GitHub was down - <AUTHOR> https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/q07bfjh7jf1t <comment><USER2> Sincere apologies to all GitHub users for the downtime this morning, and the brief outages last week as well. We take reliability very seriously, and will publish a full RCA in the near future.

<comment><USER3> Well Bitbucket lost all of my repositories this morning so you've got a long way to fall

<comment><USER4> What do you mean they "lost your repositories"?

<comment><USER3> When I tried to log in I was prompted to "upgrade my account" to a "Bitbucket Cloud" account. After doing so, all of my repositories were gone. It seems that my repositories remained on my "Bitbucket ""Regular""" account but that my email address was no longer associated with it, giving me no way of logging in to it. I emailed support 6 hours ago and have yet to get a response.

<comment><USER5> Wow Atlassian... That is quite horrifying! Glad I stuck with GitHub through the MS acquisition. Bitbucket was probably my main alternative.

<comment><USER6> For the record, Azure DevOps did the same thing to me when we switched over to Azure AD. My account and repositories ended up in an entirely corrupt state. Support was eventually able to resolve most of it, but I'm still discovering problems.

<comment><USER3> I shudder at the thought of GitHub one day trying to integrate with people's Microsoft accounts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This seems to be the third or so day in the past week I've had issues with GitHub around this time in the morning. They've typically been really good. I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more talk about it on HN.

<comment><USER8> They seem to be doing heavy work on it. Now on Mobile you can't see repos in "Desktop Mode" which is unfortunate. I have to tell my browser to pretend to be in desktop mode. Plus the regex post from the other day seems to imply they are working on new things when somebody from GH replied in said thread. I don't mind improvements, but don't break production guys...

<comment><USER9> They also changed the "Group Membership" dialog to be paginated when you add a new person to an organization. We have over 200 groups so now I have to page through for ever new hire we add. There's not even a search option.

I'm sure the pagination might better for performance, but it's terrible UI.

<comment><USER10> They may have missed that one, because at the same time they introduced both pagination _and search_ to the repository membership page, and boy did that help us on one of our repos with a few hundred direct collaborators, by the end we could only manage access through the API because the page didn't even load most of the time.

<comment><USER11> I see why web pages need pagination so the server or browser doesn't OOM, but there really ought to be 10000 entries per page, not 25 that most sites seem to like.

Ctrl+F on a list of 10000 entries is far easier than clicking through 400 ajaxy pages and trying to figure out some custom and buggy filtering system that probably doesn't allow regex.

Past 10000 records most sites probably ought to just let you export in something bigquery compatible anyway - Regular Joe isn't going to have more than 10000 of anything, and anyone who does can learn how to use proper data tools.

<comment><USER10> > there really ought to be 10000 entries per page

Did you miss the part where I noted Github's lists fail to load (let alone render) long before that point?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Don't forget to check your SLAs

Enterprise = 99.95% (quarterly)

[https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github- enterpr...](https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-enterprise- cloud-addendum#enterprise-cloud-uptime-sla)

They're having a bad February but January was good. We will see what March has in store

<comment><USER13> > How do we calculate Uptime?

> Our Uptime calculation is based on the percentage of successful requests we > serve through our web, API, and Git client interfaces.

Just curious, how do they measure this? What is the actual calculation?

<comment><USER14> What do you mean? All modern enterprise analytics/monitoring solutions are going to be able to give you _some_ kind of top-level "request success rate" metric. I assume they mostly just lean into whatever monitoring tooling they have set up. What kind of "calculation" are you imagining here? Like a very specific SRE formula for availability windows or something?

<comment><USER15> Depending on what part of the system is down, how do you know you even got a request to mark as failed?

<comment><USER16> You want to start measuring the closet to your users. In most cases that would be some sort of load balancer. I don't think there's much we can do without going to the client side.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> No matter how many talented engineers you have on staff, your entire service can still go down. Let's pause and reflect on that. ;)

<comment><USER18> The interesting thing is that Git is entirely non-centralized, so in theory they could simply redirect to servers onto which the data has been mirrored.

<comment><USER19> Git is, but the APIs and all the services they provide around it aren't.

That said, I think it's a bit weird that they don't store the data of the services around the code itself in git, like they do with e.g. sites. That way you'd have an `issues` branch that you could still access if github is down.

But that would probably pave the way for easy migrations away from Github.

<comment><USER20> >"But that would probably pave the way for easy migrations away from Github."

bingo

<comment><USER18> At least they could have used the concepts in Git's design. But it seems they didn't learn much from the tool they based their service on.

<comment><USER21> I don't think learned is the right word to use here. Github's centralized design and vendor lock-in is quite intentional.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> When Microsoft buys companies, they tend to progressively decay as the original architects leave, the morale of remaining employees grinds down from the stress and they bring in cheaper contractors to duct tape the bits together and plug the holes in levee with their fingers. I've BTDTBTTS. _cough_ LinkExchange, WebTV, Hotmail, Skype, Softricity, Nokia, LinkedIn, Danger/Sidekick _cough_ GH maybe next. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

<comment><USER23> IME GitHub has not had increased downtime after Microsoft's acquisition.

<comment><USER22> Well, some other people in the comments disagree. And it hasn't happened _yet,_ but it's the way they don't manage / integrate acquisitions very well unless they're wowie complementary products like Visio. Danger dropped off a cliff and Softricity was absolutely amazing but shelved, so friends of mine basically repeated the theme for VMware View and were acquihired by VMware. Time will tell where GH goes.

<comment><USER24> There are so many logical flaws here.

People's comments are meaningless, you can look at historical GitHub up-time and see that it hasn't changed meaningfully.

"And it hasn't happened yet"

Ah yes, now you have to backtrack from: it happened! to... no wait I promise it will happen! Based on... what? The fact that some acquisitions don't go well?

This is all pure speculation with no substantiation.

I recommend learning about confirmation bias.

<comment><USER23> I agree, but I just now took a look here: [https://www.githubstatus.com/uptime?page=7](https://www.githubstatus.com/uptime?page=7)

I went back from the time of Microsoft's acquisition, and that status seems heavily underreported. At least when I checked now, it was all green, green. That does not reflect my experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Have they written any postmortems regarding their last couple of degradations? I tried searching their blog but the only ones that popped up were over a year old.

<comment><USER26> I would also be really interested in them but didn't find anything yet. Maybe their new notification system has something to do with it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> HN already has a 'Github downtime' post as soon as I find Github weird and check HN if it's only me. How is everybody so fast? :-)

<comment><USER28> If Github is down, thousands of programmers suddenly have nothing better to do.

<comment><USER29> I rolled my eyes twice, then merged a few PRs manually and moved on with my day. (i.e. the git server itself and all the API required to interact with the CI automation _appears_ to work just fine)

<comment><USER30> The actual server was broken for me:

      $ git push
      Enumerating objects: 26, done.
      Counting objects: 100% (26/26), done.
      Delta compression using up to 8 threads
      Compressing objects: 100% (15/15), done.
      Writing objects: 100% (15/15), 1.49 KiB | 1.49 MiB/s, done.
      Total 15 (delta 12), reused 0 (delta 0)
      remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (12/12), completed with 10     local objects.
      remote: Internal Server Error
      To git+ssh://github.com/<redacted>/<redacted>
       ! [remote failure]    wip -> wip (remote failed to report status)
      error: failed to push some refs to 'git+ssh://firstname.lastname@example.com/<redacted>/<redacted>'

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Are they migrating to azure?

<comment><USER32> I had the same guess... migrating from aws to azure & hitting some bumps. Have to assume they won't be very forthcoming about it if that is the reason.

<comment><USER10> > migrating from aws to azure & hitting some bumps

Could be the IO? I remember colleagues working on getting stuff running on azure and they experienced horrible IO latency, as well as very low throughput for lots of small IO (aka unix-style software).

Was a few years back so it might have improved since, but if those things are still non-optimal and github is built with a unix-style vision of tons of small IO access…

This specific outage taught me that github apparently stores git repos on-disk which I was not expecting though (because the API access complained it could not delete repos until they'd fully backed to disk or something).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Fourth time this month.

<comment><USER34> It's quite unfortunate. I'm hoping the post some kind of RCA/analysis.

I know I would if we had a month with only 2 9s of uptime.

<comment><USER35> they're doing the usual corporate status page uptime lying:

[https://i.imgur.com/vy7onDT.png](https://i.imgur.com/vy7onDT.png) [https://www.githubstatus.com/uptime](https://www.githubstatus.com/uptime)

<comment><USER36> I don't get it. Their own incidents tab on the same site shows four incidents this month: [https://www.githubstatus.com/history](https://www.githubstatus.com/history)

I'm not sure how that results in 99.98% uptime on the other tab.

<comment><USER35> turns out it's bad/misleading UI, there's a dropdown for which type of downtime which defaults to 'GIT Operations'

<comment><USER36> Ah, got it. It's still incorrect though. With the incident a couple days ago, I couldn't `git push` for a couple hours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've been noticing the issue they're describing for a few days now, with errors in GitHub Actions requiring rebuilds and webhooks not seeming to fire which caused Jira to go out of sync.

<comment><USER38> Mssql only once guaranteed delivery in action?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Centralization is great, isn't it?

<comment><USER40> I think in a few years time we will look back and think

"Waa, that was so archaic the way we used to do things!"

<comment><USER41> It would be nice if someone wrote a decentralized VCS...

<comment><USER38> With issues built in like fossil, oh wait...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I appreciate the way they keep everyone informed in the downtime. It tells a lot about the company

</comment><comment><USER43> [https://downdetector.com/status/github/](https://downdetector.com/status/github/)

</comment><comment><USER44> Well, given the timing of GitHub reliability issues over the last few days, I think we can all agree it has everything to do with dates and timezones?

/s

Appreciate the work.

</comment><comment><USER45> That explains why my test suite suddenly takes >1h and after I canceled it, the status was green O.o

</comment><comment><USER27> Looks like they are fine now. Yay!

<comment><USER46> > We continue to investigate the issues with GitHub services and will shift to > a slower update cadence to provide more meaningful updates going forward. > Posted 18 minutes ago. Feb 27, 2020 - 16:12 UTC

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> What do you guys recommend as a good way to continue work undisrupted when GitHub goes down? A second remote mirror?

<comment><USER48> A second mirror doesn't really help - when github goes down, the code should still be available locally on your computer. The things that become truly available when github dies are all the non-git features: issues, PRs, etc...

There are several ways to work around this, but none are really satisfying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> >We continue to investigate the issues with GitHub services and will shift to a slower update cadence to provide more meaningful updates going forward.

Translation: our shitty software update practices are now affecting Github, not just Windows!

If anyone from Microsoft is reading this, why is your company so incompetent at software updates in the past few years?

<comment><USER50> You honestly believe that a company the size of GitHub has had their software update practices appreciably change since the acquisition? Relax, GitHub had update issues before and they will have them again.

<comment><USER51> All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again. So say we all.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Anyone making a living from Desktop apps?what had been changed? - <AUTHOR> I asked the same question 854 days ago .. i still love desktop app's wander if small indies can make a living from it ? <comment><USER2> Let's assume Desktop includes Mac, Windows and Linux.

First You need an app that solves a need (doesn't matter if other commercial or open source alternatives exist) and does not completely suck.

That's the easy part.

Then you need a channel to display your app. That also does not seem so hard these days. Mac, Windows both have stores, we can consider Synaptic and Ubuntu store thing to be a channel too(setting aside money question for now).

Unfortunately channel is not going to suffice.

The hard part is getting a funnel, that is a way to guide your prospective customers to your product.

One method perfected by patio11 was to create SEO friendly content for one audience, but use the SEO juice to sell to completely different audience. This is very very hard to do.

Of course, if you already have your own channel(nice e-mail list), then you can push your apps too.

But building an e-mail list is again very hard.

The days of late 1980s shareware boom have been over for a long time, but I suspect with razor sharp focus there are still some success stories(paging Patio11 and his Bingo Card Creator).

Disclaimer: I write internal apps at mediumcorp for a living and have no personal indie success stories.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am making a living with my windows only projection mapping application [http://www.facadesignage.com](http://www.facadesignage.com) It started in 2006 but went online 2 years ago, and that was my best idea ever (i mean going online). I learned a lot about software, products, funnels, marketing and niches. And best of all: narrowing down the user pain and solving it at the UI level.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great application and great idea This is what I ment Wish you more success in your niche

<comment><USER3> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the canonical article I point people to when this question comes up: [http://www.evanmiller.org/why-i-develop-for-the- mac.html](http://www.evanmiller.org/why-i-develop-for-the-mac.html)

Evan is a frequent contributor here on HN and it's also worth reading most of his other articles/posts as well.

<comment><USER5> I read a few of his posts after seeing your comment. They are quite interesting, thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You mean other than Notch, or anyone in the video games business, or the iLife team at Apple, or the Microsoft Office team?

Sure. Lots of people are making money from desktop apps. Just because it's not hip or cool these days doesn't mean it's useless.

<comment><USER5> >You mean other than Notch, or anyone in ...

Heh, good comment about Notch, and the others you mention too. For those who don't know, from the Wikipedia article about Notch - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Persson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Persson) :

"He is planning to stop working on this game after a recent deal with Microsoft to sell Minecraft for 2.5 billion dollars."

A huge outlier, of course, but the potential exists.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Example of someone or small team ( i guess ) that doing useful desktop apps [http://www.hkvstore.com/](http://www.hkvstore.com/) someone knows something about them ?

</comment><comment><USER7> The company I work for makes a living off Enrollment software and Demographic software for Windows. A lot of our clients do not wish to have their systems connected/cloud.

I do not see a change anytime soon.

</comment><comment><USER8> There's a much higher probability of getting that question answered on the Business of Software Forum which can be accessed through joelonsoftware.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Its dead , Almost no one there ( used to love Business of Software Forum)

<comment><USER9> I guess you have your question answered than. I was also a BoS forum user since 2008.

With the XYZ (Apple, Microsoft) stores these days I wonder if a $39-99 desktop software can truly have success on these compare the the average < $9 app.

High-end B2B software can certainly be profitable, I would guess the $500-2500 software coming with support, integration, training etc.

<comment><USER10> My wife recently became familiar with the Mac AppStore after only ever using the iOS AppStore. Her first comment upon seeing the initial screen was "$19 for an app?? That's crazy!" I cringed a bit. Has the $0.99 app ruined everything for us?

<comment><USER11> I sometimes get mails from (not really) customers like: 'can you add feature x of the paid version to the free version?'. The paid version is $4.99 by the way.

If you have decent app that solves problems well and you have enough energy left to do some marketing then probably you can make a decent living. Or you have a lot of luck, then no problems at all. But if you hope that customers find you by themselfes, maybe you shouldn't bet on the business.

<comment><AUTHOR> This very very sad ... I really don't understand how someone can Live from 0.9 - 4.9 $ apps

<comment><USER5> There are tons of companies and even microISVs that make a good living or more, from desktop apps, in both the developed and less developed worlds. (But they are not 5$ apps.) Hell, there are many small and medium software companies in India (for example) that were doing good business (and probably still are) with Clipper / XBase apps for small businesses, on (gasp!) DOS, to take just one area (of both tech and domain). VB and VB.NET too. Delphi too, probably. C++/Qt too. C++/wxWidgets. ... I see the (XBase or other) apps myself in many shops, malls, doing the accounts, sales, POS, etc. Seen such apps in many factories too (I was on the field for a while, earlier). Its just that they are not mentioned much here on HN. (See the recent thread about the Rails jobs). And I'm sure it must be so in many other less developed countries too, not just in the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. (which are highly computerized). HN is not the whole universe, only a quite small part of it, though we techies sometimes tend to think otherwise.

<comment><USER12> My cousin in fact makes his application looks like a desktop application to sell to his customer base. He makes pos/accounting software with a windows application(skin) that talk to his php backend over http. He sells these apps mainly to his customers in middle east.

<comment><USER5> Pretty interesting, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is also good example for great niche: [http://www.collectorz.com/](http://www.collectorz.com/)</comment>


Don't get Yo!? Then try Oy! - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/oy-one-touch-sms/id895685479?ls=1&mt=8

<comment><USER2> what is wrong with people?</comment>


Physics is not just what happens in the Department of Physics - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/why-physics-is-not-a-discipline <comment><USER2> [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Why%20Physics%20Is%20Not%20a%2...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Why%20Physics%20Is%20Not%20a%20Discipline)

<comment><USER3> 0 comments...

<comment><USER2> But 8 times reposted by the same person, I find that interesting... it's meta of course.

<comment><USER4> If at first you don't succeed, try, try again?

<comment><USER3> With karma of 24638, 'dnetesn must be doing something "right". I wonder if it has anything to do with over a hundred submissions in the last month?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Free Software Foundation issues statement on new iPhone models from Apple - <AUTHOR> https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement-on-new-iphone-models-from-apple <comment><USER2> They've got it all wrong. Users are vastly better protected from the kind of network surveillance they mention with Apple products, thanks to their curated, controlled approach to third party software distribution.

This is backed by hard data on malicious attacks from the Dept. of Homeland Security and the FBI. 79% occurred on Android, and just 0.7% on iPhone.

I'm also 100% positive this will have no effect on the reasoning of the FSF.

Source: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23863495](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23863495)

<comment><USER3> > Users are vastly better protected from the kind of network surveillance they > mention with Apple products, thanks to their curated, controlled approach to > third party software distribution.

You have got to be kidding.

For an ecosystem where its been the 'norm' to slurp users entire address books[1], NOTHING about Apple's 'curated, controlled' approach protects users.

Please get real.

1\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3563016](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3563016)

2\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5632934](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5632934)

3\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3564830](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3564830)

4\. [http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/09/27/facebook- ios-6-phone...](http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/09/27/facebook-ios-6-phone- number/)

<comment><USER4> Not any longer. Users must explicitly approve app access to contacts the first time it's requested.

<comment><USER3> And that only took them until iOS 6! My point still stands.

<comment><USER5> No, your point does not stand. You shifted goalposts, like most posters here do when they are proven wrong. Just admit your ignorance and move on.

<comment><USER3> Admit what defeat? What an odd thing to say - as if posting on HN is some sort of battleground.

Anyway, for years apps have been collecting user data without interference.

My point still stands. Apple can't protect users on their own platform. Keep those blinders on, I guess.

<comment><USER6> Your point was

> NOTHING about Apple's 'curated, controlled' approach [that of having a > closed source operating system] protects users

Definitely shifted goal posts.

Unrelated: you've said nothing to support this point anywhere throughout this thread.

<comment><USER3> > Unrelated: you've said nothing to support this point anywhere throughout > this thread.

That's not true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't know why other comments are being so snarky or dismissive and apologetic in response to this.

It doesn't matter whether or not you like the FSF, agree with Stallman, prefer Android, think the problem is rogue apps, the NSA, or think it's all irrelevant anyway due to the secret and proprietary nature of mobile firmware, baseband or hardware.

The FSF have made a very astute observation about the implications of having a finger print scanner in a personal device which you can probably not trust with your secrets. Can't we talk about that specifically instead of flogging the same old dead horses?

Do we really want to wait a few years until we discover that the authorities have been downloading fingerprint profiles from phones (like they're already known to do with messages and contacts) to acknowledge the insight here?

<comment><USER8> Why is harvesting fingerprints such a catastrophic possibility? The government already has your fingerprints if you've ever left or entered the country, and they've likely been taken during other periods in your life as well. Hell, even the Cambodian government decided to scan my fingers when I passed through. DrCube's counter-argument [1] is logical: that with these existing databases, the government can now access your phone. But really, is this feature being touted as a impenetrably secure way to unlock your phone? It seems to be positioned as "a way to make accessing your phone convenient for you and non-trivial for others," and I think this feature does exactly that.

If you can't trust the phone vendor, why are you not more paranoid about entering your username/password on the device? What about location data? I really can't fathom why decrying fingerprint technology is the nexus of your argument here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364725](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364725)

<comment><USER7> > The government already has your fingerprints if you've ever left or entered > the country, and they've likely been taken during other periods in your life > as well.

So, because it's pervasive, it's absolutely fine to allow it to become more pervasive?

Fyi, I'm approaching 30, have travelled widely, and to my knowledge have never had my finger imprints taken. I see no reason to find this acceptable. Not all countries are as fucked as the US in wanting your biometrics.

> is this feature being touted as a impenetrably secure way to unlock your > phone?

That's not the issue, it's the fingerprints themselves that the FSF and many of us are concerned with. Sure, you _do_ leave your fingerprints everywhere you go... but I really can't see a team of spooks dusting down the counters in McDonalds or the handrails in the subway to establish a national database. On the other hand, I can _totally_ see the Facebook mobile app using fingerprints for remote authentication and then the authorities gaining access to that data store.

> If you can't trust the phone vendor, why are you not more paranoid about > entering your username/password on the device? What about location data?

1) I can use a password that's unique to the device, my account, my app, or the the colour of my underwear. My fingerprints don't change.

2) Location data is less avoidable because it tends to be a by-product of optimal operation of a mobile device. Even excluded GPS, cell towers can be used to triangulate your position well enough to be useful to advertisers, for example, but that same raw data is totally needed for hand-off between cells and managing network coverage.

3) Again, existing concerns don't make new concerns OK.

<comment><USER9> > Not all countries are as fucked as the US in wanting your biometrics.

Malaysia is another country that will scan your fingerprint when you enter the country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is not news. Stallman and the FSF are against all things Apple and have been 'critical' of the company for ages.

[http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid- iphone...](http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g)

[http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple](http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple)

[http://stallman.org/apple.html](http://stallman.org/apple.html)

[http://www.geek.com/apple/fsf-attends-ipad-launch-with- warni...](http://www.geek.com/apple/fsf-attends-ipad-launch-with-warning- sign-1190692/)

<comment><USER11> I think this is the problem exemplified, especially the last one -- that was plain embarrassing. The FSF just cannot tactfully spread their (quite wise and forward-thinking) message. To any average Joe, the guy outside the Apple Store protesting the iPad is no different from the local drunk schizophrenic who lives on the alley corner yelling "REPENT, SINNERS!" until he passes out again.

Their concept of professionalism is flawed -- actually, a more apt predicate adjective would be "completely nonexistent." Just look at their website. 2003 wants its two-tone website design back.

<comment><USER12> Don't judge a book by its cover.

<comment><USER13> That's all very nice in theory, but if I am not a domain expert in a subject and the book's cover is made of clip-art and Comic Sans, human nature will lead me to trust it less.

Humans are not rational animals, no matter how much we'd like it otherwise. Rather than shouting down the tide, it's wise to invest in a little design/marketing - even if it rankles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Points scored, pat yourselves on the back.

Apple says the info stays on your device. "They're lying." Ok, but is there ANYTHING that could possibly convince someone of this mindset otherwise? I'm guessing the answer is along the lines of, Open source the whole thing. Oh well. Like I said, points scored.

<comment><USER15> It seems like even within the text of your comment that yes, there is SOMETHING that could possibly convince someone of this mindset that they aren't lying - they could open source the whole thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Apocryphal, but funny story about Calvin Coolidge: After returning from church one day, his wife is supposed to have asked him, "What did the preacher talk about?" Mr. Coolidge is reported to have tersely replied, "Sin." Still insistent, Mrs. Coolidge probed, "Well, what did he say about sin?" That is when Silent Cal responded, "He was agin' it."

What did the FSF talk about? Proprietary software. What did they have to say about it? They're agin' it. And like the sorts of preachers who love to talk about sin, there's never room for subtlety or tradeoffs.

<comment><USER17> You can't talk about tradeoffs without a firm understand of the two (or more) things you're trading off. There are a million PR agencies evangelising benefits of proprietary software and the drawbacks of Free software, and that viewpoint has been vehemently expressed for over 35 years (Bill Gates' "Open Letter to Hobbyists" was written in 1976, 37 years ago), so that side of the equation is very well understood. Meanwhile, the benefits of Free software and the drawbacks of proprietary software are much less frequently expressed. Sure, if you're a Linux user or subscribe to the nerdier-end of tech-news sites like HN, you've probably heard it all before, but that's still a small percentage of the IT industry, let alone the huge number of people considering updating to the iPhone 5S.

There's room enough for blog-posts and multi-page articles debating where the author wants to draw their personal line between proprietary and Free; we shouldn't complain about the FSF trying to fit their message into a soundbite for their target audience.

<comment><USER18> I had a friend bring this exact thread up over dinner. The reaction of pretty much everyone else at the table, myself included, was "Okay, and? How is this different from what the FSF does every day? Are they planning on releasing some silly PR flack every time a company comes out with a new device?"

Meanwhile, the benefits of proprietary software are more immediately obvious (the professional content creation market, for instance, is completely unserved on Linux last I checked), while the benefits of free/open source software are much more subtle and more ideological than functional.

The recent NSA shenanigans have (rightly, IMO) elevated the priority of that ideological fight, but it still is what it is.

(Note that I believe the FSF is fighting a good fight, but their organization and leadership appears to be dogmatic and often unrealistic)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not to be a jackass, but "regular" people don't want open source. They want things that "just work."

And there's no such thing as secure, unless you build your own software, that only talks to your own servers and that only uses your personal telco and your own infrastructure.

<comment><USER20> >Not to be a jackass, but "regular" people don't want open source. They want things that "just work."

By what logic do you come to the conclusion that these things are mutually exclusive?

Firefox "just works." 7zip "just works." There are innumerable things (like ssh) that "just work" so well that you don't even know when you're using them half the time.

The difference is that with free software you _can_ do the things that _don 't_ just work. With Apple if you want to do X thing and Apple deigns to provide X thing then you can do it without any futzing around. But if you want to do X thing and Apple deigns to neglect it then you will not be doing X thing whatsoever, regardless of how much you need it.

So for example if you want to install the latest version of Debian on a PowerMac, you boot the install CD and press enter until it's installed. Generally speaking it "just works." And in the event that it doesn't, chances are that you yourself can make it work. By contrast, if you want to install the latest version of OS X on a PowerMac, you can't. Enjoy your paperweight. The end.

<comment><USER21> >By what logic do you come to the conclusion that these things are mutually exclusive?

That conclusion is not in the post you're replying to.

<comment><USER20> Are you trolling? If you don't read the post's first paragraph to say that regular people want software that "just works" rather than open source (thereby implying said conclusion), it would turn the paragraph into gibberish. Reading the two statements as unrelated makes the statement about regular people not wanting open source into a baseless conclusion without explanation and makes the statement about wanting things that just work into an irrelevant tangent having nothing to do with the topic of discussion. I prefer to give the poster the benefit of the doubt that the post was intended to convey a coherent meaning rather than an arbitrary amalgamation of unsubstantiated opinions.

<comment><USER21> The argument is that regular people _do not care_ about open source.

You're reading too far into posts or something. I never said the statements were unrelated. They're definitely related, just not in the way you thought they were.

Compare to: "Regular users don't look for 'health' food, they want something purple." Nowhere is it concluded that something can't be both healthy and purple.

Bonus link: [http://www.fastcompany.com/1739774/how-carrots-became-new- ju...](http://www.fastcompany.com/1739774/how-carrots-became-new-junk-food)

<comment><USER20> Let me put it this way: If the post I responded to didn't conclude that open source doesn't "just work" then using the same logic, my post didn't say it did. All I did was point out that healthy food _can_ be purple, and that "regular" people may benefit from retaining their ability to choose to eat food of more than one color.

<comment><USER21> Your post did a good job of showing examples of software that does both, and making an argument that open source improves the chances of working.

But your very first line, the line I quoted, directly states that davidedicillo was calling them mutually exclusive. That line is what I was objecting to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _We can 't imagine a more hostile reaction to the wave of privacy concerns sweeping the world right now than debuting a proprietary, network-accessible fingerprint scanner as your new 'feature'._

I can't imagine a more short-sighted view of product development than to assume that new hardware is a _reaction_ to events which occurred only a few months before the first shipment of that new hardware.

<comment><USER23> They could have canceled the feature and launched the product without it. They could have referenced the privacy implications and their role in it, but they chose not to. The fingerprint scanner is clearly not a reaction to recent events, but we can't honestly pretend it has an existence outside their context.

No matter how ineloquent the FSF may be, we need some people out there leading our introspection, driving us to answer questions for ourselves about the potential tradeoffs. We _need_ multiple groups out their stirring people like us to communicate to "regular people in restaurants" and whatnot what the tradeoffs and technical capabilities are.

This goes double for the new Google phone announced in the wake of the NSA scandal. One if it's new features? A single core is listening 24/7 for key phrases. We have to tell people why this is could be hazardous to their well- being.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> What alternative do we really have?

Android phones aren't anymore transparent. The carrier or phone manufacture can add whatever they like to android.

Even if you flash your own os, you still aren't going to know if any backdoors have been added.

<comment><USER25> FSF offers multiple alternatives to which you could add Firefox OS and Ubuntu, although you would have to trust the hardware is not betraying you.

<comment><USER24> With the FF OS phones, I wouldn't trust the phone manufacture not tampering with the OS, or like you said, the hardware.

<comment><USER26> I wonder how the GeeksPhone Peak+ fares in this context. I pre-ordered one a few weeks ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This statement seems to be a general 'complaint' about Apple, rather than specific to the new iPhone models introduced today. How is a fingerprint scanner restricting users' essential freedoms?

<comment><USER28> Presumably the fingerprinting issue is more of privacy than essential freedoms. Even if we believe Apple when it says that fingerprint data (and authentication?) will remain solely on the device, it's potentially only one vulnerability before someone collects or accidentally exposes millions of iPhone users' fingerprints. And unlike your private keys, you can't change your fingerprints.

<comment><USER23> We could perhaps communicate this to people by way of saying that it resembles Bt corn. Bt works well as an infrequent insecticide, however, when it is used full-time, insects become immune to it and the usefulness of Bt is spoiled forever.

We could also regard fingerprints as a classic example of Security-By- Obscurity, like SSNs. They work well when used in small, obscure places like Top Secret building locks, but once the obscurity is removed by the fingerprints being compromised through accidental distribution, the technique as a resource is collapsed as a whole for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> There were people in that other iPhone thread claiming that the discussion about the privacy issues of the fingerprint scanner were irrelevant to the discussion and that they'd much rather not talk about it because they were so sick of reading about the NSA. I kid you not.

</comment><comment><USER30> In a different way, you could argue that the Apple Appstore (and similar) are protecting general computer users from malicious software.

There hasn't previously been vetting of software, so novices would download malicious programs from websites unaware. Now Apple performs helpful quality assurance.

<comment><USER31> Agreed. Browsing the Play store is like looking at one of those download pages that has 7 download links--one of which is the real link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The onus is on the consumers to demand something better. I'm personally boycotting Apple products partially for this reason. If I were to found a company & give my employees cell phones, I would lean heavily towards open/free hardware/software.

What hardware do you think is safe?

</comment><comment><USER33> > We can't imagine a more hostile reaction to the wave of privacy concerns > sweeping the world right now than debuting a proprietary, network-accessible > fingerprint scanner as your new 'feature'.

That's what I call a serious failure of imagination.

</comment><comment><USER34> "Free software empowers users to replace any software hostile to their interests."

I suppose so, but there's a much powerful mechanism: consumer choice. If a user feels a phone is hostile to them, they will buy one which is not. This replacement phone may be Free Software, or it may be non-Free. Free Software can be user-friendly software, yes, but it can also be user-hostile. Users won't use hostile Free software, but they won't use hostile closed source software, either. That's the free market at work.

The FSF's position here is akin to: "Buy open source toasters, so you can easily modify it if it's a design which spontaneously explodes!" No thanks-- I'll just buy a different toaster.

</comment><comment><USER35> I know everyone thinks this is nuts, but these people are the one who stand their ground and defend our freedom when it is almost crazy to do so. I admire them for pointing up obvious freedoms that people routinely give up.

<comment><USER36> Most people are giving up a freedom that they can't exercise anyway, in exchange for something that the "free" alternative doesn't provide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Rather than telling me not to use iOS (which I think is probably the best overall package right now), FSF should build something better. I'd probably tolerate Android 2.x-level quality if it were actually secure (i.e. I pick my own root of trust for all services, which might be a server I own), and ideally could run modern Android apps in nice little partitions. Neither Apple nor Google is really committed to building something like that, and I doubt Microsoft or Blackberry will, either.

</comment><comment><USER38> How can somebody not know that Apple is the brand of rebellion. You didn't see WTO protestors winning the day with Windows Phones.

When Bashar Assad gassed his country at night, you didn't see lives being saved by Android-mounted LED's. You saw iPads lighting the night sky.

Just sayin.

<comment><USER39> Wait, what? You can't coordinate a protest on WP7/8 (or with dumbphones)? Why?

And what's so bad about the camera flash on Android phones (or is it unpopular in Syria)? This comment sounds like a bad advertisement, and is completely meaningless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Apple should spend its cash on things that matter, like new product ideas.

[http://fakevalley.com/apple-investing-in-black-magic-to- get-...](http://fakevalley.com/apple-investing-in-black-magic-to-get-product- ideas-from-steve-jobs/)

</comment><comment><USER41> Did they just jump the gun and issue a statement on something they did not even touch? If fingerprints are network accessible is their main complaint, should they not wait till its out, check it and then issue a statement?

</comment><comment><USER42> It is hilarious to see how agrieved Apple (and Android) fanboys here have become to read the FSF post.

Android and Apple, both have proprietary code. Both are inappropriate intrusions on users' freedom. Is it so hard to understand?

</comment><comment><USER43> At some point this whole exercise gets rather silly. No matter how open and secure the phone is, there's the software that runs on the towers and in the telco system that tracks personably identifiable data and metadata.

The solution is simple, though: if you really want to make sure your mobile device isn't spying on you just don't use one. A bit inconvenient, but it's not the end of the world. Unless you're a mobile developer. ;)

</comment><comment><USER44> I really hope that what gets stored and transmitted is a hash or some sort of meta-data generated using my fingerprint and not a scan of the _actual print_.

<comment><USER32> Doubt it, for something as analog as a finger print, I'm having a hard time imagining a one-way hash function.

<comment><USER23> This made me curious, so I found things like this: www.cse.unr.edu/~bebis/UdayFingerprint.pdf and www.csis.pace.edu/~ctappert/dps/IJCB2011/papers/200.pdf

The features themselves are somewhat of a hash of the image, and as quantizable elements, they could be further hashed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> the big majority of the people in this thread seems to lack the understanding that whats is really bad by this new wave of walled gardens created by apple, is not only about inly closed software anymore.. its against to let someone to decide by you what is good or not.. if they dont like something, or is politically incorrect, you will never have the chance to choose for yourself! im not talking about virus, and malware.. but political matters..

we got several problems with this approach.. one is the monopoly of one.. the centralization.. this is bad economically and politically .. since the bad guys the ones who have the apple in their pockets already could own whatever apple has..

the other big implication, something unnaceptable for me.. is the fact they can do whatever they want remotelly from their central with something that you bough with your own money and SHOULD BE YOURS, its your property.. you do whatever you want with it... do you wanna sell a music you bought to somebody else.. can you? can you choose a app with artistic nude , because its your choice??

its not just about now, its about the future.. its about the freedom of the future generations.. i think all of this moves from any company ridiculous.. and by paying for this you are paying for the society failure in stand against something will take our liberties away..

its a pretty phone with a big trap inside of it... corporations are taking a ground they should not trespass and the problem is that others big companies just follow..

dont worry, they are your friends.. they will protect you! while this community in 100% in terms of technology wisdom , its visible the lack of critical thinking of so many people is this thread.. its pretty sad

</comment><comment><USER46> The deep irony is that iOS is based on BSD, which is free.

<comment><USER47> A good example to bring up when picking a license. Would the author of a software package be happy having apple using the software, but never receive any attributions back. If the software is good, the CEO of apple get the praise, and the author get forgotten. If its bad, you get the bug reports.

We all here know that iOS is built on BSD, but how many can name a single author of that code? How many know the author of the linux kernel?

<comment> X-Istence How many people know anyone besides Linus Torvalds? FreeBSD for example is a project that was co-founded by Jordan Hubbard, who incidentally also worked at Apple for a long time on OS X...

So named a single author, as requested. Linus may be known better, but when you are practically synonymous with badly behaved/child like/tantrum throwing behaviour you may want to rethink why you are well known...

<comment><USER10> Naming your OS after yourself also works, although it takes chutzpah. Not even big ego Steve Jobs named an OS or other product after himself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Closed source with a finger print scanner!! No thanks...

</comment><comment><USER49> It's network-accessible? I'm sorry, does the FSF know something we don't, or are they just ignorant and shooting off at the mouth?

<comment><USER50> Apple says it isn't, but I guess the general argument is that there's simply no way to verify that claim.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I believe both sides have valid arguments depending on who you think the threat is. If you expect complete control over your data then you would want the system to be open source and transparent. To protect an average smartphone user from malicious apps, a closed and curated system like Apple's appstore makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER52> So the FSF says that people shouldn't use Apple phones because they don't run FSF software? I'm shocked!

<comment><USER53> No, it's that they don't use Free Software. The FSF is not the only Free Software organization.

<comment><USER54> Not to mention all the patent trolling and hardware restrictions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> The FSF folks always come off as little more than crotchety old men. Right or wrong, their message obviously isn't being heard or perhaps few people actually care. People vote with their wallets, may e it's time the FSF evaluates their approach as they are completely ineffectual.

<comment><USER12> ... or maybe it's time for the people should stop voting with their wallets and start listing. Then maybe their message would be heard and more people would start to care about what they are saying and realize that they ARE actually right.

<comment><USER55> Good luck with that approach. Idealogical, wishful thinking doesn't solve problems.

<comment><USER12> How is people using their brains instead of their wallets idealogical or wishful thinking?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> tl;dr: The FSF would rather you did not use any mobile phone at all since none exist that match their requirements.

Nut jobs.

</comment><comment><USER57> Is there a good reason they didn't include FirefoxOS on the list of alternatives?

</comment><comment><USER33> > We can't imagine a more hostile reaction to the wave of privacy concerns > sweeping the world right now than debuting a proprietary, network-accessible > fingerprint scanner as your new 'feature'.

A serious failure of imagination.

<comment><USER58> And serious failure on facts. iPhone is not the first phone to have fingerprint scanner, and "network-accessible" is false is Apple is telling the truth. Unless FSF know better than Apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Why is this the big deal? Apple stands for everything that the FSF fights against. Same goes for Microsoft and all the usual others. Just the usual statement in case you didn't know already.

</comment><comment><USER60> One way to submit your fingerprints into a single database for free in an organized matter. Good move!</comment>


French data regulator rejects Google's right-to-be-forgotten appeal - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/french-google-right-to-be-forgotten-appeal <comment><USER2> I can't imagine that Google is going to just accept this globally. As the article says, they can't possibly agree with this and then disagree with China or Russia on content censorship, and there's no way Sergey will allow that (nor a lot of other senior Google executives).

I think Google absolutely would "pull out" of the French market if it meant they could save the Chinese market.

<comment><USER3> One thing I can't find, given this goes back to EU rules would pulling out of France be enough?

I hope so, because if it's EU wide or could be EU wide I have no idea what they would do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> delisting in google is dumb. especially since it's not removing, it's adding. Google needs to add data to delist. Also if you have enough money you could easily track whats getting removed.

and mostly the removal requests are illegal since they are mostly against higher laws in most countries including french and german. since only data could be delisted that really affects some people's life, which could also delete the content of the origin. if a court ruling will tell other stories you could easily go to the highest court to drop that out. Especially in germany some courts ruled against the GG, cause of the right-to-be-forgotten. they did that without even bothering what they did.

as a common rule i don't like whats happing. i mean yes, there needs to be some data protection, however it shouldn't be used as it is used today, to make it harder to find bad information about people which did bad in the past, like shop owners who are bad managers etc pp. and that is just aweful.</comment>


Kalief Browder, 1993–2015 - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015 <comment><USER2> How anyone would remotely compare this to Michael Brown is beyond dumb. Michael Brown was fighting a cop, taking his gun in a street fight. This kid was already in jail when the abuse happened. This is night and day different. Just suggesting a connection is highly racist. The only common denominator was race. That's it. Michael Brown was a vicious thug who robbed a store and attempted to kill a cop with his own gun. Kalief was a kid who was subject to systematic violations of his constitutional rights while in jail. I suppose that the guards beating him weren't obviously white so it made a politically advantageous racism accusation less viable and thus less worthy of national indignation. It didn't have the profit potential of a racism accusation.

How Michael Brown makes national headlines and inspires riots and this kid doesn't is a mystery. Where was Al Sharpton for this kid? This whole business is disgusting. This story should be on every TV in America. It has it all: mental illness, injustice and policy failures.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've never really understood how jails for people accused but not yet convicted are allowed to be horrible places. They should be required to be similar to the accommodations provided to jurors who are sequestered, with the necessary allowances for the fact that the people are in fact prisoners and some may need to be kept isolated for the safety of the other prisoners.

</comment><comment><USER4> This story is such a tragic indictment of our justice system. RIP Kalief. I can only hope something good comes out of the horror you lived through.

<comment><USER5> "Indictment" is a funny word choice. That's exactly what is missing in law enforcement misconduct.

<comment><USER6> I just feel helpless about this country. I go to these shopping malls and night clubs and see droves of people unconcerned or even aware about the apathy that this country has been fostering. We're no longer a role model of a democracy we enshrined in our pitch last century. Sometimes I feel we're no less bad than North Korea, except for the ton of money floating around that lets a section of people off the hook. Or political power.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> He seemed to have beat the system but I guess in the end it won.

My dad very recently won a police brutality case with a settlement of ~100k. Technically it's not winning since they settled. After medical (even with insurance medical expenses come out of the settlement) and lawyer fees he'll receive ~5k.

He says it doesn't feel like he won. Even though to me and most others it looks that way.

<comment><USER5> He didn't win at all. The hospital won.

<comment><USER8> Hospitals won either way. It was the insurance companies that won.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is at home, not some far off place in the mid east.

Maybe Abu Ghraib was not a few bad apples but instead an insight on how prisons are run in the US.

The entire prison system needs to be fixed and things like prison rape should be the last thing we think of when talking about prisons. It should be a rarity and not normal part of prison.

</comment><comment><USER10> Discussed previously on HN (before his death) -- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8403451](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8403451)

</comment><comment><USER11> The police and the government pretty much getting away with anything now days. Their attitude is fuck the constitution. In any case, what exactly is a speedy trial? 10 years sounds speedy to us, what the fuck are you complaining about? The prosecutors are more worried about the conviction rate than whether the right person is jailed. Are you sure you don't want to please guilty and be release for time already served?

There have been several news articles and in fact one discussed here in the last week or so about how if you have too much cash the police can just take it. It qualifies as civil forfeiture. No bother about the 4th amendment. You must be guilty of something if you carry that much cash.

Reference the following from the lawyer Greenwald:

[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/29/denny- hastert-...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/29/denny-hastert- highly-unsympathetic-face-americas-criminalization-pathology)

When a country has a higher portion of their population in prison than any other country, then it is obviously the least free country. Crimes should be objective, not subjective. Law Enforcers seem to have free reign to persecute, harass and jail people at will. Does it really matter when some poor black or brown kid is involved? The country was founded on slavery. The way to maintain the slave population is to have subjective laws where they can pretty much lock anybody up that they want. They obviously like locking up black and brown people. It makes it easier to identify the slave laborers.

Think about this. The US has a higher proportion of the population locked up than either Russia or China. Snowden had to ask political asylum in Russia.

What the fuck exactly are you expecting? The US is undoubtedly the land of the jailed.

What can we as tech people do to fix this?

Also, note how one way to keep a government in check is via the guns and the police departments have been stock piling weapons and tons of ammunition to keep them poor people in line.

Voters can't and won't do much about it. For the reason see the ted talk by Lawrence Lessig discussing lesterland. Less than 150 super rich individuals contribute something like 60% of the super pac money. The people that run the in elections have already been screened and approved up by these super rich fucks.

Also, to keep everybody in check, there is super surveillance in place because of the alleged terrorists. While osama burned us on 911 by taking down the twin towers, what US citizens have done to the US government is far, far worse. The only way to truly combat terrorism is to treat every single citizen like a terrorists and they most definitely will not qualify a country as the land of the free.

Read 1984, things today seem worse than portrayed in the book.

So, I ask again, who really gives a fuck about a poor black or brown kid when those rich fucks needs some slave labor working for 10 cents an hour in a private prison?</comment>


China Unveils New Native Operating System - <AUTHOR> http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/china-unveils-new-native-operating-system/?ref=world

<comment><USER2> > It said existing open-source operating systems pose security risks

And by security they probably mean ability to insert their own backdoors.

</comment><comment><USER3> Let me guess. Cisco won't be suing the Chinese government for it running Java.</comment>


First human-monkey chimera raises concern among scientists - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/03/first-human-monkey-chimera-raises-concern-among-scientists <comment><USER2> Reading the article gave me a slight heeby-jeeby feeling.

<comment><USER3> Me too. _" The Island of Dr. Moreau"_.</comment></comment>


Google unveils its Container Engine - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/04/google-container-engine/ <comment><USER2> For some technical data on this, visit the actual project page: [https://cloud.google.com/container- engine/](https://cloud.google.com/container-engine/)</comment>


Calling card - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visiting_card <comment><USER2> This feels almost like SYN/ACK/NACK, but for people. Which means you could DDoS an aristocrat by sending them a lot of visiting cards.

<comment><USER3> My first thought was that this would be an interesting protocol for calling someone.

I often receive more annoying robocalls on my personal phone than welcomed calls from unknown numbers. My usual solution is to quickly google the number to see if any scam reports are available and then quickly answer if not.

But I might start the practice of texting ahead of calling someone unfamiliar with a quick message like "This is John Smith's phone. I'll be calling shortly." That way, I would ensure that my call was picked up or at least given the priority they prefer.

Or maybe I'm just a weirdo that worries too much about the consequences of actually answering robocalls :)

<comment><USER4> Just read an interesting strategy for dealing with robocalls: answer and immediately mute yourself. They will assume it's a dead line and take you off the list.

Or do what I do and answer every unknown call with "911\. What's the location of your emergency?"

<comment><USER5> That second strategy ought to get you on another, more interesting, list though.

<comment><USER6> How come? Is that illegal?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Sometimes the name of a gentlemen's club might be added, but addresses were > not otherwise included. [..] The visiting card is no longer the universal > feature of upper middle class and upper class life that it once was in > Europe and North America. Much more common is the business card.

And "gentlemen's clubs" now typically means strip clubs in modern culture.

</comment><comment><USER8> These are still in use on some circles. When I was young, my parents sent me to a thing called Cotillion. It was a sort of evening camp for young people where we learned table manners, ballroom dancing, and ettiquite. Calling cards were part of the deal. A proper host had a special tray for them near the entrance for people to leave theirs.

</comment><comment><USER9> Interestingly, while in English we now say "business card", it seems that at least Swedish and Finnish, and probably other languages too, retained some form of "visiting card". In Swedish "visitkort" and in Finnish "käyntikortti" (literally, visit card) are still the terms for business card in use today.

<comment><USER10> "Visitenkarte" in German (for both today's business card and the old style calling card).

<comment><USER11> I like this one: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Visiting_Card_of_Kaiser_W...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Visiting_Card_of_Kaiser_Wilhelm.jpg)

<comment><USER12> I believe James Brown at one time had business cards printed with "himself" as title.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting article but it shows the cultural biais of Wikipedia, not a word about Asia where visiting cards might have been even more important to social interactions.

<comment><USER14> It's odd that in 2017 we are still having this debate. _wiki_ welcomes you to improve the article. In fact that's the whole idea behind the site. It's odd that some users are still missing this use case in its entirety.

<comment><USER15> > wiki welcomes you

Welcomes? Over the years there have been many projects to make Wikipedia more welcoming to newcomers, because WP recognised that the "don't bite the newbies" guidance is nto always followed.

I don't know what it's like now. I'd be interested to see the results of surveys of new editors.

<comment><USER14> It's those who complain about the quality of Wikipedia whom, in the same vein, complain it's hard for newbies to edit it.

I've had edits rejected and I must say Wikipedia's 'assume good faith' policy makes it less hard on the newbie ego.

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

Maybe newbie edits that don't cut the mark is one of the processes that attempt to drive the quality upward.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sleep 'boosts brain cell numbers' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23932577 <comment><USER2> Good article. I hope some of these 'brogrammers' read it and realize that programming 20 hours a day is not only shortening your lifespan. It is, literally, making you more stupid.

<comment><USER3> I wonder if anyone has ever done a statistical analysis of a large project to see _when_ changes that generated bugs were actually performed. I've long suspected that when you see particularly silly bugs committed by people who really do know better there is usually some explanation that can often be that they are tired/stressed/distracted.

[NB I know myself that I can do particularly silly things when tired so I will sometimes let myself spend a long time investigating a problem but I won't fix it until the next day.]

<comment><USER4> I've had projects where we had to send people home because they became a such a noticeable burden.

Personally I wanted to force people out of the office much earlier on one of them because pretty much nothing got done when people were staying late, but it left everyone more tired in the morning, but the CEO was of the "more hours == more work done" mentality and wouldn't listen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think everyone owes it to themselves to set aside a few weeks in which they go to sleep early enough that they wake up naturally every day. The feeling is amazing and it does wonders for your productivity.

<comment><USER6> It is so good for productivity that I've completely stopped using "staying up late" as a method to get things done. If I have a lot of work to do that's a good sign to get to bed early and start in the morning when I'm fresh.

Problems that I spend hours on the night before seem to solve themselves magically in minutes. After a while I got the hint: Just go to bed and sleep. You save time and feel better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is an important finding, not because it confirms something that seems obvious for many people (ie. prolonged sleep deprivation = worse performance), but because it can help change the dominant management style in companies. Overworking is a very old problem, but hopefully similar findings will boost the strength of counter arguments.

<comment><USER8> I fear overworked managers will not be able to understand the issue.

<comment><USER9> Maybe after a good nights sleep...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I learned early in life that it's better to work intensely and rest a lot than do more work of a lower quality. If you are sleep deprived you might miss insights and opportunities. Time is the most valuable resource in the universe: by staying awake longer you are not gaining time but shortening your available time pool in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER11> My cats should have brains the size of large melons.

</comment><comment><USER12> So will it ever be possible to artificially produce these cells that go on to make myelin and reduce or eliminate the need for sleep?

<comment><USER13> Maybe, but I doubt that will be sufficient. Evolution being the opportunistic bastard that it is, it seems likely that lots of little processes have hitched a ride on sleep. There may not be any single factor to take care of which eliminates the need for sleep entirely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have little time. I sometimes overwork one hour or more and I also have a long commute (between 1.30h - 2h). I sleep at least between four and five hours (except weekends). I work full-time and I'm studying a degree. If I don't do this, I don't have time for everything (see work, study, hobby projects). But it is true that I still feel so unproductive, I can't focus, or it takes me a while and I'm easily distracted, it takes me a long time to think of the correct way to structure a pattern or algorithm... I tried to sleep more, but I always end up feeling overwhelmed by all the tasks.

<comment><USER15> if you're feeling overwhelmed (these are your words), why are you doing so much?

seriously. why?

<comment><USER16> _I challenge you_ to say this to a poverty-stricken single mother of a mentally-disabled child with no job prospects (due to not having any marketable skills, certifications, or degrees) and a mountain of debt left behind by a dead-beat husband who is incapable of providing child-support due to being an alcoholic bum with no job prospects of his own.

This is what my mother-in-law has to deal with every day.

Sometimes people "[do] so much" because they have no reasonable alternatives. Being overwhelmed is a fact of life for them.

<comment><USER15> this guy is talking about "hobby projects" and posting on HN.

my response was directed at him, not your hypothetical single mother with a special needs child.

<comment><USER16> > my response was directed at him

OK, point taken and understood. My apologies for taking your comment out-of- context.

> not your hypothetical single mother with a special needs child

It wasn't hypothetical. That's an accurate description of the life my mother- in-law leads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The feeling of going to bed early and waking up with the sunrise is an amazing feeling. To be honest I don't know why we were created with a sleep function, we would get so much done without it. Imagine what mankind would achieve with an extra 12hours!

<comment><USER18> Not much, since for the most part our ancestors did not have illumination at night

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Sleep... what a great idea. Someday. It's on the to-do list.</comment>