I Was a Bank Robber Until I Read Kant - <AUTHOR> https://thewalrus.ca/i-was-a-bank-robber-until-i-read-kant/ <comment><USER2> Odd article, the writing style is intriguing but the content just isn't there.

Basically it's like half a The Clash song "I had a rough start in life, I was a bank robber, criminals and philosophers are both outsiders".

There is no backing, explanation or argumentation of anything except that libraries are cleaner than pron movie theaters.

I feel cheated, but I would read more if there was any.

<comment><USER3> > the content just isn't there.

It's there. You need to search for it. Raw diatribes like this are a window into the innermost nature of the human soul. My idea for a VR killer app was to have the camera attached to the front of a Red Bull airplane or snowboard. My friend, understanding more intimately human nature, realized it should be getting drunk, breaking into a bank and possibly getting involved in homicide. He was, sadly, right. I cannot morally follow that venture, but I know it is true. Here is a man that did, telling his story so that we don't have to follow.

<comment><USER4> > _My idea for a VR killer app was to have the camera attached to the front of > a Red Bull airplane or snowboard. My friend, understanding more intimately > human nature, realized it should be getting drunk, breaking into a bank and > possibly getting involved in homicide._

Isn't that the premise of the film Strange Days?

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114558/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114558/)

<comment><USER5> I was just talking about that movie last night. It was a splendid look at one of our possible futures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reading philosophy has been an enligthining experience for me. I was no criminal, but a depressive teenager. As I read my first philosophy books--- dialogues of Plato initially, then Schopenhauer, Freud, Lao Tzi, etc.---I learnt, not much from the actual informational contents of these texts as most are now outdated, but critical thinking. Through that I defeated the feeling of being abnormal, and the depressive state itself. I proceeded to answer many basic, existential questions with confidence, and to acquire a consistent, secure outlook to the life.

We suffer quite a bit because we are not able to, by default, deconstruct what the worlds does before our eyes and to us, and understand the mechanisms that govern the pheanomena. Knowing how the universe works, as far as modern science can explain it to us, and being able to think and observe objectively, are key to living a "free" life, i.e., free of lowly things like being a robber, or being too greedy or too aggressive, etc. The knowledge of the heavens does transfer to the execution of an ethical life: lest one leave himself to the command of "destiny" or dogma. I think thus, for example, astronomy must be a mandatory topic for the younger students as soon as possible, so that they are not raised with the outdated idea that something "up there" governs their life.

<comment><USER7> ". I think thus, for example, astronomy must be a mandatory topic for the younger students as soon as possible, so that they are not raised with the outdated idea that something "up there" governs their life."

First of all, studying astronomy doesn't at all neglect religious beliefs in general (only some of the more simple believe systems who take their bible literally).

And secondly, making it mandatory never helps for raising enthusiasm.

I really, really wanted to have astronomy in class, when I was in 3. grade. But it only came in 10. and by then I was so bored, like everyone else, for me because it was trivial and for the others, because they didn't care.

And besides, I can't imagine raising enthusiasm for astronomy in a class room - you need a telescope and a clear night first!

Theory comes later.

<comment><USER6> I was lucky enough to spend three years of my elementary education in a private school with an observatory, but I was intrigued in the very first years of my education. It was awe-inspiring to see an illustrated but serious account of how universe was an infinitely large and infinitely complex mechanism. I was eventually bored, but what was important was that a core understanding that deep down everything is matter and energy stuck. When, some ten years later, I was intrigued in philosophy, and revisiting things like astronomy and physics, I was no alien to those topics, and I could accept the reality more easily over superstition and misinformation.

Astronomy has deeper impact on religious belief than the discovery of the absence of a material throne of a sacred being in the heavens. It can easily lead one to discover that superstition and metaphysical phaenomena have no logical base when he accepts the objectivity of today's scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the history of astronomy is a novel example of how science and philosophy overcome dogma despite violent oppression (e.g. Galileo), which is an eye-opener when confronting dogma.

<comment><USER7> Lucky you ...

I was only on a badly organized public school, where most teachers suffered from the trauma of suddenly having to teach the capitalistic way instead of socialism. But I had supportive parents, so I had access to a (small) telescope ..

And yes, science helped me, too, to overcome the dark Catholic dogmas.

Putting logic and reason to the world ...

But ... that logic and my believe in the science model of the universe doesn't contradict my spiritual believes. So basically, science is true, but so far it can only show us and explain parts of the universe.

But that there is apparently more to it, other forces which actually do interfere with our lives, I believe simply from my experience. And if you (and others) did not experience anything out of the ordinary ... well, there are two possible explanations, first, those forces don't care for you(strongly), or second, your mind tries hard not to notice them, as it would be inconvenient to do so ... since the ordinary world is already complicated enough without demons and spirits ...

Just a alternative hypothesis, I don't want to convince you of something, just pointing out, that science doesn't disprove religion/spiritually and it both can go along in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is some fantastic clickbait. The article doesn't provide any link as to why the author stopped robbing banks, and the relation reading Kant had to that decision. The title is perhaps true, but if the reader is expecting the answer to "why" it is not there.

<comment><USER9> > This is some fantastic clickbait.

That describe almost everything on HN now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > we cannot know the world as it is, independent of the structure, capacities, > and limits of the human mind

This resonates with me. For example, I feel that even though mathematics and physics are perfect systems for describing nature and the universe, I am not convinced that mathematics is a property inherent to the universe itself as many people often say. Rather, I think there is a significant chance that these systems are tied closely to the structure and operation of the human brain.

<comment><USER11> Maths and physics are definitely not perfect descriptions, they approximate nature, they are not nature.

If you think they're capable of becoming "perfect" then I'd have to ask under which axioms. Also reflecting on Godel's incompleteness theorem it seems if we had a perfect maths (whatever that means) we couldn't prove it to be such.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This seems like a prologue for something interesting, but where the actual mass? It ends very abruptly. Too bad, i'de read more of there was any.

</comment><comment><USER13> Must read for most people 5 Basic Laws of Human Dynamics [http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human- stupidit...](http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/)

//Take away This person is nothing more than an B2 Bandit that moved to the B1 side

<comment><USER6> That article you have linked is a crystalised instance of human stupidity and a demonstration of how far down it can go WRT the level of intelligence. An idiot that thinks he can connect stupidity and intelligence to genetics without demonstrating the truth of such claim in any way, acceptable or not. One can do nothing but hope all of that article is a joke.

edit: I can't sleep if I don't mention that that entire harmful.cat-v.org site is a fractal of stupidity, so it's no surprise that such article appears there. They hiss at all the software out there that has made a nearly completely free computing system possible, and the alternative they propose is an operating system that died some decades ago and compilers that can't compile standards-compliant C code. Go and Limbo as an alternative to Python and Ruby? Really? Where's Django? Matplotlib? Good morning, people have other things to do than reinventing the wheel every other day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Critique of Pure Reason is such a baffling book; it feels half finished manuscript, complete in thought but lacking polish. It's harder to grasp what pulled the author in, but maybe it was just the above.

</comment><comment><USER15> How did the author become founding senior editor at Vice magazine?

</comment><comment><USER16> "mostly you're getting high, hanging out with other crooks, and figuring out where to go for lunch."

sounds like its right out of an early Guy Ritchie movie

</comment><comment><USER17> I feel blue balled. Article ended before we learned how and why he stopped robbing banks. We barely scratched the surface of his thoughts on Kant.

<comment><USER18> The writing style is pretty nice but yeah it feels like an introduction more than an entire article.

Would read more though.

<comment><USER19> Yes- A very compelling introduction or first chapter.

<comment><USER20> My hope at this point is that the article isn't actually finished and somebody hit submit by accident. A faint hope at this point. Oh well.

I should go read Kant myself.

<comment><USER21> I last read Kant in an intro to philosophy course in 1991, but a quick search shows Prolegomena as a good intro. [https://www.amazon.com/Prolegomena-Future- Metaphysics-Immanu...](https://www.amazon.com/Prolegomena-Future-Metaphysics- Immanuel-Kant-ebook/dp/B00T9TFC88)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I want to become a bank robber now.

</comment><comment><USER23> is it first one of the series? feels incomplete.

</comment><comment><USER13> Perhaps this renegade should have studied from Immanuel Kant's unknown brother Immanuel Shouldn't. Why are we writing an article praising a criminal anyway? It's not like Kant was so mystic, He was essentially one of the first anti- machiavellian icons. Which later gave way to MLK's teaching when he said the means are the seeds from which the ends grow. You cannot achieve growth when the planted seeds are not good.

<comment><USER4> > _Why are we writing an article praising a criminal anyway?_

Because, not only being a criminal is a part of the human experience, but non- criminal people are not that great either. Some can be douches.</comment></comment>


'Range' Argues That Specialization Should Not Be The Goal For Most - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/05/28/725755061/range-argues-that-specialization-should-not-be-the-goal-for-most <comment><USER2> Being a generalist is just more fun. That should be reason enough.

> A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a > hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build > a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, > act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a > computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. > Specialization is for insects. -Robert A. Heinlein

</comment><comment><USER3> I am a generalist rather than a specialist, and I've found that there is a sort of paradox around the hiring of generalists.

People are reluctant to hire a jack of all trades but a master of none -- even when they admit that generalists tend to be more valuable to their businesses than specialists over the long run.

This is especially true when it comes to remote hiring. Unfortunately, many companies won't even consider opening a position to remote hires unless they're convinced that it will be too difficult to find someone in-region. So you end up with a lot of remote positions that are highly specialized.

<comment><USER4> > People are reluctant to hire a jack of all trades but a master of none

2/3rds of job adverts I see seem these days to be for 'full stack' developers. That's the definition of generalist-seeking IMO.

> even when they admit that generalists tend to be more valuable to their > businesses than specialists over the long run

Oooh, that's quite the claim! I could equally claim from experience that generalists (in the sense of full stack devs) can cost a lot from the very lack of depth. eg. seeing a guy parse a scraped web page with regexes rather than XSLT. Or databases thrashing horribly because someone didn't know enough to diagnose them. Or unnecessary mem/network use in kafka because someone didn't read the docs. And plenty more.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm struggling with your assertion.

<comment><USER3> > 2/3rds of job adverts I see seem these days to be for 'full stack' > developers. That's the definition of generalist-seeking IMO.

Yes, but once you start reading the requirements in the body of the ad, it becomes clear that the "full stack developer" needs to be highly specialized in one particular frontend framework and highly specialized in one particular backend language.

Then a generalist applies for the position and says, "I've worked with a bunch of frontend frameworks, but not this one, and a bunch of programming languages, and while I'm proficient in this one I'm hardly among the elite. But I can recognize bad patterns across languages and have a good track record of identifying the right tool for the job." And unfortunately, a lot of companies just say, "Meh, we need someone who's really good at Angular and Rails."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The same book, " _Range_ ", was mentioned in a NYTimes article, which was also previously discussed here on HN.

See [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20094242](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20094242) for commentary.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've never understood the obsession businesses/managers have with specialization in the tech realm. Knowing a lot of different (but related) things doesn't preclude you from learning something in depth.</comment>


How Do Americans Feel About the NFL Protests? It Depends on How You Ask - <AUTHOR> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-do-americans-feel-about-the-nfl-protests-it-depends-on-how-you-ask/?ex_cid=story-twitter <comment><USER2> I'm not sure three polls of 1,000 +/\- covers it?

From CNN and Huffington Post no less. CNN polls thinks Trump is wrong. There's a shocker!!

I mean - it's kind of like asking if we agree that Trump is not helping.

Someone should poll the Republicans and those who voted for trump. I'm sure that's Trump's intended audience. I would like to see FOX polls for example.</comment>


The case against Spotify - <AUTHOR> http://thedailyt.com/2009/08/the-case-against-spotify/

<comment><USER2> I on the other hand welcome our new music overlords. here's why: <http://paulstamatiou.com/review-spotify-music-on-demand>

I think this is the future.. why worry about maintaining your catalogs and syncing between computers. Let it be online. As for the whole "but i like owning my stuff" argument, I mentioned that in my post. And as for the offline client issue, yeah they're working on it.. I still burn CDs for my car so I'll be interested in how this works out. But I figure in 10-15 years every ipod or other such device you listen to music on, even your car, will be online.. I never want to have to deal with ensuring all my songs have proper and accurate ID3 tag info. If I have to see Track 1, Track 2.. again I'm gonna go apeshit.

</comment><comment><USER3> I know almost nothing about the music business, but I have always heard that artists make more money touring than by selling albums. If that were the case, I would think that artists would jump at the chance to be played widely in hopes that it would drive consumers to buy tickets for their tours.

It seems like two of the arguments (no ownership of the music, no direct compensation for artists) could be made for radio in the earlier portion of the 20th century, yet that vehicle was apparently successful for both the radio stations and the artists.

<comment><USER4> If it's true that touring is more profitable then I'd really like to see data for this, and a comparison between famous and little-known acts. This could add a lot of weight to arguments in favour of laxer copyright laws.

<comment><USER5> Honestly, it depends on how many albums the artist actually sells VS how large of a draw you are(there is a correlation between both).

Say for example an artist makes 1.35/album and sells 2 million(which is not too bad) and then does 100 shows (which certainly is not out of the realm of possibility)commands 40k fee + merch sales at the venue.

1.35/album * 2,000,000 = 2.7 million 100 shows * 40k = 4 Million + merch sales - costs

So it really depends, the more albums you sell the more money you make from albums. The less albums you sell but the more you tour, so for a middle tier artist who generally doesn't sell an obscene amount of albums but does a lot of gigs, they would certainly make more touring.

Someone like U2, probably makes more from album sales.

<comment><USER6> "1.35/album * 2,000,000 = 2.7 million" It should be noted that especially new artists often start getting royalties after the costs of making the record and music videos have been paid. I believe that is a big reason why many one-hit wonders might sell millions world wide and go broke soon after the success fades.

<comment><USER5> yes, that's very true too. So after costs, it might be a break even proposition(or not as much as it might seem anyway) on an album.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Should we be afraid that if we get used to Spotify and its business model, then then they will take away music on CDs. And our senses will be dulled so that we don't notice what they've done until it is gone?

Our should we just pay homage to the fact that grandpa used to have his music on plastic pieces and could play it even after country music was made illegal by UN?

</comment><comment><USER8> He makes logical points, but I think that his point that Spotify can't be or do everything we expect from a music player (like play in the car, he says), will make his main concern moot. He says we're giving too much control to Spotify because they can cut off the music supply at any time and they decide what's on the service. That's why spotify will never "take over" the market completely... it can't fulfill all the market needs, just some of them. People will use it, and they'll use other services/products in parallel to fill the need.

</comment><comment><USER9> I have to say that I love Spotify to bits and can't wait for the offline client to hit the S60, but I do agree that giving control to any one central company is a bad idea, and being in a situation where albums just vanish one day is not good, so I see the poster's problem...</comment>


Speeding Up Pattern Searches with Boyer-Moore Algorithm from C++ 17 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bfilipek.com/2018/08/searchers.html <comment><USER2> It's great that C++17 offers more and more new algorithms, directly from the Standard Library.

Have anyone got some experience with Boyer Moore in day to day code?</comment>


Apple's "monopsony" power, and the woman who named it - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/06/18/733510647/apples-buying-power-and-the-woman-who-named-it <comment><USER2> Amusingly, there are two sets of people arguing about why Apple is bad, and each have their own argument:

1\. Android sells more, and offers more variety of mobile and wearable devices than Apple. And here's the data to prove it.

2\. Apple is a monopoly/monopsony and should be forced to allow more user choice of apps, allow sideloading, lower their prices, lower their app store cut, &c.

Which one is is?

Apple is like Tesla. They don't sell more cars than anyone else. They don't have a stranglehold over vendors. They sell more _luxury_ cars than a bunch of other people. And while you see lots of Teslas on the road, you still see more F-150s.

Their market is insanely profitable, and for many developers, their little market is highly profitable. But how is it their fault that app developers don't shun them for Android-only, or Windows (do they still make a phone OS?)

Apple make their own devices. They don't license an OS and then use shenanigans to force vendors not to offer consumers a choice, like Microsoft did.

They make a desirable product, and offer developers a desirable market. But they don't have enough of the market to do whatever they like.

They can't charge $5,000 for a phone and succeed because of network effects. Android phones can call and text Apple phones.

They don't tell developers that apps must be iOS-exclusive to be in the app store.

Apple's current success is exactly what the free market is for. People may grumble about the price of a phone or the keyboards, or the app store cut, but those who pay it do so because the value is there, not because of arbitrary constraints.

They aren't Facebook. Nobody has to buy an iPhone to keep in touch with all their friends who have iPhones.

<comment><USER3> > They aren't Facebook. Nobody has to buy an iPhone to keep in touch with all > their friends who have iPhones.

I have a different perspective.

Many of my different friend groups use the "group messaging" feature on their phones. If everyone is using an iPhone in that group, it defaults to using iMessage.

I switched to Android about 18 months ago, and it broke all of the group text message chains I had because some of their phones continued to use iMessage even though my phone no longer supported it. Sometimes their messages came through to me, sometimes they didn't. I would see half of a conversation, and many of my messages wouldn't reach members of the group. Eventually, people stopped including me in group text messages because it made the chats unreliable.

After 18 months of being increasingly isolated from all my friends, I switched back to an iPhone. I switched only for the reason that it was difficult to keep in touch with people without it.

One-to-one messaging worked fine, but I was left out of group chats, a critical way my friends and I stay in touch.

<comment><USER4> I've only heard of this happening in the US and Canada. Outside of North America, everyone uses Whatsapp, which supports group messaging on every platform. I'd be curious to know why it hasn't penetrated into those countries.

<comment><USER5> I think it has to do with the fact that the US (and Canada) very early on had unlimited texting plans, and iMessage would make use of that (iPhones just send texts for iMessages in absence of a data connection). WhatsApp can only use data, which is cheaper and used to be unlimited (that's gone) in the EU. In contrast, texting was and still is insanely expensive in the EU (per byte it is staggering even, compared to normal data). Since data coverage was poor in the US in the 2G days (is this true? In the EU 2G was GPRS, meaning available when normal voice was available... I think it differs for US networks?) and texting was often included in a subscription, iMessage made a lot if sense and was very reliable.

I remember early iPhone users complaining here in the EU that their iPhone unpredictably would sent iMessages either for free over wifi or for 50ct/message over sms/text (us EU citizens avoid sms/texting like the plague, allthough unlimited plans are now more commonplace, it's just too late). I recently set Signal to deal with my sms/text messages. Boy was that an expensive mistake when I accidentally texted my friend in Curacao instead of sending a normal Signal message.

<comment><USER6> >WhatsApp can only use data, which is cheaper and used to be unlimited (that's gone) in the EU. In contrast, texting was and still is insanely expensive in the EU (per byte it is staggering even, compared to normal data).

You need to specify where in the EU, because it doesn't mirror my experience in France for instance. Data used to be very expensive while there were no shortages of plans with near-unlimited texts. It also isn't the case in many other countries in the world in my experience. AFAIK the advantage of WhatsApp over plain texts isn't that it's cheaper per-se, it's that it works over wi-fi which means that as long as you find a hotspot anywhere in the world you can use it. No need to worry about roaming fees, no need to worry about how many texts or MB of data are in your plan.

<comment><USER5> In the Netherlands 10 euro for truly unlimited was commonplace. I held on to that plan from 2011 until last year, when they decide I couldn't have 4G and unlimited data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apple made themselves an exclusive payment provider for all iOS in-app subscriptions and payments for digital products. Merely mentioning anywhere that cheaper payment options exist is an AppStore ToS violation.

<comment><USER8> I generally support Apple but this is inexcusable. Regulators need to come down hard on this kind of payment monopoly.

<comment><USER9> It makes perfect sense to me.

If I was a businessman running a store, I definitely would NOT allow anyone that wants to sell in my store any mentions that they could be found cheaper elsewhere or get a discount somehow that could reduce my cut.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Something odd about this argument is the fact that 30% is pretty much an industry standard. Apple isn't jacking up the price.

<comment><USER11> I thought Apple was the originator of the 30% cut for app stores, and everybody else followed suit?

<comment><USER12> Yes, this is true.

People forget that there were phones before the iPhone decided all phones would be rectangles with touchscreens.

Those phones ran apps and games, and you downloaded them from app stores... there was in fact a cambrian explosion of app stores, when you made software you had to publish it to hundreds of them.

I can't remember the %, but it seems unlikely, in the fact of all that competition that it was as high as 30%.

<comment><USER13> There were not really any public app stores like the Apple one. And cuts were, in general, much higher. Apple's app store took off so well because it offered a much better deal than the competition.

<comment><USER14> "App stores" were run by telcos back then. Usually a storefront selling J2ME apps via WAP and charging money to your phone bill. To be fair the most popular content was ringtones (of the MIDI type).

I think the BREW ecosystem had some solution to set up a store of this kind that they used to supply to carriers?

<comment><USER15> I have to give credit to Apple for taking power away from the telcos. They wanted to nickel and dime you for every app and feature. Getting even a dumb feature phone out the door required months of certification and the OS might get an update once in the device lifetime if at all.

Sometimes it takes an 800 lb gorilla (with fresh iPod $$$$$) to take on the other 800 lb gorillas, even if it mostly meant we spent the first 8 years or so paying ridiculous 2-year contracts for "subsidized" $700 phones.

<comment><USER16> >OS might get an update once in the device lifetime if at all.

And some how the lifetime of those phones were much longer than the iPhones, until they had to stop forcing updates which degraded performance.

<comment><USER13> Apple's updates often improve performance, and very rarely degrade it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Next up: Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony's game consoles?

<comment><USER18> As the only buyer of goods sold to me, and the only seller of goods sold by me, I suppose I'm running a monopsony and then some. May as well add me to the list.

On a serious note: would a judgement in this case have immediate impact on other companies, or would it set a precedent? Also, what are the proposed damages? How is Apple supposed to repair the situation?

Honestly, this feels entirely arbitrary (Apple is far from the only one that leverages their position as digital goods market makers). I'm not saying conspiracy or anything, but I wonder if this is related to the POTUS's vendetta against AAPL.

<comment><USER12> It's not arbitrary, the appstore is a de-facto monopsony, the ordinary user doesn't install apps from anywhere.

Most Android phones come with an alternate appstore installed (e.g. Samsung come with their own one as well as google play) and you can easily install others.

To install alternates on the iPhone you have to root it.

<comment><USER19> That applies to game consoles too, since the 1980s.

<comment><USER20> In the 80s, the game console makers did not operate the store where you were buying games. Even, you could buy second-hand games without Atari or Nintendo receiving any part of the fee!

<comment><USER21> Even back in the 80s, the console makers "controlled distribution". Nintendo forced third parties to use their manufacturing facilities and they all force third parties to distribute their haves with a license key.

Console makers have always forced third parties to pay a fee to distribute their games.

<comment><USER22> Yes, and for distribution, that's fine.

The ruling is less about Apple forcing consumers to buy only through the AppStore, and more about only allowing sellers to _sell_ through the AppStore.

If I make a PS4 game, or a Nintendo Switch game, I can sell it on the PSN store and/or Nintendo e-Shop, sure, but I can also produce a physical copy that I can obtain outside of the store, and that is definitely not the case for Apple software developers.

Apple software developers MUST go through the AppStore and they MUST pay that fee, no matter what.

It is that specific lack of competition; the lack of other places to sell your iOS applications, that the USSC judged against, by my reading.

<comment><USER21> What's the practical difference? The console makers still control physical distribution by forcing third parties to obtain a key, they have to approve all software that goes on their console, and they get a cut of each game sold.

Today, almost all games have an online component - that only work on console controlled networks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The key point I presume is the definition of "market" here; and I'm not convinced the market "software that runs on iOS" is so large that monopwhatever can be declared there and used to justify price control.

Though as a thought experiment Apple is like a wealthy landed gentleman who sets up a well maintained outdoor market for the tradesmen to bring goods and the lower classes to buy them. If Apple owns so much land they are the only ones capable of setting up a large enough market, maybe we should regulate that gentleman's fees to the tradesmen? By virtue of people's need to be fashionable and the enormous cost to develop a smartphone and OS, Apple effectively controls enough "land" to warrant regulation. I don't know...

Finally, this rationale also it seems causes a dilemma with B2B relationships. What if your market is quite specialized? Are you a "monopsony"?

<comment><USER15> I don't think we need to divide the market into specialized segments (iOS devices, luxury smartphone, etc) to make the case against Apple. They have somewhere around 50% of the global market in terms of smartphone revenue (not devices shipped).

For the App Store, which is what matters to developers, revenue was around $25 billion in the first half of 2019, vs $14 billion for Google Play Store.

It's not literally mono- but as the article notes, just having a significant share of the market (I would say 30% would be enough) allows companies to dictate prices, and iOS has more like 2/3rds of the revenue.

That's not even getting into all the restrictions that Apple puts on third- party developers, including categories of apps that you can't even make if you wanted to -- unless you're willing to sit out half the market, and assuming that Google doesn't do the same thing. As a software guy, I consider that a bigger deal than the % cut (which is not entirely unreasonable given how much of that goes to credit card fees for low-dollar-amount transactions)

<comment><USER24> > They have somewhere around 50% of the global market in terms of smartphone > revenue (not devices shipped).

On a monopoly/monopsony theory, devices shipped is the relevant metric, and revenue isn't.

<comment><USER25> Are you sure? I was looking for this and everything mentioned market share but it didn't specify unit vs revenue market share.

<comment><USER26> This has been well documented for years, the average iOS app earns nearly a multiple of close to 10 what other mobile platforms earn. Their share of revenue from apps is massive compared to their market share of devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So, since Apple is the only company "buying" apps from developers, they could raise their cut as high as they want and developers can do nothing about it.

Could Apple then argue that they aren't the only game in town because of things like subscriptions and web apps? (e.g. I don't pay for Netflix or Spotify through Apple, but the apps work fine)

<comment><USER28> Also, please omit webapps on iOS Safari as an alternative. Apple gives no explanations on why it cripples Safari's W3C compatibility, especially features around PWA, but everyone knows it's to drive developers, users and hence revenue/profits to the app store.

Someone needs to sue Apple for this, and the truth will be revealed when the case enters discovery mode, when Apple internal communications on this are laid bare

<comment><USER29> Progressive Web Apps aren't a standard but a Google web strategy term. Different browsers just have different priorities.

For example, Apple prioritized service workers over web app manifests (which BTW are not yet a W3C recommendation). I can only assume this is partly because there have been so many failed attempts at static web app manifests in the past. Them prioritizing other features for earlier release doesn't mean that Web App Manifest support isn't in active development ( [https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158205](https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158205) ).

<comment><USER28> Missing in iOS Safari:

1\. Binary WebRtc data channel messages

2\. Browser notifications that a PWA can use

3\. Web App storage beyond 50MB, and guarantee that the OS won't whimsically delete storage, despite being below 50 MB

4\. You've already cited Web App Manifest

There's probably a ton of other W3C standards not in compliance, but the above list is pretty damning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> so:

\- monopoly: the only seller

\- monopsony: the only buyer

So app store customers can only buy from apple.

And the app developers can only sell to apple.

<comment><USER31> PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, sega, ... are the same:

You can only sell for those devices with manufacturer licensing (that includes profit sharing and mandatory annoyances like "achievements"), and consumers can only buy games licensed by those manufacturers.

The only difference is that PC developers haven't experienced that before. It seems like this would have been established in the 80s/90s, so I'm surprised we're getting to court - is there a change in judicial philosophy?

That said, as far as I can tell every platform charged the same ~30% so I'm sure any company can simply point to the entire market as having established that under fair conditions (after all, if there was a cheaper platform surely they'd prioritize that?)

<comment><USER32> Or maybe we could get side loading on console.

<comment><USER33> The fixed hardware that is long-lived and affordable is possible because the hardware manufacturer subsidizes it, especially at the beginning. If they were not able to rely on money from game sales, the hardware would be much more expensive.

An alternative way for companies to make money manufacturing gaming hardware is to keep the prices low until there are a lot of great games for the system, and then jack up the hardware prices later on.

So you might want a hardware standard that multiple companies could produce, which games could interface with and be portable between..

Eventually it just turns back into PC gaming.

<comment><USER32> The PS4 was as expensive as a regular PC so any idea how much the latest consoles were actually subsidized? I assume Sony and Microsoft can negotiate with AMD for giant discounts so IMO they made profits when selling the consoles but I do not know if they would admit this.

Other issue I have with digital games is that the physical game is the same price but the digital game I do not own(I have less rights) so why don't we get same rights on digital games or cheaper digital games.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This title is complete bs, and the court ruling (linked in the article) only mentions monopsony very briefly.

The question addressed by the court is regarding who is the cause of any overcharging to the customer. The opinion argues that because Apple is exclusively dealing with the customer, it is able to sell on whatever terms it wants to the customer, so any overcharge is their fault. The dissent argues that because the developer has the power to dictate the price of the app on the store, any overcharge the customer pays is directly caused by the developer, because the developer could have chosen to sell the app at a fair price.

It is true that the ruling mentions that developers may sue apple, but that was never in question. Both the opinion and dissent agree on that fact.

<comment><USER35> This is an unfair treatment of the decision. The question addressed by the court isn't "who is the cause of supracompetitive prices?" but rather "if Apple is the cause, can consumers sue?"

Apple's defense argued that only the app developers could sue under a certain view of the precedent where Apple's role as a pass through is essentially transparent to the law. Their argument attempted to shift who the customer was ultimately doing business with: Apple or the app developer.

One of the theories underpinning the precedential rule is that not stopping impacted downstream parties from suing may potentially subject Apple to multiple liability. Apple argued that they were already liable to app developers so shouldn't also be liable to consumers. The Court is saying here that that theory does not hold water because Apple, as a middleman, may be liable to both upstream and downstream parties (damages from app developers and consumers, respectively).

</comment></comment><comment> _-dobe-_ In the EU we had a ruling that forced Microsoft to offer choices for web browsers when installing Windows for the first time. I.e. IE wasn't set as the default browser by default. They were forced to do this for 5 years, I think so people become aware that there are other choices out there besides IE. They should do the same for the AppStore. When you set up your iPhone, it should give you an option of AppStores, not just the Apple one.

<comment><USER36> But you have that choice at purchase. Hence this aspect does feel akin to somebody buying a Tesla and the customer expecting the ability to switch to diesel, petrol instead of being stuck with electric.

Also remember how long that Microsoft rulling took and what it actualy ended- up being in the end - which for most was an annoying popup for those who already knew how to change web browsers. These days what happens is EU will start the long process and before it hits court some agreement is made.

But the difference for Android and Apple is that Android is `open source`, IOS is not.

Buy an android phone and change the app store - kinda entails rooting the phone in most if not all cases in some way and that for most phone sellers does void the warranty.

So say Apple did offer you to change app store - but in doing that voided your warranty, which would be fair from their perspective. May even be case of, well you have non Apple app store - no Apple services for you as we do not trust your device as you have modified it - enjoy. Again, something that they could justify and in a way which would be fair from their perspective. After all, nobody wants to open up a system in a way that may expose it to outside security or stability issues now. Remember Apple is more about reputation than the products, though they do go hand in hand, it is the reputation that carries them as much if not more than any individual product.

Another way to view this is a hotel has a nice inhouse restaurant, should they be forced to allow McDonalds to open a store in their hotel or leave that choice to the guests who can go to another hotel if they want that experience.

<comment><USER37> It's more like only being able to use Tesla rims and tires if you want to replace the stock ones. Or only being able to put Tesla coffee in the cup holder.

<comment><USER36> Maybe, but it is a case of aftermarket expectations post point of sale. So more like buying a car without aircon and complaining it don't have aircon as the seller don't sell aircon and had they asked when they brought it, they would of been told clearly they don't offer that.

So if anything we get the term of mis-buying as nothing was mis-sold with such expectations the customer later acquired after the sale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> So, via legislation (e.g. DMCA), we give Apple the right to tightly control the use of its "intellectual property" (the iOS software), which results in Apple being the only entity that can legally offer iOS apps for purchase.

And now, via legislation, we want to remove this power, first given to them via some other legislation.

How about we critically assess current legislation, instead of just piling more on top of it?

</comment><comment><USER39> Arstechina published similar article regarding Apple's monopsony in 2005...nothing changed from last 15 years

[https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2005/09/1190/](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2005/09/1190/)

</comment><comment><USER40> If you don't know what monoposony is, ask a farmer.

</comment><comment><USER41> I think 30% (15% after a year) would be all right if there was another way for the user to install the app by downloading from vendor website.

I know part of the value proposition of Apple is actually not letting user download apps from sites, but then something like Udemy model where the cut varies if you bring the user or they bring the user, could make sense.

Then Apple taking the cut as referral wouldn't feel that bad.

</comment><comment><USER42> > But Kavanaugh went further. He said Apple could also be sued by app > developers, most of whom are forced to fork over a big percentage of their > potential revenue, "on a monopsony theory."

Is it possible for users to easily install alternative app-stores? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

<comment><USER43> > Is it possible for users to easily install alternative app-stores?

No, not on iOS

> Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Yes, because Apple will cease to be a monopsony for iOS apps. That is, if SCOTUS rules that Apple does have a monopsony. Kavanaugh only suggested they _might_ have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> How do Apple's licensing and payment policies for the (iPhone, iPad, Apple TV) compare with those of other game and streaming device manufacturers?

</comment><comment><USER45> Modern definition of all definitions in the United States:

See: SCOTUS decisions.

</comment><comment><USER46> "Merchants at Macy's can only sell at Macy's".

There are many options for you as an app developer. You can enjoy the scale and tooling provided by Apple, at one cost. Or you can write apps for any other computer at some other cost.

Or you may choose not to be an app developer at all and do something else useful.

<comment><USER25> Monopsony doesn't mean option-less. Just because you can take a horse doesn't make standard oil not a monopoly.

<comment> 52-6F-62 And that's where the argument is:

Standard Oil had a monopoly on oil itself.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones. They've just dictated how _their_ phone is going to work.

The options aren't Apple iOS ecosystem, or no phone dev at all. There are numerous other smartphone companies out there. Apple isn't even close to the largest share of operating systems used in the market—by far ([https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market- sha...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market-share-held- by-smartphone-operating-systems/))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Having Apple take a 30% cut of sales in exchange for not having to run an e-commerce operation is far less odious than having to pay $5,000 for a MacBook Pro which has less RAM, a smaller SSD, and less powerful processor than $2,500 worth of Dell, Lenovo, HP, or Acer gear. The hardware is the real rip-off to me. I would gladly pay a reasonable fee if I could write my apps in VS Code on Debian and then ship the code to an Apple service to compile the code.

<comment><USER48> I just can't get my head around this argument. To write software for a computer platform, shock horror, you need to develop and test it on that platform. To develop software using Apple's OS, services and libraries, you need to buy that OS, those services and those libraries that Apple sells.

I don't get why that is a contentious issue, or even a question.

<comment><USER49> That you need to have the hardware and OS you're developing for is not the issue. That you're not allowed to sell and distribute software for the platform without the permission of the creator of the platform is the real problem here. It's a kind of vendor lock-in. iPhone users aren't allowed to install apps on their own phones without permission from Apple. This gives Apple the power to make or break businesses.

We never had this problem Mac and Windows. Those are also created by companies and providing a platform for all sorts of applications, but anyone can develop for them. You don't need anyone's permission to install apps on your laptop. But for your phone, somehow you do.

<comment><USER48> It clearly is the issue raised in the comment I am replying to.

Anyway we have always had this on games consoles, and had it on phones for many years before Apple even made a phone. We have it on some embedded platforms too.

There is nothing at all novel or special about this business model, and braking it will kill the business model of a lot of companies, including all the console makers. In fact compared to them iOS is a paradise of openness and market competition for software. Yet for some reason, I never see anyone rolling out this argument against Nintendo.

<comment><USER49> I'm not big into consoles, but yeah, when I first heard that a developer needed to pay Nintendo to be allowed to make a game for their console, I thought that was stupid. The whole thing of consoles being sold at a loss because they make their money back on selling the right to make games for it, is a bad business model in my opinion, and I wouldn't mind seeing it die. Just sell your hardware for a fair price and let developers sell their software for a fair price.

Open platforms, open standards.

<comment><USER48> I just don't see how you get to dictate to people what products they are allowed to develop, what terms they are allowed to sell them on and how they are or are not allowed to make money. As long as the customer has a range of choices and understands what the deal is, it's up to them whether to accept it or not.

Im all for consumer protection from harmful or misleading, or abusive products but I just don't see this here. It just seems like you are upset that someone didn't develop their product the way you want them to, and resent how popular they are. Tough. Develop one that way yourself, or pay someone else to. I don't get to tell Ford what kinds of car they are or are not allowed to make. As long as they are safe and perform as advertised, that's up to them.

As fro consoles, even a $100 price difference in the price can kill a product, they are incredibly price sensitive. Trippling or quadruping the price of consoles would almost certainly kill the category, putting them beyond the financial means of huge swathes of consumers that can't afford such a steep up front cost. But apparently that's your decision to make.

<comment><USER49> > _" I just don't see how you get to dictate to people what products they are > allowed to develop, what terms they are allowed to sell them on and how they > are or are not allowed to make money."_

Exactly my point.

Yet these companies do want to dictate exactly that.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Oscilloscope doubles as a serial terminal - <AUTHOR> http://www.msarnoff.org/projects/terminalscope/

<comment><USER2> Pshaw, it's raster and since it doesn't fit 80 columns in I can't play nethack on it! I've been meaning to get an Apple IIc to use as a serial terminal: <http://www.bytecellar.com/archives/000113.php>

I've had some Wyse terms before that sucked, and I've unsuccessfully bid on eBay for ADM-3A terminals before, but I kind of ran out of steam on pure- hardware terminals when I discovered that GNU Screen can open character devices directly!

I only need to get a serial console on something a few times a year, but when I do I _really need it to work_ , whether I'm getting console on a network device, an embedded ultrasound machine, or a case full of modems I'm hacking. GNU Screen satisfies that need perfectly, especially since I'm always working in it already.

I like the idea of the Apple IIc terminal because it combines the warm fuzzies of ancient greenscreen hardware with the not-sucking-ass of a pure-software terminal emulator implementation. That it's cute and diminutive is a bonus.

<comment><USER3> Putty works reasonably well in Linux, though from the sound of things you prefer a CLI. For those times when a GUI just won't cut it, I use the cu program for lightweight, easy access to a serial device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I always wanted to do something like that with my scope's XY display. The TA in my intro to EE class a couple of years ago was unimpressed when I set up my function generator to generate horizontal and vertical scan sweeps instead of the Lissajous she was expecting..

</comment><comment><USER4> That is pure art.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is crazysexycool! Only thing that makes me sad is our good digital scopes probably wouldn't work w/ this. Of course, on the other hand, that'd kind of defeat the purpose ;)</comment>


Ask HN: What's the Minimum Viable Skillset of Web Development? - <AUTHOR>

I have a background in graphic design but I'm not an actual developer. I often find myself with ideas I'd like to try out, but the lack of skills AND direction is quite frustrating.
I don't want to become an actual web developer; what I'm looking for is the Minimum Viable Skillset I have to learn to build ROUGH, yet functional prototypes (Case in point: Peter Levels https://levels.io/12-startups-12-months/). Html and CSS are a no-brainer but I'm really confused by the bazillion of frameworks and languages out there. <comment><USER2> Check out [https://www.angularcourse.com](https://www.angularcourse.com). I run through all the things you'll need to build a real app starting from scratch.

The focus of the course is AngularJS, but a lot of students have been drawn to it because want to learn how to build the sample app in the course.

Another big advantage of my course is that I show you how to build completely server-less apps with Firebase. That means you don't need to learn frontend AND backend programming at the same time. This is huge when you're getting started.

I did this so that I could focus on teaching frontend stuff (Angular), but this had the unintended consequence of really appealing to startup types as well.

I'm the author, so if you have any questions just send me an email (my email is on the bottom of the landing page).

<comment><AUTHOR> Very interesting course, good job! I might give it a try.

<comment><USER2> Thanks! Shoot me an email (gordon-at-angularcourse-dot-com) if you have any questions or even want to do a video chat. Happy to help!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> My personal suggestions in parenthesis...

You're going to need a JS framework of some sort (jQuery), a layout framework (Bootstrap), and something to run your backend (depends on your preference in languages... Ruby on Rails, Django, etc.).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your prompt reply. I'm always scared by the titles " _[insert any language] is dead_ " and the high obsolescence of all things web dev, but I'm going to give it a try!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Vanilla Javascript. There are tons of frameworks out there that come and go, but as long as you know the fundamentals well enough you can transfer that knowledge to any framework. Sure the code length and complexity will increase, but it will not only force you to learn javascript, but the DOM as well.

(canonical example of vanilla vs jquery):

$('#myDiv');

vs

document.getElementById('myDiv');

I cannot stress enough how important it is to understand the DOM in web development.

</comment><comment><USER5> People are giving you stuff that is hard to understand for a non-developer, like Angular and MVC frameworks, and that isn't really a "minimum".

The real, simplest, tools are HTML, Javascript (jQuery), PHP, and MySQL. You can sign up for shared hosting that costs $10/year and start developing something as complicated as Facebook or Wordpress with only these tools.

People hate on PHP for various reasons, a lot of it stems from a lot of PHP code being terrible because it was written by novices. But this reveals something: there are a LOT of PHP novices because it is tremendously easier to get started with than other options. No configuration, just a text file ending with .php and upload it to your shared hosting with an FTP client (or even the one built into your cPanel). Bam, working backend.

Feel free to contact me if you need help.

</comment><comment><USER6> Pick something and stick with it; otherwise you'll never learn anything.

</comment><comment><USER7> I posted answers to the same question over here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9096608](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9096608)

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm in a somewhat similar position. I started as a web designer, but then moved my interest toward web development almost entirely. I know where you're coming from, and it can be frustrating.

Everybody, and I mean _everybody_, has their framework, platform, language, and so on that you should learn. If you ask a question like this over an extended period or in a popular forum where it will get seen and responded to, you're going to get a million people telling you to go in a million different ways.

_You_ need to take a look around, and figure out what's best for _you_. Pretty much every established framework, platform, and language is good.

You can build an app with any of them, but some have special characteristics that might seem more relevant to your interests. You should evaluate probably 5-10 of each of the available options in each category based on the features they specifically point out that they're good at, and choose which ones you want to use. Here are some of the different frameworks/platforms/languages you can start with:

MVC-ish frameworks:

Angular: [https://angularjs.org/](https://angularjs.org/)

Ember: [http://emberjs.com/](http://emberjs.com/)

Backbone: [http://backbonejs.org/](http://backbonejs.org/)

React + Flux (my pick, as it's pretty revolutionary):

[http://facebook.github.io/react/](http://facebook.github.io/react/)

and

[http://facebook.github.io/flux/](http://facebook.github.io/flux/)

Server-side:

Ruby on Rails (the most common server-side framework, but slowly fading out as a favorite): [http://rubyonrails.org/](http://rubyonrails.org/)

Node.js: [http://nodejs.org/](http://nodejs.org/)

io.js (my pick, as I'm involved with it, and it's 100% a step up from Node, as you can by default use ES6 (search ES6 on Google if you don't know what it is) features): [https://iojs.org/en/index.html](https://iojs.org/en/index.html)

Django (Python): [https://www.djangoproject.com/](https://www.djangoproject.com/)

Client-side JS:

jQuery: [http://jquery.com/](http://jquery.com/)

Plain JavaScript (my pick, as I feel it's a lot more healthy to learn vanilla instead of rely on jQuery as a crutch, which is what most, but not all, front- end devs that use it do): A million tutorials online. [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/) for docs on functionality. Find extremely well-designed (visually) blogs that have tutorials on how to _build programs_ that have actual usable functionality in the browser.

If you want any more advice or guidance, hit me up on Twitter @bitandbang or email me at firstname.lastname@example.com.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm very thankful to you for taking time to answer in such a thoughtful manner!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why haven't people moved on from Bitcoin? - <AUTHOR> I keep reading about how energy inefficient it is, both transacting & mining. Numerous banks and firms have labeled it a scam, yet they devote resources to trade in it. Out of naive curiosity:
1) Why has Bitcoin captured mainstream attention and not other viable alternatives that have been touted to be better (say ETH, LTC etc)? Is it simply first mover advantage?
2) What would it take to replace it as the de facto cryptocurrency standard? <comment><USER2> Most of what you read about Bitcoin (or most advanced topics in the press) is wrong or misleading. Eg. I read articles saying a transaction consumes x kWh or energy, but in reality a transaction does not consume energy. Transaction rate and energy consumption are independent. It would be like saying each bit on a CD-ROM "consumes fuel" when it's shipped on a mail truck.

Only _some_ high-profile individuals have labelled it a "scam", but the majority do recognize for what it truly is: a revolutionary technology and social phenomenon.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fully agree that blockchain is revolutionary technology. But why has Bitcoin captured mainstream attention and not others (say Ethereum, Litecoin etc)?

Understood about energy. I will read deeper.

<comment><USER2> Bitcoin has captured mainstream attention solely because it was the first mover.

It doesn't help that one of the most prominent energy consumption estimate is flawed: [http://blog.zorinaq.com/serious-faults-in- beci/](http://blog.zorinaq.com/serious-faults-in-beci/)</comment></comment></comment>


Open-source developers command up to 40 percent premium - <AUTHOR> http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9882356-7.html?tag=head

<comment><USER2> "Let people do interesting work, and they stick around. Make them mindlessly monitor that Windows machine, and they'll bolt."

What a concept. Who would have thought that building good systems in competent languages was better than languishing in buggy half-capable proprietary languages running on black box Enterprisey software back-ends?

</comment><comment><USER3> Before I read the article, I was assuming it was talking about how developers who are producers in the open source ecosystem deserve a premium. But, the article is about how tools/technologies that are open sourced are hot skills. I think that is a shill piece for a recruiting firm to attract potential candidates. Most of the developers I know like open source because they're free and in many instances better than what you can pay for. The article mentions AIR being one of those hot open source technologies. AIR was open sourced just recently (if you do the paternity test, Adobe gave birth to it as a proprietary and expensive technology)

</comment><comment><USER4> I love the part about "LAMP is everywhere now--these types of technologies no one heard of 18 months ago are all the sudden becoming a hot commodity."

I have an old newspaper clipping from 2000 with a full-page photo of Linus on the front page of the business section from Canada's Globe & Mail (the country's largest newspaper).

Perhaps that will inspire the clueless recruiters to only look for < 18 months of LAMP experience?

<comment><USER5> Indeed. I chortled when I saw that line, and mumbled to myself "I used LAMP in 2000..."

I've only slowly realized how trivial it is to stay several years ahead of the "enterprise". Stuff people at Hacker News consider old hat by now (Rails, say, or Django) will be big news in the enterprise a couple years from now. Then a few years after that will come excitement about Erlang, and Scala, and Seaside...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Times certainly change. In 2000, having any experience in open source software was a certain method to get ignored by recruiters.</comment>


Reveal HN: New Relic's Homepage is Photoshopped - <AUTHOR>

Unless he has a serious OSX mod... Ubuntu can't run on Thunderbolt displays. Pointed out by my cofounder. http://newrelic.com/ <comment><USER2> While you're right, the image is technically Photoshopped, as tangothedog alluded, _it is_ running one or more VMs.

<http://newrelic.com/images/signup/bg_developers.jpg>

Look at the OS X menu bar at the top of the right monitor. The right monitor also has a windowed VM instance of Ubuntu running on it. The left monitor has a full screened VM (or remote desktop session) running on it.

By the way, why is this even on HN? What's the point, here?

</comment><comment><USER3> It could be running as a VM..</comment>


Google Drive for Linux images leaked more than 6 months ago - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I mean, with other alternatives, why is this a big deal?

Sure, it's nice to have Google Drive, but really.</comment>


What is Emacs, really - <AUTHOR> http://mbork.pl/2014-07-25_What_is_Emacs%2c_really

<comment><USER2> it is an emacs lisp interpreter, that's it.</comment>


Comparing Titanium And PhoneGap - <AUTHOR> http://kevinwhinnery.com/post/22764624253/comparing-titanium-and-phonegap

<comment><USER2> Refreshingly honest, considering it's written by an appcelerator employee.

The main concern I have about either of these is that there are no awesome ahowcase apps out there that prove they work well. There are quite a few awful ones. I am attracted to titanium's promise of native look and feel, but the author admits that there are unresolved performance issues and other drawbacks. Phonegap seems even worse when compared to native UI.

What is the best nontrivial, well-performing titianium or phonegap app you know of?

<comment><USER3> For a titanium example I recommend Wunderlist. It is used by millions of people on multiple platforms, I use it everyday and it works well. Moreover Wunderlist is a good example for hackers because it is open source: <https://github.com/6wunderkinder/wunderlist>

main site: <http://www.6wunderkinder.com/wunderlist/>

One caveat, I'm not sure how many of the current apps (there are 5 versions with an addtional blackberry app in private beta.) still uses Titanium, and Wunderlist has been ported to platforms that are not supported by Titanium. However I know that the first few releases did use Titanium.

<comment><USER4> The first Wunderlist for android was a Titanium app, but is was very slow and unusable. They rebuild it again natively: [http://www.6wunderkinder.com/blog/2011/09/05/wunderlist- for-...](http://www.6wunderkinder.com/blog/2011/09/05/wunderlist-for-android- rebuilt-relaunched-and-really-awesome/)

I think the IOS version is still Titanium?

A high performing Titanium example on android would interest me also.

<comment><USER5> Got a link to the old one's APK file?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We have experience of building native Android and iOS apps, but have used Titanium in the past to quickly prototype ideas, and it's proved a great tool for that..

We recently however used Titanium for a full client project (an app to control a home heating system), usual story, tight budgets/time/etc. We built the iOS app in under 3 months and then ported to Android in about 3 weeks, very pleased with the results, the app is now being widely used daily by many end users..

Two points that should be considered though:

1\. You need to be very careful using Titanium, specifically in terms of organising your layouts and how you organise/implement your code.. Both these can make the app a pain to port and potentially dog slow and prone to crashes on both platforms

2\. It's not going to work in every use case, there's limitations, mostly in terms of speed (rendering long lists, some slight responsiveness issues, etc.)

</comment><comment><USER7> I started with an early version of Titanium, made a lot of progress very quickly, but ended up hitting many bugs and performance and memory issues.

Each new version of Titanium made steady progress, but didn't really make for a crisp, responsive app.

So I gave up, huddled down with a friend who knows PhoneGap, and rebuilt the app in PhoneGap.

Well, it turns out there are just as many stumbling blocks with PhoneGap as there are with Titanium - if you want a responsive, good looking app, you have to jump through many hoops. I was trading off one set of headaches for another.

I'm now back on Titanium. I've reworked the app significantly and am finally getting to a happy place - it's responsive on both iOS and Android, and looks good. Still a lot of memory usage, but no crashes, so perhaps it's not an issue.

My take at the moment: PhoneGap gets you more platforms and has a lower learning curve. However, it's hard (but possible) to make a native looking/feeling app. Titanium is a pain and requires a lot of discipline in your Javascript coding style, but you can get a nice native looking/feeling app if you're willing to put in the time.

</comment><comment><USER8> My experience: Phonegap: Responsiveness is bearable on iOS but on Android it is very slow - scrolling is choppy and there is a noticeable delay between pressing a button and seeing it activate. We abandoned it at this point.

Titanium: The layout code seems to be different between iOS and Android so if you get your app to look right in one platform it can be completely wrong in the other. On Android it bundles the V8 Javascript library so it's definitely not native code but at least with V8 the speed is not a problem. Titanium adds about 10MB for its stuff which is annoying to me as an old programmer!

</comment><comment><USER9> Excellent article!

I've worked with Titanium since the very beginning and would absolutely recommend it to anyone that wants to reuse pieces of their application between iOS and Android. Granted, certain UI elements that exist on iOS with no Android counterpart (and vice-versa) have to be adjusted, you're still able to retain the vast majority of your code between both platforms.

The documentation has come a very long way too. It used to be that the KitchenSink had to be forked in order to see examples of new features - thankfully, that is no longer the case. The IDE that Appcelerator has shipped (after purchasing Aptana) is extremely useful. As Kevin mentioned, the signing tasks and other similar actions are handled by the IDE, so compiling and testing is relatively simple.

</comment><comment><USER10> The one thing this article doesn't even mention is that PhoneGap is free and open source, and Titanium is expensive. Yes, Titanium has a free level, all the other price levels listed on their website are 'Contact Sales'. When I researched this last year, Titanium started just under $100/month and went wayyyy up from there. I've since published an app on Android and iOS using PhoneGap, and was happy with the result. Like any project, it takes a lot of work make it polished and look good.

<comment><USER6> Titanium is open source also (full source on GitHub), we've forked the SDK and made our own modifications.. From what I know fees are for support and the opportunity for Appcelerator accreditation, which isn't necessary in every case..

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Great Article. I have been playing around with both PhoneGap and Titanium. Definitely there is no apple to apple comparison between these products. Both of them serve different purpose though similar in language and technology. Now that PhoneGap( Apache Cordova) is part of Adobe, not sure about the long term usage with respect to licensing etc.

</comment><comment><USER12> Finally article with good explanation of differences. Most of comments I found till now was that Titanium translates JS to native code, which sounded really hard and almost impossible to me. Focus for these tools should be getting native UI/UX look&feel, and it looks like Titanium has little advantage here. Phonegap looks more RAD.

</comment><comment><USER13> Can titanium apps be deployed to the web and exist on their own? Are there any examples of this? One of the reasons I use phonegap is that for my smaller customers with limited budget I can create a web app first and then after success, deploy that same codebase (with limited branching based on the device) to android and iPhone.

<comment><AUTHOR> We have a mobile web runtime platform also, though it is less mature than the native ones at this point. You can do a hybrid app approach with Titanium as well, if you like, and incorporate as few/many native UI components or APIs as you like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone have experience wrapping a jQuery Mobile web application in native web view? How does the performance of that stack (HTML5, JQM, native WebView) compare to PhoneGap and Titanium. From previous articles, my assumption is that the performance from slowest to fastest is: JQM > PhoneGap > Titanium > Native.

<comment><USER7> I haven't directly experimented with JQM in a WebView, but based on my experience with JQM on PhoneGap and Titanium in general I would not recommend that path. JQM is slow enough on its own, and Titanium has its own performance issues, so the two together would likely be a challenge.

If you're going for Titanium you might as well use native widgets instead of JQM - otherwise PhoneGap is probably a better choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can anyone comment on trigger.io?

<comment><USER16> Although I have not used trigger.io personally it appears to be akin to PhoneGap in the sense that it wraps a web view instead of using native components. I also don't believe it is open source.</comment></comment>


Ylastic is now live: UI to manage S3, EC2, SQS, etc. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ylastic.com/?p=18

<comment><USER2> It looks like a potentially nice service. I use Amazon stuff a lot, so I'll look into this.

But the fading page elements are really annoying. Especially the navigation links at the top. Just let the page load so I can click around.

</comment><comment><USER3> After banging my head against all of the command line crap, this seems like a breath of fresh air. Will have to check it out.</comment>


Ask:HN Which paid app/service did you buy? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> traffic for my website from vebtraffic.com

</comment><comment><USER3> github</comment>


Ask HN: Good ideas to defend against the bash RCE? - <AUTHOR>

Hoping to create a discussion here on ideas on how to defend against the current bash RCE.  Probably just a subset of existing "best practices" that are particularly relevant for the current attack vector for the bash RCE.  Recommend keeping posts to one recommendation per post so that the best can filter up/down individually rather than as a set. <comment><USER2> Suggestions to lock down applications to least privileges and to set up monitoring on servers are a good idea, but they're not going to help that much here. You should operate under the assumption that an attacker who gets any code exec on your machine under any uid is going to have root, usually milliseconds later.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Run externally accessible applications under a user id with no login and no ownership of the application files it's running. Make sure that the euid of the process can only write to the specific areas of the system that are absolutely necessary. This would help quarantine the system impact of remote code execution like this.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Block outbound request from publicly accessible servers (or white list them if necessary).

This would make it harder for attackers to fetch/install more tools.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1\. Patch or otherwise fix Bash.

2\. Understand the chain of how environment variable values might flow through your web stack. Eliminate them.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Make sure tripwire is installed/configured/monitored.

Watch for unexpected changes to public servers.</comment>


Cruncher: An implementation of Bret Victor's Scrubbing Calculator - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/osnr/cruncher <comment><USER2> Hey all! I've been working on this on-and-off for a few months, but it is sort of in a broken state right now on GitHub. I'm playing with some modifications to the charts and dependency graph, and the localStorage autosave/load is a bit glitchy.

Just saw Dan posted it now, and figured I should chime in (and push my last few commits).

The version here works the OK-est, but it still needs work: [http://www.omarrizwan.com/cruncher/](http://www.omarrizwan.com/cruncher/)

Hoping to get back to it sometime within the next few weeks.

<comment><USER3> Thx for the link to the better demo.

I like all the graphical add-ons like the data flow graph: you have an expression graph so why not show it to the user...

This file is very interesting: [https://github.com/osnr/cruncher/blob/master/src/jison/parse...](https://github.com/osnr/cruncher/blob/master/src/jison/parser.jison) How would one have to change the grammar to allow for things like sin(30°) in the equations?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Victor has some interesting ideas about interfaces, but his campaign to replace simple, powerful, and quick algebraic manipulation with slow, laborious, trial-and-error pushing of numbers around with a mouse is, I think, seriously misguided. Algebra, in addition to giving you an exact solution more quickly, can help you discover general formulas for your problem, and reveal relationships between things, that you can use again the next time the problem comes up. The scrubbing calculator approach means you have to start over from scratch each time. You're throwing away all the conceptual power of mathematics and trying to replace it with arithmetic.

<comment><USER5> I don't think this is inherent in the idea. You can absolutely make an interface somewhat like this that could arrive at general solutions. Indeed, I think Bret would consider this most of the point. He covers this in "Up and down the ladder of abstraction" [0]

If by algebra you mean "the transformation of one written notation to another by rule," that is only one way of finding general solutions to mathematical problems. There is a lot of writing about "how" people doing original math think, and many of them work in ways far divorced from algebraic notation. Some seem to develop graphical models they picture in their head, others report using other senses like sound and smell.

Freeman Dyson on Feynman: "The reason Dick's physics was so hard for ordinary people to grasp was that he did not use equations... Dick just wrote down the solutions out of his head without ever writing down the equations. He had a physical picture of the way things happen, and the pictures gave him the solutions directly with a minimum of calculation."

Einstein on his thinking: "The words of language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements of thought are certain signs ( symbols ) and more or less clear images which can be voluntarily reproduced and combined... The above mentioned elements are, in my case, of visual and some muscular type."

More interesting discussion here: [http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/ESM4714/methods/vizthink.html](http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/ESM4714/methods/vizthink.html)

The idea that "real math is bare symbols" isn't true. Not only isn't it true for doing groundbreaking math, it isn't true even for easy math. I would challenge you to teach children mathematics as a purely symbolic game, never showing them that numbers correspond to physical entities, or that derivatives correspond to tangents on a curve. Those of us who are "good" at algebra are good at it because we understand it in a way deeper than the symbols.

Yes, symbolic notation is a great form of communication and necessary for proof, but it is usually not the way to create the initial intuitive spark underlying a solution.

[0] [http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/](http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/)

<comment><USER6> I'm not trying to be waspish, but are you suggesting we just be like Feynman? I will say I'm rather dubious we can achieve that with a simple interface change.

There is certainly merit and utility to graphical representation; we all use it via matlab, python+scientific packages, and so on. And, of course, the faster we can change something and see the result the better. It is not always an incremental change, but a pretty fundamental change, to see something change in real time.

Yet, this only really works in tiny cases. I recall Victor demonstrating using scrubbing variables to change how a game reacts. Okay, but the vastest amount of the programming I do (and I do fairly numerical things in the computer vision line) I either don't see the utility, or practicality. I can't variable scrub my way to a better algorithm.

I've seen, for example, graphical demonstrations of things like binary tree algorithms, sorting, and the like. It's momentarily interesting, but I can't claim that it really made any difference in my understanding of the subject. I think this is a case where people vary. I am not terribly visual, and most of Victor's arguments go over like a lead balloon with me. Yet, I cannot deny the excitement of others. I find it far more commodious to work with, for example, linear algebra. Certainly there are times when I am drawing 3D arrows and the like to work out a problem, but by-and-large the symbolic representation serves far better.

There is a reason we use text for communication on HN, and not pictures. It is not because we lack vision or foresight (no pun intended), but because it is the most expressive and flexible way to communicate our ideas. And, of course, sometimes we labor away, trying to communicate in words what would be so easy to illustrate with a single image. Neither is 'best'; we just use the best tool for the job.

None of that is to argue against one of your points - that math is more than symbolic representation. Once you are reduced to applying symbolic rules to an equation you are often quite lost, and that is often not taught in schools. Yet so much of math really cannot be done graphically at all, yet we succeed. A lot of people stall out in math (I think) at after the algebra/calc I,II,III level because beyond that there is often no recourse to graphics and physical representations; graphics can be as much a crutch as a help.

Anyway, visual thinking is certainly a form of thinking that should not be downplayed, but it is not how some to many brains work, nor is it even possible in many forms of important thought (I leave savants to one side, we can not make decisions based on exceptional/unique people).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So... I have to confess I can't figure out how to get this to do anything. :( I'm guessing I'm supposed to be able to "scroll" to change some values. However, I can't even get it to calculate anything. Does this only work from chrome?

<comment><USER8> Same here, but then I saw the creator's link above, which works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you haven't seen it yet, checkout this value and time scrubber, a pretty faithful recreation of Bret Victor's demo [http://www.fullstack.io/choc/](http://www.fullstack.io/choc/)

</comment><comment><USER10> In Photoshop you can increase/decrease a value with more control by holding Shift (+/\- 10) or Option (+/\- 0.1). Similar shortcuts might aid in finer value control without adding anything to the UI.</comment>


California's New Plan to Enforce Affordable Housing - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/gavin-newsom-housing-reform-transportation-budget-homeless/580192/ <comment><USER2> Shouldn't wages be regulated instead of housing?

High density cities suffer and it's only upside is more govt revenue in terms of property taxes.

1\. Affordable housing doesn't generate as much property taxes but will put more pressure on essential services, infrastructure and schools etc.

2\. so the govt has to tax someone even more and that would increase pressure on cost of living and create even more inequality.

3\. High density plus increase in affordable housing stock is disastrous.

4\. Newsom will gain my respect if he attempts to alleviate the health care expenses of California and make it single payer system. Healthcare is the single reason why everything is messed up. It will free people to become skilled, find mobility in between jobs, be able to negotiate, re-educate themselves...to become more current esp moving from non tech obsolete sectors to stem based/tech oriented sectors.

5.Everyone will have to know coding or at least understand how new tech works. Can't do that if you are shackled to a job because of insurance. You can share a room if finances suck but even seemingly stable folks can become bankrupt with unexpected medical expenses.</comment>


Leaving a job a week in for a better one? - <AUTHOR>

So I've accepted a offer for company A but a few days into company B has offered me a job which is better in every way. The reason I took company A is because I had been looking for a month or so and didn't think I would get B. Is it wrong to leave a week in? <comment><USER2> I don't think it would be wrong. You are there just for a week so i am quite sure you would not have a lot of dependencies yet. I just hope you are not changing just because of financial reasons. Try sitting down with the HR or the person who hired you and politely explain your situation.

</comment><comment><USER3> Better sooner than later... :)</comment>


Ask HN: Leaving School Without a Degree? - <AUTHOR>

I mentioned to a friend last night that the idea of leaving school early had crossed my mind. As a computer science student, in tahis hypothetical scenario, I would
(A) Continue taking and complete all relevant coursework- CS, Math, Texhnical Electives, etc, and ignore the classes I consider irrelevant- GE's for example. I suppose this would mean entering the job market early, without a degree, but with all the relevant coursework that the degree entails.
or
(B) The same as A, except replace the GE's with relevant technical electives. I'd wnter the job market at the same time as my peers, but having taken a couple more relevanr classes. Though, again, without my degree.
I think about hypotheticals all the time, and Don't have a problem just getting the degree as planned, but I want to hear some critique first. I'd like to make clear I am not a dropout glorifier, and I am not doing this to build a startup. Please answer with the job market in mind, not me starting a company. <comment><USER2> It's hard to give inputs when there is little information about the why.

I vote get the degree. It gives you more options.

If you choose not to: Go out with a drive to succeed and enjoy the fact that life is about choosing and learning.

At its naked core there is no good or bad decision. What makes a decision good or bad is how you deal with the consequences.

If you nail the why (prior to choosing) you can do the most radical things with the most drastic consequences but still feel safe within yourself that this was the best of many paths to unfold.

</comment><comment><USER3> You should consider and try to quantify risk: \- how much cost is to take classes you consider irrelevant (is it that much?) \- the uncertainty whether you are right that those classes are in fact irrelevant \- the probability of encountering situations in your future life in which you'd benefit from having a degree

</comment><comment><USER4> My own personal opinion as someone who has been both sides of a hiring desk, the GE are at least as valuable as the relevant coursework.

So the argument doesn't come down to what courses you are taking, it comes down to time value of money. How much does the degree cost + the opportunity cost of being in college vs the lifetime wage distinction and intrinsic happiness of the degree.

That is, if you are going to drop out to start working, the argument is to do it as fast as possible. Taking the time to do technical coursework vs general electives has marginal utility advantages (and I'd argue actual disadvantages) over just dropping out now.

That said, I'd actually suggest that barring resource allocation issues, finding GEs that are interesting and relevant and finishing the degree is the right move forward.

</comment><comment><USER5> Get the degree. It's going to be a lot harder to get a job without it - it's one of those basic requirements for a lot of jobs.

A lot of what you learn in computer science isn't relevant to a programming job but they will still want you to have a computer science or software engineering degree.

After briefly studying computer science I went onto study architecture which is a 6 year course (1 year in the middle is work experience). After 3 years you get a BSc and after 6 years you get a BArch. I dropped out in the 5th year. I regret now not getting the BArch - it would have given me more options.

</comment><comment><USER6> How about (C):

1\. While in school build and release a small project to highlight your current skills.

2\. Interview for jr. positions that match your your interest.

3\. Earn a wage at your new job with your jr. position.

4\. After holding that position for 6mo - 1yr leverage your benefits to finish our your degree on their dime.

5\. Complete your degree and continue to hold your position to see if things change..

6\. If no action is taken by your employer find a new position that will meet the pay for your new earned degree plus experience gained.

</comment><comment><USER7> Visa issues are a huge pain if you don't have a degree. Don't do this if you have any desire to work in another country.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I apologize for the typos, I'm on my phone.</comment>


Tesla Driving Logs Contradict New York Times Claims - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/02/tesla-logs-nytimes/

<comment><USER2> I expected this (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5209596>). A few days ago when I read Musk's claim that the computer log contradicted Broder, I realized Musk would have to be crazy to make claims that might later be contradicted by the computer records, and therefore his account was likely to be true.

And it seems it is. Apparently the desire to tell a damning story about the Tesla is overwhelming, as it was in an earlier case that resulted in Musk's decision to turn on logging for media-driven cars. This time the log has prevented a classic "he said, she said" controversy.

The Tesla might have problems in cold climates, the special charging stations might be too far apart for convenient wintertime operations (as Musk has acknowledged), but according to this result, the Broder account isn't a useful evaluation of the car.

What a position Tesla Motors is in. If you only allow friends of the technology to evaluate the car, the reports aren't meaningful or useful, but if you let a "neutral" party perform an evaluation, the wish to report something "interesting" is apparently irresistible.

Ten or twenty years from now, when battery technology has greatly improved, this might all seem like a tempest in a teapot, but at the moment, without computer logging, a few unchallenged reports like Border's could destroy Tesla's chance to produce an early example of a promising new technology.</comment>