Five hundred days using Ubuntu Phone - <AUTHOR> http://bobthegnome.blogspot.com/2016/04/five-hundred-days-using-ubuntu-phone.html <comment><USER5> A little hard to take seriously considering the author works for Canonical. Even so the author didn't seem very excited about it, it felt more like an acceptable phone and not that it's better than Android or iOS.

<comment><USER6> I'd go further than "little hard to take seriously".

Nowhere in the article does he state that his employer is Canonical. His blog doesn't mention it at all, just says he's "Involved with Gnome". Even clicking through to his "Complete Profile" takes me to a G+ page. From there another "About" link click _finally_ tells me that he's an employee of Canonical.

Sure, he didn't claim its the 2nd coming of the FSM but stating any potential conflict of interest is pretty standard. A 1 sentence comment on HN from a related employee/founder/ceo usually has a disclaimer about it.

<comment><USER7> It's a blogpost, made to express an opinion, so he doesn't have to say this. If this was supposed to be a serious article, or was involved in a serious debate, then it would be a different issue.

Second, I have a Firefox phone and no other phone. It's terrible right? Yet I'm happy with it, as it is less buggy than my previous phone, and it actually does what I want. The only thing that I'd like from it would be flac support, but it's something I can get around with a simple script. So, I can see how somebody could be able to live with a Ubuntu phone, and don't need to be paid to say good things about it.

Also, not throwing money at Apple/Google/Microsoft is a a big motivation, and a great pleasure.

<comment><USER8> Not only is it a personal blog, he did not post the article here. I don't know if he's even aware that it's now on HN. Expectations of disclosures seem absurd.

<comment><USER9> And at least it seems like Canonical is dogfooding. These wasn't an in-depth review that struck me as masquerading as an objective write up from a non-bias source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I tried to like mine (BQ E5). But for an almost-flagship Ubuntu phone, reception was terrible. Went back to the Nexus (now 5x), and I've had _zero_ issues in the same places I used my E5.

Maybe once they've polished a bit, it may be worth going back.

Corollary: I'll throw anyone money who can make a good (usable) Debian phone. Still waiting :(

<comment><USER11> It always astounds me how many reviews of "phones" fail to mention phone-like qualities such as reception and ability of the mic to filter out background noise. These are all I care about when choosing a phone. Yet you can find 10-page reviews of phones in which nothing discussed would lead you to understand it's a phone.

<comment><USER12> They just cater to the audience, I suppose. The call features are a rather minor feature for many people nowadays -- I checked my call log, and it was 11 incoming+outgoing calls within the last 30 days.

<comment><USER13> It'll change if/when you have kids. You'll probably have a half-dozen calls a day coordinating things. And having a high quality connection for those calls is really important.

<comment><USER14> > It'll change if/when you have kids. You'll probably have a half-dozen calls > a day coordinating things.

 _So_ much organising is done over WhatsApp nowadays that we have an old Samsung phone just to run that app, with only appropriate contacts loaded.

I'm not a fan of proprietary messaging but I can see that it is a lot more efficient for organisers than making a call to every parent.

I don't recall having made a voice call on it in months.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Problem I have: I need my banking app, my bank id app and instant-bank-money- transfer app that doesn't exist for Ubuntu Phone.

Without those apps, paying invoices takes too much time. I can't transfer money to my CC when I need it and I can't transfer money to my friends.

But worst of all, I can't login to 90% of all the governmental services that require bank id. They all exist for my Windows Phone though, which is an underdog enough for me.

<comment><USER7> Problem I have: I am dependent on MEGAcorp. MEGAcorp does not like freedom. So free solutions are not good.

Do you see the problem?

<comment><USER6> > Do you see the problem?

You think Canonical is a bastion of free software? Is that the problem? I'm pretty sure that's the problem.

<comment><USER7> The point I'm making does not involve Canonical. When discussing a switch to Linux, most people answer with something like "oh but it should support X (MEGAcorp product) so I can't switch". It should support .docx, or whatever latest proprietary protocols. And when this is implemented, there will be a new shiny closed thing to have.

Also, in its current form your comment is just a Perfect Solution Fallacy.

<comment><USER16> >"oh but it should support X (MEGAcorp product) so I can't switch".

> It should support .docx, or whatever latest proprietary protocols. And when > this is implemented, there will be a new shiny closed thing to have.

This is fascinating. The word you're looking for is "features".

Consumers want this annoying little thing called "cutting edge features".

I've literally in my entire life developing software never seen someone find a way to cast "feature seeking users" as the bad people addicted to MEGAcorp or whatever.

On the surface, your entire argument appears to be that if regular users didn't constantly want well polished and shiny new features, open source software would be successful.

<comment><USER7> >This is fascinating. The word you're looking for is "features".

This is fascinating. You are confusing "features" with "interacting with closed software".

Want to take an example? Go have a look at Krita. It has so many "cutting edge features" it's impressive, and many people honestly think that it's better than Photoshop. Yet what I would even say is its biggest problem is its inability to open PS brushes. Now if you spent some time on HN, you must have read about the sheer horror that is the PSD format. So it's not just comparing the two softwares on an objective basis.

<comment><USER16> Hey Krita is a great case to make but I would characterize it as the "exception to the rule" not the rule of open source software.

Photoshop is a bit of a leviathan and it's odd how no one has ever really competed with it strongly and the software has certainly suffered from its lack of real competition.

There's also the reality that its primary users -- designers, photographers, digital artists and the likes, aren't usually programmers or techie people who use a large variety of complicated software, and so for its primary users, they know Photoshop like they know their Canon, they know the details of the brand and setup and change is hard for them as well.

EDIT: To corroborate this last paragraph with an anecdote, I asked a digital artist friend of mine if she'd used Krita, and her reply was: "I'm leery of open source though. like great for devianart and stuff but often find saving problems, glitches etc", so that helps demonstrate how ingrained artists can be to their tools.

Krita seems great -- but that doesn't make Ubuntu better than W10 or OSX, and it doesn't mean that LibreOffice is in the same decade as Word and/or 360 or Google Docs, etc etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> chris-at What does "33 minutes talk time" on [http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/devices](http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/devices) mean?

Why does it show that on the lock screen?

<comment><USER17> The phone self-destructs after 33 minutes to safeguard against the FBI. ;)

<comment><USER18> Actually it is a safeguard against the TSA

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have been using the Aquaris 4.5 for probably ~300 days and I am still impressed how much Canonical has fucked up the Linux-powered smartphone idea. I could go on a long rant here, but there is one thing that pisses me off the most:

In order to gain access to the software repository (the "App Store") and receive updates for installed software, you have to have a registered ubuntu one account activated on the phone.

Excuse my language, but what the fucking hell?

<comment><USER20> I'm curious, what is the issue here?

Is there some sort of ethical or technical deep end that they dove into that causes you to not only swear, but to swear twice (and once without apologizing for it!!)?

Because, really... if requiring a more-or-less anonymous account is the biggest problem you have with it, I have a hard time understanding how you can say: "I am still impressed how much Canonical has fucked up the Linux-powered smartphone idea"

<comment><USER19> No, it is not only the mandatory account, but for a free platform this is a huge red flag for me. See, I come from using the N900 (to some extent I still do). While not everything was/is golden with maemo, Ubuntu Touch in comparison sucks big time:

\- on UT all packages you want to install have to be "click"-packages (bye bye debianic universe of free software)

\- good luck with using a microSD to extend storage; as per permissions it is impossible for applications to use a folders on SD (great fun if you want to download podcasts).

\- webkit based browser with no plugin/addon support. With some sarcasm, I am actually grateful for this: I had no idea how terrible the world is without an ad/js-blocker.

And for the account thingy: can you enlighten me with a good reason why one needs an account to download free software?

To me, the platform feels terribly "corporate", as if more effort was put into allowing for monetization instead of distributing linux for smartphones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Can anyone name adequate phones with FOSS operating systems that aren't Android forks? I think that's what many of us are looking for.

<comment><USER22> I think this is it ATM. I agree, I'd pay a good chunk of money for an actuall- Debian phone, but AFAIK, they don't exist

<comment><USER23> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11439568](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11439568)

<comment><USER22> Thanks. I'd rather not run chroot though. Tends to be slow, bulky, and doesn't address a lot of what I actually want out of a linux phone

<comment><USER23> A chroot is simply a Debian install, not sure why it would be slower or bulkier than a normal Debian install.

What do you want out of a Linux phone?

<comment><USER22> It's slower and bulkier because the underlying android OS is still running.

Some things I want that android/chroot doesn't offer:

A good terminal interface

To be able to script things that, to my knowledge, a chroot doesn't let you: texting, change alarms, sounds, etc.

A real browser, not a mobile browser

A phone that is actually free (as in speech)

And these are just off the top of my head in the past 5 minutes. If I actually sat and thought about it, I'm sure I could come up with many more.

<comment><USER23> Re bulk: OK, that makes sense. If you are able to either update the bootloader configuration or modify the initramfs then you can boot directly into a chroot without Android running.

[http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/log/2012/12/03/debian- mobile/](http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/log/2012/12/03/debian-mobile/)

I wonder if any of these terminals work for you:

[https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=terminal&fdi...](https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=terminal&fdid=org.connectbot) [https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=terminal&fdi...](https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=terminal&fdid=jackpal.androidterm)

A chroot will indeed not be able to change Android things.

I would guess "real browser"s are either too slow or memory bloated to work on mobile devices and either way their UI isn't going to be usable on a small touchscreen device probably..

When you talk about free as in speech, there are so many layers there it is hard to know which parts you are talking about, here are some:

Do you want the minerals used to not be involved with wars, slavery, suicide in factories and other nastiness? Fairphone is working on that but freedom on the software side is not really one of their goals.

Do you want the phone to be repairable rather than discarded every 2 years? Fairphone is working on that too and just came out with a modular device.

Do you want to run a patent-free CPU architecture with FLOSS-licensed CPU designs? RISC-V exists bit is in the early stages. lowRISC aims to produce ASICs but hasn't done so yet.

Do you want the phone case to be manufactured using the LulzBot libre 3D printer from FLOSS CAD designs produced in freecad or similar? The OpenMoko FreeRunner had libre designs but they weren't produced with libre tools IIRC and they were pretty chunky physically. The Neo900 case is just from discarded N900 devices, but the motherboard and baseband isolation features are excellent.

Do you want the baseband to be running FLOSS-licensed software? OsmocomBB only supports 2G and parts of it have to run outside the baseband.

Do you want the other chips (WiFi etc) to run FLOSS software? There are some (ath9k_htc, OpenFWWF, carl9170.fw, prism54 FreeMAC) but none of the WiFi chips typically used in phones and most are dead projects.

Do you want a FLOSS operating system that supports arbitrary mobile hardware? Mainline Linux doesn't support many mobile devices and the mobile device industry moves so fast that there isn't really time for them to upstream their code before shipping the device.

I recommend looking up bunnie huang's ideas about layers of freedom and the hardware world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Sounds quite ok, but the question is when Meizu 5Pro comes out... March is already over, I hope it is not cancelled..

</comment><comment><USER25> I use ubuntu on my phone the other way around, using Linux Deploy I chroot an ubuntu or debian root image and connect to it with ssh or vnc on android. It came in quite handy when streaming mp3 through icecast through the wifi accesspoint on my phone for a dancewalk through town.

</comment><comment><USER26> Hardware wise, I can't really find what I want with an ubuntu phone: I like the spec and the price of the Aquaris E5, but the bezel is really huge. The Meizu mx4 lack of a SD slot and the Meizu 5Pro is too costly :(

I would miss whatsapp too... Not that I like the app, but it's commonly used within my group of friends.

Fix the two points above and you've go a buyer :)

</comment><comment><USER27> At this point, I'd be fascinated by "alt-mobile" OS's that are simply the best of the bunch. That is, never mind about being comparable to iOS or Android, just simply the most user-friendly and reliable among the runner-ups. So is Ubuntu Mobile better than Firefox OS? Or Sailfish OS? Or even Windows Phone?

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm wondering how people are doing with a Raspberry Pi phone.

See e.g. [https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/piphone-home-made- raspberry...](https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/piphone-home-made-raspberry-pi- smartphone/)

</comment><comment><USER29> So it does look like a viable phone platform, I'm glad to read that someone is happy with it!

<comment><USER30> All phone platforms are viable, it depends on what you expect from them...

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm glad that Mozilla has finally given up on Firefox OS for phones. Maybe it's time for Canonical to do the same, and focus on improving Ubuntu.

</comment><comment><USER32> It's kind of weird to trust Ubuntu store software more than Android stuff considering it's probably not sandboxed nearly as well

</comment><comment><USER33> What's going on with open sourcing of Sailfish by the way? Jolla promised it several times already, but nothing happened.

</comment><comment><USER34> The comparison of Android updates for non-Nexus devices versus this device is a little unfair.

This is pretty much the only Ubuntu phone with significant sales numbers. This is the result of a cooperation between Canonical and bq. This is pretty much the equivalent of a Nexus device for the Ubuntu phone platform.

<comment><USER35> When 95%+ of Android devices are non-Nexus, that means that's easily the majority experience of Android users.

I think that makes it fair.

<comment><USER34> It's an entirely unfair comparison - Canonical only has to support a single phone model, while Google would have to support hundreds.

<comment><USER36> It's the trade-off Google accepted for allowing their trademark on unsupported devices and having 80% of the mobile OS marketshare instead of 4%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Ok, but when will apps be able to run when the screen is off? It seems sort of rediculous that the only way to listen to, say, Spotify is to leave the screen on _and_ the Spotify app in the foreground.

</comment><comment><USER38> How much money did you get to make this wonderland story?

<comment><USER38> I appreciate all the negative points :) but I am also owner of the same phone, and list of terrible things goes like this:

\- charging is unpredictable, I would like to attache some of the screen shots ... \- You can not charge it while it is on ?! yes I know. If you do it will show it is full charged and then it will discharge in 30 minutes .. \- Main apps do not exist (Skype, WhatsUp, Viber, etc... list is long ...), - <USER4> it is showing it has 4g most of the it does not work ... and it is not network issue, I have another phone ... \- Camera will sometime save images that cannot be read after ... especially if battery is near to the end.

To say anything nice about phone or platform you must be high or someone has to pay you to post that...

<comment><USER39> The negative points worked though. This is a useful comment to make:

 _I am also owner of the same phone, and list of terrible things goes like this:

\- charging is unpredictable, I would like to attache some of the screen shots ... - You can not charge it while it is on ?! yes I know. If you do it will show it is full charged and then it will discharge in 30 minutes .. - <USER3> apps do not exist (Skype, WhatsUp, Viber, etc... list is long ...), - <USER4> it is showing it has 4g most of the it does not work ... and it is not network issue, I have another phone ... - Camera will sometime save images that cannot be read after ... especially if battery is near to the end._

Whereas making insinuations about the author doesn't really provide anybody here anything of value.

<comment><USER6> > making insinuations

The author is an employee of the company that makes the OS for the phone, and didn't mention it in the specific article or on the header/sidebar of the blog. It's several clicks away on a Google+ profile.

> doesn't really provide anybody here anything of value

I disagree.

<comment><USER39> _How much money did you get to make this wonderland story?_

That's an insinuation regardless of what the truth is. As is stating that they would have to be high to write the article.

Stating that the author works for Canonical is not an insinuation.

<comment><USER6> That you are more concerned with someone suggesting an article was partially or fully affected by financial incentive, rather than the author not stating anything about his employer in said article, says a lot to me.

Here's a hint: you and I have very different priorities.

<comment><USER39> Sure, I believe that making baseless _accusations_ of dishonesty is pernicious. I think it's even worse when it's easy to discover facts that would point to the potential for conflict of interest. I find it really disappointing how easy people are with accusation.

I'm not sure my not saying anything about the conflict of interest actually reveals much about how I feel about it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Web-startup=Cinderella, Systems startup=Ugly Duckling? - <AUTHOR>

I know that a vast majority of HN'ers work on web startup/ do backend/front-end/ web dev as a full time job.    There are big things  happening on the Systems-side, with many companies in Cloud storage, Security-as-a-Service (Zscaler). Why does this not make it to the top page of HN? As far as I know, HN is probably the only proper channel connecting  a wide range of tech-savy audience across the world. Sites like Network World dont exactly encourage users sharing interests/projects etc.  And the majority of blogs - which track specific trends in Virtualization/Cloud Computing/Storage  are written by narcissistic non-coding full-time bloggers who somehow become experts in"Cloud Computing"  by writing one post daily.  So, is there a proper forum for Systems-inclined guys?  If so, do post a link. On HN,generally:   a) Web-startups=Cinderallas=cool  b) Anything else=Ugly duckling=uncool     :-( <comment><USER2> "Though we fund all types of startups, we're especially interested in web/mobile applications." ~<http://ycombinator.com/about.html>

As more of a systems-y guy myself, I've noticed the trend a bit, but I've always chalked it up to the fact that web-centric startups are more accessible.</comment>


The Push Against Performance Reviews - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-push-against-performance-reviews <comment><USER2> I think it's good to sit and talk about performance and work every now and then, I don't think it's good to write things down and put them into a system for years. Also, I think it's horrible to have things like OLR where "leaders" sit and talk about you and how well you do (from below to above expectations). The thing is, most managers are bad, especially the middle ones, and their opinions about their reports tend to be bad and flawed. Managers get overly excited about extroverted people and the introverted struggle because they don't show "leadership skills". However, in many fields (i.e. mine in finance), you need a high % of introverted people because they are the ones that usually perform the work, while extroverted spend time socializing and "networking". This whole situation creates a continuous incentive to game the system - instead of doing your job, you spend time working out ways to game the reviews (there are many, the classic is when you are indispensable for some mission critical tasks). The result of this is that you will get politicians at the top, those that game better the system, instead than results.

It's not easy, but definitely performance reviews and OLRs are not the answer. I think 1:1's are a good idea, because they happen more frequently. As for feedback from others than your boss, I think it would make much more sense if that was on the whole team/department, rather than on single individuals (like in OLRs).

<comment><USER3> "The thing is, most managers are bad, especially the middle ones, and their opinions about their reports tend to be bad and flawed. "

oh bullshit. unless you make it broader and state:

"The thing is, most employees are bad and their opinions about their peers, reports and managers tend to be bad and flawed."

or where do you think managers come from? bullshit mountain?

<comment><USER2> Nice tone. But if you read my comment you realize I make a point of bad selection, that's where bad management comes from. Also, good managers end up being bad simply because they need to game a broken system to stay afloat. Mine is an opinion, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"Given what I know of this person's performance, and if it were my money, I would award this person the highest possible compensation increase and bonus;" ... "This person is ready for promotion today."_

I was a manager through a few performance review cycles before I went back to engineering. This is the first instance I've ever seen where the performance review gathered information that was actually germane to the outcome.

 _Managers have incentives to inflate appraisals..._

Absolutely. My salary budget was incremented in the same way as our salaries are, by getting the biggest raises possible. I was competing with other managers for a piece of a fixed pot of money for these raises, and every manager knew what was at stake.

</comment><comment><USER5> Performance reviews are a form-letter attempt at managerial automation. They seem to suggest that a manager should only be monitoring the performance of their team at certain points in the year. A good manager (a rare breed) knows to a fairly certain degree how their team is performing at any time based on the output from the team. If they don't know this, how are they meant to manage?

I flat out refused to do performance reviews at a previous position. If the company has an issue with my performance, then HR can talk to me directly. If the company wanted to fire me for not filling out their performance review, then I didn't really want to work for that company.

They never mentioned it, and I left the company amicably.

</comment><comment><USER6> The problem is, those existing systems were there for a reason. And I'd guess the reason usually was that the previous, less formal system also had their weaknesses. Most notably, they are very probably very subjective.

IMHO performance ratings and deciding who gets a promotion simply are very hard problems, and no good solutions. So people are always dissatisfied with the current approach, and so add rules and layer to fix it. Eventually, the system becomes unworkable and bloated, and are stripped down to the basics again. Which we currently observe.

But I wouldn't be surprised at all if the cycle continues, and more rules and formal processes will be added.

<comment><USER7> I do think trying to quantify performance into a number is flawed for anything other than factory work and the like.

<comment><USER6> Yes. And the dilemma is that there has to be one number (the one on the pay check), and it'd better correlate with performance in some way.

<comment><USER7> I think a better approach is to give the same salary to an entire team.

<comment><USER8> The more creative the work, the higher the difference in performance. It seems to, it's unfair that people who do substantially more, are paid the same amount of money as underperformers.

<comment><USER9> Do you take this position when dining at a restaurant? When your food is amazing, do you pay more for it? When it's poor, do you pay less?

Probably not. If you care a lot about the restaurant's quality (maybe it's your neighborhood place), you might offer some constructive criticism in the form of yelp reviews or feedback cards. If that fails, you'd probably reluctantly sever your relationship with the restaurant.

Why should this kind of relationship not apply to employees? The only difference being an employer should probably do more to try to get performance up before severing the relationship.

<comment><USER8> >Do you take this position when dining at a restaurant? When your food is amazing, do you pay more for it? When it's poor, do you pay less?

Actually, I do. I leave tips depending on the quality of food and serving.

>Why should this kind of relationship not apply to employees? The only difference being an employer should probably do more to try to get performance up before severing the relationship.

It applies to employees as well. Employees might leave for a place with a better pay, actually, I know a lot of software developers who change the job once in 2-3 years to make it more market because their employees don't think they need to pay more. If employer is doing something which is quite unique, and people need to learn this on the job and it takes a lot of time, not paying good performers is detrimental to the business.

<comment><USER9> You leave tips depending on the quality of the food? At only a minority of restaurants do tips get shared with the cooks. You're doing it wrong.

<comment><USER10> > At only a minority of restaurants do tips get shared with the cooks.

I think they often do get shared with cooks, but not to the extent to anyhow influence the quality.

<comment><USER11> Is this a regional/local situation where you live? I've worked at a handful of restaurants in the Northeastern US in the back-of-the-house staff and never once did cooks get a cut of tips.

<comment><USER10> Not sure, I just heard it from "friends friends"; the region is Midwest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I try to make the case like this in my organization (and have in my previous one as well): we can easily quantify the _enormous_ amount of money - particularly but far from exclusively the financial value of time - we spend on our performance review process. But what we don't really know, and what very few organizations really know (because "performance" is usually a very troublesome criterion) is what value that process is delivering back to the organization.

One of the problems is that most organizations want their process to "Do It All." They want it to be development for the employee while also being the primary determinant of administrative decisions. Further, they want it to support _all_ administrative decisions: who's great at their current job, who is most capable of succeeding in their next job (i.e., who should we promote?), how should we distribute our pay raises, what do we do with this year's STI and LTI, etc.

It's broken, and expensive. Maybe it can't truly be fixed, but at least we can save some money, time, and frustration. That doesn't mean nobody gets feedback, or that we don't set and track goals. But it doesn't have to be the way we make it. If we put half as much effort into making managers better at leading people I have no doubt the impact would be much more clear.

<comment><USER13> Imnsho, at most companies the process only serves as 1) an atta boy for the high performers, to justify raises & promotions, and 2) CYA documentation to manage out the lowest performers. These extremes cover about 10% of any org, max, and the rest are all completely unserved by the process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> people optimizing for the metric instead than getting better at working?

color me surprised.

this has been know for a while by now: if you try to put down hard metrics for creative jobs they just backfire.

also managers using reviews to favor their protege and as favor exchange across other managers to partition their resources shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone having worked with humans.

</comment><comment><USER15> Without a formal time for review, how will they build a formal time for pay evaluation and bonuses?

I can't help but think this is like the latest cell phone craze... yes, your bill drops down slightly, but you are going to have to pay for your next phone and when you do your bill will actually increase. Suckers.

Stack Ranking was and is fucking horrible. And getting rid of that for honest 360 reviews should be the goal. Reviews from your peers with project completion, reviews from your manager with year completion... those are both important and can help you grow.

Not to mention get a raise.

</comment><comment><USER9> The yearly performance evaluation is a joke. Any company which respects its employees as humans and which takes seriously its responsibility to its shareholders will promote the ongoing evaluation of employees based on close 1-on-1 relationships between manager and direct report. And the quality of the performance evaluation at any company that does this is only as good as the quality of those managers. If all your managers are people who are out to make themselves look good, or out to keep their own jobs safe, no system could possibly get the most out of your employees.

If your managers are motivated to care about the company and to make its goals their own, and if you provide the proper training and evaluation of their management to ensure they know how to manage the right way, you have a chance.

</comment><comment><USER16> In a creative job (such as programming) it's extraordinarily difficult to evaluate how valuable someone is, but I would suggest some sort of human valuation ("you know it when you see it"), a LIGHT metric used only as a data point (goals and whatnot, any measurable impact on bottom line, or website performance, or some other numbers), and some means of simply measuring how much someone cares about their job, company and career. I think I can tell how much the people I work with care about their job, company and career, I think I could trust most of them to know that about me, and I think that's a good place to start.

Metrics-wise perhaps a "spread spectrum" approach that covers so many things that most signs of being "productive" would end up at least reflecting in the numbers, yet would prevent "gaming" of the numbers since so many things are measured. Used only to inform and not base hard decisions on.

This would catch both people who care about their job but for whatever reason aren't producing anything measurable, as well as people who have produced but perhaps could produce even more if they were more engaged.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's very easy to criticize performance reviews. Does anybody know about more sensible alternative to this system?

<comment><USER17> I'm curious too. One company I worked at had me privately rank coworkers. No Idea if it worked. It seemed like it might identify top and bottom performers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "This person is ready for promotion today."

I would wager the percentage of employees working at a firm that still participates in promotion culture is low and dropping. In other words "ready for a promotion" for most people in 2015 means they're going to quit soon and get a higher level position at another firm. I'm sure there still exist individual companies and maybe unusual and rare fields where promotion culture still exists, but it seems very rare and unusual.

Meanwhile in most areas outside SV/NYC computer programming during bubbles, there is a large excess of qualified workers vs positions. For example in K12 education the state-U system graduates twice as many teachers as there are open positions for all new and past grads to apply for. It doesn't matter if they are in the top half that got hired because they are the best, or the most politically untouchable, or the most attractive, a year after hiring at review time they're still going to be that top half. So there's nobody to give a hard time to in a review, because that lower half or lower 3/4 or whatever in any professional field are already working at Starbucks or as a waiter or bartender. The world has "needs improvement" kindergarten teachers, but they don't work at your neighborhood school, they never got a job in teaching and they serve you beer at the bar, for example. The economy is in permanent contraction and the general population and higher-ed sector are in permanent expansion for many years now, outside bubble segments of the economy, so hiring one of the bad workers strongly reflects on a managers interview skills, making it even harder to admit anyone is below "excellent".

Meanwhile increased labor mobility for the few that are employed means a review a couple years back, is a couple employers ago, so it is inaccessible and irrelevant, so its not like the wasted effort today will pay off in ten years. Maybe a review in 1950 would come in handy at the same employer in 1960 to select a new director, but the firm has no loyalty to the employee and therefore the employee has no loyalty to the firm, for at least three human generations now, so its been culturally bred out of us.

So the folks at the top of a team will interpret an attaboy as "start applying for higher level jobs elsewhere" and economic realities mean you don't have truly low performance employees to crack the whip upon, making the whole dog and pony show a waste of time for all involved. This leads to an attitude of just pencil whip the process to get the meaningless metric of "accomplished reviews" up to 100% and be done with it. Once the folks who've been pencil whipping it for their whole careers make it up high enough, its finally politically possible to discuss getting rid of the waste of time. So here we finally are.

<comment><USER9> _Meanwhile in most areas outside SV /NYC computer programming during bubbles, there is a large excess of qualified workers vs positions_

This is simply not true. There are many, many industries requiring high- skilled employees who are hard to replace. You mentioned one example of an industry with high supply vs demand, and it happens to be the one most obvious example. You'd have to come up with lots more examples to show that this is the norm.

The[0] evidence[1] shows[2] otherwise[3].

[0]: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/emsi/2013/03/07/americas- skilled...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/emsi/2013/03/07/americas-skilled- trades-dilemma-shortages-loom-as-most-in-demand-group-of-workers-ages/) [1]: [http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/20/survey-shows-growing-us- short...](http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/20/survey-shows-growing-us-shortage-of- skilled-labor.html) [2]: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/economy/stubborn-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/economy/stubborn- skills-gap-in-americas-work-force.html) [3]: [http://www.wsj.com/articles/small-business-owners-work-to- fi...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/small-business-owners-work-to-fill-job- openings-1404940118)

<comment><USER19> > There are many, many industries requiring high-skilled employees who are > hard to replace.

Searching for jobs recently, plenty of people want senior / experienced devs, but want to pay intermediate level wages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm happy to see this become a topic of conversation. The formal performance review is emblematic of the key difference between small and large organizations. A small organization will usually rely on ad hoc information gathered from the process of daily interaction and observed results. Opinions form, are solidified, and ultimately business decisions are made as informed by these ad hoc impressions and the resulting attitudes. For the best small organizations these approaches work very well. Managers have enough personal oversight of the company's operations to feel like they have a good handle on what's happening.

Once an organization grows to a certain size management begins to lose that level of personal oversight. No one person or even a small group of persons can comprehend the scope of the company's operations. More levels of hierarchy have been introduced; there are more managers responsible for more people. Now it is probably possible that those same ad hoc approaches that worked in the small organization could continue to work at some unit level of the larger organization. Managers could maintain personal oversight of their unit, the observed results could percolate up the hierarchy, decisions could be made based on those results.

Unfortunately, the insecurities of higher level managers will not usually allow this to happen. Lacking that personal oversight at the operational level they attempt to compensate for the risk of a bad outcome by developing rules which ensure a good outcome. This happens so reliably as organizations grow that the emergence of rules is nearly synonymous with the concept of growth. However, and I think this is the key point, it seems to me that developing rules to ensure that an organization is managed to a good outcome is a little like trying to develop rules that ensure a baseball team will win a majority of its games in a given season.

Rules of this sort actually cast in concrete a specific view of and response to a set of conditions that exist or existed up to the time when the rules were created. They stifle the ability of the organization to react to changes in conditions that may not have been anticipated. And for whatever reason, probably due to essential human nature, they seem nearly inevitable once an organization reaches a certain size. It would seem to make sense to act more like the baseball team: acquire the absolute best people, give them the absolute best training and resources, make the mission absolutely clear, and then reward or punish based on results. But to take such an approach requires waiting for those results to come in before you can know whether you were successful.

Which is, interestingly, how military organizations have to handle field commands. When battle looms the hierarchy (and not inconsequentially the troops) has to put its faith in the people in command on the ground, whom they have put in place, trained, and supported. The tides of battle change too swiftly, and the outcome of poor or slow decision making is so brutal, that a top-heavy approach to governance simply doesn't work. In some ways that is the essential story of the way the war in Vietnam was fought, for example, as contrasted with previous conflicts.</comment>


Why I went without hot water for a year - <AUTHOR> http://joshwhiton.com/?p=181

<comment><USER2> 'I often went three or four days between showers or until someone told me I smelled.'

.

\-- Ok I'm sorry, maybe this is superficial of me, but I just cannot fathom consciously choosing to wait till offense overcomes decorum to decide when to shower.

<comment><USER3> The modern sense of a romantic character may be expressed in Byronic ideals of a gifted, perhaps misunderstood loner, creatively following the dictates of his inspiration rather than the _mores_ of contemporary society - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism>

<comment><USER2> Mores change with time and place. Negligent malodourousness is to be avoided at all times and places.

Besides, he wasn't "creatively following the dictates of his inspiration". He was wimping out of the consequences of his 'inspiration'; man-up and shower. Unhygienic!

edit: bad speller

<comment><USER4> 100 years ago, the practice of bathing once or twice per day would seem luxurious if not wasteful.

<comment><USER2> now !== then

<comment><USER5> Which language uses !== instead of != ?

<comment><USER6> PHP. The !== checks for equality and for type. For example, it is true in PHP that 0 == false, but it is also true that 0 !== false.

<comment><USER7> Also Javascript: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Referen...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference/Operators/Comparison_Operators)

<comment><USER2> Correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I went alpine camping for a week once (Tasmania), and crossing a stream, the water was so cold it was physically extremely painful. But others in the group didn't mind as much, so I decided to adjust to it.

At the end of the week, I was swimming in the water for half an hour, and it didn't bother me at all. A tremendous sense of elevation.

While it does remind me of _why are you hitting yourself in the head with a hammer? Because it feels so good when I stop_ , to defeat discomfort is somehow profoundly affirming of freedom and self-determination.

<comment><USER8> Your comment reminds me of my past winter up here in Minnesota. I bike to school, each and every day -- snow, rain... it got down to -20°F in January. And my experience is exactly the same as yours: I did it without a big down coat, without µfleece or anything high-tech: just a layer of thin wool and a layer of polyester. No GoreTex. Not even fancy socks.

People think that it'll be unbearably cold or simply intolerable without all the fancy stuff -- but you plunge in and your body adjusts so fast. You described it very well: FREEING.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "As for my type, it said I valued autonomy, ingenuity, and will power, and trusted my own reasoning."

And have a deep capacity for self-criticism, right?

</comment><comment><USER10> I started taking a James Bond shower 6 months ago and have not caught any cold since then - [http://artofmanliness.com/2010/01/18/the-james-bond- shower-a...](http://artofmanliness.com/2010/01/18/the-james-bond-shower-a- shot-of-cold-water-for-health-and-vitality/)

</comment><comment><USER11> subject line: Why I went without hot water for a year

second paragraph: I didn't really have a clear reason for doing this

I'd argue that the blog post pretty well fails to deliver on the promise of the subject line.

</comment><comment><USER12> If life isn't fulfilling enough, just make up some sort of arbitrary challenge for yourself. That way you can be successful!

<comment><USER13> I always see this as a sign of how rich we are. How else could we have the opportunity to be so self-indulgent?

Things we take for granted such as paved streets or cars are tremendously expensive. San Jose (Costa Rica) has one 4-lane US-style highway that goes through town for a few miles, then it turns into a 2-lane concrete and eventually dirt road. And that's a healthy country with a decent-sized middle class.

I actually like to see these kinds of experiments since the fact that they exist means our society still has wealth and opportunity. Just don't confuse them with actual sacrifice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Great article.

Pretty incredible to think about how almost everything consumed in the developed world is a luxury...yet we tend to think of them as necessities.

<comment><USER15> Everything _period_ is a luxury, then. I mean, at which point do you draw the line between luxury and necessity? Okay, hot water is a luxury. What about running water? Clean water? Enough water to clean yourself? Enough water to avoid poor health?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not true. That is what Abraham Maslow spent his life trying to tell us. People have needs. Physiological ones (air, water), and also psychological ones (challenges, self-esteem).

Therefore, we can know a want from a need because a need is anything that if you were to go without it, would result in your death or stunted growth.

This piece, like Walden, is about how we can trade what we have mistaken for physiological needs for legitimate psychological needs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > I often went three or four days between showers or until someone told me I > smelled.

He should have omitted that sentence. It make him sound more like a whacked- out weirdo/dirty-smelly hippie, and undermines credibility of the experiment.

<comment><USER17> Only three or four days and that sounds like a whacked-out weirdo/dirty-smelly hippie?

So how often _do_ you shower, then?

<comment><USER18> At least once a day. More often in summer or if I'm doing sports that day. Vast majority of people I know the showering habits of are the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have a boat, and live on it for extended periods of time (minimum still 2-3 nights a week in the summer, longest stretch was around 2 months). While we have hot water, it is in short supply. We have around 25 gallons at a time and it takes a few hours to recharge.

However, after 20 years of doing this I can tell you that you can get by using only a few gallons per shower. If you want to do this for enviromental or budget reasons, these are my tips.

1) Use luke warm rather than hot (cold is for masochists). Cold water is usually relatively unlimited.

2) Turn it on to rinse, turn off to soap, turn it back on to rinse again.

3) A hand held shower head is better than a wall mounted one, you need less pressure to affect the same amount of showering.

We also have a solar shower bag to augment the water heater, you fill it up with 10-15 gallons, leave it in the sun for an hour and rinse off with it. We would shower every day and use barely 25 gallons of hot water for 4 people taking showers. Contrast that with at home, taking 10 minute steaming showers where I'm sure I burn through 25 gallons of hot water myself each morning.

</comment><comment><USER20> Work from home.

If you're going to follow this as a regular practice while working with a group of people in a professional environment -- well that's just obnoxious.

</comment><comment><USER21> _I would stand there giving myself little pep-talks out loud, convincing myself to follow through. "Do this. It won't kill you. It'll be over soon." And when I got out of that shower clean and covered in goosebumps I felt stronger and more substantial than when I'd gone in. My resolve had been tested and affirmed._

I wonder what things I do to test my resolve that I'm not currently aware of. It took him a year to figure it out for himself.

</comment><comment><USER22> When I was teaching middle school in Namibia, a fellow teacher asked his kids to write something about the wintertime. A common theme was how cold it was, the time when no one wants to shower and they end up smelling bad!

</comment><comment><USER23> The parents of my college roommate didn't have hot water. They lived in a fairly well-off Connecticut town next door to an ESPN anchor, so money wasn't the issue it was just a personal choice. Showers were a love/hate thing for sure and I always wondered about sanitation. Will water that's not so hot it will burn you be hot enough to kill bacteria?

<comment><USER24> Water has to be sth like 70 C degree hot to kill most bacteria, and it would be too hot for you at that point.

Hygiene works because bacteria are flushed out, not because water kills them (ok, antibacterial soap may kill some bacteria, but not much).

<comment><USER25> And you do not have to kill bacteria. Your skin is fine with most of them. (Actually you are better of with bacteria on your skin.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's amazing to think of what we do that's governed by society/advertising.

I began my own experiment over 3 years ago, where I stopped using shampoo to wash my hair, and instead, wash it every day, but only using water.

I've found that my hair is only slightly oily. And by that I mean it has a natural coating - not something you'd notice.

It doesn't look, smell, or feel any different to when I used shampoo, but I guess I've saved a bit of money, and have removed one set of chemicals contacting my skin.

I wouldn't say it's changed my life, but there is a sense of sense of happiness(smugness?) in knowing that I don't need whatever they're(advertising) selling.

Now, how to over come my addiction to tech...

</comment><comment><USER27> Really nice energy saving tip I received the other day.

"Reduce your water heater temperature from 140 _f to 120_ f. you will not notice much difference and you will not have to mix cold water to bringdown the temperature of really hot water."

<comment><USER28> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionellosis#Prevention_of_Leg...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionellosis#Prevention_of_Legionella_growth)

 _"Legionella will grow in water at temperatures from 20 to 50 °C (68 to 122 °F)."_

130 °F sounds like a safer compromise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I also did this for a year. Not really by choice, but simply because I lived in a developing country (Curacao) and my house didn't have hot water. It really was not that big of a deal after the first week.

</comment><comment><USER30> This reminds me somewhat of how Seneca and other Stoics would deliberately take cold baths.

EDIT: To elaborate a little, they would do it in part because they felt that facing uncomfortable situations on purpose prepared them for facing uncomfortable situations not of their choosing.

</comment><comment><USER31> Part of me has problems with the thought that these things aren't necessary. One thing is to willingly turn down some comfort in order to become more independent in our minds. Another thing completely different is being forced to take cold showers for indefinite time. You would hate it. You would try anything at hand to get a hold on a hot shower. The more you were forced to take cold showers, the more you would hate your oppressors and the damn cold shower. Specially when you can't see a hint that in the future you will have access to one hot shower.

</comment><comment><USER32> Does anyone else take cool showers during the summer anyway? Not ice-cold, but cool. I've always thought it was odd that people would take hot showers when it's hot already.

I understand the psychological benefits of doing something difficult that you don't need to do. I do it often with physical activity. But denying yourself hot water does not deal a blow to the status-quo. I think the benefits of doing something hard are negated if you shower yourself with congratulations over it. (Note: this is not the same as being satisfied that you did it.)

<comment><USER33> I do. I find even the ambient temperature itself during summers unbearable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is a lot like how I became a vegetarian. One day I just stopped eating land-dwelling creatures. A couple weeks later I gave up seafood for Lent.

Though I don't think I'll be going back. Unlike the shower experiment, what I discovered was that not only did I not feel any different, nothing had really changed. I still enjoy my food more and more every day, learning new recipes and finding new restaurants. Main difference is I don't have to worry as much about sterilizing my kitchen.

<comment><USER35> I cut meat on my cutting board all the time, and for years I didn't even really use soap to wash it off. I would just scrub the meat juice off with a brush. Now I use just run-of-the-mill dish soap. The whole idea of having to sterilize everything that meat touches is pushed really hard by the soap companies on TV. I don't think it's necessary to use anything stronger than normal soap.

Also, giving up meat completely isn't easy if you go out to dinner with other people. And it gets exponentially harder the more people you go out with, given the low odds of everyone being vegetarian, or wanting to go to a vegetarian restaurant.

I think that severely reducing meat consumption is a good idea in general, but quitting cold-turkey is pretty inconvenient.

<comment><USER36> I tend towards the "that which does not kill me, makes me stronger" approach to sanitization. A good immune system is valuable, and oversanitizing _definitely_ weakens it, because you've had less exposure. Health-care people really are immune(ish) to a _vast_ amount of diseases because they're exposed to them while they're healthy, and they develop defenses against them.

Clean things, sure, but sanitization is overkill because the world is not a sanitary place to begin with. If you're not living in the world when it intrudes, it seems unlikely you'll be prepared. And antibacterial soap is ridiculously excessive for anyone not in healthcare; it all washes down the drain in the end, boosting diseases' resistance to it.

As to meat, I generally have found that less is better, and American diets tend to have a _ton_. I have doubts that zero is more healthy (and don't bother quoting / linking, I've read _tons_ ) than small amounts, much less veganism, but I definitely do better when I keep it pretty low.

<comment><USER37> I assume this is rare, but the lack of sanitization in this case paralysed a 22 year old woman.

""" Then her diarrhea turned bloody. Her kidneys shut down. Seizures knocked her unconscious. The convulsions grew so relentless that doctors had to put her in a coma for nine weeks. When she emerged, she could no longer walk. The affliction had ravaged her nervous system and left her paralyzed.

Ms. Smith, 22, was found to have a severe form of food-borne illness caused by E. coli, which Minnesota officials traced to the hamburger that her mother had grilled for their Sunday dinner in early fall 2007. """

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html>

<comment><USER36> That's not really a lack of sanitization. That's cross-contamination and / or undercooked food, which puts it on the same level as nomming down on a piece of raw meat; sometimes you get something nasty. Cooking it _properly_ and keeping it on clean surfaces afterwards is essentially perfectly safe.

As to the severity, apparently she got one of the nasty strains of E. Coli, where death isn't exactly uncommon (3-5%)[1]. Ever read the under-cooked meat warnings all restaurants stick on their menu? This is why.

Specifically with respect to the article you linked, did you watch the video?[2] The burgers they made were totally free of E. Coli, because they were fully cooked: only the cutting board, which was apparently _wiped_ (shown by the video, at least) with a sponge, not rinsed, soaped, etc, had any. To which I say _shock and awe_. I did find it odd that it didn't transfer to the veggies, but meh. You use separate cutting boards to prevent this sort of thing in the first place. If you don't, you're essentially _asking_ for trouble.

[1] <http://www.emedicinehealth.com/food_poisoning/page3_em.htm> [2] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=859ZHzK9_X4>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Does this guy live in a place where it snows?

<comment><USER39> Raleigh, NC; so not really

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I do something similar, except I only take cold showers at the gym, before and after using the steam room. At home I take slightly longer warm showers.

It takes about a week to get used to cold showers after which the "holy shit" feeling lasts for about 10 seconds, and after 1-2 minutes you enjoy it.

<comment><USER41> I dunno man, I tried it a few times and I started shivering uncontrollably. Maybe I set the temperature too low?

<comment><USER42> The temperature of your cold water will depend on where you live too. In Florida the groundwater is 70 degrees. I live in the mountains at 7000 feet, the water is much colder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Try 19 years on (2months/year) and off (10months/year). That's growing up in a developing country. But at least that is normal there.

</comment><comment><USER44> I could imagine doing this if i wouldnt live in Boston, with cheapo room mates that keep it barely above freezing in the winter. I must say i rather enjoy taking cool showers, im not sure that i could do straight up cold showers except when its very warm out.

</comment><comment><USER45> 'I often went three or four days between showers or until someone told me I smelled.'

Washing oneself is not about fitting in, it is about hygiene.

<comment><USER46> You mean to imply that one who does not shower more than twice a week will be less _healthy_?

<comment><USER45> Yes, because it probably means you're not exercising regularly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I am doing the same as I am giving up my corporate cubicle for one year to do some programming for fun.

</comment><comment><USER48> Love the essay and the comments. You rock, Josh!!

</comment><comment><USER49> What is so wrong about body odour? I'm sure there must have been a time, not too long ago, when people smelled like people.

Sometimes, I don't shower for 3-4 days. You don't sweat that much if you are hacking away at a keyboard for 12 hours a day.

I don't see how showering ever day is hygienic. You are stripping your skin and hair of natural oils,bacteria and whatnot. Then you have to use more substances to fight the negative effects of the above. On top of that, you spray yourself with long-lasting synthetic smells or things that stop your armpits from sweating.

I shower every other day, more or less. I don't use deodorants. I don't use colognes, except on rare occasions. Haven't had any complaints from other people.

<comment><USER50> In other words, no one sticks around long enough to say anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I find it amusing how many "modern" people would find his choice breathtaking, unimaginable etc. I wonder if the same people are aware of the fact that it really wasn't that many years ago that hot water was a "50/50" in apartment buildings in developed countries.

</comment><comment><USER51> _"One day I was showering there when a friend in the next stall said, "Boy, you must really be enjoying this hot shower."_

I require more information here. Actually... on second thoughts, I do not require more information here.

</comment><comment><USER49> A related koan: Non-attachment <http://deoxy.org/koan/98>

<comment><USER15> Wow, it's been years since I've loaded up Deoxy.</comment></comment>


Apple granted patent for way to stop iPhones from taking photos at concerts - <AUTHOR> http://9to5mac.com/2016/06/28/apple-patent-infra-red-block-photos/ <comment><USER2> Law enforcement will love this. It will enable the prevention of citizens from making videos of police stops.

</comment><comment><USER3> correction they just patented handing the rest of their phone business to android.</comment>


Disqus sharing more data than you think - <AUTHOR> In addition to the calls to disqus' API, I'm also seeing one or multiple requests to the following domains:

  tapestry.tapad.com
  pippio.com
  p.nexac.com
  adadvisor.net
  s.thebrighttag.com
  emailretargeting.com
  loadus.exelator.com
  tags.bluekai.com
  bevo.adsnative.com
  bcp.crwdcntrl.net
 Open the console on this page and see for yourself:

  https://jsfiddle.net/bmfmr2ps/
 Also, they clearly have no domain whitelisting, as I can just load up Google's Disqus engine in a jsfiddle.
The worst part. I am actually paying Disqus to opt-out of their ad service. I call bullshit.
One more gripe: I did a 3G throttle test with browser caching turned off, and loading all this garbage for Disqus took a few seconds! Time to remove from my site completely. Anyone know any good replacements? <comment><USER2> You can opt out of data sharing for your site via Settings > Advanced [https://help.disqus.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1708982-...](https://help.disqus.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1708982-how- to-edit-your-data-sharing-settings)</comment>


Google's Sensorvault Can Tell Police Where You've Been - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/googles-sensorvault-can-tell-police-where-youve-been <comment><USER2> > _One man profiled in the Times article spent nearly a week in police custody > and was having trouble recovering, even months after the arrest. He was > arrested at work and subsequently lost his job. Due to the arrest, his car > was impounded for investigation and later repossessed._

This is why privacy is vital. It's pretty clear that the rules our society runs by are not good enough to not have privacy.

<comment><USER3> Just the idea that I can file a warrant for anyone in the area... that screams overreach. I can't believe courts grant that kind of warrant, let alone that anyone would ever comply with it.

Say what you will about Google, Apple, Microsoft, et al... they've at least stood up to unreasonable NSLs and the like over the years. This kind of wipes out all of that goodwill, though.

<comment><USER4> I have been clicking that "no thanks" button to enable location services for years - because Google forces me to do it every time I want to use Maps to make a query. There is no goodwill.

<comment><USER3> Ehhh... in order to use Maps on your phone that seems completely necessary to me. Sure maybe technically it's possible to use directions by specifying the start and end point, but come on. Who does that? Also, the amount of crap Google does purely based on your IP...

<comment><USER4> I do that, so I dont end up in SensorVault.

<comment><USER3> You honestly think that's not adding you to the list of people who were in the area? Seems a bit stupid there, buddy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can someone explain how a warrant like this doesnt violate the Fourth Amendment? This seems obviously illegal.</comment>


Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Area_51,_They_Can%27t_Stop_All_of_Us <comment><USER2> I have had an idea for a Black Mirror episode based on this:

An alien was captured and studied in Area 51, and learned how to hack a computer (or a cell phone he stole). The alien used the computer and pretended to be a human and started the event on facebook, to get himself freed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Something like this is unimaginable in the pre-internet age. Is it the most post-modern and post-internet event in the late 2010s?

But I wonder how many people will actually come. Time to get some popcorn.</comment>


What does "asm.js optimizations" mean? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/luke/2015/02/18/microsoft-announces-asm-js-optimizations/

<comment><USER2> Are there any tutorials at all on how to use ASM.js's Foreign Function Interface (FFI)? The specification lacks examples, and seems to be very underspecified. :(

Note that the FFI is a _crucial_ component of ASM.js, as everything in the browser is external to ASM.js (DOM/any strings/any objects/etc). It seems weird that there's so much hype around ASM.js, yet there's very little written about the FFI or how to use it. Any project that uses ASM.js is going to need to interact with it.

Also, are there any projects besides Emscripten that use ASM.js, or is the push to put ASM.js into these browsers due purely to Emscripten?

<comment><USER3> There is almost nothing to the FFI interface: Basically, the asm FFI can only have asm types, as you would expect. Then you can just call normal JS methods that were imported. So stuff like

        function asmFunc(import) {
          'use asm';

          var externFunc = import.externFunc;

          function asmFunc() {
            externFunc(123, -0.5);
          }

          return asmFunc;
        }

What extra info are you looking for?

<comment><USER2> > What extra info are you looking for?

Essentially, a complete executable example of a simple ASM.js program that involves a foreign function, including processing return values. (I imagine if it's this simple, then return values are handled using the same annotations as ASM.js functions?)

While I understand that specs don't necessarily _have_ to have examples, I believe it would benefit the community to have one in the ASM.js spec.

Thanks for clarifying here, though! I now understand.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, ffis are just calls like any other, with the usual annotations and types on parameters and return values, etc. They just happen to be to functions on the outside of the asm module.

edit: btw, there is a full example here [https://github.com/dherman/asm.js/#example](https://github.com/dherman/asm.js/#example)

<comment><USER2> Ah, I wasn't aware there was an actual repo associated with ASM.js. The example doesn't show how you call into the module with `consoleDotLog` defined, though. I know that sounds like a triviality, but complete examples are really useful to cut through any possible ambiguity!

I would definitely lobby to get something smaller and concise into the spec under the "Putting it All Together" heading! You could modify the existing example in the spec to include an external function definition and call.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I hope this means that Microsoft has given up on pushing JavaScript to developers and we will get a proper C#/F#+XAML to whatever-legacy-highly- compatible-language (HTML, CSS, JS) toolchain.

</comment><comment><USER5> I am getting increasingly annoyed by the limitations of asm.js, in particular the "allocate all the memory you'll ever need up front", which requires compiling in your own malloc, and makes it hard not to massively waste memory by overallocating a huge buffer.

Therefore I greatly prefer optimisations which speed up 'asm.js-like code', rather than the all-or-nothing optimisation one gets from firefox.

<comment><USER6> asm.js now allows the heap to be resized (by replacing the heap's ArrayBuffer with a newer, bigger ArrayBuffer that was either copied or produced via ES7-proposed ArrayBuffer.transfer [1]). Heap resizing currently has to be enabled in Emscripten (by passing -s ALLOW_MEMORY_GROWTH=1), but may become the default in the future. The main asm.js spec page hasn't been updated yet, but the extension was discussed publicly with comments from Microsoft engineers [2].

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/ArrayBuffer/transfer) [2] [http://discourse.specifiction.org/t/request-for-comments- swi...](http://discourse.specifiction.org/t/request-for-comments-switching- resizing-heaps-in-asm-js/641/18)

<comment><USER5> That is nice to hear. I don't keep enough track to see that this was being discussed, but it does deal with the only major issue I had with C++ -> asm.js code conversion, particularly for mobile.</comment></comment></comment>


A Penny for Your Books - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/magazine/a-penny-for-your-books.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> > Ever since a university gave me a literature degree certifying that I have > read Chaucer in the original Middle English, my taste in books has reverted > to very specific, lowbrow stuff.

This implies Chaucer isn't lowbrow...

Edit - Anyhow, as for the rest of the article, it's an interesting look into the trade of used books. I'm glad that people are given a chance to give these books a second life and spare the landfill, and there definitely is something comforting about reading from an actual paper book (I definitely prefer them to digital). Maybe it's the sense of permanence, vs. bytes which are all too easy to delete?

<comment><USER3> Indeed, there's pretty much nothing bawdier in English literature than "The Miller's Tale" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miller%27s_Tale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miller%27s_Tale)). Some Shakespeare comes close, though. Which kind of proves your point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I feel like this record has been played a lot. Pun intended.

Back in the day, horology went through the "quartz crisis" when quartz watches entered the market. The pendulum swung back, and mechanical watches are magnitudes more expensive and desirable than their quartz cousins.

Audio went through the same thing - digital replaced analog and became exceedingly cheap. Now the good money is in vacuum tube amps; good record players cost thousands, and people pine for the warmth of analog.

I imagine the same will happen here. Maybe not to the same degree... But that penny analog book probably still costs several hundred times for the digital download. E-books are a convenience and the way of the future. But purists will always hold onto books, and rare books will become more and more valuable. The dog-eared copy of Huck Finn that's worth $10 today will be worth magnitudes tomorrow after the pendulum swings back.

Technology disrupts right up until people have a crisis of nostalgia, and realize all isn't inconvenience in an analog world.

<comment><USER5> This is definitely happening in the collector car world, where the simpler, lighter, manual gas-powered examples are being bid up in price dramatically as porky, computerized, electric cars are introduced.

<comment><USER6> Way off topic now, but I'm pretty sure that a Tesla's components (basically an electric motor and some batteries) are way simpler than all the shenanigans you need to turn explosions into spinning wheels.

Though I guess you're more referencing ICEs with more computerized control systems..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What would the book market look like if there were some way to completely get rid of used books (ignoring rare, collectors, etc books)? Would there be more money in it, or is the market already earning as much as it's going to earn, and the used books have no impact?

There is a rather large subset of society that consists of creatives, and for the most part those cursed with creative passions tend to perform economically poorly. I suspect that this is in part due to the selling of used creative goods (music, books, movies, etc). Most importantly the concept of used books may itself devalue the medium in people's minds. Much like what happened to mobile apps; things that used to be several dollars or more on the desktop are $0.99 on mobile. The idea of a $20 app is offensive to people. The idea of spending full price on a book is also, perhaps, offensive to a large number of people.

All that said, even if getting rid of used books was economically beneficial to those writing the books, there still seems to be no practical way to achieve it. So it's really just a thought experiment driven by hopeful desire to help those around me who are more artistically inclined and suffering as a result.

Perhaps the right solution is to come at it from a different angle. Subscription services seem to be one solution that is working in the sense that it gets those who normally pirate content to pony up for convenience. Though that doesn't seem to translate into greater income for the content creators...

<comment><USER8> > Would there be more money in it, or is the market already earning as much as > it's going to earn, and the used books have no impact?

This would have a pretty huge impact on the publishing industry. Traditional publishers make a ton of money on their backlist – perennial best-sellers like "Catcher in the Rye". These books are great for publishers because production costs are covered and the cost of sale is low (no marketing, book ends, book tours, etc..), and is part of the reason why legacy publishers like Penguin Random House are still such strong companies.

Allowing publishers to completely control the market for these books (no competition from used book sellers) would be hugely beneficial for them; it would make their most lucrative titles even more so.

I'm a little surprised they don't try to do this. They could set up their own used book operation so they can corner the market for their titles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is an under-appreciated strength of ebooks: they can't be resold.

With print books, publishers risk undermining their own inventory. The more print books they sell, the more they fuel the used market, which drives down prices. This is countervailing force to the typical upward price pressure of high demand.

Not so with ebooks. Plus you don't have to cut down trees, stamp them with poisonous dyes, and move them around with oil-sucking cargo ships, frieghtliners, forklifts and such.

If only ebooks didn't suck so bad...

<comment><USER9> They can't be resold ... But They can be copied and transmitted for free

<comment><USER8> This is true. My point was more about how publishers should value print as opposed to ebooks. The value of a print sale is diminished to some extent by it's fueling of the used market. So whatever a publisher values a print sale should be discounted to some degree. The same is not true for ebooks. An additional sale of an ebook does not discount the general price of ebooks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm waiting for the $9.99 ereader sold on a tab at the supermarket.

<comment><USER11> Amazon tablets are already at $50. We're almost there.

<comment><USER10> Although I already have ereaders, I couldn't resist (shakes fist at Amazon!) ordering this one to see how good it is for $50.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I can't help it. I love books and have a huge collection. I used to have a really bad habit of buying something almost weekly but have since recovered to only go through buying spurts every 3-6 months. My dream is a house with a massive built-in bookshelf. Sick? Maybe.

<comment><USER13> At one time I had plans for a 2,000 volume library in the basement. Basically book cases on rails that you could stack all to one side or the other, each capable of holding roughly 200 books. Books are really awesome.

These days I digitize them (or buy them pre-digitized if I can get them without DRM). That is because a large portion of the books I buy and keep are nominally "reference" works rather than fiction. The reading experience is certainly different but with screens not horribly so and everything fits on a couple of flash drives so no risk of having my library burn up or get buried in an earthquake.

<comment><USER14> I'd love to hear about your digitization workflow. I have an enormous backlog of books that would be much easier to read (more portable and available) if they were digitized.

<comment><USER15> I use a hydraulic paper cutter at work to cut the spine off and then feed them through a Fujitsu ScanSnap. It scans double-sided straight to PDF. It takes about 10 minutes/book to create Hi-res color PDF's. The scanner is pretty fast.

My archival format is this hi-res color PDF (sadly, I _like_ the yellowed color of old pages and like to have that retained when reading on an iPad.) These files are quite large (100 meg or so). Lucky enormous hard disks are cheap.

For daily reading, I send the PDF's through an epub converter that turns them to lower res, B&W epubs and then onto a Kindle Paperwhite.

I used to be bothered by the destruction of the book, but now its almost spiritual. The book must go through the ritual and give up its corporeal form so that it can live forever in my digital Valhalla.

<comment><USER16> I like it. Thanks for sharing, and wish I had access to that setup. I spent years trawling through used bookstores accumulating tons of books. Starting to divest them now, though. Electronic is just so much more compact and easier...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > In 2014, publishers sold just over 2.7 billion books domestically, ....

Estimating the U.S. population at 320 million, that's about 8.4 books per person per year -- higher than I would have expected.

</comment><comment><USER18> I buy used books on Amazon frequently (about 5/month)--when the Kindle version's price is too high or isn't available. It's a great deal and I've rarely been disappointed.</comment>


Complete rich text editor built using JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://www.managify.org/pd/notes/nr9Kh7fKaO9sdru%2FU1TA0j54sagMVo6Lyr8UiXgxSII%3D%0A <comment><USER2> This is vulnerable to super trivial stored XSS attacks. PoC: [https://www.managify.org/pd/notes/nr9Kh7fKaO9sdru%2FU1TA0uow...](https://www.managify.org/pd/notes/nr9Kh7fKaO9sdru%2FU1TA0uowxjfFgkOMefe6kPLolHs%3D%0A)

It appears to accept and regurgitate whatever HTML you provide, including script tags!

</comment><comment><USER3> This is misleading spam.

It's a company selling some kind of personal CMS and productivity suite with notes, spreadsheets, calendars, etc.

It has nothing to do with the editor, which has no technical details, no open- source code, seems to be just like dozens of others, and has a working XSS attack documented on this very page.

Also why would anyone trust a company with no business model or privacy policy with their personal data?

</comment><comment><USER4> There have been javascript-based editors for years, as well as CMS systems. I'm unclear what is new about this particular flavor?

<comment><AUTHOR> Primary advantages of using Managify over alternatives:

1\. Single Platform

By building a single platform for all your documents, we are able to offer powerful, unique features. Ex. Users can see all their notes, bookmarks and calendar events on any specific undertaking in a single interface.

2\. Unique User Interface

We've designed unique, consistent and intuitive user interfaces across different modules.

Example:

\- Our tasks-management interface in the projects module is one of our best - Intuitive keyboard shortcuts makes it work almost like a free-text editor, making it super-fast but highly structured.

3\. Unique Features

Examples:

\- Customizable labels that can be organized within folders, allowing the same document to effectively be in multiple folders through the labels. This provides the right dimensionality for quickly identifying the relevant resources. For instance, you can have 30 labels organized in 6 different high- level categories. You can use the specific label or high-level category for quick filtering based upon what you are interested in.

\- RegEx Search. Surprisingly few applications have RegEx search + labels. These 2 can work great together for filtering purposes.

4\. Fast, Simple, Cross-Device Compatible And Free

<comment><USER5> That all sounds fine. The title of the post seemed to indicate this project was about the WYSIWYG editor. I understood codingdave's question to relate to the WYSIWYG editor in particular.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Managify has built custom solutions for the following types of documents: > [...] Passwords [...]

Yes, I would totally put my passwords on a random web service I know nothing about.

</comment><comment><USER7> This appears to be similar to Evernote.com or Inkpadnotepad.com or the similar cloud note taking services. Looks cool though.

</comment><comment> c-smile Was it tested in MS Edge?

Does not quite work there...

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting. Is this open source or a service?</comment>


Google's Pagerank used to model ecosystems - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/googlefoodwebs

<comment><USER2> See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=805184>

Also <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=806381>

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks

<comment><USER2> No problem.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Idea roulette (brainstorming site) - <AUTHOR>

This is a website I've been working on in this holiday season. It tries to help creators in choosing the right idea to implement, and help you get reviews from your peers or from your friends. To work you need to log in with a google account, describe your idea, and review the ideas of other (chosen randomly). You then will get reviews of your idea from others. It's very basic as this is just a MVP of what it could be and I would really appreciate any suggestions/criticism you could give. You can do it here or directly reviewing the idea of "Idea Roulette" I've created on Idea Roulette following this link (I know, really meta!)
http://idearoulette.appspot.com/ideas/10001
The homepage of the website is http://idearoulette.appspot.com and it give probably a better description of how it works and why you should use it
Thank you for your time <comment><USER2> Have you considered giving a bit more structure to the "Idea" submission? Maybe just split out basic questions like "What problem is this solving?", "Who is this for?", etc. into separate fields. Might give it a bit more organization and would potentially allow users to categorize/search based on certain criteria.

One assumption that would need to be tested is whether people will take the time to review ideas. And the other is whether people would be willing to disclose their ideas so publicly. I think you can find better quotes/articles to help convince people to disclose their ideas. Here's an excerpt from Paul Graham's How to Start a Startup essay you may want to use (PG has some more good quotes on the same topic in some other essays):

"An idea for a startup, however, is only a beginning. A lot of would-be startup founders think the key to the whole process is the initial idea, and from that point all you have to do is execute. Venture capitalists know better. If you go to VC firms with a brilliant idea that you'll tell them about if they sign a nondisclosure agreement, most will tell you to get lost. That shows how much a mere idea is worth. The market price is less than the inconvenience of signing an NDA.

Another sign of how little the initial idea is worth is the number of startups that change their plan en route. Microsoft's original plan was to make money selling programming languages, of all things. Their current business model didn't occur to them until IBM dropped it in their lap five years later.

Ideas for startups are worth something, certainly, but the trouble is, they're not transferrable. They're not something you could hand to someone else to execute. Their value is mainly as starting points: as questions for the people who had them to continue thinking about."

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually choose to give less structure to the idea submission thinking that there could be many kind of ideas so a less structured submission could be better. But actually I'm not that sure about it. Maybe there are some questions that should apply to all kind of ideas, so I could separate those and let a general field for the ideas that don't apply. When you say that people may not take the time to review ideas you mean that I made it hard with all those fields to fill or that in general is a lot of work to read an idea think about it and suggest improvements. The disclosure problem is probably my biggest question at the moment. So I need to test what would convince more people, but at the moment my biggest problem is how to get people to visit the page since with no user I can't really test my assumptions.

Thank you for your comment, it is really useful.

<comment><USER2> My pleasure.

What I meant about people reviewing ideas is this: what incentive do people have to come to the site to review ideas? I see the incentive for the entrepreneur: see what others have to say about your idea and figure out what potential users think. But what reason do random people have to come to a site to review other people's startup ideas? Are you thinking that the people who post their ideas will take the time to review other people's ideas? It could just be that it's an inherently enjoyable activity and people will do it for the fun of it or the social engagement (sort of like Hacker News), but that's something that would just have to be tested.

Good luck!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Typo on front page... "Were ideas come to get reviewed" (should be "Where").

Also "You then review someone else idea" should be "elses".

"themselft" should be "themself".

Not being nit-picky just helping out :)

<comment><USER4> It should be "else's".

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> <http://idearoulette.appspot.com>

</comment><comment><USER6> Just curious, did you develop it using the playframework?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes, I find it really useful</comment></comment>