Machine Bias - <AUTHOR> https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing <comment><USER2> This is totally fucked. Morally wrong, deeply unethical, and probably illegal – if you're adding punishment without having that additional punishment based on new evidence, isn't that like being treated guilty without proof? Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but how could anyone, let alone the whole huge set of people that led to these policies, think that applying group statistics to individuals to determine the severity of their punishment is ok?

On the other hand, these biaces (most notably the racial ones) exist in the process anyway, and now they're simply being codified and exposed. If these algorithms were published we could see exactly how much more punishment you get for being black in America versus being white.

Thanks again to ProPublica for an important piece of reporting; hopefully changes get made for the better.

<comment><USER3> Punishment is always considered somewhat separately from the determination of guilt. The judge would already try to account for things like this when determining your sentence. They just do it in a deeply ad hoc and personal manner, where they just take a stab at it, try to account for things like how sorry you seem to be, apply guidelines, and come up with a number. This means that you might ultimately be punished for the judge not having a good breakfast:

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunchtime- leniency...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunchtime-leniency/)

And of course it goes without saying that judges will be affected by their biases, racial and otherwise.

I'm not sure what to do about it, though. Handing down the exact same punishment for every single person who commits a particular crime seems too blind. But any variation is going to be problematic.

<comment><USER4> All this does is systematize those biases so that they can't be challenged like a judge with a record of bias can. The statistics that they choose to record create bias in and of themselves - by using race in the algorithm, you are building in the possibility that race influences criminality. If you built in favorite foods, some foods would end up resulting in higher sentences than others, just as if you built in phases of the moon when the crime was committed or the astrological sign of the victim.

Where there was absolutely no effect, one out of every twenty combinations of all other variables would show significance in combination with the current value of that particular variable in the likelihood of future crime.

Furthermore, the algorithm would simply extend existing biases in arrest and sentencing, because it simply can't account for crimes that are uncaught and unpunished. Groups that are stopped, searched, arrested, and convicted at greater rates would without fail be sentenced to more time. Just another benefit of being white in America.

You end up using the fact that some groups are punished _more often_ to justify punishing them _more harshly._

Even worse, I bet that the fact that it thinks that women are at a higher risk for recidivism means that somewhere within the algorithm it's using the fact that women in general are less criminal than men to decide that women who do commit crime are more exceptional (within women), and therefore more deviant. It's disgusting. If you can't legally discriminate against a person on particular grounds, you certainly can't feed those grounds into an algorithm to let it discriminate for you while you shrug and feign innocence.

The algorithm is the innocent one - it's just attempting to reflect the system as it is. It's like an algorithm you would write to predict the winners of horse races, or the sports book. And just like one of those algorithms, if you stuff it with garbage (the kind of garbage that makes it wrong 77% of the time), it will result in garbage. If you use the results for something not external to the system, bad variables will feed back into themselves and make the results progressively worse - what's the effect of a longer sentence on recidivism? How does profitable is the arbitrage on your sports book algorithm if people use the results to bet, and the distribution of bets shift the odds?

<comment><USER5> But they can be challenged. That's why you're reading an article about it. If you have a judge that is biased, it is probably harder to challenge his sentences than if you had an algorithm that you proved was biased.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One of the most mind boggling sentences in that article was:

"On Sunday, Northpointe gave ProPublica the basics of its future-crime formula — which includes factors such as education levels, and whether a defendant has a job. It did not share the specific calculations, which it said are proprietary."

How on earth can you lock people up based on secret information? That is Kafka meets Minority Report.

<comment><USER7> This is done regularly. It's called "judicial discretion" \- a judge uses a neural network so secret that even he doesn't understand it (in fact the entire scientific field of "neuroscience" exists to try and analyze it).

Variables used in the formula include details of the case, race/appearance of the defendant, and how recently lunch was at the time of sentencing. Unlike the ProPublica claims of racial bias (which are merely "almost statistically significant" at the p=0.05 level), the lunch bias is statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level.

[http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889.full)

This system sounds like a huge improvement.

<comment><USER8> Just FYI: The lunch paper has very serious problems as described in this reply, also published in PNAS: [http://www.pnas.org/content/108/42/E833.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/108/42/E833.full))

In particular, the cases are heard in a particular order. For each prison, the prisoners with counsel go before those who are representing themselves. As in the US, those representing themselves typically fair worse. The judges try to finish an entire prison's worth of hearings before a meal, so the least- likely-to-succeed cases are typically assigned to spots right before a break.

There are some other bits of weirdness in the original data too. They found a statistically significant association between the ordinal position (e.g., 1st, 2nd, ..., last) and the parole board's decision, but failed to find any effect of actual time elapsed (e.g., in minutes), even though the latter is much more compatible with a physiological hypothesis like running out of glucose.

<comment><USER7> Interesting, I was unaware. I need to associate more uncertainty to my beliefs about how terrible humans are at making decisions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Weapons of Math Destruction

[http://boingboing.net/2016/01/06/weapons-of-math- destruction...](http://boingboing.net/2016/01/06/weapons-of-math- destruction-h.html)

It's easy to hide agenda behind an algorithm; especially when the details of the algorithm are not publicly visible.

<comment><USER7> It's far easier to hide an agenda behind verbiage and anecdotes. Go read the author's actual statistical analysis:

[https://github.com/propublica/compas- analysis/blob/master/Co...](https://github.com/propublica/compas- analysis/blob/master/Compas%20Analysis.ipynb)

In the statistical analysis (unlike the verbiage) she is completely unable to hide the _lack_ of bias and the _accuracy of the algorithm_ , all of which are clearly on display in line [36]. In contrast, her verbiage somehow conveys the exact opposite impression.

<comment><USER10> Uh... it's all right there in your link, across several sections that analyze specific parts of the data.

> Black defendants are 45% more likely than white defendants to receive a > higher score correcting for the seriousness of their crime, previous > arrests, and future criminal behavior.

> Women are 19.4% more likely than men to get a higher score.

> Most surprisingly, people under 25 are 2.5 times as likely to get a higher > score as middle aged defendants.

> The violent score overpredicts recidivism for black defendants by 77.3% > compared to white defendants.

> Defendands under 25 are 7.4 times as likely to get a higher score as middle > aged defendants.

> [U]nder COMPAS black defendants are 91% more likely to get a higher score > and not go on to commit more crimes than white defendants after two year.

> COMPAS scores misclassify white reoffenders as low risk at 70.4% more often > than black reoffenders.

> Black defendants are twice as likely to be false positives for a Higher > violent score than white defendants.

> White defendants are 63% more likely to get a lower score and commit another > crime than Black defendants.

Calling out one specific section that doesn't show bias doesn't magically exonerate the rest.

<comment><USER7> None of these things are evidence of bias.

The algorithm is biased if it's giving the wrong score due to race or redundantly encoded race. To show that the algorithm is biased, you need to show that (score, race) pairs are more predictive than (score, ) singletons.

Line [36] and [46] both attempt to address this question. The only one of these which is statistically significant is "race_factorOther:score_factorHigh" in line [46].

The other things you bring up are interesting, but do not show bias. At best they show disparate impact which isn't remotely the same thing.

<comment><USER11> It is consistently giving incorrectly low scores to white subjects and consistently giving incorrectly high scores to black subjects. That is clearly bias, at least in the colloquial sense.

<comment><USER7> The degree to which it does this cannot be distinguished from random chance (p > 0.05).

If the predictor were biased then you could build a more accurate score based on both the original scores and race_factorBlack:score_factorHigh (and other interaction terms). I.e. you'd be building a new bias in to cancel the old bias, leaving an accurate predictor.

Their analysis doesn't show that this is possible.

<comment><USER11> p > 0.05 is the type of cutoff you would see to get published in a peer- reviewed paper. Such a high bar of evidence is not necessary in this situation. To prevail in a civil suit, a person harmed by this algorithm would only have to prove that is more likely than not that the algorithm is biased.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> According to propublicas own analysis, the claim of bias cannot be shown to be statistically significant. [https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we- analyzed-the-compa...](https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the- compas-recidivism-algorithm)

This article is terrible data journalism and probably deliberately misleading.

Step 1: write down conclusion.

Step 2: do analysis.

Step 3: if analysis doesn't support conclusion, write down a bunch of anecdotes.

Really, here's her R script: [https://github.com/propublica/compas- analysis/blob/master/Co...](https://github.com/propublica/compas- analysis/blob/master/Compas%20Analysis.ipynb)

Just read that. It's vastly better than this nonsensical article.

<comment><USER12> They analyzed what they could -- the outcomes of the algorithm (recommendation) and the accuracy of those recommendations. They picked out specific examples, but the analysis was over the whole data set. I think you missed these relevant parts from the article:

> We obtained the risk scores assigned to more than 7,000 people arrested in > Broward County, Florida, in 2013 and 2014 and checked to see how many were > charged with new crimes over the next two years, the same benchmark used by > the creators of the algorithm.

> The score proved remarkably unreliable in forecasting violent crime: Only 20 > percent of the people predicted to commit violent crimes actually went on to > do so.

> The formula was particularly likely to falsely flag black defendants as > future criminals, wrongly labeling them this way at almost twice the rate as > white defendants. White defendants were mislabeled as low risk more often > than black defendants.

> Could this disparity be explained by defendants' prior crimes or the type of > crimes they were arrested for? No. We ran a statistical test that isolated > the effect of race from criminal history and recidivism, as well as from > defendants' age and gender.

> Black defendants were still 77 percent more likely to be pegged as at higher > risk of committing a future violent crime and 45 percent more likely to be > predicted to commit a future crime of any kind.

<comment><USER7> Go read the description of the statistical analysis or just view their R notebook:

[https://github.com/propublica/compas- analysis/blob/master/Co...](https://github.com/propublica/compas- analysis/blob/master/Compas%20Analysis.ipynb)

Their own analysis shows that (p ~= 0) that high and medium risk factors are predictive. They also showed that the racial bias terms (race_factorAfrican- American:score_factorHigh, etc) are probably not predictive (p > 0.05).

Your quotes are not evidence of bias, though I see how they might confuse an innumerate reader. It's interesting how good a job this article is doing confusing the innumerate - it's almost as if it was written to mislead without technically lying.

For example, black defendants being pegged as being more likely to commit crimes can be caused by one of two things: bias or perhaps black defends _actually are_ more likely to commit crimes. According to ProPublica's own analysis (see race_factorAfrican-American), the latter is actually the case. This is true with p = 4.52e-06 - see line [36].

<comment><USER12> I read through the entire analysis. It appears that you stopped reading after you saw a p-value that supported your bias. That is bias in the sense of pre- conceived notion. You then proceeded to pedantically argue that the well demonstrated bias of the algorithm (more false positives for blacks than whites about 40% vs 20%) does not exist because of a p-value that came in between 0.05 to 0.1 instead of below 0.05.

Please let me know when your reading comprehension catches up with your mediocre statistics comprehension.

Maybe you just didn't realize that the 20-20 hindsight data -- prediction vs recidivism -- is included right there in the analysis. Or maybe you did realize it later and just decided you'd dug in so much that you didn't want to admit your ignorance.

Or maybe you still haven't comprehended the difference between the meanings of the word bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Thanks for posting this. I encourage this crowd to to take a look at the methodology too: [https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the- compa...](https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the-compas- recidivism-algorithm)

<comment><USER14> Are you sure what you found is not just Simpson's paradox?

When I look at the 2 KM plots for white/blacks, they are mostly the same. It's pretty clear that the model is not prejudiced against blacks, in fact it's somewhat prejudiced against whites. [1]

Your main editorial claim is that whites tend to be misclassified as "good" and blacks as "bad."

But I think what's actually happening is that algorithm is more likely to misclassify low_risk as "good", and high_risk as "bad".[2] Combine that with vastly more whites than blacks being low_risk (as you show earlier) and you get the observed "injustice".

I'll also note that the KM for whites flatten out at 2 years, unlike for blacks. This is actually a big deal if statistically significant. But that's a separate conversation.

Footnotes:

1 - this is acknowledged in methodology page "black defendants who scored higher did recidivate slightly more often than white defendants (63 percent vs. 59 percent)."

2 - why that is I don't yet fully understand (and I'd like to) but it looks's to be simple math that follows from low risk mostly not recidivating, and high risk mostly yes recidivating

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't have an issue with using statistical analysis to direct crime prevention efforts. I think it's unconscionable to use statistical analysis for sentencing. We don't want Minority Report in real life.

<comment><USER16> I think the problem is, the amount of crime is causing the legal system to buckle. So there is a search for solutions to make the process more efficient. There may be some value to sentencing standards that _may_ serve as a deterrent.

In other words, if you are a repeat offender, some cases you think you know what your lawyer can do for you. But a system replacing that, one that is overly harsh may deter you. All things being equal in a system of punishment, I think I want the one that's got some deterrence in it. So this is worth exploring.

If every criminal knew that getting caught meant being put into a meat grinder of sorts, I wonder how that would change their thinking about how to navigate the world and problem solve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Consistent with the theme of this story is the content from discussions held at a conference at NYU School of Law, featuring human rights and legal scholars. Coincidentally, I submitted a link on this yesterday

See [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11753089](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11753089)

</comment><comment><USER18> In block [37] of the ipython notebook, are racial main effects missing? I only see interactions.

[https://github.com/propublica/compas- analysis/blob/master/Co...](https://github.com/propublica/compas- analysis/blob/master/Compas%20Analysis.ipynb)</comment>


Building 20 – The Magical Incubator (1998) [video] - <AUTHOR> http://video.mit.edu/watch/building-20-the-magical-incubator-6821/ <comment><USER2> Building 20 was magical; in 1980 I founded a student run computer center using the Logo Lab's then surplus PDP-11/45\. I seriously doubt that would have been possible without "unattractive" space being available in Building 20.</comment>


Highscore for Charity - jordan-inc http://charityscore.money/ <comment><AUTHOR> Ok this was a complete waste of money. I assumed you are going to advertise it a bit more after this post, and make it look beautiful. But nothing changed and, even thought beeing first, i only have one click from your site. And judging by the country this could have been me.

Way more efficient to just donate to the organisation directly. Not waste 40% for basically nothing and get a permanent mention not only temporary.

Also you are samefagging in this thread. I should have noticed this is scam.

Edit:// I complained to PayPal that they should take a closer look at you. Unsure if this is even legal, i would also appreciate if you could refund my $7 and remove me from the list.

<comment> csm-dev Hi herbst, i'm sorry for delay but I've had some problem. On 20th i've contacted malariaconsortium.com to get details to make a donation. The amount of donation is 80% and not 60% because i've decided to reduce the percentage down to 20%. Makariaconsortium has been choosen by 7 users, currently.

However if you want a total refound for me its fine. I've done it, please check your paypal or email. Thanks again for your time and have a good day.

regards, CSM

</comment></comment><comment> csm-dev Hi, thanks for your suggestions. I'm open to all that can be done to have a better website. @jordan-inc, nope it's not about Trump or Hilary. I think they've enough money :) @herbst, i think that Starting first with the survey and next make the donation, can be a good idea. Currently i've this two proposals \- [http://www.malariaconsortium.org](http://www.malariaconsortium.org) \- [https://www.treedom.net/](https://www.treedom.net/)

In each case with few money we can do something good. If you've some good idea please advise. I really appreciate it.

<comment> jordan-inc Fine, so it is not about Trump, such a great news :)

Nice project, if it work, but you must publish a Survey soon. I want to give my vote.

</comment></comment><comment> jordan-inc Hi, I found this website that seems to use the base of Highscoremoney, adding a charity propose. Graphics is not the best possible but, compared to other sites I use for small donations i've the benefit to be added to the ranking :)

I saw that and user, _Marak_, had thought about this possibilities. Is this website yours?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I dont get it. I donate to the site but write down that i donated to whoever i want? And the site takes the money? Or do they forward it? If so, why would i pay transfering fees for a donation twice?

<comment> jordan-inc A summary by the exchange of emails had with the developer, he is pretty fast to reply

\- donation is done through paypal, and there is the commission linked to the service, this is unavoidable

\- on 24th of this month he publishes a survey on the website, he wanted to do it on Twitter but has not so many followers. The survey shows a choice of three NGO.

\- the three nonprofit or NGO are chosen from suggestions that receives email. Currently only three of those who have donated, have proposed an institution. Me not :)

\- there is a percentage that holds the site, set at 40% because he saw that many organizations hold similar figures, not clearly declaring it but talking of generic costs, while having more revenue.

\- his goal is to bring the percentage to 20% in the next 30-60 days, according to the feedback he receives and the amount of donations

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok i understand it now. Still strange tho, i don't think i would donate to anything without knowing what. He probably should list the 3 ngos from the beginning. Lets say he donates to a "bring christianity to yet untouched indigenous peoples" or "Abortion is crime" NGO, i would feel really bad about my donation.

Edit:// Ok i still did it. Now make your site famous OP so it was worth it ;)

<comment> jordan-inc ahah Imagine if in the end it's all a campaign for Hilary or Trump to raise funds :) This really make me feel bad about my donation

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh shit. You are right, this would be as worse as my examples but way more realistic. Lets hope that it is not that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I can add every kind of website? Http or https?</comment>


Balloon password hashing library written in Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/stargrave/balloon <comment><USER2> Here's the official repository:

[https://github.com/henrycg/balloon/](https://github.com/henrycg/balloon/)

A better link would be to the Balloon site itself:

[https://crypto.stanford.edu/balloon/](https://crypto.stanford.edu/balloon/)

Balloon is interesting because:

* Its contributors include Dan Boneh, who has rock-star status in the crypto community.

* It's designed to be easy to implement and to build on top of standard hash functions.

* It's provably memory-hard.

All the password hashes are good. I use and like scrypt, but if you used Balloon and had me look at your code, I'd say, "good for you for using Balloon". The authors warn people about their pre-production quality interface --- but if you're in a (generally) safe language, password hashes are among the safer thing you can implement.

</comment><comment><USER3> Please do not post a project unless it is interesting.

In this case, the project has 1 contributor, 1 commit, no real readme, and is a trivial amount of work (a couple of hundreds of lines of code).

Post a project after it has at least a token number of users and developers and informational value.

Linking to the stanford paper this was based on directly would have been a much better post.

<comment><USER4> The upvote system would've taken care of this post if the community didn't find this interesting.</comment></comment>


Nintendo Switch review: pure potential - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/1/14772530/nintendo-switch-review-zelda-breath-of-the-wild <comment><USER3> As a late Wii U owner, I'm willing to wait until the Switch proves to be a success. The horror stories of the Wii U's launch, combined with lackluster support and signs that Nintendo didn't know how to adapt to the Internet age haven't exactly been mitigated by what we know of the Switch so far: no web browser, no Virtual Console nor movie services like Netflix at launch. Everything smells rushed...in the meantime, I got a PS4 to try the VR and have been more than entertained by the system's regular selection. It's surprising to me that Nintendo couldn't score Overwatch or a Rocket League, two of the best multi platform games currently out, which would go a long way in showing the purported value of console-power in handheld.

<comment><USER4> The lack of a web browser is I suspect a reaction to WebKit vulnerabilities having been one of the primary entry points for people hacking the (New) 3DS. Omitting this functionality reduces the OS's attack surface.

<comment> n-gauge ..and maybe to stop users playing HTML games (Nintendo ripoffs for example). This is a shame as I felt the Wii U was crippled in this respect (i.e. video tag supported but not audio!)

<comment><USER5> Why would I buy a switch to play HTML games? Honestly this argument seems a stretch to me.

<comment><USER6> > Why would I buy a switch to play HTML games?

A portable, dockable tablet with a built-in reliable controller? If it had a browser, I'd be surprised if people _didn 't_ specifically write some games to target it.

<comment><USER7> 3DS has a browser and a built-in reliable controller. I haven't heard about any HTML game for 3DS.

<comment><USER6> The 3DS used a relatively deficient browser engine, with much less support for web standards; it didn't support anything a non-trivial game might need.

A browser based on current WebKit or Blink, with full hardware-accelerated support for WebGL, a fast JavaScript JIT, WebAssembly, fullscreen, joysticks, and other such standards would make a compelling platform.

<comment><USER7> Well, the point stands: browser and integrated pad is not enough for third party browser games to emerge. Nintendo would also have to provide relevant APIs, some of which aren't commonly used by regular websites (e.g. WebGL).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The wired review is much more negative, if you want a contrasting view: [https://www.wired.com/2017/03/review-nintendo- switch/](https://www.wired.com/2017/03/review-nintendo-switch/)

<comment><USER9> >"At this point, with Nintendo not having commented on or fixeds the issue, I can only go forward assuming the Switch consoles going on sale this Friday will all potentially have this problem, and that Nintendo is about to sell you a $300 game system requiring some kind of fix before it performs its basic functions."

Yikes, that sounds disastrous.

<comment><USER10> It definitely looks bad, but I've seen a few videos demonstrating the issue and it only really happens if you have the joycon entirely covered by your hands, or behind your back.

This could be a software bug that is fixable with an update, but that seems unlikely considering it affects the left controller more than the right one, which would indicate a hardware design flaw.

<comment><USER9> I'm not following your train of logic where it isn't that bad if a joycon doesn't work if covered by your hands. For a real product it needs to work in all cases, not if you put your hands a certain way.

<comment><USER11> Sounds like another big-name product, for which the advice "not if you put your hands a certain way" was touted as a complete disaster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If someone can answer that question for me:

Why has Nintendo shifted towards producing underpowered consoles? I used to play the Super Nes when I was a kid, and it was the most powerful console of its generation. The N64, the GameCube, the Wii and subsequent offerings were all underpowered in terms of graphical abilities and raw power after that. I hear people say "But the gameplay is what matters", which I agree with, but my question in the end is "Why can't we have both?".

Is it a costs thing?

<comment><USER13> It is mostly credited to Gunpei Yokoi's philosophy:

 _" Yokoi articulated his philosophy of "Lateral Thinking of Withered Technology". [...] "Withered technology" in this context refers to a mature technology which is cheap and well understood. "Lateral thinking" refers to finding radical new ways of using such technology. Yokoi held that toys and games do not necessarily require cutting edge technology; novel and fun gameplay are more important. In the interview he suggested that expensive cutting edge technology can get in the way of developing a new product"_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_with_Withered_Technology)

Nintendo consoles have always been a bit behind technologically; but I think this became really accentuated with the Wii, which was by design not that far ahead of the Game Cube- when the rest of the industry went full steam ahead fighting on specs.

<comment><USER14> The SNES CPU was underpowered compared to the Genesis. But the overall system yielded better gaming experience.

It's similar to Apple lesser RAM numbers compared to the market, yet iPhone are still smoother globally.

<comment><USER15> The SNES is not underpowered compared to the genesis if you compare them as a whole and not just spec for spec like comparing mhz on a CPU. Console hardware is made for running games and are not general computing devices. The snes hardware had many hardware supported graphical modes that allowed it to push the envelope without relying on a beefier CPU, the most famous of which is Mode 7 which allowed the pseudo 3d you see in games like F-Zero, the FF world maps, Mario Kart, Secret of Mana, Super Mario RPG and so on. And then there was this very common practice on SNES to embed coprocessors and DSP on the game cartridge, which is what allowed the graphical effects of Star Fox and Yoshi's Island notably. There was no such practice on the Genesis.

> The list of Super NES enhancement chips demonstrates the overall design plan > for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, whereby the console's hardware > designers had made it easy to interface special coprocessor chips to the > console. This standardized selection of chips was available to increase > system performance and features for each game cartridge. As increasingly > superior chips became available throughout the SNES's vintage market years, > this strategy originally provided a cheaper and more versatile way of > maintaining the system's market lifespan when compared to Nintendo's option > of having included a much more expensive CPU or a more obsolete stock > chipset.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_NES_enhancement_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_NES_enhancement_chips)

As far as graphical capabilities were concerned, the SNES ecosystem was definitely more powerful. By the time Sega considered the idea of extending the Genesis with the 32X it was already too late into the console lifecycle to matter and flopped (very close to the release of the Sega Saturn and 1 to 2 years before the Nintendo 64, depending on your region [NA, EU, JP]).

There was also the Sega CD but all it did is enable a library of not-games pseudo-interactive movies.

<comment><USER16> _The SNES is not underpowered compared to the genesis if you compare them as a whole and not just spec for spec like comparing mhz on a CPU._

This is literally what the parent said phrased differently.

<comment><USER14> I didn't want to state the obvious and be too detailed but yes that's exactly what I meant. And is what people were trying to assess above too: what are the reasons behind Nintendo hardware. And to phrase it again differently, Nintendo tries to be vertical for "entertainment", doesn't really matter how, as long as they achieve quality fun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am very excited about the Switch and hope my preordered unit arrives in time :). I do like the WiiU, the biggest complaint being, that it is tied to my tv, and not always where I want to play it. Playing it on the pad is nice, but the resolution and range are very limited. I also like the 3DS, and would really like a faster version of it with a larger screen with much more resolution.

It turns out, that the Switch checks all these boxes. If you design a screen for a 3DS successor with is slightly larger and higher res, you arrive at the screen of the switch. It is also the same size as the screen of the WiiU. And docked, it outperforms the WiiU as stationary console. Of course it falls behind the PS4, but I think the market for non-portable consoles has been "won" by the PS4. But while they will continue to exist, the prime time for stationary consoles might be over too. With the Switch, you are no longer tied to the TV. Nintendo took quite some care to make sure that the Switch mostly performs identically docked and undocked. There shouldn't be many if any games which are tied to one mode only.

The popularity of gaming laptops should tell us, that there is an increasing number of people who want to be mobile in their gaming, not necessarily as in playing while riding the bus, but as in taking your gaming hardware with you when like visiting friends. And that is, where the Switch easily outshines for example a PS4. Add to it the ability to do multiplayer gaming on the local network (Splatoon2, Mario Cart,...) and it has a lot of prospect.

<comment><USER18> It seems like the ideal system for me as well, as someone who uses the 3ds pretty heavily, let's hope there are enough of us to save this console.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I really wish these reviews would tell us the display's brightness.

It's weird to criticize battery life without saying how many nits the display is outputting and what the battery life would be at, say, 200 nits with a demanding game.

So far all I've been able to find is that Zelda lasts 2.5 hours with full brightness. How bright is full brightness? It's a mystery!

Edit: Digital Foundry says that max brightness is higher than the 3DS XL and visible in daylight. So 500-600 nits maybe?

They also say that it lasts "just over 3 hours" with the display at half or low brightness.

<comment><USER20> I'm more interested in how low "low brightness" is.

I will never forget my Blackberry Bold 9600. Full brightness was quite bright. No brightness was also quite bright. Not great for checking your phone in the middle of the night without sunglasses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21>
      Now I can take Zelda with me wherever I go — not some limited
      version, mind you, but the full console Zelda experience. I can
      play on my TV, pick up the tablet from its dock, and continue the
      game without skipping a beat or compromising the experience.

Continue... where, exactly? Modern mobile games work because they can be picked up for a few minutes in a line at the grocery store and put back down when you get to the checkout. Can a full Zelda title lend itself to this pattern of short mobile sessions? Furthermore, the Switch may be a svelte device, but is it something you'll actually carry around every day like your phone?

The Switch looks very well suited to a plane or road trip, where you have to sit for a longer period without anything to do, but it's hard to imagine that representing a major change in regular usage for most users.

<comment><USER22> If I recall, a number of studies showed that most people mostly play their portable gaming devices at home. I suspect the portability of the Switch for _big_ games like the Legend of Zelda are largely about accommodating this use case (comfort, extra screens in the home, multitasking).

<comment> crooked-v I think it's also hard to overstate the parental appeal of "you can get the TV back at any time without the kid whining about an interrupted game".

<comment><USER23> Or SO can watch TV while you kill some Moblins :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Now this form factor is what Google's Project Ara should have been. It's a modest size tablet to which you can attach peripherals. Peripherals big enough that many industrial sensors would fit. If you need an airflow meter with temp/humidity/CO2 sensing (HVAC techs use these), that would fit. Or a digital voltmeter/oscilloscope. (That would be very useful, especially at a Nintendo price point.) Or an RFID tag reader. (Those are way overpriced now.)

What's the interface to the peripherals? (The base unit has USB-C and the peripherals have Bluetooth, at least, but it's not yet clear what the wired connection between peripheral and main unit is.) Can the device take new software, or does Nintendo have a lock on that?

<comment><USER25> Can't you just get those peripherals as plug ins devices for an iPhone/Android?

<comment><USER24> Then you have dangling cables and need both hands.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Personally, I am a fan of the setup. I like the idea of having multiple TV bases so that the switch can be moved between rooms easily. My kids are at the age where they do a lot of family RV trips and we'd be able to get a base for there too.

I'm much more interested in the Switch as a family console than a personal. I grew up an only child and played A LOT of online games by myself. Ever since college I've had a standing rule about not playing games unless it's social - aka in the room.

This perfectly fits my use case.

<comment><USER27> It feels like Nintendo is really gouging people on the peripherals though. Each docking station is $90, which seems pretty expensive for what's essentially an HDMI port and USB charger, especially just for the convenience of being able to play it in any room at any time. It doesn't take very many of those before you've basically paid for a whole new Switch.

<comment><USER28> The games aren't really cheap either. $50 MSRP for something like 1-2 Switch is ridiculous to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hmm, the battery life is kinda disappointing. I'm not interested in Switch as a TV console (PS4 does that significantly better and has better games for when I have time to give them) and it seems it's going to struggle as a 3DS replacement when it can't even live through a rather average flight :/

I do still hope the best 3DS franchises will make it to the Switch and I might pick it up after price drops under the price of PS4.

<comment><USER30> Good thing is that you can use almost any powerbank with it, thanks to it's charging through USB-C.

<comment><USER8> According to reviews, it depletes the battery faster than it can be charged so a powerbank won't expand life as much as it should.

<comment><USER31> No, it can charge while playing when using the official adapter. It's just that people were using low-rated battery packs. USB C can support up to 100W, the Switch charger is 45W, so if you're using a pack that doesn't output more than 10-20% of that, obviously you'll have slow charging and probably not enough to sustain playing and charging simultaneously. I'm not worried, I'm almost never away from power for more than 3 hours anyhow, though I will be finding a high capacity battery that can output a good enough charge rate.

<comment><USER8> Yah, you're right. Quoting from the review: "we've yet to find a battery / cable that can charge the console faster than it drains." So it's possible and likely that someone will make a capable pack at some point.

<comment><USER32> Looks like it won't take much. A lot of USB-C power banks on Amazon max out at 3A/5V; at 15W, that's just about the top power consumption measured on the Switch (16W), so it ought to be enough to at least keep the battery constant as power use fluctuates during regular gameplay.

I expect we'll see 5A+ power packs in the future which will handle it easily.

<comment><USER33> I can highly recommend [http://www.banggood.com/ZMI-QB820-20000mAh-Quick- Charge-2_0-...](http://www.banggood.com/ZMI-QB820-20000mAh-Quick- Charge-2_0-Power-Bank-with-USB-HUB-p-1112667.html), although I'm hoping someone with a thermal camera can do a proper teardown and review at some point - it gets a little warm at ~40W output.

It charges my XPS 9350 just fine, so it should do the Switch no worries.

<comment><USER32> Those are extremely impressive specs for the size. Great find and thanks for the link.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> So I wouldn't buy a Nintendo console as my first console. But I have a PS4 that covers me for most of my gaming (and Netflixing needs) and the Wii U was a great addition to get access to all of Nintendo's stuff. So I'm excited to swap out the Wii U for a Switch -- although there's no rush for me.

One thing that has changed my opinion a bit about Nintendo's products, though: Having a kid. Suddenly it's very clear what it means for Nintendo to make a family console as a product subtly different from a gamer's console or a more adult console, which is what I would consider my PS4 to be.

<comment><USER35> I believe this is squarely where Nintendo lives, in the family space. We have all of the consoles available to my kids. The only ones they play? Wii and Wii U. Don't care about Xbox or PS because of the Nintendo's first party titles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I see the Switch as a replacement for the DS, which Nintendo was successful with. The fact that it works connected to a TV is a benefit but not a main feature. Nintendo is competing against the iPad and Android tablets that kids get for Christmas and their birthday. Not against the ps4 or Xbox. This is where I see Nintendo having a chance. Parents can buy their kids a tablet that is also a game console. Which is brilliant.

<comment><USER37> That's precisely why I'll be buying one: my daughter wants a 3DS, but I said let's wait for the Switch instead. Then we'll get to use it on our main TV (replacing our Wii U, which we rarely use) and have games that work in both settings. Win-win.

<comment><USER28> If your daughter wants a 3DS to play portable games (with nothing specific in mind) then waiting for a Switch instead of getting a 3DS is probably worthwhile.

If, however, your daughter wants a 3DS for specific titles, you're still better off getting her the 3DS. For example, if all of her friends are currently playing and trading on Pokemon Sun/Moon, getting a Switch will basically have her feeling left out.

<comment><USER38> delayed gratification is not always a bad thing.

<comment><USER28> >> delayed gratification is not always a bad thing.

It's not so much about delayed gratification -- when you're talking about a specific game (especially one that is online) on a specific platform, it's more like no gratification at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The more I learn, the more I want this as a 3DS replacement. The TV aspect doesn't interest me as much. It looks like it might deliver on that promise as they work the kinks out.

<comment><USER28> > The more I learn, the more I want this as a 3DS replacement.

I don't know if that's even possible. The 3DS has pretty good third party developer support and a huge back library.

The true worth of any system is how many high quality games are on the system and whether they're the games you want play.

Outside of the obvious "must have" first party titles, I can't see a whole lot of system-selling "must have" third party titles. If you're not into Nintendo's own games, you pretty much have no compelling reason to get a Switch. And if Switch hardware sales aren't strong enough, third party developers will stay away.

It also doesn't help (especially for parents on a budget) that Switch games are around $20 more than 3DS games.

<comment><USER15> Some of the niches that the 3DS owned up until now might be disrupted by the Switch though. I'm one of these old school (as in, thoughtful turn based combat, whether tactical ala FE or FFT, or more about party building and dungeon exploration like SMT and Etrian) RPG gamers who bought the 3ds solely games like the Fire Emblem, Etrian Odyssey, Shin Megami Tensei, Devil Survivor series, and of these, Atlus has already announced that the next major sequel to SMT will be on Switch instead of 3ds. The DS and 3ds up until now had all the major games of the series (Strange Journey, IV, IVA). It's nice to see the series go back to a more powerful console, we have missed seeing those demons animated in 3d the way they were in Nocturne on Playstation 2. Can't say I will miss the 3ds if the other game series follow suit.

Fire Emblem also traditionally had home console releases alongside portable gamesystems, but the Wii U flopped too hard for niche games to have much room. Concentrating developer efforts on a single console that does both portable and home, large screen play is a smart move for Nintendo.

<comment><USER28> It really depends on the game genres you like.

For example, I like fighting games, and that's why I bought the 3DS (even though you can count them all on both hands). Street Fighter IV was one of the early launch games for the 3DS and holds up surprisingly well.

Meanwhile in the Switch announcement, Capcom announced a rehash of the older 2D Street Fighter II, which is a less than impressive announcement. At least the Wii U got Tekken Tag Tournament 2.

If I didn't just buy a GPD Win recently (which plays the Windows Steam versions of SFIV and Street Fighter x Tekken among others at close to 60fps @ 720p in a 3DSXL-like form factor), I would still choose my 3DS for fighting games over the Switch for the foreseeable future. I still play my 3DS a lot because I somehow started playing Pokemon for the first time (Sun/Moon) and got hooked on it.

I actually pulled the trigger on the my GPD Win a couple of weeks after being disappointed with the Switch webcast. It basically killed any remaining desire I had to get a Switch, but as I mentioned earlier, it all comes down to the genres you play and which platforms serve them the best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm excited about the switch. My kids will use it in the car, we'll play some mario kart when we go out to eat at, my son almost exclusively games on his 3ds.

I'm hyped!

</comment><comment><USER41> This is a good review. Nice pictures, and some real-world usage scenarios, especially concerning battery life.

I really wanted to like the Switch, but the addition of and focus on motion controls during their January press conference really killed it for me. Alternate input methods for games have failed, but Nintendo keeps pursuing this. My worry about the fact that the console supports motion controls is that games will use them. Motion controls killed the Mario Galaxy series for me, I couldn't get past the first hour or so without having so many frustrating input problems. I have a Wii U and Nintendo's games insist on using the microphone for stupid gameplay mechanics, like blowing on it to move platforms.

Nintendo makes really good games, but they're tied to crap hardware and forced to use really awful input gimmicks. This feels crummy to say, but I kind of hope the Switch fails so that they're forced to go third party, drop their crap hardware division, and put out their excellent software on game consoles I actually want to own and use.

<comment><USER42> Hmm, I have to disagree here. I'm actually really excited about the Joy-Con's and the Switch's portability. Mainly because you take the tablet with you and you have the ability to do same-screen co-op just like that.

For a game like Towerfall or Mariocart (Or a launch title, like Snipperclips) that is amazing. And the ability to play Zelda on an airplane sounds awesome.

I do think they flubbed a ton of stuff on the software side (and even hardware...digital triggers on the joy-cons...) mainly by making 1-2 switch a $50 title and not a pack-in, so I see that flopping hard. At this point the only reason to buy is Zelda, so in that regard it seems like a soft launch for the dedicated fans, then the real launch will be this holiday season.

I do agree on disliking motion controls for a console like this, but motion controls do have their place in VR, so maybe Nintendo has some future plans in that space...

<comment><USER41> Yeah, the portability is really cool! And the ad-hoc networking for multiplayer seems neat. The joycon controllers seem pretty neat, simple little controllers, which means you can focus on gameplay. I was really excited for it.

But... then the January demo happened. It's all dumb mini-games with shit motion controls. It's an ice cube vibration demo(?!?). It's some poorly- defined camera vision detection thing. They seem to be doubling down on awful input methods, instead of showing us good games that I want to play on hardware I want to own.

<comment><USER43> > It's all dumb mini-games with shit motion controls.

Do you mean 1-2 Switch? That's one game out of quite a few games that are coming out this year. 1-2 switch is definitely heavy on the Nintendo gimmick though.

I was somewhat surprised at how few 'gimmick' games were announced. Most of the games are standard controller-type games. Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, Splatoon 2, and all the indie games that were announced yesterday.

Edit: You're right..forgot about Arms being motion controlled too.

<comment><USER41> What I remember from the press conference was 1-2 Switch (motion controls barf), Arms (motion controls barf), Zelda (getting it on Wii U), Splatoon (probably actually good), something about ice cubes (what), Skyrim (isn't this game like 8 years old?), some distant-future titles, and a handful of nebulous 3rd party statements of support.

Maybe I'll pick one up in a year or two if they don't lean to heavily on the motion controls gimmick after all. But I'm not holding my breath.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> It sounds good, but the cartridges apparently taste terrible: [http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/17/170059/29224...](http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/17/170059/2922480-switchjeff3.gif)

Seriously though, I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude here. The console looks promising and there's a lot to like, but it also has some potential negatives: underpowered, bad battery life, poor 3rd party support compared to Sony/Microsoft, unknown online strategy (having a separate phone app for social seems very bad).

None of those are deal breakers, but they're a little "red-flaggy". Since I'm not dying to play Zelda on day 1, I'll be watching how things progress over the next few months. I'm hoping for my and all gamer's sakes that it turns out good.

</comment><comment><USER45> Let people play all the NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube classics on the thing and I'm sure it will be fairly popular.

<comment><USER46> This is one of the main reasons I'm interested. Not THE main reason but here's hoping Nintendo continues to build their Virtual Console library. _crosses fingers_

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I reckon it will be a big success. But, honestly, I believe video-game only hardware should no longer be a thing in 2017.

Almost all features of the Nintendo Switch could have been built on the top of iOS or Android. Nintendo should pivot to a software only company.

<comment><USER48> Why? They sell massive amounts of hardware. Clearly their customers do not want to play their games on a smartphone.

<comment><USER49> Based on the response to Super Mario Run, Fire Emblem Heroes, and Pokemon Go, I'd say their customers clearly _do_ want to play their games on a smartphone; they just haven't had the opportunity.

Now, if you'd said, "their customers don't mind buying Nintendo hardware to play their games on," that's much harder to deny.

<comment><USER48> Some customers want to play those games. They're not necessarily the same customers. It's not proof they could bring their entire customer base with them.

Those games are made for touch screens. Super Mario Run is proof that no one will ever crack the on-screen joystick problem - Nintendo knew they would not be able to make a good game that way. The end result is certainly fun, but can in no way compete with the experience of a traditional Mario game.

And people will not buy add on controllers for smart phones. Not even for Nintendo.

This reminds me of the arguments a decade ago that Apple should stop making hardware and just license OS X to PC manufacturers. We never would have had good trackpads or mic jacks that can use the clicker on iPhone headphones or all the other bits of integrated hardware and software on Macs.

Nintendo is much like Apple in that they design their hardware features to compliment the games they want to make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> It seems that you can't use touchscreen while docked. So it will stay unused because games won't rely on it. Apart from games that have different gamplays for indoor/outdoor (pokemon switch?)

<comment><USER17> It looks to me that the dock is partially designed to especially block the access to the touch screen :). This makes sense, as Nintendo, at least for the launch, wants all games to work identically docked and undocked. I could imagine though, that later on, there will be touch based games, once the system has been established enough.

<comment><USER51> They've already announced a game that requires the touchscreen (and thus cannot be played while docked): [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-02-27-nintendo- switch...](http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-02-27-nintendo-switch-has- its-first-touchscreen-only-game)

I think these will be uncommon, but they will exist, because they can.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Why dont they make a console with really good hardware, yet still affordable, and simply _make good original content for that console_? Look at breath of the wild. People arent excited for the switch, a _tablet_, they are excited for breath of the wild. Look at resident evil 7. Success in games is really simple: make a good game. Its not that hard. Look at battlefield one. But no, everyone decides to rely on gimicks and whats already popular.

</comment><comment><USER53> I wonder why they made the dock so bulky... [https://cdn0.vox- cdn.com/thumbor/MDlcmzBowKNZ425oxRfyJ1-bMBM...](https://cdn0.vox- cdn.com/thumbor/MDlcmzBowKNZ425oxRfyJ1-bMBM=/800x0/filters:no_upscale\(\)/cdn0.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7803833/nintendo_switch_dock_back_960.png)

<comment><USER54> Surely they made it bulky so that it doesn't fall over.

<comment><USER53> a quick photoshop with the same footprint: [http://i.imgur.com/Z3QVKRK.png](http://i.imgur.com/Z3QVKRK.png)

edit: oh, maybe that bottom part I reduced is full of weights. Not making the actual switch stick out further on the top might be a simple design decision than. They could have squeezed half of that in the back half of the thing though.

<comment><USER54> Ah, I didn't even think about the height of the thing. That is curious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I'd totally buy a Switch....if it was actually humanly possible. I also wanted to by a NES Classic, which also proved impossible. Solved _that_ problem with a Raspberry PI. I loathe Nintendo's idiotic business practices of artificially limiting supply when there's huge demand. They have something like 2 million Switches for the launch window. 2. Million.

<comment><USER28> >> Solved that problem with a Raspberry PI.

If you're ok substituting a Pi for the NES Classic, you might want to try substituting a GPD Win [1] in place of a Switch.

Depending on the games you play, the GPD Win is an excellent portable computer for playing games. After I saw the opening title list and pricing of the Switch, I just ended up buying a GPD Win and play a lot of my Steam library on it. For the games it can't play, I can still use Steam Streaming if I'm playing with it at home. I was pleasantly surprised with some of the 720p frame rates I could get with it. There's a list of games that are playable in the GPD Win's Reddit group [2].

1: [https://liliputing.com/2016/10/gpd-win-handheld-gaming-pc- qu...](https://liliputing.com/2016/10/gpd-win-handheld-gaming-pc-quick- review.html)

2: [https://www.reddit.com/r/gpdwin/comments/5a8z2t/games_that_a...](https://www.reddit.com/r/gpdwin/comments/5a8z2t/games_that_are_a_good_fit_for_the_win_nonemulation/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> From a happy Wii U owner (mine is indeed not dusty, we use it all the time)- Nintendo needs to give up on hardware other than the GameBoy.

The answer for them is to stream their content to any device they choose as a premium option of sorts through their own LiquidSky copycat service and let whatever their current-gen Gameboys (3DS?) are act as the controllers. Let the handheld act as a phone too and they'll have something. Then they keep their massive portable market, at least the one that has decent battery life and get a solid answer on a good home console.

It shuts everyone up on 1080P or 4K Mario games, through 'NintendoSky' they can just pay for whatever resolution they want and access it on their Macbook, iPhone, iPad, AppleTV, Windows10 or whoever they want to work with. I'm assuming they could do it on iOS, macOS and Windows10 without any gatekeeping or royalties at all. And it seems like a really nice value-add that Apple should be eager to sign onto their AppleTV. I'd much rather not have yet- another device and just pay Nintendo directly per month for their service. I can't say it's a great idea for most, because few actually have good enough games to warrant a monthly fee but Nintendo does.

</comment><comment><USER57> Anecdote: my son and all his 13 year old friends can't wait for this console and are all preordering this week.

<comment><USER58> Same here, but they're completely advertising driven so the excitement is driven solely by lack of advertising for anything else, rather than the inherent abilities of the platform.

<comment><USER59> I'm wary the Switch is simply too big and bulky to be a replacement for the GameBoy/DS form-factor that kids seem to go for (myself included - <USER2> memories of pining for a GameBoy Color some 18 years ago) - smartphone games have effectively supplanted that area anyway. I see the Switch as a PSP competitor, but they'll have to try very hard to succeed.

Assuming this isn't Nintendo's swansong and last hardware product I hope they release an Android phone with built-in (pop-up?) game controls and an official emulator/store app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Can't wait to see the home brew being made for this. Especially how the exploit will be fed into the system.

<comment><USER61> It'll probably be a WebKit vulnerability like most initial console exploits these days.

<comment><USER10> I'm also intrigued to see what mitigations will be involved. Perhaps the browser will run inside a VM?

<comment><USER62> IIRC the Switch doesn't ship with a web browser at all. This could change down the line, of course.

<comment><USER10> Apparently the day-1 update will include a browser applet for connecting to captive portal wifi networks.

<comment><USER63> Hopefully they rushed and used an outdated version of Webkit ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Where I work we expect to sell out......

The review was helpful to the under knowledged ringing up the units.

</comment><comment><USER65> I've been using the same form factor for PC gaming ala linx vision for a while now. And I have to say its brilliant! Super convenient way to fit gaming into my life. When my vision dies, I'm switching...uhmmm to the switch.

</comment><comment><USER66> So is Switch next-gen handheld or home console? Will 3DS series be discontinue?

<comment><USER67> Right now, they are saying it's not a 3DS replacement. However, they said the same thing about the DS, and how it was a "third pillar" to the GBA and GCN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Multiple displays is an theme throughout all at-home consumer electronics. We need a technology that can be streamed to as an external display instantly anywhere that can be any size.

<comment><USER69> Is that technically possible, especially keeping in mind the need for _very_ low latency?

<comment><USER70> There are several competing standards. "Wireless HDMI" is a gaggle of unlicensed spectrum, but they manage to get 1ms delay with propriatary techs. We've had WiDi (with varying lag) and miracast (with awful lag) for a while, but nobody's been able to manage to standardize the standard, so to speak.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Apologies to the naysayers and even the inevitable down voters but iOS and Android have already crushed the portable gaming market. The likelihood of dedicated hardware EVER getting back its previous glory is unlikely.

Console gaming retains its luster because mobile simply cannot compete against consoles regarding graphics, audio quality, and so forth. Nintendo Switch enjoys no such benefits.

There are already controller cases for both iPhone and iPad which are just as good, if not better, than the one Switch ships with. iOS already has a mature app store with TONS of quality content (not gaming and otherwise).

I'm sorry but I just don't see a solid future for this kind of thing anymore.

<comment><USER18> The 3DS has sold 65 million units. Obviously there still is a market, even it's not back to the glory days. And Nintendo has jumped into the smartphone space as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> It seems a bit silly that they made the cheapest component replaceable. You could, without much extra cost, have all the benefits by just duplicating the controls.

</comment><comment><USER73> If they come up with this 5 years ago, it will be EPIC...

</comment><comment><USER74> Sorry, I feel like the portable-gaming system went the way of the compact camera, MP3 player....

<comment><USER75> > Sorry, I feel like the portable-gaming system went the way of the compact > camera, MP3 player

So your saying they will still be bought by people that care about quality?

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> So it's a PS Vita with an HDMI-out?

<comment><USER77> So the iPhone is just an iPod with a big touchscreen that you can also use make calls?

So the automobile is just a carriage that runs without horses?

So the airplane is just a bus with wings?

<comment><USER78> Yes to all.

Nintendo should probably switch (heh) to only releasing games for Android and iOS.

<comment><USER79> said nobody ever

<comment><USER67> People have been saying for a while that Nintendo should pull a Sega and go third-party. Just because they're saying it, that doesn't mean its the right move.

<comment><USER44> Switching to 3rd party development is a far cry from switching to mobile only development though!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Off topic: How much time people spend in public laundry? In post Soviet countries and Russia almost all families, even poorest have washing machines, while public laundry used only for complex cleaning.

<comment><USER81> A functional, used washer can be had for $100 in most places, which shouldn't be a huge barrier to most people (especially people who can afford a videogame console). Small apartments don't have washers because they simply don't have the room.

<comment><USER82> I haven't seen a single London or Edinburgh flat (which on average will be much smaller than the US ones - even Manhattan) that hasn't had a washing machine in. One of my friends flat was incredibly small but still managed one.

Definitely some weird cultural thing that people rent flats without them. You wouldn't be able to do that in the UK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Speaking purely as a consumer. Have 3 Wii consoles across the extended family. It was good as a gift, but ended up sitting idle given the demographics in our households. Hence - skipping Switch, time better spent outdoors, at the gym.

<comment><USER20> >outdoors, at the gym

Gyms are usually indoor facilities.

Also, you could take your Switch to the gym. Use it between sets or watch something while on the treadmill.

<comment><USER28> I think the parent meant "outdoors and at the gym" as in two separate activities, not an outdoor gym?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> Nintendo didn't get the memo - "mobile" gaming really means smartphone gaming. What is this monstrosity?

<comment><USER75> Nintendo was doing mobile gaming 20 years before the first smart phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> The switch has been the first Nintendo console I haven't been excited for. It's hardware is boring (it's just a tablet with a dock, yawn), battery life is bad as a portable gaming device, and controllers seem to compromise too much function for form. The Wii-U, while being terribly marketed, was unique in its two-screened console idea (which originally came from the GBA link + gamecube experiment), and there are a lot of really unique experiences that can only be had on it.

Despite my own misgivings, it feels like a smart move by N to try and appeal to the mainstream tablet/phone gamers. I really hope the switch is successful enough to let N start doing some crazy things again.

<comment><USER86> _> battery life is bad as a portable gaming device_

Though it still has better battery life than the Sega Game Gear! And doesn't require six AA batteries to recharge. :P</comment></comment>


Pentagon Wants Cloud Secure Enough to Hold Nuclear Secrets - <AUTHOR> https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2018/05/pentagon-wants-cloud-secure-enough-hold-nuke-secrets/148192/ <comment><USER2> Therein lies the difficulty. They want the information to be in the Cloud, and be able to be accessed when needed by authorized personnel, but not able to be accessed by anyone who isn't authorized. They also need to track and audit the access as well so there's accountability. It also has to be, in effect, absolutely invisible. Sounds like they'll need top dollar security consultants to design it, who also happen to have a side interest in magic. And they can never reveal that they've worked on it. Kinda like a Manhattan Project for government IT.

Good luck to them.

</comment><comment><USER3> How hackable would that be?</comment>


Leaflet – A JavaScript library for mobile-friendly interactive maps - <AUTHOR> http://leafletjs.com/2018/01/15/leaflet-1.3.0.html <comment><USER2> Great news, Leaflet is the standard for open source web maps. This release looks to have a lot of nice quality of life improvements.

I've been a little worried about Leaflet's future vs. Mapbox GL JS. That's also an excellent open source map library, but is based entirely on new technology (vector maps and GL) and favors using Mapbox's paid services. I think Leaflet has a long life ahead for folks who want something simpler, something that can easily composite raster data from many sources.

<comment><USER3> I switched a project over from Leaflet to Mapbox GL JS for the better- integrated vector tile support and better mobile rendering performance. Raster tiles still have value, but I wouldn't call vector tiles "new"; they're mature enough that they should start phasing raster tiles out, especially for projects that need a wide range of zoom levels, tight bandwidth requirements, or a lot of flexible, overlapping, and/or dynamic layers.

Thanks to tools like Maputnik, tippecanoe, and TileServer GL, I also had no problems using Mapbox GL and vector tiles without once touching a Mapbox service.

I still use Leaflet for most raster and simple vector maps simply because it is light and modular enough that I can get what I want, but the open source tools are there to reap the good stuff from Mapbox GL while avoiding the proprietary bits of Mapbox.

<comment><USER2> I'd love to see a writeup of using Mapbox GL without Mapbox services. I know it's possible in theory but it seems fairly awkward. Particularly interested if there are any map services you can easily use, free or paid, rather than standing up a vector tile server of your own.

<comment><USER4> Not awkward at all: [https://openmaptiles.org/](https://openmaptiles.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Someone made a nice wrapper for react I've been using with good success.

[https://github.com/PaulLeCam/react- leaflet](https://github.com/PaulLeCam/react-leaflet)

<comment><USER6> Didn't have a good experience with this kind of React wrappers, I used a Leaflet wrapper for a few years.

They always lack behind and try to force the React lifecycle and composition onto the library. Often this leads to leaking abstractions, which get uglier and uglier with time. Updating is also not a charm.

I stopped using them and simply build one component as facade, then use props as interfaces to the lib while letting the lib do its thing the way it wants behind that component.

<comment><USER7> Not to discount your experience, which is pretty consistent with my own, but what you've just described is writing your own wrapper component.

I think there's something to be said for doing it yourself, particularly when the available options make you have to care about their internals anyway. But perhaps some of that effort might be put towards making a better open-source wrapper.

<comment><USER8> I've worked a little bit with libraries like this (react-mapbox-gl) and I think the point GP is making is more like this:

        <3P.Wrapper>
          <3P.Foo>
            <3P.Bar
              subcomponent={props}
            />
          </3P.Foo>
          { someCondition ?
            <3P.Quux
              onCrunch={doQuack}{
            />
          }
        </3P.Wrapper>

where mounting and unmounting those child components interacts with the wrapped API. Contrast that with

        <3P.BasicWrapper
          useFoo
          useBar
          useQuux={someCondition}
          onQuuxCrunch={doQuack}
        />

which is less suitable for generic use, but easy enough to write (and modify later) that you probably don't need a highly-generic wrapper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Folium is a nice python wrapper for Leaflet: [https://github.com/python- visualization/folium](https://github.com/python-visualization/folium)

<comment><USER10> Folium is amazing. It makes it relatively easy to make a map like this one: [http://fernandoi.cl/mapascomunales/primarias/primarias.html](http://fernandoi.cl/mapascomunales/primarias/primarias.html)

<comment><USER11> Do you have any supplementary materials, such as a tutorial or git repo to go along with it? I've been using the d3.geo cli for something similar.

<comment><USER10> I do not have any specific recommendations, aside from this guide to start: [https://blog.dominodatalab.com/creating-interactive-crime- ma...](https://blog.dominodatalab.com/creating-interactive-crime-maps-with- folium/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I was curious why Leaflet, which has been around a while, popped up today. Looks like it's because 1.3.0 is out, but as far as I can tell it's a bugfix release. The most exciting new feature (to me, at least) is iterating over layers in a LayerGroup with eachLayer, which is neat but hardly groundbreaking.

Am I missing something? I love Leaflet, but I thought it was already one of the standards for maps on the web.

</comment><comment><USER12> One of the most efficient, snappy, and lightweight frameworks for 2D maps with overlays and simple vector drawing capabilities. Clear and simple API. Keep doing great job!

</comment><comment><USER13> Really great library, I had to use Bing Maps v8 API and it was not the best mapping library, the documentation is not very impressive, and it's just not as feature heavy as I'd hoped and the features get confusing really quickly.

We wound up using Leaflet to handle everything else but the imagery is all from Bing Maps instead. I've run into edge cases I've had to figure out with Leaflet, but at least the JS ecosystem is big enough to where you can always find generic solutions that work with the existing mapping library.

</comment><comment><USER14> Is [http://openlayers.org/](http://openlayers.org/) the jQuery of web mapping now ?

<comment><USER15> leaflet and open layers have different use-cases.

This is a massive oversimplification, but roughly, one way of thinking of it is that leaflet is more suited to consumer-facing web maps and openlayers is more appropriate for heavy gis workloads; e.g. a web app for visualising business locations worldwide vs a web app for manipulating SHP data and EPSG projections.

That's not to say Leaflet can't be used for the latter -- e.g. in combination with some other tools like turf -- but OL is being developed with this kind of stuff on mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> We recently launched a project that relies heavily on leaflet for generating custom, interactive maps from CMS data and once we got the hang of it it was such a breeze to work with. Really enjoyed it and got the wheels spinning on other pet projects that could utilize it.

</comment><comment><USER17> Fun fact: LibreOffice Online uses Leaflet for tile rendering.

<comment><USER18> It's also used in GTA video game for the map browsing.

<comment><USER19> Can you share more information on that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> When I was still in school I used Leaflet for a product and I remember being really impressed by it then. This must have been around 2013. I scripted huge AutoCAD exports with AutoLISP and sliced them up with ImageMagick to make custom zoomable maps of schools and hospitals. They would be annotated with BIM data and used for utility inspections. I'm glad to see it's still alive and kicking!

</comment><comment><USER21> Leaflet has been a pleasure to work with. I recently used it to build animated wildfire maps, such as this one of the Thomas Fire in California. [https://firetracker.scpr.org/thomas-fire-santa- barbara-2017](https://firetracker.scpr.org/thomas-fire-santa-barbara-2017)

</comment><comment><USER22> One more vote for Leaflet. Just started using it for one of my side projects (my long term get rich plan) and it's super easy to create custom maps exactly how you want them. There are also many plugins allowing you to further enhance the functionality. Now, if only I could find some extra spare time to work on it...

</comment><comment><USER23> great library. been using it in some GIS projects I am involved in. glad to see development continues.

</comment><comment><USER24> I love Leaflet. We are currently using it for some applications at my work. It's super simple and easy to extend</comment>


Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick, Study Says - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/article/211219/study_says_wifi_makes_trees_sick.html?tk=rss_news

<comment><USER2> _"The TNO institute, linked in some reports to the research, said in a statement it specifically distanced itself from the project.

A TNO researcher was involved in several discussions during the project but the organisation 'emphatically distances itself from the conclusions about the relationship between wifi and plant growth', the statement said.

There are no details about the research on the Wageningen University website."_

[http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/11/mobile_interne...](http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/11/mobile_internet_is_bad_for_tre.php)

[http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tno.nl%2Fcontent.cfm%3Fcontext%3Dovertno%26content%3Dnieuwsbericht%26laag1%3D37%26laag2%3D69%26item_id%3D2010-11-18%252015%3A37%3A36.0)

</comment><comment><USER3> This conforms rather well to "this is a news website article about a 'scientific' paper: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay- scientist/2010/sep...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay- scientist/2010/sep/24/1)

</comment><comment><USER4> _The study exposed 20 ash trees to various radiation sources for a period of three months_

Sure seems like the evidence is a long ways from being able to make statements like:

 _Radiation from Wi-Fi networks is harmful to trees_ and _All deciduous trees in the Western world are affected_

</comment><comment><USER5> WiFi makes trees sick! Or it might be air pollution! We're not sure, but it's definitely something you should feel guilty about!

I'm as tree-hugging as the next bleeding heart liberal, but this article is ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER6> I agree that this is a crap study, but I still wouldn't be quite so dismissive of any possible effects of WiFi just because it is so low energy.

Why? Because the assumption that everyone makes here is that the only cause of this damage is from heat/high energy, and that could be wrong. I think the more troubling possible danger (to trees, or humans) is _interference_. Living things are complex systems that use low energy electric signals throughout. If some radiation were able to interfere with one of this processes, even at very low energy level, it could do far more damage than something with higher energy.

I'm not claiming to say any of these threats are real, or the science is good, just that we shouldn't dismiss concerns about X because it's less energy than Y, and Y seems to be safe.

We have to learn more about how the things we're trying to protect work, and particularly what types of radiation we should avoid.

For example, here's a PDF talking about the potential risks of low energy radiation on human cells. [http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/env_health_proj...](http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/env_health_projects/electromagnetic_fields/e-reflex.pdf)

And a longer article about some possible dangers of electromagnetic radiation: <http://www2.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/EMF-Hazards.html>

<comment><USER7> Physics major and doctor here. I've done the calculations twice now, once for ELF as an electrodynamics class project, and once for cell phones for mom's peace of mind (she's a math teacher and "wanted to really know". In both cases, the predictions were impressively reassuring.

I'm also in the military and see plenty of old retirees who were exposed to huge amounts of radio-length radiation compared to the average human (mainly from shipboard radar sidelobes, ELF from living among the power cables, and numerous shipboard radio comms systems). I haven't seen any case that suggested to me that their exposure such non-ionizing radiation has changed their risk of any disease or increased their all-cause mortality.

Here's a nice summary of the evidence:

[http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/m...](http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/medicaltreatments/radiation- exposure-and-cancer)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> from the article: "Besides the electromagnetic fields created by mobile-phone networks and wireless LANs, _ultrafine particles emitted by cars and trucks may also be to blame. These particles are so small they are able to enter the organisms._ "

I think particle pollution is a much more plausible answer because the radiated power emitted by WiFi and cell phones is so minuscule.

<comment><USER9> And right after that:

 _The study exposed 20 ash trees to various radiation sources for a period of three months. Trees placed closest to the Wi-Fi radio demonstrated a "lead- like shine" on their leaves that was caused by the dying of the upper and lower epidermis of the leaves. This would eventually result in the death of parts of the leaves. The study also found that Wi-Fi radiation could inhibit the growth of corn cobs._

Where can we find this study? Was a peer reviewed study? There isn't a single damn reference in this article other than "according to a recent study in the Netherlands". They only make reference to "the researchers".

Why does science reporting suck so much?

<comment><USER10> the second paragraph references Wageningen University. A little googling + translate from dutch:

[http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=www.wageningenuniversity.nl%2FNL%2Fnieuwsagenda%2Fnieuws%2FBomen101120.htm)

so the researcher would be, Dr. AAM van Lammeren - andre.vanlammeren <at> wur.nl

<comment><USER11> A little more googling and you can find his biographical details with a list of his publications: <http://www.pcb.wur.nl/UK/People/Faculty/André+van+Lammeren/> and according to <http://www.pcb.wur.nl/UK/Research/> he is the head of a research group whose research is further detailed here: [http://www.pcb.wur.nl/UK/Research/cell+division/From+cellto+...](http://www.pcb.wur.nl/UK/Research/cell+division/From+cellto+tissue/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> And they can't even opt out and get a pat down instead.

</comment><comment><USER13> Where is the reference to an article? More importantly, where is the (relatively easy to do) controlled study of the effects of radiation on plant life vs. the effects of pollutants from exhaust or anything else? This is nonsense.

<comment><USER11> Well the article on the University's web-page states the study was commissioned by the municipality of Alphen aan der Rijn. The municipality's website has two pages about the study: <http://www.alphenaandenrijn.nl/Smartsite.shtml?id=75994> <http://www.alphenaandenrijn.nl/Smartsite.shtml?id=63643>

The second one, at least, refers to a control group. The first suggests contacting the author for further details. I think it is a case where the news value of a piece of research outruns the peer review and publication process. For all we know the author thinks a lot more research is needed before he can publish anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anti-Wifi appears to be the new antivax.

</comment><comment><USER15> Today science said, "Something that's everywhere is bad."

</comment><comment><USER16> Original: [http://www.wageningenuniversity.nl/NL/nieuwsagenda/nieuws/Bo...](http://www.wageningenuniversity.nl/NL/nieuwsagenda/nieuws/Bomen101120.htm)

Translated: [http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wageningenuniversity.nl%2FNL%2Fnieuwsagenda%2Fnieuws%2FBomen101120.htm)

Very poor on details. Were there any control groups? Why does the observed effects in the test vary from the ones in the trees?

</comment><comment><USER17> For what it's worth, I keep 2 fig bonsai trees next to my airport extreme. They're just as healthy as when I put them there, but figs are hardy little buggers.

</comment><comment><USER18> There is no scientific reasoning here just some experiments. So many factors could be in play here like: air pollution, global warming, cellular networks etc.

</comment><comment><USER19> The solution is pretty obvious; wrap the trees in tinfoil.

</comment><comment><USER20> Utterly rubbish!

</comment><comment><USER21> Just because the electromagnetic radiation is on a different wavelength than f.e. gamma radiation or x-ray radiation does not mean it DOESN'T affect matter on low or high level. People "believe" in the effects of x-rays on living tissue because we have established these effects as facts. People "believe" in the microwave oven, too. But for some reason, people refuse to believe that EMR on _this_ wavelength could have any negative effects what so ever on living tissue and cellwork. Why? Is it because everyone knows how low power we're talking about in the case of home wifi, and also know enough about physics to conclude that the implied power is too weak to cause effect? Probably not. Is it society clouding their judgement and critical mind? Probably. "Of course it's harmless - it's used everywhere!"

The old saying of "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" comes to mind. I would personally not be surprised if these suspicions were found to be true further down the road. The crowd that blatantly laughs and goes "oh boy!" at the claims come out as nothing less than ignorant fools, and the crowd of suspicious paranoiacs comes out as, well, uh, a wee bit paranoid. Both camps would probably benefit by keeping their noise down a bit until we have had enough time to let our studies' output grow, and given our statistics time to mature and settle.

<comment><USER22> _But for some reason, people refuse to believe that EMR on this wavelength could have any negative effects what so ever on living tissue and cellwork._

Anyone who took high school physics learned about the photoelectric effect - if a single photon does not contain the ionization energy, no ionization occurs [1]. This is supported by a huge number of experiments and is a generic conclusion of quantum mechanics.

The only effect wifi can have on trees, people, etc, is the generation of a tiny amount of heat. If you can disprove this, you will get a Nobel prize in physics.

I wrote a paper on the topic, see the citations for a lot of background material (my paper is just math, don't bother with it): <http://cims.nyu.edu/~stucchio/pubs/dipole_delta.pdf>

[1] Not true at high intensity, i.e. in a high powered laser beam or microwave resonating cavity.

<comment><USER21> _"The only effect wifi can have on trees, people, etc, is the generation of a tiny amount of heat."_

This is a very bold claim. People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too. Today we know it has absolutely profound effects on living cells even at moderate power, and we know it indeed also has an effect of the negative kind at low power given proper time and exposure. How can _you_ be so sure that the GHz spectrum of EMR happen to be as harmless as you imply?

<comment><USER22> _People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too._

That's a ridiculous statement. Before understanding QM, no reasonable person would make any such claims.

Anyone who claimed that these "x-rays" (named "x" because we didn't know what they were) had no effect on matter, except to be absorbed by it, was a moron. I don't think any credible scientist made this claim, but feel free to cite one. Once we understood they were EM waves at higher frequency than UV light, it is very simple to deduce they might cause ionization.

Once we developed quantum mechanics and time-dependent perturbation theory, it was just a matter chugging through the calculations. Literally millions of experiments have confirmed that QM works _really fucking well_. If Ephoton > Ebond, you get O(I) ionization. If Ephoton < Ebond you get O(I^2) ionization, which is really small (unless I is huge).

I stand by my statement: if you disprove this, you will overturn the past 100 years of physics. We will need to throw away every single QM textbook written since the 50's. You will receive the next Nobel prize. Future textbooks will forever refer to "Newton, Einstein, and hackermom."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Regardless of whether this research is valid, I think it makes sense to reduce one's exposure to wifi. You may want to make sure you don't share a wall with your neighbor that only puts a foot between your head and a wifi router when you're sleeping. iStumbler can help you see how strong the various signals are.

<comment><USER2> Why does it make sense? Are you afraid of tiny amounts of non-ionizing[0] radiation?

2.4Ghz is great for heating things at high power (my microwave outputs at 1200 watts), but the most powerful home routers only do about 0.2 watts. Cell phones can do about 1 watt, and you hold those up to your ear. In fact, it's been calculated that a year of wifi exposure is about the same as 20 minutes on a cell phone.[1]

And if non-ionizing radiation is anything to fear, you should be really afraid of the sun, which pumps it out at about 1000W per square meter[2].

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation>

[1] [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/featu...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article665419.ece)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#sunlight>

<comment><USER23> Yeah, wifi is in the most harmless category according to your first source. I stand corrected. I should have looked this up myself earlier. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So, will Greenpeace or other environmentalists draw up a petition to ban wifi networks despite the fact that they probably own potted plants and have wireless connections in their offices? hmm.

<comment><USER25> You're being awfully glib in putting words in to the mouth of parties that have made zero statements on this.

<comment><USER26> A bit of googling around shows that Greenpeace has never seemed to have a problem with using WiFi. They have lots of dumb opinions -- I won't pretend to be neutral here -- but they don't seem to be against WiFi.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Review my startup, Enterthegroup.com - <AUTHOR>

Looking for feedback on the user experience and friendliness. <comment><USER2> You should probably have, somewhere on the homepage, a quick snippit of what the site actually is/does.

"Take your Group Project or Classroom to the Next Level" doesn't really explain anything, its more of a sales pitch.

Something like "EnterTheGroup (ETG) is an ______ that enables you to _____ faster than ever before."

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. Thanks</comment></comment>


Introducing PayPal and Card Payments in One API - <AUTHOR> https://blog.paymill.com/paymill-paypal-one-api/

<comment><USER2> Yes, this is good news!</comment>


Blink is back - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/garyharan/blink_is_back

<comment><USER2> CSS implementations are better, and have already been discussed: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6182772](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6182772)</comment>


Show HN: Frida-boot – A binary instrumentation workshop with Frida for beginners - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/leonjza/frida-boot <comment><USER2> The github doesn't really explain what Frida is, so I'm linking to the main project for Frida. [1] This looks like a well developed "tracing" instrumentation project that is cross platform. Applicable for reverse engineers, and debuggers. I could see myself using this for windows apps where I can't install eBPF for instance!

"So what is Frida, exactly? It's Greasemonkey for native apps, or, put in more technical terms, it's a dynamic code instrumentation toolkit. It lets you inject snippets of JavaScript or your own library into native apps on Windows, macOS, GNU/Linux, iOS, Android, and QNX. Frida also provides you with some simple tools built on top of the Frida API. These can be used as-is, tweaked to your needs, or serve as examples of how to use the API."

[1]: [https://frida.re/](https://frida.re/)</comment>