Why website body text should be bigger - <AUTHOR> https://blog.marvelapp.com/body-text-small <comment><USER2> Your website body text should also not be covered up by "social buttons" if you ask me.

[http://i.imgur.com/cmrn7wB.png](http://i.imgur.com/cmrn7wB.png)

So much empty space on that page, let's put the facebook link in the worst place possible!

EDIT: It's funnier in this case because (based on my limited experiences) this sort of fixed positioned social media bar grew out of mobile websites that were constantly fishing for shares, but this particular site has realized they're annoying and put it in the top header instead. It's only on desktop that we get the fixed position floater.

<comment><USER3> If you're at 800x600 like it's 1995, then you should expect that sort of thing.

<comment><USER4> If you believe that you are doing web design wrong.

<comment><USER3> I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's typical.

<comment><USER5> Isn't the whole point of responsive that you don't design for 'typical' screen sizes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Personally, I have disliked the mobile-first mindset since the beginning because on my primary platform (the desktop) it results in too little content on screen. I much prefer "old" style interfaces like hacker news that give me lots of content on screen. As others have said elsewhere in this thread, I can (and do) use the zoom function when necessary.

I disagree with the article's assertion that larger text is more readable. In my own experience, I find that readability is reduced when scrolling occurs. Increase the amount of scrolling, decrease the readability.

<comment><USER7> There is no issue with "mobile-first". The problem is when designers think "mobile-only", forgetting that a sizable part of there audience still browse content on desktop.

Furthermore, given how web-pages are getting heavier and slower to load, I doubt any of these designers are really serious about designing for mobile at first place (I don't buy the "management wants tons of analytics" excuse).

> As others have said elsewhere in this thread, I can (and do) use the zoom > function when necessary.

If a website doesn't allow you to zoom in the text, it's a design mistake,no more no less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> While we're at it can we get past the current phase of using extremely light grey on white? What happened to web design sticking to everyone-can-read contrast levels?

I've actually resorted to using a chrome plugin that switches
 tags to black when you click its icon just so I can read fancy shmancy designed blogs.

Edit: In case it's of any use to you, the one I'm currently using is Darken Text[0]. There's probably extensions out there that let you switch out colours automatically but my day job involves web dev/design, it'd be very confusing if I used an extension that messed with colours automatically

[0] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/darken- text/kmonkh...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/darken- text/kmonkhbnghcmlhgbmlpagpapfomioidg)

<comment><USER9> You are not alone!

[http://contrastrebellion.com](http://contrastrebellion.com)

<comment><USER8> Spamming that in the "design" slack chat as we speak, thank you :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> On my 24" monitor, you body text feels immense (at 1920x1080) and I have to scan my eyes left and right too much - annoying enough that I scaled the page to 80% to read it comfortably. It is important that column width not be too wide to avoid too much eye travel, while maintaining 60-80 chars per column.

This brings it down to normal text size comparable to a comfortable-to-read novel page size on my screen.

Comparing to WaPo, they unwisely have 100+ chars per line at that immense size. I've stopped reading the site at all because the balance of the width and font size combo is too much work. Most of the others have wisely kept to 60-80 chars per line, and scaling works to read them, but all feel a bit too large.

<comment><USER11> One question, are you also running your browser maximized on your 24" monitor such that it is about 20.5 inches wide?

If yes, consider trying running with your browser non-maximized, and set to about 1/2 the width of your 24" monitor. The lines will not be so long that way.

<comment><USER12> It's funny, my ex-wife always runs her browser full-screen (even on a 24"\+ monitor) and would complain when sites wouldn't use the whole screen (this is before 1080p was nearly as common). I almost never browse full screen.. I use a 40" 4k display (essentially 4x 20" 1080p), and find anything full-screen to be difficult at best.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I enjoyed the markup. Reminds me of the old days with font tags:

...

and of course

9–14px

Seems a bit excessive, perhaps we could use a document to store all these classes in an organized fashion and then just refer to them by some sort of tagging system. We could link to that document from multiple pages, even, and change it without changing the base markup at all.

<comment><USER14> Marvel wrote detailed style guide/explanation and explained their use of the OOCSS style. [https://marvelapp.com/styleguide/overview/code- guidelines](https://marvelapp.com/styleguide/overview/code-guidelines)

<comment><USER13> Oh I understand the style, I just think it's backwards. The whole point of CSS is to move the styling out of the markup, and this obviously fails atrociously in that regard.

Each class is one CSS property, where it would be literally less verbose to just inline them. It's exactly the same thing as doing style="prop: value; prop: value;" since to change a given area of text from grey to black you'd have to edit _every single element_ the same way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _Scrolling is a natural, established pattern on the web—people expect to > have to scroll._

But I don't want to have to scroll every 5 seconds, either. I start to feel like I'm reading a children's book.

</comment><comment><USER16> No.

I don't want to have to keep scrolling through seven pages of double-spaced text of which a mere eight lines takes up the whole damn page.

I got a monitor with more resolution so I can do more with my workspace, not so that you can take up more space. People like this are a big reason why I literally _hate_ the web.

</comment><comment><USER17> I question the focus of this article. It would be excellent advice for print that cannot be changed after it has been printed, but since every web user can (in theory) control the way things look on their device it would be better to focus on making that easier for people to do.

As an artist, I absolutely agree with all the design arguments about readability etc. But that stuff doesn't need to be on the server side. I really resent being forced to download tons of design data whenever I visit a web page instead of being able to set preferences and have the computer present text in the way I actually want to see it. Many websites are horribly crufty and ugly, and make my reading experience _worse._

You know what else I hate? Web pages that are so in love with their print ancestors that the text is squeezed into a narrow column and almost 2/3 of my screen is white space. So I have to keep scrolling endlessly because you can't figure out how to flow text into two columns.

<comment><USER18> check out [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/column- reader...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/column-reader/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm glad it mentioned it (though buried/saved at the very bottom): line width! I'd rather have too narrow than too wide, but good design should have a pleasing font size and line width (and all the other factors) on very different device sizes these days. Seems like many sites often get it right on mobile, but then on a desktop browser suddenly things are proportioned all weird or don't work with whatever browser size. And that's to say nothing about a sudden change of layout, ads, ...

</comment><comment><USER20> The article somehow misses the elephant in the room, why still argue about pixel sizes, when it should be about display size with display resolutions being no longer be in a narrow range of low DPIs.

In an ideal world text sizes should be set in _em_ and _rem_ and body text sizes should be user adjustable to preference.

<comment><USER21> HTML sizes were standardized over screen size a long time ago.

</comment></comment><comment> c-smile At the beginning of CSS era one principal mistake was made - someone decided that 1px is a logical length unit that equals to 1/96 of inch. Attempt to reason that was made here [http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length- units](http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units)

Result of that particular decision is the mess we have with length units at the moment on the Web.

On monitor with physical 110 PPI resolution 1px is physically smaller than on "classic" 96 PPI monitor.

As a result no one can predict what will be the size of this:

        div {
          border: 1px solid;
          width:100mm;
          height:100mm;
        }

everything but not 100mm square.

In Sciter Engine ([https://sciter.com](https://sciter.com)) I've fixed this by applying three simple principles:

a) all logical length units are distances measured on _device surface_. Thus 100mm div rendered on screen will be 100mm when measured by the ruler put on monitor's surface. Same is while printing on paper.

b) 1px is always one device pixel - so we have hairlines for example. And so dimensions of bitmap images can be expressed with their natural resolution.

c) 1dip logical length unit (device independent pixel) was introduced for the convenience. 1dip == 1/96in - that is close to 1px in browsers.

Without all these using existing browsers for UI of desktop applications is quite questionable.

Even for mobiles ... main pointing device is a finger. It _shall_ be the way to say: "this button shall is touchable by finger - so be precisely of 0.5in measured EXACTLY on screen surface".

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm somewhat ambivalent on text size since I typically zoom web content when I find the text size uncomfortable. There are some cases where there is a severe mismatch between the size of body/text and other elements, which poses a challenge for zoom. But for the most part, zoom is a sufficient tool.

Still, I could potentially agree with the overall sentiment that slighter larger default sizing might be good.

But I find the presentation of this argument ironic thanks to poor body contrast:

        background-color: white;
        color: rgb(60, 72, 88);

Pulling the body color numbers down to increase the contrast made it immensely more readable for me. Unfortunately, while browsers have decent zoom controls, they don't have contrast controls without plugins. So designers should be especially careful to not specify insufficient contrast. (Aside: I generally find light text on slate backgrounds even easier on my eyes.)

</comment><comment><USER23> The problem would solve itself, at least on mobile, if every browser implemented text reflow after zoom, like Opera does. Firefox reader mode has a different purpose but can be used as a workaround, but only when it finds the text content and only for that.

With text reflow users can zoom to the font size they read best and the designer doesn't have to try guessing the right one.

Control + pretty much solves the problem on desktop.

</comment><comment><USER24> Display DPI - the problem that could've been solved more than a decade ago, but still isn't. Once you get it right on all layers you'll never be bothered by it again. It sometimes makes me sad that we still have to work with or around it, even though it is trivial to solve.

</comment><comment><USER25> Not just that, but the font color is too close to the background color, making it even harder to read.

</comment><comment><USER26> I find it ironic that the author is claiming body text should be larger for readability while failing WAVE's and Google's accessibility checks for contrast ... a key factor in readability, especially for the elderly and visually impaired.

</comment><comment><USER27> C'mon, just let users change the text size. The web is there for the viewers, not the transmitters!

And yes, if my pressing command-+ fucks up your display that's your problem and makes me far more likely to close the tab.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm not convinced this is really a problem.

The two websites I read most are Hacker News and Reddit. My terminal font size is 11pt and my code editor font size is 10pt. Most macOS interface text looks like it's either 11pt or 13pt.

I have a retina MacBook Pro and I set the display setting to "More Space" (look like 1920x1200). Sometimes I might switch to "Default" (looks like 1440x900) for a while, e.g. when watching TV. But if I wanna do anything serious I need the screen space.

I've been using Safari as my primary browser recently, and it has a Reader mode, which I use when documents have hard to read colors or poor typography.

</comment><comment><USER29> I find HN news font size way too small for modern high-resolution displays.

<comment><USER30> OTOH, how did displays get away with jacking up DPI to unreadable levels? (I'm not talking about Retina.)

<comment><USER31> Then what are you talking about?

<comment><USER30> Displays that are unreadable at 1x and unusable at 2x, around 130-180 DPI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Any text coming out of Wolfram for the past 20 years has been borderline illegible by default because it is so small. I have never needed glasses, but this has annoyed me ever since I was a child.

<comment><USER33> Have you investigated any of the accessibility tools available to you?

That's what they're there for.

<comment><USER32> I don't havet this problem with software that uses sensible typography. The availability of workarounds is no excuse for poor defaults.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I couldn't disagree more! I'm tired of this trend of headline-sized body text that has been popping up all over the web lately, as a result of what I assume to be mobile-first design philosophy that never heard of resolution independence. I'm constantly zooming out a couple of steps to shrink the text back down to something comfortable. Reader view helps, too.

Please stop doing this, designers! - not that any of you have ever cared what I think.

<comment><USER35> These trends come and go. When they annoy me, I really am glad for "reader" views that ditch all the fancy, unreadable flourish (and social media nag-bits that just don't fucking die).

One of these days, "retro" websites might seem cool again. Just gotta wait.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Ideally, text wouldn't be limited to 50% of the total screen. Can you imagine if every tv show you watched was squeezed between either two continuous advertisements, or blank borders?

At the very least, using the whole screen real estate, you could display two pages side by side, like a book. Less scrolling, faster reading, more comfortable fonts and sizes. BUT EGADS! WHERE WOULD WE PUT OUR ADVERTISING!!!!!

<comment><USER37> putting a max-width of ~100 characters on your article text increases the readability considerably. it's not just to leave space for advertising.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Text size is easy enough to deal with by zooming. It's the extremely skinny fonts in light gray which is far more common and hurts to read.

<comment><USER39> This bookmarklet [1] takes care of the "extremely skinny fonts" problem:

javascript:(function(){var%20all=document.getElementsByTagName(" _" );for%20(var%20i=0,max=all.length;i<max;i++){all[i].style.fontWeight='400';};void(0);})();

This bookmarklet takes care of the light gray problem:

javascript:(function(){var%20newSS,%20styles='_%20{%20background:%20white%20!%20important;%20color:%20black%20!important%20}%20:link,%20:link%20 _%20{%20color:%20#0000EE%20!important%20}%20:visited,%20:visited%20_ %20{%20color:%20#551A8B%20!important%20}';%20if(document.createStyleSheet)%20{%20document.createStyleSheet(%22javascript:'%22+styles+%22'%22);%20}%20else%20{%20newSS=document.createElement('link');%20newSS.rel='stylesheet';%20newSS.href='data:text/css,'+escape(styles);%20document.getElementsByTagName(%22head%22)[0].appendChild(newSS);%20}%20})();

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Butterick's Practical Typography recommends a body-text size of 15–25 pixels.

[http://practicaltypography.com/point- size.html](http://practicaltypography.com/point-size.html)

</comment><comment><USER41> The font used on this site renders atrociously badly on Windows, both in Firefox and in Chrome.

If you care about readability, maybe stop using Web Fonts. They may look fine on your Mac, they're crap everywhere else.

<comment><USER42> Is it only Mac where they look good, or only Windows where they look poor? Mobile seem to handle them fine, I'm not sure how Linux stacks up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I can't believe anyone would have a problem with larger text. Wait until they hit their 40's.

</comment><comment><USER44> >On average, users will read only about 28% of the words on a web page, and usually scan as opposed to read due to the immense amount of information available on the web, and limited time available. Intensive reading is rare and requires more focus.

y-you caught me...

</comment><comment><USER45> This is just completely idiotic bullshit.

A website should not ever bother with body text size at all.

A website should display its body text in the size that the browser specifies, and that's it (with the exception of adapting for a generally smaller or larger typeface).

It's completely braindead that nowadays, on my old, small laptop display, I get websites displaying huge letters, because those supposedly are somehow the right size on other displays. The resolution of my laptop hasn't changed in ten years, so why the fuck does anyone think it's sensible to make the letters larger?

Yes, new devices have higher resolutions. And you know what the solution to that problem is? It's called CSS. CSS has the concept of a browser/user stylesheet, which provides sensible defaults for the respective environment for you to inherit, which should mirror stuff like display resolution, but also, indirectly, the eyes of the users.

That's kindof the whole point of CSS, that you can abstract from that, and have the respective renderer take care of adapting your content to the environment, so that your website reads equally well on a decade-old laptop, on a new and shiny tablet, or on a 100" monitor.

And it's especially braindead because the only fix on my side would be to pretend that I'd like to read 5 px text, in order to have those braindead website become readable again ... except that then, sensible websites would take that seriously and would display their text in 5 px letters.

<comment><USER31> There's too much self-satisfied spouting of poorly-grasped principles here to address, but for one, you basically provided the fix you feign so much frustration at not having available. Just use an add-on that allows you to specify a user stylesheet and do something like:

        p {font-size: 10pt !important;}

<comment><USER45> Now, don't pretend like you don't know that that is not a reliable selector for that purpose. Also, you don't need an add-on to edit the user stylesheet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> hey, hello, hi... have you ever read about em? just set the default size to whatever fits the resolution you are dealing with? viewport? responsive design? web? computer? anything? is this for real?

<comment><USER47> what</comment></comment>


Dear Entrepreneurs, this is something I would pay for... - <AUTHOR> http://www.onemanclapping.org/2009/12/dear-entrepreneurs-this-is-something-i.html

<comment><USER2> I consulted on such a product a while back and unfortunately the task is much harder than you might think. The project I worked on was actually easier than this because what we were doing is taking a bunch of the local unsigned bands in Los Angeles (where I live) and trying to use listener preferences to introduce users to those bands. But there were a few significant hurdles...

1\. Identification of music is quite expensive. It would be great if a company like Pandora would license their database but until that happens there's a major financial burden on whoever has to pay people to identify existing music in order to make an engine like this work.

2\. It's hard to determine user's likes. One of the biggest and most annoying flaws in iTunes is that its "times listened to" count doesn't consider a song listened to until you get to the very end. So if you (like most people) hit "next" when you get to that point at the end of a song where they repeat the lyrics over and over again than iTunes doesn't count that. Which makes it hard for another program to determine your preferences.

3\. People have a low tolerance for new music from an artist they don't know. Ideally you want to slip a new song in amongst the listeners favorite songs. But that doesn't work when you have to write your own program (unless you have the money the pay royalties for mainstream songs). Which means you're stuck with trying to make the user listen to 20 new songs in a row which most won't do.

Again it isn't a bad idea if someone wanted to try to run with it but I'd consider the above before putting a lot of time into it.

<comment><USER3> Are you sure that "Most People" hover over the fast forward button like that? I've spent a lot of time around a lot of people with a lot of music playing, and have never once observed anybody actually doing that.

I actually did have a friend back in the day of cassette tapes who used to drive around his neighborhood until the music played off the end of one side before parking, so that his music would be correctly rewound next time he got in the car. I suspect he thought that everybody else did that too.

<comment><USER2> I guess i should have said "like most people in our beta test". I have no statistical insight beyond that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wrote that post when I looked at three things: 1) how much money I spend on music each month (currently more than $20), 2) how much time I spend listening to music each month, and 3) how much time I spend looking for _new_ music each month.

Then I realized I spend a fair bit of time listening to music away from my computer (commuting, at the gym, etc). I figured it would be nice if I could use this time to find new music. You see, when I buy music, it usually isn't because it's what I set out to do. It happens because I hear a song that is good enough for me to stop what I'm doing and investigate.

If my phone had the battery life that allowed my to use the last.fm or pandora apps more or less continuously, that might get me pretty close. (I should probably give this another try.)

But here is what I find myself doing... There are a number of sites that scan the music blogs for mp3 posts and condense them down to a single source. I see those (passively) in my twitter stream. This makes it easy to sample songs quickly in my browser. Ones that interest me get downloaded and end up in a special playlist in iTunes. This playlist syncs to my iPod. These songs get cleaned out and moved into another playlist once a week. About once a month or so, I go through this playlist and look for songs that I've given high star ratings too or have played >N times. I then go checkout those artists to see if I should be buying their music.

I've found a lot of good artists this way. If this seems like a lot of work, it probably is. I spend 10 hrs a day coding at work and I have more fun doing that when I'm listening to music I like, so I'm motivated to spend time and money on this problem.

</comment><comment><USER5> Spotify comes pretty damn close, if you are in one of the countries they support (UK, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands.)

For $10/month, you can listen to unlimited music while online, and offline on your iPhone or PC. For $1/per track, you can download songs to load to other devices. And, using the Facebook integration features, you can subscribe to Playlists (by your friends, or others) that will recommend music to you.

</comment><comment><USER6> Doesn't Zune Pass do that? If you live in the US it should work. For $14.99 you get music streamed, but also downloaded to your Zune, and you can keep 10 songs per month in non-DRM'd format. And SmartDJ should be able to do the automatic downloading (although I don't know how good it is).

(From Zune.net: "The songs are yours to play on up to three computers, and three Zune players and phones, for as long as your Zune Pass is valid." and "Additionally, a Zune Pass gives you 10 song credits to redeem each month. You can keep these songs forever - they become part of your permanent collection.")

<comment><USER7> Why is this getting downvoted?

This is the only device and marketplace that meets -EVERY- -SINGLE- request the author made.

It gives him his unlimited music. It gives him his DRM-free tracks to keep each month. It gives him his recommendations based on his tastes. It gives him his automatic download whenever the Zune connects to the internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Dear Music Labels and the RIAA, This is the kind of cool stuff we could build if you guys weren't so draconian about licensing. This is a great idea that would lead to people listening to, and buying, more music every single month. But you would have us load it up with DRM, or make it so you can't skip songs, or some other bogus restrictions in your fear of anything new.

</comment><comment><USER9> Conceptually simple, but the licensing agreements with the labels would kill you, not to mention the problems with divvying the money amongst the artists that you decide to "keep."

That brings me to another problem: you'd have to pay $25/month for this service. $5 for unlimited streaming (the Rhapsody way), $20 for 20 tracks at $1 each. Or you could do 5/15, or something like that, I guess.

It's a lot of risk for not-so-much reward, and as such is a bad investment proposition from where I'm sitting. If I were a VC, I probably wouldn't invest in such a company. It'd be much easier for an established player to make this happen. They have the infrastructure already built, the legal expertise to make it happen, and the connections in the industry already.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've been working on something pretty close to this for some time now. The hurdles mentioned by TomOfTTB are valid, but like another commented, there are services in place. It's really about stitching these systems together, but also identifying who the real customer is.

The author is right: _we're going to need to find another model_

Spoiler: the customer is not the listener. Think Topspin, Bandcamp. Combine that high level model to some of the features mentioned in the article, and you're getting close. I hope :)

</comment><comment><USER7> This is the Zune.

The Zune Pass gets you unlimited streaming for $14.99/month and a recommendation engine just like you want.

Included in that $14.99/month is the ability to choose 10 tracks a month that you keep forever as DRM-free MP3s.

The Zune will sync automatically every time you come home and it hits your wifi. No plugging in required.

Every Zune, all the way back to the very first generation models, can do all this.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't see why anybody would need a device like that. There's an offline option in Spotify for example, and there's hardly any way you could make the experience better than that, and it's only 4.99 a month. I don't know if there's currently similar services for US markets though. Probably Apple's going to launch something similar tomorrow.

</comment><comment><USER12> I must admit, I probably wouldn't pay 20$/month for something like that. I generally shun abo models.

Not sure how much of the population would pay.</comment>


A New Physics Theory of Life (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/ <comment><AUTHOR> I came across this while Googling, "do humans increase entropy". The crux of this article is the theoretical generalization by Jeremy England (MIT physicist) that life exists because it increases entropy. And, arguably, that Darwinian evolution is driven by mutations that increase the rate of entropy generation.</comment>


What Ted Cruz just said should scare anyone who wants rational Internet policy - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants <comment><USER2> Oh no worries, what kind of influence could someone as mindless and inflammatory as Ted Cruz possibly have?

> Texas Senator Ted Cruz, another climate denier, may be next-in-line to > become chair of the Subcommittee on Science and Space, which oversees > agencies like the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the White House > Office of Science and Technology Policy.[1]

Shit.

[1] - [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120180/climate-denier- ted...](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120180/climate-denier-ted-cruz-may- lead-senate-science-subcommittee)

</comment><comment><USER3> this could be a Mad Libs with Ted Cruz

What Ted Cruz just said should scare anyone who wants rational [proper noun].

</comment><comment><USER4> If Obama cured AIDS tomorrow, Cruz would decry it as pandering to a gay agenda.</comment>


Dump Microsoft, Use Linux to Save Money, U.K. Officials Suggest - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-09/dump-microsoft-use-linux-to-save-money-u-k-officials-suggest.html

<comment><USER2> Dumping Microsoft would be a smart move, not only in terms of saving money on licenses but also in order to increase the governments IT procurement options (freedom from lock-in). Ideally to maximize return on investment any software written using public money for public use should be open source.

In reality the government won't be able to dump old systems overnight, but should put in place a transition plan similar to the Open Source Action Plan proposed about a year ago. Any new software developed should preferentially take advantage of any open source systems currently available, before considering proprietary options.

</comment><comment><USER3> 90% of these open source initiatives are just schemes to put pressure on Microsoft to lower licensing fees.

<comment><USER4> The other 90% of these initiatives, on the other hand, are genuine attempts to reduce costs with the added benefit of breaking vendor lock-in and thus reducing costs down the line while increasing decision autonomy.

I have no idea who suggested it, but, if I were a UK citizen, I would prefer the money that comes from my taxes to be diverted to companies that create more jobs in the UK than they create in Redmond, or Bangalore.

<comment><USER5> That's the issue that many countries deal with, do you purchase a sub standard product from a local vendor to keep money in the local economy or do you go for the most effective product anywhere.

The big problem for them will be that it's fine to give all these people OpenOffice but they have the extra effort of also saving it into an Office format most times they have to interact with people outside there business. Then there could be translation problems.

<comment><USER4> In this specific case, it's the choice between the most effective product and the one with biggest marketing budget.

Also, in this case, companies wishing to do business with the government should adhere to government norms. If the government dictates OOo-compatible file formats, then OOo-compatible it will be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure if this is controversial at all, or if more govts are sticking with MS out of plain old inertia.

MS has a place. Look at the requirements, and if MS is the 'best', use them. But... the 'best' definition needs to be clear at all levels, and understood by everyone involved.

My argument for migrating towards more Linux/opensourceness would be one of 'keep the money local'. Especially in the early stages of a migration, there may in fact be a short term increase in spending, to find local talent to train and reprogram systems. After the initial transition, the need for fewer license renewals can be substantial.

Assuming there wasn't 100% reduction in licensing costs. Let's say there was a 60% reduction in licensing costs, but in reality that became only 70% because of increased training, customization and programming costs. You've saved 30% but also kept more money flowing in the UK economy.

At some point, stuff need to be paid for. You can choose to hire local consultants and companies who use MS tools, meaning you're paying for local talent and paying license fees over to an US-based company. Or you can pay local talent to use free technology.

Bottom line: You have to pay talent/labor, but you may have more money in the budget to pay more local people to get more done after migrating to free technologies.

<comment><USER7> I'm skeptical of "keep the money local" and "create local jobs" arguments. They sound good, but rarely end up being good economics.

Beware: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism>

In my mind, the two most important things to consider are:

1) How will worker productivity be affected by the transition? Retraining and relearning can be extremely expensive, especially for information workers who are set in their ways. Not to mention the cost of migrating all a company's documents, scripts, programs, assets, etc. over to the new formats.

2) How is worker productivity affected in the long run? OpenOffice is still far behind Office in usability for the average information worker. The savings in license costs is probably outweighed by the long-term productivity hit.

In the grand scheme of things, software is pretty cheap. Wasted man-hours are very expensive. I haven't seen evidence that these transitions to open source actually save money.

<comment><USER4> > How will worker productivity be affected by the transition?

It's easy to run a pilot and check. From previous experiences, it drops a little in the beginning, but training smooths the transition. With increased decision freedom due to removed vendor lock-in, governments can both choose the best tool for a given job (even if it's incompatible with, say, MS SQL Server) or develop the missing functionality (because they have access to source code). And governments can cooperate over these developments across regional or national borders. Reduced licensing cost is just the beginning.

> especially for information workers who are set in their ways

In other words, who can't learn another IDE beyond Visual Studio and other language beyond VB. Oh! Wait! They have to learn a new Visual Studio every couple years. And they had to learn VB.Net (or C#, or managed C++). They already do relearn lots of stuff.

And if you have a developer who is not willing to learn, fire him.

> OpenOffice is still far behind Office in usability for the average > information worker

Come on... How many people _within Microsoft_ really stress Words feature-set? 1%? The average "information worker" would be perfectly fine with WordStar and Visicalc. Also, it's not like Office 2003 users weren't completely lost when upgraded to 2007 and more so on 2010. The GDP of a decent-sized country was lost on menu repositioning over Office's history.

> The savings in license costs is probably outweighed by the long-term > productivity hit.

Long term productivity hit meaning these workers cannot learn new things?

<comment><USER7> _Oh! Wait! They have to learn a new Visual Studio every couple years. And they had to learn VB.Net (or C#, or managed C++)._

Most information workers are not developers and have never heard of the above technology. Keep in mind that developers are more receptive to change than most computer workers, which is part of the reason MSFT evolves dev technology more rapidly.

 _They already do relearn lots of stuff._

Switching to the new version of Windows/Office is not the same as switching to Linux/OpenOffice. To keep things in perspective, the switch to the Ribbon was the biggest change to Office in many releases. Most releases (e.g. Office 2010) require little relearning.

 _And if you have a developer who is not willing to learn, fire him._

 _Long term productivity hit meaning these workers cannot learn new things?_

It isn't black and white like that. This isn't about not being willing to learn or not being able to learn new things. Many computer workers -- lawyers, managers, schoolteachers, administrative assistants, my parents -- hate having to learn new technology. They'll learn eventually, but it might be slow and costly, and might not result in any productivity boost in the end.

 _Come on...How many people within Microsoft really stress Words feature-set? 1%? The average "information worker" would be perfectly fine with WordStar and Visicalc._

It's not about feature set. It's about familiarity, muscle memory, ease of use, efficiency, stability, performance, interoperability, accessibility, backwards compatibility, ubiquity (Office is installed on most PCs), documentation, supportability, and visual polish.

Alternate response: why are so few organizations switching to WordStar & Visicalc?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I work in an analysis shop for state government, and the minority of us who do "sophisticated" analysis (which is really just basic numerics and trending plus making maps), could go to a Unix/ FOSS world and increase productivity in no time. However, it gives me the shakes thinking about trying to explain CSV's to 100s of local jurisdictions, much less the less sophisticated 50% of OUR office. But when I say "send me an excel spreadsheet of X, Y, Z" EVERYONE knows what I mean; so we won't be installing Ubuntu on our desktops any time soon, unfortunately.

<comment><USER9> >But when I say "send me an excel spreadsheet of X, Y, Z" EVERYONE knows what I mean; so we won't be installing Ubuntu on our desktops any time soon, unfortunately.

For real? OpenOffice.org and KOffice (that I know) both output XLS files. OOo in fact is more compatible with more versions of MS Office than MS Office is AFAICT.

There are some esoteric differences between OOo's spreadsheet (called Spreadsheet) and MS Excel so you'd want to do some testing first.

There used to be StarOffice (not sure if it's still around) which was Sun's payed for version from which OOo was extracted and also Lotus Symphony based on OOo - both commercial offerings; like I said I'm not sure of the status of these now.

<comment><USER8> OOo, umm, still sucks. I don't know about Koffice, and I really love Gnumeric. It is more that the government is in world of not very savvy users (ahem), and getting out of sync with one's colleagues/ customers/ etc would be a huge productivity hit, even though personal productivity alone on projects would be fine.

<comment><USER9> >OOo, umm, still sucks.

I'm curious. I've come across some things on more complex forms (PAYE+NI calulators for example) that differed from the MS Excel way but not much/often (but I don't use it much).

Can you be specific about what your colleagues are doing in MS Excel that OOo Spreadsheet can't do or how else it sucks?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Open Source in Government is just another political buzzphrase along with Open Data. However, Open Data is relatively easy to do and it has various emotional or financial attachments to some: e.g. "It's our data" or "We paid for it" and so it won various brownie points when data was released. Open Source is a different kettle of fish and vast swathes of Government IT are set-up around Microsoft and other proprietary systems.

</comment><comment><USER9> Given that the NHS alone has spent 400Million on an unfinished unified medical records system (for real, 400Million GBP!) then I'd have thought having a UK Linux OS created by the gov and used throughout all gov departments, schools, etc. and given away free for private and business use would be a drop in the ocean of UK gov IT spending.

Guess it's too communist looking.

<comment><USER4> I seriously doubt that, if the NHS system were to be developed "in the open" with public access to daily builds and in-progress documentation, a 400M GBP disaster would have happened.

Light is a great antiseptic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> In related news, I just discovered (today in fact) a real-life Adobe DreamWeaver alternative that DOESN'T SUCK! And for the most part, it's completely free, unless you want the Pro version which costs a whopping $59: <http://www.evrsoft.com>

I dunno. I feel like dancing on my dining room table with a lampshade on my head, I'm so freakin' happy. Except I don't have a dining room table, so that takes care of that.

P.S. I have absolutely nothing to do with Evrsoft. I only heard of them today. The software is great, so I thought I'd pass along the good news.

<comment><USER9> >I only heard of them today. The software is great, so I thought I'd pass along the good news.

Use it for a couple of weeks and then post us a review.

Personally (and I've developed using about 20 different apps/environments) I feel you need to have done a whole project on it to really know if it's any good.

Tagged for a closer look. Currently I'm using Quanta+ and am exited that a GSoC dev has stepped in to push it into KDE4 proper (trials of Kdevelop halted for now).

<comment><USER11> I've used DreamWeaver exclusively for about a decade (way back when Macromedia was the shiznit), mostly for static HTML/CSS projects. Then recently, my main PC died, and with it my last Adobe Creative Suite 5 licence (I couldn't get back into the drive and deactivate the licence on that computer).

That sent me on an epic voyage for a dreamweaver alternative, and I've been disappointed by the half dozen or so open source alternatives. Yeah, I've only kicked the tires on Evrsoft, but it seems sturdy enough for what I'll use it for.

Let's face it, things are moving away from static HTML to online CMS platforms like Drupal and Wordpress. I'm not crazy about forking over hundreds of dollars for a) software that's already paid for and b) software I am needing less and less.

<comment><USER11> Afterthought: I've used NVU years ago when I ran RedHat, and it wasn't terrible. Still isn't.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Signs of Brisk Demand from Snap Shorts as Stock Falls Again - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-07/signs-of-brisk-demand-from-snap-shorts-as-stock-falls-second-day <comment><AUTHOR> Is this insiders and private market investors hedging their restricted stock by shorting the common?</comment>


Your Facebook friends don't mean it, but they're likely hurting you daily - <AUTHOR> https://sciencebulletin.org/your-facebook-friends-dont-mean-it-but-theyre-likely-hurting-you-daily-study/ <comment><USER2> I don't if this is just me, but that has always been motivation for myself to work harder. If you have the right mindset seeing other people winning or excluding you will only make it you more motivated. The one thing that the less succesful have over the more succesful is that they have a goal that is more pressing than the goal of a succesful person.</comment>


Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/monsantos-good-bad-pr-problem/ <comment><USER4> Because of the problems of genetic diversity and the lack of public seed, even if chunks of Monsanto research is funded by the public in public research/land grant universities through public grants.

EG:While large chunks of cornell's Ag program does end up with some sorts of patents (I think) - much of the fees associated with the introduction of a new plant are paid directly by the consumer (eg: this grape [https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell](https://doubleavineyards.com/arandell) \- new yorkers pay lower royalty fees to grow it). Furthermore, this grape (as an example) is considered public seed. I can, my neighbor can, whoever can, breed it with other grapes, sequence it, eat it, take cutting for creating new vines, whatever.

If Cornell^ decided to partner with Monsanto for Flint Corn, the flint corn may not be released to me to do that (hence the lawsuits, and why Monsanto buys/has huge internal labs on top of partnering with state universities)

The other issue of lack of public seed is the lack of genetic diversity, especially over the long term. One of big reasons why we have GM bananas is we only grow one kind of banana (cavendish). Imagine that applied to wheat, and then a grass disease mutates while Monsanto patents hold. If Monsanto wheat is 80% of wheat in the US, that disease is going to have a field day. Public seed is insurance that tinkers can tinker with genetics, thereby increasing genetic diversity of wheat in the field, tomatoes, what have you.

Right now we bank seed and have started z"heirloom seed" orgs like Seed Savers exchange. GM food theoretically has a place in there, but not if it is seen as a way of creating monoculture instead of tinkerers (which is what has happened)

We'll see if the fields turn

^Cornell does partner with outside organizations for plant breeding purposes.

</comment><comment><USER5> More advertising seems wasted money to me - pro Monsanto people don't matter, anti Monsanto people will only see it as propaganda.

Just label GMOs really obviously and let the people decide. Without any labeling or non-obvious labeling it is hard or impossible to avoid GMOs if you want to - for rational reasons or not - and being wholly against GMOs becomes your only real option. There are of course still a lot of other issues like cross contamination and what not but I think it would make a really got start.

<comment><USER6> The problem with labeling GMO's is that you're taking what ought to be a regulatory issue (is this GMO objectively safe?) and kicking it down I to the team of popular culture (do I the consumer think buying this GMO is safe for me?). Consumers are ill-equipped to make this decision, and if continually confronted by warning labels many will choose to avoid GMO containing foods "just to be safe". When a critical mass of consumers feel this way it will just be a cultural fact that GMO's are "unsafe" and food producers will avoid using them to avoid being seen as purveyors of "unsafe food".

Something similar happened to nuclear power, and we got coal power instead. GMO's enable the intensive agriculture needed to support 7+ billion people with a lower environmental impact than would otherwise be possible, and the technology is still primitive. I don't want it to be stopped in it's tracks by mob psychology.

<comment><USER5> 80 % of the world population has - more or less freely - decided to believe in invisible gods guiding the fate of mankind, sometimes with dire consequences, and we protect their right to do so. Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense for some greater good? I may not like the consequences of people acting irrationally but I like the idea of forcing people to believe The Right Thing™ even less. They feel about being forced to live with GMOs exactly the same way you feel about being forced to live with coal power, it's just a matter of on which side of the debate you are, both sides strongly believe to be on the right one.

<comment><USER7> I don't believe anything prevents a seller from honestly producing,marketing and selling GMO free foods. However, demanding that the rest of the world participate in their marketing scheme is silly.

Similarly you can put "contains no functional programming" on your software if you like. But it's unreasonable to insist that I put "warning: free monads" on mine, particularly if it's logistically difficult and expensive (as it would be with both FP and GMO) to actually determine the truth.

Also, I suppose corn, tomato, potato, peppers and most other selectively bred crops are can never have the "non-GMO" label?

<comment><USER5> I am from Europe and here it is mandatory to label products produced with GMOs with some exceptions like meat from animals fed with GMOs. It is not the case that a handful people demanded that, it is a nonnegligible fraction of the population.

And you software example. There are scenarios where certain certifications are required, some with respect to functionality, some with respect to the process the software was build with. For example US companies had to adhere to the Safe Harbor rules if they wanted to offer services in the European Union and they probably had to declare that in the terms of service.

<comment><USER7> Suppose a non-negligible fraction of the population demands Islamic, Hindu or Christian food. Should that also be labelled according to some law (rather than the current voluntary label system)?

Certifications for software are a very different thing because they are based on actual safety and functionality, not a faith-based preference.

<comment><USER5> Why not? Consumers have a right to know what they eat. If half the population really wants to know whether products adhere to some religious practices, then so be it, print it on the box. In some cases businesses will voluntary do such things because they see it as beneficial, in some cases they won't and then you have to make into a law. I guess in your example with the religions they would do so voluntarily because what are the downsides? In case of GMOs they won't because they - probably rightly - fear reduced sales and so we need a law. And faith and objectivity, that may be a thin line. What about vegetarians and vegans? And even in case of GMOs there is still a small but non-zero risk of adverse (long-term) effects.

<comment><USER7> Just like halal and kosher food makers, non-GMO food makers can include it on the box.

As a vegetarian myself, I assume food which doesn't disclose itself as being veg is not - particularly when outside of India. I don't feel it is the responsibility of the rest of the world to accommodate my personal tastes.

<comment><USER5> If everyone would label their non-GMO products that would maybe do, but what stops companies from putting non-GMO labels on GMO products if it is not enforced by some law? It also seems a bit backwards, why would one label all non-GMO products if one want's to know which products contain GMOs? That's a bit like labeling everything without honey as honey-free and not labeling honey and products containing honey. And we were already there - it is not you but a nonnegligible fraction of the population.

<comment><USER7> No one is opposed to requiring non-GMO labels to be accurate, just like all other advertising.

What's being discussed here is simply requiring Joe's Corn & Pork to put "non- Halal, non-Kosher, yay GMO" on their label. I.e., forcing Joe to participate in someone else's marketing scheme.

<comment><USER5> It is not a marketing scheme, it is customer information just like the usual ingredients labels. As I said in another comment, declaring what is in a product should really be the norm, GMO labeling opponents should justify why it is okay or better to hide this information from customers.

<comment><USER7> It's very simple. Food ingredients are on the label for safety reasons. There are no measurable safety effects of GMO, Halal, etc.

What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label? Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?

<comment><USER5> _What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label?_

Simple, if a substantial fraction of the consumers cares about it.

 _Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?_

People already avoid products from specific companies, countries and whatnot because they disapprove their ethics, labor conditions and so on. If people cared about the race or religion of the people producing the products they buy, then it should be on the label. I would actually almost bet there were products advertising that they were produced by white Americans only or something similar. That it was never a mandatory labeling probably just means that people never cared enough about it, not that it is something totally unimaginable.

If this is really the only argument against GMO labeling, that it would be kind of a random addition amongst many other possible addition to the labels, that seems a pretty weak argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The comments on this article are painful. Monsanto certainly has a huge problem and that problem is PR. People call them an evil monopoly, but they're not a monopoly. They're the second biggest, sure, but they have lots of competitors behind them, too. Almost _every single thing_ I read that's negative about Monsanto is either a fabrication or spun so heavily that the truth is too distorted.

Honestly, so much negative press really distracts from where you can find negative issues with the company.

<comment><USER9> I think it's a combination of things:

1- the name. Monsanto sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon villain.

2- the whole concept of patenting a life form rubs many the wrong way

3- previous bad behavior, I.e. Agent orange.

4- self-reinforcing bad information

That's no excuse for making things up whole cloth,but it at least explains some of it.

<comment><USER10> To expand on the patent issue, it not only about Monsanto patenting life but also how they go around and enforce it. Rather than selling a product that the farmer can use as they wish, monsanto demands payment for each harvest. Its if like a car manufacturer were to patent some new effective engine but then went to demand a cut each time the customer went and filled up the tank. Its not a deal that feels fair, and it makes people feel like someone got tricked.

<comment><USER11> You realize you're saying this to an audience of which at least half either works on saas or would like to, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This article is part of the problem. People care about seed patents and farmer suicides too, but I don't see any mention of those in the first half of the article.

It's a shame, because all this hate should be directed at the food industry more broadly, including Cargill, ADM, and their armies of lobbyists

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from today's "organic" labeling?

<comment><USER14> The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a successful marketing campaign by the competition?

<comment><USER15> Safe or not, I do not want to buy or support GMO food because I know there's probably a patent behind the seeds that can screw over farmers (and by proxy everyone else).

<comment><USER16> The farmers know well enough what they are buying when they buy single season crops.

It's been the norm ever since the green revolution (modern hybrids often don't breed true [http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs- gmos/](http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/) ).

They are making an economic decision when they buy and plant any crop, and they are good at making it (it's a low margin business).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser[1] is one datum.

The Schmeisers lost their heirloom corn they had been growing for generations when a neighbour grew Monsanto corn, which pollinated some of the Schmeiser's plants.

Because Monsanto had patented Roundup-ready corn, the Schmeisers lost the right to grow their unpatented family corn as some contained patented DNA. The court ruled 5% contamination was enough to assert IP rights and the Schmeisers could no longer grow their corn.

Seized ownership by genetic contamination is clearly a huge risk.

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

<comment><USER18> If you read the linked Wikipedia entry, the first paragraph makes it pretty clear that your re-telling of the story is, at the least, not fully accurate:

"The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, _all claims had been dropped_ that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which _Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated_ and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, _Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination_."

Emphasis added. They did not put forward the defense of accidental contamination because it was indeed not accidental; instead, they were trying to add traits of the GM crop into their own. Where you stand on that practice may vary, but they certainly were [intentionally] taking advantage of the superior traits of the GM crop.

Whether or not it should be allowed to be intellectual property is a completely different thing, but given that it can be considered IP right now, the corporation would be foolish to not protect their IP and therefore their financial interests for their shareholders.

<comment><USER17> I have heard this idea the Schmeisers benefited from Monsanto's Roundup-ready and I disagree.

The Schmeisers didn't use Roundup, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled they experienced no benefit from the Monsanto Genes.

For the wider picture this is moot: intentionality was about liability - <USER2> contamination lost them their heirloom regardless.

This is of grave concern to Nations as it could well mean in a few generations none of that species can be grown without Monsanto permission and license fees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Speaking of PR mis-steps...

I do remember seeing a TV ad a long time ago. Their new short-lived tagline was, "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible."

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbcurio/8740859605](https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbcurio/8740859605)

But to me it came across as, "Without Monsanto, life itself would be impossible."

</comment><comment><USER20> PR fluff pieces probably don't answer this question as cogently as wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_con...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_controversies)

</comment><comment><USER21> The problem is that many people are vehemently against GMO without having a clue. I remember of a famous french actress protesting on TV that people were forced to eat GMO. And saying in disgust "It's disgusting, I don't even want to eat DNA!"

On GMO and Monsanto I recommand a recent .net rocks:

[http://dotnetrocks.com/?show=1298](http://dotnetrocks.com/?show=1298)

<comment><USER22> They don't have a clue? Great maybe you could give me a clue on which french actress you're talking about.

Vague and nebulous anecdotes drive me crazy.

<comment><USER21> I think it was either Emmanuelle Beart or Beatrice Dalle. Why, does that make a difference?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've wondered for a while if there's evil black hat PR agencies out there that charge protection money.

"There's going to be an anti-GMO backlash and everyone is going to pick a villain. Pay us and we can make sure it isn't you."

There are many agricultural biotechnology companies. Maybe Monsanto didn't pay.

<comment><USER24> Monsanto has, IIRC, something like 80% of the seed market. There aren't really any comparable firms in the market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Let's try this one although I hold it against Fox and corporate media more than Monsanto:

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

</comment><comment><USER26> Agent Orange.

<comment><USER27> No one seems to still have a grudge against Dow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> If you were a farmer interested in GMOs what would you google? Monsanto. They don't have a PR problem, they're the greatest PR geniuses of all times.

</comment><comment><USER29> > Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto?

Because they forgot to set their corporate motto to "Don't be evil".

</comment><comment><USER30> Is from the year 2014.

<comment><USER31> Thanks; added.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> In other news, 80% of Americans want food containing gaining DNA to be labelled - comparable to the number that are concerned about dihydrogen monoxide.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh- conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh- conspiracy/wp/2015/01/17/over-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory- labels-on-foods-containing-dna/)

<comment><USER20> Ctrl-F "roundup". Ctrl-F "glyphosphate".... Hmm, nothing found - <USER3> curious for a CATO author who berates the American public's scientific understanding.

In other, other apparently _unreported_ news, Monsanto's GM foods were designed to be extra resistant to the pesticides they sell.

This pesticide, specifically: [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n)

"Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells"

It's important to focus on the fact that the GMO plants _themelves_ without the extra pesticides they were designed to sustain _are_ totally, 100% safe, though.

Signed, CATO (Koch funded think tank, closely allied with Monsanto)</comment></comment>


Students being forced to buy online textbooks to do homework - <AUTHOR> I was forced to buy an online textbook for my CS course this past semester to do homework. Now I've been notified that my `subscription' to this information is ending at the start of January (specifically by ZyBooks).
I really liked working on the projects and reading through the descriptions, I thought it was worth the $70 or so that I paid for it. However, it was hardly ``fresh,'' I could look up the same information by Googling or surfing SO.
I've been forced to buy these now extinct access codes to websites that have ``online textbooks'' before for courses (I still have the $60-100 cards, about 4 or 5 of them now). I honestly don't feel they're worth, most of the time, what I've paid for them. And at the end of the day, I end up empty handed, robbed of that information (unlike an actual textbook, albeit still way overpriced, but at least it's _mine_ and no one can take it away from me).
Has anyone else gone through the same thing? Thoughts? Opinions? <comment><USER2> College textbooks have been a way to extract money from students for many years. In the old days of physical books, the new copy would be as ridiculously priced as they are today (in constant dollars). The used copies would be beat up and about 80% of the ridiculous price. At the end of the term, the buyback would be for 10 to 20% of the original price at best. Sometimes it would be a couple of dollars because a new edition had come out.

One of the current trends is toward open source textbooks under permissive licenses. It will happen slowly as older faculty are replaced by younger, so it probably won't be done by the time you finish your degree.

Anyway, given the cost of higher education this might not be the place to worry about maximizing return on investment.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1\. You need to talk to the department heads at your university and let them know. Schedule a meeting, and when you bring up your (very valid) points, point to the rows of books on their shelf, and show them your now-extinct cards. It will be effective.

2\. Give them the benefit of the doubt. They were probably trying to save you money. Others in your class probably preferred this lower-cost approach.

3\. Don't just complain here about it. Your University department will never know that there is a problem unless you communicate with them about this. As long as you do it in the right way, they will appreciate the feedback.

Good luck!</comment>


Social networks and statehood: The future is another country - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/16646000 <comment><AUTHOR> This is my nominee for the worst article in this week's issue of The Economist. The core idea is reasonably sound, but most of the actual writing is gibberish.</comment>


U.S. Probes Theranos Complaints - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-probes-theranos-complaints-1450663103 <comment><USER2> What's notable about the meat of the complaint sent to the FDA is that it's less "this technology actually doesn't work" and more "this company has no culture of experimental integrity".

From the article:

"hadn't fully assembled the proprietary machines used for the herpes study when the experiments began" ... "company underreported the rate at which the machines broke down during the study" ... "employee also alleged that some crucial parts of the devices ... were modified to improve their accuracy"

FDA is generally skeptical of validation data not generated from "production equivalent" technology, but they get even more skeptical if you tell them something is X and it turns out to be Y down the road. That (rightly) sends them on a fishing expedition.

<comment><USER3> really sounds if they went to certification's stage too early, regulatory bodies do not tend to support rapid iteration of products

<comment><USER4> The company is already 12 years old.

<comment><USER3> I fully understand that part, perhaps the FDA needs to adapt as well. Testing doesn't need to be static, there is room for cooperative certification and corrective actions to insure the test completes. With the rapid advances in some areas of technology you could run into a situation where you obsolete the technology you are working on as certification issues reveal improvements.

While the medical field certainly has additional concerns I do see a time where, with proper processes in place, that the final delivery may not exactly be what entered the certification phase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _Edison machines would sometimes produce "radically different results" for > the same patients, the former employee alleged. Referring to a thyroid test > known as thyroid-stimulating hormone, the employee wrote that "a patient > would swing between" hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism, or too little of > the hormone and too much, when the test was repeated the same day._

This sounds really bad. When you have this huge amount of uncertainty in results, it calls into question their whole finger prick blood sampling methodology. I'm starting to think that it's impossible to get an accurate blood work from a finger prick only.

<comment><USER6> >I'm starting to think that it's impossible to get an accurate blood work from a finger prick only.

It is possible, but just for certain test types and error rates. The basic problem is the blood drawn from a finger prick is affected by exactly where it goes in and how much skin tissue is picked up. This variability gets averaged out with a large venous draw and so is not quite as bad - there is still a large variability with even normal blood tests for certain test types.

The tests that work OK are things where you just want a yes/no answer (do you have HSV1) and very poorly for things where you are wanting to measuring exact levels of something.

None of this is new to the industry.

<comment><USER7> I wonder if they can detect the level of known impurities and correct for that.

If the issue is skin contamination, measure the level of some substance that is correlated with that contamination, then apply a correction factor

<comment><USER6> I assume that is what they hoped to do. Lots of people with decades of experience in this area have tried to do this before without too much success. This doesn't mean it is impossible, but if you are claiming to be able do something that everybody else has tried and failed then your data needs to be impeccable. No hiding behind trade secrets and saying trust us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Compared to the other theranos article on top of HN right now, this one is far more damning. The whistle blower is claiming that even the herpes test, the only test the FDA has approved, had its results altered in some way to pass the FDA's requirements. If this is true, what does theranos even have left?

<comment><USER6> But I was told herpes is forever?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> To bypass the paywall: [https://www.google.com/search?q="http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2F...](https://www.google.com/search?q="http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fu- s-probes-theranos-complaints-1450663103")

<comment> vive-la-liberte Didn't help.

>To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In

<comment><USER9> Strange. Worked for me after I was blocked, same browser. I wonder if you're using Tor, or if they're geotargeting the way they handle google referrers. Or perhaps you're coming from a google.co.XX domain instead of google.com?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The reason for taking larger samples on many tests using "normal" methods is not that the instruments are not sensitive but that one needs to draw enough blood to get a representative sample of what's actually inside your body. A little prick of blood that comes out is often not such a representative sample. I always wondered how Theranos was going to get around this fact of life. Now as things unfold it increasingly sounds like they can't... they just wanted us to think they could.

</comment><comment><USER11> I predict Theranos will be out of business within 18 months. It's a vaporware company with a cult of personality founder. Hard to pull off with increased media exposure, even harder to pull off with regulatory agencies looking into you.

Update: too bad Theranos isn't publicly traded, I'd love to be able and bet against them.

</comment><comment><USER12> So we have a 12 year old company here, developing a machine to test blood (which is altered for testing), has only received approval for one test, which is now being doubted again, has repeatedly lied about their technology and capability.

I don't give one sordid fuck about Holmes, let's talk about Theranos. How is this a successful business in ANY capacity? Has it made a DIME that didn't come from an investor? Does it have ANY reputation that doesn't involve a spunky CEO?

</comment><comment><USER13> Has Theranos broken the law?

<comment><USER2> Falsifying data to obtain regulatory approval is definitely illegal, and federal regulations allow the government to hold corporate officers personally liable.

It has yet to be proven that Theranos did in fact falsify data, though.

<comment><USER14> Given how things are looking right now, Elizabeth might want to start preparing a shipment of orange turtlenecks to be delivered to her in the big house.

<comment><USER6> She is very well connected. I will not be surprised if she walks away from the mess in black and not orange.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So conflicted about all of the rage and drama around Theranos. On the one hand, it smacks of the conventional backlash against solutions that revolutionize the way things have been done forever, and there needs to be space for innovators to work through kinks to really bring an idea to market. On the other hand, it sounds like this product does not work (or does not yet work well) and it's not the kind of solution space where errors can be brushed off lightly.

</comment><comment><USER16> The complaint was a former employee. That gives me some reservations as about the motive.

</comment><comment><USER17> Thought I'd put this in here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGfaJZAdfNE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGfaJZAdfNE)

This is EH's response to the WSJ article. Very positive defence of EH. Just wanted to add this for an alternative take.

<comment><USER10> Well, let's see how she responds to this Federal investigation that essentially accuses her of being a fraud. If her company really did fudge FDA testing results then that's beyond bad.</comment></comment>


Sketch: New Vector Graphics App Competes with Adobe Illustrator for $49 - <AUTHOR> http://www.bohemiancoding.com/sketch/#6 <comment><USER2> > New Vector Graphics App Competes with Adobe Illustrator for $49

That's quite a bold statement, considering how few non-Adobe apps at the <$100 price point do a good job of importing EPS and AI files.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks good. I'll have to pick it up.</comment>


Kerosene – lighting up your web darkness - <AUTHOR> https://keroseneapp.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> my need was to not constantly forget about my read-later list -> so i built a thing.

maybe someone likes it here :)</comment>


U.S. soldiers are revealing sensitive and dangerous information by jogging - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-map-showing-the-users-of-fitness-devices-lets-the-world-see-where-us-soldiers-are-and-what-they-are-doing/2018/01/28/86915662-0441-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16249955](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16249955)</comment>


Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club - <AUTHOR> http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/06/copyright-elephant-in-middle-of-glee.html

<comment><USER2> There's always been a folk culture, including folk songs -- with "folk" and "songs" as separate words, "songs part of the popular consciousness" as opposed to "songs sung in an Appalachian dialect with a banjo, a long beard, and highly un-Appalachian politics."

We have a folk culture at the present day, too; the problem is that all songs used by the folk are copyrighted. Read _Sound Targets_, on music in the Iraq War, for another illustration of this; if every occasion of piracy mentioned in that book produced a $150,000 fine, the RIAA could field its own armed forces with the proceeds. (I hope I didn't just give them an idea.)

I'm not sure where we go from here. This situation can't continue, but "the laborer is worthy of his hire," to use the medieval form of the expression. If only the music industry weren't a gang of thugs (for a list of RIAA members: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels>), we might already have a solution for this...

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm sympathetic to the argument in this article, but like virtually all such articles it misses the underlying problem. Copyright law isn't the way it is because of misguided lawmakers or greedy corporations, or, rather, those are only the proximate causes. The ultimate cause is that representative government is unstable against the formation of special interest groups. Explaining very clearly to people why they're a bad idea, and even convincing them that you're right, won't solve the fundamental problem. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act passed for the same basic reasons that ethanol and mohair subsidies persist: those who benefit have a concentrated interest to game the system; those who suffer have a greatly diluted interest to resist.

By the way, you may be aware that the infamous mohair subsidies ended in 1995. Alas, this was not the equilibrium, and you can see the grinding of the implacable gears in this sad story:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohair#US_subsidies_for_mohair_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohair#US_subsidies_for_mohair_production)

</comment><comment><USER4> High school teachers know about this stuff. A drama teacher I know always knows exactly how many tickets she needs to sell to break even after licensing.

</comment><comment><USER5> Things are about to get a lot worse with ACTA. Imagine you Internet access being shut off for sharing an unauthorized, amateur remake or mashup like those disccussed in the article!

<comment><USER6> Fortunately India an China will do their best to torpedo this monstrosity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You have to remember that Glee is backed by the RIAA, they make money off of the show so I doubt they will cover an issue that makes them look like the bad guys.

<comment><USER8> Interesting...

Obviously the actors aren't liable if they have RIAA's support. But if the RIAA is promoting mash-ups and stuff in what effectively would amount to propaganda (regardless the reason why) and then sues people for doing exactly what they were promoting... That's got to be some kind of illegal, right?

<comment><USER9> >But if the RIAA is promoting mash-ups and stuff [...] ... That's got to be some kind of illegal, right?

Just immoral unfortunately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ehm, I think most schools have agreements with ASCAP and BMI that cover this scenario... perhaps through something like this: <http://www.ascap.com/licensing/pdfs/imla_rate_schedule.pdf>

<comment><USER11> The article talks only about recordings and mashups. The former aren't covered by such an agreement, and it's not clear if the latter are.

<comment><USER10> Huh? It's talking about glee clubs, and in particular the glee club on Glee, who mostly do live performances. The article begins, "For a show that regularly tackles thorny issues like teen pregnancy and alcohol abuse, it's surprising that a million dollars worth of lawbreaking would go unmentioned." But this premise seems to be faulty - there's no indication that there is a million dollars worth of law-breaking involved in performing songs live as part of a glee club which is most likely covered by the absurdly cheap school/town ASCAP, BMI etc license.

Certainly I haven't heard of them talking about releasing a recording on Glee, although I missed a couple episodes...

EDIT: I see that the article discusses in particular the videos that were created which would constitute "recordings". On the mashup issue, presumably they aren't actually recording mashups but writing them to be performed live - these aren't lip syncing groups, and most glee clubs probably don't make videos either so it seems fairly moot.

<comment><USER12> >and most glee clubs probably don't make videos either so it seems fairly moot.

Half of them are carrying video recorders in their pockets. Sure, it's very low-fi stuff, but you're remarkably out of touch if you think that teenagers don't record themselves performing and upload it to YouTube and Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _So you tell me — what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines?_

Since this is a relatively cheap rhetorical question, let's play devil's advocate: 1) forcing people to make new content is obviously good in the way of promoting learning; 2) you can learn technique without using protected content 3) there are already some exceptions in place for educational and religious use of protected content (right now if you do "Like a Virgin" as an allegory of being born again as a Christian, do it in the Church hall, and don't make any money, you should be okay).

The exceptions are probably too few and too narrow. A more useful discussion would explain how they should be broadened.

<comment><USER14> It is not a rhetorical trick: copyright is only constitutional BECAUSE it promotes knowledge and learning. The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant.

And to be honest, I'm not sure it is physically possible to learn such things without committing _any_ infringement. You might be able to do so without committing any infringement that a powerful copyright holder cares about, but how many stories can you think of right now that don't bear substantial similarity to _some story_ that _some author_ wrote in the last century? Jessica Littman wrote in her book on copyright that you infringe upon copyright whenever you watch a movie and then imagine the same film with a different actor playing the lead. Obviously, that's not a practical problem, but if so much basic intellectual activity qualifies as infringement, even the transient creations needed to learn new skills might be difficult.

<comment><USER13> _The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant_

It's relevant to the extent that it would have to be true in order to argue that the $150,000 fine promotes learning. The fact that I make that argument as "devil's advocate" and that I've got to sing "Like a Virgin" as an allegory of finding Jesus means I accept the law might be absurd. I would like greater insight into and specificity concerning the nature of that absurdity (the burden of the argument I quoted was being carried by a rhetorical question), and, for that reason, and for what it's worth, I find your comment more interesting and more substantive than the original post.

<comment><USER14> The author is actually a friend of mine; if you want more substance, you check out the slides for a longer form presentation on copyright reform that she did; see <http://cmmulligan.com/?page_id=27>

Alternatively, Jessica Litman's book _Digital Copyright_ is short and a good exposition of these issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have a feeling that printing, filling out, and then mailing off a mechanical license for every song, and then waiting by the mailbox for the results won't make for compelling television.

I understand the message behind the weblog post, but I think it's asking a little too much for them to tackle copyright on Glee.

<comment><USER16> You're missing the point, but it would actually make a pretty good episode. Here's my attempt:

      * RIAA baddies turn up in suits demand money
      * Glee club hasn't got the money
      * Will asks for money from Sues budget. Obviously she
        says no way. She needs to save for the hovercraft.
      * They decide that Glee club can no longer sing copyrighted music
      * Your task for the week? "Original song". Compose an original song.
      * They all do cool funky new tracks
      * Turns out the RIAA guys were listening,
        and have a change of heart they work out some deal or something.
        Maybe the original songs are *so* hot that the RIAA want in on profits.
      * Yay! all is good.

They can then sprinkle in as many of the issues and arguments about copyright as they see fit/are allowed to.

<comment><USER17> I'd prefer a script where the RIAA gets some kind of comeuppance, but your version is probably more believable ;)

<comment><USER16> Yeah I agree. It depends on how brave they feel as to how far they push. But it's definitely something that _could_ be worked into the Glee formula.

An alternate scenario would go something like Rachel is sharing her singing on youtube and gets a court order served for copyright violation. Will decides to represent her in court since it's something he believes in passionately (And he has to be the hero). They go to court and Argue how repressive copyrights are and how they prevent people from expressing their true selves (Something Glee club is there for) and showcasing their talent.

You'd have to end with a non-heavy/funny bit though, so perhaps the copyright owner bursts in court and says he's a massive 'Rachel' fan and she can sing any songs she likes of his with no charge.

For double Glee comedic value and irony, the artist would be someone who has been ridiculously outspoken in favor of the RIAA and copyrights in real life.

(I've watched Glee too much lol)

Actually, I'd say you could combine this with my previous idea in the same show and maybe even intertwine the story lines a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here's another instance of the article (Yale Law School's Information Society Project site) with a few comments that might be worth reading if you're especially interested in this topic:

<http://yaleisp.org/2010/06/copyright-and-glee/>

</comment><comment><USER19> A strong break needs to be made between the reality of life and that of television shows.

In the reality of Glee the RIAA may not exist, copyright laws could be drastically different. Given that a sixteen year old looks and sounds like he is in his mid-twenties this is entirely conceivable. We would also all have amazing hair and teeth.

If we pull this into our reality, then I would believe that the production company Fox owns the rights to the songs being sung, or has enough influence over the owning bodies to use them without concern.

For actual high school performances and their rights, I will reference jbarciauskas's comment.</comment>


The Future of the Search Engine - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/08/future-search-engine/40857/

<comment><AUTHOR> The article (and links to other articles) are mildly interesting, but what is the future of search engines?

Saying that there will not be linked lists in the future of search engines is mildly unrealistic. In the future, information will still be information.

</comment><comment><USER2> The future of the search engine? more alternatives but not killing what we are using now.</comment>


Divvyshot (YC W09) launches refreshingly simple photo sharing - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-10452446-250.html

<comment><USER2> The three experiences founder Sam Odio described in this interview really shows how valuable Divvyshot is:

[http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2901-NY-Business- Strategi...](http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2901-NY-Business-Strategies- Examiner~y2009m7d5-Intreview-with-Sam-Odio-Founder-of-Divvyshot)

<comment><USER3> > I went to Costa Rica with three other friends. At the end of the trip each > of us had about 1GB of photos. [...] The entire process was cumbersome and > took about an hour.

This means that each person "uploaded" 1GB of data and "downloaded" 3GB of data. In total, 16 GB of data was transferred. Doing this manually via USB drive is about an order of magnitude faster than over your average broadband Internet connection. It's not clear to me that Divvyshot has solved the problem here.

> I never ended up getting that group photo - even though low resolution > copies of it tantalize me on Facebook.

I was surprised to realize several years ago that one of Facebook's greatest contributions to my life was that it completely solved the photo sharing problem and had done it so well that I didn't even notice. Now I get everyone's photos from every event, I get notified when they're uploaded, and it seems like everyone I know can use it without problems. Sure, I wish it supported higher resolutions, but the medium-res images are good enough for 95% of people. If they would just allow slightly higher resolutions, then it would be perfect for almost all of my needs.

<comment><USER4> > Sure, I wish it supported higher resolutions, but the medium-res images are > good enough for 95% of people.

Where did you get 95%? I've heard this before yet I don't know of anyone (besides us) who's actually taken the time to ask users if med-res is good enough.

When founding Divvyshot I used Amazon mechanical turk to conduct a quick market survey (with hundreds of respondents). A few highlights:

77% of respondents knew what hi-resolution photos were and preferred them.

43% had manually increased the resolution setting on their camera.

77% had been promised photos from a social event within the last few months and had never received them.

<comment><USER5> Being able to just hand out an URL instead of burning several CDs or repeatedly handing out and collecting some USB drive if you want to exchange high resolution photos sounds like an advantage to me.

Email is still no alternative. Gmail, for example, has a 25 MB limit. Good for maybe five photos. Something like dropbox might be. (But you cannot share there if your friends don't have accounts.) – edit: Ah, just noticed that's seemingly also the case with divvyshot.

Well, that's a problem you should work on – I cannot and will not force my friends to sign up for anything when I just want to share photos. That sort of defeats the whole purpose. There already is a unholy proliferation of all kinds of services you need a password for. That's nice if all you want is a nice collection of great tools (you can pick and chose and end up only with a handful) but not so nice if you have to force your friends to sign up when you want to use the thing for one of its main use cases.

I bet you could make it possible to download and maybe even contribute (adding photos by sending them via Email, maybe?) without needing to sign up. Your use cases should work without me having to force people to sign up and hate me and your service as a consequence.

I know your whole signup process is dead simple (make it even simpler be not having people type their password twice) and you don't even need to use your real Email address and you don't even send out a welcome Email (all great things, really, I wish everyone were like you) but I know quite a few people (and not just nerds) who are allergic to any kind of signup form.

<comment><USER5> I have to correct myself once again. You can actually upload photos without signing up, just (as I suggested :) by sending them by Email. Cool! Just tested it, works great. That feature is a bit hidden, though, but that makes for a nice experience when you discover it :)

I still think you cannot download full resolution photos without signing up. Did I miss anything?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's rather juvenile of me, but the name makes me laugh - in the dialect of my native Liverpool, the word 'divvy' means idiot.

On a less juvenile note, the UX looks beautiful, but I would imagine that it would be hard to convince people to abandon the perfectly serviceable methods that they are using to share photos already.

<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=divvy>

</comment><comment><USER7> How do they plan to make money?

<comment><USER4> We have an announcement to make about that in about 2-3 months. Stay tuned ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Comes across as an awfully bad name; I hope they change it. Sounds like they wanted "Shareshot", but it was taken. Divvy's an awkward word. Plus, it apparently means 'idiot' in Liverpudlian.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately there aren't very many names available to startups these days. You can thank domain squatters for that. Once we can afford to buy something nicer we'll probably get rid of Divvy.

In the meantime we just have to take heart that the population of the liverpool metro area (850k) is 0.01% of the world's population.

<comment><USER9> In Australia a "divvy van" is slang for a police car with a cage in the back for transporting prisoners. It didn't come to mind when I thought of Divvyshot until this thread :)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Review my startup, Wehgee - <AUTHOR>

www.wehgee.com
More about the site -
Wehgee is a weekly topic based content sharing site where users post in content categories (like Audio) related to weekly topics (like #OneHitWonders).  Users of the site are challenged to complete the "Weekly Wehgee" - filling their wedge circle for the week by sharing their opinions, thoughts, or spin on each of the six topics.  We think connecting people by putting out topics for discussion is an untapped arena - "trending" topics/tags don't necessarily unite or entice involvement.
Premise -
We wanted to make something fun, that becomes interesting by connecting people across common conversations.  We also believe there is a good base of the public that won't post often on social networking sites because they "don't know what to post about" <comment><USER2> Disclaimer: I deliberately didn't read your description above to emulate the impression I'd get if I turned up without knowing anything about your site.

That said, I think you're focusing too much on what/how people post content on Wehgee, and not nearly enough on the benefits people can expect from sharing content this way. For example, Twitter's landing page says "Find out what's happening, right now, with the people and organizations you care about", and Facebook "helps you connect and share with the people in your life." — both of these are very direct ways to introduce the product.

In contrast the way your describe yours seems purely functional: I know that with Wehgee I'm suppost to share stuff in 6 weekly topics, and that by doing so I'll be "shaping the conversation" but that has no relevance to me whatsoever and doesn't communicate a benefit to me of any kind.

Also, I think you need to be clearer about the distinction between a category and a topic. Initially I thought that the hashtags were the 6 categories, but it took me a while to work out that this wasn't the case, and that the two were separate. I think you need to first make it clear what categories of content there are, and then find a way to distinctly communicate what the _current_ topic is for that category.

Another point: How do I know when one week's topic ends and the next begins? Is it on a Monday? Sunday? Can I revisit topics/discussions from past weeks?

I think there's some serious potential to giving people a framework of topics/categories to use for posting content, I just think you could find a clearer way of articulating the benefits of this approach.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great feedback, thanks. Let me address each.

Re: Our description - I think this is a valid point and a great idea, we will consider wording like "connect with people by discussing the same things" type of benefit.

Re: categories vs. topics. - we will work to make this more clear as well. It should be very clear if you "Take the Tour" on the homepage, but we will work it into the homepage wording as well.

Re: Topics run Mon 12EST to Sun 12EST. Currently, you can view topics/discussions from previous weeks, but not go back and comment on them, lets say. These are outlined in the detailed site pages...I don't know that we can work this detail into the splash page itself, but valid thought that we will explore

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I can also setup a guest login if anyone needs it.</comment>