The Type of Companies That Publish Future Concept Videos - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/companies_that_publish_concept_videos <comment><USER2> I've worked for a few companies over the years, and there is a type of manager I run into a lot. I can summarize them by a statement they make "Just get it done."

The thing about these managers are they are delivery focused, not product focused. The have no imagination, and no emotional attachment to the product. They are there to make sure the books balance and revenue increases, thats it.

These people have always frightened me a bit because they just don't understand what the people who work under them do. You can't sit in a meeting and explain a new concept to them, you have to completely design a working product and walk them through it step by step.

A verbal explanation will only confuse them, and often they get agitated... because they don't understand. I'm sure most of us have been in a meeting where every single person understands the speaker except for person who has the authority to approve or deny the work... and all they can say is "I don't get it" (and you are going holy crap 20 other people get it, I can see them rolling there eyes and smirking).

I wouldn't mind betting that these videos are a sign of delivery managers being brought into R&D departments. These videos are made so that the delivery manager can understand what the people around him are doing, and so he can explain it to the bean counters. Its a sign you have put the wrong people into positions of authority.

EDIT: I just realized that the character Veronica on "Better off Ted" is exactly what I'm describing. I recommend watching it if you've never seen it.

<comment><USER3> > _These videos are made so that the delivery manager can understand what the > people around him are doing, and so he can explain it to the bean counters._

The irony is that concepts that intentionally ignore reality create the impression among those same people who "don't get it" that these concepts not only _are_ grounded in reality, but are as trivial to create as the concept video makes it look.

It reminds me of this clip from Ali G: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkuOuxRD1Bc&feature=youtu...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkuOuxRD1Bc&feature=youtu.be&t=5m16s)

<comment><USER2> Oh that vid was brilliant, I have been in presentation like that, intact I gave one the other that got extremely luke warm responses, and people staring at each other going this guy has lost his marbles.

My concept was this (pitched to the news agency I used to work for). I did some thinking about the next wave of devices and I thought I found a nice market that no one else had tried before.

We modify the RSS subscription interface where users can select categories for news stories they are interested, and email service already exists.

The RSS feeds already exist, and there are already staff curating the best of the best etc... they are pretty good feeds.

We then run batch scripts every morning, compile the articles into ePub format (essentially HTML), and push personalized pre-packaged news paper style format to subscribers. Target eReaders, tablets etc... turn a passive website into one that chases customers each morning.

Now this isn't difficult to implement, there is already a email service doing exactly the same thing. Basically all this service would do is wrap up HTML pages and build an index or two.

I felt like everyone in the room was the chap Ali G was talking to, they just wanted me to shut up ASAP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I saw this video at HP in 1992 or 1993 or so called HP 1995

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPKX5iuBvZg>

I was 13 or 14 at the time and to me it was a bit of a "wow" moment. Not because I related to the topic (mostly this was manufacturing) but because of the interfaces and the speed of information dispersal. I remember seeing other concept videos (the famous AT&T ones, Apple's, Adobe, etc) and they were likewise inspiring.

I know reality is often the best thing to market, and Apple and the like have made reality as inspiring as a far future concept lately.

But concept videos from the late 80's -> mid 90's had a huge impact on why I'm in technology today.

<comment><USER5> As a kid, Star Trek was my concept video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Has anyone else been in the Microsoft "Future Home" and "Future Office" in Redmond? They're similar to this concept video, but actually have some working features (although you quickly realize they're mostly staged).

They're more private than the video (used only by internal staff/guests/partners), but a much bigger waste of money.

<comment><USER7> I was at the Microsoft office in Cambridge (MA, US) the other day, and they had a Surface there. It was much the same; a neat toy, but ultimately a distraction. They spent serious engineering resources on it, and it amounts to something that will sell a handful for companies to put in lobbies as a something fun to play with. Given the wear patterns on it, it looked like it was mostly used for playing checkers.

Now, the Surface could actually be a neat product. If it were affordable enough for any small office, or for people to use in their home, it would probably sell well. If they actually developed only one tablet platform, that scaled up from their phones to the Surface with only minor modifications to UI, they'd have a serious contender for a touch based platform.

But with something that's just a toy for companies with extra money to spend entertaining their guests, with its own APIs so that software isn't portable between it and other products, and no real significant tablet offerings to fill in the gap between the phone and the Surface, it just doesn't make that much sense. I doubt that they can be making much money on it.

<comment><USER8> The non-profit I work with built one for about 1/10th the cost - $1400 in total (<http://wiki.studentrnd.org/Surface_Computer> for anyone interested in replicating it), but it's still mostly used as a "LOOK HOW COOL" sort of thing. Maybe if you replaced all the tables with computers you'd get some minor benefit, but having a single computer the size of a table is honestly pretty pointless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Publishing videos to the world may have issues, but these sorts of videos can have extreme internal value (the OP mentions this). I've worked on quite of a few of these — they've turned out to be useful tools in securing budgets and coordinating teams.

These concept videos can also be useful when an ingredient brand wants to push other players in their industry forward. When company A needs company B to buy into building new types of hardware, far-out concept videos can go a long way. By publishing concept videos, firms can essentially create reference designs for the future.

<comment><USER10> _When company A needs company B to buy into building new types of hardware, far-out concept videos can go a long way._

Compare this to how far (and how fast) one can get by letting your purchasing power do the talking, rather than a concept video. I like concept videos, personally. They are techno-lust candy to me. If this is a big part of how they move other players in their industry forward, however, then this is an inherent weakness in their business model. Industry players respond much more quickly when you're handing them money.

<comment><USER11> > _Compare this to how far (and how fast) one can get by letting your > purchasing power do the talking, rather than a concept video._

This makes a lot of sense when you're Apple, and very little when you're Microsoft. Going to Samsung and saying "I'll buy 10MM units, guaranteed" isn't very fiscally responsible if you don't sell hardware.

Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft

<comment><USER10> Exactly. That is the weakness in your business model to which I referred. I'm not saying that it's a failing in your business model. Clearly you're doing fine despite it. But it is a relative weakness against Apple's integrated model.

<comment><USER11> Historically it's been a strength. Apple's resurgence is a pretty recent thing, and most hardware+software companies have not done well. Look at Sun and see how well the hardware+software model worked for them. For that matter, look at Android, which is following the software-only model and has overtaken the iPhone in most areas now.

<comment><USER10> _Historically it's been a strength. Apple's resurgence is a pretty recent thing_

The historical context in which it was a strength is gone.

It was a strength during personal computation's ramp-up to ubiquity. It was a strength while Moore's Law allowed Microsoft to confidently add features in anticipation of more Mhz for less money in the nick of time. It was a strength while the margins for hardware vendors were fat and Microsoft could benefit from their race to the bottom as they competed with each other. That is when the hardware vendors were the most innovative. It was a strength before various governments around the world grew weary of its monopoly position on operating systems. And, frankly, it was a strength back when consumers were willing to eschew quality in favor of a cheaper, safer choice.

Those days are over. Computers are ubiquitous now. We've hit the Ghz barrier. The race to the bottom is over, and hardware vendors have razor-thin margins. Their corporate structures and cultures were formed around making things cheaper. Microsoft can no longer tie products together without legal hassles. And perhaps most importantly, humans have figured out open data formats and protocols.

Biology is replete with strategies that were historically strengths until environmental changes turned them into liabilities. For well over a billion years being an anaerobe was the best game in town. Then cyanobacteria gave us photosynthesis and free oxygen, rendering anaerobes' dominance an edge-case at the dawn of life.

Microsoft's dominance is literally the edge-case at the dawn of personal computers. They are now in a position where they have to look to concept videos to inspire ossified and margin-starved cost-cutters to innovate.

Anaerobes probably thought the first air-breathers were an anomaly, too.

<comment><USER11> Most of what you just said is irrelevant. The question is not just whether Microsoft is in a weaker position, but whether software-only has become a weaker position. Microsoft's antitrust scrutiny, GHz barrier, open formats, etc. What do any of these have to do with the software-only strategy? Antitrust scrutiny? Well, that would only get tighter for Microsoft if they started selling hardware. GHz barrier? Affects everyone whether they sell hardware or not. Open formats? Seems irrelevant, and Microsoft generally supports widely-popular open formats.

I also don't think the environment has changed as much as you say. We've still got numerous PC manufacturers selling "IBM compatibles" running Windows. On the phone front, we've got a similar situation, with Android in the lead. On tablets, it's likely just a matter of time before someone dethrones Apple. Really, when you talk about historical context being gone, I think you're just talking about Apple becoming so huge. And that is a big deal. I'm not sure it fundamentally changes the software-only strategy, though.

I would personally (and this is just me, and obviously has no relation to Microsoft's plans) love to see Microsoft sell hardware. I would love to buy a sleek tablet, phone, and laptop made by Microsoft. I'd love it if we sold a premium product designed exclusively in-house. But would this be a good strategic move for Microsoft? Honestly probably not.

<comment><USER10> As characterizations of Microsoft's historical strategy go, I'd say that merely calling it a "software-only strategy" is pretty anemic. The real strengths of that strategy were drawn from the details that you claim are irrelevant.

I couldn't disagree more on that point. You ask what those details have to do with the software-only strategy? Well, they were the historical context in which that strategy allowed them to dominate. Did it matter that the hardware innovation of that era had to do with cost reduction? Yes. Did it matter that Microsoft was able to keep customers captive through closed document formats & protocols? Yes. Did it matter that Microsoft both had and leveraged a monopoly position? A thousand times yes. Did it matter that Microsoft had OEMs over a barrel and got them to sign anticompetitive distribution terms? Of course.

I would be reluctant to point to Android phones as an example of a software- only success, because that knife cuts both ways for Microsoft. How is Microsoft going to sell Windows Phone in a market where Google is dumping a free operating system as a loss-leader for potential ad-revenue? Android is just yet another way in which the historical context that allowed Microsoft's software-only strategy to thrive has changed. You have to be able to actually sell the software, after all.

Regardless, here's a great illustration of the effects of Android's software- only model:

[http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android- orphan...](http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphans- visualizing-a-sad-history-of-support)

<comment><USER11> > _Did it matter that the hardware innovation of that era had to do with cost > reduction? Yes._

Why is this relevant? If the hardware innovation had been about attractiveness or energy efficiency or portability or any other factor, would Microsoft have been unable to compete? Would Windows have been non-viable if Compaq had been selling sleek aluminum boxes instead of beige boxes? Have hardware manufacturers stopped competing in price now? Last I checked, that was still a major selling point.

> _Did it matter that Microsoft was able to keep customers captive through > closed document formats & protocols? Yes._

This has nothing to do with the viability of the software-only strategy. Would anyone be less locked-in by Microsoft Office if it were running on a Microsoft Machine?

> _Did it matter that Microsoft both had and leveraged a monopoly position? A > thousand times yes. Did it matter that Microsoft had OEMs over a barrel and > got them to sign anticompetitive distribution terms? Of course._

Sure, and you still haven't explained how any of this makes Microsoft's software-only business weak now. Microsoft reached their dominant position as a result of their software-only strategy. Software-only allowed them to partner with every PC maker to make sure that 95% of people would buy a Windows machine.

> _I would be reluctant to point to Android phones as an example of a > software-only success, because that knife cuts both ways for Microsoft. How > is Microsoft going to sell Windows Phone in a market where Google is dumping > a free operating system as a loss-leader for potential ad-revenue?_

That's a good question, but I think the end answer will come down (partly) to price. If Windows Phone is a better experience than Android, but it costs an extra $15, will anyone care? Is anyone going to reject Windows Phone because it adds a couple percent to the price of their phone? (Especially when many Android phones are probably paying as much for patent licensing anyway.)

> _Regardless, here's a great illustration of the effects of Android's > software-only model:_

That's an illustration of how crappy the carrier lock-in model is. Or perhaps how little Google cares about its phone users. There's no intrinsic reason Android couldn't use the Apple model and push directly to consumers. Nonetheless, Android is selling extremely well in spite of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I see a concept video as something that would serve as the unifying vision for a company. Something that delineates something along the lines of this kind of template:

We are going to work on creating a set of products X, which will enable these ways of living and working Y, which in turn will spawn these associated needs Z, and here is a scenario acted out where we can make a case that this is a vision that we should go for. When designing our products, this video is the high level reference point for the product world we are moving towards.

</comment><comment><USER13> At the very least I thought the design in the video was pretty cool (the fonts, colors and what not on the various screens). I haven't followed Mango or whatever, so I am not sure if that was just an interpolation of the Mango theme or something new. Also, I totally suck at design, so I am easily awestruck by people who can do it.

In any case, I wouldn't think too much about it. MS is a really big company, and they probably pay for something like that from their pocket change. Whatever.

Also I like reading science fiction, and isn't a video like that also a kind of science fiction?

I didn't think the video was "creepy", but it made me think: it showed essentially how people are being pushed from location to location by their devices. I guess that is an interpolation of the life of office workers today, who are dominated by Outlook. But it struck me that in the end humans might become merely processes executing the program their devices and management software sets up for them. I doubt that is what humans really desire, so I suppose MS got it wrong in the video. But it was sufficient to evoke some thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm pissed at HN for wasting my time with this article. A rant against concept videos is not only totally useless information to me it is completely boring. I guess it could supposedly be useful to "visionaries" at giant companies or their marketing department but, fuck, are we going to be analyzing their brochures next? Who cares!?

<comment><USER15> 1) Nobody wasted your time with this article, and surely not HN (which is just a posting engine). People chose to vote on it, and you chose to read it.

2) Who cares? The people who voted for it on HN maybe? What part of "social news website" don't you understand? (rhetorical question: the "social" part of course)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "You Will"

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZb0avfQme8>

The company that brought it to me wasn't AT&T.

</comment><comment><USER17> Concept videos are ill-founded in general. Indeed, I'd say it's better to have a vague, handwaving long-term goal than a crisp, sharply focused, highly detailed concept like these videos. The basic fallacy at play is the idea that it's possible to predict the future so far in advance. In reality this is only possible if your products are boring and mundane. When you make products that transform people's lives and the way the world works then it becomes impossible to predict how people will use them and how society, industry, and the economy will change as a consequence. That's true even from generation to generation of a device or piece of software, making it utterly useless to try to predict anything several generations ahead.

Worse yet, concept videos make it all too easy to fall into the trap of working to make a product that looks cool in a demo but in reality is either hugely impractical to make or use or simply not very useful. For example, you could make a demo video of people commuting to and from work via rocket powered skateboard. And it would look _awesome_ , and after watching the video everyone would want to commute to work via rocket powered skateboard. But in reality it's not practical, and possibly not even as fun as it may seem (after the first 100 times the novelty would wear off, and then you're just riding a death trap and getting rained on and stuck in rocket-powered-skateboard traffic ... ok, it still sounds awesome, nevertheless...).

When you skip so many intermediate steps you can generate a false sense of what's possible, or even mislead yourself on what you're working on. Eventually smartphones are going to have no bezel and be super thin, so what? That's cool, but what does it have to do with what you are doing in the mean time to make smartphones better? It's easy to make a demo about voice control but the hard part is making it work in the here and now, how do you do that?

<comment><USER18> Concept videos are important. They are not saying 2019 will be exactly like this, but they are looking at potential use cases for various interfaces etcetera. When they come up with a idea they particularly like, they don't sit on their hands for ten years. They look at their idea of the future, then they start taking the best parts of that idea and implementing it in the products they are creating.

Since that video they have released or announced two products with the metro interface (Windows 8 & Windows Phone 7). Microsoft also has announced a version of the metro interface for the game console (Xbox 360). The part of the video where the guy takes a photo of the display and transfers it to a page is already possible in a less exciting capacity on WP. Take a photo of something, and it instantly shows up on your skydrive account. The children communicating through the wall display is a possibility today, but less impressive, with the use of a Kinect and a projector/screen. Microsoft actually has developed wall displays in their research division. They also announced yesterday that they will be partnering with a bunch of companies to provide the Kinect in enterprise environments.

Every good microsoft product already has implementations of an idea that is in their concept videos. The average person doesn't go watch their concept videos, so it has no negative effect on their image. Also, thinking of the future does not have to be a distraction from the present. Why is Apple doing better than Microsoft with consumers? They are not associated with viruses, IT departments, ugly products, and office suites. Microsoft = Painful & Not-Cool. Apple also gives their employees more freedom and they push products out when the market is ready, but only when they are ready for them. If Windows Phone came out instead of the iPhone, when it was announced and released, WP would have failed completely.

<comment> brown9-2 But why do they need to make a video to then make the products? How does a concept video help in product development?

You say that they are "important" but you don't say how or why - you're listing a bunch of stuff MS has done since/alongside the video. But I don't see where the proof is that a video like this was necessary.

<comment><USER19> As a student (in user experience/computer engineering) I enjoy these concept videos, and they help me get inspiration for future projects. Companies that release them are much more likely to be viewed in a positive light by me, and I'd much rather work for a company with a creative mindset than some company that I feel is behind. This is a great way to communicate with future employees.

It's also an inspiration for the various design challenges/competitions that some of those companies do.

<comment><USER20> Do you find MS's concept videos more compelling than Apple's accomplishments?

<comment><USER21> What accomplishments? Making lots of money?

They haven't introduced anything new, they've taken ideas that have been around forever and made some high-quality versions of them. Big deal. How excited can you get about that?

Meanwhile, Microsoft gives us things like Kinect which I find much, much more compelling than anything Apple's ever come up with.

<comment><USER21> The idea of tablets and portable devices has been around since the fifties, they didn't invent multi-touch and they built OS X on the back of Unix. How am I wrong?

<comment> brown9-2 Was the idea for Kinect one that didn't exist before, or that required no previous accomplishments (such as Unix --> OS X)? That seems unlikely.

<comment><USER21> Fine, Microsoft didn't do anything new with Kinect either. That still doesn't prove that Apple did anything original.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Real artists ship, dabblers create concept products" -- <http://counternotions.com/2008/08/12/concept-products/>

</comment><comment><USER23> Apple is obviously doing very well. But that doesn't mean everything Apple does is right, or that everyone should do things the way Apple does.

I love when companies do this kind of concept video, and if anything, I think these don't look far _enough_ in the future. I've never seen these as predictions of the future. More like sci-fi vignettes. I think it's great that big tech companies allot resources to look beyond the next product, out to the horizon of imagination and inspiration.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think there's some value to them. Sure, apple doesn't do them - but apple operates in a shroud of mystery and nobody knows their next move, so no surprise there. Apple has had the ability to nail technology inflection points and truly innovate so they don't need to. Apple doesn't write the rules for companies in different positions.

Gruber argues that this is lost attention on the Windows phone, but is it really? Would there be conversations about the video and would it have this type of debate and conversation about a video about the Windows phone?

How does one criticize both science fiction that isn't daring enough, not inspiring enough, and corporate future concept videos that are too futuristic and unrealistic? Is it that both sit in the unimaginative future, or is it insulting when a company attempts to claim credit for generic futuristic visions?

I think if you take a look at most big tech companies they have these visions, will talk about it, put it in slideware, and slip some into their advertising. Making a video is taking it one more step. The videos are probably not for the HN crowd, but instead those that haven't seen or thought of similar things and have now painted that company as the innovator.

</comment><comment><USER25> With the same logic, how about BMW: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTYiEkQYhWY>

<comment><USER26> When I first watched the BMW video, I thought you had a good point, but then I watched the Microsoft video. The difference is that BMW is innovating on an _actual_ product they can make now and learn from. Microsoft's video envisions translucent, credit card size touchscreen phones and people interacting with holograms.

There's some value in Microsoft's video, but given the unnecessary production costs, acting, etc., all of which is divorced from the engineering team[1], it sounds like their time would be better spent taking an approach more like BMW's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> _"Knowledge Navigator" didn't help Apple in any way. Apple never made such a product. It didn't bring Siri to us any sooner than if that video had never been made. It only served to distract from and diminish Apple's then-current actual products._

For all I know he could be 100% right about this (I'm not claiming he's wrong), but he just asserts it without giving any explanation or justification.

</comment><comment><USER28> A long time back, I knew a group of consultants that were big into Shockwave. They were the types that would throw parties with their animations projected on the walls.

They would use Shockwave professionally to visualize the interactions of a business workflow. It was really a animated use case when you get right down to it. They had a lot of success and it was easy to get people onboard with a new process because they could "see it". Really not sure what happened to them.

I can see using a concept video like this as an internal "Does this make sense?" and "Prototype Modeling", but I am at a loss as to why you would release it the public. You aren't selling it now so you cannot profit off it, and various critics will point out the flaws in usage inside the video. Plus, Gruber is right, it does take away headlines that could be about your now and selling. The worst part is having a obviously struggling and clueless competitor decide they too need a video.

</comment><comment><USER29> As the author of the article to which Gruber is referring, I think I'll simply say "Well played, Mr. Gruber, well played."

</comment><comment><USER30> I think a concept video, as long as it isn't too outrageous, is a decent way to inspire people. Some people watched minority report and said "I want to build that" -- concept videos could achieve the same. At the end of the article he mentions RIM's videos. I would say those are totally different as I think most of the basic components of that world are in the device or rumoured to be coming soon. That is cool. If someone can grab their latest device and make one of those workflows happen how good will they feel and what could come next?

Yes there are bad videos and they may have an unclear purpose but I think it is all about the context of the video.

</comment><comment><USER31> I can think of at least one potentially valuable use of concept videos: customer validation. Dropbox used this to great effect, as I recall. I could be wrong, but I thought that the video Drew launched (here on HN) was of a product that didn't fully exist yet. But I could be mistaken.

Either way, I think there's tremendous value in being able to sell (or get a verbal commitment of a sale) a product before you have to build it. Just make sure you _can_ build it.

EDIT: Here's the thread where Drew showed Dropbox to HN. Video is long gone though... <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863>

<comment><USER17> There's a difference between a concept which addresses an obvious, immediate need and a concept which just shows a bunch of vaguely cool stuff happening. The problem isn't that videos of not-yet-existing products are universally bad. The problem is that when you use fiction to portray a concept the farther away it is from the here and now the easier it is to go astray.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Surprised the car in the beginning wasn't a self-driving car

<comment><USER33> Speaking of cars, reading the article I was thinking of automotive "prototypes" featured in magazines and trade shows, but nigh unto never on the road.

Cars or computers or phones, stop wasting time giving us lofty promises and prototypes of a future that won't happen, give us tangible purchaseable incremental and revolutionary improvements of real products NOW.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think there needs to be distinction between concept videos and advertisement. Concept videos which are glamours like advertisement are not "concept videos" because it not practicality of the concept they are showing but how can we market and make this product cool "if we make this." There is fundamental problem with this. As Gruber said, concept videos are the sign of warnings that you are not doing anything.

</comment><comment><USER35> Nokia did it too with the Nokia Morph <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX- gTobCJHs>

Doesn't seem they are doing too well now either? Nokia Windows Morph phone 7 anyone?

</comment><comment><USER36> With this videos you demonstrate the will to create something, but delivering is a completely different challenge! Keep quiet, keep informed about your field, focus!

</comment><comment><USER36> With this video you demonstrate the will to create something, but to deliver is a completely different challenge! Keep quiet, keep informed about your field, focus!

</comment><comment><USER37> Maybe a good time to show these: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PJcABbtvtA>

</comment><comment><USER38> Is Daring Fireball a technology blog or a business-strategy blog?

<comment><USER5> Both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The actual real competition to Apple is Samsung-Android. As business insider pointed out, Android caught up with the software, than the hardware, than the single big manufacturer.

</comment><comment><USER40> Apparently in the future, we use lots of Gotham.

</comment><comment><USER41> there is nothing wrong with concept videos as long as they are proof of concept. Otherwise, it is no better than watching CSI.</comment>


Show HN: Neutron Academy, Google Assistant Powered Learning - <AUTHOR> https://www.neutron.academy/ <comment><USER2> I'm thrilled to see apps like these, because I believe the greatest potential AI has is to help people be really smart and educated with better judgment. Whether it improves critical thinking by asking challenging questions, or it has you think through complicated scenarios (even just things in your life), or teaches subject matter in an adaptive way that makes it really easy to get things, or just makes learning come to life (your own personal professor).

It's sad none of the leading voices in AI talk about this potential, have they ever? The ratio of talk about apocalypse or singularity to things like this probably tells you something..

</comment><comment><USER3> They need to add a way to tell the system it has a bad question/answer combination (in case any of the devs are on here).

Example:

Question 2: What is the branch of science that studies the composition, properties, reactions and the structure of organic compounds?

I responded with Organic Chemistry, but it only accepts the answer Chemistry. While technically true, if someone is trying to learn, then this is misleading. That question specifically defines the organic branch of chemistry, but does not define it as a whole.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally understood. Part of adding a quiz allows you enter multiple accepted answers. And quiz quality depends on the person who entered the quiz. The intention is not for us to come up with curriculum for everything but for people to come up with their own quizzes which they can distribute to a class.

However, that particular quiz is one of our "launch" quizzes, so I went ahead and added that answer. Both chemistry and organic chemistry should work now.

<comment><USER4> I'd expect _quiz creators_ might find embedded feedback from users to be of value - "Report a problem" or "Send comment to author". Even with play testing, quiz bugs turn up in use.

> Totally understood.

At least for me, I've found learning from user testing feedback to be like consulting, in that confidence that I totally understand what's going on, is a big red warning flag with sparkles. :) In part, because getting from what users say, to what they need, is such performance art.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In the web based text version if I type out my answer too fast, it seems to truncate some of the characters, e.g. I typed forbade and hit enter but it parsed only "forba"

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm guessing you started in voice mode and then went to text so your mic is overwriting your text. If you stop the mic or use the text button, it shouldn't do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Random quiz gave me "What is ten times one" ... "What is ten times ten" in order.

</comment><comment><USER4> User experience: Came to N.A from HN to explore. Saw a long page of "Latest quizzes". Looked for but didn't find a "Recommended quizzes". My experience is most quizzes are poor, so this was discouraging. I chose a topic of interest, but which is often taught badly. "The Periodic Table of Elements Part One". The quiz page gave me a title and number of questions (57), and clicking on "Start quiz with text" gave me the first question. Being on firefox, I expected voice to not work. I considered switching to chromium, but didn't. I thought "this will be a long quiz". I looked for a way to see a list of the quiz's questions, but didn't find one. Rather than beginning to take the quiz, I left the site. Insufficiently engaged for a long quiz while unable to visualize what success would look like. Additional context: I've worked with speech in education, so that had reduced novelty pull for me. This report has been somewhat simplified. Fyi, FWIW.

</comment><comment><USER7> What an awesome idea. Would love to hear more about the stack & roadmap. I see lots in progress--

I see vue.js, and some material design layered on top. This would be a fun project to put together w/ Angular+Firebase+Cloud Functions.

Would love if these were 'embeddable', and CRUD w/ API.

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely, lots more planned. This is just the launch product. I've been thinking of integrating other platforms like Amazon Alexa. Also embeddable and APIs would be possible. Let me know your use case. You could actually hack the API now since its a SPA architecture with a GraphQL API.

As for the stack the frontend is VueJS and Vue Material. The backend is Python, Django, Postgres, Elastic Search and some Redis spread in for caching.

Its running on pretty limited resources right now, but I'll scale it up when I get some traction. So if it's a little slow sorry not sorry, but it seems to be holding up pretty good for using mostly free resources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great idea. I tried the verb tenses quiz. It struggled a little to understand me. The voice is also not the easiest to understand.

Edit: Doing a multiplication table drill that includes multiple tables would be useful.

</comment><comment> m-j-fox Very cool way to explore the limits of voice interaction. Had to "Skype" a lot of hard questions. Turns out "Anthropologie" isn't a branch of science.

</comment><comment><USER9> The answer matching could use some work.

In addition to the order of a list being unnecessarily important as mentioned by other users, in the "Periodic Table" quizzes, any Element codes that form a word are interpreted as a word, so your system thinks that "He" (rhyming with she) is the correct answer for Helium, rather than H.E.

I didn't personally test them out, but I imagine Astatine and Beryllium would exhibit the same behaviour, and there are probably more.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's kind of frustrating that the reply to an incorrect answer is a repeated "incorrect, try again." After a couple times, I just want to know the answer.

</comment><comment><USER11> Cool! Not a huge fan of the color scheme/layout, but it's an interesting concept.

</comment><comment><USER12> Shameless plug: We have a similar project using Google Chrome web speech API.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14902391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14902391)

</comment><comment><USER13> I love this! I would love to integrate this with a deduplicated, taxonomized, and crowdsourced database of facts I am working on - branches-app.com/theplan. Would love to get in contact with you

<comment><AUTHOR> send me a DM on twitter [https://twitter.com/pizzapanther](https://twitter.com/pizzapanther)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It asked, "What are the 3 medals given in the Olympics?"

I replied, "Bronze, Silver, and Gold."

"Incorrect," it said.

Reversing the order was needed.

<comment><USER15> I tried gold, silver and bronze. It said incorrect.

Then I tried gold, silver, bronze. It said correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Another shameless plug: triviatemplate.com Create a Google Assistant trivia game with only a Google Sheet.</comment>


Multicore programming "remains the province of an elite few" - <AUTHOR> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/03/20/multicore-boom-needs-new-developer-skills

<comment><USER2> multi-threaded programming is a lot harder than it looks. that's true of a number of things, like opengl, but most programming subjects can be mastered by the usual bumble-along-and-break-things method that i suspect many of us use.

that's not so true for multi-threaded problems. newbies are likely to create bugs that only show up under heavy load and are nearly impossible to recreate and debug. it was enough to scare me away from multi-threaded programming for many years.

now i know that the solution is extreme discipline. don't share objects between threads, create locks sparingly, have threads communicate with each other only through queues or other well-defined interfaces, etc.

but my knowledge of the subject is pretty old-skule. every now and then i read something about memory barriers, lock-free programming methods, and so on, that make me think other people might have a better way.

<comment><USER3> i think dataflow programming is a pretty good angle of attack

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm currently taking a course with Professor Uzi Vishkin a parallel computing visionary. His approach to programming mutli-cores is quite impressive. The system he has devised, while complex under the hood - is relatively simple to the programmer.

Essentially, in Professor Vishkin's model the program alternates between parallel and serial mode as needed. Under the hood, it is determined what processors handle what threads etc.

Have a look at: <http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~vishkin/XMT/index.shtml>.

Parallel will be to serial, what the car was to the horse.

</comment><comment><USER5> ...which reminds me -- one of these days I'll have to learn Erlang.

"Given that Erlang programs are naturally written in a concurrent manner, most programs require no modification at all to take advantage of SMP."

<http://www.erlang.org/faq/faq.html#AEN625>

<comment><USER6> You get far more than multicore scalability for free. You get distributed fault-tolerance for free. It's kind of awesome.

With some work on its string handling and "talking to the rest of the world" stuff, Erlang could be really awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Threads may be the most confusing way in existence to take advantage of multiple cores. Berkeley's Edward A. Lee has a lot to say about it in his paper "The Problem with Threads" ( [http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-1....](http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-1.pdf) ).

</comment><comment><USER8> Pardon my ignorance, but if you program in multi-threads using a high level language what assurance do you have that the code will run in parallel on the chip level/lower level. Assuming that you're running a multi-core processor, that is.

<comment><USER9> Basically, it depends on your language implementation, and whether its implementation of threading is based on OS/hardware threads (and therefore multiprocessing) or on software ("green") threads. Often if OS threads are supported, it's actually a hybrid solution.

There are a number of Common Lisp implementations that support MP, often on only some target OSes, and there are a number that don't. To my knowledge, (I'm not a Python hacker!) vanilla Python doesn't support MP, whereas I suspect that JPython and IronPython support the MP infrastructure that their underlying VMs provide.

Software written for green threads may often fail mysteriously on OS thread implementations. Likewise, green-threaded software may need explicit scheduling, which code written for OS threads will generally not be doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> They (Intel and AMD) keep saying that. If there's an elite few, it's because there are damn few jobs that require that as a primary skill. Other skills are more important as primary skills and if you have those you don't need threading skills. You'd be better off investing in those other skills.

<comment><USER11> This is probably true,but if you are a server side programmer, then its useful to keep in mind that programming for multiple processors will be a necessary skill to know in the future and learn whatever little's possible.

<comment><USER10> That future remains elusively out of reach. I've been doing multi-threaded programming for over two decades and lock-free algorithms nearly as long and it's just as marginal now as it was then.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Omniscient: Abstracting React – fast top down render of immutable data - <AUTHOR> http://omniscientjs.github.io/

<comment><USER2> How does this relates to the Flux architecture?

<comment><AUTHOR> It doesn't really relate to the Flux architecture directly. You could probably use something like Flux in addition to Omniscient. In the same way that Flux encourages a continuous loop with data from the top, Omniscient has a single direction of data flow. But you could easily use dispatchers with stores to communicate in the other direction, like with the Flux architecture.

Omniscient is a very small library, only providing a "smarter" shouldComponentUpdate for use with Immutable.js cursors and a wrapper for easily creating components with renderers and composability with mixins in focus. See the documentation to see more about Omniscients rationale: [http://omniscientjs.github.io/documentation/](http://omniscientjs.github.io/documentation/)

<comment><USER2> That was what I was expecting to hear.

We really don't need Flux (the listen-for-and-query-the-stores part of it) if we manage to wrap every data into a context with cursors, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah. The main part here is using immutable structures from the top, having cursors to sub-components with information about only the relevant data for that component, and have a way of re-start the loop when a data has changed.

Sometimes, though, we need to communicate to a parent or ancestor (e.g. to delete an item in a list). For that we can simply use events (or possibly callbacks) passed as statics to components. (Statics are values that doesn't trigger a component update when changed.)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ok, this really might be the most incredible card trick we've ever seen [video] - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2011/12/17/ok-this-really-might-be-the-most-incredible-card-trick-weve-ever-seen/

<comment><USER2> There is more to what meets the eyes. Its an animation trick shot with two cameras on two seperate days.

[http://portfolios.sva.edu/gallery/Greatest-Card-Trick- Ever/2...](http://portfolios.sva.edu/gallery/Greatest-Card-Trick-Ever/2118612)

<comment><USER3> duh

<comment><USER4> You could tell it was CGI right away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This isn't even close to incredible. It's obviously a camera trick.</comment>


In the Deep, Clues to How Life Makes Light - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-how-life-makes-light-bioluminescence/ <comment><USER2> How life _evolves the ability to make light_. How bioluminescence works is well known.

</comment><comment><USER3> Since life has repeatedly found light to be a great way to communicate in the dark, where are all the messages coded by aliens in starlight</comment>


Assange and Wikileaks – Some basic facts all in one place - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5e9v1x/some_basic_facts_all_in_one_place_i_wanted_to/ <comment><USER2> Not mentioned in the article, but I think pertinent: the possibility that Assange is deliberately fostering these questions, as publicity.

This is a man who claimed he was going to drop a massive October surprise ending Clinton's run from the balcony, then cancel the balcony appearance hinting that his life might be in danger (from Clinton's snipers hitting him during his speech?) and switched it to a 3 am live-cast from a basement, and then it turned out the whole thing was just a promotion for his book.[1]

Whether or not it's the case in this situation, I'd say it wouldn't be out of character.

1\. [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/04/wikileaks-t...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/04/wikileaks- trolls-trump-world-delivers-nothing-on-hillary.html)

<comment><USER3> Trying to use the Seth Rich murder for attention by hinting that it was him that released the dnc mails and that was why he got murdered was basically where I lost all respect for wikileaks and why I'm leaning towards this being a publicity stunt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This seems like a conspiracy theory to me. He was interviewed by the Swedish prosecutor on november 14: [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian- assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange-to- face-swedish-prosecutors-over-accusation)

Say there is some vast conspiracy involving Sweden, the UK, Ecuador and the US, and the current administration wanted him to disappear, would they be so foolish to do it now, with the current president-elect, who will have access to all classified information and who would be more than happy to expose any malfeasance of the current administration?

<comment><USER5> Is there evidence of the interview actually taking place? Why was his own lawyer not allowed to attend?

If he's alive, then someone has certainly mentioned to him that the Internet is going crazy about this. Why doesn't he simply walk a few feet and show himself on the balcony, as he has done before?

Side note: labelling something a "conspiracy theory" is a way to dismiss an idea without thinking about it. If you want to refute the facts in the thread, use better facts.

<comment><USER6> It's not "dismissing an idea without thinking about it" when you say "I think this is a conspiracy theory because [evidence]". The only response to the position that too many people with widely varying affiliations and interests have said he's fine, is to say that Wikileaks, Sweden, Ecuador, and the US are somehow united in wanting to hide the truth and in communication to keep their lies consistent. I can't think of many scenarios where that happens, and all of them ought to end pretty quickly with someone whispering to a journalist under the condition of anonymity.

At this point, I doubt the timestamped video and signed message would convince the majority of redditors. The RT interview is a perfect example of the typical conspiracy pattern of grasping at straws to discredit evidence. It's absolutely Assange's fault for not putting this to bed right away, he's probably either unaware or enjoying the publicity.

<comment><USER7> > whispering to a journalist ...

... a member of "free and independent" press? :)

Assange needs to sign a message with his private key. That would be satisfactory. Ideally, the message can be a video that contains information that clearly dates the recording. That would be quite satisfactory.

<comment><USER6> This is where we hit some ideological barriers. As a leftist, I can see the perverse incentives that many to most reporters are working with (helping friends, trying to please execs for promotions, not upsetting sources with good info), but I don't see them as affecting everyone in the same way. The Intercept, with its ties to Snowden, would happily declare Wikileaks dead and lead the charge for a replacement. Aljazeera would probably love to paint their satellite news rival as blatantly dishonest. Breitbart prints anything that makes Clinton look bad (Assange dropping dead as he threatened to sink her campaign would do the trick). And that's just the organizational component, a CNN reporter with internal clout and incentives to do so might be able to run this story.

Meanwhile right-wing news outlets sell themselves with the "media is corrupt" line so heavily that people on that end of the spectrum seem to think serving Soros and the Clintons is something they teach at journalism school. "Free and independent press" in scare quotes is probably a message in itself to most readers of r/WhereIsAssange, but it doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already believe that a global conspiracy controls everything from the BBC to the newest online newspapers.

<comment><USER7> The Intercept is the baby of a billionaire. Al-Jazeera is BBC debranded. Breitbart's Bannon is ex Goldman Sachs. They all agree on one thing: the binary political world.

> As a leftist

There are 360 degrees of freedom in the non-binary world. There is also up and down. I must inform you that I do not subscribe to the 1 dimensional dialectic hand-me-down space and am ambidextrous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been somewhat roped into this anxiety shared by many now. It's key to remember that all we're asking for is proof of life. A picture of him with today's newspaper, a trip to the balcony...

</comment><comment><USER9> Strangely appears to have fallen off the front page. Flagged?

<comment><USER2> Which front page? It has ~600 upvotes on Reddit, so no reason for it to be on the front page there, unless you're subscribed to that subreddit.

If you mean on HN, it's on the front page for me now.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: best music to code to? - <AUTHOR> Wondering what music people listen to in order to maintain focus whilst coding.
Personally a fan of the TRON: Legacy soundtrack, Justice etc.
Look forward to listening to your suggestions! <comment><USER2> There's a big thread on Reddit that suggests programming to video game music, as it's designed to be in the background. Link: [http://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/1u4xh1/lpt_look...](http://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/1u4xh1/lpt_looking_for_good_music_to_work_to_try_video/)

<comment><USER3> The same reason I litsen to Soma FM. Some good channels:

[http://somafm.com/spacestation/](http://somafm.com/spacestation/)

[http://somafm.com/deepspaceone/](http://somafm.com/deepspaceone/)

[http://somafm.com/dronezone/](http://somafm.com/dronezone/)

[http://somafm.com/beatblender/](http://somafm.com/beatblender/)

[http://somafm.com/events/](http://somafm.com/events/) (Def Con Radio)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would recommend Boards of Canada[1] and Thievery Corporation[2] most of all. But really anything in the vein of what has been dubbed "chill" music works great for me due to the awesome atmospheres and driving beats. Here[3] is a list I made of some of the best albums IMO in that genre.

[1][http://www.amazon.com/Boards-Of- Canada/e/B000APHPF8/](http://www.amazon.com/Boards-Of-Canada/e/B000APHPF8/)

[2][http://www.amazon.com/Thievery- Corporation/e/B000APFP6E/](http://www.amazon.com/Thievery- Corporation/e/B000APFP6E/)

[3][http://www.amazon.com/Top-10-Chill-Out- Albums/lm/R32Q5RHQR51...](http://www.amazon.com/Top-10-Chill-Out- Albums/lm/R32Q5RHQR51XFO/)

<comment><USER5> I also listen to these when I am coding. Repetitive techno-like music can be also good, it depends on the mood.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't particularly understand how people can code whilst listening to music. The two simply do not go hand in hand for me. I find it clouds my thought process why I'm trying to figure something out or reason about a bit of code. Even when I'm doing 'drone' programming I often think about where this bit of code fits in with the rest etc.

Sometimes I can listen to music without lyrics, but it has to be fairly calm and uneventful. Coffitivity is actually a pretty good thing for me.

<comment><USER7> It works differently for different people. For me it helps drown out background noise in the office and helps relax me so I can get in the zone. Its important to note that I play my music very low with headphone and with rather no lyrics or lyrics in a different language so that it doesn't distract me.

With all that said though, there is nothing worse than being subjected to a coworker's music choice. Having experienced this at different jobs, I can totally understand why other people avoid music at work like the plague.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I usually listen to whatever is on the top of the list for anime radio stations ([http://www.shoutcast.com/radio/Anime](http://www.shoutcast.com/radio/Anime)) while at work (since its easier to just stream some music).

At home I have a large collection of random music (some music from video games, anime, metal/electronic bands, parody/comedy songs, meme themed songs, etc)

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm usually coding while listening to Drum and Bass. But for example, today I've been listening to Stax (Soul/Funk). Other days I'm listening to Punk, Ska, Reggae, Hip-Hop [...] At least twice a week I listen to roots Blue music!

It's up to you, I don't think there's such thing as "music" made for programming, if so, I would say late night and silence...really...!

</comment><comment><USER9> I tend to listen to 80s goth/metal/industrial music, on the basis that that's what I used to listen to, go clubbing with, and enjoy the most.

There are times when I'll listen to random things, such as Jeff Wayne's war of the worlds, opera, or piano works, but generally I'm an 80s metal-head at heart!

</comment><comment><USER10> Depends on what style of music you favor. What music is best depends on who you are.

It also depends on what you're coding. "Put your head down and crank" music is different from "I need to be able to think deeply for a couple of hours" music.

</comment><comment><USER11> I found a "Music for Programming" podcast a long while ago that's fairly effective. It's pretty mellow compared to the Legacy OST.

[http://musicforprogramming.net](http://musicforprogramming.net)

</comment><comment><USER12> Whatever you like. My one suggestion is you listen to things that don't have lyrics or possibly even humming or other vocal elements. I find myself distracted by those.

I could list some of my favourites if anyone likes.

</comment><comment><USER13> I can listen to almost anything. I usually end up having repeat on and can end up listening to the same songs 20-30 times before I even notice... and then the process repeats :)

</comment><comment><USER14> I have always wondered about this. An interesting thing to think about is if there is a correlation between programming language and type of music a programmer likes.

</comment><comment><USER15> ambient and downbeat [http://divbyzero.de](http://divbyzero.de) (also through [http://divbyzeroambient.rad.io/](http://divbyzeroambient.rad.io/) )

</comment><comment><USER16> I like massive attack instrumentals and hang drum solos.

</comment><comment><USER17> when I'm coding, I like listening to classical, although I've also been liking swinghouse recently.</comment>


Ask HN: Move to Puerto Rico and Pay No Federal Income Tax? - <AUTHOR> A friend told me you pay no federal personal income tax if you are a resident of Puerto Rico. Upon Googling it, it seems to be true. If I have an upcoming IPO windfall, what is the downside of moving to Puerto Rico for a year to sell while a resident there? It all seems too good to be true. <comment><USER2> Maybe to a CPA and a lawyer? Or in the very least one of the stack exchange properties. Seems odd to seek such advice here but I would be interested if anyone else has found this loop hole and used it too I guess.</comment>


Introducing Firefox 3D View for Developers - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zqHV625EU3E <comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure this has been out for a while, right?

Regardless, it's kinda neat. But it's more of a gimmicky thing to me. More of a "Hey look at this I can view websites in 3D!" thing you show your friends, not really something that would help in most situations. (There are probably exceptions, though. Like trying to debug the nesting of elements.)</comment>


Congress, wireless industry team up to make stolen phones worthless - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/125681-congress-wireless-industry-team-up-to-make-stolen-phones-worthless

<comment><USER2> Oh, they're going to make it illegal to tamper with the IMEI. That's all solved then.

Why don't they just make it illegal to steal peoples phones instead?

<comment><USER3> Stealing is legal in US? That's some news.

<comment><USER2> Yes, it is, isn't it?

Without sarcasm: Why would it help to make tampering with the IMEI illegal, when the illegality of stealing in the first place doesn't solve the problem?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I guess if you (unwittingly?) buy a stolen phone, the feds would want IMEI tampering to be illegal?

I assume there's lots of bulk IMEI tampering done by fences, too.

<comment><USER2> If it's unwittingly, why would I bother with changing the IMEI?

If it's wittingly, I'm already a criminal.

And you're right, IMEI changing probably already is a default part of fencing a phone.

The solution would be to make it a requirement that phones have tamper proof IMEIs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This changes very little for the moment:

1\. Most of the phones in the US are CDMA carrier exclusives; they maintain their own stolen/lost databases. Even 10 years ago you could call Verizon or Sprint and they would blacklist the ESN/MEID.

2\. If you've probably noticed the majority of the US is currently on CDMA which isn't anywhere else outside of US/CA/SKorea. Taking that stolen Verizon flip phone to Mexico gets you a brick.

In the future with a larger LTE footprint this can be effective but I'll have to see.

</comment><comment><USER5> Regarding the selling of the cellphone to a friend, you probably should change legal ownership of the device, just like you should when selling/buying a car from a friend.

I'd feel safer with this mobile device blacklist, and I believe there are no issues of privacy, since we're not talking about permanent tracking of a cellphone's location.

</comment><comment><USER6> Won't most of the stolen phones be sent out of the country where they will be unaffected by this arrangement?

<comment><AUTHOR> If this is implemented in the US, and enough privacy safeguards are put in place, I'm sure it'll spread to the EU and then the rest of the world.

<comment><USER7> This already exists in Australia and has for years. It's as simple as getting a police report done and ringing your phone company to get the IMEI blocked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I found a Nexus phone, and a Droid Razor phone the past few months. Didn't even try to see if I could use it with T-Mobile. I was just glad I got a couple of free Androids with different screen resolutions to test my app.

</comment><comment><USER9> Congress should not be concerning itself for making certain programming functions legal and other ones illegal. The illegal action should be identified and made illegal, not the events leading up to the illegal action.

Backspace out that line of computer code citizen, don't make me taze you. Legislating what i can and can't do with the wires in my own device because I _might_ be stealing the phone?

Sounds to me like a chess move to increase congressional power over the citizens through tapping into the computer in every pocket.

<comment><USER2> I don't see the link between your first two lines and the third. How are they "tapping into" your phone? You do realise that your phone has a _phone number_?</comment></comment>


The Curious Case of iPhone 6+ 1080p Display - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@brucewangsg/the-curious-case-of-iphone-6-1080p-display-b33dac5bbcb6 <comment><USER3> Just... no. So very no.

Apple cheats because they failed to build a true density independent UI toolkit that actually works. Thus you end up with hacks like this where the UI is in a permanent state of filtered hell because the UI toolkit is just broken.

Android has proved this can work, and work _fantastically_. The article tries to spin it as being broken somehow, but clearly they never actually worked with Android much because this all works so, so well.

You don't need whole multipliers when you work in DIPs instead of PX.

<comment><USER4> As the sibling comment states, iOS has used logical points from the very first retina device. And even before then it has never used integers for its UI toolkit coordinate system — there was always the support for fractional coordinates.

The point of the article is that the iPhone 6+ renders to a larger offscreen buffer and then downscales to a 1080p panel. This is the same as the higher resolution modes on Retina Macbook Pros.

<comment><USER5> I haven't developed on iOS in a while so I'm not sure what the state of layouts is at the moment. Why would they render to a higher resolution than scale down if the UI can work with the new native resolution? It doesn't make sense because the output will be worse and a hit to the battery life.

<comment><USER4> By rendering to a larger buffer they can ensure that any raster assets may use an integer scale factor between devices. If they rendered to the panel's native resolution (1080p) they'd probably have to use a 2.5x scale factor, which is not desirable.

The output will be slightly worse, but at 400 PPI you probably won't be able to tell without a magnifying glass. The current Retina MBPs do this in their higher res modes and it's pretty hard to notice.

On battery life: perhaps the tradeoff of using a 1080 panel outweighs the scaling.

Also it leaves the door open to switch to a full resolution native panel in an iPhone 7+ with no hit to existing apps or developers.

<comment><USER6> Huh, I don't know _that_ much about GPU's, but surely they can render fractional pixels directly without downscaling shenanigans. Which actually means that GPU will convert full pixel values to fractional _before_ rendering. Rendering to a larger buffer and then downscaling is actually a form of antialiasing, albeit an inefficient one (if I'm not wrong). Also, rendering without antialias would result in rounded full pixel values. Obviously, bitmaps will be downscaled on the GPU using whatever filters are set for them (just like before, if bitmap is larger than the target size).

<comment><USER4> It's not so much about the GPU rendering fractional pixels, it's that it makes it much trickier to create neat assets that work at non-integer scale factors. Generally you want to ensure your raster assets have details that lie on integer boundaries at all scale factors, throwing in a non-integer scale factor as a target makes it more difficult to do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As an ios dev, i know autolayout exists and lets you somehow manage the different resolutions if you manage to change your set of mind ( no more .frame = or .center= to change the location of a view dynamically but update constraints instead), and get away with the ugliest thing in the ios api that are constraint string expressions ( which almost made me throw up the first time i saw them).

But let's face it, that's one less thing we can mock Android devs about. Pixel perfect Wysiwyg ui building in interface builder has one foot in the grave.

<comment><USER8> It's really time to dump those code views son. Interface Builder gives you all the tools you need to do it and works reliable, gives a LOT of feedback on your constraints when you build them.

You should learn auto layouts using Interface Builders, otherwise it's a nightmare because you're not getting the feedback you need to learn it right in the first place.

You need to start using priorities right, specially when you are doing >=, <= constraints you also need to add a low prio == constraint. It's not that hard, but you will be really frustrated if you keep clinging on to your coded views.

Try to chop up your Storyboards if you work in teams. They shouldn't be so big that you have trouble following the flow on one monitor.

<comment><USER9> You can't code review storyboards.

<comment><USER10> Why not? You can simply open a storyboard and review it, no?

<comment><USER9> That requires downloading, checking it out (at the exclusion of your other branches), reviewing it, figuring out how to make comments on it even though there's no review interface for storyboards, rinse repeat. Code review in objective-c is commenting on code in github while code compiles and evaluating screenshots of the current state. If apple came out with a way to review storyboards on something as convenient of github, I might consider it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> He glosses over the 6's resolution of 750x1334 vs the 5's 640x1136. Will 2x image assets be slightly blown up for the bigger screen? And what about the very slightly thinner aspect ratio?

As for "downsampling" of new 3x assets, the main image processing artifact to look out for is moire which happens to images with small repeated details. There are techniques to mitigate these artifacts but it will have to be a very smart algorithm to avoid artifacts in all cases.

OTOH, Android seems to have no problem handling small resizings of images within their size buckets system.

<comment><USER12> The iPhone 6 remains at 2X, just with more virtual pixels to work with.

My grock of the article is that there will be artifacts, its just that they are difficult to notice at that pixel density.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This write-up (also on the front page currently) is a lot simpler and focuses more on the actual dimensions, instead of frankly half-baked marketing analysis. [http://www.paintcodeapp.com/news/iphone-6-screens- demystifie...](http://www.paintcodeapp.com/news/iphone-6-screens-demystified)

<comment><USER14> Thank you. I was so confused about where the number 1242 came from. The number 414 isn't in the entire article.

<comment><USER15> That's because the author made a calculation mistake. He wrote "412" instead of "414".

<comment><USER14> Even so the base number doesn't show up until most of the way through the lengthy article, with no explanation. Even after reading all those words I didn't understand the critical fact that there was a base size in dots that was different for each model. Everything before was 320 or a multiple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As an end user, I'm a fan of Apple's 'scaled resolution' solution. My Apple notebook renders the screen in memory at 3840 x 2160 and then scales that to fit the 2880 x 1800 physical display. The benefit of this approach is that you can smoothly scale the UI to suit your age/eyesight.

When working, I keep mine set to smallest/most-information setting available by default (dubbed "Looks like 1920x1200"), but when relaxing I often give my tired 40-year-old eyes a break by bumping it down to "Looks like 1680 x 1050" and making everything uniformly bigger and easier to read.

When you look closely, of course it doesn't look as good as an exact match to the display native resolution does, but it looks pretty great. I think it will look even better on the 401ppi iPhone 6+ display, and the increasingly high- res screens of the future.

Tying logical display resolution to actual physical pixel resolution is pretty 💡🙉 at this point.

<comment><USER17> Reasonable UI systems and not-overdesigned programs respect your UI font size setting and scale the rest accordingly, while equal resolutions allow hinting to do its job and produce a sharp output in an intelligent way. The brute- force approach of densifying monitors is a dirty hack and luckily doesn't scale at all.

<comment><USER16> I understand your position, but I don't agree with it at all.

"Reasonable" and "not-overdesigned" are rarely concerns that last into the future. And I don't think they even hold up given today's (high-end) technology.

Why on earth would font size be the arbiter of anything other than font size? Some programs don't even display text.

Logically, it makes a lot more sense to scale the entire display (or, sure, subsets of it). That's still technically challenging for some of today's systems, but not all of them. And it will be a vanishingly small number of them as we move into the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Apple is losing its advantage over Android regarding market fragmentation.

An iOS developer has to support _eight_ different screens these days to cover all devices that will run iOS8:

* iPad 2

* iPad mini (the last non retina devices, same resolution, different DPI)

* iPhone 4S

* iPhone 5/5C/5S/iPod Touch 5th gen

* iPhone 6

* iPhone 6 Plus

* iPad 3/4/Air

* iPad Mini Retina (again, same resolution, different DPI)

Many devs will ignore the DPI differences between the iPad and the iPad mini, but that isn't ideal. I think the iPhone 6 Plus should have had a 1600x900 display to keep the DPI in line with the previous phones, however Apple was probably afraid to be compared unfavorably to the Android phones that have 1080p panels.

<comment><USER19> > _Apple is losing its advantage over Android regarding market fragmentation._

Android has 5000 devices, differing OS versions (half of the devices out there use a 2 to 3 year old OS), and differing hardware capabilities (including different qualities in stuff like sensors, some of them even being nearly useless).

And Apple is losing to that because it has "8 different" screens?

For one, you can support most of them (all iPads for example) with the exact same code plus 2 sets of bitmap assets: normal and 2x.

As for the iPhones, they transitioned without a hitch to 5 taller display, and the same will happen to 6/6+.

<comment><USER20> _differing OS versions (half of the devices out there use a 2 to 3 year old OS)_

That stat is pretty out of date by now. Android <= 2 now only accounts for 12% of devices, and most app devs aren't targeting it any more.

And Android might have 5000 devices, but it doesn't have 5000 screen sizes. Still more than Apple has, but hardly 4992 more.

[http://www.androidheadlines.com/2014/09/androids-kitkat- clos...](http://www.androidheadlines.com/2014/09/androids-kitkat-closing-gap- jelly-bean-overall-android-device-usage-september.html)

<comment><USER21> Indeed. For the modern Android dev, there aren't that many aspect ratios that you really need to support.

Most modern phones are 16:9 (720, 960, 1080). There are still a few stragglers (Motorola in particular), but they're becoming a thing of the past.

You basically have three aspect ratios to worry about right now: 16:9, 5:3, and Motorola's 427:240.

With iOS, you have 3:2, 4:3, 71:40 (iPhone 5), and now these new iPhone 6 internal aspect ratios that get hardware resampled.

<comment><USER19> Actually 71/40 and "these new iPhone 6 internal aspect ratios" are just the same thing.

So, it all boils down to: 4:3 (all iPads) and 1.177 (5, 5S, 5C, 6, 6+).

3:2 is just a legacy ratio that will go away going forward as the 4S gets older. It's not a ratio they have produced iPhones with for several years now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Another possibility for the lower res is perf. I think it's quite possible the 6+ will have the worst per pixel perf of any modern iOS device. In the conference they, I believe, bragged ~38% more pixels on the 6 and 170% more in the 6+. But the GPU is only 50% faster!

The iPhone 4 and ipad3 both suffered seriously by having 4x the pixels as their predecessor but only 2x the GPU. Mostly games suffered but it's still an issue elsewhere with fancy animations, transparency, etc.

But this is all speculatory theorycrafting at this point

<comment><USER5> The performance should be comparable to the iPad. They share the same SOC.

<comment><USER22> ...no? 6 and 6+ are both A8. 5s, Ipad air and mini retina are a7. I believe air is clocked slightly higher tha 5s, 1.3ghz vs 1.2.

I think without question the 6+ will have worse per pixel perf than the 6. It would be even more worse if the screen were even more higher res.

That's not enough to make or break anything. But it's got to be another consideration.

<comment><USER5> Yes they do share the exact same SOC on the current iPhone/iPad (as mentioned below). They will almost certainly share the same SOC with the new iPad. So yes whilst the iPhone 6 will have better performance than the 6+, it won't matter because the 6+ will be comparable to the iPad.

Happy?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So it's essentially the same thing as the "Scaled" display modes of the Retina MacBook Pro. An interesting approach.

</comment><comment><USER24> A simpler way to explain this is that for the iPhone 6, it really is a slightly larger iPhone 5 screen, like if you were moving from an 11" MacBook Air to a 13" one. But for the iPhone 6+, it's like moving from that 13" one to a 15" Retina MBP. And as we all know, the Retina Macbooks render at a higher internal resolution and then scale it down to the native one.

I do appreciate the technical explanation, but as Apple has done this before, for a quick explanation it's sufficient to point to the rMBP precedent.

<comment><USER25> > And as we all know, the Retina Macbooks render at a higher internal > resolution and then scale it down to the native one.

I don't know that. Unless you're talking about scaled modes, which do resampling, the retina models render at the native resolution. They will scale apps by 2x that are not capable of rendering at the native resolution (not many).

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What would happen if you tried to draw a fullscreen 1:1 pixel tiled checkerboard pattern?

<comment><USER27> Well if it's using 3x scaling, then writing one pixel will write a 3x3 block on a 1242x2208 buffer that gets downscaled to 1080x1920 yielding a result like this [https://imgur.com/ZsJKxzV](https://imgur.com/ZsJKxzV)

<comment><USER26> Hmm, what if the checkerboard pattern is at 1:1 (1x1 blocks)?

<comment><USER28> Depends on which downscaling algorithm(s) they use

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This really needs a TLDR.

<comment><USER30> Retina displays have 2 physical pixels per logical pixel. The 6+ has 3x. However, the screen resolution isn't quite high enough for that so there is hardware downsampling. The author thinks that it'll look ok though.

<comment><USER31> God bless you

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Am I the only one that noticed the iPhone on the left is actually a 5s and not a 6?

</comment><comment><USER33> Very interesting approach. Like others said, the best way to describe is like using the higher resolution (scaled) mode on a Retina MBP.

I wanted to share pxcalc [1] for anyone doing DPI/PPI calculations, please be aware it exists (and it's awesome).

[1] [http://pxcalc.com/](http://pxcalc.com/)

</comment><comment><USER34> Quote: "Calculating diagonal pixel is easy, following this formula: SquareRoot(w x w + h x h)."

Gee -- what's wrong with y = √(w² + h²)? It's much easier to interpret.

<comment><USER35> maybe because you can't easily type that into a calculator like the one in Spotlight or google.com?

<comment><USER34> Fair enough, in that case:

y = sqrt(w^2 + h^2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It not that they had a bright moment when going for a normal (power of two) resolution, its just that they have not done so up until now. And nobody except Apple used those technically suboptimal resolutions in mobile phones, with good reason..

</comment><comment><USER37> Anybody know what window.devicePixelRatio will report on the 6+?

Raster-based pixel manipulation applications suck in this brave new hidpi world!

</comment><comment><USER38> In article he mentioned 1242px by 2208px with 462ppi as 3x of 163ppi (original iPhone). Shouldn't it be 489ppi ?

Really confusing.

<comment><USER15> Yep, another error. He also wrote 412px instead of 414px in some other location.

<comment><USER38> Not quite an error (the calculation is correct). It just don't make sense for me why Apple come up with this magic 462ppi instead of 489ppi.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Is DPI really a term in the iOS community? I thought DPI was a holdover from the print-era, and the politically-correct term was PPI (pixels-per-inch - <USER2> "physical" pixels per inch).

I've heard 1x pixels called "device-independent pixels", "CSS pixels", and "points"; but I've never seriously heard the term "device-pixels-per-inch" until this article.

<comment><USER18> Everyone uses the term DPI for displays even if the correct term is PPI. It's not worth fighting about...

<comment><USER39> I don't mind people using the term DPI. The part that confused me is that the OP is drawing a distinction between them.

In my mind DPI == "dots per inch", PPI == "pixels per inch", and they measure the same thing (although some people frown upon using DPI in a digital context). The author redefines them to mean "device pixels per inch" and "physical pixels per inch", where PPI / devicePixelRatio == DPI. I wasn't sure if that's an OP-thing or an iOS thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I haven't had the time to look at the docs but shall I start shipping art assets as firstname.lastname@example.com ?

<comment><USER41> Yep. Xcode has also added 3x slots to xcassets files.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I don't understand how such high PPI really matter at all. I mean it increases battery usage, it costs more, and all you get is smoother text and smoother pictures on a less than 5 inch screen.

<comment><USER43> For one, at 800dpi or so aliasing problems go away. With that kind of density, I presume, race for density will be done.

<comment><USER44> I had always heard it's in the 300 range. Phil Plait did an analysis back in the day using "display held one foot away" as the metric and determined that "average eyesight" could resolve 286 PPI. "Perfect eyesight" would bump it to 477 PPI.

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/re...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving- the-iphone-resolution/)

<comment><USER43> I remember that 800 number from one of the books about graphics and rendering. Forgot which one, probably Glassner's. So it might be more of a theoretical/ultimate threshold than anything. Also, it's not about resolving individual pixels but removing aliasing effects due to signal /picture density.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> And with all this added screen real estate, you're still limited to 4 apps/row. Absurd.

</comment><comment><USER46> Oh god not another "Apple made the iPhone 3.5" which is the _perfect size_ " type of post.

There's no brilliant magic golden ratio formula behind Apple choosing 1080p. They simply wanted to choose a "regular" resolution for once, while still being bigger than 326 PPI.

If 720p would've been more than 326 PPI for the 4.7" one, they would've chosen that, too. The reason they didn't is because 720p is _less_ than 326 PPI, and they didn't want to have 1,000 headlines out there say how "iPhone 6 has less pixel density than previous iPhones".

In my opinion they should've done that anyway, and end it with the stupid resolutions that Apple keeps using just because they didn't have the foresight to add resolution scaling early on to iOS, because they never imaged they could be building any other mobile device that _isn 't_ 3.5" in size. They messed up the "perfect scaling" for developers with 1080p on the Plus anyway. They could've done it on the smaller one, too. It's silly that they didn't do it.

<comment><USER47> Did you even read the article?</comment></comment>


DeepMind just posted a mind blowing paper – achievement of transfer learning - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@thoszymkowiak/deepmind-just-published-a-mind-blowing-paper-pathnet-f72b1ed38d46#.r77jjcppq <comment><USER2> Previous discussion of the paper: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13675891](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13675891) (6 comments)

...and of this very blog post: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13674181](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13674181) (also 6 comments)

</comment><comment><USER3> I wish we could keep upworthy-style titles out of academic news... Or just out of news entirely. I do my part by not reading articles with this presentation.

Unless it's about celebrity twins. I'm all over that shit.

<comment><USER4> Yes, please let's not have headlines like these. It might as well be "DeepMind just posted a mind blowing paper - You won't believe what happened next!" next time, so let's not go there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _" PathNet is a network of neural networks"_

Can anyone comment on the reasons for this approach, compared to a single large network?

<comment><USER6> Optimistic answer: each sub-network can specialize in a certain skill or element of knowledge, and then as a group, the networks can contribute to a larger decision. Such specialization allows skills to be highly developed but used only when they are applicable, instead of trying to force-fit a certain skill onto an inappropriate problem domain. The human brain is believed to work in a similar way with multiple regions processing input in parallel and "voting" for the appropriate response, with other parts of the brain coalescing and merging their output into the final response.

Cynical answer: Neural net machine learning has reached its peak, and there's far more computing power than the researchers know what to do with. Add additional layers of processing and if the numbers change, that's a paper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> that article and title is the epytome of BS.

</comment><comment><USER8> "We can imagine that in the future, we will have giant AIs trained on thousands of tasks and able to generalize. In short, General Artificial Intelligence."

Don't know if I believe this just yet.

<comment><USER9> They're gonna be yuge! The greatest AIs we've ever seen!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> the paper itself [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.08734.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.08734.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER11> I wasn't able to follow this. Does anyone have a good explanation? Is it really AGI?

<comment><USER2> Of course not. The article is just oversensationalised. The paper doesn't make the same broad claims as the article.

</comment></comment><comment> torrent-of-ions Grammatical error in the first line. Good start.</comment>


ARPA-E, an Obscure Federal Agency, Is Key to Solving Our Energy Problems - <AUTHOR> https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/ARPA-E <comment><AUTHOR> I've actually written ARPA-E proposals related to batteries and wind turbines, and at least from the outside it does seem to be among the more competent and better-staffed Federal agencies.</comment>


Photo shows Mars rover descent - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19150849 <comment><USER2> It looks like they had the coordinates of the decent path of Curiosity, knew where to point the camera, took a large picture from the HiRISE camera on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) like they did with Phoenix [1] and then when that picture hit human eyes NASA cropped it. That being said, if they have multiple HiRISE images of the decent[2] I think that would make one amazing film. Anyone know the FPS of HiRISE? [1]<http://blogs.nature.com/news/files/2012/08/PhoenixHiRise.jpg> [2][http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62081000/jpg/_62081182...](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62081000/jpg/_62081182_62081181.jpg)

<comment><USER3> If I understand and remember it correctly, HiRISE doesn't have an FPS in the traditional sense. It's best to think of the detector as a one-dimensional array of pixels. The motion of the satellite in its orbit then sweeps this array over the ground, allowing two-dimensional images to be made - one of the dimensions is time, but when something is moving, time becomes a spatial dimension.

<comment><USER2> Interesting, its like "scanning" not a shutter "clicking". That being said it was much more likely given the MRO's orbit that it would be able to scan Mars and have Curiosity in that scan path. You can even correlate the angle of the photo to the location of the MRO: [http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/672880main_martin_mur-1-4...](http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/672880main_martin_mur-1-43_946-710.jpg)

<comment><USER4> To be fair, most modern (CMOS) digital cameras work like that too, it's called a rolling shutter. The scanning speed is the cause of that wobbly effect you see on videos made with mobile phones.

<comment><USER2> True, but if you can do 1m fps on earth[1] and the MRO travels at a speed of 133,879.68 inches/second then you could take 7.4693934 pictures per inch even if you had a rolling "scanning" shutter. I know that would be way to much data for them to process, but for the 172 seconds from parachute deployment to touchdown you could have one amazing high speed film.

I am sure NASA can fund a high speed camera for MRO... or do we need to crowdfund that one as well... [1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Larger photo from NASA here, [http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/673727main_PIA15980-full_...](http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/673727main_PIA15980-full_full.jpg)

<comment><USER6> is there one without the white box?

<comment><USER7> I've been looking for one as well. It appears as though they're still working on releasing more of the images.

The HiRISE news release[1] now contains a (currently broken) link[2] to a 540MB non-map projected "descent long view." I imagine this is the complete scan that HiRISE took of the image, and that there is distortion due to the CCD layout in the satellite (hence non-map projected). But that's purely a guess.

They say:

      Descent long view[2] (Note: this file is over 540MB. It is non-map projected
      but rotated so that north is approximately up. This file is not annotated,
      but MSL is in the mid-to-lower right-hand side. The CCDs do not match well at
      their edges due to the unique image geometry; geometrically-corrected images
      would be available in a few days.)

1: <http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/releases/msl-descent.php>

2: [http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/images/2012/details/cut/ESP_02...](http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/images/2012/details/cut/ESP_028256_9022_RED.NOMAP- long.tif) (WARNING: 540MB TIFF, but link is broken at time of posting)

<comment><USER8> Your 2nd link works now and the image is without the white box! Here is a 1600x1200 version: <http://i.imgur.com/708I5.jpg>

There is a seam just to the left of the package, which is why NASA presented the image with the object off-center, and why I cropped it that way as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> NASA is a wonder of our modern age. If we're going to have a planned economy (and we are), let's do it through science, technology and knowledge rather than military power.

<comment><USER10> 700B for DOD, versus 8B NASA. 87x difference. If NASA would have 87x more money, by now we would have a Martian base and most likely missions where civilians could buy a ticket and fly there for a honeymoon.

<comment><USER11> But at the same time the USA spends more money on space programs than all other countries combined.

<comment><USER12> It could simply mean that running space programs in the USA is far more costly than in other countries. Someone did say that NASA of the recent age is less about research and more about massive employment.

<comment><USER13> I would say, the price difference adjusted budget of NASA is also much bigger than that of any other nation. Do you see the Russians walking on the moon or driving nuclear cars on Mars?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This to me feels really sci-fi since "we sent a rover to mars and another thing we already had hanging around took a picture of it." That feels pretty neat.

</comment><comment><USER15> Anyone has any background info on that picture? How did the MRO lock on the descending rover?

Did NASA feed it the correct coordinates beforehand, or it had to somehow autonomously acquire the rover? I suspect the later is possible, as there might be radio contact available in that stage of the reentry, but I really have no idea on how it was actually accomplished.

<comment><USER16> Here is a link to a Nature blog with some info from Alfred McEwen, the PI on HiRISE:

[http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08/mars-orbiter-plans- for-...](http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08/mars-orbiter-plans-for-a- curiosity-close-up.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> My impression is that they only got the opportunity for one shot with the HiRISE camera, but that they were going for a view of the sky-crane in action. Did that turn out not to be possible? Do they have a picture of the sky-crane from one of the lower-resolution cameras in orbit?

</comment><comment><USER18> The coordination of all this just blows my mind.

</comment><comment><USER10> it says: "nuclear battery". it looks small. can someone point me to some more details? Obviously if they decided its fine to shoot this thing into the space (go through Earth atmosphere) - it should mean that there was no environmental danger for this thing to go bad?

<comment><USER19> It's an RTG, it uses the heat created by decay of radioactive isotopes to drive a thermocouple. These things have been designed to be incredibly safe, capable of surviving an explosion of their launch vehicle and remaining intact, for example. But even should their protective capsule be breached the radioactive material is in a ceramic (oxidized) form in spheres. If you cracked open an RTG and threw the insides into a very hot fire nothing would happen, you could just come by and collect the intact ceramic spheres after they'd cooled.

<comment><USER20> So ignoring the safety issues, would there be enough radioactive isotopes on Earth for every house to have it's own RTG? Imagine unlimited energy, and heat your home with the waste heat?

<comment><USER21> You're also ignoring the political/emotive aspect.

People don't like things called 'nuclear'.

<comment><USER22> There are certainly some places that would probably be more accepting of it than average. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_RTG.jpg> ;)

Those are 10 watt Sr90 RTGs, sitting around. The used to use them for lighthouses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> NASA is just rocking this mission. Very impressed.</comment>


What is a Tinygram? And what should you do about it? - <AUTHOR> https://www.extrahop.com/blog/2015/what-is-a-tinygram/ <comment><USER2> Good discussion of tinygrams, nagle delays, and the role restricted MTUs play in them on StackOverflow too: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2421107/how- does-sending-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2421107/how-does-sending- tinygrams-cause-network-congestion)</comment>


Reinventing Society in the wake of Big Data - <AUTHOR> http://edge.org/conversation/reinventing-society-in-the-wake-of-big-data

<comment><USER2> Reading this I could not help but think of humans as fish, other mammals or some other organism being "tagged" and "tracked", without their consent (but with some purported benefit to the organism, agreed upon by the researchers). Often researchers tag organisms in an effort to help them survive in a world where humans threaten their continued health or existence. But not always.

It is the idea of "without their consent" that is most intriguing.

It's arguable that sometimes organisms can survive on their own, with the adaptions evolution has provided them with, and without tagging, tracking and human intervention.</comment>


RepRap repraps RepRap electronics - <AUTHOR> http://blog.reprap.org/2010/09/reprap-repraps-reprap-electronics.html <comment><USER2> Apparently they used an etch resistant pen in the reprap to draw the design directly on to single surface copper plated board, and the reprap will drill the board as well.

The little boards in between the sandwich boards are 'pololu' stepper drivers.

<http://www.pololu.com/catalog/category/11>

</comment><comment><USER3> RepRap is making good progress, but this is (yet another) pretty misleading headline. It looks like the RepRap performed 5-10% of the manufacturing steps.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, the process seems to _roughly_ be:

      1. Mount special pen to RepRap
      2. Plot traces on PCB multiple times
      3. Correct errors by hand with pen and scalpel
      4. Immerse in chemical solution that dissolves copper around traces
      5. Remove pen ink with acetone
      6. Drill holes with drill press
      7. Apply solder on top of all traces
      8. Solder in components

Step 2 is the only automated part. Considering all the CAD work you also have to do, it seems like it would be easier to just draw the traces by hand in the first place.

I helped a friend build a Mendel and I can tell you that it is a TON of work, inevitably requiring much ingenuity and overhead expense. I'm still very excited about the potential of the whole thing though.

<comment><USER5> Yep - but all the steps will fall to simple incremental improvements pretty quickly, would think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am really excited about RepRap. I hope I'll be able to play with one next week, therthere are a few up here in Sweden!

<comment><USER7> One would think that one would be seeing more and more them!

Full self-reproduction seems to be getting closer and closer.

The next step after self-reproduction is self-improvement: make smaller, stronger and faster self-reproducing machines. The possibilities, uh, seem to multiply here.

And RepRap is just open source 3D printer. MakerBot is another.

Yes, it all sounds pretty exciting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. No wait; that's something else.</comment>


Magic HTML generator. - <AUTHOR> http://docs.emmet.io/abbreviations/syntax/ <comment><USER2> The tool is called Emmet and though cool is probably not magical. The title of the submission could stand improvement.</comment>