple weeks will show which approach is better.

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1102203/cumulative- coron...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1102203/cumulative-coronavirus- cases-in-sweden/) [2] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107359/coronavirus[-cas...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107359/coronavirus\[-cases- portugal-cumulative/) [3] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1102203/cumulative- coron...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1102203/cumulative-coronavirus- cases-in-sweden/)

<comment> _-___________-_ Yeah, I'm watching closely. There is no actual evidence supporting strict lockdowns, despite everyone talking about them as if they're proven to be the only solution. So far, Sweden is showing that perhaps a balanced approach that doesn't destroy your economy can work equally well. Hopefully soon there will be some evidence one way or another.

<comment><USER5> Sweden is quite different as a society and societal habits than the rest of the world, I don't think we can apply much of what they are doing to India or Iran, perhaps it's applicable to Norway or Finland.

<comment> _-___________-_ I think Stockholm / Copenhagen would be a pretty good comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I live here and this is the first time I've heard of it framed in terms of liberty.

When schools started closing across Europe, government officials started talking keeping the schools open so health care workers wouldn't have to take off work to care for their kids. This was also the rationale mentioned when the chief epidemiologist, Anders Tagnell, was interviewed by the BBC the other day.

Another point he made was about compliance: if you keep everything shut down and on lockdown for too long, people will eventually just not comply anymore, so you want to save it until it's necessary.

As cool as it would be to believe that we're just not doing it for liberty, it's pretty clear we're not doing it for practical reasons, and that we're not doing it _yet_.

As things escalate, it's pretty clear the same lockdown measures other countries have implemented will also come to Sweden.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is an opinon piece by Fredrik Erixon, who is not epidemiologist. The article claim that "We can expect our Covid-19 death figures to rise faster than our neighbours". This a statement by the author and is not supported by facts, references presented in the article.

It is also the author that claim that the strategy taken by the Swedish goverernment is about Swedish exceptionalism. Again this is not supported by facts, for example references to actual statements.

<comment><USER14> What are you saying exactly? He's praising the Swedish strategy but you take the only counter-point out of context and make it sound like he's condemning it.

<comment><USER13> I'm saying that this is an opinon piece that among other things state things about how the epidemy will develop in Sweden without basing it on facts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > The theory of lockdown, after all, is pretty niche, deeply illiberal — and, > until now, untested. It's not Sweden that's conducting a mass experiment. > It's everyone else.

I don't buy that. China did a lockdown, and (at least officially) it has contained the disease. Also there are buckets of models and studies that support this course of action.

> We can expect our Covid-19 death figures to rise faster than our neighbours' > — still all within the confines of a bad winter flu, but these graphs can > scare people.

Coronavirus is not 'like the flu'. There is so much data disproving this I won't even bother linking them. Do a Google search 'is coronavirus like the flu'.

> They publish their own models of the virus spread. It shows how many people > will need hospital care: the system, they say, can cope. And when asked, > they say they don't think Imperial College has made a better call. > This > Swedish exceptionalism is about principle, not epidemiology. > yes, they > make us different to Italy and Spain

I feel like there is this narrative floating around that blames countries for their fate regarding Coronavirus. Sure, governments have done a better or worse job dealing with the outbreak, and different places were better or worse prepared. But the veiled message that I get is "Italy and Spain got so many deaths and their economy got wrecked because they are inferior".

<comment><USER16> > I don't buy that.

Well now you have a control group to compare against.

<comment><USER17> Control group analysis has been very problematic in this epidemic

A high % of people are asymptomatic or just has mild/moderate symptoms. People might not have known what hit them.

Hence people might be tested (now) if they fit the symptoms. Might be tested, and might or might not be classified as Covid-19 without the tests

And that's in countries with a good health system. Maybe some country with hundreds of official cases is already in the millions. Who knows?!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The impact of the pandemic varies from region to region and no one can explain why yet. Japan has a very low transmission rate despite minimal government action. Developing countries and/or areas with warmer climates seem to have a lower transmission rate as well. In Western Europe and the US, cases double every 2-3 days instead of every 5-6 days like in other regions. Except for Iran, which had one of the earliest outbreaks. And Brazil, where the central government has refused to take action.

There's a lot of unexplained variation and maybe the approach in Sweden will enlighten us. But I wish the article talked a little more about what people _are_ doing, because it may be more subtle actions that make the difference. People talk about the lack of hand-shaking in Japan as a possible factor. What peculiarities of Swedish life might be at play? Their transmission rate is in line with similar nations (~doubling every 5 days) but their testing rate is on the low end of Europe. Are they lucky or doing something right?

<comment><USER19> Not shaking hands has been the norm for some weeks now in Sweden. I thought this was the case everywhere?

<comment><USER18> The US and much of Europe is practicing extreme social distancing. I haven't had the opportunity to shake someone's hand in weeks due to the lockdown. In fact, I haven't touched someone that is not a part of my household in at least three weeks.

But Japan has been avoiding handshakes naturally since the start of the outbreak, which may have helped suppress transmission rates before they even knew the virus was spreading.

<comment><USER19> Most people that I know have been WFH for some time, myself for 4 weeks. It's not like people are out and about like they used to -- the social distancing is self-imposed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ah the convenience of a not-too-densely populated country of homogeneous like- minded people....

<comment><USER9> Yep, those factors probably explain a good part of why the Swedish authorities have decided on these policies and recommendations.

Our State Epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, has been pretty explicit in stating that these policies are not "one size fits all", other countries will need to set their own policies in accordance with their situation and conditions.

PS. IMHO, the homogeneity of the Swedish society is sometimes a bit overstated. Believe or not but there is still some room left for having your own opinions and lifestyle here ;-) And our society is probably less conformist now than during the postwar/cold war era.

 _[Edited to add PS and fix spelling error.]_

<comment><USER13> Exactly. Sweden is quite probably the least homogeneous country in northern Europe with huge changes in the population the last 10-15 years.

<comment><USER9> Yep. And we've also grown a bit. Norway/Finland/Denmark have ~5M inhabitants each, while Sweden has twice as many.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh, please, I get it swedish society is different, but saying you are the last free place in the world is too far fetched. I hope Swedens gamble works for them, but this will be way worse than any flu season, even with their master viking race immunity /s

<comment><USER13> You are responding to a claim by the author of the article, not something claimed by Sweden.

<comment><USER5> Absolutely, I don't think Sweden is a single person so it can make such claims.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The only worse thing than Sweden practically doing nothing (saying this as an insufferable swede myself) are the insufferable articles somehow touting the superiority of the approach, as some sort of underdog or challenger?

The mention of Swedish exceptionalism rings true and some self-awareness would be helpful, not sure can you use that term unironically here..

<comment><USER8> Sweden has imposed several restrictions and Sweden will have problems regardless of lock-down or not due to a very limited amount of ICU beds.

<comment><USER9> IMO all similar countries will have lots of deaths and tragedies during this pandemic. It's a really tough virus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What I find absolutely moronic is that a lot of employers here in Sweden keep their employees at their workplaces even though their work could be basically 100% remote. They keep saying "stay home if you feel sick or show any symptom. If not, then it's business as usual from the office".

A friend of mine works for one of the big insurance companies and all he does is back office related work and according to him, all he needs is a VPN access and he can do all his work from home. But no, he needs a doctors notice saying that he belong to one of the risk groups before they let him work for home so he's considering getting some doctor to sign a notice even though he's not in a risk group because he doesn't want to risk getting infected at work or while commuting.

<comment><USER9> Wow. That's quite bad indeed, especially since the Public Health Agency has strongly urged that anyone that can work from home ought to do so.

<comment><USER22> And do you know what their CEO and board said as their defense?

"We know and work with risk everyday. We know how to handle this"

Crazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> With 558.7 people per million confirmed cases Sweden is not doing a great job [1]. I don't understand the tone of this article. What is there to feel "exceptional" about? Sweden has 5616 confirmed cases and 309 deaths which is a lot for its population [1]. Nothing "exceptional" except it is scary that it is so high for a small country with a small population. It is these kind of articles that cause slackness when you need to be extra vigilant. Lockdown works. Don't battle science with crazy, stupid logics.

[1]: [https://google.com/covid19-map/?hl=en](https://google.com/covid19-map/?hl=en)

<comment><USER8> Confirmed cases is difficult to measure as countries test so differently.

Sweden has a lot of deaths (though not exceptional if you look at per million inhabitants) and I believe it will rise; the question is how much lag there is and how much lock-downs work, what type you are talking about and how long you can keep it up.

There is also random chance I feel. For example in Sweden we have something called "sportlov", which is a week off from school (it is a different week for different parts of the country) and for Stockholm it was end of February and a many went to the Italian alps skiing for example.

How much did that affect the spread? So while one learning is that I think somewhere like South Korea is a role model, be more prepared and actually have protective gear in storage units instead of relying on global supply chains always working another thing is just how many with "just the flu" walked around in the biggest cities in your country before it was taken seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I know a lot of people are speaking out of their ass about this virus thing but I do believe our temperature has been a bit too cold for it to spread from objects, clothing and skin so far.

Also we've had amazing weather.

This last weekend I was in a 40 person pile up on a walking bridge near the beach here. Because someone wanted to take a perfect Instagram picture with his three dogs in the middle of the bridge.

I do also believe this virus thing is going to blow up in our faces soon, in these two coming months when temperatures get closer to 10-12 C daily.

So in hindsight we shouldn't have gone into WFH mode until april-may. And in June I believe it's going to be real heavy.

</comment><comment><USER25> I just hope that their stupidity doesn't cost them their grandparents, majority of people with cancer/heart disease/etc. Swedish are fine, positive, it will be a pitty.

Like on every pandemic, the game is over only when the cure/vaccine is distributed to the whole planet. Until then it is way to risky to relax.

<comment><USER9> I don't really understand this argument. In the countries with lockdowns, are people not dying there from Covid-19? And as you can see from other comments in this thread, it is _not_ business as usual in Sweden. There are lots of restrictions in place in order to attempt to flatten the curve.

<comment><USER25> Yes people are dying all over. But you have to check the ratios. If country A with 20mil population has 10 deaths, and country B with 1mil population has also 10 deaths, then country B is doing something far worse than country A because they got x20 deaths (per 1mil of population). Any leader who wanted to play 'mucho' has an accelerated infection rate in his country (Johnson, Trump, Bolsonaro). And we are still in the beginning of damn thing.

So the joyous spirit of "we're good meeting and having lunch with friends" will fade away with the funerals of old and sick. And I am 100% sure that nobody wants their elders to pass before the latest possible. Swedes too love their parents, their elderly, their sick. It is plain irresponsible.

From The Guardian: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/catastrophe- sw...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/catastrophe-sweden- coronavirus-stoicism-lockdown-europe)

> On the beach and surrounding parkland at Sibbarp there were picnics and > barbecues this weekend; the adjoining skate park and playground were rammed. > No one was wearing a mask.

I too enjoy a BBQ, trust me I do.. a nice steak, a nice burger, some grilled veggies.. but is this the best time to do this? Sweden is not an isolated country in the middle of the ocean where they got no travelers. Are they trying to win a race but helping the virus affect more?

I thought the purpose is to try (our) best to limit this exposure (flatten the curve and all that) so we can save anyone who can be save. Helping this speed up won't help them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is how socialism "works". One pays enormous taxes his whole life, but then, when it comes for government to protect one's health, they do nothing and name this even "liberal".

<comment><USER27> We'll see how it turns out for them. But so far, it doesn't look like they're about to be decimated anytime soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> > Isn't the real question why other countries aren't doing the same?

Perhaps because they are not willing to take a gamble? This is, to put it bluntly, idiotic - you do not play games with people's lives and hope it turns out well.

<comment><USER29> There is no safe choice, all anybody can do is to set some policies and hope it turns out well.

<comment><USER9> As a fellow Swede I agree. Hospitals all over the world will be overwhelmed because of the pandemic. Even countries doing lockdowns will have a really hard time.

I sincerely believe that the Public Health Agency in Sweden are handling the situation in a good way. Will we fare better or worse than other, similar countries? We can't know for sure, it's only after it's over that we can get a verdict.

<comment><USER28> > Will we fare better or worse than other, similar countries? We can't know > for sure, it's only after it's over that we can get a verdict.

That is the whole point - they're taking a gamble. You can draw up a matrix. If they don't do a lockdown, and it turns out to be not-very-dangerous, they will have saved the economy.

If they don't do a lockdown, and it turns out to be very dangerous, they will have the blood of hundreds of thousands on their hands. But the worst consequence that they can suffer is not getting re-elected.

Think of it like Russian roulette. If the payouts are [+10, +10, +10, +10, +10, -1000], your expected value is -158.3, but if your downside is limited to -20, your expected value is +5. It is not morally justified to take a 20% chance of killing 100'000 people for an 80% chance of raising GDP by 5% ($26 billion). That's 20'000 people for $21.2 billion, or $1.1 million per person.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is anyone else experiencing really slow page loads on HN? - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/NrP9A.png

<comment><AUTHOR> As much as I love HN the 5 second wait before the page load starts downloading is starting to bug me. I've noticed it more and more the past few weeks. Does anyone know what the bottleneck is?

Edit: And posting this comment took >10 seconds.</comment>