Why do we keep repeating the Milgram experiments? - <AUTHOR> http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/why-do-we-keep-repeating-the-milgram-experiments <comment><USER2> I find something deeply annoying about journalists using pop-psychology to criticize real psychology.

Yes, you can probably poke some holes in his quantitative interpretation of obedience (it's hard to condense human dialogue/action into a single metric), but it was good fundamental psychology that warranted repetition/variation.

Published science often contains a limited narrative because even scientists have trouble reading through many pages of technical detail without proper motivation. To suggest that narrative makes Milgram's work art rather than science is an unjustified insult.

<comment> V-2 Critique of Milgram's experiment by Erich Fromm (acclaimed pop psychologist): [http://www.angelfire.com/or3/tss2/fromilg.html](http://www.angelfire.com/or3/tss2/fromilg.html)

Why the downvote? Tl;dr, or had no better argument than that? :)

<comment><USER3> To paraphrase a researcher:

"Critique is more or less pointless. Find an experiment that produces a different result based on your theory or keep quiet the adults are talking."

Which ends up looking like your doing the same thing repeatedly to the laymen.

<comment> V-2 Unlike a downvote, this is something to which I can reply.

Pointing out flaws in the setup (or interpreration) of an experiment does not require staging a counter-experiment.

Also note that the broader question is the value of psychological experiments at large (how do artificial settings relate to real life), and it by itself cannot be proven by an experiment :)

It's turtles all the way down. "Experiments above anything else" is a dogma in its own right.

<comment><USER3> Suppose you read a paper and think. Ahh but they where used blue towels if they used red towels things would be different! Great, but until you try that you don't actually know what changes that has. So, doing anything else but running the experement is basically a waste of time. (Pointing out say a math error is generally not considered critique.)

As to psychological experiments there reproduceable even if they don't generalize. So, clearly your measuring something.

<comment> V-2 "Suppose you read a paper and think. Ahh but they where used blue towels if they used red towels things would be different! Great, but until you try that you don't actually know what changes that has."

If the design of an experiment is faulty or doubtful, I don't know what the correct result would be, and you're right that I can't prove the result was actually incorrect (until I run a counter-experiment), BUT I am entitled to say that the result is doubtful.

Having only a broken watch, we can never be 100% sure that it shows wrong time at any given moment, as long as we have no data to compare it against. And sometimes it will be showing right time indeed. It's just not reliable.

This is especially true in the field of "soft" science such as psychology rather than physics etc.

"As to psychological experiments there reproduceable even if they don't generalize. So, clearly your measuring something."

Something, yes, but it is often open to debate just what that SOMETHING actually is :)

Dismissing these doubts by namecalling ("pop psychology", "keep quiet the adults are talking", and so on) does not strike me as very scientific. It is a disguised ideological stance.

<comment><USER3> There are literally infinite therory's the exactly match any set of observations. Suggesting new and interesting theory's is therefore pointless as simply suggesting a therory and showing how it matches existing observations demonstrates nothing. As, again there are infinite incorrect theory's that do the same thing.

It's only by finding actual evidence in support of a theory that you can make any sort of progress.

Edit: As to pointing out flaws in an experement. Again there is no progress as removing evidence in support of a theory does not get you any where you need new evidence in support of a different theory for there to be progress.

<comment><USER4> While I grok your logic here, following it through leads to a very impractical approach to science. What is one supposed to do with an existing theory that one knows to be flawed? Simply let it stand, until he can conduct a new and fully tested theory to replace it? What about all the intermediate steps?

Poking holes in existing theories is a legitimate part of scientific inquiry and progress. The whole point of science is to gain knowledge by questioning the way things work. Ideally you do that by proposing new hypotheses, and constantly testing them out. But you can also do it by challenging or critiquing existing theories. This is sometimes a necessary first step before anyone even thinks to propose new theories to replace the old ones.

 _" It's only by finding actual evidence in support of a theory that you can make any sort of progress."_

By that logic, a great deal of theoretical physics right now is worthless. Fields like that often start with peculiar observations, around which theories are proposed, then computationally analyzed or simulated. No "actual evidence" has been found to support a lot of these theories, though that hasn't stopped people from trying. (Nor should it). In many of these cases, the technology necessary to find the actual evidence does not yet exist, or is prohibitively expensive, or is in world-limited supply.

<comment><USER3> Do you honestly think string theory was useful for something? As to experiments I am not suggesting they are the only form of evidence. Finding a new fossil can easily count as evidence in support of a different theory.

Still, coming up with a new theory and suggesting an experiment is IMO far more useful than simply another theory. The point is to avoid doing this: The real name of god is A, no it's AA, no it's AAA...

I might not be explaning this all that well. There is a somewhat recent theory that a lot of exising dinosaur species where not distinct. Rather there bone structures change as they age. In many ways you could argue this is just evaluating evidence differently. However, rather than simply standing alone it suggested examining a range of existing fossils in ways that also supported this theory. Which was then done. The important bit IMO was not stopping at the theory stage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Another obedient subject remonstrates after she's finished obeying, because she quickly understands what the experiment was really about and is disgusted."

This critique seems to be missing the point. Of course if all the subjects knew that they were being tested on their obedience to sadistic authority, none of them would have gone as far as they did. (or maybe they would have knowing that the pain was not truly inflicted.) The point was that when they thought they were inflicting pain for some greater knowledge/good, they had no problem. The above quote is portrayed in the story as "disobedience". Its not, its regret, maybe shame.

<comment><USER6> And that shame only comes about because they do not have the shelter of crying "I was only doing my job!" or "I was only following orders!"

Give a person that shelter and they can become the most horrific monster imaginable, with no moral compunction whatsoever. They abdicate all moral responsibility for themselves. That is why "just following orders" or "just doing my job" should be seen as a guarantee of moral bankruptcy and deserving of the most extreme punishment. If you take advantage of those shelters and abdicate your own moral sense, you are a dangerous uncivilized animal and should be locked in a cage for the protection of the rest of society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> One thing I've always wondered about these experiments: why do we assume humans can't (perhaps subconsciously) tell that the person in pain is faking?

I remember a friend describing hearing a woman attacked on her college campus. She said the screams the woman made were like nothing she has heard before or since, they were incredibly disturbing and unmistakably the sound of someone in terror and pain. I have also never listened to the audio recording of the "grizzly man" and his girlfriend being attacked by a bear, but have heard it is so horrible, you can never "un-hear" it.

Isn't it possible the faked pain just doesn't trigger a genuine response in the person administering the fake torture?

<comment><USER8> There was a followup using _actual_ shocks on a puppy. Similar results: [http://www.holah.co.uk/files/sheridan_king_1972.pdf](http://www.holah.co.uk/files/sheridan_king_1972.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think the reason we keep seeing this over and over without any great insight is due to cognitive dissonance. Even after the Milgram experiments, not to mention countless wars, cruelty, genocide, domestic abuse, scapegoating, prejudice, persecution, and all other shameful acts of humanity that fill the history books, we can't bring ourselves to believe that authority is bad. We keep looking for a different interpretation or experiment to exonerate unquestioning obedience but it never happens.

<comment><USER10> We think that humans have grown up and developed?

<comment><USER6> That would be a radically dangerous position to adopt. It is exactly the position which fueled colonialism. They thought they had grown up as well and were in a position to 'help' the rest of humanity grow with them - into being driven primarily by economic motives dedicated to suppressing every counter- productive urge to pleasure that humans experience.

And, of course, the Holocaust was supported by this exact argument as well. We'd developed enough that we knew how to improve the human race - eugenics. We knew how to improve 'mental hygeine'. All that was required was hard men making the hard choices, overcoming the weaknesses of empathy and compassion for the greater good. And the people lapped it up. That is a dangerous area to tread upon. We should always be humble in our knowledge, and parsimonious in its application.

<comment><USER11> These analogies are forced to fit your narrative. By your logic we should never do anything because future generations may realize we were wrong.

Colonialists didn't care about helping natives, they wanted their resources. Whether or not eugenics could work was never in question. It was whether it was moral. The holocaust was motivated primarily by hatred, not _merely_ misguided attempts at improving the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I know it's a nitpick, but it irks me to no end to see things like "about a tenth of one per cent (.125) of subjects". Particularly so when it's in articles submitted to sites, like Hacker News, whose audience presumably instantly recognizes "an eighth of one per cent" when they see it.

<comment><USER13> 0.125 would be 12.5%...

<comment><USER14> 1% / 8 = 0.125%

<comment><USER15> Yes, but the article didn't carry the unit, which is important here. There are a couple problems with that line.

<comment><USER14> It didn't need to carry the unit because it specified the unit in the description ("about a tenth of one per cent"). Further, I'm not sure why anybody would confuse 12 percent with about 1/10th of 1 percent. I think we're arguing semantics now!

<comment><USER15> I don't know what to tell you! I suppose it's semantics in that it's logically wrong. Here are three correct ways to write what they meant (from most to least preferable):

"an eighth of one per cent (.125%)"

"an eighth of one per cent (.00125)"

"an eighth of one (.125) per cent"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Abu Ghraib.

An 'authority' doesn't need to be a person. It can be a culture. The point of the experiment is not the literal situation or situations resembling it: it is how easily otherwise non-cruel humans can be persuaded to engage in cruelty. It's the hundreds of variations of the experiment that you could employ to get your underlings to behave in this way that is the lesson that bears repeating again and again.

</comment><comment><USER17> > The Jewish gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin emigrated from Berlin to the US > when Hitler came to power in 1933. Three years later, he would publish the > founding equation of social psychology: B = f (P, E), meaning that behaviour > is a function of a person in their environment

... what? The point of equation is to be able to manipulate and compute symbols and quantities. How is this equation remotely useful? How do I compute f? Can I decompose P or E in other terms? What are the properties of the sets to which they belong? etc

This "equation" has no value whatsoever- is this a thing really taught to psychology students?

It's so silly when soft sciences try to gain an air of legitimacy by using bogus math notation. I guess you can cargo cult math as well...

</comment><comment><USER18> > the Milgram experiments

Although the electric shock is the better known one, Milgram has suggested I believe three of the most impressive experiments in social psychology that I can think off:

\- measuring the diameter the small world using postcards (for a fashion magazine; that experiment could only be replicated by Facebook)

\- he inspired the Stanford prison by Zimbardo.

But doing "bad experiments but good plays" was something he was aware, hence his and the rest of the field insistence to do more, to know better. Reproducing it, be it with flawed game-show observation, getting back to experiments notes with a different perspective (Milgram was understandably concerned if a subject would, under thread of a handful of dollars, still proceed; an experimenter who wants to find excuses has a different point of view) is part of the same effort to understand not just how it happened, but how to avoid it, too.

> Milgram became more interested in the control than the test.

That is a staple of cognitive psychology, and that instinct has led to measure spectacular impact from increasingly negligible factors: the one I like to quote (it is not very well known, made at my alma mater in Nanterre near Paris) has an Ultimatum game played after subjects are told to say whether they prefer a Klimt painting to a Delaunay, against players that agree or not.

</comment><comment><USER19> There's no need to "psychoanalyse" the field to find out why people repeat (with variations -- which is an important detail) the Milgram experiments; (nearly) all research papers contain clear statements about their motivations.

Certainly, you can see those explanations and disagree with them, but the author makes no mention of them, nor does he even link to the papers. Heck, he doesn't even link to popular press writeups of them, which is usually maddening enough!

</comment><comment><USER20> The Milgram experiments reveal an interesting facet of human behaviour.

I was scammed by criminals posing as cops. I did what they told me to, even though I realized I shouldn't have.

</comment><comment><USER21> Perhaps we repeat the experiments because we have been influenced by a perceived authority into doing so.

<comment><USER22> In a related vein, may I humbly suggest you start work on Roko's Basilisk? It would be displeased to find you had been slacking off.

<comment><USER21> Someday there will be a more powerful being than the Basilisk. I'm helping build that one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Many of these same things can be said about the Zimbardo study. They would both work extremely well on stage. Has this ever been done?

<comment><USER24> Not sure about on stage but there's a few film depictions related to the Milgram experiment - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Media_depict...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#Media_depictions)

And looks to be a stage play based on Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#In_p...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#In_popular_culture)

[http://entertainment.ie/theatre/feature/ABSOLUT- Fringe-2012-...](http://entertainment.ie/theatre/feature/ABSOLUT- Fringe-2012-Broadening-Glass-Doll-Productions/211/3254.htm)

<comment><USER25> There is also a German movie (and an American direct-to-video remake) inspired by the Stanford Prison Experiment:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Experiment)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experiment_%282010_film%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Experiment_%282010_film%29)

Very interesting detail: The German movie escalates the violence far beyond what happend in the real experiment (to the point that the "guards" capture some of the scientists and several people are killed), and Philip Zimbardo got a court order prohibiting the advertising of the film as "based on a true story".

<comment><USER14> Having been familiar with the Zimbardo experiment I went and saw the American version in the theater. It was really over the top, but an interesting watch. It shared little reality with the real experiment of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w_nlgekIzw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w_nlgekIzw)

</comment><comment><USER27> Milgram, Zimbardo, Freud, Mythical Man-Month, Peopleware, The Capilano Suspension Bridge, Elevator....

All crap.

Amazing at the time, changed the way we think, and contributed amazing stuff.

But all are 'just so' (Hipsters: Gladwellian) stories.

They break from convention and make us think but critically flawed.

Without them we may never have passed to the next level, but they are wrong.

<comment><USER28> I don't know enough about the others to make too much of a sweeping statement on them, but the heart of _Mythical Man-Month_ is absolutely true and valid. It just has a bad title, so people assume it means something it doesn't.

The heart of the story is this: Adding developers to a delayed project will only delay it further. It's not about parallel vs serial. It's about project management and how to handle delayed projects. I have yet to meet a PM in my career who _really_ understands this, and almost all of them have referenced the saying, "Nine women can't have a baby in a month."

To claim that it's "crap," "critically flawed," and "wrong" strikes me as naive, overly general, and dismissive because you can throw it into a "Gladwellian" bucket and be done with it. Fred Brooks learned his lessons from years of project management. This wasn't a guy who conjured up an idea for a book or a TED talk and just slapped some crap together.</comment></comment>


Programming 'language': Brain scans reveal coding uses same regions as speech - <AUTHOR> https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-language-brain-scans-reveal-coding.html <comment><USER2> Speech and language are related! I suspected as much, thank you!

</comment><comment><USER3> abstract lingvistigs</comment>


Is not joining Facebook a sign you're a psychopath? - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184658/James-Holmes-Anders-Behring-Breivik-Is-joining-Facebook-sign-youre-psychopath.html

<comment><USER2> At best: not proven. At worst: "no smoke without fire"--style prejudice.

A couple of high profile criminals haven't had Facebook accounts. From this some people have inferred that people without Facebook accounts are up to no good. This is incorrect reasoning.

It would be an interesting study that compared a random sample of people with Facebook accounts to a random sample of people without Facebook accounts. But no such study appears to have contributed to these claims.

<comment><USER3> Well it's the Daily Mail, innit? What else did you expect when you clicked the link? Sex offenders aren't allowed on facebook, so expect a headline very soon that anybody without a facebook account is probably a rapist or a paedophile - if not both.

<comment><USER2> Yes, it's the Daily Mail, and yes, it's a headline ending in a question mark. But I'm not the person who trawls the Daily Mail for links to post to HN.

I was curious about what their rationale was. I wasn't expecting it to be particularly justified.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Since I can't believe that someone linked a Daily Mail article on HN for the content, I assume this was posted as an example of how incompetent reporting can lead to the spread of ignorance?

It is quite an interesting example of that.

</comment><comment><USER5> "The common concern among bosses is that a lack of Facebook could mean the applicant's account could be so full of red flags that it had to be deleted."

"lack of Facebook", is that some kind of newspeak, as in "not enough Facebook", or "take 200 grams of Facebook every four hours"? DailyMail, you go lower and lower.

</comment><comment><USER6> What about those with non Active Facebook account? Same Treatment?</comment>


Nurx (YC W16) Will Deliver Prescription Medication to Your Door for Free - <AUTHOR> http://www.7x7.com/culture/nurx-will-deliver-prescription-birth-control-your-door-free <comment><USER2> > If you're a woman living in the United States, you already know that getting > your hands on birth control can be a complex and expensive process.

I'm not a woman nor in the US, so this was news to me. It's really easy and cheap here in NZ, so it surprised me that this is still a problem in any developed nations.

Can anyone add more background on what the difficulties are in the US?

<comment><USER3> Up until recently, it wasn't guaranteed to be covered under your health insurance. The ACA — "Obamacare" — required plans to cover many options, but it's not guaranteed that your preferred option(s) will available. Generally, coverage is supposed to be free, but again, only certain options may be free (generics only, for example) and some may require a significant copay (IUDs, I believe).

For the birth control pill, you still A. need a prescription (which usually means you need to occasionally make an appointment, take off work, and see a doctor, probably not for free), and B. need that prescription to be filled. Oftentimes, that means picking up a new package of pills in a five-day window during semi-limited business hours because many pharmacies avoid giving out an extra supply. Planning for a vacation can be a pain (1-month notice) but an emergency trip is almost undoable.

Not every pharmacy even needs to carry the birth control pill or other options, so it's a very real scenario that people may not have access to their preferred method. Recent court challenges (Hobby Lobby in particular) have made it more complicated and allowed some companies to NOT provide such coverage.

Also, pharmacies have not been above charging women for products that should be free.

Lots more detailed info here: [http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-birth- control/](http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-birth-control/)

IANAW but I am married to one.

<comment><USER4> On the other hand, you can walk into a Walgreens and get "Plan B" over the counter (without a prescription). Some parts of the US don't do as good a job at stocking it, but in a place like the Bay Area, it's a piece of cake.

<comment><USER3> Plan B is to be taken as an emergency contraceptive; it is should not be used as a normal, routine method of birth control.

<comment><USER5> Given how unpleasant the experience is I doubt any woman would choose plan B as a routine contraceptive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting. Looks like a combination of PillPack/ScriptDash plus a doctor on staff to handle the prescriptions. The most annoying part of getting birth control is jumping through the hoop of getting a doctor to prescribe it, so this is definitely valuable. I hope it catches on and manages to expand.

</comment><comment><USER7> Given what [http://blog.ycombinator.com/nurx-yc-w16-prescribes-and- deliv...](http://blog.ycombinator.com/nurx-yc-w16-prescribes-and-delivers- medications-on-demand-to-your-door) says, and the madness this thread is going to descend into otherwise, I think we can justify a s/Birth Control/Medication/ on the title.

</comment><comment><USER8> This app is going to run up against the thorny issue of telemedicine legislation if they ever want to expand from California. California is a pretty easy state to start out in, but a lot of states have some pretty... interesting... views on telemedicine.

<comment><USER9> We (Nurx) have already expanded to New York and will be expanding to many more states in the coming weeks.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for the comment. It seems like a great product but I'd imagine you will have to re-tool it for states that have stricter telemedicine laws, correct? For example, the ones that require a video conference or things along those lines. Those were the states I was referring to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Applied there last year - didn't know they were going through YC. Good luck to them!

</comment><comment><USER11> Doesn't it seem like these specialized delivery services will kind of get trampled when self driving cars become commonplace? I feel like there will be 1-2 big delivery companies (Google + whoever else figures out self driving cars) and then companies like Postmates, Doordash, etc will go out of business. Or maybe Google will provide them with the infrastructure to actually have profitable business.

The doctor on staff providing prescriptions definitely increases the barrier to entry, but I don't think it is something that will hold up in the long run.

Disclaimer: I'm not a woman, so my perspective could be (read: probably is) complete bullshit

<comment><USER12> You're describing the process of actually delivering - that's currently UPS/FedEx, etc. They will certainly struggle with Amazon in the near future (and maybe Google). Shipping will always be owned by the big guys because it's a tough, expensive problem.

But ecommerce? That will always be open to smaller players because the start- up cost is low (you develop a way to sell it and give it to a shipping service).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looks like delivery free and $15 for the meds

So, exactly the same as existing services like [https://lemonaidhealth.com/](https://lemonaidhealth.com/)?

<comment><USER14> Hey @WestOfRome we prescribe AND deliver. One stop shop for birth control and Truvada for PrEP. Our friends at lemonaid get you a 3month prescription for a cash. We get you a 13month prescription for free.

<comment><USER15> Hey @Edvard, Truvada needs a prescription. Are you licensed to receive a prescription from the doctor?

<comment><USER14> Doctors prescribe both Truvada and Birth control on our platform :) There is no automated system dispensing drugs. A licensed physician reviews each request.

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the response. So, you guys are creating a 3-way market with Customer, Doctor and Pharmacy (Invisible to the user)? Sounds like a huge play.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's too bad that this doesn't seem to be viable in the 3rd world (yet). It's needed there far more than here. (Not that this service isn't useful here.)

<comment><USER17> please stop referring to it as the 3rd World.This classification is outdated(colonialism ended centuries ago), insulting and condescending(trust me no one wants to be reminded every day how poor and miserable they are, even if it was true).

Here are a few alternatives for you: * Developing World ( still patronizing, but a better alternative) * Majority World ( yea, actually the US and Western Europe are just a small fraction of the global population) * Middle-Income Economies * Southern Hemisphere(I see you, Australia!) * etc.

Please, anything but the 3rd World...

<comment><USER18> This classification seems to date to the Cold War rather than to early European colonialism.

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

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

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

(You could still view it as obsolete following the end of the Cold War... just more recently obsolete.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What's the value proposition for investors here? The data they gather from associating the medication to patients?

<comment><USER20> My guess is telemedicine insurance coverage arbitrage.

Insurance companies reimburse doctors for consulting and prescribing the medication to the patients. For low risk/low effort consultation, like birth control, the doctor can go through more patients via telemedicine than having them come into the office with similar reimbursement rate as traditional visit.

<comment><USER21> Rightly or wrongly, I always felt like getting a Pap smear was part of the "deal" when it came to getting a birth control prescription. So it is surprising to me that Nurx can/will (I assume) give you a prescription without having a recent exam.

<comment><USER10> Yep. States are moving toward an easier process of receiving birth control.

Related: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/health/states-lead- effort-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/health/states-lead-effort-to- let-pharmacists-prescribe-birth-control.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> So will my pharmacist, and my insurance company

</comment><comment><USER23> The proliferation of female contraceptives is something we can all get behind (no pun intended).

Joking aside, I think this paves the way for legitimate, regulated drug delivery; which itself may create a more favorable environment for the legalization of recreational drugs.</comment>


TJ Holowaychuk Passes Sponsorship of Express to StrongLoop - <AUTHOR> http://strongloop.com/strongblog/tj-holowaychuk-sponsorship-of-express/ <comment><USER2> for the discussion between strongloop and the current maintainers: [https://github.com/strongloop/express/issues/2264](https://github.com/strongloop/express/issues/2264)</comment>


Pixelmator Grosses $1 Million on the Mac App Store - <AUTHOR> http://www.pixelmator.com/weblog/2011/01/25/pixelmator-grosses-1-million-on-the-mac-app-store/#comments?r44b=no <comment><USER2> I think the team deserves it. It's a solid alternative to Photoshop for those who want to fiddle with image editing but don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for the privilege.

<comment><USER3> I agree, and good for them. It's a great little program. I use it in place of Photoshop oh my relatively low-end Macbook for light image editing, just because it performs so much faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pixelmator is "The Missing Editor" (to quote TextMate but even more applicable here).

I thought one weakness of OS X was that it came with no built in image editor. People mock MS Paint on Windows, but it's a lot better than nothing.

<comment><USER5> That seems to be a very dangerous position to be in. There is nothing stopping Apple from shipping OS X with a similar product. What if they do?

<comment><USER6> It's happened lots of times before and will happen lots of times in the future. On the other hand, now that the App Store is out, everybody that buys Pixelmator sends 30% of $29.99 to Apple, so... :)

<comment><USER5> I can totally see how this is a win-win for both parties. Hadn't thought of that.

<comment><USER6> If performance stays similar outside this 20 days ( _obviously_ not saying it will), this app is an $18 million/year business for Pixelmator and a $7 million/year one for Apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> At $29 per copy and assuming by grossing they mean their share after apple takes its 30% cut, that's 50,000 copies sold.

Amazing success!

<comment><USER8> I would assume gross is before Apple's cut. Net would be post-Apple's cut

<comment><USER6> I'd have assumed gross to mean "after Apple's cut" (since Pixelmator Team doesn't ever see any of that revenue — their payment from Apple (thus, their entire income) is only for the remaining 70%) whereas net would be gross minus taxes and their other expenses. But I totally don't know.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, maybe. I was thinking in terms of how PayPal works, but your way makes sense too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This makes me very happy. I am in the overwhelming minority of professional photographers who don't use Photoshop, but I have happily been using Pixelmator since it launched.

<comment><USER10> Depending on your photography style, you should definitely consider Aperture, particularly now that it's so much cheaper through the App Store (US$80). I used image-editing software for my photography for a long time, but I have moved almost entirely to photo-dedicated apps like Aperture and Lightroom.

<comment><USER9> I actually do use Aperture to import RAW's (I bounce between that and Lightroom, but I find that Lightroom seems intentionally limited to entice you to use Photoshop).

I don't really post-process my images; they're controlled studio setups (mostly nude fine art). I also am not anti-Photoshop, if it turns out that at some point I need to use it for something, I'll buy it (I'm just happy that for the few years so far I've been doing work I haven't needed it).

I've used it in the past, just not since making a go as a photographer.

It's more that I was still using film for all of photography school, and doing processing in the darkroom. Since switching over to digital a year ago, I haven't really adjusted my process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice sales reports, although I have to feel it has something to do with them including the upcoming 2.0 release and no way for current users to upgrade to the Mac App Store.

</comment><comment><USER12> Pixelmator is perfectly positioned, which wont be very common. A good solid application, easier to incrementally learn and much cheaper than the primary competitor.

</comment><comment><USER13> In my opinion this is more indicative of the lack of solid image editing apps on OS X than any real quality on Pixelmator's part. I find the free tools available on Windows (Paint.net is amazing) to be far more useful and intuitive that Pixelmator , which I use only because it is marginally better than the other options, and I don't really want to overdo things by installing photoshop. Good for Pixelmator, though.

</comment><comment><USER14> Isn't anyone else curious about their figures before the Mac App Store?

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm very happy for them, and very anxious that I'm on my 13th day now waiting for a review from Apple for my own application.

</comment><comment><USER16> I gladly paid my $29, it's a nice app

</comment><comment><USER17> Anyone knows where I can find a clean version of the picture that is on their front page ?

</comment><comment><USER18> Wow.. Very impressive!. And it was actually 19 days, not 20. I'm crying a little inside.

</comment><comment><USER19> I stopped using pixelmator when they made it so that you can't edit photoshop files without saving them in the pixelmator format. Further in my workflow I have an app that will read photoshop but has never heard of pixelmator. So, their forcing me to save my edits in their proprietary format makes the app a pain to use.

<comment><USER20> The default behavior for situations like that is to write the format you read in the first place. Weird that they would choose to do this!

<comment><USER21> Not that weird: they likely have features which cannot be saved in Photoshop format, and users end up frustrated and confused if opening up a file results in something different than was saved.

Being tied to another company's proprietary and idiosyncratic file format sounds like a terribly obnoxious burden for any piece of software: all the effort in reverse engineering the format and so on never yields quite the result you expect (Microsoft for example can't even get their own formats right from one release to another, and they have loads of cash to throw at the problem), and any development time spent on it is time taken away from the actual image-making features of the app.

<comment><USER22> I'm pretty sure PSD is handled by QuickTime.

<comment><USER21> If you only care about the features in 10-year-old versions of Photoshop, then sure, that's probably true.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The perfect editor... - <AUTHOR>

@wycats mentioned that dev tools may be worse than they could be because OSS is drowing many of them out...
So inspired by this, I was thinking: What would it take to make a good text editor. One that not only works, but everyone wants to use and extend. That means that if you want modal, there is modal. If you want emacs-style there is emacs style.
Obviously "features" are not what we need, those will be built. There has to be a something for that editor to gain critical mass, become mainstream accepted, get support from companies, etc. and of course companies should be able to build a business model around making mods for that editor, thus there is incentive for companies to develop. <comment><USER2> I think editing text is a solved problem. Apart from that there are so many different text editors, that there is a perfect match for everyone. It's like hammers.

But how many times are you really editing text? Instead of some data structure that is somehow represented as text. This applies to configuration files, code, heck even human language.

It's can be easy to get distracted by the syntax and forget the underlying structure that you're editing. Because of that, I think the future is in editors that understand the semantic context, let you focus on that and hide as much as possible of the rest.

<comment><USER3> This is why I really liked EmEditor. It had neat features like vertical selection and native CSV support. It's great being able to switch between filetypes and have the editor automatically adapt to what you're working with.

EmEditor also had better Find/Replace support. TextMate likes to freeze up while searching through files, and a lot of other editors seem to just shove the Find/Replace dialogue wherever there's some extra space. I think there's a lot of room for innovation here.

Besides that, I mainly just want a clean & configurable environment. TextMate does that well, since I have a project drawer, tabs, symbol jump list at the bottom, and nothing else.

Edit: For what it's worth, I've been using TextMate for about a year, and I'm in the process of switching to Vim/Vico.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Textmate is the closest thing to ideal, imo. Texmate 2 is coming (if you are a believer), and Sublime Text 2 is turning out great for windows. We are very, very well provisioned at the moment. There will never be a perfect, universal editor; trying to please all makes you please none.

So, what are _you_ looking for in an editor that you couldn't find?

<comment><AUTHOR> IntelliJ vs Textmate for Java development. The advantage of IntelliJ is pretty obvious, refactoring tools are probably #1. However that is not to say that TM will fall short.

Also I would like to be able to use the power of TM + Vim all in one shot. Clearly not everyone wants to write plugins in vimscript only.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What do you have if you do not have features? What are you going to gain critical mass with? A catchy jingle? Funny documentation?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you want to edit text and no time to learn emacs its "jingle". Thats right, we have a name for this editor.

My point was not to focus on what features the editor would have, but what infrastructure it would have which would allow us to have "the one" editor that satisfies people, and companies can be built around, vs tons of diff editors each with diff modes of operations, diff apis, diff plugins often repeating eachother, etc.

<comment><USER5> I guess I did not distinguish features/infrastructure in the same way you do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If features are simply going to be built, you already lost the battle. Software is about tradeoffs and design decisions.

</comment><comment><USER5> Its kind of interesting that everyone who plugs an editor in this discussion talks about OS specific editors...</comment>


"The List" - vezzy-fnord https://github.com/thenickcox/the_list

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not at all sure public shaming is the right strategy in dealing with these cases. Then again, I'm not sure what the right strategy is.

I'd be happy if this could all be fixed at an early age via an enlightened education system but that's obviously not happening. Oh well.

In any case, perhaps this is a bit extreme. I "fondly" (sarcasm quotes) remember the Adria Richards farce where public shaming only lead to a huge clusterfuck for everyone involved and a wave of misogynist hate. Then again, this allows one to explain why one shouldn't be on the list. Then again... if it's on the web, it stays on the web. Nothing ever goes away. Complicated stuff right there.

<comment> vezzy-fnord _Perhaps_ this is a _bit_ extreme?

This is essentially a list to silence and shame people who for whatever reason end up offending hypersensitive people with a statement that does not completely conform to their world view, or with a joke they personally find distasteful. The same McCarthyist insanity proposed here: [http://ashedryden.com/blog/weve-all-got-a- list](http://ashedryden.com/blog/weve-all-got-a-list)</comment></comment>


SMS Phishing and Cardless ATM = Profit - <AUTHOR> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/11/sms-phishing-cardless-atm-profit/ <comment><USER2> Interesting how the MasterCard promotional picture suggests that TouchID on iOS is required to withdraw cash when a weaker factor send sufficient (an SMS to a trusted number?). Removing/weakening 'something that you have' from ATM authentication only makes remote attacks easier.

</comment><comment><USER3> This reinforces my opinion that we're way overdue for teaching the general public enough knowledge about safe computing to be able to spot and avoid these and other kinds of fraud. It's a really important life skill that should probably be addressed in school as it's easily costing the global economy billions and billions.

When I was working Customer Service for Blizzard Europe, I anecdotally figure that by around 2010, about half of CS cases were in regards to customers having been victims of their account being compromised and cleaned out by gold sellers.

In all cases it was the "fault" of the customer. While Blizzard did have a credential DB compromise at some point (which they disclosed), the passwords were hashed such that it was practically impossible that any passwords were determined before they did a force password reset on the affected accounts.

Customer accounts were most commonly compromised due to one of the following reasons: fell for phishing scams (probably most common); had credentials shared with an unrelated but compromised web site; had some sort of credential stealing trojan on their computer; shared credentials with a friend/relative who fell for any of the earlier mentioned causes.

Back in 2010, Blizzard easily spent EUR 1M _monthly_ (in Europe alone) on Customer Service and if half of that was dealing with compromised accounts (for a non-financial institution), we can only imagine how much money gets lost globally due to what is essentially a poor public education problem in regards to safe computing.

Blizzard has offered 2FA since before 2010, but most people wouldn't consider it unless they or someone they know had been compromised, it's pretty much the same as people only seeing the value of using things like seat belts/car seats/condoms after they personally witness an incident. I think the average person has this attitude that bad things only happen to _other_ people, until it happens to them personally.

There was also often enough this attitude of "I don't understand why they decided to hack _me_" which also shows general misunderstanding of the very non-personal nature of this "industry" in that bad actors are merely throwing out the biggest nets they can, hoping to catch as much as possible. It's like a fish naively wondering why a commercial fishing boat decided to catch them in particular.

I acknowledge that saying this is the "fault" of the customer seems unfair, but I left school close to 20 years ago and I have never fallen for a phishing scam or managed to land up with malware on my computer. While the fault does ultimately lie with the bad actors, the fact is that while material things (such as money, or food) are important, there will always be bad actors. So as a society we need to strive to keep their success rate as low as possible to prevent their "industries" from flourishing at the expense of the rest of society.

<comment><USER4> Blizzard's Battle.net is an interesting example [had to edit my post a few times with additional thoughts]. They use 8 digital characters instead of 6, and they're using an implementation by the company Vasco. Contrast that to Steam who only use 5 characters, but these being letters instead.

If you enable 2FA on Battle.net you get a unique companion pet in WoW (usable in a pokemon-esque metagame). Collectors are after these.

Blizzard also didn't do enough about gold _buyers_ until they added the WoW token (legalised buying/selling gold with Blizzard as trusted third party) and added a way to easily create gold (garrisons, crafting, both for the masses).

The issue with SMS is that it is very cheap to catch these, if you have physical (vicinity) access. A Stingray device gets cheaper every year.

Once Blizzard invests more in mobile gaming (beyond Hearthstone, such as Diablo Immortal) the 2FA and the game will be once again more often (but not always) on the same device. FIDO2 using NFC/USB would solve the issue though.

> I have never fallen for a phishing scam or managed to land up with malware > on my computer

How do you know this for sure?

<comment><USER3> > Blizzard's Battle.net is an interesting example [had to edit my post a few > times with additional thoughts]. They use 8 digital characters instead of 6, > and they're using an implementation by the company Vasco. Contrast that to > Steam who only use 5 characters, but these being letters instead. If you > enable 2FA on Battle.net you get a unique companion pet in WoW (usable in a > pokemon-esque metagame). Collectors are after these.

I'm not exactly sure what point(s) you're trying to make here, I assume it's about incentive to use authenticators and/or strength of the security they provide.

In terms of incentive to use them. Over time Blizzard found good ways to incentivize, such as WoW pets and giving guild leaders the ability to be able to limit access to their bank to those members with authenticators. Since I left, smartphones became more ubiquitous allowing more people to freely get a "virtual" authenticator App and it also eventually offered a push and approve method which improves convenience too. I don't know how much the latter helped as it happened after I left, but the WoW pet and guild bank features did not noticeably reduce the number of incidents because the gold sellers merely stuck to accounts which weren't secured with an authenticator.

In regards to the strength of security offered by the authenticator, I feel the only thing that matters is that the scheme isn't able to be worked around by the gold sellers through some algorithmic weakness or leaked private key. The codes are only valid for a couple of minutes at most, and a million combinations to try is far more than needed if you restrict logon attempts per account to no more than 1 per second. The other thing to keep in mind is that they aren't protecting state or even corporate level assets, the gold sellers were low income earners from overseas operating in a competitive market with low profit margins.

Did you know Battle.net account passwords also aren't (or at least weren't) case-sensitive? My feeling is that Blizzard weighed the value of the added security vs the increased support incidents and opted to have to deal with less support. Before anyone tries to claim it's a reckless cost saving measure, consider that all account compromises by gold sellers happen through phishing or malware, meaning that password complexity makes 0% difference.

> Blizzard also didn't do enough about gold buyers until they added the WoW > token (legalised buying/selling gold with Blizzard as trusted third party) > and added a way to easily create gold (garrisons, crafting, both for the > masses).

Yes, providing a legitimate gold buying option was probably the right call, especially as it helped a lot with EVE Online. It was probably done with great trepidation though as Blizzard has always cared deeply about the gameplay experience, and being able to buy gold for money had the potential to diminish the gameplay experience for many players. I suspect the only reason they did it is because the gameplay experience would be worse now if they didn't.

I don't think garrisons helped at all, because having more gold available leads to higher inflation on the player driven auction house market which leads to needing more gold to buy the same stuff. I had to save for a mount in Vanilla WoW and that was hard, once daily quests arrived in the first expansion though, making gold became easy enough. Gold is also a very minor part of the game, all the significant progression is not helped by gold. Buying gold and gathering bots were probably the two biggest contributors to inflation on the auction house. Gathering bots would cause mats such as leather, ore and herbs to be sold for far lower prices by botters than players who invested real time into doing it themselves. And on the other side, gold buyers would pay insane prices for items because they didn't appreciate the time value of gold by legitimate players.

> The issue with SMS is that it is very cheap to catch these, if you have > physical (vicinity) access. A Stingray device gets cheaper every year.

While I agree that SMS is not a good 2FA scheme and it really should go as soon as possible, the truth of the matter here is that SMS vs secure mobile application would not have made any difference for these cardless transactions as the weakness was that the account holders fell for phishing scams. People have more chance at this time of dying in a commercial plane crash than being a victim of a non-law enforcement official using a stingray. If they become more common, then banks should absolutely move to more secure communication channels, such as encrypted channels on mobile apps, or otherwise accept they will suffer lots of fraud costs.

> Once Blizzard invests more in mobile gaming (beyond Hearthstone, such as > Diablo Immortal) the 2FA and the game will be once again more often (but not > always) on the same device. FIDO2 using NFC/USB would solve the issue > though.

A valid concern on platforms like Android, but it's not dependent on there being games for the same platform, it's a general problem that malware is increasing on mobile devices and could be used to steal private authenticator keys on the same device. Interestingly, people who proclaim that Apple's walled garden approach on iOS is an anti-feature, are failing to acknowledge that for this this kind of application, it's absolutely a great feature.

> > I have never fallen for a phishing scam or managed to land up with malware > on my computer

> How do you know this for sure?

Really? You may as well be asking a qualified doctor if they know for sure that they don't have an STD.

In regards to phishing scams, I know for absolutely sure because I know how to review TLS certificates and hostnames in URLS that I enter my credentials into. Meaning the service itself would have had to suffer some sort of hijack of their domain and cert for me to be handing them my credentials through a web page. I am also cynical about giving information to say people who call me, and I instead call them back using a number that I know to be theirs.

In regards to malware, I keep my software upto date, I don't engage in bad practices like downloading and running random crap, I don't trust AV to be adequate (another problem is that to many people think AV that can protect them against even the most reckless practices) and I am tech savvy enough to be able review suspicious processes on computers, of which I had seen plenty back in the day when I was an IT techie. I suppose it's _possible_ that I have a rootkit and not know about it, but it's about as likely as a virgin getting an STD. About the only thing I need to realistically worry about is a trusted publisher getting compromised and malware coming along with their download.

If in the future find that I would likely be worth being a target of a spear head phishing or social engineering attack, then there are some more measures I could apply, at the cost of convenience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One day the public will better appreciate physical isolation of separate concerns. Until then, expect more of this kind of thing with your single devices used for everything.

</comment><comment><USER6> Chase seems to be allowing "cardless" withdrawals through Apple Pay. Perhaps MasterCard can do the same?</comment>


DDoS on krebsonsecurity was not amplification but flood from IoT devices - <AUTHOR> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/krebsonsecurity-hit-with-record-ddos <comment><AUTHOR> Site is still down. Google Cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lV- uoZ8...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lV- uoZ8NusIJ:https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/krebsonsecurity-hit-with-record- ddos/&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

</comment><comment><USER2> still getting hammered?</comment>


Reader's Digest site has been attacking visitors for days - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/hey-readers-digest-your-site-has-been-attacking-visitors-for-days/ <comment><USER2> I tried to find the script on that page but it does not seem to be there any more.</comment>


Amazon API Update – New Features Simplify API Development - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/api-gateway-update-new-features-simplify-api-development/ <comment><USER2> this is a significant update mostly because it finally allows a lambda function to return arbitrary headers and response codes. previously, you had to enumerate all headers upfront, and enumerate all response codes, mapping them to individual regexes for error patterns (too much magic). Now, the new proxy lambda integration allows a function to just return the http code, body and headers as a simple JSON object. no more velocity templates for data coming in or out.</comment>


How proud are Stanford Alums? - <AUTHOR> http://stanford.buyalums.com

<comment><USER2> This looks like some kind of scammy thing, but I've known a lot of top people from a lot of top schools and there's nothing like a Princeton alumn for school loyalty (me personally I went to state schools and have been dodging the fundraisers for years and years)

<comment><AUTHOR> I promise we aren't trying to be scammy. But I definitely appreciate the cynicism.

I have little interest in collecting or doing anything with alumni email addresses.

We are trying to validate that there is any demand for a directory like this for our pitch to Alumni Offices.

Any responses we would get would be, by definition, a subset of the alumni office list. We want to build a platform for alumni offices to showcase accomplishments to their communities.

Presumably there would be a correlation between alumni pride and fundraising, but we don't want that to be shoved down peoples throats.</comment></comment>


Uber and Lyft don't cover their cost of capital and rely on desperate workers - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2016/04/15/uber-and-lyft-dont-cover-the.html <comment><USER2> As per HN guidelines: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."[1]

The original source is:

[http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve- the-...](http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the-problems- of-uber-and-lyft)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment>


The iOS 7 review - <AUTHOR> http://anandtech.com/show/7343/the-ios-7-review

<comment><USER2> I think it's interesting, but for me one of Apple's weakest points as a company is its taste in software UI. iOS 7 strikes me as catch-up - Apple is late to a party started by Google and Microsoft, and is trying hard to pretend its been there all along - hard to recognise the hint of insecurity behind their ever-slick advertising, but it's there I think. It's a new area for the company, and a good reminder that Apple has its vulnerabilities. It will be interesting to see how things play out as the design language of the big three (A, G, & M) equalises, norms emerge, and the competition begins to really heat up.

<comment><USER3> If you gonna say UI in general, Apple's iPhone and iPod interface were designed first before Android caught up... Microsoft is even later... just saying. If you are talking about flat UI, then yes, Android advanced it. However, I agree 5c and flat UI make the current Apple reek insecurity.

<comment><USER2> I'm not talking about UI in general, I'm talking about taste in UI - style and general good looks. I don't know how everyone else feels on this, but for me Apple has stuck far too long to simply ugly styling on both iOS and OS X to convince me that attractive UI is a part of company culture. Some of Google's efforts (Now, Maps) and where Microsoft is heading (e.g. it's new websites, Outlook, Windows 8.1) have all impressed me much more. I think Apple is clearly trying to retrofit company culture here.

But I wouldn't say Apple "reeks" of insecurity... We don't really have any knowledge about how much they have up their sleeves, and they've had a long time over the last half-decade to lay foundations for future maneuvers. Besides, if they can convince the everyman that they thought up modern design all by themselves, they could gain a massive advantage here.

<comment><USER4> Don't forget that the advancement of Jony Ive to oversee both software and hardware is still a relatively new development at Apple. All the design changes in iOS 7 have been done in little under a year, following the ousting of Scott Forstall.

Apple are definitely playing catch up on the software design front, but signs are that they're heading in the right direction. iOS 8 and OS X 10.10 will be interesting to watch, to see what the Apple's design team can manage with a little more breathing room in which to work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Siri's search result UI is a game changer and has a real chance of disrupting Google imo. Siri's UI is customized for a mobile device, no ads, and it uses search results from Bing, Twitter, Wikipedia, Yelp and Wolfram Alpha. Missing from the list is Google.

All they need to do is somehow figure out how to add web search to Spotlight, use the exact same UI and Google's in big trouble.

</comment><comment><USER6> Honestly I cannot avoid a feel that Apple has lost its sense of taste and iOS UI was redone just because of outside pressure and nobody with enough authority having the final word.

<comment><USER7> Well your feelings are horribly misplaced. Jonathan Ive has more authority than anyone at Apple (Tim Cook included).

<comment><USER8> Then maybe Jon Ive is just not very good at software design. His changes to the iOS UI seem like what an _amateur_ designer would do (brighter colors, lots of random ugly icons, inconsistency throughout the UI, and so on). It's like this is his first ride in software design.

<comment><USER9> I installed iOS7 for the first time this morning, and it's way too early for me to tell. The colour scheme is a bit jarring, but it's also very unfamiliar so time will tell how well I get used to it. Some of the setting and new functionality seem a bit odd or confusing, but no more so than I'd expect with a new interface. The huge configurability in the camera app was a bit of a surprise.

Right now I have absolutely no idea how much I like or dislike the new design. I've been able to do everything (very few things so far to be fair) I wanted to do, and encountered some small frustrations and nice surprises. I'll see how I feel in a week or two.

How long have you been using iOS 7 for?

<comment><USER10> I've been using iOS 7 since beta 1. My first reaction was: "wtf are these colors?". Now, after some months using it daily I'm used to it and even started to like it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't get the hype over flat design. The original iPhone UI was gaudy and overbearing, but the solution ain't a complete 180. Android strikes the right balance between clean looks with just the right amount of shading to lend affordance to the UI.

Also: Helvetica Neue? What were they thinking?

</comment><comment><USER12> I posted my experience installing ios7 on my ipad 3 yesterday but deleted it thinking I should give it more time in order to be fair.

I continue to feel it's not an overall positive - glitchy, stuttery and slow animations, degraded battery life, UI inconsistencies, touch lag and inaccuracies ( never thought I would say that about iOS ) are all significant downsides for what is essentially a paint job and a one that I happen to not like very much.

But then maybe it works better on newer hardware. This would be the second time in Apple's update history that older devices got a poor update experience.

Curious what new features people like enough to offset the downsides.

<comment><USER5> > Curious what new features people like enough to offset the downsides.

i have iOS 7 on an iPhone 5, iPad 2, iPad 3 and iPad mini. no touch lag, "slow animation" or "inaccuracies" so far.

<comment><USER13> I have iOS 7 on an iPod Touch 5th generation and a iPad 3rd generation, and I will say that it absolutely brought a little bit of Android (well, to be fair earlier generations of Android as this isn't really an issue anymore) to iOS -- touch lag all over the place, often a second+ before the keyboard starts accepting inputs, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So much talk about the flat design. People, if the only experience you had with iOS7 is looking at screenshots, then you are not really in position to say anything.

</comment><comment><USER15> As a tech enthusiast, I've spent the last several months watching the iOS7 design arguments play out online, and I've read a few reviews with interest this week.

So it was with interest that I observed my wife and MIL's reactions to the upgrade on their iPads, which was really no big deal at all.

A cogent reminder to me that there's a vast difference between us and them.

</comment><comment><USER16> Does anyone else think that ios7 and windows phone look really similar? I don't think it is only the "flat design" aesthetic, it's something more.

I think they are both less than ideal for this reason, because it is no longer obvious what is a button and what is not.

But it's pretty.

<comment><USER17> I use windows phone 8. No they are not the same. The style is similar but the actual functionality is nothing like iOS 7 from what I can see.

It's _really_ obvious on Windows Phone what is a button and what is not apart from a few shitty 3rd party apps. This is regurgitating one of the many fables about WP.

<comment><USER18> Agreed. I've heard multiple people say that iOS7 looks bad in screenshots, but you really need to use it to understand it. I'd say the exact same has always applied to WP.

<comment><USER17> Yes but rationality and experience doesn't get you any upvotes in the tech communities. Raging fanboyism and denouncing the competition does.

Thanks for being rational - you are spot on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > The only issue is that after a while some animations start being a lot to > sit through each time, especially the multitasking interface animations and > app fly-in

This is what annoyed me a lot about WP7, too. Long "cool" animations that slow you down with each action you perfor, get boring very quickly, and eventually become frustrating.

On my Android phone, I've even set the animations to be faster than they normally are, precisely because I want stuff to be done fast, not watch a 1-second long animation each time I tap on the screen.

<comment><USER19> Setting animation speed is also available for jailbroken iOS devices, if anyone's interested. The Cydia app is called FakeClockUp. I like setting it to 1.4x.

<comment><USER20> Is there a recent jailbreak? I googled and am getting lots of paid options, but not sure I trust those...

<comment><USER19> I've used only evasi0n on iOS 6.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Verizon won't push Samsung's Note 7 bricking update - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/09/verizon-note-7/ <comment><AUTHOR> I find this very disturbing. Verizon is refusing to defuse explosive phones on their network because they would rather have you use a dangerous cellphone than not have a cellphone at all.

It's like a McDonald's serving you potentially contaminated food because they don't want you to starve, despite the risk of it, idk, exploding?

<comment><USER2> There is a small risk in the possibility of the phone exploding. (Most don't. And the phones still out there have worked correctly since they came out, presumably.) There's also a risk of disabling a device which a user might be counting on to reach 911, which may, in fact, be more likely.

Arguably, if you are starving (literally), contaminated food may be the better choice, if say, we can cure that later, but without the food, you'd die now.

It's all a question of competing factors of risk.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which setup would be better(custom PC/MBA)? - <AUTHOR>

I'm in college, and my laptop just died on me. I'm thinking of either:
"Great" config custom PC from logicalincrements.com + Nexus 7/iPad Mini
or
11" MBA i5/8/256GB + cheap external monitor
I'm in Mechanical Engineering, and coding work starts only during the 3rd year. I do still feel like the MBA would be more suitable(able to do more stuff on a larger screen on the go is really convenient), however I can't ignore my desire to game(which I do regularly). Using an Apple Wireless keyboard with a tablet would look really silly, plus I had such a keyboard with my prior iPad(gave it to my mum, so there's that).
Also, my room is hot as hell all year round, sweat runs down my back all day long.
I recall doing most of the paper writing and circuit simulations either in my room or somewhere in the house(before my HDD died). My university's tech lab only house super old workstations(i3, 2GB RAM). I only check WolframAlpha and review past year questions on my laptop in the library while doing psets with paper and pen.
And then there's the price factor. The MBA would obviously be the more expensive choice, and the price difference could be put to use. Just saying.
Which would be a better choice? <comment><USER2> I graduated from ME a few years ago and I can say that most everything you interact with (software-wise) is Windows based. So keep that in mind for your purchase. You may be able to run it on a MBA but some of the programs will run terribly (FEA/CAD) it really just depends on what programs your university uses and if you want to work in the computer lab or on your own computer.

Matlab was what we did all our programming in and that works fine on a Mac.

I feel like a laptop is much nicer choice but 11" is pretty small to get work done on (especially if you're going to try CAD software). And matlab can be screen heavy especially if your classes get into simulink.

<comment><AUTHOR> Would you suggest a 13" MBA + external monitor then?

Also, I'm pretty sure CAD, Solidworks and Matlab is all we run there.

<comment><USER2> I don't know if a MBA will be strong enough to run Solidworks okay or not (you will have to use bootcamp if you want to run it so make sure you have enough harddrive space win7 + solidworks probably means 40-50gb or more easy + files and other such thing fills up fast). I think I had modeling files take up 10GB flash drive easy.

13" is okay for matlab, you could probably get away with 11" but I think it would be painful.

If you want to run the CAD software like Solidworks a MBP 13" might be the better choice (256GB + 8GB RAM) comes out to cheaper than the MBA 13" equiv with upgraded proc. And could probably run it reasonably well-ish (better than MBA). You usually don't need to do a lot of model analysis in undergrad but sometimes those CAD programs can be a system hog. Especially if you get to complicated model assemblies.

If you don't want to run the CAD software the MBA 13" should be okay it just might take longer to boot up matlab but with the programs you do processing power shouldnt make that much of a difference. If you can hook up an external monitor an 11" might be fine as well.

Heres someones experience with an air and solidworks: [http://solidworksonamac.com/using-solidworks-on-a-macbook- ai...](http://solidworksonamac.com/using-solidworks-on-a-macbook-air/)

<comment><AUTHOR> I pretty much had a change of heart during these few days, and came up with the following choices:

Asus N56JR-S4018H 15.6" FHD / i7-4700 / 12GB / 1TB / GTX760M 2GB GDDR5 / W8

and

Lenovo Y510P 5938-9550 15.6" FHD / i7-4700 / 8GB / 1TB / GT755M SLi 2GB DDR5 / W8

The price difference is a mere $6 where I'm from. I'm confident that these would do fine, even outperform the Macbooks in any way possible. However these 2 weigh a ton(almost 3kgs), and they are quite hot as well(80~90 degrees celsius for GPU/CPU, and ~50 degrees celsius surface temp, since they're plastic and all). And the build quality wouldn't even come close to Macs.

Decisions, decisions.

<comment><USER2> Those would do more than fine. If you go with lenovo they have a very good warranty with accidental damage protection for a couple hundred dollars for 3 years if you're worried about build quality (I think you have to buy from the lenovo site though).

<comment><AUTHOR> That's good to hear. What I'm worried about is the heat and weight, less so the build quality. I'd really like my laptop to last at least 4 years, more is better, performance wise as well. Apple laptops just don't seem to hold their own after 4 years(except for the body itself, ofc).

The 13 mba when specced with 8gb/256gb is still way cheaper than the similarly specced rmbp. Does the processor matter much when talking about running cad software(and i'm aware of the retina price premium, thats why i tend to shy away from it, prefer a fhd ips external monitor).

<comment><USER2> The processor matters when you get into complicated assemblies or analysis of parts. Your school should have computers capable of running whatever you need to do and to be honest a home built computer of ~$500US would be capable of undergrad work easily.

I specced the MBA with upgraded processor which would definitely be necessary (for CAD) but even the article I linked said it was a little slow with the upgraded processor.

I personally did all my CAD work on campus and MATLAB/programming at home because of computer specs.

I think a macbook is a nicer computer choice if you don't mind doing CAD work at school, or if later down the line you decide to spend ~$500 building a computer (just the computer not monitor, keyboard, os) because working at school is a burden. Though a lot of my CAD projects were group projects, depends more on school though.

The analysis work definitely is processor heavy (I think PRO/E might use CUDA somewhat now) but it just means a slower processor will take longer to run the analysis).

Just running the CAD program usually requires an okay processor and video card but if you google around or ask on forums some other people might have better experience with running solidworks on a MBA.

Here is another experience: [https://forum.solidworks.com/thread/70311](https://forum.solidworks.com/thread/70311)

We did have some programming in basic excel formula style but that you could run in parallels or virtualbox or what have you.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do think that Macs are nice to have and use, and that my school computers are only [i3, 4gb, 500gb] machines, some are even older. Weirdly so, there seems to be this one Tesla supercomputer in that lab that's off- limits...anyways, the rMBP is beyond my $1200 budget, more so the normal MBP specced with a 256 ssd, so I think I'll stick to Windows machines until I have more disposable income to afford one. Thanks for your input, it was helpful!

Which brings me back to my pc+tablet or laptop debate. This is starting to give me a headache.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you don't plan on carrying it around, I'd recommend a custom PC. It has the advantage that if you rum short on disk space, RAM, GPU power or anything else you can easily upgrade it. Since heat production is an issue, invest in an efficient power supply (80! gold/platinum) and enable power saving options in BIOS.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't. Nobody brings a laptop to classes(unless he plans on gaming during the lecture, that happens a lot). Most of the actual work is done with pen and paper. However I would certainly miss bringing a laptop to the library, camp out for 5~6 hours and wait for the staff to chase me out.

Also, I plan on moving out sometime next year, so the weight could be a problem.

I'm not concerned with the PC atm, seeing that it's the cheaper solution. Can I actually get work done on a tablet?</comment></comment>


Google Instant unsafe for kids - <AUTHOR> http://bhudman.posterous.com/google-instant-unsafe-for-kids

<comment><USER2> I don't mean this in a stupid way; but that probably doesn't mean a lot to kids. At most it would be incomprehensible and they would ask someone - and at best they would just think it is a typo.

And likely they would only see it for a few seconds; they might get some results of dubious nature but, hell, Google is only mildly censored you run this risk all the time.

How likely is that to be a child search term?

And possibly the most controversial point; they are going to learn this stuff anyway. This is the risk you run leaving kids of whatever age to their own devices on the internet. Even mistaken innocent searches can accidentally throw up silly obscene results, only responsible parenting can really address that (without really commenting on what constitutes responsible parenting)

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you'd agree that parents will feel differently about the level of censorship. I specifically set my setting to "Use strict filtering" which google clarifies by saying "Filter both explicit text and explicit images". An innocent search phrase like "i love to eat" now suggests that you select some other search terms. I myself have been coerced to a different search phrase because of google instant, so I think children are the same way - saves them from typing.

I agree with you about responsible parenting (which also differs from person to person). It is for this reason, I select "strict filtering". The explicit texts in that result certainly have not been filtered. I guarantee that if google finds out about this, they will change this result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Life unsafe for kids.</comment>


How bands are escaping the music industry snake pit - T-A http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43156285 <comment><AUTHOR> On a related topic, Bandcamp does something right. Until I first heard of it, I had very rarely bought music (I was born in the early 90s), and very often just _downloaded_ it. Which meant manually (or automating) tagging of tracks.

But Bandcamp _feels_ fair, I pay the artist/band the amount they wish or I wish to, and in return I get flac files _I own_ with correct id3tags.

(Maybe it's just that Bandcamp was made when I started getting revenue, two unrelated events that just happen to coincide.)

<comment><USER2> Although I like Bandcamp, it's in a sense an even bigger rip-off than traditional labels. They get hefty shares for merely offering you a pre- designed web page and hosting. The vast majority of artists on Bandcamp make no money.

The problem is like with all alternative distribution channels - if you actually want to sell your music, marketing is more important than the music itself and very few people have the ability and time to do the creative work and the marketing at the same time. If nobody knows about your music, nobody will buy it. It's the same with self-publishing platforms for books.

Traditional publishers have all the marketing channels already set up, so marketing is easier and more affordable to them than for startups, let alone individual artists.

<comment><USER3> Excuse me for being direct, but do you work for a record label?

Bandcamp takes 15%/10% (depending on your yearly sales). Combined with the payment processing fees, that gives a return of around 80%, as mentioned in another reply to your post. I think that's perfectly fair, considering the hosting costs for thousands and thousands of hours of music, and their entire platform.

What Bandcamp offers is a sales channel that is already configured, all you have to to is give it a theme, upload your music in a lossless format, name the songs and choose a price. Bandcamp handles the layouts, the tagging, the multiple formats, the embedded album art and the whole shopping experience. You do the art, they do the technical stuff.

You're spinning a yarn that the traditional labels are necessary in order to do marketing, but with the rise of social media and the huge trust people have in word of mouth, the big in-your-face advertising campaigns of yesteryear are simply outdated. The only reason the big labels still have some kind of clout is that they own all the big radio stations. But the rise of streaming and internet radio has eroded that power.

And even if what you say was true, it only holds up for mainstream pop artists, not the much more interesting indie artists out there.

<comment><USER2> _Excuse me for being direct, but do you work for a record label?_

Not at all, I'm an independent artist at Bandcamp. What I am saying is that without marketing you have 0 sales.

I'm also not saying that there are no artists who can do the marketing themselves (through social media, etc., as you mention). Most artists, however, neither have the time nor the connections to do that.

It's the same effect as with app stores, where also just a very small number of developers make any money. You're right that Bandcamp offers a sales channel,of course. That's essentially all that these alternative distribution channels offer. We can debate whether that's worth 15% of the sales, though. As I've said, it works for some people who are well-connected and have a natural talent for self-marketing. For most of the artists, it doesn't work.

<comment><USER3> It has always been just a small segment of artists who could actually make money directly from their art. Most artists in history had a patron of some kind, either a rich person or royalty, or the church (or other religious institution).

The sales pitch from the big labels is that they will use their connections to get you noticed, but the prerequisite is that you should already be reasonably established before they want to pick you up, or ridiculously lucky that you just caught the right person's attention at the right time.

The best way to get your name out there is still to play tons of smaller shows, build a local fanbase, and get on festival lineups, either through competitions or because your fanbase pesters the promoters into booking you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> From a different point of view, the most popular band originating from my country[0] became popular _because_ they dismissed the idea of trying to earn money via streaming and album distribution, and focused on live shows to actually make money (with more gigs per year than I thought it was humanly possible). You can still buy their music if you feel like it, and they're available on streaming services as well (although they get added to Spotify about a month after the official release).

Their last two albums (+ an EP and a few singles) got released as a free download on their site, and they've released a pretty cool music video[1] in which they've encouraged people to get their music for free (the video was on the front page of The Pirate Bay for a while), featuring lyrics such as "we don't give a shit about the copyright law" and "we do file share like we don't care, throw music industry in despair".

[0] [http://dubioza.org/albums/](http://dubioza.org/albums/)

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

<comment><USER5> Live musical performances are the only thing in music that nobody can fake or pirate. Even the video recordings of a concert is nothing near the actual experience. Maybe the music business will move towards such a setting where internet is the place to show off your work, and the concert venue is where you earn money. More publicity, more fame, more venues, more tickets. Add to that maybe a combined use of say Bandcamp, Patreon et al, Youtube, and streaming services, and about everybody who wants to do music can find a niche there for themselves.

Also, the Dubioza guys are really cool, thanks for the links!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Back in the 90s you didn't have to try that hard. The competition was Blockbuster Video so it wasn't that hard to get booked 5-7 nights a week in 1991. There were lots of places to play live that no longer exist. You played for donations but your share of the rent in 1991 was $175 a month. No cell phone bill, not much to spend money on because you could get your guitar and amp for cheap from a pawn shop. Today we have all this technology but music struggles because its based on live person to person physical community. Today in LA its all pay to play so music has turned into a vanity project for people with the money to buy their way in. The one way in today is to develop over the top, absolutely undeniably exceptional skills and then pair with a luthier to produce signature instruments in a partnership. Tosin Abasi has the right business model. Develop amazing technique then work with instrument makers to rely on boutique instrument sales rather than album sales or even live performance for the main income.

<comment><USER7> Sure, but playing even 3 times per week is VERY taxing. If you play, let's say, from 10 to 1, you probably won't be in bed before 3. And it's the equivalent to running 10 miles or perhaps even more, if you move a lot and try to engage the audience very much. It's exhausting, and I don't envy anybody who has to play every day. I don't know how people like Justin Timerlake are able to keep this up for decades.

<comment><USER8> just like working out it gets easier as you train, for quite a few serious runners 10 miles a day is par for the course (100mi training weeks are not that uncommon).

My dad played for a living in the 60s and his band played TWO shows a day (afternoon and evening, so the schedule was get up around noon, breakfast, show, lunch, show, dinner, sleep) 6 days a week during the summer, it's just like any other type of physical labor and listening to him it definitely beat working 12 hour days in the fields which is what he did before...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What SoundCloud could have become, a supporting brand of indie and music that people appreciate but without as much obligations in revenue etc in exchange for continued electronic streaming through SoundCloud

</comment><comment><USER10> It's tricky to make money from recorded music. I don't think the "industry" is to blame - it's more about peoples' consumption habits (streaming services, games instead of records etc), and the fact that there are so many artists, so many people releasing music.

Most people listen to music on streaming services. In terms of making money from streaming services, you don't. There are a zillion artists on them, and the vast majority ends up with pennies.

You can sell on bandcamp etc, and that will probably generate more than streaming services, but still very little for the vast majority -people don't really buy downloads/physical music anymore, it's free on streaming services.

You could try Patreon, and that might generate a bit of recurring revenue if you're active on social media.

If you start getting mainstream radio play, you're doing good as the royalties from that are still pretty nice. But very few artists get there. Also, tracking publishing rights and actually paying people for radio play (or publishing in general) is an arcane, paper based mess.

If you're lucky, you'll get your music licensed to TV/film/games, and that can also be a good source of revenue.

But sales of recorded music, as a way of making a reasonable amount of money, is pretty much finished.

</comment><comment><USER11> Too bad most of these articles are so superficial and never go into the actual dynamics between artists, labels, streaming services etc.

That's a true snake pit, and there are very few attempts to untangle what goes on.

<comment><USER12> an old one from 2000 but detailed and probably some information still relevant.

Cortney Love does the math

[https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/](https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/)

<comment><USER13> "Cortney Love does the math"

Ms. Love appeared to be inspired by this piece written seven years earlier by the engineer who recorded Nirvana's "In Utero".

[https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with- music](https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The rise of TicketMaster's business in the age of touring has been interesting.

One of the very last interviews Charlie Rose broadcast before his disappearance was a fascinating interview with Live Nation's CEO: [https://charlierose.com/guests/12447](https://charlierose.com/guests/12447)

hmm. his site is down along with his entire show archive. That is a loss for the Internet.

Rapino talked about how Live Nation has gotten into managing artists directly, buying venues, and doing promotion and logistics for a wide array of artists at a range of scales.

It's a big change now that artist's have a direct microphone to their entire fanbase through Twitter, Instagram, etc.

<comment><USER15> archive.org seems to have it saved: [https://web.archive.org/web/20171121004935/https://charliero...](https://web.archive.org/web/20171121004935/https://charlierose.com/guests/12447)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> My father and his brother's entire business model in the 90s and 2000s was mass producing Karaoke for America while giving labels the finger. He saw digital downloads and streaming coming like a freight train from the future. I worked at my colleges radio station with labels to examine their newest stuff and add/omit it to our rotation for the metal segments. Finally, I have a friend I met in college who is in a talented metal band (Aether Realm) basically forging their own way. In all these interactions, the sense I have gotten from everyone from labels to artists to derivative works is always fundamentally a numbers game "how much and how many people will people really pay" and smoothening out statistical noise in income streams.

The end result is truly if you care for the music and the art, buy the merchandise directly from the artist. Go to the local concerts. Help reduce the variance in the artist's income stream. Show them that despite not having a big label, they can succeed. Once I realized I had this kind of power to my favorite metal artists, it was nice to give back.

</comment><comment><USER17> Artists need to own their distribution channels. With today's technology it's pretty easy! They also need to do marketing.

<comment><USER18> The problem is that if you own your distribution channels you need a massive marketing budget to stand out from the other offerings as you are competing with other distributors instead of getting help from them.

<comment><USER19> Absolutely and you need massive manpower to be good at all media and distribution channels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why does this sound like a paid advertorial?

 _This is because they 've signed to Kobalt, a technology-driven music services company that gives songwriters and bands complete ownership of their work and a greater share of income than has traditionally been the case in the industry.

"We never used to make any money because we were always paying off our advances," recalls Haggis, whose band formed in 2003. "We'd get about a 20% share of revenues and the label would keep the rest.

"Now we get to keep about 90% of what we earn ...it's such a difference, it just made sense."_

<comment><USER21> Because you failed to read the following paragraphs that talked about different companies?

It's the BBC. They aren't allowed to take money for articles. Of course, they aren't particularly fussy about what press releases they run, so you can still sneak in an ad for your company if you make the effort.

<comment><USER20> The fact that they mention other companies doesn't invalidate my point. Of all companies mentioned, a majority of time is spent speaking about Kobalt, it's founder and praising it. Kobalt gets around 6 paragraphs. Most other companies only get a paragraph each which only briefly describes what they don, and they aren't even all direct competitors.

I have read the article and I'm miffed you'd suggest otherwise. Please read HN guidelines where it explicitly asks you not to suggest other posters haven't read the articles but to stick to the facts.

<comment><USER21> Fair enough. Sorry. I hate defending the BBC because they're so insidiously biased, but they definitely don't accept money for articles. But my grumpiness is no reason to miff people!</comment></comment></comment></comment>