Google Talk Is Being Discontinued - <AUTHOR> https://gsuiteupdates.googleblog.com/2017/03/updates-in-g-suite-to-streamline-hangouts-and-gmail.html <comment><USER3> Here's what I don't get about Google.

A few years ago, they were one of the only players in the IM game, alongside MSN, AOL IM, ICQ... have you heard about any of these lately? Of course not, they're all dead.

Talk was built on top of XMPP, an open protocol, which helped its popularity as third party clients could connect to it. Talk was also built in to gmail, and at the time that was revolutionary: A fast and lightweight chat app, right in your browser. In (one of?) the most popular mail service providers at the time!

Google has _failed_ to capitalize on any of that. They completely ignored Talk. But then when Facebook did the same thing, oh suddenly they had to compete. So they rebuilt Talk on top of a new protocol. This time, it's proprietary. This time, it's much slower in the browser. Oh and you lose half your contacts if you upgrade to it. But at least now it works on phones?

So they tried building this new closed chat ecosystem for no good reason, and they used their Android market share to do that. People didn't like it, still used Whatsapp, still used FB Messenger, still used Viber, and the now hundreds of alternatives there are, all incompatible with one another because everybody's gotta reinvent the wheel.

You know, I can get behind that XMPP wasn't up to the task - I tried dealing with XMPP myself and it's a frustrating piece of work. But the way Google has treated IM is appalling. Really backwards. They built a good product, then completely ignored it, then built another in an attempt to reinvent it and become more locked down, butchered the old one and are now losing everything. Who's making these decisions exactly?

Matrix is probably our best bet when it comes to open chat protocols, but it's honestly not mainstream ready. In the mean time, I use Discord ([https://discordapp.com/](https://discordapp.com/)) for essentially all my communications. I have completely moved off Talk, Hangouts, Skype and even most of IRC (which has frankly fallen way too far behind more recent comms tech, even as an open protocol). It's proprietary, but at least it gives me text+voice (+ soon video) and doesn't suck - and there is no open choice I can make at this point that is approachable enough that I can convert people to it.

<comment><USER4> Not just failed. Google betrayed XMPP. You can blame Eric Schmidt for it. He gave some lame speech about how other instant messaging services aren't playing fair, so Google should also become a walled garden. And that was it. They made Hangouts and stopped caring about federated IM idea.

It's a wonder we can send e-mails between many servers. Imagine someone like Eric Schmidt driving it. We'd be stuck with incompatible AOL and Compuserve forever.

And about XMPP shortcomings - sure, it's not perfect. And if Google thought they can do better, why didn't they propose some IM-next as an open federated or P2P protocol? Because "don't be evil" is off the table I suppose.

People tried proposing to use Discord for me, but I'm really not interested in another walled garden closed protocol, without FOSS clients and servers.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps this is the point we need legislation to require that IM services with above X users in the relevant jurisdiction must provide a full, open, protocol and enable interoperation via the published protocol? That's the only way I see the companies involved would move to enable cross-platform communications?

Aside:

>It's a wonder we can send e-mails between many servers.

I have a shared account on a small ISP, Microsoft won't receive our emails, even when replying to an email from a Microsoft user, even when user whitelisted. [It's probably the same with some other suppliers?] The only way to reply to people using Outlook/Hotmail/Live (I'm a user of hotmail for something like 16 years) is now to send via MS servers - basically had to make an account for this purpose.

The sending IPs aren't blacklisted with Senderscore (or other blacklists, I mention senderscore because they apparently provide domain reputation services for MS); some "related IPs" have medium reputation scores (senderscore 72).

<comment><USER6> I'm not a big fan of legislating technical standards, but in this case I think I could support it. IM has become a fundamental communication mechanism. Imagine how held back society would be if we had 50 different voice standards rather than the singular phone system we have now. IM needs to be forcefully standardized.

<comment><USER7> Korea mandated through legislation that all online shopping had to go through ActiveX controls, because that was the only way to guarantee secure encryption at the time. Now it's practically the least secure way to online shop and even Microsoft recommends not using ActiveX, but it's a huge amount of work to strip that infrastructure out and make everything work 'properly' so it's still an issue even today.

In short, legislating a solution is a workaround that can turn out to be a huge detriment not too long down the road. I'm no libertarian, but it seems like a bad idea to me.

<comment><USER8> That's a good point - especially important if someone's thinking about legislating a _particular_ technology. On the other hand, maybe in this case it would be enough to legislate a requirement for _openness_ of the protocol? I.e. whatever it is, if it has enough many users, it has to be fully available to third party integrations.

<comment><USER9> What about SMS? Everyone has it, it works, and is usually fairly instant. It's not very feature rich, but could there be an SMS 2.0 protocol that was backward compatible?

<comment><USER10> Isn't this RCS?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> At this point I have no idea which Google chat client is which. A few years ago I remember having Google Talk on my android phone. Then after some random update the application disappeared from my phone and was replaced with hangouts. Now is Google Talk the same as GChat? Was Hangouts anything more than just a new branding for Google Talk? I have no idea. And what's up with this Google Allo thing? Again, it seems like Google seriously dropped the ball with branding and communicating wtf was going on. Most of my messages has moved over to FB Messenger or Whatsapp/Wechat and Google only has itself to blame for that.

<comment><USER12> Seriously. I somehow ended up using all of them, and I honestly don't know what's going on anymore. I thought my Talk got merged into Hangouts, if I start a chat in Gmail it's sometimes findable in my iOS hangouts app, and sometimes it's not. A while ago the Voice team asked me to merge Voice with Hangouts, which I did because clearly the service was dead. This seemed like a plan... your SMS chats are just chats in Hangouts and in addition to calling other Hangouts users you can call phone numbers, but we're keeping the Voice app & site around for legacy users. Fine. But in January they released an upgrade to the Voice apps with this gem:

 _If you currently use Hangouts for your Google Voice communication, there's no need to change to the new apps, but you might want to try them out as we continue to bring new improvements._

W.T.F? Don't bring me into your internal office politics...

Then there's Allo because with all the above they made it too complicated to chat with someone or something. Also Duo, because video calling was completely missing from the offerings above (it wasn't).

<comment><USER13> I just use hangouts on all platforms, and it seems to work well. Although I did have to install "hangouts dialer" on android to make phones calls from Hangouts. Not sure if that's still required.

Google: please just leave hangouts alone!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Collaborate on standards. Compete on quality"

Or something, I'm probably butchering the quote. There's a reason we can play CDs from any manufacturer in every manufacturer's player. Likewise SD cards, VHS videos, DVDs...

The importance of working with your competitors was well understood in the 1980's. Seem's it's a lesson we need to learn again: [https://hbr.org/1989/01/collaborate-with-your-competitors- an...](https://hbr.org/1989/01/collaborate-with-your-competitors-and-win)

<comment><USER15> Good analogy. I was thinking of this the other day - while technically the big players are in standards committees together and do work on common standards, in practice it's a bunch of corporate maneuvering that bears no resemblance at all to things like the kind of things Sony, Toshiba, Onkyo, Panasonic and other big players do when they decide they want to accomplish something. Can you imagine Google, Apple and Microsoft regularly forming cross-team working groups to specifically develop technology and associated standards to be adopted by all?

They're too busy suspiciously eyeing each other's userbases to waste time on anything like long-term strategic thinking that benefits anyone but themselves. To be honest it feels like that kind of collaboration is long gone - it came about because it was necessary to actually serve consumers. But while someone who purchased a Compact Disc player is a Sony customer, a person who uses chat is not a Google customer - they're a SKU. The whole way the Internet tech industry is structured is exactly the _opposite_ of what you'd want if you wanted to encourage collaboration. By making users and their data a commodity instead of customers there's no benefit at all to improving their general experience.

<comment><USER16> Well, The __Alliance for Open Media __is a step in the right direction. You have Cisco, Google, Mozilla, Microsoft and Netflix all on board to work on the AV1 open video codec as an alternative to HEVC. This is great and we need more of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sometimes I think they named themselves Alphabet, Inc. so that they can have 26 different versions of a product, one for every letter of the, er, alphabet.

Their executives need to get on a whiteboard and make a few simple mandates, such as:

1\. There will be a single protocol for messaging across all Google properties, compatible with open protocols where feasible.

2\. There will be a single "app icon" on Android, and single app on each major platform, for achieving communication. All legacy messaging services will be available from this point.

3\. Every reasonable handle for identifying users will be supported, including: profile names, E-mail addresses, real names, and legacy messaging user IDs.

4\. Effective immediately, every single team working on every Google chat product will report to Foobar McManager, whose compensation will depend directly on achieving integration goals by $DATE.

</comment><comment><USER18> I just had an image of myself posting the headline:

"Google discontinues Gmail and Search"

as a way to kickstart a conversation about our reliance on services, and whether we can blame companies for not subsidizing services we like and so on.

But then I realized it would just go sideways into a discussion about click bait and appropriate headlines, so I am posting it as a comment.

<comment><USER19> The Gmail part would go something like: Google discontinues Gmail and Google Inbox is the replacement! Then a year later, Google intros Mail from Google, a new webmail client that is like Inbox, but has more of the classic email interface UX that users expect. A year later, they announce Inbox is going away and everyone should move to Mail from Google, which they have rebranded "Gmail".

<comment><USER20> In a den of lions when saying this, but companies that do that have too many engineers.

There's a "right" size for any project and going over it's hard to avoid over- thought, over-complicated, user-confusing, pedantic, semantic things.

This isn't the trite "too many cooks" argument. It's that the right kind of quick-and-dirty shortcutters who value leaving things alone produce better products; they use simpler paradigms and abstractions, have better combinable primitives, communicate purpose more effectively, and produce overall better tools.

The corollary is the stupid thing you can hack to do what you want is often better than the smart thing that is very carefully designed to do what you don't - because one of them you _can technically_ use and the other you can't.

This is why earlier versions are frequently better than later ones and earlier products seem to do more, better, and faster. It's why smaller companies seem to produce better things, and counter-intuitively, products that take less time to finish (say a few days) seem to do better and gain more traction then the 6-month effort.

Some things really are profoundly complex, like databases and operating systems. Most things however, despite much we'd like to pretend, are not in that class of software.

And yes, these claims are cultural bomb-throwing. But the evidence for it is solid.

<comment><USER21> I'm contracting with Google. This is exactly the kind of argument I've been tying to make to my boss for over a year but to no avail. They come up with pet names for me to express how weird they think that type of engineering is.

<comment><USER22> "Lazy" like it's an insult when in fact it's the highest praise?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Losing SMS from Hangouts is the bigger deal for me.

I _liked_ having one app on the home screen for voip and text and sms and videochat. It was simple and clean. Splitting it into 3 is a terrible user experience.

I get the Unix philosophy of lots of small tools applying here, but the Unix has the shell to tie them together. If Google made their Contacts app work as a hub - every chat system logs their history for a given contact into their contacts app, so I can open up a contact and see every communication app (even multiplayer games) and an interlined history for them all? That would make this work.

I could take the SMS, the chat, voice, even the _dialer_ off the home screen and just have contacts - even a shortcut to my wife, so I could just open a person and then open a communication app for that person. That would work.

But without that, having a zillion small communication apps does not provide a good experience because the android home screen is a _bad_ shell for lots of small apps. It's just a launcher that's good for big monolithic ones.

<comment><USER24> When did Hangouts lose sms? I still send sms messages from it daily.

<comment><USER23> From tfa: imminently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Boy, do I regret giving so many people my GV number and using it as a main phone number...

They are also removing Hangouts' SMS integration, BUT:

> Note: This change does not impact Google Voice users who may continue to use > Hangouts for their Google Voice SMS.

That doesn't really make me feel great, it's only a matter of time before it changes again, and I'm quite sure the experience of staying in Hangouts will be awful in the meantime. This whole SMS + Hangouts + GV situation is such a clusterfuck, yet I feel a bit trapped in this ecosystem right now due to the stickiness of a phone number that family already remembers, and numerous business cards I've handed out.

I know they recently polished up the old GV app, but the FB Messenger + Whatsapp ecosystem looks so much nicer now... I wish I can just somehow hand them my GV number and leave this Google mess behind... or somehow redirect everyone to my carrier number.

<comment><USER26> I'm thinking about porting my GV number away from Google, if that is even possible. Voice used to be the best thing ever, but now it has a shadow of it's original functionality.

<comment><USER27> It is possible.

I ported my T-Mobile number into GV in 2013 when I switched to Android and Hangouts first added GV/SMS integration, so that I could send SMS from the desktop.

Then I ported my number back out to T-Mobile again in 2015 when I switched back to an iPhone and regained iMessage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm really not being a troll here, I'm just confused:

Google Talk : what is that? Is that the little box on the left hand side of the page on gmail that lets you chat with other gmail users?

Google Hangouts : different? I know it's videochat but it also has text ... a different thing?

The Android/Google phone chat app thingy --- is this different still?

obviously I'm not a regular google user at least not of these services

<comment><USER23> Hangouts _was_ until recently, a combined videochat/IM/sms app for desktop and mobile, tied to your google account. If you had a Google Voice service account, it could also be used to send SMS messages from the desktop.

But then Google decided they didn't want Hangouts to be that anymore, and are stripping out features to focus it as the "corporate" messenger while they split its functionality into _three_ different Android apps - Allo, Duo, and Messages.

So now Hangouts is just a desktop/mobile videochat and IM. No more SMS. And they have a "consumer-oriented" pair of voicechat and IM apps in Duo and Allo. But they're not compatible with Hangouts so if one user uses Hangouts and the other one uses Allo, they can't communicate directly.

Google has gone mad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I still use Gchat over Hangouts because it's nice seeing my contacts list sorted by who is online, as opposed being ordered by recency of last communication.

So many of my Gchat conversations have started because of the online status. I've hit up friends that I haven't talked to in over a year and had really great, synchronous, conversations because of it.

<comment><USER30> "online" as a concept has become a bit meaningless with mobile clients.

<comment><USER31> This is just the further erosion of manners, respect, and privacy that is so pervasive these days. No one is ever allowed any down time, we're always online and anytime is a good time to talk. To me this feels like a bad thing but I guess others don't see it that way.

People use to never call you after 9pm or during dinner time. If your phone rang during a meal you didn't answer it. If you didn't want to chat with people you didn't log into your IM client, if you wanted to chat with someone specifically there was a first class UI element for setting your status so you could tell others to leave you alone. Email and SMS were black holes where you only knew if your message was received via a response.

Now everyone is always online and it's never unacceptable to call, text, or IM someone. Read receipts are standard so you know if someone got your message. If someone's phone rings while you're eating, you're lucky if they apologize before answering, and you've won the lottery if they excuse themselves from the table.

It seems like we're all just sitting around waiting for an interruption to distract us from the life in front of us.

Idk... you damn kids need to get off my lawn.

<comment><USER16> You are allowed down time. If people don't respect/understand that, it's their problem, no yours.

I don't answer the phone when I eat or after 10pm. Same thing with text messages/emails. "Do not disturb" mode is there for a reason.

<comment><USER31> "Do not disturb" is there because people do not respect each other anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm pretty upset at Google about how they handled IM. It basically cost me more than a half of my contacts (who use Google), since first XMPP federation with Google Talk stopped working when Google refused to support server to server encryption, and now it's being dropped altogether.

So much for moving things forward, instead of falling into the dark ages of incompatible balkanized instance messaging services.

<comment><USER32> That decision basically killed instant messaging for me. I miss it, but there just isn't any critical mass anymore. I could run half a dozen different messaging apps, each one reaching some subset of my friends, most of whom are never available anyway, but the old situation where it was easy to keep in touch with people via chat just doesn't exist anymore.

<comment><USER33> I think instant messaging also worked better in the PC era, when you knew people were active, "away" or altogether offline.

The messages I want to send or receive with a phone notification are a lot different from the ones people would exchange in the old days of IM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> GTalk was an amazing simple-to-use application. Should I say it was simpler than Skype. I don't like hangouts at all.

<comment><USER35> Their Chrome plugin was also wonderful. Keyword "was". It used to be a discreet window that persists across tabs, which you could minimize and expand from the lower right corner of your screen.

They killed it and now it's an awful behemoth google hangouts window. Really disappointing.

<comment><USER36> Yes, I loved the old Hangouts extension. By far best experience of any IM app I've used (and that's a lot, unfortunately).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> God damn it. I do not want to use the Google Hangouts experience. Talk is a simple, elegant chat application. That is all I require and all I desire from Google. And I do not want to be patronized about how I actually want more "integration" with google products.

<comment><USER38> Hangouts is solid proof that no one at Google uses the multiple account support. If they did, it wouldn't be so awful.

I click a hangout link for a work call and get "no one in the call". I have to add authuser=1 to the URL manually to see that it's actually that I don't have permission to it.

<comment><USER19> This. Happens all the time and then people say, "You never showed up." The authuser=1 tip is great. Thanks for sharing that!

<comment> X-Istence At the bottom, in tiny font, there is a "change account" link that gives you the ability to switch that call to a different Google account.

It's tiny, you might have missed it...

<comment><USER38> Sure, but it's silly that it's required, and the "no one here" is hugely misleading.

Google knows which accounts I'm logged in as. They know which accounts have access to the meeting. If I'm logged in as one of these accounts, why not do it automatically for me?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'm getting really fed up with Google. Yet another time when they nudge me towards using a service, only to retire it a while later. A separate app for SMS again , just when I'm comfortable with centralizing it in Hangouts. And Allo and Hangouts aren't compatible, right? Every time I jump on Google's newest app bandwagon it seems to end up being another ephemeral thing.

<comment><USER40> This may be a little dramatic, but I feel like I have to say it.

Everything is ephemeral.

Google's problem is that they don't keep services around long enough nor do they plan a reasonable migration strategy for when they shutter them.

<comment><USER41> Ephemeral is okay.

But having three (four? I honestly don't know) competing services from a single provider and playing "guess which one's the evil twin" is shitty.

<comment><USER39> Yeah, there's:

* Allo (text chat)

* Duo (video chat)

* Android Messages (SMS etc.)

(And Google Voice also does SMS iirc)

And of course Hangouts, which is able to do all of those currently, but is going to be split up into different business-oriented apps for some reason.

If Allo and Duo had just been another client for whatever protocol Hangouts uses these days, it wouldn't have been so bad. But like it is now, I don't feel like I can 'rely' on Google at all. Facebook Messenger has been a far more stable experience, even though I have some reservations about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This blog post mentions following messenger technologies (Google has even more not mentioned here):

\- Google Talk

\- Hangouts Meet

\- Hangouts Chat

\- Android Messages (something new, never heard of it)

(And non-google messenger technologies: SMS, RCS).

How user is supposed to navigate all these? Given that all these things are inferior to even Facebook and is ICQ-grade.

<comment><USER43> But Facebook Messenger now wants to eat Snapchat's lunch and is offering Snapchat functionality. Great, that annoying cat lady who I'm "friends" with now can spam my Messenger app with pics of her cat. And I shared a picture with a friend and Messenger suggested I posted it to it's NotSnapChat. It's a single button inside the chat bubble, which makes me wonder if the publishing happens directly when I push that button, and who'll be the next Anthony Weiner after he accidentally presses that button...

<comment><USER44> I downloaded Facebook Messenger Lite and highly recommend it. It strips out everything except... well... Facebook Messenger. I can message people, and there's none of the extra UI crap, including their Facebook branded Snapchat copy (not to be confused with their Instagram or Whatsapp branded Snapchat copies).

Officially it's only supported in emerging markets, but you can download it from apkmirror and it'll install just fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Can somebody please explain to me Google's messaging strategy? As a Voice, Talk, Hangouts, SMS user for what feels like the last decade, I am so incredibly confused that I want to walk into Google and fire all 18 of the 19 messaging teams. That way at least we'll have one singular group to yell at when things go wrong.

Here's the Google Messaging landscape as far as I know it:

\- Google Talk in Gmail: I think this is what my work account has, and what they're shutting down: [http://imgur.com/Z0v6Zjq](http://imgur.com/Z0v6Zjq) This one is pretty useful because you can initiate a new Hangouts Video call right from this interface, as well as open up the Google Talk Voice POTS Dialer (?)

\- Google Hangouts Messaging in Gmail: I think this what my personal account has, and perhaps what's sticking around? [http://imgur.com/dBf7me2](http://imgur.com/dBf7me2) This interface clearly got upgraded a bit, but removed the ability to create a new Hangouts Video call unless you're initiating it with a specific person (or I couldn't find the place to do it)

\- Google Hangouts for Android: This is a dual Hangouts and SMS client that supposedly will send messages with the two services above ^, plus over SMS to your carrier contacts. This is also being discontinued?

\- Android Messaging: Sounds like a new app that's coming out which will replace the SMS side of the above existing Hangouts app

\- Hangouts Chat: This is the new app that's going to replace the IP-based messaging feature of the current Google Hangouts for Android, right?

\- Hangouts Meet: This is the new app that's going to replace the video and screensharing portion of Hangouts for Android it sounds like. Why these two are now separate apps is beyond me. But it sounds like these two will interoperate with Google Hangouts in Gmail (the second screenshot), and the first one is disappearing and/or being converted into the second. OK, I think I'm staring to figure this out...

\- Google Voice: Oh don't get me started on Voice. I've been a Voice user forever, and we finally got an upgrade! Which made no sense, because I thought they were killing it? But now they're not? So now Voice is purely for SMS- based communication, and would be an alternative to Android Messaging, just as it always was (with its new web client as well). But if you were one of the unlucky people who chose to integrate your GVoice SMS experience into Hangouts for Android, I guess you can still use that? Supposedly that's still supported, but I didn't, and I fear for whoever ends up with that experience...

\- Hangouts Dialer for Android: This is / was the POTS dialer that integrated with Hangouts, and allowed you to dial any POTS number over VoIP. AND it lightly integrates with Google Voice, because it uses your GVoice number and balance for international calls. BONUS: It can also /receive/ inbound calls that are placed inbound to your GVoice number, OR from Google Talk, because "Google Talk" was considered a "forwarding phone" as as Voice was concerned. Is that part going away? Can you "call" people over GTalk now? Sounds like no, but you can still "Hangouts Meet" with them, and if you have the Android client, it will ring your phone? I guess that makes sense... What about inbound calls to your GVoice number and being able to answer them over VoIP? That works today, and it'd be a real bummer if it went a way.

\- Google Allo: Hey remember this? Probably not even though it's only less than a year old. This is an entirely separate walled garden of a messaging app that allows you to Allo (text chat) other Allo users. But it also DOES have an SMS bridge (surprise!), and you can Allo non-Allo users, however the receiving SMS end is still a little questionable and is more meant as a user-acquisition funnel than a transparent GVoice-like experience. I believe this was meant to be a WhatsApp clone, but nobody uses it.

\- Google Duo: And then there's this thing? I guess it's almost identical to Hangouts Meet now? Maybe Hangouts Meet is for Business® users and Duo is for your friends and family? Maybe Duo uses voice recognition to censor all business communication? (That was a joke, but...)

It's just that simple! Screw Google and whoever is running their messaging division. Except I think that's the problem: nobody is. Which is why this post exists.

I still think Wave could have solved all of our problems...

<comment><USER46> > Screw Google and whoever is running their messaging division. Except I think > that's the problem: nobody is.

Nobody is. AFAIK, they're basically all from different divisions of the company, and that's why it's a total clusterfuck.

<comment><USER47> I always thought the reason why there is a CEO is to avoid such clusterfuck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The only benefit I see out of this is the removal of SMS support in the Hangouts Android app. I like my communication channels separate. I don't like Hangouts or Facebook Messenger wanting to control my cell phone messages (SMS).

This might be a naive question, but will chat within Gmail still work? Is that chat provided by Talk or Hangouts?

<comment><USER49> > _I like my communication channels separate._

You could always keep them separate, if you wanted to. This feature was totally invisible to people who left it turned off.

I personally want to have all my messaging in one place, which used to be possible. Now everything is fragmented, and I constantly have to remember how each person in my life prefers to communicate, open the right app, find their name, and then message them. It's incredibly frustrating to have a worse 2017 messaging experience than I did in 2007 with my BlackBerry.

> _This might be a naive question, but will chat within Gmail still work? Is > that chat provided by Talk or Hangouts?_

Chat in Gmail is Hangouts.

<comment><USER50> > Now everything is fragmented, and I constantly have to remember how each > person in my life prefers to communicate, open the right app

I think this is true to an extent, but I think messaging isn't as simple "get this text to this person." Different communications channels have different contexts, implied importance, etc. Making them too unified papers over and confuses those social differences. For instance, it would be super weird if a coworker _texted me_ instead of IM'd me about some everyday work thing.

<comment><USER51> We should solve that within the same protocol. Allow multiple named conversation streams for any combination of contacts with an interface to filter them (private, work, dating, family).

I also want priority of messages to let the receiver handle them differently (low/normal/high). Default 'normal' and changeable within reach, but quite invisible. Anyone can then let me write a 'high' priority message that makes noise in the middle of the night, or if I suspect they're resting and I want to send a cat picture I'll use 'low'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> We're actually talking to Google. If they don't up their game with their Alexa like device, AKA Google Home, it's next on the chopping block. Big disconnect there. She sounds like a robot, development tools are really a fraction of what Amazon offers.

The sales revenue is so high for their click model, their best minds are working on how to get people to click on ad's for shoes. Needs a shake up at Google, for sure. It's time.

Maybe everyone having to pass their fabled "white board" coding interview is leaving creative minds behind? Everyone just knows the best way to do a binary sort, and not much more. That's my thinking.

<comment><USER53> Not really relevant, but there's no binary sort :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> This is for G Suite business customers. They don't explictly say if this applies to regular Google users.

<comment><USER55> This is more likely regarding the fact that Google is obligated to warn their paying customers, and not obligated to warn their products. If these services didn't tie to G-Suite, there'd likely be no warning at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I've been avoiding Google Hangouts because when it first shipped you had to sign up to Google Plus. Does anyone know if that is still the case?

I also haven't rated or reviewed an app on the Play Store in about two years due to the Google Plus requirement there also.

<comment><USER57> > I also haven't rated or reviewed an app on the Play Store in about two years > due to the Google Plus requirement there also.

Same. I purposefully stopped reviewing products on the Play/App store as soon as they forced you to use your G+ profile. Why on Earth does my real name or main profile need to be associated with a short app review?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Can anyone explain why if I switch to upgraded Hangouts I see only a few online contacts, but in the old Google Chat I see a bunch of people available and online? It's a serious regression and will cause me to stop using chat in gmail for the most part.

<comment><USER59> I'm not 100%, but I think this has to do with a Hangouts setting: "Show when you were last active". If that is unchecked, it means that some users (some clients?) will always show you as offline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Color me surprised, yet again. At this point, even gmail's continuity is suspect. What can you trust Goog with these days? Maps is awful unless you want a hand-warmer on the slopes, Wave went kaput, now Talk? Are they trying to ruin my trust in them?

</comment><comment><USER61> So, this is just funny to look how ad company with a lot of $$$ is playing with its toys and throwing it away as soon as it is already boring.

</comment><comment><USER62> They should just keep a constant URL that will redirect you to whatever is their current messaging/calling product of the day. Jeez.

<comment><USER63> That'd be a bit like [http://www.uroulette.com/](http://www.uroulette.com/) \- you'd never know where you'd end up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Google's failure to produce a service/system/ecosystem around chat is astounding to me. Google Chat was around well before HipChat, Slack, Gitter, etc and yet they came in and ate Google's lunch. At work we use HipChat but we pay for Google Apps for email/drive/etc. It's crazy that Google Chat and Hangouts suck so much.

</comment><comment><USER65> _This change does not impact Google Voice users who may continue to use Hangouts for their Google Voice SMS. Project Fi users who wish to use Hangouts as their SMS app will also not be impacted by this change_

What kind of sense does that make? Does this mean that Voice and Fi users can't use Android Messages for SMS? And what about MMS?

</comment><comment><USER66> They also want to destroy SMS, converting to "RCS messaging powered by the Jibe RCS cloud from Google".

</comment><comment><USER67> I've never understood that Hangouts… wasn't Google Talk? I still don't exactly understand.

<comment><USER68> Google's marketing department.... Ugh... Gmail (for your website) gets renamed to Google Apps, then rebranded to Google Apps For Business. Then they throw that out the door and call it "G Suite "G Suite for Business" and "G Suite for Enterprise" \- killing me Google... I mean Alphabet...

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Unveiling Google Chat: a new messaging app from Google, that will coexist with Voice, Talk, Hangouts, Allo and G+ Messenger m, and eventually be canceled.

</comment><comment><USER70> But they also mention that Hangouts API will stop working [1]. Which is kinda strange: if Hangouts is the new thing then why to shutdown the API?

I'm asking this more from a developer perspective: lets suppose one wants to integrate their app with google "chat / collaboration" systems (like one can integrate with Slack, Facebook, etc.). What to do?

I have feeling that Google executives are thinking something like this "lets just buy Slack and call the day".

What are you thoughts about this?

[1] [http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3002204/google- is-s...](http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3002204/google-is-shutting- down-hangouts-api-as-it-lures-consumers-towards-allo-and-duo)

</comment><comment><USER71> OK, Google Talk was a dead man walking for some time now. Even if it's not a nice decision for open standards at least they made a final decision whether they are either improving it or killing it. However, Google have completely lost their mind with messengers. GTalk, Hangouts, Messages, Messenger, Allo, Duo, Chat, Meet. Some available only on mobile. Some supporting SMS, some working only with SMS. Allo having G assistant in chat, G assistant is only with voice on their pixel phone. The tipping point was when both Hangouts and Messages competed to handle my SMS messages and when Hangouts won because of Gmail integration, they removed SMS from it. They really need to get it together.

<comment><USER72> _> G assistant is only with voice on their pixel phone._

What do you mean? Google Assistant is now available for almost every Android device, it has replaced Google Now and can be invoked like you invoked Google Now before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> ...and this is why I no longer use any chat clients from Google... WhatsApp and Viber connect me to more than half the planet, and SMS, shitty as it is, works with just about everyone in the world. For everything else, we have email or file sharing.

<comment><USER74> i agree with second half about SMS and email, but WhatsApp owned by Facebook is big no no and Viber isn't that popular, so i keep Signal and Skype Lite

personally i would not mind if we would use email as chat, there are already clients able to do that, it would solve lot of problems

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I still wonder why we can't just do IM over SMTP. There's already tonnes of volume, the latency is basically good enough, and the format has lots of room for progressive enhancement through the addition of parts and formats.

As someone who administrates a small SMTP peering group with a friend, I'm constantly baffled by the reinvention of the wheel. Presence could be easily signalled by messages which degrade gracefully. i.e. send a human-readable email that says you're online or offline, with a presence header verified by DKIM/SPF/DMARC, or you could even revive Finger. Use whatever protocol between the mailserver and the client.

<comment><USER76> Someone did make an instant messaging over email thing recently, but I can't remember its name and searching for instant messaging over email is quite a haystack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Good. They should kill every chat app except for Hangouts and merge functionality.

They're losing a lot of points with customers with the "have 10 teams make 10 apps that do the same thing and slowly kill off support before discontinuing" model.

</comment><comment><USER78> For a second I thought they were discontinuing Google voice and almost panicked as my main number is my Google voice number.

Actually, has anyone migrated away from Google voice to a better service ? I would be willing to pay a little bit.

<comment><USER79> I too. GV has been a great product for me espeically I get to use it to numbers within the U.S.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> I have come to loathe Google. Android is a tire fire mess. It's UI is horrible. And as bad as that is I have google fiber tv and that UI is even worse. Google does NOT get UI.

Everything short of gmail that they have tried to make work has failed. They don't innovate. They create short lived products that bring in no extra ad revenue. Google is ripe for being replaced. It's big but so was MS. You may love Google to death. I think they are a company with no vision, no innovation, and are milking the ad revenue teet. Someone is going to replace them.

<comment><USER81> Yep. I'd also mention how many viable alternatives to Google products and services they have shuttered because Google offer theirs "for free".

They have an almost-monopoly on the advertising space, their resources and size make it difficult for others to compete with them, and they treat their users like dirt. Wait sorry, they don't have any users, they have products. And they treat those like dirt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> That's why I think twice before adopting a Google Product.

Google Talk was really good, I miss a simple communication app like it was. The best I ever used, on my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER83> I honestly couldn't even tell you which google service "google talk" is. It's amazing how incompetent their product teams are.

</comment><comment><USER84> Maybe they make promotion decisions based on new product launches, incentivizing multiple products over the unsexy work of maintaining old ones.

</comment><comment><USER85> Remember the first law of Google services: if it's not useful to sell you better to advertisers it's not useful.

</comment><comment><USER86> How do you manage to keep up with the latest messenger fashion ? I gave up when people changed from MSN to Skype. Then they changed to Facebook and now they are probably using Whatsapp or some other I don't know of. When I want to chat I use IRC. And I've also setup asterisk as a SIP server for voice calls.

<comment><USER74> i still use Skype, specifically Skype Lite is quite nice, so that's one option for video and chat, other option for video, chat and SMS is Signal and if neither of them works for you, you can always email me or call me

used wechat because lived in China, but uninstalled everything Chinese after leaving that place, tried Facebook messenger (later Lite) for few months until decided i don't really need to have Facebook account and anything to do with Facebook, which means i ain't gonna install WhatsApp either, so there are not many other options left

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> All this discussion about what the future is in the messaging space...

The future is disarray, just like the present and just like the past.

IM isn't a particularly difficult problem to solve, even at scale. (and certainly not at startup scale)

It's not a good advertising medium, and nobody will ever spend significant money in that space.

It's an add-on feel good service.

<comment><USER79> IM isn't easy to solve, but it really is. All you need are

* commitment

* nice UI

* nice add-on services

Putting Skype's privacy and issues aside, it has proven to be a very successful IM product for the past decade.

Slack, HipChat are more geared toward developers / tech workers.

IRC is probably one of the oldest and still widely used because of its simplicity (once you know how to use it, it's easy to use)

If you merge all of them together, and have a real product team to support the product forward, it won't be hard. Of course, if your goal is to integrate with 20 other services, yeah, you will run out lucky hitting someone's walled garden.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Aka their best chat client. Instead of having one great chat platform they now have several not so great clients.

<comment><USER68> Allo, Duo, Android Messages, Hangouts, Gtalk. Oh you have 3 Gmail's because you've been an Android YouTube and Google Apps user since 2010? Good luck with that nightmare, we'll get all your personal and business contacts all jumbled together!

<comment><USER31> I just figured out I could access my hotmail inbox from outlook.com using my Microsoft Account credentials associated with an email address setup through Google Apps using a custom domain.

It was full of spam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> What does this mean for the ability to search Hangouts conversations from the Gmail "chats" label? As far as I'm aware, there's no native search in Hangouts itself (e.g., [https://hangouts.google.com](https://hangouts.google.com) ).

</comment><comment><USER90> A couple of questions concerning this announcement.

1) With the removal of SMS from Hangouts on Android does anyone know if this affects SMS in Hangouts on ChromeOS? 2) Is retiring a euphemism for killing in terms of Google Labs additions or does this mean they will still work, but won't be made available to new users?

Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER91> Like many, I'm supremely confused about this history and current state of Google's various chat systems.

Does anyone know of a comprehensive timeline of all the various permutations? I would read it just to boggle at how many poor decisions could be made by a single company in a single category.

</comment><comment><USER92> As part of our continued effort to focus Google+ around shared interests, we're retiring two legacy Google+ features in Gmail: the ability to email Google+ profiles and the use of Google+ Circles. (Expected: No earlier than April 24, 2017)

Whaaaat? Emailing profiles was the most useful part of g+

</comment><comment><USER93> I use pidgin, how does this affect me?

<comment><USER94> If you use Pidgin to connect to an XMPP federated service, then that won't work any more.

If like basically everyone relevant, you use Pidgin to directly chat with Hangouts users and to hang out on IRC (the federated protocol that actually succeeded in the marketplace), then you don't care.

I genuinely don't understand the outrage in support of XMPP. It didn't work out guys. IRC tuns out to be all anyone actually wanted, and to the extent that's not true, it would have been eaten by Slack anyway.

<comment><USER95> You didn't see this part in the article?

> "Third-party XMPP clients will continue to work with Hangouts for 1-on-1 > chats."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> Google wants to be like Apple. Lean and mean but it's got a big problem.

They want to release and try new things but also still be focused on the big money makers.

That means expect a lot of crap from Google like wave, allo, duo, buzz etc. Some hotshot inside Google wants a promo and pushes new products like popcorn.

But Google management needs to show $$$ so they need to focus on the big cows: search & ads.

In Steve Jobs era a ton of shit would never even see the light of day.

Google literally has so much money and resources that it actually hurts them innovating.

Their best strategy is to acquire products with good market fit and scale the shit out of them.

</comment><comment><USER97> The worst news in this announcement by Google is that "Quote Selected Text" in Gmail will be retired, it was essentially the only lab feature I used, I even got used to. I'm sad to see it go.

</comment><comment><USER98> [https://pbxinaflash.com/community/threads/r-i-p-google- voice...](https://pbxinaflash.com/community/threads/r-i-p-google-voice- again.21208/#post-129739)

"Looks like June 26 may be the final curtain call for Google Voice. Google today announced that it's finally pulling the plug on Google Chat upon which Google Voice relies on the Asterisk platform."

<comment><USER99> You're quoting the comment of a guy taking his sources out of context. The G suite article he uses as a source doesn't contain the word Asterisk nor Google Voice

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> _XMPP federation with third-party services providers will no longer be supported starting June 26._

Fuck you, Google. Just fuck you...

<comment><USER101> I wish someone at Google would explain their overarching strategy and target. This piecemeal approach just reeks of no coherent plan.

<comment><USER84> I doubt they have any coherent strategy in the messaging space.

<comment><USER102> Throw shit on the wall and see what sticks? Isn't that what pretty much everyone is doing?

<comment><USER103> Once it sticks and everyone is using it, then shut it down

<comment><USER57> It's sad but true. I can hardly trust any Google products any more because you never know when they're randomly going to give it the axe for no apparent reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> It's weird when Apple has the better messenger app.. Even more so when they got into that position without actually changing anything..

</comment><comment><USER105> Name a Google product that isn't search and gmail that hasn't been discontinued after _n_ years. Google drive might hang around, and probably Google Cloud (though it was mainly AppEngine for a longtime only). But there is little faith in any Google platform if you are planning to build on it. I am still pissed about Google Reader.

</comment><comment><USER106> [https://xkcd.com/1361/](https://xkcd.com/1361/)

</comment><comment><USER107> I was terrified when I first read this, I thought it was "Google Voice" but then I realized it wasn't... and couldn't for the life of me picture what Google Talk was since... we have Google Hangouts and couldn't tell you the last time I even saw "Google Talk" anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER108> For them its a very smart move, if its a non-core part of the business that is not generating revenue, it makes sense.

From a user perspective, it is a bad play. Just like Google Reader, there were users that relied on the software. While it may save them money, it hurts them in other ways.

</comment><comment><USER74> and meanwhile I use for communication email, SMS and Skype longer than these Google products, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Viber and Wechat exist

only thing I have added is Signal because why not have one more messenger if it's bundled with SMS anyway

when living in China was forced to use Wechat but got rid off that spyware immediately after moving outside, them had short stint with Facebook Messenger (Lite) until I decided it's not worth to do any business with Facebook which is reason why I don't have WhatsApp

I think I provide enough options for people to reach me with email, SMS, Skype (video/chat), Signal (video/chat)

so in the end i have 4 apps in phone covering all my communication - <USER2> Email, AOSP Dialer, Skype Lite and Signal

</comment><comment><USER109> At this point it would be better if they would just discontinue Talk, Hangouts, Allo, Duo, etc, etc, etc and focus on a single communications app. Give them a 6 month deadline and for the love of God, have a single app that I can use for chat, voice and video.

<comment><USER74> why insist on using Google products and not switch to Skype (lite) or Signal?

<comment><USER109> That's a good question.

Despite the awful UI, Skype serves me very well and I think they are improving quickly on Linux.

The problem is none of my friends/family use it. Some have it installed but they always use something else for chatting.

Nobody I know uses Signal.

<comment><USER74> strange, nobody i know use Google to chat or video call, some members of our family use Viber, i convinced few to Signal so they can talk to me, pretty much everyone has Skype but most of the people use it just on desktop and then when I would ask people around everyone use WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger, but Google communication apps are pretty much dead here around me in Europe somewhere slightly higher than Signal but much much lower than Skype in popularity

BTW what is so awful about Skype Lite interface? a bit more cluttered than Viber, WhatsApp or Signal, but still ok compared to Messenger nobody has problem with judging by popularity

<comment><USER109> It's not that everybody here is using Google apps. They aren't. They all use WhatsApp or FB Messenger. But those options are terrible to me (particularly because desktop clients are bad or non-existent)

The reasons I hope Google gets their act together is because they are in the right place to do so. They have the mindshare, just need to execute better and network effects may kick in. It also doesn't matter if they have the best platform but none of my friends/family use it. Again, Google is better positioned to make that happen, IMHO.

I don't know what Skype Lite is. I use Skype for Linux Alpha. Is that it? It seems to be missing video calls, the chat interface is complicated (spent some time trying to find the chat while in a voice call), it doesn't integrate well with the desktop (it minimizes when I close, instead of hiding in the tray). Like I said, they are improving.

As for Signal and converting people to some technology I know is better... Sorry, tried that too many times. It's not worth the time invested. These companies will have to figure out how to increase their market share without depending on tech enthusiats.

<comment><USER74> Skype Lite is Android app intended for India only, you can install it through Yalp market or from Apk mirror, it's pretty much same as proper Skype, just 3 times smaller and should be lighter on data, not sure why Microsoft doesn't officially allow it in other markets too since it can deal with your voice calls, skype calls, SMS, chat so you could replace your dialer, your messaging app and your Skype

Signal should be always introduced just as nice SMS/MMS app and add it can also send encrypted chat messages if other party has Signal as well, because what's the point having single purpose SMS app when you can have app providing two options of delivering your messages, I think it's good way to sell Signal, considering most of built in SMS apps are crap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER110> At what point are they going to cancel google voice to force us into hangouts. The recent redesign makes me think not immediately, but initially with the G+ pushes they've held back functionality simply to force G+ products.

</comment><comment><USER111> My first thought was, "wait, which Google chat app is that?"

</comment><comment><USER112> Does anyone have a timeline of Google messaging app changes?

</comment><comment><USER95> "Third-party XMPP clients will continue to work with Hangouts for 1-on-1 chats."

For me, this means it basically still exists and my user experience is the same.

<comment><USER76> Somehow this 1-on-1 chat has stopped working circa 2013 for me. People using google still show up as online in my contact list but do not ever receive my messages. On the other hand I do not appear in their contact list anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> Gtalk was a great product like Google Reader.

Google is just proving how unreliable it is as a company. I have ditched by Gmail account before they ditch me.

Same with Chrome too.

</comment><comment><USER114> It seems like Google is constantly trying to simplify and streamline everything for developers and giving a big middle finger to the users.

</comment><comment><USER115> Its like Google is becoming a Javascript framework.

</comment><comment><USER116> > we've evolved Hangouts to focus on two new experiences

> Google Talk launched in 2005 as a simple chat experience

To quote Inigo Montoya, 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'

> As part of our continued effort to focus Google+ around shared interests, > we're retiring two legacy Google+ features in Gmail: the ability to email > Google+ profiles and the use of Google+ Circles.

Sad to see Circles die — that's what was compelling about Google+. I don't even know what it is now.

<comment><USER116> Why's this getting downvotes? I think that calling software & features 'experiences' rather than 'software' and 'features' is a symptom of precisely what's wrong with Google's current direction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER117> >XMPP federation with third-party services providers will no longer be supported starting June 26.

What does this actually mean?

<comment><USER118> XMPP Federation allows servers to talk to each other similar to how email works, and which is why XMPP addresses have always looked like email addresses. Up until June 26 you could (with some effort) run a server on your own domain and still chat with people on Google's XMPP servers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER119> Is anybody surprised anymore when Google shutters a project? It's almost like their calling card.

</comment><comment><USER120> LOL years ago someone in mainland China copycat ICQ. Now the company he founded is known as Tencent.

<comment><USER115> Well, to be fair, WeChat is a pretty good application.

<comment><USER74> your phone battery would beg to disagree plus no SMS implementation aside that all content including private messages is monitored and censored

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER121> This is mostly towards g suite enterprise offering.</comment>


Jott's Move From Free to Premium - Bait and Switch or Good Business? - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/jott_free_to_premium.php <comment><USER2> An impressive summary on how to grow a business (assuming a nice initial outlay). Thought this was amazing from the techcrunch coverage:

"They haven't raised much capital by recent standards - compare their $5.4 million in venture capital to competitor Spinvox's $200 million. But the company has 420,000 (presumably) happy customers who primarily use it for one of three things: mobile productivity, hands-free communication and web services (voice I/O)."

[http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/21/jott-leaves-beta- contin...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/21/jott-leaves-beta-continues-to- do-one-thing-awesome/)</comment>


Fraud at 8,848 metres: Are Everest ascents too easy to fake? - <AUTHOR> https://www.yahoo.com/news/fraud-8-848-metres-everest-ascents-too-easy-032612008.html <comment><USER2> Does it matter? Being the 7,647th person to summit Everest is not exactly a notable achievement.</comment>


Ask HN: Good open-source software documentation examples - <AUTHOR> Hi !
I'm doing some research on how to improve/make appleseed[1] documentation. Appleseed is an open-source rendering software and we need both user and developer documentations such as: - Guide on how to use appleseed - Detailed docs on how appleseed is working - Developer documentation (API reference, contribution guide, getting started)
So if there is a documentation that you really like, please share it :)(whether it's about rendering or not, for user and/or for developers)
[1] https://github.com/appleseedhq/appleseed/ <comment><USER2> I've poured a lot of time and effort into documenting my C++ TOML library, generally seeking to write the docs as I would wish to find them if I were a new user: [https://marzer.github.io/tomlplusplus/](https://marzer.github.io/tomlplusplus/)

The docs are built using a spin-off of the documentation generator for the magnum graphics engine, which are themselves a really good documentation example: [https://magnum.graphics/](https://magnum.graphics/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I always recommend [http://doc.qt.io/](http://doc.qt.io/)

btw, appleseed looks nice. I'm looking for a ray tracker that can render typical 720p indoor scene under 15 seconds. (similar to [https://appleseedhq.net/img/renders/bedroom-2.jpg](https://appleseedhq.net/img/renders/bedroom-2.jpg))

Can appleseed do that (this will need hardware acceleration I think)?

<comment><AUTHOR> I also think qt doc is great.

Yes, appleseed can do that ! But it will be really noisy :D

Don't hesitate to come on appleseed's discord server if you need help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Although it isn't perfect, I put a lot of effort into the docs for my game development framework at [https://domeengine.com](https://domeengine.com).

Make sure each document/page has a clear audience, and it's clear to the reader what that audience is, as well as where other audiences should go.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice work !

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's the Wiki to my open source project, LINQ to Twitter:

[https://github.com/JoeMayo/LinqToTwitter/wiki](https://github.com/JoeMayo/LinqToTwitter/wiki)

Same qualifications at others - not perfect. :) I've been maintaining the docs for several years. When people seem to be confused about a particular subject or are asking questions in a certain area, it's an indication that I need to work on that area more. Over time, I've noticed a relationship where targeted improvements reduce my support requirements. Feedback is welcome.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing !

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been very impressed with the Django documentation.</comment>


Ask HN: Good recruiter/job agency in NYC? - <AUTHOR>

Anyone worked with a good recruiter or agency in NYC to find a job?<p>Would appreciate a recommendation. Thanks. <comment><USER2> How about the DC/MD area too?</comment>


Nikoli Puzzles - <AUTHOR> http://nikoli.co.jp/en/puzzles/ <comment><USER2> A bunch of these are also available in the venerable Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection: [https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/](https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/)

<comment><USER3> Which also exists on Android as a pretty light app: [https://chris.boyle.name/projects/android- puzzles/](https://chris.boyle.name/projects/android-puzzles/)

And apparently there's an app for iOS too.

<comment><USER4> The iOS app is my favorite timekiller. It doesn't hide the clock, it starts up really fast (no splash screen), it has no ads, it uses only 3.7MB storage, and it's free.

<comment><USER5> link?

<comment><USER6> [https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/simon-tathams-portable- puzzl...](https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/simon-tathams-portable-puzzle- collection/id622220631?mt=8)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Slitherlink is incredible, you learn to recognize more and more patterns. And when you have mastered one variant, you can try with honeycomb pattern instead of squares or other shapes to explore new patterns.

Light up/Akari I have never quite gotten. It's either too simple or too hard, after learning the common patterns. I often end up just trying to fill in something, and backtrack when it doesn't work. Not as satisfying as deducing it would have been.

Hitori is nice, albeit a bit easy after having found the patterns. But relaxing to just comb through a few puzzles.

Shikaku, I prefer Tentai Show which is similar but arbitrary rotatable shapes instead, a bit nicer patterns to learn.

<comment><USER8> Slitherlink is very cool! Do you know a source of Slitherlink puzzles in computer-readable form? I've got the urge to write a solver.

<comment><USER2> It's called "Loopy" in Simon Tatham's puzzle collection (see my other comment), it's open source and includes a level generator.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's a nice online collection of these style puzzles at [https://www.brainbashers.com/today.asp](https://www.brainbashers.com/today.asp). I usually do the hardest Slitherlink, Hitori, and Ranges problems daily, for years now.

</comment><comment><USER10> The well known [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_Free](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_Free) is like the ColorLink version of Numberlink.

</comment><comment><USER11> I have a book of these on my desk right now. If you are not in Japan, I highly recommend ordering directly from the publisher. The books usually have English rules, but if not they are available on the website. It is really nice taking a break from screens and chipping away at a few puzzles.

</comment><comment><USER12> A _huge_ browser-playable collection of Nikoli and other puzzles are at [https://www.janko.at/Raetsel/Nikoli/index-2.htm](https://www.janko.at/Raetsel/Nikoli/index-2.htm)

</comment><comment><USER13> What about Ken Ken? Is it also considered a Nikoli puzzle?

<comment><USER14> If I've researched this correctly, I believe that "Nikoli puzzles" are not a formal class of puzzles; rather the terms refers specifically to the publisher of these puzzles [1]. KenKen, on the other hand, was invented and trademarked separately by Tetsuya Miyamoto [2].

That being said, KenKen does seem to fall into a similar class of constraint- based, language-agnostic games.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikoli_(publisher)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikoli_\(publisher\)) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KenKen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KenKen)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Early startup valuation for acquihire? - <AUTHOR> I've been bootstrapping a company by myself and have gotten some traction but it is still very early. Now another early stage company in the same space is interested in purchasing my company. Their primary interest is in getting me on the team, (and I suspect eliminating future competition) not the product or technology per se.
They're better funded and I'm getting tired of working by myself, so joining up with them sounds appealing. However, I don't know how to come up with or evaluate fair terms.
I'm mostly trying to determine a dollar amount assuming I also get 10-20% of their company and a small salary. They have asked me to suggest a number but I don't know how to come up with one that's fair.
Any advice? <comment><USER2> Here's some advice: The word "fair" stopped making sense in kindergarten. You don't get what's fair or what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.

Now, having said that, you have to determine your goals and how to synthesize an ideal set of negotiating levels.

Typically these levels are:

      1.  Possible Best Case
      2.  Likely negotiated agreement
      3.  Worse you'll take (walk away below)
      4.  BATNA - Your "Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement."

There are several methods used for calculating acqui-hire or acquisition:

      1.  Comparables on metrics such as revenue, profit, market share, impressions, downloads, average daily/monthly users
      2.  The company's (buyer)'s budget - "Well all we have is this"
      3.  The sellers demands (I won't sell for less than this)

If I were looking at buying you, I'd consider it fair if I Can "buy" you for less than you'll make me, including opportunity costs.

You're going to have give out more (anonymous) details before most people can help you too much:

      1.  Are you a 1-man shop?  Including contractors?
      2.  How many people at acquirer?
      3.  How long have to both been in business?
      4.  How much revenue do you both have?  How much profit?
      5.  What guarantees do you want if you're hired?  What agreements are you willing to make (i.e. non-compete)

If you're a one man shop with an app that's generated $30k this year, I'd buy you for $60k and pay you $140k with a non-compete for 2 years. I don't know if you thin that's fair, but it would be to me.

Remember, a negotiation is a game in which both people agree things are fair, or both people agree that they get screwed equally.

After the negotiation, if you have to work with the person, then try to focus on the former case.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for that feedback. "Walk Away Before" and BATNA seem easiest to figure out, so maybe I'll start by determining that.

My company is just me. They have 4 founders and will be hiring 5-10 people soon.

Both companies had successful crowdfunding campaigns but neither is shipping a product yet.

<comment><USER3> _> Both companies had successful crowdfunding campaigns but neither is shipping a product yet._

That sounds like you might have to refund some or all of your contributors. After the acquisition, your project will cease to exist. It's unlikely that both crowdfunding promises were exactly the same. Even if the intention is to fold your product into theirs, the realistic outcome is that your employers will ship the product as they intended, leaving your supporters with little to nothing. You need to clean this up now, rather than later.

<comment><AUTHOR> We've discussed that at length and are committed to meeting our crowdfunding obligations to the full satisfaction of our backers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Acquihires are usually a mature company buying talent from a failing company. Your situation is not much like that. It's more of a "hey, let's join forces, we can build a better company together than we can separately" situation.

I'd start by asking them for their cap table, so you a can see what they're offering you in equity compared to the existing founders. You should also determine if they're going to give you the label "founder". (They should.)

Next, cash. The most expensive thing at the stage they're at is cash. If the company is a big win, 99% of your compensation will come from the equity. But any cash you extract now is a big PITA, given their funding level.

I would look into non-cash ways of getting a similar effect. For example, you could receive equity that has a liquidation preference, as if they had paid you cash and you turned around and invested it in the company. That's a little unusual, and may spook their existing investors. But paying you a wad of cash when they've raised only $1-2mm may also spook their investors.

What you really need is advice from some people who've been through this scenario, not people who know about acquihires that are very unlike this situation.

Good luck!

<comment><USER5> Yup this looks like the reddit-infogami merger and other union of early startups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would turn it right back around and tell them to make you the offer. You (probably) have no idea what is going on internally with them, so you don't know the full value you bring.

It doesn't even have to be a negotiation tactic - just tell them the same thing you posted here. You aren't sure what would be fair, and are not sure what number to respond.

Really, they are coming to you - let them do this part of the work, so you don't waste your time until you even know if you are talking in the same ballpark.

<comment><USER7> Surely you wouldn't want them to know you have no idea? I'd agree the onus is on them to come up with the initial valuation, however I'd let them think I knew how valuable my company was.

Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about.

<comment><USER6> If it were purely a negotiation for purchase, I might agree. But they are talking about joining forces. Maximizing the valuation is probably less important than establishing their working relationship.

If it were me, I'd be more concerned with the "working together" part, so I would be open and transparent with what I am thinking, and who I am. If they come back with too small of a number, I could always say, "No." I figure they either will get along well and can come to a mutual agreement on this, or not. Trying too hard to make a deal happen sometimes just isn't the right answer, if the deal would be with people with whom you don't work well.

<comment><USER7> Good point, perhaps I'm being overly cynical about the buyers intentions.

Even if it was about paying the least amount possible, I guess there is no harm in honestly saying you have no idea and later coming to a valuation (that perhaps doesn't match theirs).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _> Their primary interest is in getting me on the team, (and I suspect eliminating future competition) not the product or technology per se._

 _> I'm mostly trying to determine a dollar amount assuming I also get 10-20% of their company and a small salary._

Given those two statements (and without knowing any details), my instinct would be that you'd effectively be joining their company as a sort of late- arriving co-founder. On that basis, my advice would be as follows:

1\. Decide whether you want to become a co-founder of the company. They key thing is whether you want to join that team and work with those individuals.

2\. Don't expect to receive a large dollar amount. It's not an exit - it's an acquihire. You want to find out how much the co-founders are getting paid and use that as a benchmark for your salary.

3\. _Do_ make sure that you do full due diligence - you need to see the cap table and understand what terms all the existing shareholder (including the founders - e.g. vesting schedules) and investors (e.g. any preferential terms) have. I'd be wary if they were reluctant to share any of that information. It's not unreasonable for them to ask that you sign an NDA. Get a lawyer to review any document they want you to sign and talk you through what it means. In fact, it's not a bad idea to get your own NDA drafted up and put it forward to them.

4\. Be clear on what your role will be going forward. You don't want any hand- waving or "We'll sort that out later."

5\. Ensure that everyone's expectations (including both yours and the other company's investors') are clear and aligned. Don't make any assumptions. Lay everything out in painstakingly explicitness.

6\. Make sure that you're protected in case things don't work out. Basically, think about what could go wrong. Will your equity be subject to vesting? What happens if they fire you before the vesting period is complete?

If you want to go into specifics, I'd be happy to talk further on a confidential basis. My contact details are in my profile.

</comment><comment><USER9> A company that has taken 1-2MM in funding is going to find it difficult to give a key hire 10% of the company. Just for what that's worth.

<comment><USER8> How do you know they've received 1-2MM in funding?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Before doing anything, do you want to sell the company?

Read this: [http://paulgraham.com/corpdev.html](http://paulgraham.com/corpdev.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> _They 're better funded_

If their funds are from outside then the founders and employees are also less in control. In addition, it does not mean that they are executing better or have a better product.

 _not the product or technology per se._

That does not mean that the price should not reflect the value of these things because it is not as if you will retain their value after an acquisition should it occur. This is especially salient if _any_ of your compensation will be in equity in the current competitor because shutting down your product potentially enhances the value of theirs.

 _eliminating future competition_

If this is obviously one of their motives [which is different from an assumption that it is] it is a red flag because it means the founders and controlling interests are focused on the wrong thing: something other than execution.

 _fair terms_

If you think its fair, then its fair. Be willing to stick with that decision and learn from any of the outcomes [money left on the table, no deal, and everything working out so that you feel it's fair 50 years from now]. As you note, not working alone has some value to you but nobody but you can assess it right now or in two years.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER12> First off, congrats on generating that level of interest!

The valuation of your company is going to take into account how much has been invested so far and potential for future growth (among other things). Since it sounds like you haven't had any investors, you'll want to figure out ways to quantify investment so far. Put together a spreadsheet. Don't necessarily show it, but use the sums you come up with as rationale during negotiation.

Some ideas along that line: -Quantify your personal time investment: add up the value of the time you've put in, including opportunity cost. If you didn't build this company, what could you have earned doing consulting? -Quantify your traction: if this includes revenue from customers, project how much those customers will earn for your company over the next few years and add that to the total value of the company.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER13> It all depends on the circumstances. Is "early-stage" mean they have $1m in the bank, or $10m, or $100m? Do they _need_ you, or are interested in a hire?

I think if they're early stage enough that you might get 10-20% (btw, 10% is optimistic), then there's no cash available (apart from a small signing bonus like 10-20k).

But really, you need to talk through the actual numbers with someone who has been more of an idea. Do you have advisors? If not, happy to help: my email is in my profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe they have $1M-$2M.

I don't have advisors. Thank you very much for offering to help! I'll send you an email.

<comment><USER2> Ditto here, etsll - I'm happy to help give you a perspective in private email; mine is in profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had a great chat with pbiggar so for now I think I just need to digest it all for a bit. Thank you for offering, though!

<comment><USER14> You should try to get as many opinions as possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As a 3rd party without detailed knowledge of the space and each company's position it's hard to say. Here is a possible framework for you tho.

Since you are basically asking for co-founder level equity in the merged company, pretend that you were working there the whole time when you were working on your own startup. The acquisition cost is the amount of salary you would have drawn.

</comment><comment><USER16> The more thought and due diligence you put in, the lower the probability you will get screwed. However, how much effort, time, and $money into finding, hiring, talking to lawyer(s) do you want to put into this?

If you are at all worried about whether they are negotiating in good faith, then before you go any further, file one or more patents asap. This provides you with at least 2 things:

1) increases what you have to put on the table

2) if talks dissolve and you find they were in it to get as much info from you as possible (e.g. to use in their product), you have _some_ legal options. Whether you need this recourse AND whether its even feasible, is left for a later time.

Business is war, expect no less. And in this case, the more they give you (cash or equity), the more they lose.

</comment><comment><USER17> Start with alignment and worry about compensation afterwards.

You don't ask for co-founder equity without a strongly shared vision. However, if they are not that interested in your product or technology, are you guys even on the same page?

<comment><AUTHOR> I probably explained that poorly. What I meant was that our products are so similar, and vision so aligned, that we have already independently developed many of the same technologies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What is the ROI for the company buying you?

If it is website traffic... multiple your monthly new visitors by $1.50 or whatever and given them a reasonable break-even period (12 months)?

If it is a team.... what would they have to pay in recruitment fees?

If it is code... what would it cost to build it?

For another small business that is bootstrapped, this is the only way they can think of it.

You get a bit of a negotiation advantage if you can identify what matters to them most and use that as the metric. You can start amplifying how much of a difference you really can make for them.

</comment><comment><USER19> A number I've heard for T&T (team and technology) acquisitions is to grant about twice as much /unvested/ stock options as if the individuals were hired through ordinary channels. The idea is that a cohesive team is worth more than separate hires. But not exponentially more.

But that's not your situation. It seems like you do have traction but you don't have a team.

If your traction is >> theirs, you might consider hiring them.

If their traction is >> yours, they won't give you much.

</comment><comment><USER20> How much would you realistically make if you competed your course successfully? What are the real chances of that actually harkening, over how long? Multiply the two, and subtract an estimate of how tired you are of the working alone part, and that's you're bottom.

On the other hand, estimate what it would cost them to fund and hire your alternative, including equity, recruiter, and hiring bonus fees. That's their upper end.

Add cash on hand, subtract liabilities, in both cases.

</comment><comment><USER21> Negotiation is trivial. It's all about your alternative. get another offer or figure out how much you will make going alone. Add about 15%. That's your walkaway ask.

If walkaway trying to get more, you are kidding yourself. That being said, you can ASK for more. Just don't walkaway if you don't get it.

Also, remember the guy who comes up with the ask is usually the chump. Make them make an offer if you can.

</comment><comment><USER22> What does "some traction" mean? What's your profit? What's the growth rate like and how big is the market?

</comment><comment><USER23> Tell them that if they are serious they will make you an offer. Otherwise you are just losing ground by talking with them.

If they make an offer and you accept only then are you on the same team. Until that point you are adversaries.</comment>


Use of male mice skews drug research against women, study finds - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/31/sexist-research-means-drugs-more-tailored-to-men-says-scientist <comment><USER2> This article was written by someone who obviously has little knowledge how drugs are actually discovered and developed.

First, as someone already pointed out, mouse models kind of suck. They are very different than humans, so adding in female mice isn't really going to tell you a whole lot.

Second, a core tenet of research is to minimize your variables. Adding in female mice (who go through estrus cycles) is probably going to mess up your results and make them even harder to interpret. Plus, you'd have to double the size of your study to maintain statistical power.

Third, once a drug passes into human testing, females are already included in research (unless it's a purely male disease). So we're not really missing anything here. If a drug company did limit testing to males, the FDA would take them to task and probably limit their use in males only. Why would a drug company want to cut off half of their potential customers.

What a terrible article overall.

<comment><USER3> _Adding in female mice (who go through estrus cycles) is probably going to mess up your results and make them even harder to interpret._

The article and its linked sources address this point, citing two meta- analyses regarding mice and rats in neuroscience:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24456941](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24456941)

"The underrepresentation of female mice in neuroscience and biomedical research is based on the assumption that females are intrinsically more variable than males and must be tested at each of four stages of the estrous cycle to generate reliable data. Neither belief is empirically based. [...] Utilization of female mice in neuroscience research does not require monitoring of the estrous cycle."

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27468347](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27468347)

"Across all traits, there were no sex differences in trait variability, as indicated by the CV, and there were no sex differences in any of the four neuroscience categories, even in instances in which mean values for males and females were significantly different. Female rats were not more variable at any stage of the estrous cycle than male rats."

<comment><USER2> The key in your sources is _neuroscience_. I can believe there is no impact of sex on those results, but there can be a number of different therapeutic areas where it does impact things.

Also, unless you have evidence that sex has no effect, as a scientist you'd want to be cautious and keep your variables to a minimum. Easiest way to do that is have all mice of the same sex.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> sometimes I read an article, like this one, that has a sound basis in science, look at the headline, look at where its published, think about the target audience that will read the article, and can't help but question the "why" that article was published.

Is there any reason at all to publish an article about the gender of research mice in __the Guardian __except to push some kind of political gender agenda?

I ask specifically because of the article's last 4 paragraphs. They are so laden with gender agenda it kind of blows my mind.

<comment><USER5> It seems pretty rational and interesting to me that a persistent bias in the gender or research bias continues and amplifies a persistent bias in whom drugs are best serving.

Do you have an "anti-gender" agenda where you wish that gender is not discussed?

<comment><USER6> I'm sure those things are interesting; however, you don't learn about them by cherrypicking sources and studies to suit a particular agenda. In particular, by challenging TFA's overt agenda pushing, the parent isn't advocating a different agenda (except perhaps for more objective science journalism).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Use of mice skews drug research against humans also. Not that I want to use drugs on humans. But you have to wonder how many drugs there are that work on humans but not mice.

<comment><USER8> We are on the quest to achieve mice immortality!

<comment><USER9> Douglas Adams has taught me the truth!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > ...the ways in which the male and female brains differ may have remained > under-investigated due to a backlash against the idea of there being > meaningful differences between the male and female brain.

This is bad. Contemporary views affecting scientific research is not a good direction to go. The religious, dark-ageesque nature of the above statement is obvious: It's a fight against attempts to undermine a comfortable preconceived idea.

I believe, similar to the famous quote about free-speech[0], that we must fight for science to have free-reigns in it's research directions even if we don't like the premise or the possible outcomes. Nothing should be off-limits in the pursuit of (a close approximation of) the truth.

Besides, science is not sensational, it's actually rather boring (in a good way), especially when considering single studies. It is the far-fetched interpretations of the results that are sensational, and therefor problematic. And these are usually done by attention-seeking media outlets.

It shouldn't be the scientist's responsibility to steer clear of research that might be interpreted sensationally, and the universities shouldn't discourage such research for fear of "bad press" but rather champion it in the name science-above-politics.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

[0] "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" \- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

</comment><comment><USER11> Related: there was a study mentioned in a pop science article recently showing that ketogenic diets were not effective in female mice compared to male, until the female mice had their ovaries removed. Unfortunately, I'm unable to find the study itself.

</comment><comment><USER12> People are arguing about the use of mice etc..but it has been shown that medical care is male-oriented which negative affects female outcomes (heart disease and attacks for example.)

<comment><USER13> > but it has been shown that medical care is male-oriented which negative > affects female outcomes

I'm new to this idea. Where has it been shown? What level or aspect is it male-oriented? What negative affects are there?

<comment><USER14> Symptoms of heart attacks in men and women are different. All the commonly known symptoms are _male_ symptoms to the point that even medical professionals can not realize that a woman is having a heart attack.

<comment><USER12> Yep. There are plenty of anecdotes out there of women having life-threatening heart issues and being told by their doctor that they are overreacting or suffering from anxiety due to their symptoms differing from male symptoms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Poor mice. The scientists should experiment on their body, not on some other body. This is cruel.

<comment><USER16> I agree, and have often had the feeling that a better scientific method would say: you can experiment however you want on another being, as long as you're willing to have it done to yourself as well. Do you want to look at something under a microscope? Very well, if you agree to also be looked at under a microscope. Do you want to cut something into pieces and examine it? Very well, if you agree to also be cut into pieces and examined.

<comment><USER17> You want to eat? Very well, if you agree to also be eaten.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's sort of weird to see this article framed as a progressive move against male bias when it seems to buy wholesale into a gender essentialialist worldview. The piece even touches on it at the end, dropping a hand grenade in its last line:

"There's nothing anti-feminist about saying the neurobiology in the female brain might be different."

\- I'm not sure about this ^

That being said, I don't think the practice of using exclusively male mice in lab testing can be justified either. For the same reason: reject gender essentialism.

<comment><USER19> You can't very well have it both ways. Either you recognize that there are real physical differences or you don't.

If you don't recognize differences in the female, then what you are saying is that sex is a social construct and that sex reassignment surgery is a make believe product. In such a case, feminism is a fraud product for a fake difference that doesn't exist.

Even if you can have a man and female that look physically identical in every way, and that might be possible, you still have to deal with the average distance between physical traits, which is quite real and measurable. And also the hormonal differences, and the differences caused by internal structures based upon this signaling which is often different even from an early age.

Feminism, as I have seen it, has its basis in recognizing that differences in sex can sometimes lead to only small gaps in task performance, and thus the sexes in many ways are like for like. Generally true.

Good luck being saved by an all female group of firefighters, however. I wish you all the best in that. But maybe that is the cost of "equality". More people die, and quality sometimes diminishes.

I'll believe your rejection of gender essentialism when men are delivering babies. They can obviously produce milk, and that's already well documented.

Edit: To be fair, you can absolutely have firefighters that are female and even more prepared to save lives than males. The problem is that a quota system encourages physical features rather than merit to be key indicators in hiring, which is absolutely the wrong thing. A serious weightlifter that was female could easily be an amazing fire fighter.

<comment><USER18> You're making a basic mistake between gender and sex. Gender is a social category, and women as a social group are oppressed in various ways. A major task of feminism is to identify and end gender-based oppression. None of that depends on a biologically-determined notion of womanhood.

You're also making an extremely lazy mistake about "average distance between physical traits". I would absolutely trust the capabilities of an all-female fire dept. Not least because people who get into firefighting are not average physical specimens, they have to meet some standard of physical fitness. If a man, woman or gender nonbinary person meet the requirements (btw i think we're both buying into an exaggerated notion of the physical fitness of firefighters), then what reason would I have for doubting their capabilities? Would you want to be saved from a burning building by a team of men with the build of a computer programmer? Gender is not the important question here, and that should be obvious.

<comment><USER20> That's the thing though -- usually the physical requirements are drastically different. I'm not sure about fire departments, but in the US military the physical requirements for women are laughable compared to those for men.

<comment><USER9> Yes, compare the different pullup standard for men vs women in the Marine corps PFT: [https://www.military.com/military-fitness/marine-corps- fitne...](https://www.military.com/military-fitness/marine-corps-fitness- requirements/usmc-physical-fitness-test)

"Pull-ups

This event is not timed, your score is determined by how many pull-ups you can complete before dropping off the bar. This event is male Marines only.

Flexed-Arm Hang

This event is timed, your score is based on how long you can hang maintaining elbow flexion. This event is for female Marines."

<comment><USER21> Without knowing more it's not obvious to me which is the higher standard. I can do a few pullups but probably couldn't hang for more than a minute.

<comment><USER9> Max score for hanging is 70 seconds.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Oracle and Apple Announce OpenJDK Project for OSX (Henrik on Java) - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/2010/11/oracle_and_apple_announce_openjdk_project_for_osx.html <comment><USER2> This happened a month ago.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897648>

<comment><AUTHOR> hmmm... I just posted the link from the newsletter I received today ([http://www.oracle.com/us/dm/h2fy11/62500-java-developer- news...](http://www.oracle.com/us/dm/h2fy11/62500-java-developer- newsletter-194600.html?msgid=3-2961338464)) ... should have been paying attention better in November, I guess</comment></comment>


How to remember the order of arguments to super() in Python2 - <AUTHOR> http://danverbraganza.com/writings/python2-super-arguments-mnemonic <comment><USER2> hmm does the order change when you have multiple base classes with different arguments?

ive always believed that you should be able to target a specific base class with the super statement..

<comment><AUTHOR> I most often run into using super() with __init__(). This makes the problem with calling super from a specific superclass very obvious. _Every_ class along the hierarchy needs to ensure that it's __init__() gets called (or you end up with a Franken-object that hasn't been properly initialized).

I can't remember a time when I've had a class that multiply inherits and I want to change which superclass overrides on a per-method basis (i.e. given class A(B, C), some method A.foo() should call B.foo() and some method A.bar() should call C.bar(), although both B and C can both bar() and foo()). However, I grant that that _could_ happen. I don't have a solution right now that's better than explicitly referring to the unbound method of the subclass to whose implementation you want to refer.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Hardware Products you wish existed? - <AUTHOR>

What are hardware ideas / devices you wish existed ?<p>If you had the capability of designing circuit boards, writing firmware, industrial design, RF design, iOS and Android dev skills & ability to have PCBs made and tooling available for plastic, what would you build ? <comment><USER2> All time dream, open laptop: [https://www.crowdsupply.com/kosagi/novena-open- laptop](https://www.crowdsupply.com/kosagi/novena-open-laptop)</comment>