Useless design features in modern products - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20171023-the-useless-design-features-in-modern-products <comment><USER2> > Jeans of all brands still have antiquated watch pockets, now too small to be > useful

I disagree. They make great coin pockets, which also helps keep my phone from getting scratched up by the coins.

Things can still be useful for reasons other than their original purpose.

<comment><USER3> I bought a pair of trousers recently that have a small pocket embedded rather deep into the right pocket, which seemingly isn't a watch pocket—it's a different size.

Interestingly, it snugly fits (the bottom half of) my iPhone 6 (without case.) I put it in that inner pocket, and it prevents it from bouncing out of my pocket if I'm running somewhere. Just as easy to take back out as if it was just in the larger pocket.

<comment><USER4> This is kind of standard on trousers, as far as I know. Every pair I've ever worn has had one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Though electric cars don't need cooling grilles – batteries don't get as hot > and they're chilled in a different way – many have them anyway to avoid > looking weird.

This actually isn't true. Electric engines do indeed release a lot less waste heat than internal combustion engines, but they also can't tolerate nearly as high of temperatures. And since heat dissipation is proportional to temperature, their cooling requirements (ie radiator) tend to be similar. Perhaps a bit less, but comparable.

Teslas actually do have radiators; they're just mounted low, so they're less obvious. The same could be done in most other cars, although admittedly the electric engine might allow for easier flexibility of layout to accomplish this.

<comment><USER6> > Electric engines do indeed release a lot less waste heat than internal > combustion engines, but they also can't tolerate nearly as high of > temperatures.

Eh? I thought both topped out around ~100 degrees C? Not that water cooling isn't a good idea for automotive electric drive motors.

<comment><USER7> Rechargeable batteries of most designs are pretty heat sensitive. Too hot or too cold and the maximum range of the electric vehicle suffers. The drop off can be as high as 30% or so too, especially if you live somewhere with regular seasonal extreme temperatures.

This is why as well as cooling systems, some EVs even heat the battery in the cold.

The same thing affects Lithium Ion batteries in phones, cameras, laptops etc too.

<comment><USER3> > This is why as well as cooling systems, some EVs even heat the battery in > the cold.

IC cars have that feature too, if you live somewhere like Saskatchewan. You need to plug the heater in at night ([https://info.kaltire.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/Jan-6-Pl...](https://info.kaltire.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/Jan-6-PlugIn.jpg)) or the battery will be too cold to start the car in the morning.

<comment><USER8> Block heaters are used in somewhat milder climates as well – even though a modern ICE will start quite fine at even below -20°C (increasingly more unreliably the lower you go), doing so is somewhat harmful for the engine. (Also, by heating the engine fluids you can also blow some warmer air into the cabin to prevent the windows from frosting when you get inside – not to mention the added comfort.) Actual battery warmers are much rarer I think, but that isn't often an issue as long as you keep your battery well charged (and obviously have a more capable battery to begin with).

The usual recommendation is to start using the block heater even before temperature gets below freezing (for convenience reasons not many people do so).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > The result: the controls of modern aircraft look very similar to those from > the 1930s.

[http://magazin.lufthansa.com/content/uploads/2016/07/A380-80...](http://magazin.lufthansa.com/content/uploads/2016/07/A380-800-Blick- ins-Cockpit-360-Panorama-Startbild-980x653.jpg)

[http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/1/1/0898115....](http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/1/1/0898115.jpg?v=v40)

LOL. The "explanation" in the article is mostly poppycock. Modern avionics are based on engineering of human factors. There's no inherent desire for skeuomorphism or even traditionalism. Control modalities that have been tested to work better than potential modern replacements tend to stay, that is all. In military tactical aircraft the differences are even more stark. On the smaller GA scale of aircraft, it isn't so much traditionalism, as economics.

</comment><comment><USER10> "the cockpits of the most high-tech airplanes are still laden with analogue dials, levers and knobs" , too bad car manufacturers aren't so careful with their infotainment consoles.

I'm lucky I still have knobs/buttons on mine, but the more expensive console option did away with all of that and uses an infuriating touch screen slider for the volume... that even must be navigated to to operate.

<comment><USER11> You can accurately adjust a rotating knob without looking. They have real benefits that you can't replace with software.

<comment><USER12> Too bad more and more car manufacturers moved into gizmo mode. I think I will never buy tablet-car that have no physical knobs for basics controls.

<comment><USER13> I even see a large dropoff in usability between my commuter vehicle, which has knobs and levers, and my spouse's vehicle, which has buttons.

What makes it worse is that they are _unlit_ buttons.

I can quite easily adjust the environmental controls in my vehicle without looking at them, or with a brief glance. In the other car, which I generally only drive at night anyway, I have to at minimum turn on the map light, and sometimes have to stop the car and look down at the mess of 20 identical-feel buttons to push the correct one.

The button I _really_ hate is the "mode" button. It is furthest from the driver's seat, and switches between defrost, defrost + low vents, high vents, high vents + low vents, low vents. It doesn't click or beep or give any kind of audio signal. You can't tell by feel. You can either look down at the LCD display to see what it's doing, or you can wait a few seconds for the actuators to adjust the airflow, and then hit the button again if it wasn't what you wanted. This button's function is fulfilled by a knob in my car, and I prefer it that way.

I can't even imagine a touchscreen that doesn't even have the tactile- kinesthetic advantage of the fixed-position buttons. How many seconds will I need to look away from the road in order to turn on the AC and blow it at the inside of the windshield if the glass starts to fog up on a hot, humid night?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is an incredible subculture for denim, distressing jeans the old fashioned way, no skeuomorphism here. The pre-WW2 production methods produced a higher quality product (surprise?) but the small looms couldn't produce it fast enough or cheap enough and were sent overseas. The Japanese have carried on producing proper American work wear, while American brands largely produce a simulacrum of American work wear. Sad fact, Cone Mills is shutting down after more than a century, last of its kind in the US.

<comment><USER15> Can you give me some proof, not opinion or social sales speak, that the japanese stuff is "better"? Also how is it comparable to actual work wear sold in the US, like carhart/etc or safety gear?

<comment><USER16> Plenty of Japanese stuff isn't better.

Uniqlo sells a variety of jeans. While cheap and good for the price, it isn't exactly high quality.

Is carhart really work wear? All the cool kids wore carhart in junior high 15 years ago where I lived.

<comment><USER17> > _Is carhart really work wear?_

Yes. It made the to 'cool' on the back of the rugged reputation, but Carhartt jackets are still a common sight on construction sites, out hunting, and so on. The jackets at least really are that good - waterproof and extremely sturdy.

It's sort of the same role Red Wing boots have slipped into - they count as cool now, but they're still totally viable as heavy workwear.

<comment><USER18> I'd guess they're in a similar position to North Face, who realized there's a lot more people that want to look fashionable than people who need -50F clothing, or even people who actually ski in that temperature range instead of hiding at the bar...

<comment><USER17> Pretty much, yeah. They still make good gear, but so does North Face. There's an interesting split between outdoor companies that have made this switch (e.g. North Face) and ones that really haven't (e.g. Black Diamond). It seems like some companies have specialized in gear that no one wears for style, and the rest have hybridized.

<comment><USER15> Well there's also the like of eddie bauer which went from totally hunting/outdoor casual wear to 100% style wear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Architecture is full of further examples of useless design features, from facades to fascia, to non-load bearing columns. There are entire books (even novels) on this subject.

<comment><USER20> What people forget is that looking nice is also a function.

Utilitarian design is unsufferable -- like those soviet-era buildings...

<comment><USER21> Brutalism is super cool though.

<comment><USER20> In design work (print, web) where it can't do much damage, yes.

In residential and public buildings, not so much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The history of GUI icons is full of this stuff...

A pencil for "edit" even though you have a computer now.

A floppy disk for "save" even though they went out in the 90s.

Manila file folders for files/directories even though few people use them anymore.

Wristwatches, and even more old-school: hourglasses, for wait time.

...

<comment><USER23> A magnifying glass for search.

An ancient-looking camera for screenshots, even though no camera is involved and most people take photos on their phone nowadays.

In recent years the floppy disk icon and the hourglass have started falling out of fashion. Sometimes save is a sort of slab with an arrow [https://openclipart.org/image/2400px/svg_to_png/32251/docume...](https://openclipart.org/image/2400px/svg_to_png/32251/document- save-as.png) though loads of places still uses an old-skool 3.5" floppy.

The hourglass is often just a spinner now.

The pencil is everywhere, though what else could you use? It means more than "pencil" now, I see that and think edit.

<comment><USER24> Your camera example made me think of how digital cameras often have a shutter sound effect when taking a photo.

<comment><USER25> But the audio feedback that it took a picture is actually useful. Sure, it could be a different sound, but there should be _a_ sound?

Why a sound? Because my eye is busy composing the view. I don't want to have to look at some magic place in the view to see if a light flashes or an icon comes up or whatever.

<comment><USER24> I totally agree. I just think the shutter noise is a bit of audio skeuomorphism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I had to stop reading when they dismissed analog dials. My car and every thing I own would be easier to use with analog dials.

<comment><USER27> They also failed to mention the important role of car engine noise in alerting vision-impaired pedestrians to oncoming traffic.

<comment><USER28> You don't even have to be vision impaired to benefit from this. If you are walking along a narrow road or alleyway and a car approaches from behind, the noise will alert you and you can move accordingly.

<comment><USER27> Indeed, we can use an expansive definition of "vision-impaired" that includes people looking at their phones and people without 360-degree panoramic X-ray vision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Don't forget designs that provide _negative_ value. Mobile micro-payments, addiction-forming designs, "subscribe to our spam" pop-ups...

Aside, there's no evidence that DVORAK is better than QWERTY, and the origin story of QWERTY presented here is a common misconception.

<comment><USER30> _> there's no evidence that DVORAK is better than QWERTY_

Here's my go-to reference: [http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?keyboard_layouts](http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?keyboard_layouts)

<comment><USER20> And here's mine: [https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html](https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Can't wait for my next phone to come with tail fins.

(This article could have been better titled by the BBC as "vestigial traces of older products in the design of newer ones.")

And for those lucky enough to never have seen them: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_tailfin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_tailfin)

<comment><USER32> I like tailfins. Not all of them, but there's a few that look nice.

<comment> 52-6F-62 So do I. I wouldn't mind a return to some of the 50's/60's automotive aesthetics. It could look pretty futuristic at times. One of my favourite photos of Chicago: [https://68.media.tumblr.com/67951c2780fe5c66863c2a31caa4d989...](https://68.media.tumblr.com/67951c2780fe5c66863c2a31caa4d989/tumblr_oo7jiwN7it1vpk144o1_500.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > In the United States, wagons were increasingly common on the roads. Drawn by > up to 20 animals, they were a popular way of transporting goods over long > distances – and the men helming these vehicles liked to drive on the right. > They'd sit on the rear leftmost horse, so it was easier to make sure > oncoming traffic didn't get too close if it was also on the left.

Why did drivers sit on the leftmost horse?

<comment><USER34> so it was easier to make sure oncoming traffic didn't get too close if it was also on the left.

<comment><USER33> But that just re-raises the question of why people switched to driving on the right. The article says riders used to ride on the left, then wagon drivers started sitting on the left, so wagons started driving on the right. Why did wagon drivers started sitting on the left, in a world where people were riding on the left?

<comment><USER35> For context, at this time in history, the side of the road used was mostly determined by custom and convenience - there wasn't enough traffic for there to be established law.

In the case of these large wagon train drivers, the drivers, being mostly right handed, wanted to use their crop or whip in their right hand while being able to reach both lines of horses. This dictated that riding on the leftmost horse was most convenient.

Conversely, a wagon driver in a (relatively) cramped and crowded city such as London would sit on the right side so as to be able to ensure that his whip did not accidentally hit passers-by, as the direction of travel of the whip from a right-handed person is toward the left. This concern was largely not present in the wide-open spaces of the US.

<comment><USER36> Wanting your whippin' arm lined up center makes sense, but it doesn't explain swapping both the side the driver sits on and the side of the road used by the vehicle. If you had free reign on street side, you'd sit on the side opposite your whipping arm because you could pick people up on either side (no safety preference) and would have more control over the whip. These probably changed at different times.

If you're on the left side of the street, picking passengers up on the left sidewalk, you'd want to sit on the left side to watch your whip. But, the driver is always on the side furthest from the curb, which makes me think it's more about making sure you don't hit oncoming traffic and picking up passengers.

Still doesn't explain the side of the street used. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a royal mannerism edict that said something like, "Gentlemen ambling in opposite directions should always pass one another on the left to ensure they may unsheathe their weapon, should the other engage in dishonorable combat."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Love this:

> This new material [copper] was much more versatile, since it didn't have to > be painstakingly chipped into shape. It led to a whole range of elaborate > inventions, from crowns to ornamental sceptres. But many objects created in > this era retained a decidedly stone-age look.

</comment><comment><USER37> I like the fact that a part of the space shuttle's design can be traced back to Roman times:

[http://www.astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html](http://www.astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html)

<comment><USER38> It's an amusing anecdote, but unfortunately false: [https://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp](https://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp)

<comment><USER39> That article reads a bit strangely to me.

It basically says the anecdote is true, but because it's true for "trivial and unremarkable reasons" they are labeling it as false. Which doesn't seem to make sense to me personally.

<comment><USER40> Yes, snopes is strange like that. You'd think a site dedicated to debunking stories would take care to be precise with the arguments it makes, but snopes often comes across a bit sloppy. But here they still are, after all these years, apparently king of the funny little niche of debunking urban myths!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Those "watch" pockets in jeans are great for holding rings.

<comment><USER42> I keep my coins in there - keeps the size of my wallet down.

<comment><USER43> I've only ever heard people call them "coin pockets."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Really interesting. What other examples can you think of?

<comment><USER31> Hollerith punch cards (the overwhelming standard...there were other experiments though) were the size they were because Herman Hollerith wanted to use cash handling trays for managing the cards (they used to do statistics on them by lining them up and then manually running metal rods through the holes to see which ones were universal their set! No kidding.). The federal dollars back then were larger than the reserve notes we use today in the US.

By the way the usually had rounded corners for the same reason rolodex and library card file cards usually did: less likely to become damaged and then caught in the machine. Whoever wrote that article didn't remember or perhaps had never actually seen, much less used these technologies.

My favorite of these fossilized design elements though is on hearses in the US. Ever notice that they have a funny shape, like an elongated italic "S" on the side? It's actually a completely deracinated coach spring! When people started using motorized vehicles to transport coffins, they still liked to use a horse coach for more "formal" occasions like funerals (and coronations...) -- think of JFK's funeral or Queen Elizabeth (mother of the current Queen). Eventually to make the hearses seem more fancy they glued that stupid thing on.

Another great one is the fossilized fashions of times gone by. Why do some banks still have fancy fronts or a logo with columns? Because back when banks actually kept their cash around they wanted to show off that they both had a solid building and were profitable enough to spend money on the expensive stuff kinds used...like marble. Nowadays if you visit someone really really rich with a modern house (i.e. castle) it's very often ultra high end glass and steel (Not just California, all over the globe) or exotics (think Geahry). The merely very wealthy are more likely to use the wealth signifiers of the "old days" (gold, crystal, marble).

<comment><USER44> There's a certain class of 20/21st c. up-market housing in the UK's home counties that comes with a stuck-on pseudo-Georgian portico.

[https://www.cranbornestone.co.uk/Assets/User/616-Portico_A_2...](https://www.cranbornestone.co.uk/Assets/User/616-Portico_A_2.jpg)

It's entirely for show - it certainly doesn't keep the rain out, like a real porch - and IMO it looks ridiculous, especially on a house that isn't particularly grand or large.

<comment><USER45> Fake Tudor-esque stuff is also common; wood just stuck onto a usually brick house.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> >But the public like cars to look a certain way.

Meh, this isn't all that true in my opinion. A properly designed "grill-less" car can be just as popular if not moreso than a design that adheres to the status quo. Just look at every Corvette from arguably the C2* through the C5. The C4* definitively removed the grill from the design but the C2 and C3* worked them into the nose in a way completely unlike that of a traditional "grill". Then you have the case of the Citroen DS* which has been lauded as one of the most beautiful/cutting edge designs of all time.

The lasting popularity and perception of these cars proves that "grills" aren't necessary, it just takes more artistic skill to design a pleasing shape without them.

>Though electric cars don't need cooling grilles – batteries don't get as hot and they're chilled in a different way.

Now this just isn't true at all unless I'm unaware of some new design that diverges entirely from the Tesla/Nissan/GM school of electric vehicle design. While the radiator of a Tesla Model S*, X, or 3 may be much smaller than that of a typical ICE powered car, it is still large enough to require meaningful airflow through the front end/underbody. The issue with consumer perceptions of the "grill-less" designs isn't that they are innately undesirable, it's that all of the current mass production electric cars are either woefully bland or amateurishly designed. I personally think Tesla's design language is unimaginative and would carry the perception of being 10 years out of date if made by any other brand. Also, even if it was possible to passively cool the battery and motor of an electric car (while still meeting modern expectations of performance), the HVAC system still needs airflow for the AC condenser.

Sources: C2: [http://www.usedcorvettesforsale.com/img/icons/c2-corvette.jp...](http://www.usedcorvettesforsale.com/img/icons/c2-corvette.jpg)

C3: [https://fthmb.tqn.com/gmQGeIVkCGfb6anH9CTM6jBmLuA=/768x0/fil...](https://fthmb.tqn.com/gmQGeIVkCGfb6anH9CTM6jBmLuA=/768x0/filters:no_upscale\(\)/W89HV_CH003-56a1ca5b3df78cf7726e05ff.jpg)

C5: [http://image.superchevy.com/f/9271396+w640+h640+q80+re0+cr1+...](http://image.superchevy.com/f/9271396+w640+h640+q80+re0+cr1+st0/corp_0405_how_to_buy_c5_corvette_z_1%2B2002_c5.jpg)

Citroen DS: [https://www.classicdriver.com/sites/default/files/styles/two...](https://www.classicdriver.com/sites/default/files/styles/two_third_slider/public/cars_images/citroen_ds23ie_1.jpg?itok=_BoBZTtz)

Tesla Model S Radiator: [http://www.r8talk.com/gallery/data/500/Front_Radiators.jpg](http://www.r8talk.com/gallery/data/500/Front_Radiators.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER47> > Though electric cars don't need cooling grilles – batteries don't get as hot > and they're chilled in a different way – many have them anyway to avoid > looking weird.

s/many/all the ass-backward archaic car companies/

Is Tesla is the only one that doesn't have a grill?

I don't know if my volt actually has openings but it does have the grill. Totally cool looking -_-

<comment><USER48> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf)

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_i- MiEV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_i-MiEV)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Up#E-up](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Up#E-up)

<comment><USER49> The Chevy Bolt shares a platform with the Chevy Sonic. The grille will probably go away when it gets enough volume for its own platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> _design features which are included because we value them (apparently) but they serve little or no purpose_

well.. sure. I mean, once you have Helvetica and Times, all the other roman fonts are basically wasting my time.

I would argue the rivets still serve a purpose. Maybe its how I wear them, but I have torn the pockets off jeans.

The Iconography of Instagram and the resurgence of Polaroid style cameras..

The iconography of the floppy disk as 'save to disk' icon probably won't last much longer mind you.

<comment><USER51> > The iconography of the floppy disk as 'save to disk' icon probably won't > last much longer mind you.

What do you think will replace it? Or are you talking about the idea of an explicit 'save' step largely disappearing?

<comment><USER42> Save logo will probably be phased out with a 'upload to cloud' logo

<comment><USER47> I often see the floppy disk image and think "WTF is that still doing there?"

I can't imagine what my kids will think it is. My parents are completely confused by the power button. My mom thinks it's a stick figure finger pushing a button.

<comment> King-Aaron Relevant... [https://twitter.com/TheLazyDog_/status/316681011457048578](https://twitter.com/TheLazyDog_/status/316681011457048578)

<comment><USER52> Coasters with sharp metal edges on them are indeed a novelty. /s</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I invented, built, and released a 360º Video Camera. - <AUTHOR>

Greetings, HN!
I have created a new kind of 360º video camera with GPS and live streaming capabilities. A device like this has never existed in this form factor or price point before.
After launching on Kickstarter, it has gotten coverage in Techcrunch and Boingboing, and received 89% funding in the first 24 hours.
I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts about the device, the Kickstarter campaign, and any ways of publicizing the campaign that I might be missing. I'm most interested in hearing anyone thoughts about how the Kickstarter page might be improved to boost conversions, as the clock is ticking.... Thank you!
Here is the link to Kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1996234044/sphericam-the-easy-360o-video-camera <comment><USER2> Interesting, these guys have been building 360 cameras for years, but in a clearly different space.

<http://www.imoveinc.com/geoview.php>

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi bdwalter. Yes there are a number of companies in the military space making 360º cameras. Generally these are built for a different use case and often cost 10-100x what Sphericam costs. This is generally the rule with medical and military equipment - it needs to be "overengineered" to withstand exceptionally demanding environments without fail because lives may be on the line (99.9999 vs. 99.9 uptime, and all that). Not to say that Sphericam isn't built to take a beating - it is - but I wouldn't yet want to make the kind of guarantees required to sell it as a military solution. Not this iteration, anyway - a ruggedized (throwable! flying! lasers!) version is certainly doable in the future!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07YMliQ4iqE> is some of the weirdest cinematography I've ever seen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you :-) I was excited to fly Sphericam on a strong octocopter flown by a couple of very skilled operators. It was a lucky event.

This video shows the spherical image with a rather different geometry than we are used to - it's called "stereographic" projection (not to be confused with "stereoscopic" wich is the quasi-3d effect in Avatar for example)

It's sometimes easier to see a world map in these projections to understand it better. Here: [https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imgh...](https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1391&bih=766&q=stereographic+projection+world+map&oq=stereographic+projection+world+map&gs_l=img)</comment></comment>


Awesome Correlations - <AUTHOR> https://imgur.com/gallery/yGL0y

<comment><AUTHOR> I say "correlation does not equal causation" at least twice a week... so when I saw this it brought great happiness to me.</comment>


Firefox Focus: A Fast Private Mobile Browser from Mozilla - <AUTHOR> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/mobile/#focus <comment><USER2> Previous discussions:

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15049171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15049171)

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12977719](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12977719)

</comment><comment><USER3> A nice trick with Focus on iOS is that you can set it to be the adblocker for mobile Safari. So, you install it, but don't have to switch browsers to partially benefit from it.

There are apparently paid adblockers that route your web requests for all apps through a VPN. Personally, I'm not interested in any aspect of that last sentence. Filtering just Safari locally for free is good for me.

I've been against adblockers on the grounds that ads finance the content I want. But lately, ads and trackers have become so egregious on mobile that they, for practical purposes, prevent me from reading content at all. Either the content takes forever to load, or it jumps erratically around the screen for minutes or I'm put off from visiting a political or product related page because of the trackers.

With Focus, the web is usable again! Unfortunately, it's not financially viable. I'm hopeful for the Brave browser for that. I'll be trying it soon.

<comment><USER4> Incidentally I enabled this yesterday because I was grtting tired of "Congraulation! You won an Amazon gift card!". I feel the loading speed has improved since. I am not sure how effective Focus will be against popups but let's see...

1\. Search "Safari" on the phone under "Settings"

2\. Find "Content Blockers"

4\. Choose "Focus"

If you don't see "Focus" in the list, or if you want to configure "Focus", open the "Focus" app, and click on the settings icon (top right corner).

Note if the site you are trying to read is broken (see 1 as an example, ironically), just open up Safari settings as instructed above, undo Focus, then reload the page. When you are done, just slide back on. This is unfortunate though.

1: [https://blog.chromium.org/2017/01/open-sourcing-chrome-on- io...](https://blog.chromium.org/2017/01/open-sourcing-chrome-on-ios.html?m=1)

<comment><USER5> If you long-press the refresh button in mobile safari, you will get the option to reload the current page without content blockers.

<comment><USER4> Thank you! I am glad I know this trick now! I cited your comment in my other comment. This trick is so thoughtful from Apple - I have to mention this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What changed? Why is this being posted now?

</comment><comment><USER7> I've been using Firefox alongside Firefox Focus (Klar, since I'm from a German speaking country) for a few months now and I like the setup.

Focus is registered as the default browser on my Android device, so all normal links open up there. When I need to do something where I'd like to keep logins active (or something like that), I manually open up Firefox. The only thing that bothers me is that there are no tabs, so you can only have one session of Focus at a time.

<comment><USER8> There are tabs. To open links in new tabs hold instead of tap. Couldn't find out how to open an "empty tab" though...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is there a real difference between Firefox Focus and Firefox Klar? Is use the latter for a while now (and love it) and wonder if I am missing something. Wikipedia tells me something about "Klar" being used in a german context because of the "focus" magazine ambiguity (which is kinda weird as this magazine didn't have any relevance since forever). Edit: Ah... further reading in the german wikipedia revealed that the publisher of the magazine is partnered with Mozilla making the disambiguation a form of transparency I guess.

<comment><USER9> Klar is just Focus for German-speaking countries, the name is the only difference. As you note, the name change is due to the eponymous magazine.

<comment><USER10> Klar also doesn't send analytics to a third party like Focus does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have been using Firefox focus for a while and I have 2 main problems with it. The adblocker is worse than ublock origin (eg. try to google Kindle) and there is no simple way to use tabs. I still use it to open links, but a lot of the time I end up having focus open it on Firefox.

<comment><USER12> > The adblocker is worse than ublock origin (eg. try to google Kindle)

Could you elaborate on this? Granted I'm using ublock origin only on Desktop, but I'm still kinda confused what's the issue there for you because for me ublock mostly does what it's supposed to and when it doesn't it's usually an issue of "not blocking enough".

<comment><USER11> That is exactly the issue, focus doesn't block enough. I am not at home so I cannot give you a visual comparison but when googling "Kindle" with ublock origin the first link I see is to the Amazon website, while on focus I see 3 big ads that require me to scroll down to see the search results. Obviously this is a constructed example but there are other websites (I can't remember which exactly) with lots of ads that origin doesn't block.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there any advantage of using this instead of the classic Firefox + uBlock?

<comment><USER14> If you enable the additional privacy lists in uBlock Origin and clear your Cookies frequently, then not really.

In fact, Firefox Focus is functionally equivalent to Firefox's Private Browsing. They both don't keep Cookies, browsing history and such, and they both have a tracking blocker with the same blocklist (sourced from disconnect.me). Most ads have trackers in them, which is why this tracking blocker also blocks most ads (neither of them have a dedicated ad blocker).

Where they differ is that Focus is obviously just not a full-featured browser - no browsing history, even if you want it, no bookmarks, no extensions, no sync, and tabs are still a bit awkward in it. It's also generally mostly intended for the kind of user that has trouble finding or understanding Private Browsing. It being in a separate app makes it accessible from a place they know, the app launcher, and it explains nicely that browsing history and such won't be shared, as data is generally not shared between separate apps.

On a technological level, the big difference is that Focus uses Android WebView (on Android; on iOS it uses WebKit) instead of Gecko as browser engine. This helps to keep the APK size really small, which is desireable, because you sort of expect users to install it as secondary browser in addition to their full-featured browser, and well, it wouldn't help Mozilla's market share that much anyways, if they'd put Gecko into it, since it blocks most ads (and users will probably use their full-featured browser for online shopping and such, too), therefore hardly generates revenue for webpage owners, therefore wouldn't really incentivize them to optimize for Gecko either.

Some advanced users like to have Focus around alongside a full-featured browser, because you can tell Android to open links in Focus by default, meaning all the random links that you might click on in other applications will open in it, not cluttering up your browsing history and not leaving behind cookies or just in general fingerprinting you further. And if you then do want to open a webpage in your main browser (maybe also just to save it into your browsing history), then Focus does have a convenient button for that.

<comment><USER13> Thank you very much for your detailed explanation!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Brave on mobile is by far the best browser I've seen so far.

</comment><comment><USER16> I use Firefox Focus on my phone for most of my casual browsing. It launches and loads pages much faster than Firefox does. For some reason, Firefox insists on stalling for a few seconds before starting to load the web page whereas Focus does it instantly. I only use Firefox when I need session management.

I hope Firefox 58 improves the situation.

</comment><comment><USER17> I use Naked Browser for my normal web browsing, nothing faster or cleaner, but all web links from apps go straight to Firefox Focus. Who knows where the obfuscated links are taking you?

It's light and fast: great for my old phone.

</comment><comment><USER18> It is far from fast and it is annoying to switch tabs. I used to use it initially, but I found the features a bit too restrictive so I uninstalled it.

</comment><comment> cup-of-tea That is surprisingly fast compared to standard Firefox for Android. Is there any downside to using this as the default browser?

</comment><comment><USER19> Wasn't there someone on HN a while ago saying that Focus was built on WebKit which makes it basically a Google thing?

<comment><USER4> Chromium-based browsers such as Google Chrome run on Blink rendering engine. Blink was forked from Apple's Webkit, Safari's rendering engine.

But Apple does not allow third-party rendering engines on iOS, so Mozilla and other vendors have to build theirs on top of Webkit.

Google has made iOS code available in Chromium repository by supporting both Blink and Webkit. See [1]. Not sure about Mozilla.

Note you cannot read the blog article without turning off Focus as content blocker (but you don't have to quit (see 2).

Also, when I was young I was very confused which rendering engine was used because the user-agent header in HTTP was such a piece of mess (thanks to the browser war in the 90s). You are going to see webkit, blink, mozilla and NT in there.

[1]: [https://blog.chromium.org/2017/01/open-sourcing-chrome-on- io...](https://blog.chromium.org/2017/01/open-sourcing-chrome-on-ios.html?m=1)

[2]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16069623](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16069623)

<comment><USER19> Ok, Google, Apple, whatever. When I see the Firefox brand I'm hoping for a product that focuses on privacy. Not an Apple product with a Firefox sticker on top. Apparently this is just my misconception.

EDIT: I say "google, apple, whatever", but I should clarify. There's this talking point on HN that Apple is so good for user's privacy. It's not, hence "google, apple, whatever".

<comment><USER10> Right now, after the Cliqz and remotely installed addon controversies, and the fact that Firefox Focus sends analytics data to a third party (Adjust Inc.), I'd say Apple is more privacy focused than Mozilla.

<comment><USER19> > Right now, after the Cliqz and remotely installed addon controversies, and > the fact that Firefox Focus sends analytics data to a third party, I'd say > Apple is more privacy focused than Mozilla.

Could you clarify what is the third party that Mozilla is sending analytics to?

<comment><USER20> Firefox Focus (but not Firefox Klar) sends usage data to Google Analytics.

Mozilla has a promise from Google that Google will not use this data for their own analysis. If you do not trust Google to honor this agreement, Mozilla employees said on a GitHub issue about this, you should stop using Mozilla products.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


California Sues Vinod Khosla over Martins Beach Public Access - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-06/martins-beach-california-lawsuit <comment><USER4> I don't live near here, can someone explain this? ( The link should open in Google maps with satellite view.)

[https://email@example.com...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-122.4072087,899m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x808f090cb6271353:0x3d9391e735ac292a!8m2!3d37.3736981!4d-122.4083224)

What I see is a bunch of houses on the beach.

How is this in issue with one person and not all those home owners?

Edit: Even the reviews talk about how you can just walk to the beach without paying for parking. I don't get the problem? Is this a California beach- perspective thing? As far as I know all water front property in the US is public up to a certain distance from the water already.

<comment><USER5> There is a gate you can see in Street View. The contention started when Khosla started locking the gate and had security arrest surfers who jumped it.

Edit: here's a timeline: [https://www.surfrider.org/pages/timeline-open- martins-beach](https://www.surfrider.org/pages/timeline-open-martins-beach)

<comment><USER6> If this is a public right of way, then doesn't it take just a single surfer to come along and _improve the right of way_ by clearing obstructions? A cordless sawzall is like $100, and bolt cutters are much less.

They'd likely end up receiving a SLAPP by Khosla, but surely there would be some judgement-proof surfer willing to shoulder the long tail risk, and plenty of people willing to pay for the legal defense.

<comment><USER7> Some surfers did that and then were arrested and put in jail by Khosla.

Those people willing to pay legal defense are called the Surfrider Foundation and they're the people that keep suing Khosla to open up the beach.

It's been quite an ordeal.

<comment><USER8> Khosla put them in jail?

I assume you mean the police did?

<comment><USER9> The police, who I am sure this Vinod guy donates to/has in their pocket.

Don't trust anyone when it comes to people with "fuck you" money.

<comment><USER10> While I would say you shouldn't fully trust some people, coming up with wild conspiracy theories don't help.

Not trusting people with money (regardless if it's a lot) says something about society in general. People should understand that even amongst the rich, people are very different and diverse despite being in the same socioeconomic class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is pretty interesting: [https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/access/pr-access- fac...](https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/access/pr-access-facts.pdf)

The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself. The argument is about whether the road to the beach is implicitly public property because of prior use.

That PDF provides some tests, and is useful to review prior to reading the judge's decision.

<comment><USER12> > The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself.

The public can do what it wants on the part of the beach up to the high tide line. It doesn't extend to the whole of what you'd think of as the "beach."

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Khosla seems to say the issue is maintaining the access path.. parking, bathrooms, etc. Is that correct? If so, would it make sense for California to seize that part the access path via eminent domain and provide those services?

<comment><USER14> Khosla is wrong, he doesn't have to provide anything except access to a path to the beach that already exists.

And California basically already seized an easement on his land years ago when they passed the law requiring beach access (although I'm not 100% sure how that's structured legally).

He might have a point about needing to maintain a relatively safe path, but so does every property owner in Malibu and they all seem to have it figured out.

<comment><USER15> I think his current argument is that he doesn't have to give access (maintain easement) because his property is part of an 1851 sale of Mexican property which has a treaty that supercedes Californian state law. Essentially a federal treaty supercedes state law through judicial review. So unfortunately the current interpretation based on the courts is that since his property is part of the 1851 sale which is governed by a federal treaty (which is always above the rules of state law), he doesn't have to provide easement at all.

I wonder if this means that any of the property owners involved in land as part of the 1851 sale can now block their existing easements for beach access.

<comment><USER16> So does the federal treaty state specifically that land sold does not have to provide easement? If not, it seems like a weak argument. By that same logic, he could also put a casino on it and say that since the land was part of the federal treaty, he no longer has to abide by any state law at all while on the property.

<comment><USER15> I assume if the treaty says that he can open a casino then he can open a casino. Again, federal law supercedes state law. It's written into our constitution: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause)

I have no idea what clause they took from that treaty to show he has the right not to provide easements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone have any way to illustrate to me the physics of how he is actually blocking access? Like how does this road run through this property, where is the beach in relation, etc.

EDIT: I suppose this helps: [https://www.google.com/search?q=vinod+khosla+road](https://www.google.com/search?q=vinod+khosla+road)

</comment><comment> tedk-42 Obviously looking at the bigger picture he's in the wrong. I do wonder what his motivations are to own that section of the beach though.

Maybe it's the only bit of his property that's vulnerable from a security perspective and he simply wants tighter control of it.

I hope the public win and he doesn't get his way.

<comment><USER18> IIRC, his argument is that the path that leads to the beach is actually his property, and he is effectively being required to pay to upkeep/monitor/secure this area on his property on his own dime.

<comment><USER19> What a terrible shock that must have been for him, to realize this fact only after having purchased the property.

<comment><USER18> Feels like an edge case to me. Not exactly something someone who buys a private property would think would be possible e.g. to have to pay for upkeep for public property.

Seems like the gov't should figure out some sort of reimbursement program in situations like this.

<comment><USER20> I'm sure a surveyor would have informed him of California law.

<comment><USER18> it's not really my point. the law is deficient in the sense that it doesn't cover this edge case. so why not address the edge case?

IMO Khosla should present some numbers on how much it would reasonably cost to maintain whatever land he owns that would be used by the public to get to the beach and the gov't should agree to reimburse some reasonable expense on a quarterly basis.

<comment><USER19> That would make sense if the government had installed the beach after Khosla's purchase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> munk-a There are some interesting questions to be answered here about the value of the view included in the pricing of beachfront property that need to be addressed (agreements to limit development including height restriction - agreements not to sell property closer to the water line to other private parties) that will get super complex as climate change continues - <USER2> the fact that erosion may shrink the size of the private rights portion of the lot on beachside property, or potentially expand it.

Additionally this gets super muddled when it comes to coastal constructions, even simple jetties docks may have public safety concerns, protection of private property (if expensive boat maintenance tools or machinery are located on the jetty) - and that will evolve into questions about using coastal constructions to restrict access.

Lastly, the costs - as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run, should CA be footing that bill? Could they sublease the property to an entrepreneur that thinks they could make the beachside facilities profitable? It is entirely unreasonable (even given the excessive wealth of Khosla) for him to be forced to maintain an unprofitable entity like that and all the facility liability that goes along with it.

This is a gigantic can of worms.

I look forward to how this might be resolved, but it sure ain't going to be simple.

<comment><USER21> > as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run, should CA be footing > that bill? Could they sublease the property to an entrepreneur that thinks > they could make the beachside facilities profitable? It is entirely > unreasonable (even given the excessive wealth of Khosla) for him to be > forced to maintain an unprofitable entity like that and all the facility > liability that goes along with it.

Does he need to maintain those facilities? Could he just unblock access and move on? This feels like a cheap excuse.

<comment><USER22> Seemingly (IANAL) he could, in fact, do that. I think his concern would be if he's not properly maintaining it, now the beach near his house is going to fill up with trash, maybe overnight campers, etc. So he's either got to foot the bill to keep it looking nice, or end up with a garbage beach.

So it's definitely a sticky situation. Personally, I'd just open it up, I think people generally treat beaches OK in Cali, but I can imagine his concern.

As another commenter mentions, it seems like a very reasonable expectation that the state would maintain it.

<comment><USER23> If I were him, I would be very thankful for what I have (as I am am anyway) and would share my success with others. In this case it would mean opening it up and footing the bill for the maintenance of the beach. Why not? Does he really need more money pragmatically? It seems like the good will, feeling of joy coming from helping your local community in which you live, and leaving the world better than you found it would be more than enough return for the investment. I'm a "working stiff" and happily contribute to the upkeep, cleanliness and worthy volunteer organizations in the community I live and get far more from such than it takes from me.

Edited- spelling error.

<comment><USER24> Charity is commendable. But if you are being forced by law to do something, it is not charity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Curious signaling as a VC to be involved in something so negatively publicly. The best companies/ entrepreneurs are super picky on who to raise money from and I have already heard a couple companies mention this as a reason they didn't talk to Khosla.

<comment><USER26> Indeed. Perhaps no one has said that to his face till now?

<comment><USER25> Public reputation is a funny thing its not binary and its lagging. By the time people tell you stuff to your face usually its way too late for they have been building their beliefs around who you are way before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wonder what are the downsides of this. The Supreme Court refused to take a previous case, but I think the composition of the court was a little different then. Given that this court is even more in favor of stronger private property protections, does this lawsuit make it possible that it could eventually make it to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court could strike down the entire California coastal access law as unconstitutional.

<comment><USER28> >Supreme Court could strike down the entire California coastal access law as unconstitutional

That would require a very creative reading of the constitution. Congress could pass a law overriding it, and SCOTUS could could uphold that law under the commerce clause (land value in California affects land value in Oregon etc...).

<comment><USER27> From the last section of the Fifth Amendment:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

<comment><USER29> But, it was not taken. Khosla came to acquire the property well after the 1970s, which is when California law allowed the public to use all beaches.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Its even worse in the north east. In Mass. and Maine property owners can (due to an old colonial era law) own property to the _low_ tide line and deny access not only to the access, but to the beach itself.

<comment><USER31> Are you sure it's colonial era law? Elsewhere in the world colonial era law ensured public access up to the high tide line.

<comment><USER30> Exactly, in fact in the British Isles even the land above the high tide line (I forget the exact extent) is public. In New England they wanted to encourage the development of docks (to promote more commerce) and extended ownership to include the land on which docks would be built.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What I'd really like to see in cases like this is the state playing hardball with entitled billionaires.

Why not use eminent domain to build a state road to the beach? I mean this will face a court battle too I'm sure but for a slice of land for a road you're not talking that much money (the property owner needs to be compensated by the Fifth Amendment) and building a few miles of road (I honestly don't know how much) also isn't that expensive.

I mean we're talking lawyer fees kind of money here right? Having a state road once and for all solve this issue, no?

I'm generally against governments simply placing the burden for public services onto private individuals. This is the real problem with things like rent control. If the government feels lower rents for certain individuals is a public good then why does the burden for this fall on the property owner instead of the state?

So one could argue the state should provide public access to something that is currently only accessible over private land, right?

California, build a road.

While we're at it, I've read about this story before but had missed the detail that there was a parking lot, a store and toilets at the site built and maintained by the prior owner.

How exactly is this not dedicating the road to public access? What tortured legal argument swindled the court here?

<comment><USER33> The state doesn't even need to invoke eminent domain to build such a road as Khosla has offered several times to sell them the necessary land. The issue is that the state doesn't want to pay.

<comment><USER34> He's offered _at greatly inflated cost_. $30M for a small strip of land when the entire property was purchased for $32M.

[https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0424-lopez- kh...](https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0424-lopez-khosla-beach- access-20160424-column.html)

<comment><USER33> What is the value of a giant private beach? What is the value of that same beach with public access?

It seems to me that the difference between those two numbers could easily be $30M.

<comment><USER15> The beach isn't owned by Khosla and is not private so I don't understand this argument. The value of the strip of land should be assessed at the market value of having a land route to an already public beach that previously didn't have land access (the beach has always been public, the argument is whether Khosla needs to provide access to it). Given its a tiny beach with moderate attendance, I'd argue the NPV is way less than $30m.

<comment><USER33> A person has something worth X. The government wants to take a piece of that thing that reduces its value to Y. Therefore the government has to give the person (X-Y) dollars.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable way to value what the government is taking away via eminent domain.

<comment><USER32> So if he paid $32M for the land and is arguing the government is destroying $30M of value by making a public beach (by law), well, public then he's arguing the property after the fact is worth $2M.

So he should take $2M for it right? Or he'd have no object to the State giving him $32M and simply taking the whole thing, right?

I'd be somewhat OK with these inflated property values estimates with eminent domain if the owner was forced to take $X-$Y for the remainder from any buyer.

<comment><USER15> That's not even how eminent domain works. You get the market value for the asset seized, not the delta in the market value for the asset remaining post seizure.

<comment><USER33> To the degree that this is true, that seems awfully unfair to people forced to give their property to the government without their consent. The government can just make you poorer overnight? That sounds bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Is the Zonker Harris beach accessway (yes, a real thing) in Malibu open yet?[1] It was "closed for repairs" in 2016. The battles over that were huge years ago.

[1] [https://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway- closed-...](https://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-closed-for- repair/)

</comment><comment><USER36> Isn't this not about the beach but about his private property that leads to the beach? The courts previously ruled in favor of Khosla - <USER3> [https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF). The conclusion is on pages 35 and 36, which notes that this particular piece of land was NOT dedicated to public access and does not fit the common law parameters for implied public access.

</comment><comment><USER37> I feel like this contentious issue has had a net negative effect on his life and that he should just sell the damn place and move on.

It's been years and there's so much else to do!

</comment><comment><USER38> I regularly donate money to Surfrider foundation so that they continue fight for _our_ beaches in California

</comment><comment><USER39> What's weird is how Khosla doesn't yet have the "upper class" mentality. The true upper class is obsessed with legacy and reputation and would ever allow their name to become synonymous with "asshole." And the best he is going to get is a few bucks when the state eminent domains an easement.

</comment><comment><USER40> Context for those who are unfamiliar with the situation: [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=khosla](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=khosla)

If you search HN for "Khosla", you will see approximately half of the first page of results are regarding this issue.

</comment><comment><USER41> I found this provided an interesting window into Vinod Khosla's style. He didn't exactly answer the question asked [https://youtu.be/HZcXup7p5-8?t=2618](https://youtu.be/HZcXup7p5-8?t=2618)

</comment><comment><USER42> Sounds great.

Now let's get some real gems like Hollister Ranch and Vickers Hot Springs opened up again.

</comment><comment><USER43> It is infuriating that one individual

A) has the audacity to believe they are entitled to such a rare publically beneficial property and

B) has the power (both politically and financially) to see this battle through.

<comment><USER44> So do we - or do we not - have decent property rights? It sounds like the land never should have been private in the first place, given how special it is.

Otherwise, if I own it, I should be able to keep others off of it. You don't actually own something that you cannot control access to.

If you disagree, then keep your front door unlocked, because I'm moving in with some friends later this week.

<comment><USER39> Land ownership is a social construct. It's not like ownership over something you make with your hands or your mind, and in the US, all of the land is stolen property anyways so there's no rational claim to any of it.

So land ownership is a right afforded by society to society, like any other kind of legal framework, and part of that is limitations. In earlier parts of human history, if you tried to cut off a population's access to a valuable resource like water by claiming land ownership, they'd just come with sharp implements, impale you on them, and take the land back from you. In modern times, we need to accomplish the same end, but with hopefully no bloodshed.

<comment><USER12> Yes, land ownership is a social construct, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is that, once the ink has dried on the "social contract," the State cannot change the bargain just because it doesn't like the deal it made.

In this case, there is a public trust doctrine, which says that public beaches (up to the high tide line) are dedicated to the use of the public. But the California Court of Appeals has held that this doctrine doesn't apply here, due to an oddity in the history of Khosla's land. It dates from a Mexican land grant: v[https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach- appeal...](https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/04/27/martins-beach-appeals- court-hands-khosla-win-and-loss).

> In a 52-page opinion, the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco > upheld the main element of San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Gerald > Buchwald's 2014 decision in Khosla's favor. _The court found the public does > not have the right under the California constitution to cross Khosla's > property to reach the shoreline._

The California court reached a decision about what the property rights are. The State didn't like the result, so now it's been looking for _other ways to do the same thing._ Even if you don't like Khosla, you shouldn't be happy about that.

<comment><USER45> The state can simply modify the rules to require access, which seems like one possible outcome of this case.

<comment><USER12> Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution contain special protections for private property rights. What you're describing--"requir[ing] access"\--is a property right called an "easement." The State cannot "simply modify the rules" to give itself a property right that didn't exist before.

There is a constitutional way for the state to acquire a property right against a property owner's will: eminent domain. But that requires "just compensation" ( _i.e._ California will have to pay Khosla for the easement). California is hesitant to do that because it would rather try to bully Khosla into giving up the property for free.

<comment><USER39> They should eminent domain a teeny narrow strip right across the center of the property, and try to get it assessed as pro rata on acreage. Maybe two very narrow strips in different places for one way traffic in each direction.

<comment><USER12> That would be a perfectly reasonable and legal thing to do. But California doesn't want to set the precedent of having to actually pay for property rights. Ever since Penn Central gutted the Fifth Amendment, states prefer to use regulation to take private property for public use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Can somebody tell me where the guy gets so much of his temerity?

<comment><USER38> got lucky in the right time in Silicon Valley. Nothing super smart or visionary.

Once he got money - he revealed his true self

<comment><USER47> Are you so sure you wouldn't act the same in his shoes? We're all human.

<comment><USER48> Restrict public access to a beach on a property I never visit (and continue to fight about it). I'm not OP but I can assure you I wouldn't do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Good. He has no right to public beach access.

</comment><comment><USER50> Back when I lived in Pescadero years ago I'd drive past this place very often, most of the time the gate was locked shut. It seemed completely random when it'd be open.

My understanding is that his guy is a Grade A douche bag.

</comment><comment><USER51> The property rights are what they are. Who the owner is should not cloud the argument. If you are a middle class person and have a lawn in front of your house, would you allow the random people to use the lawn for chilling/sleeping/picnic or whatever? Well a rich person happens to own a much bigger and luxurious version of the same front lawn. If the state or whoever owned the thing once upon time sold it, then it is his. The fact that he is stinking rich and we the normal populace would love to have access to the same property is no argument. On the other hand if his purchase did not include exclusivity to the beach then by all means go there and piss around. But just being rich and owning something that most of us can not afford is no justification to snatch it from them. It is just using the justice system/democracy as a mob intent on plunder.

P.S. 1. I don't care who khosla is. But looking at the whole debate it seems the whole opposition is based on the fact that he is a billionaire. I refuse to buy that line of argument. Tell me it is illegal for so an so reason and I will buy. But he is an asshole or he is a billionaire is just emotions doing the talking :-)

P.S. 2. Going by the comments below, I feel compelled to clarify that my comment is not informed by the local laws. I am just a little bit puzzled by the words billionaire and asshole being used synonymously. The law should be same for everyone. A billionaire can hire more lawyers is no reason to call him an asshole in this context even if he has earned the title elsewhere unequivocally.

Update: typo and added a p.s.

<comment><USER52> What? California beaches have been public property since 1976. He bought the house knowing he doesn't own the beach, and that the public has a right to that beach.

No one is allowed to own a beach in California. This isn't about mob rule, this is about a choice Californians made many years ago that says beaches are public.

The beach is not his.

<comment><USER51> Then he should be kicked out of the court in a less than 5 minutes. Why is it being discussed?

<comment><USER52> Are these questions based on reading the article or not? A lot of the things are discussed in the article... the question is not whether the beach is public, it is about what access requirements he has to meet. Does he have to provide a road? Parking?

<comment><USER53> No he doesn't have to provide parking. But he does have to allow access.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Complete History of Lemmings - <AUTHOR> http://www.javalemmings.com/DMA/Lem_1.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> great story. play html+js version online here:

[http://www.oldgames.dk/freeflashgames/arcadegames/playlemmin...](http://www.oldgames.dk/freeflashgames/arcadegames/playlemmings.php)

<comment><USER2> Thanks. There goes my Sunday...

<comment><AUTHOR> Well imagine what would happen if I had pointed you to this: <http://www.oldschooldos.com/>

(and this: <http://boxerapp.com/> \- if you need it)

<comment><USER2> 3 hours of an Indiana Jones adventure game I somehow missed in life. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is cool, I had completely forgotten about this game! Lemmings was the first thing I ever launched from the command line, when i was 6.

</comment><comment><USER4> DMA Design -> Rockstar North

<comment> adam-a Not quite. A large part of the company went on to become the recently deceased Realtime Worlds. Mike Daily, the author, for example worked at RTW until earlier this year, not at Rockstar North.

<comment><USER4> The More You Know™

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If anyone wants to play an opensource somewhat-updated clone of lemmings with penguins, you can try Pingus: <http://pingus.seul.org/welcome.html>

</comment><comment><USER6> Played this on a Tandy back in ye olde daye. Then played a lot of Lemmings 2 on my Gateway 486 DX2/66V.</comment>


Do you use Google Fi? Is it better than ATT? - <AUTHOR> https://fi.google.com/about/ <comment><USER2> I am on Google-Fi. Performance / coverage is pretty good, but I can't compare to ATT.

I will say I feel like the pricing isn't very competitive with other carriers, as it was ~2 years ago. Fi is a great choice for someone who knows they will be on WiFi the majority of the time, and want to keep your wireless bill <50$ a month. Once you start using data, it gets pretty expensive, even with their recent data cap protection.</comment>


Show HN: Get weird with strangers, an experiment in fun and friendship - <AUTHOR> https://voiceroulette.io <comment><AUTHOR> We've had some really interesting use cases... lots of users using it as way to learn english or similar.

Also... [https://twitter.com/FarzaTV/status/1057726550722850816](https://twitter.com/FarzaTV/status/1057726550722850816)</comment>


Show HN: Improved Markdown Links - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/galvez/nuxpress#improved-markdown-links <comment><USER2> > Lazy Link version of comment

      I have done this type of thing for years. It is similar
      to the 'Lazy Link' work by Brett Terpstra[*] and Tyler
      Butler[1]. I have tweaked my own python version of this
      script over the years. My script recognizes Numbered and
      Lazy links, maintains the order of Number Links while
      adding in the Lazy links.

      Importantly, I DO NOT LEAVE MY TEXT IN LAZY FORMAT, but
      run my script to convert everything to numbered and SAVE
      it. In fact, I have VS Code set to automatically run
      every time I save a markdown document. This addresses
      [chalst's point][*] about the maintainability of link
      order.

      While I do not use footnotes in Markdown, Lazy links can
      [extended to footnotes][2]

      I suggest to jgalvez reference the term "Lazy Links" in
      your documents for search-ability of this feature.

      [*]: http://brettterpstra.com/2013/10/19/lazy-markdown-reference-links/

      [1]: https://www.tylerbutler.com/2014/05/markdown-lazy-links-in-python/

      [*]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17547765

      [2]: http://brettterpstra.com/2013/10/30/lazy-markdown-footnotes/

<comment><USER2> > Saved Numbered Link version of comment

      I have done this type of thing for years. It is similar
      to the 'Lazy Link' work by Brett Terpstra[1] and Tyler
      Butler[2]. I have tweaked my own python version of this
      script over the years. My script recognizes Numbered and
      Lazy links, maintains the order of Number Links while
      adding in the Lazy links.

      Importantly, I DO NOT LEAVE MY TEXT IN LAZY FORMAT, but
      run my script to convert everything to numbered and SAVE
      it. In fact, I have VS Code set to automatically run
      every time I save a markdown document. This addresses
      [chalst's point][3] about the maintainability of link
      order.

      While I do not use footnotes in Markdown, Lazy links can
      [extended to footnotes][4]

      I suggest to jgalvez reference the term "Lazy Links" in
      your documents for search-ability of this feature.

      [1]: http://brettterpstra.com/2013/10/19/lazy-markdown-reference-links/

      [2]: https://www.tylerbutler.com/2014/05/markdown-lazy-links-in-python/

      [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17547765

      [4]: http://brettterpstra.com/2013/10/30/lazy-markdown-footnotes/

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you rewrite a paragraph so that the order that links appear is broken, then you need to figure out how to do that reordering on the links. I don't find this more maintainable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. For me that's an edge case, though. Cutting and pasting to reorder seems easier than editing refs too.

<comment><USER4> > For me that's an edge case, though

You rarely edit a paragraph with links?

I think a better way is to specify the number a link refers to but reorder it if it's out of order. So maybe you have 1,2,3 then after an edit it's 1,2,5,4,3 then after publishing it becomes 1,2,3,4,5 while still prserving the order of links (so only changing numbers)</comment></comment></comment>


The future of food: what we'll eat in 2028 - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/the-future-of-food-what-well-eat-in-2028/ <comment><USER2> >Food will be engineered to be more nutritious

Cereal is this way already

>Food will be guilt free

Doubtful. The human body is able to scarf down thousands of calories of food if the emotional state of the mind is operating improperly.</comment>


The Servitude Bubble - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/bad-words/the-servitude-bubble-c9e998c437c6

<comment><USER2> You know those sucky "flexible schedule" jobs at Best Buy and your favorite national chain grocery? Those jobs where you can't even piece together a second or third job, because you'll quickly have to decide which job you keep when two call you in?

That's what I think the sharing economy is trying to be. "I want you to serve me, _now_ , but _only_ now.</comment>


In Major Shift, Apple Builds Its Own Team to Design Chips - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104666426570729.html <comment><USER2> I suspect this is Apple's response to a phenomenon originating from China. I've been reading up about the Chinese knock-off cellphone, or "shanzhai phone", industry. It has become an incredibly lucrative business. Why? Because, it's now possible for a company, comprised of a small group of 3-5 people, to design, build (or rather contract to a factory), and market phones. The technology has gotten to the point where most of the difficult technical design hurdles have been removed by the presence of a cellphone-on-a-chip so- to-speak. Sound familiar to anyone around here? So you have these tiny, agile startups being able to compete with the big boys. A lot of the big boys are still in denial, and will probably try to respond to the shanzhai phone industry by attempting to get the Chinese government to crack down on it. Not Apple; their approach will be to out-innovate these players by playing off the one weakness that they have: that they cannot design their own cellphone-on-a- chip.

I won't make any predictions about whether Apple will still be a dominant player in the cellphone market 10 years from now. However, I will say that this move almost surely guarantees they will still be in the game by then. Other companies that rely on the same logistics and supply chain that the shanzhai guys do probably won't be as lucky unless they change their strategy as well.

UPDATE: The reading I've been doing was on my iPhone and I didn't bookmark everything. But one article was definitely this one: <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/technology/28cell.html>

<comment><USER3> But you know, the whole custom chip "advantage" thing didn't work out so well last time for Apple, now did it?

<comment><USER2> It didn't work out because Apple didn't have the in-house talent to pull it off. They had to rely on IBM and Motorola to do the actual chip design, while Apple focussed on creating the software for these chips. IBM and Motorola started to lose interest in promoting PowerPC in anything but the embedded space and server markets.

This time around, Apple has brought all the talent they need to do all of the design in-house. No more design-by-committee. We're dealing with Steve Jobs after all ;)

<comment><USER4> Building a processor that can compete with the x86 juggernaut is expensive. Look at Intel's budget -- they have the production capacity and engineering resources to do pretty much whatever they feel like doing.

For Apple to attempt to compete with Intel, it would need to be willing to invest billions of dollars just in fab technology with a minimum of 3-5 years before seeing any return on that investment.

And Apple doesn't have the volume... so it wouldn't get the return on investment.

So Apple worked with IBM and Moto, but weren't buying enough CPU's from either one to make much of a difference, so after Jobs ended the clone program, the PPC consortium focussed primarily on embedded computing, in particular networking. Apple wasn't big enough to merit a custom chip, so it had to make do with a chip designed for a network router.

And so on...

What they're doing with this in-house design probably differs in several ways.

One is that it's probably aimed at a hand-held device, or something in a similar form factor. As such, it doesn't need to be able to compete with Intel's flagship x86, so Intel's technology edge isn't a factor.

Two is that being aimed at a hand-held, it's going to be small -- which means a lower cost for manufacture. So it doesn't have to have Intel's manufacturing capacity to gain from economies of scale.

Three is that it doesn't require that Apple builds its own fab; it can develop a design in-house and bid it out for fabrication to any of the big fabrication shops out there, like Chartered, UMC, TSMC, Samsung, etc. The fab process won't offer the same performance (i.e. clock speed ramping) as those of AMD and Intel, but in the hand-held market, that's a lot less important than minimizing power consumption.

And if the first fab partner can't keep up, owning the design means that Apple can follow Microsoft's example and hire a 2nd fab partner to boost production.

I guess that's a long winded way of agreeing with you, but there you go :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Another case where a computer manufacturer ended up designing their own CPUs was the UK company Acorn, developer of the BBC computers. A couple of existing in-house staff, one the author of BBC BASIC, sat down and came up with the first RISC design intended for home computers; the Acorn RISC Machine, now known as ARM.

After a while, Apple came on board and the technology was spun out of Acorn into the new Advance RISC Machines Ltd. with Apple as a shareholder.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_processor#History>

</comment><comment><USER6> When I first read this, I thought "old news." Then I realized that most of Apple's custom IC development work I rememeber was during the 68k and PPC eras. Since Apple migrated to Intel, they've been using third-party provided "north/south bridge" chips and BIOS hardware (albeit a less commonly used version.) Being a hardware focused company, rather than software, doing this kind of design work in house has historically been first nature to them.

</comment><comment><USER7> The suggestion that the move is "also an effort to share fewer details about its technology plans with external chip suppliers..." fits Apple's MO: keeping the lid on future directions.

For the long run it would be a lot more important for Apple to keep a lid on development of the next quantum leap in its business directions (e.g., iPod, iPhone) than just price competition on a netbook or whatever.

</comment><comment><USER8> Apple may become the new Commodore.

That's how Commodore revolutionized the computer industry -- by acquiring MOS Technology and designing their chips in-house to drastically lower costs.

</comment><comment><USER9> This makes some sense, although wouldn't producing custom designed chips (just for Apple) push the price up somewhat? Even with Apple's scale?

<comment><USER10> Apple already gets custom Apple-only chips from Samsung.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The World's Greatest Netbook is soon to be upon us.

Touch screen + OSX + mobile internet = dawn of ubiquitous computing for the masses. Be prepared.

<comment><USER12> Such obvious premature hype. For something not even mentioned in the article.

<comment><USER13> Indeed. One of the merits of this WSJ article is that it _doesn't_ contain ridiculous speculation.

<comment><USER11> Our web traffic for a free iPhone/Touch app suggestions quite the opposite. The device is already a PC in the most pockets of teenagers, it's only a matter of time really before screens get larger, and battery power is realized to its full potential.

I don't expect WSJ to suggest investment or visionary strategies, they just report the news. I could be wrong about where Apple is headed, but what makes Apple (and startups) exciting to follow from my perspective is speculation on what amazing thing they'll do next. Let's not be a negative nacy, slashdot is that way >>>

<comment><USER14> I'd say that future "iTouch" devices are going to compete more with the Kindle than the netbook market. Unless Apple has invented a magic new text input method, the lack of a touch-type keyboard makes it suck as a full laptop.

Of course, Apple could something else up their sleeve (built-in stand and wireless keyboard?) Should be interesting to find out.

<comment><USER15> Apple was rumored to have acquired <http://www.fingerworks.com>. They sell touch keypads and keyboards (TouchStream LP). I have a Touchstream LP (<http://motionobj.com/blog/new-found-minimalism>). It still works excellently after 6-7 years now.

It's a flat surface keyboard with no physical buttons. Besides typing on it, a key thing you can do is gestures, like dragging/expanding out 5 fingers to zoom in, pinching the middle finger and thumb to cut (cut as in cut-and- paste). The gestures are configurable. A basic configuration is switching between Windows, Linux and OS X modes, since the gestures implicitly needs to invoke Cmd/Ctrl, etc. The built-in software (no installation required) depends typos and tries to correct them to compensate for the flat typing surface.

If you use the iPhone and/or newer macbooks/macbook pros, you will recognise that some (I would say only the most basic so far) of this technology have made it there. So if they did acquire this excellent company (which sadly, cause the keyboard to be no longer available on the market, except ebay), it's reasonable to expect more usage of their technology, and its original form - keyboards and keypads. In its current form, you need quite a bit of practice to type well, but who knows how they can improve on it.

<comment><USER16> They were acquired by apple in 2006. Its their technology that is the basis of all the multi touch stuff that apple is doing.

[http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/22/some-iphone- touchscreen-r...](http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/22/some-iphone-touchscreen- roots-splained-by-fingerworks-inventors/)

<comment><USER15> The article only said "few doubt Apple snapped up the pair [co-founders]". It's a rumor. I think it's highly possible. But it's still only a rumor.

<comment><USER17> They've been filing patent applications assigned to Apple since early 2007. I think that's pretty conclusive.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


9 months ago I created a similar app like RememberWin for Android - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys, I'm so happy that whoever the guy who created RememberWin just validated a very similar app that i created 9 months ago for Android. It's a self improvement app and has similar features like RememberWin, but It also have quotes, chat rooms for support, and other extended features.
I'm not saying my app is better, I just noticed a lot of folks in that thread were asking for it on Android and so I thought I'd spread the word.
The app is called ManAPP(Still a working name) The main features are: 1.) Enter and track goals 2.) Journal entries 3.) Reminders 4.) Motivational Quotes 5.) A Chat Room Support
How it works: The user enters a goal, multiple reminders plus motivational quotes keep him motivated. By entering journals the user can track their habits and their triggers of failure. The chat feature is an extra measure of support which helps the user because telling others about your goals increases the chances for success(76% by one study).
This is a screenshot from my actual challenge I am doing right now : http://imgur.com/5PydAIA
I use this app to set goals, and even as a to do list because it has alerts.
Thanks again to entangld who submitted his app, it really validated my idea.
This is the link to his Post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8173934
This is the link to my android app: Homepage: http://manapp.101sys.co/  Download: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.manapp
Lastly, I wanted to add that I believe in the system the app provides because its the same system I've used in real life for the past 10 years. Its helped me accomplish many goals.  I wanted to put it in an app because I wanted others to give it a try. The BIGGEST advice I can give is that you have to be consistent with the journal entries. do 3 days please.. You will notice a certain feeling after 3 days that you are more motivated to keep going.
Thank you all <comment><USER2> Looks cool, but are you sure you want to include a screenshot of your personal goal titled "NoFap"?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not ashamed. The self control one gains from that challenge makes my confidence rise 100%!</comment></comment>


Google CEO: Android update "could replace credit cards" - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/15/technology/google_schmidt_web2/index.htm

<comment><USER2> It continues to amaze me how easily and nonchalantly terms like "near-field communications", "enhanced image technology" and the like are accepted by the general public without raising concern or question as to their intent or necessity.

We live in a world where technology has provided us with amazing advancements and benefits, but it continually butts up against the privacy that we are supposedly guaranteed as citizens of the US (yes, I am only talking about America here since I'm not familiar w/ the laws 'n liberties of other countries). Privacy is a pluralistic concept that must be practiced on a daily basis if it is to survive amongst the constant barrage of "features" being sold to us. I want someone to be able to read the RFID software running on my Droid without my explicit consent no more than I want them to take naked pictures of me when I have shown no possible indication that I have an intent on hurting others.

Sure, turn your wifi/APN/Bluetooth/GPS off and only turn them on when you want to use them (ignoring the battery issues), but this treats our right to privacy as the alternate option, not the default one. I shouldn't have to be forced on a daily basis to constantly defend my default option of privacy, but I am. Do I use credit cards and have GPS turned on? Sure. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Absolutely not.

It's my right to choose when and how I allow someone into 'my world' and every time that choice is either not provided or taken away from me by default, the balance between privacy, publicity, and secrecy is thrown.

<comment><USER3> Are you sure you're not drawing both a strawman argument and false dichotomy here with respect to near-field communications? While I can't speak with authority on how it'll be implemented, what makes you think that the use of NFC will be without your explicit consent? How is this any different than one taking out a credit card and swiping it at a machine?

Regarding WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS... these options aren't default on my Nexus One. I control when I want to use these features. Barring the cases of strange backdoors and apps secretly grabbing your data, I'm not sure what the issue here is.

<comment><USER2> > While I can't speak with authority on how it'll be implemented, what makes > you think that the use of NFC will be without your explicit consent?

It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. I am not singling Google out here, and there most definitely is no strawman argument being made. One need only look at the 'opt-out' world that we live in to see that our privacy is often trumped by what someone else believes will be in our best interest. W/R/T NFC, I liken it to the idea of having a phone number. Yes, I have a phone, but no, that doesn't mean that you can call me if you get a hold of my number. Imagine if you got a phone call from an ice cream store every time you walked by it on a warm day..."Hey man, it's hot outside, c'mon in for some ice cream!".

Those of us who control options such as WiFi/BT/GPS on our phones, we're in the minority. The vast majority of people can't be bothered with toggling these features on and off and don't understand the reasons for doing so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow. My battery-powered cellular telephone, requiring a 2-year contract can replace a piece of plastic with a magnetic strip?

What is next? My automobile can be used to replace credit cards, as well.

I can speed past the Starbuck's window and the barista can simply throw the coffee at me as I drive by.

<comment><USER5> Sure, if starbucks took EZ Pass

<comment><USER4> EZ Pass CEO: "EZ Pass could replace credit cards."

<comment><USER6> US Mint CEO: "money could replace credit cards."

Oh wait ...

<comment><USER4> To be considered 'money', it must be a unit of account, a store of value, and a medium of exchange.

Credit cards are not a unit of account, nor are cellular telephones, nor is the Android OS.

Credit cards are not a store of value. Cellular telephones may be. I have seen old brick phones on eBay sell for a premium in mint condition.

Oh wait...

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_of_value>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_account>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Since the details on his "credit card replacement" were sparse, what caught my eye as more disturbing was:

>Addressing "creepy comments": Schmidt laughed off questions about recent comments he made about Google "knowing where you live and what you do." His take: "In the new world, you have to label jokes."

I'd _like_ to be laughing about that, but just can't quite.

<comment><USER5> I find it remarkable that they still let Schmidt talk on public after he's demonstrated a complete inability to keep sarcastic comments to himself

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would use my phone as a 'credit card', but only if I have to manually tell it to broadcast the signal for that. If it does it all the time, I'd just turn that off, or never set it up in the first place.

<comment><USER9> My guess is that there will be a dedicated app for this. You start the app which then broadcast your credit card info to the reader.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The hard part of replacing credit cards is not the magnetic strip. It is the ability to issue credit limits and charge interest effectively without losing all your money. That is the real challenge to make this work.

</comment><comment><USER11> Steve Jobs would have said: "Android update will replace credit cards". And that's the difference between Google and Apple today.

</comment><comment><USER12> Isn't this already common in Japan?</comment>


IBM Watson's team Q&A on reddit - <AUTHOR> http://blog.reddit.com/2011/02/ibm-watson-research-team-answers-your.html <comment><USER2> Alas, my somewhat-skeptical question came in late and got little support:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/fnfg3/by_request_we_ar...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/fnfg3/by_request_we_are_the_ibm_research_team_that/c1h90u4)

 _What determined the use of exactly 10 racks of 9 maxed-out (32-core, 512GB RAM) 4U Power750 servers? For example, would Watson have done better with more hardware? Or could it have made-do with far less, after all the bulk pre- processing of, and training on, source material was finished?

(My intuitions about the necessary amount of reference data and topical associations – written up at <http://redd.it/fnixm> – made me think way less hardware should have been required, at least at the very end during the match.)_

<comment><USER3> I wonder if this is marketing.

IBM makes BIG HUGE MASSIVE (tm) server clusters that have lots of blinkenlights and require lots of power and are so crazy and huge and awesome that the people working at IBM must be hyper-geniuses!

vs

Watson runs on a laptop.

<comment><USER4> I can't see how that would be marketing. Most people would be more impressed if Watson could run on a laptop, today. I know I would.

<comment><USER2> More impressed? Yes. More willing to spend millions on hardware and software? No.

<comment><USER4> And how would they look if, as the original poster surmised, it were possible for a competitor to produce something similar to Watson on today's laptop? IBM would've spent millions of dollars making themselves look very silly.

It's a similar situation to moon-landing skepticism. If it didn't happen, it would be trivial for the Soviet Union to disgrace and discredit the achievement by faking their own.

<comment><USER2> No other team was given a crack at the Jeopardy spotlight. IBM didn't win against a bunch of other teams for the slot on the human/machine faceoff; it was all orchestrated for them. So give others some time to emerge.

I suspect in a year or two – perhaps sooner, if an organized open competition with real cash prizes is launched – we'll have a better idea of what a lean team could do on the trivia domain. It may not be reduced to a single 2011-equivalent laptop... but it might be a single 2011-equivalent maxed-out- server (rather than a Watson-like server room).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I also feel that they sort of jogged around the buzzing in question. Obviously Watson has to calculate and decide his answer, but there is no denying that he was very fast on the buzzer in the game.

<comment><USER6> From the Q&A with Ken Jennings: [http://live.washingtonpost.com/jeopardy-ken- jennings.html?hp...](http://live.washingtonpost.com/jeopardy-ken- jennings.html?hpid=talkbox1)

        Q: Seemed to me, for many of the questions, that the computer was just
        better at buzzing in. Does Watson have an unfair advantage for timing the
        buzz-in?

        A: As Jeopardy devotees know, if you're trying to win on the show, the buzzer is
        all. On any given night, nearly all the contestants know nearly all the
        answers, so it's just a matter of who masters buzzer rhythm the best.

        Watson does have a big advantage in this regard, since it can knock out a
        microsecond-precise buzz every single time with little or no variation. Human
        reflexes can't compete with computer circuits in this regard. But I wouldn't
        call this unfair...precise timing just happens to be one thing computers are
        better at than we humans. It's not like I think Watson should try buzzing in
        more erratically just to give homo sapiens a chance.

<comment><USER7> Seems to me they should have chosen harder questions.

They should try to pick questions such that the contestants only know about 1/3 of them.

Then lets see how the computer does.

This is (should be) a contest of knowledge not buzzing.

<comment><USER8> But that's true for normal Jeopardy too. The best buzzer person (Ken Jennings or Brad Rutter) wins because of their reflexes and timing. Watson just took that edge off the table and flipped it back at them.

<comment><USER7> I meant change it for regular Jeopardy as well.

<comment><USER5> That's good for a intellectual challenge, but for game shows to work, they need to be questions that players at home, viewers who earn them their advertising dollars, know. They want us to be sitting on the couch shouting out the answers. If we're sitting there clueless, it's a much shorter distance to changing the channel or taking it off the dvr.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Question 3 was the most interesting but data on parsing remarkably incomplete. As far as I can tell, we have only lists of possible ways to break down the data without any explanation of how or why one possible way is preferred to another.

Case in point (1):How it decides to treat "Treasure Island" as a proper noun. We see only "modifies(Treasure, Island)" -- indicating that it treats treasure and adjective modifying island, then suddenly in the semantic assumption phase they are treated as a compound.

Case in point (2). We are given:

            island(Treasure Island)

            location(Treasure Island)

            resort(Treasure Island)

            book(Treasure Island)

            movie(Treasure Island)

I assume what he is giving us is method names written in Java with "Treasure Island" as the single argument that return a value indicating the likelihood that "Treasure Island" is what the method name refers to. This is extraordinarily interesting. However, it is not at all clear which methods are chosen and why, if they are run in some sort of sequence or simultaneously, etc .

Case in point (3) : "Builds different semantic queries based on phrases, keywords and semantic assumptions." This is very vague but indicates that Watson generate a set of queries which it runs against its own internal search engine ranking answers presumably based on the quality of the initial search and the confidence of the answer. Would be very very cool to have an example.

All in all, wets the appetite but leaves one wishing for more hearty fare (or a job at IBM!).

<comment><USER10> A while ago I submitted a link to a blog post( <http://bit.ly/igJeRB> ) I did that goes into the system in a bit more depth, based on a paper IBM published - there's a link to the paper (open access) there too.

For your cases, from what I got from reading papers:

(1) You could spend two weeks only reading papers on noun-compound semantics. Try a google scholar search just to get an idea of the volume of research. A simple technique to test how idiomatic a phrase is would be a Bayesian type test to see how many times "Treasure Island" occurs in a corpus divided by how many times "Treasure X" and "X Island" occurs. In this case the capitalization probably cues it to look up Treasure Island in Freebase. Interesting thought actually - do the contestants also get the question as text? I think they do, so they get capitalization.

(2)I would be pretty sure these are not Java methods, I'd say they are logical predicates representing the fact that 'Treasure Island' is returned as being a member of the set of things indicated by the predicate, as returned either by syntactic processing (island) or from the knowledge bases (WordNet, Yago, Freebase, dbpedia)

(3) there isn't a worked example in the paper, but my idea of this is that it's basically Watson's way of figuring out what queries to type into it's unstructured text corpus (they have a corpus of web snippets indexed with lucene)

<comment><USER11> For more on (2), see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Some interesting nuggets in here, I had watched the Nova specials on Watson etc. I would have liked to have had a question about the team, their work stress etc., but otherwise a fun read. I especially enjoyed the step by step parsing and examination of a question in the process of how Watson would work through it.

</comment><comment><USER12> One could make the argument that since Watson is trained with English information and English Jeopardy! clues, English _is_ Watson's native language. Sure, there's Java down to Assembly beneath Watson's understand of English, but the same goes for native English-speaking humans. English speakers aren't biologically any different than, say, French speakers.</comment>