Google Chrome – Why I Hate It And Continue To Use It - <AUTHOR> http://jtaby.com/2011/05/31/google-chrome-why-i-hate-it-and-continue-to-use-it.html

<comment><USER2> 1) Downloads - I love the download bar. And the downloads tab lets you view the progress there, too.

2) Title Bar - You can actually drag using any empty space up there, including all that space to the right of the new tab button and around the close/maximize/etc buttons.

3) Massive Preferences List - Sorry, that's a feature. As for being hard to find what you want, without those options, you couldn't find it anyhow... Because it wouldn't be available.

4) Favicons - Humans are visual people... It's much easier to determine location by an icon than text.

5) Search Field - The complaint is that it covers some of the UI and you have to close it to use the page? Sooo... How does a massive search dialog work better? I've actually found very few sites that are rendered useless by that search field, but almost all are rendered useless by the giant box that all other browsers use.

6) Lack of Attention-to-Detail throughout - Still trying to find the 'broken gradient'. Everything looks fine to me.

7) Network tab - I find this tab massively useful. It (wait for it) let's me see what was transferred over the network. Surprise! No guessing if something munged the HTML or if it was transfered that way. No guessing what parameters were posted. Etc, etc.

Some of the criticism make sense, but most of it is just preferences or misunderstandings.

Oh yeah, the thing missing from her list of good points:

1) Stretchable text boxes. I use this all the time now. Especially on HN.

<comment><USER3> _6) Lack of Attention-to-Detail throughout - Still trying to find the 'broken gradient'. Everything looks fine to me._

It's definitely there. Open the Web Inspector, pop it out into a new window, focus another window or application.

Edit: Here's a side-by-side screenshot of the unfocused Web Inspector dialogs in Safari and Chrome: <http://i.imgur.com/WftBr.png> Also, it turns out that you can make it even worse by focusing the Web Inspector window, then moving an icon on your desktop: <http://i.imgur.com/WvEIq.png> Safari's Web Inspector handles both cases properly.

<comment><USER4> Is this an OSX only issue? Just tried this on my Windows 7 box using version 13.0.772.0 and everything looks good to me.

<comment><USER5> Yeah... this one threw me for a loop while I was reading the post... then I realized it. In OS X the whole top of the window is a continuous gradient (all the way from the top edge to the bottom of the primary toolbar). So the OP's complaint appears to be that that the Chrome window renders as though it's in Window/Linux instead of Mac OS X even though it has the brushed aluminum look. This also goes for the "Non-native behavior, Native look" point. In OS X you can drag from anywhere on the gradient, while in Chrome it just "looks" like it's doing shiny Cocoa things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There are a couple of things to point out jtaby's critique of Chrome:

1\. _There's no small, unobtrusive way to monitor the progress of downloads._

Actually, in OS X, the Chrome icon in the dock has a small pie chart overlay during downloads that indicates both the number of pending downloads as well as the aggregate progress of all downloads. If your dock is hidden, you can quickly and easily check the progress by hitting Cmd-Tab. In Windows 7, the "tile" in the Windows "Dock" fills from left to right, like a progress bar, to show the aggregate status of downloads. You can also click on the in-progress download, dismiss the dialog, and the file will open once the download completes.

2\. _The large number of options makes finding what you want hard._

As mentioned, the search feature is handy, but not always sufficient. One nice aspect that gets overlooked is that the in-tab preferences are fully addressable: you can actually link to specific pages and panels. Though this doesn't help you find a preference in the first place, it does make communicating the location of known preferences much simpler.

3\. _The search field covers the content of the site, if you were searching and a match was under the field, or you wanted to click a link/button under the search field, you're out of luck._

Actually, the search field will intelligently slide out of the way to reveal matched content that it covers. If you need to click something underneath it, you can hit Escape to dismiss it, and your previously entered text will be saved and pre-filled the next time you hit Cmd-F.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for your comment, callahad. I'll try to respond to your comments.

1\. You're right, I hadn't actually noticed that until after I wrote the blog post. I think it's because I hide the Dock by default (still doesn't explain why I didn't notice it in the app switcher)

My point was, there are three places to manage downloads. I have to manually close the Downloads bar. Worst of all (and this is something I forgot to point out in the post) is that closing the downloads bar actually makes the browser window smaller!

2\. You're right, there are nice parts of having the preferences be in the tab.

3\. I didn't mean the search field covers search results, it covers the website's UI. Here's another example of it blocking the UI, this time in github: <http://cl.ly/1t450T1S0s2J2V0I3O1W>

<comment><USER6> I see your point about #3, but to be honest, I've been using Chrome since v1 and I have never once had this be an issue. Not a single time. There is simply never a case where what I'm searching for is in the very top right 10 pixels of a page. In your github example, why would you ever be searching for "dashboard", "inbox", "account settings", or "log out"?

Also I don't really understand your complaint about the bookmarks bar. Why do you have it up at all if you don't like the UI? If I want to go to a bookmarked page, I hit ctrl-shift-b to bring up the bar or, much more often, I open a new tab. I think the thing that separates Chrome from other browsers is the huge content real estate, and keeping the bookmarks bar up there takes away from this in a big way.

<comment><USER7> > There is simply never a case where what I'm searching for is in the very top > right 10 pixels of a page. In your github example, why would you ever be > searching for "dashboard", "inbox", "account settings", or "log out"?

I think jtaby made it very clear that he wasn't referring to cases where it covers search results, but that it covers the website's UI. In fact, those were his exact words.

<comment><USER6> In that case, I don't really see any validity in the complaint. The search function is a temporary UI addition with a single purpose that goes away the moment you hit escape. Better yet, if you hit ctrl-f again, it comes back with the same text already entered.

<comment><USER7> Okay. These are all facts with respect to the find UI; yes, the things you say regarding hitting the escape key and the keyboard shortcut to make the find UI reappear—these are all true, factual things.

But this isn't a concession. You can say these things, but every one of them is immaterial to point that _the find UI, when present, obscures parts of the page_ , where potentially those parts are functional UI for that page.

<comment><USER8> So? If it doesn't cause a problem... it isn't a problem.

<comment><USER7> This is another factual statement which is also immaterial to the discussion, in much the same way that "an apple is an apple" is a factual statement, but immaterial here.

If you think that I'd summarize my comment above as, "there's no problem", you've misunderstood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Favicons: This is by far my favorite feature of modern browsers, and I in no way apologize for loving them. They make bookmarks actually useful for sites you visit regularly. Take a look at my bookmark bar: [1] The favicons allow me to fit all of the links I visit regularly in one easily accessible, compact place. I don't care if they look "tacky", they're incredibly useful.

[1]<http://min.us/l5aGM>

<comment><USER10> I find it weird to even think of a bookmark bar anymore. At least in FF, the URL bar does such a good job searching history/bookmarks that I have no use for it, and I thought chrome was now in a similar position?

<comment><USER9> I find Chrome's omnibox better than the address bar in FF, as it autocompletes. I suppose I could press cmd-L to jump to the box and type a few letters, but the web is so optimized for the mouse that I usually have my finger on the trackpad anyway.

<comment><USER11> Firefox has been experimenting with autocompletion, it might make it into a future version. [https://mozillalabs.com/prospector/2010/10/27/navigate- the-w...](https://mozillalabs.com/prospector/2010/10/27/navigate-the-web- faster-with-awesome-bar-word-completion/) You can install the first-party addon without even restarting your browser. There are other experiments in the "Lab Kit" [https://mozillalabs.com/blog/2010/11/its-time-to-get-your- la...](https://mozillalabs.com/blog/2010/11/its-time-to-get-your-lab-kit/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My biggest complaint about Chrome: it's the year 2011 and it still doesn't support color profiles.

I mean, shit, Safari does, Firefox does, even IE does. As someone who loves photography and graphics, as Chrome usage takes over, the ability for people to view these works _drops_.

Why this hasn't been implemented (actually it has, it's been there in the dev branch since forever but has never made it into the regular release), is beyond me.

<comment><USER13> I'm sure it's a big deal for you, but surely you understand that this is a feature that only 0.5% of the population cares about. Most people are happy to watch 4:3 television stretched to fit their wide screen TVs and you can't believe that Google hasn't implemented color profiles?

<comment><USER12> Considering this has been standard is _every_ single browser, major and minor, and Google is the sole standout... yes.

And color profiles aren't some obscure thing that only graphics people care about - there are a _lot_ of photos online right now where people look like zombies (or tomatoes) because the embedded profile isn't being accounted for.

If you Google for it, there are plenty of complaints from non-techy people who are confused why their pictures look fine from Windows Explorer/Preview, but look completely different when uploaded to Facebook.

<comment><USER14> Which is a fair point, but I had to just Google "color profiles" to figure out what you're talking about.

<comment><USER12> Most people who have problems with color profiles don't know their problem is color profiles.

More commonly, people blame it on Windows, OS X, Photoshop, or a litany of apps. Funnily enough, unless they are in the know, they don't blame the browser.

It _is_ a very common problem though, and for people generating content it makes their lives doubly tough. The average quality of your computer display is depressingly low (TN LCD panels can't reproduce a color correctly to save its lousy life), add this to outlier apps like Chrome messing up the experience for users, and you'd _never_ know how your content is going to show up on the end user's machine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> These are odd and rather subjective complaints. I see the author acknowledges that in the conclusion. I agree with the good part points, following are my opinions on the 'bad'.

I rather like the downloads UI - I was just wondering why Safari doesn't have a downloads tab like Chrome does. The separate window is a little clunky for me, esp. since OSX doesn't make it easy to cycle through tabs of a window with a keyboard shortcut (that I know of - Cmd-Tab does applications, Ctrl-tab does Safari tabs. How do you get the Download window with a keyboard shortcut?).

Preferences: what? Too many? I see Chrome as minimalistic in that area. IE, Opera, Firefox and Safari all offer just as many preference options or more.

favicons in the tabs: Is a bunch of text or icons a better solution for tiny tab markers? Icons make much more sense to me there.

The search field is superior to modal windows. I don't think it's better in Chrome than Firefox or Safari, but it's not worse. If you don't like it being over the content, close it.

The new tab page: isn't much different than any other browser, except for Firefox which lacks on entirely.

The tab bar: after complaining about favicons, now text in the tabs is labeled a problem: what's better?

Loading UI: Should we put a 64x64 animated icon in the upper right of the browser that cycles when the page is loading?

"Non-native behavior, Native look" : Why would you expect to drag anywhere other than the toolbar on an OSX window?

<comment><USER16> Cmd-` (tilde key) cycles between windows of an application

<comment><USER15> I knew there had to be some trick to it... thanks for the tip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I really don't agree with the author's complain. Particularly the download window. I _HATE_ when a new window popup when a download start when I use firefox. The chrome's way is so much better; you can easilly see the progress, click on it to open and even drag it. If you don't want to see that, you just close that bottom dialog. In fact, I really rarely use the download tab; only when I'm searching something I've downloaded.

I have to agree about the developer tools though, it's really not as polished as the rest. Probably because only developers use it and they don't mind as much? Or the product manager doesn't use it? I can't say.

</comment><comment><USER18> Chrome has been my primary browser for the last year and I have not noticed the majority of issues discussed in the post. Great eye for detail but I suspect most people won't notice most of these issues. I've found that Chrome easily beats Firefox and IE8 for the one thing most people care about most: Get right to work while the browser is not in your way. It's fast and uncluttered, and is more secure than the competition out of the box (though Firefox can be made more secure with extensions).

2 minor points:

If you don't like seeing favicons or other UI elements while reading, hit F11 for full screen mode. All browsers have this except Safari.

Put things in the "other" folder by dragging and dropping the favicons from the bookmarks bar. Useful for decluttering the bookmarks bar.

I wrote a detailed comparison of the 5 major browsers, here:

[http://www.filterjoe.com/2011/03/15/best- browsers-2011-best-...](http://www.filterjoe.com/2011/03/15/best- browsers-2011-best-browser-for-you/)

My take is that the latest version of all 5 browsers are very good, so it's a matter of finding the most suitable browser for each user. Based on the issues discussed, I suspect Opera might be preferred by the author.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment. I agree with almost everything you said, but I would add that Safari doesn't suffer from most of these issues, though it suffers from other problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Feel free to let the Chrom(e|ium) authors aware of all of these "bugs" and "issues" here: <http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list>

You might help yourself out if you increase your browser window's width beyond 500px. Sure, you did that for screenshot examples, but that's far from real- world usage (this is coming from someone who shuffles dozens of tabs around all day).

</comment><comment><USER20> >Notice that "Other Bookmarks" button? It's empty. there's the "»" button next to it, that shows me the "other bookmarks" which I can't see because they don't fit, but "Other Bookmarks" appaarently means something else. I assume it means regular bookmarks (not on the bookmarks bar), but I couldn't figure out how to add a page to that list.

It doesn't appear to be very complicated. Control-D, or click on the star in your url bar (which means 'bookmark this'). Now change the folder dropdown to 'Other Bookmarks'. That's how you put stuff in the 'Other Bookmarks' folder. I can see how you'd have trouble figuring that one out...

</comment><comment><USER21> I think the title bar issue is actually more of a window manager issue: I always use Alt+mouse movement[1] which has the added benefit that I don't have to move the pointer over to a special dragging area. I realize this is more of a Unix thing and not necessarily available on OSX.

Same goes for resizing in Awesome WM, which is well... awesome: WM key[2] + right mouse button + mouse move to resize. Written down it looks cumbersome, but it actually works really well.

[1] I think I use the WM key nowadays, it's muscle memory I can't actually remember! :-)

[2] One of the 'Windows' keys.

<comment><USER7> > I realize this is more of a Unix thing and not necessarily available on OSX.

I bought a Macbook a month ago, and window management being more cumbersome there when compared to properly-configured window managers from the rest of the world of Unix clones is pretty surprising and the third most annoying thing to me about my Macbook experience. (Where the second most annoying thing is the ~half second delay between lifting my finger from the touchpad and the actual release during a drag operation, and the first most is the lack of an equivalent for middle clicks.)

<comment><USER22> Fortunately there are a number of utilities that make window management on OS X more tolerable.

Off the top of my head, try looking at Cinch, SizeUp, MondoMouse, or Divvy (there are definitely more out there that I can't remember). I've set MondoMouse so Fn-Shift drags a window, and Fn-Ctrl resizes a window. It really helps.

Sure, these hacks are shareware and aren't as elegant or infinitely configurable as tiling WMs for X, but they're pretty close.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _"..if you have a lot of tabs open, you end up having to hunt for the tab you want.."_

But that's true in any browser, no?

 _"..and you can't read the title of the tab you're on."_

This part is true. I love how my firefox looks lately: [https://profiles.google.com/u/0/akkartik#1104401391899068610...](https://profiles.google.com/u/0/akkartik#110440139189906861022/posts/7PAcecp9KYf). I think it's taken all the good stuff of chrome's tab bar without the bad.

<comment><USER24> > But that's true in any browser, no?

Safari will not lower the width of a tab under a preset size, the rest is moved off-bar. You can always see at least half a dozen characters of the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> For me it's the password manager. I still have Firefox installed to navigate to certain secure sites because Chrome just doesn't seem to remember the passwords. Oh, and Chrome needs a search field on their password form (I've heard they're good at that sort of thing).

The font rendering in Chrome must be a Mac compatibility issue because side by side, Chrome renders text much cleaner than FF or IE on Windows. HN on FF looks murky by comparison.

<comment><USER26> You mean the Saved Passwords page? Ctrl+F for the domain/site works pretty well for me.

<comment><USER25> _Ctrl-F_

Good point, but the UI's still inconsistent. If you open Options there is a _Search options_ box. The passwords screen is modal, so that search box isn't accessible and you have two methods of search - a search field for Options and Ctrl-F for password. The other issue is that Ctrl-F doesn't consistently scroll to the highlighted item. When doing a Ctrl-F I often have to use the scroll bar to find the highlighted phrase.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, it's definitely imperfect. It's easier than scrolling through everything, even if all Ctrl+F does is highlight on the scrollbar where it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Have you tried using Firefox?

Everything you like about Chrome is in Firefox (ok, you'll have to use Firefox 5 beta for the tab closing behavior) if you install two extensions (for the expose and unified search).

Seems like most of the things you hate about Chrome are at least better in Firefox as well. (Though to be fair, they could be a much different experience on a Mac than I am experiencing on Windows.)

</comment><comment><USER28> > Massive Preferences List - Looking at that screenshot, the list doesn't seem > massive. I seem to recall Firefox (or maybe Opera, this was a while back) > having a large grid of options that was several pages long.

> Other Bookmarks - I don't have that on my current Chrome. I think this is > because this is a folder that comes with the default install - if you go to > the bookmarks manager you should be able to remove it.

> Status Bar - I kinda like it - you don't want the status bar popping up and > hiding your cursor. Except in your video it's a lot more erratic than on > mine at the moment.

> Favicons/Too many tabs - Favicons help when there are too many tabs. A > common problem for me.

> Can you tell at a glance whether this site is loading or not? It's loading - > the icon next to the URL is an X and not the reload icon.

There are some things that bug me, like broken pdf support - the built-in pdf viewer doesn't support rotation, for instance.

<comment><USER29> The behaviour of the status bubble that he shows in the video is a known bug in the Mac version (<http://crbug.com/76590>) which should hopefully be fixed soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> If the only thing you want of Chrome are the improved developer tools, the same tools are in the Webkit nightlies ( <http://nightly.webkit.org/> ).

The tools UI also does not have issues like broken gradient or draggability

<comment><USER30> Absolutely not true. The most interesting features in the Web Inspector are Chrome specific, largely because they are V8 specific for the moment.

<comment><USER24> I am interested in which features whose would be. From my experience with both, I have not used anything in Chrome which was not available in webkit's nightlies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> My biggest annoyance: open an incognito window (perhaps to do some Internet banking, or to log into one of the Google Apps accounts I've got); switch to another app; see a link in Twitter, email, or IM and click it; and it opens in the incognito window. Surely all new window events from other applications should go to the primary non-incognito window? Or at least you should be able to define the behaviour.

As an aside what I'd really like is sandboxed incognito tabs, so I can run multiple accounts on the same service (hi Google multi-accounts!) in the same window in different tabs without colliding cookies.

</comment><comment><USER32> The one feature that Chrome doesn't have that Safari does (which therefore keeps me a satisfied Safari user) is one big difference he doesn't mention -- the Cmd-1 through Cmd-9 automatic key commands for one-off bookmarks in the Bookmarks Bar. If I want to resize my browser window to the size and location I like, I hit Cmd-1. For my local traffic map, I hit Cmd-9. (And so on.) This is so convenient for me, and I've devoted so much muscle memory to these commands, that switching to Chrome is a non-starter.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought of writing about that but felt it was all subjective and that I couldn't make a UX argument for why it is objectively better.

<comment><USER31> One reason is using things like the Instapaper or Pinboard bookmarklets without showing the bookmark toolbar. I guess you're supposed to use extensions, but I prefer a "fire and forget" approach to bookmarking (i.e I've pressed something once, leave me alone after that).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I disagree with most of these, but on the other hand I don't use a Mac; perhaps Chrome's UI is more consistent and coherent from the PoV of a Windows user.

However, he's right about the font rendering/antialiasing. It doesn't bug me too much on web pages, but I read a _lot_ of densely-typeset pdfs, and Chrome unusable for anything longer than a few pages.

</comment><comment><USER34> My biggest peeve with Chrome on OS X is the nonstandard behavior for clicking on the Omnibar. Normally, a single click places the caret, double clicking selects the word, and triple clicking selects the whole field. Chrome reverses this for its bar, and it's jarring me every time I do it. While they explain why they did it, it feels 'wrong' that the majority of the Mac users commenting on the issue [1] were against it, but the UI design team felt it was better.

[1] <http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=24349>

</comment><comment><USER35> Something I hate about Chrome not mentioned yet is that when the text is sufficiently large or the window sufficiently narrow, it flows over the right end of the window, with the result that to read it, you have to scroll horizontally back and forth for every line.

Note that this happens for ordinary <P> elements, not just for <PRE> elements and other odd things.

That is something that never happened to me in the first 16 years of my use of browsers. It now happens occasionally in Firefox, but it is much worse in Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER36> The "redundant favicon" complaint is somewhat mitigated by the "Pin Tab" feature. Right-click any tab and select "Pin Tab". I no longer browse with my bookmarks bar displayed because of this feature!

</comment><comment><USER37> > the effective draggable area in Chrome is a thin 10px strip at the top of > the window.

Weirdly enough, if you use a tiled window manager (<http://awesome.naquadah.org/>) this is a feature instead of a detriment. On my netbook pixels really are at a premium and chrome is admirable in its space-saving efforts. I wish they would fix the download bar thing, but they're aware of that and I believe it's a priority for some of the next releases.

<comment><USER7> > if you use a tiled window manager... this is a feature instead of a > detriment

Isn't it a detriment for tiling WM users, too? Since Chrome tries to eliminate the title bar, it requests for the WM to not put a title bar on it and then tries to fake a smaller, kind-of title bar. So it's still allocating _some_ space--more than any traditional application; since X apps normally leave the title bar drawing up to the WM, traditional apps should have their inner UIs flush with whatever your tiling WM puts around it, while Chrome's still got that sliver.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> This article is a waste of time. Don't read it. Just a whine drop.

<comment><USER39> But if you zoom all the way into the Hacker News image it doesn't implement anti-aliasing! Lol, that was my favorite complaint on this article; talk about digging for an excuse.

<comment><USER3> That's a legitimate complaint. The text was anti-aliased in the first image, but it was only done on a whole-pixel basis. Adding a background color apparently convinces chrome to switch to subpixel antialiasing.

Whole pixel anti-aliasing looks bad and is inconsistent: both with other parts of Chrome, and with the rest of the broader operating system.

<comment><USER40> Perhaps this a Mac-only issue? In Vista and Windows 7 Chrome seems to use subpixel antialiasing. See here: <http://screensnapr.com/v/nSW3Zz.png>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Favicons in the bookmarks bar are great! You can remove all the text and have just a bunch of favicons for lots of sites.

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/uofn7m4kbppks5v/kirigin%20%3C3%20f...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/uofn7m4kbppks5v/kirigin%20%3C3%20favicons.png)

</comment><comment><USER42> This page crashes the default browser on Android 2.2, every time.

</comment><comment><USER43> "Massive Preferences List"? Are you serious? You sound like a stereotypical mac person who ventured out in the real world.

(and I sound like an ass for saying that but anyway...)

\- The favicons over text in the title bar are no different than icons over text in the OSX Dock, yes?

\- Also, I LOVE that the options and downloads open in a tab and not a new window. It keeps everything chrome related in a contained environment. I HATE managing windows, managing tabs however is easier and faster for me, you can also just drag out the tab and it'll become a window.

</comment><comment><USER44> MRU tab order. (I know, I've read the developer comments and it's not going to happen.)

Pernicious browser caching. (Just when _will_ you update that edited favicon?)

Continuing assault on the address bar. (First they came for "http", then they came for me.)

Crappy session management, restoration. (Is there a clear leader in the extensions that add better support? I find myself much less able to rank Chrome extensions that Firefox extensions, based on community signals.)

EDIT: To be fair, a relative's 10 year old laptop still runs acceptably (sans video), due in good part to Chrome's dramatic performance improvements.

<comment><USER6> _Continuing assault on the address bar. (First they came for "http", then they came for me.)_

Could you please explain why this is an issue to you?

<comment><USER45> The only issue I have with the missing http is that when you copy the link, it automatically adds in the http. Most of the time when copying a link I either don't care if the http is there, or I specifically don't want it (for example if I am sshing into a box.)

If they stuck with "copy what you see", at least for me, it would resolve one of my biggest peeves with Chrome. The other being useless tab text if you have too many tabs open (and I don't really like the side tabs.)

<comment><USER44> There's my own convenience. I want to see where I'm at. The address also often contains information not reflected in/on the page itself.

Then there's the average user. They don't constantly, instantly adapt. It's taken us time and effort to train our parents, friends, coworkers, etc. how to examine addresses for useful clues. E.g. Is my connection secure? Is this really the server I want to reach?

There are security paradigms that have taken considerable time and effort to establish in the public's mind.

Now some designers decide they want -- need -- to toss this for the sake of 30 pixels and a notion of "visual purity". Without, in Chrome's case, even an option to make the control visible if we so choose. (Although, as I understand the current situation, it will still appear in some kind of hover presentation.)

Some may think it looks all shiny. For me, it makes my life harder.

EDITED: For (somewhat) less grumpiness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Ctrl-Tab behavior frustrates me pretty much every day. Add-ons to work around it are really kludgey.

<comment><USER47> Thanks GP, I think this is my biggest peeve as well.

MRU CTRL-Tab is a well established Windows UI paradigm, don't ask power users to change without offering a way to disable this.

Also, while I really like searching from my location bar, I'm also not a big fan of the way the Google Omnibar Search retrieves history items using parts of the URL you visited. I much prefer the Firefox/Awesomebar method.

That said, I <3 Chrome because Chrome <3's Me

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> In terms of the search field, you're terribly wrong. If there's a match under the search box and you hilight it, the bar moves away.

<comment><AUTHOR> From my response to callahad above: "I didn't mean the search field covers search results, it covers the website's UI. Here's another example of it blocking the UI, this time in github: <http://cl.ly/1t450T1S0s2J2V0I3O1W>

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> TL;DR</comment>


Can you fire someone for disparaging your company on Facebook? - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/21/can-you-fire-someone-for-disparaging-your-company-on-facebook/

<comment><USER2> Why do people insist on bringing the First Amendment into these discussions? Unless you work for the government, the First Amendment doesn't say anything about the relationship between your speech and your employer's reactions to that speech. If you say something I don't like, I can punch you square in the face and the First Amendment says NOTHING about it. I'll get brought up on assault charges, but free speech is simply a non-issue.

Yes, you absolutely can fire someone for disparaging your company on Facebook. You can also deal with the NON-LEGAL fallout from doing so because I'm pretty sure that, if word gets around that you fire people for talking about not liking their job, your company's reputation is going to take a serious nosedive.

<comment><USER3> As I understand the article, this is not a free speech issue but a free association (e.g. union-forming) issue: if you can't (easily) discuss your working conditions, it becomes very hard to organize. E.g. "MyCo sucks" may still be prohibited in specific agreements, but "MyCo pays $10/hour and makes you work long hours" is perfectly fine. (Think ea_spouse.)

<comment><USER4> I'd have thought the other big question is whether Facebook was considered to be quasi-private channel for employees to share concerns with each other or a broadcast medium.

<comment><USER5> Clearly, the law has to catch up and start addressing social graph media directly as an intermediate but distinct form.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dear employers everywhere,

I don't know why you all seem to have forgotten you time as a worker, but I am certain you complained to your friends about your job back then. Further, I am certain you thought the management was idiots. Those of you who are middle management probably still do these things. Please, tell me why you think this same stuff doesn't apply to your employees? Do you think you know best, and everyone else is wrong? (Odds are against you by a wide margin on that one). Do you think you are the best and they are just ungrateful -- that you remember bitching and have now implemented the perfect system? (once again, the odds suggest this thinking is wrong)

Aside from your perception, lets take it for granted for a few moments that people will always bitch about their employer, their clients, their co- workers, whatever. This is a natural result of being forced into a lot of "together time". It comes from various stresses in the quest for better hierarchy position. It comes from the conflict of viewpoints when working towards a common goal. People bitch because they let out the stuff they have kept in at work -- it is simply venting. People who hear venting know it too, they listen but don't give it too much weight, because venting is just what we do to relieve types of stress.

Historically venting has occurred to family and friends at barbeques, coffee shops, church, the local bar, and other such gathering places. These things are just part of the fabric of the social structure we have right now. Lately the Internet has become part of the hangout/socialize scene. It is essentially the internet's neighborhood bar, where venting happens. People still know it is venting. But for some reason, you as an employer don't want to allow venting.

I get that you have fears of someone deciding not to buy your widgets based on a employee letting off some steam. I will tell you that in my whole life, I have only rarely seen someone lose business as the result of a venting employee. It is something that people don't include into the equation very often. It usually takes far more vindictive actions than mere complaint and trash-talking to have business suffer -- usually a smear campaign that has actually been organized and premeditated. In fact I strongly suspect that your concern is actually rooted in a fear that people will think poorly of you personally rather than some vague widget sales notion. Perhaps your ego is taking a blow you don't like?

I would propose that facebook offers an opportunity for you, one that is new to our era: you can find out what your employees are saying! You don't have to send spies to the bar or put moles in the workforce anymore, you can just go to Facebook and twitter to read up on yourself. Further, instead of getting the second-hand report, almost certainly skewed to make the reporter look good, you can just see the complaint. If you can get past your hurt feelings (and I submit that a good manager should be able to do this), you now have an opportunity:

You can actually address those concerns! You can start making changes based on what people think is bad, restrictive, or otherwise hindering their work. This will make you a good employer in the eyes of your employees. It earns you loyalty and higher productivity. What it won't do, is make the employees stop bitching. This is just how it goes.

Regards,

Someone who wants you to stop sucking

</comment><comment><USER7> What am I missing? Why is "on Facebook" part of the question? Is "Facebook" really adding something here? Is the answer different if I put in IRC, Quora, NNTP?

Edit: Note that I know that the article uses this headline (so I'm not trying to blame the submitter). I just wonder if this is useful?

<comment><USER8> If they did not use "Facebook" in the title no one would read this incredibly ignorant article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting question.

The right to free speech and the right to free speech without consequence would seem to me to be different things. If the first amendment allowed people to say what they want without consequence then there would be no such thing as libel or slander. The fact that they exist suggest that this obviously isn't the case.

So there's going to be an element of whether what was said was broadly factually accurate and / or whether it was put forward in a vaguely constructive way. Obviously if it wasn't then it would potentially be libellous which would very clearly seem to be a disciplinary matter (though whether it's a sacking offence isn't clear).

I'd be curious to know how the same lawyer would see a scenario where I continually publicly insulted my wife. Grounds for divorce (which is how I'd see it) or would that be impacting my first amendment rights?

<comment><USER10> The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about what people, companies or anyone else aside from Congress can or cannot do. Here's the complete First Amendment:

 _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._

As a private citizen, there is _no possible way_ that I can violate your first amendment rights.</comment></comment>


Show HN: I have written a toy language in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Alexander-0x80/Emesh

<comment><USER2> Give creating an esoteric language a go, they're even more fun to build and play around with. Though in my personal attempts the interpreters always wind up being a chaotic train wreck of code.

My latest toy language has been QuackQuack, a language consisting of ducks. There's a sandbox there to play around.

[http://vild.org/labs/quackquack/](http://vild.org/labs/quackquack/)

</comment><comment><USER3> tl;dr It's a lisp with the operator outside the parentheses.</comment>


To-do app + RPG = EpicWin - <AUTHOR> http://www.epicwinapp.com/

<comment><USER2> I guess it's an ok idea (a manual version of that brushing your teeth = points thing from several months ago) but I would think if you have enough self control not to cheat on this, then you don't really need it.

<comment><USER3> If you don't remember the 'brushing your teeth = points thing', here it is: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FSsztwbRW0>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Our lives are full of quests._

Correction: MMO's are full of chores!

</comment><comment><USER5> Do we really need more ways to assign meaningless points to actions?

<comment><USER6> I voted you up, purely for the irony.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The problem I see is that the appeal of leveling up in RPGs is that your character becomes more powerful and capable. I don't think that applies with chores; if you grind ironing for five hours straight you're unlikely to enjoy any benefits apart from pressed shirts.

<comment><USER8> Or with games that seem based on more mundane chores, the work bears fruit much faster than in real life. In Harvest Moon, I can milk all of my cows in less time than it takes me to wash a dinner plate in real life.

<comment><USER7> Even the games with exciting tasks deliver rewards way faster than real life, in Diablo II [1] I'd have cleansed the Den of Evil, gained two levels and been given a bonus skill in less time than it would take me to make a salad in reality.

[1] Dammit I'm showing my age

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ironically, I quit playing RPG's because there's too much errand-running and chores in them. I guess you can swing that lever the other way, though.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've been thinking of a similar project for project management but wasn't sure if there was a market/interest for it.

In short, a project management app with an MMORPG-ish twist. Completing a task gives you XP (as set by another member of the team, or maybe random) and a chance at items, milestones being similar to quests, etc. You could party with your coworkers/collaborators (multiple people being assigned to one task, for example) or fight each other in an arena (has nothing to do with project management).

I've already started working on it for use at my current job to bring some fun and competition to the boring stuff (making craigslist templates). If anyone here has any interest in it let me know, would love to release it at one point.

<comment><USER8> _as set by another member of the team, or maybe random_

Try going for some sort of consensus among team members rather than random selection -- it gives everyone some ability to reward work on tasks that are important or that nobody wants to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a fantastic idea. Maybe not something I'd use personally, but the idea of trying to bring some element of game mechanics into something so menial as washing your dishes is pretty creative thinking. Also +1 for the video, it was pretty entertaining and explained how exactly it worked in a pretty concise fashion.

</comment><comment><USER12> Along the same lines: <http://www.chorewars.com/>

<comment><USER13> The difference is that with Chorewars, other people are holding you accountable for whether you completed a task or not.

I think this is an excellent idea, but, as many are thinking, what's to stop me from cheating? Tasks assigned to oneself privately are sometimes very abstract. If I assign myself a task, "be a good person today," I'm very likely to rationalize into thinking that I completed the task, whether I did or not.

<comment><USER14> Better to have people using it and cheating, than nobody using it at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I will buy what they're selling. Just as long as they integrate with Remember The Milk.

</comment><comment><USER16> This looks amazing. Combining gaming mechanics with "normal" applications is something I've been interested in.

Does anyone have any idea when this will be coming out?

<comment><USER17> I'm definitely keeping an eye on these guys too. Here is a discussion from a few days ago about Game Mechanics in normal applications.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1483216>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The more of these sorts of things I see, the older I feel. I can recognize (I think) when they are done well, and I can appreciate their style, design, architecture or whatever. But they simply have no hook in me; I don't _get it_. I'm not knocking this project, I'm just saying out loud - because it's really struck me - that I'm probably on the wrong side of some birthdate line. (Cf. intelligent grandparents who never did learn to set VCR times.)

I also suspect that people my age (41) or older who like this sort of thing are faking, but maybe that's just envy talking.

<comment><USER19> It's interesting from a hacker pov as an attempt in helping people hack their own brains. Also, it seems like it's well executed (havent tried the actual game). I might give it a try for novelty's sake, but apart from that, it doesn't really appeal to me either and I'm 29. So maybe it's a personality thing rather then an age thing :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Definitely a cool concept, but I can see myself cheating and just saying that I did something in order to level up and get stuff.

Now a version of this that could verify if you did something, either automatically or with some user involvement would be even cooler.

One idea: take a before and after picture as proof that you did it (maybe do some image processing if possible) Another idea: use a GPS signal to verify you're actually at the laundromat when you say that you did the laundry.

<comment><USER21> I think you have it backwards. If someone is going to cheat, they are not going to be interested in this rpg. The rewards of leveling up are a new found productive habit, not just some silly swag or xp in a lame game.

On top of that, by instituting your "prove it" functionality, you are only incentivizing people to cheat. In this case, trust is the best way to prevent cheating.

<comment><USER22> <http://kuwest.com/users/neoblue>

You were saying...?

People will always be interested in winning. Doesn't matter if the software is for self-fulfillment.

<comment><USER23> That's why, if it's public, then people will know they're cheating.

I toy with the idea of verifiable quests. For example, Take a picture a day (I can verify that they have from flickr). Blog once a week (I can verify this from their RSS feed)... although each one of those requires custom programming.

Maybe give more XP for those things that can be verified.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Interesting presentation on the topic of designing games into everyday life:

[http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/DICE-2010-Design-Outside-the- Bo...](http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/DICE-2010-Design-Outside-the-Box- Presentation/)

Skip to 17:30 for the most relevant part (but the whole thing is interesting)

</comment><comment><USER25> I really hope they make an Android version.

<comment><USER26> I would definitely buy the app if it was both on the web and on android.

<comment><USER23> I'm working on a web version. <http://kuwest.com>

The timeline is to have quests done by the end of July and at least a mobile website by the end of August.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The video is awesome.

<comment><USER27> Definitely one of the more entertaining demo vids.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I would buy an iPhone to use this, if the game was compelling enough. And as we all know, that is a really low bar if you get the core RPG mechanics right.

</comment><comment><USER29> I can't believe it. I was going to learn how to make Iphone apps to make a similar app. Looks like they're way ahead of me.

</comment><comment><USER30> I was thinking and working on the same thing, except my RPG would be more self-improvement oriented rather than about sending that email, or buying that cake.

While it's good to know that my idea have some confirmation in the market, I wish I have gotten there first.

<comment><USER31> yea, i am currently working on a similar self-improvement concept but a lot more simplistic with game mechanics and for now, limited to the FB platform. Will release it on Hacker News once it's done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> In a way, it actually reminds me of the game concept suggested in this presentation:

[http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/DICE-2010-Design-Outside-the- Bo...](http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/DICE-2010-Design-Outside-the-Box- Presentation/)

</comment><comment><USER32> This is sensational. Great execution on the video. Congrats on the launch.

</comment><comment><USER33> oh cool an iPhone app, I will visit the site from my iPhone so I can buy it immediately...... flash demo?!? dude....

I love the idea though and it is a cool demo movie.

<comment><USER34> Flash demo? I only see a YouTube video, which opens fine on the iPhone.

<comment><USER33> Hum, when I went to look I got a blank box - wth? - errrr......

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I counter that the real "EpicWin" would be making a to-do app that gets you more things for a virtual farm you tend.

</comment><comment><USER36> It's ironic that levelling-up is what I hate most about Computer so-called Role Playing Games.

</comment><comment><USER37> I want this.

(it reminds me of the iPhone app Booyah, but better executed)

</comment><comment><USER38> seems great. when is it going to be available?

</comment><comment><USER39> I want this.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've been working on a web version of this since Startup Weekend Detroit:

<http://kuwest.com>

It's live now, but I haven't promoted it. I was going to hold off until I had the quest engine done and polished a little more, but feel free to sign up now.

<comment><USER40> Dude. I think 3 mentions in the same thread is a bit much.</comment></comment>


Trump and Russia's largest private bank communicate via hidden server - <AUTHOR> http://gdd.i2p.xyz/ <comment><USER2> Why is the almost no other coverage of this if it is indeed legitimate evidence of some connection? Even if it's its just conspiracy theory, I'd have thought people would be all over it.

<comment><AUTHOR> be the one

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Where can we learn more? Is this discussed on any other forums, _a_?

<comment><AUTHOR> Slate, HP, here

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> ...But its more like 7 degrees from Bacon.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bac0n that smells...</comment></comment>


The Node.js World Is Imploding - <AUTHOR> https://theoutline.com/post/2206/the-node-js-code-of-conduct-diversity-tech <comment><USER2> Everyones getting tired of diversity talk ALL THE TIME. Talk about the technology for cryin' out loud!

</comment><comment><USER3> Article is massively editorialised.

Here is the full unedited complaint about Rod: [http://archive.is/h6lem](http://archive.is/h6lem)

Here is the full unedited complaint about Ashley: [https://archive.is/UUYwt](https://archive.is/UUYwt)

The largest of the three items against Rod - and the only one to do with diversity - was that Rod linked to a Quilette article about codes of conduct on Twitter [https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841](https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841) .

People looked at Ashley's tweets for comparison - generally people are allowed to have personal politics, but if they aren't, 'kill all men' isn't a good thing to tweet [https://twitter.com/ag_dubs/status/761962956431187968](https://twitter.com/ag_dubs/status/761962956431187968) \- and this is described by his article as some kind of inappropriate 'hostile' 'dredging'? Ashley is an _excellent_ contributor to both node and rust, and is pissed off about sexism for legitimate reasons, but she has indisputably tweeted sexist things that violate the CoC (if the CoC does indeed apply to Twiter) - even if they're responding to sexism with sexism.

Node isn't imploding. A small and very vocal group of people hate Rod because they don't like his politics and dislike the decision.

<comment><USER4> FYI, I don't get a full, unedited complaint. In the version I got, it reads

> Note: the specific list of issues has been removed at the request of several > core collaborators who felt that listing the issues was not fair to Rod

<comment><USER3> Fixed the link to point to an older version. Thanks for letting me know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> First world problems. Let's just stick to building things getting tired of hearing diversity in every section, it's getting quite boring.

</comment><comment><USER6> Can we just build things, please?

<comment><USER7> No, once you let the SJW's in and let them weaponize personal politics this is the result. Everyone that asked "what's so objectionable about a code of conduct?" now has their answer.</comment></comment>


Google Photos is incredible - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/6m1sv1/google_photos_is_incredible/ <comment><USER2> This is called photo stitching[1], and it's been available in some form for 15-20 years (according to my memory -- it may be longer). Microsoft had impressive products called ICE and Photosynth that were half-hearted attempts to commercialize it. The products themselves were absolutely amazing and even worked on videos.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_photo_stitching_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_photo_stitching_software)</comment>


Django 1.5.1 released - <AUTHOR> https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2013/mar/28/django-151/

<comment><USER2> I fired it up earlier today after not having tried Django for a while and was disappointed to see it's still pretty annoying to get MySQL working with Python 3 via Django. After installing a non-standard build of MySQL for Python ( <https://github.com/davispuh/MySQL-for-Python-3> ) django/db/backends/mysql/base.py needs to be patched to be made compatible with Python 3 (only about three lines of code need to be changed). Unfortunately, no official documentation seems to exist on this and it took me about an hour of scanning various forums to figure it out. The Python 3 support appears to work flawlessly once you iron out the kinks and I'm looking forward to seeing Django continue to improve!

<comment><USER3> MySQL on Python 3 is a bit of a mess at the moment just in general. SQLite and PostgreSQL are both in good shape, though.

<comment><USER2> Do you happen to know of any issues beyond what I encountered setting it up? It seems to work perfectly at the moment but I'd consider switching to a different DB if continuing with MySQL is going to cause me headaches later on.

<comment><USER4> To be honest, I'd recommend making the jump to Postgres as soon as you can. There are just too many reasons why MySQL is not worth ir right now (Oracle owning it, still have to trade off between data integrity and referential integrity when selecting a storage, etc.) and Postgres gets simpler and simpler with each release.

At first I found the tools confusing and some of the concepts (like schemas, sequences and the user model) a bit over the top for what I needed. Now that I've gotten used to the Postgres way of doing things, none of it bothers me in the least and working with Postgres has become as second nature as working with MySQL was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm using Django for a project and it's working great so far. The admin module is incredibly powerful!

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm really excited to see them focusing on security issues, which is the main reason I used Django over a DIY framework. The faster release cycle is also good to hear about!</comment>


This Procedure May Improve Your Brain – and Uncover the Real You - <AUTHOR> http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/this-procedure-may-improve-your-brain-and-uncover-the-real-you/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 <comment><USER2> OT: I hate sources like this (no offense to you poster) that only allow you to read the news if you login...

Why would you want to scare away all these readers if you're dependent on these readers?

<comment><AUTHOR> Protip: Browse nytimes.com using an incognito window. In Chrome, right click, open link in incognito window. No login, ten articles. When you reach ten, close the window and start again.</comment></comment>


New Bug Found in Widely Used OpenSSL Encryption - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/new-bug-found-in-widely-used-openssl-encryption

<comment><USER3> _But, in reality, OpenSSL had only one full-time developer and three "core" volunteer programmers in Europe, and operated on a budget of $2,000 in annual donations. This, despite the fact that OpenSSL is used to encrypt the majority of the world's web servers and widely used by technology companies such as Amazon and Cisco._

There's an interesting statement from our times.

<comment><USER4> in the sense that it is utterly wrong, I suppose so...

in reality, openssl appears to be a $1mm+/year for-profit fips consulting business [1] that appears to not care much about security, letting serious security issues sit in their bug tracker for years on end

[1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnBbhXBDmwU#t=559](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnBbhXBDmwU#t=559)

<comment><USER5> they only get paid for implementing fips-related security features, which is an important job. they would love to spend more time on core security and have already tooled up to.

they went into the consulting biz to pay for the maintenance of openssl, but it hasn't panned out well until recently.

it's petty to take something done with great dedication and provided for free, with freedom, and demonize them. where are YOUR commits?

<comment><USER6> I'm pretty sure the implication is that the big corporates don't care a hoot about open source, the ethics or the model - they'll just take it, the cheaper the better.

The principle and supposed ethic is to share and have some reciprocity - <USER2> reality is somewhat different. And we all suffer. Tragedy of the commons, I guess...

<comment><USER7> I'd like to see a campaign and a web page to encourage big companies to donate to open source projects, and to display their donations publicly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This means the security researchers are actually studying and trying to fix OpenSSL.

I think it's good news.

<comment><USER9> There are many applications/areas where finding and fixing bugs is 'good news'. Cryptography isn't one of them. Stakeholders really expect this stuff to work before relying on it, and I can't imagine anyone is happy about a 10-year old vulnerability.

I'm certainly interested in hearing further analysis on this.

<comment><USER10> It's good news that researchers are finding them instead of black hats. The only bad part is that OpenSSL has many more implementation flaws than a serious crypto project should.

<comment><USER11> > It's good news that researchers are finding them instead of black hats.

Of course, black hats could have already known about these exploits for years..</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Waymo One Rider's Experiences Highlight Autonomous Rideshare's Shortcomings - <AUTHOR> https://futurism.com/waymo-one-early-rider-autonomous-vehicle <comment><USER2> Carl wants to live in the world where traffic is safe, no accidents happen, but wants AI that can drive in human-like aggressive manner. Carl's expectations are a bit too high, I'd say...

<comment> crooked-v For my part, I'd just want the results to be very predictable. If I know that a drive from A to B will always take X minutes +/\- 5%, I can just use that as part of my day doing whatever while the car drives itself.

<comment><USER3> That simply not going to happen until essentially all other cars on the road are self-driving cars.

<comment><USER4> And when the weather is perfect and the snowplows always clear the roads on time, etc.

There are too many variables. It's incredibly difficult to get consistent on- time performance out of a train system which has far fewer variables to anticipate. It will never happen for cars even if they are self-driving.

<comment><USER5> Unless they also have their own lane/road. Maybe in built up areas we will have to build tunnels for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's mind blowing that even skilled software engineers were fooled into thinking that self driving cars were only months away. The hype was blinding.

The amount of complexity involved in a self driving car is unfathomable. They can't even get the thing to work on simple trips in mega-sprawl Phoenix with perfect weather and solid lane markings. We are decades out, and maybe only if they ban human drivers.

<comment><USER7> The hype is because not very long ago nobody even expected that what they're doing now would be possible. That they can even do what they're doing now is an amazing achievement.

It turns out that it's not enough and we need another breakthrough, but it might not have been possible to see what the limitations of the new approach were going to be when they were doing new, previously impossible things every week.

I think this is similar to the belief in the 20th century that right after the moon, we'd be colonizing mars and exploring the galaxy. We had been bound to the surface of the earth for thousands of years of civilization and then suddenly it seemed like we had no limitations. You can probably excuse a little bit of excess enthusiasm.

<comment><USER8> > I think this is similar to the belief in the 20th century that right after > the moon, we'd be colonizing mars and exploring the galaxy.

The takeaway from the history of 20th century technology is that a given field plateaus much more quickly than the optimists expect, sometimes short of what's needed to be truly useful. Something simple like voice recognition has been an area of intense research for 30-40 years. And it's still not useful for all but the simplest things. I have 10 Siri reminders from the last couple of days. 4 are so badly mangled I can't figure out what I meant to remind myself. Barring some fundamental advance, we're not going to be talking to our computers as a primary input.

The same thing with other technologies. We broke the sound barrier, but never developed the tech to make supersonic travel cost effective. We put a man on the moon, but have yet to develop the tech to colonize off world bodies. Transistor speed and density have plateaued. After years of doubling CPU clock speeds every year, Intel crawled from 3 GHz to 5 GHz over 15 years. (If CPU speeds improved so slowly back in the day, we'd be using 200 MHz Pentium Pros today.)

<comment><USER9> Likewise flying cars. They have existed for several years; I saw one fly in 2013. But they cost at least $250,000, or (for newer electric models) they have ridiculously short runtimes. These drawbacks weren't part of the plan in bubbly 1960s predictions, and they're not going to be quickly overcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Living in Phoenix for several years and working in Chandler (the headquarters for the self driving car division where my office was actually on the initial training route before they allowed passengers) I can say the cars suffer from being overly conservative. I don't think this is a bad thing for self driving cars, in contrast Ubers cars (before they were banned from the state for disabling collision detection and killing someone) drove aggressively. Ubers cars needed to be taken over to stop from hitting pedestrians crossing at intersections and continually drove at least 5mph above the speed limit.

In Phoenix everyone drives fast on the highway, but Waymo cars drive 5-10mph under the speed limit. There are some unprotected left turns across 4 lanes they may try but being conservative they crawl across and eventually get stuck in the middle. This is probably a good thing for now and as confidence with the engineering team on the hardware and software goes up it can likely be tuned.

</comment><comment> super-serial I think a lot of people in this thread are underestimating the possibility of safety drivers going remote and how that could be a solution to these edge cases.

When making decisions or coming across strange situations the AI has a confidence level, and when that falls below a threshold it can notify a remote person to potentially handle the situation. Right now Waymo has problems merging on a freeway with asshole drivers... but what's the big deal? It's maybe 1 minute out of a 30 minute drive.

If you only need a human operator to take over the vehicle 2 minutes out of every hour of autonomous travel, then you could probably get by with 10 remote operators monitoring a fleet of 200 vehicles. That could translate into way better profit margins than any current ride-share service.

<comment><USER11> Now I'm imagining a guy whose job is to sit all day in a simulator vehicle, 'teleporting' from one stranded Waymo to the next and taking it around school buses and manhole covers, parallel parking, etc.

I kind of think that is viable. Replace thirty regular drivers with one. That kind of model doesn't look too far off.

<comment><USER12> We already do it with military UAVs. Assist-by-wire for vehicles seems like it's not too far-fetched.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> On a side note, I'd like to lament the dystopia of reading articles online, where every 4 paragraphs your attention is hijacked by a video ad. Fuck that. Fuck futurism.com.

<comment><USER14> Blame the fact that people will pay for very few media sites. Realistically, Futurism's choice is have ad supported content or don't exist

<comment><USER15> They do have a third option: unobtrusive ads.

<comment><USER16> Those are worth very little when untargeted.

<comment><USER17> Quite the contrary: [https://digiday.com/media/new-york-times-gdpr-cut-off-ad- exc...](https://digiday.com/media/new-york-times-gdpr-cut-off-ad-exchanges- europe-ad-revenue/).

Discussed on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079)

<comment><USER16> The NYT is a different story. There's a critical mass after which it becomes worthwhile to just target your audience. I doubt these guys are at it.

Don't believe me, though. Talk to ad execs (spending money on this) or ad ops (using the money on this) and see what they think.

In fact, since you won't have the GDPR hassles if you go untargeted, you should consider following this thesis to its logical untargeted exchange conclusion because with CCPA and GDPR you could push the targeted guys out of business and that's a many billion dollar market. If you're convinced of your thesis, then you're on the cusp of mega money.

Good luck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If that's the entire list of shortcomings it sounds they re in pretty good shape. There are audiences for which this car is an essential, and hopefully drivers will adapt to robocars , just like horsecars adapted to autos.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure. So long as a safety driver is needed there's no cost savings over regular taxi service. Given the human infrastructure that will be required behind the scenes to support the fragility of these cars' operation (sensor cleaning, monitoring for problems, etc) and the added expense of the self driving tech, I'm not seeing much opening for money to be made here ever...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I like to think of autonomous vehicles like trains rather than cars in the general sense. They can operate on pre-existing tracks that were previously unexploited. A lot of track exists out there, and as the technology gets better, they can utilize a higher percentage of what's available.

<comment><USER21> this requires cultural change... living more densely, and being willing to share our commute with other people.

Cultural change is... often rather harder than technological innovation.

<comment><USER22> If anything, autonomous cars should enable us to live _less_ densely. If you're in a dense area already, you probably don't need a car at all.

<comment><USER21> I was responding to a comment about using trains.

Yes, autonomous cars would make spreading out easier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I like these pieces for tempering the hype around driverless cars.

But it's also true it is still early and the technology will improve.

I personally don't believe it will become as reliable as people think. The last percent are always the hardest — but to make a driverless car better than a human, they're crucial.

But who cares what I (or others) think? We shall find out the truth of the matter soon enough. I just hope whoever mispredicted will take a note of it and keep that in mind the next time they make a prediction.

<comment><USER24> > The last percent are always the hardest — but to make a driverless car > better than a human, they're crucial.

The last % being crucial is debatable. A self-driving car could be way more reliable than a human driver at all times except during blizzards in which case it's known to crash.

That car would be extremely reliable, viable and useful to operate everywhere there's never any blizzard, and even when there happens to be a few blizzard events per year it would only need to be automagically rendered inoperable during those times. The town hall could send that kind of command, just like it would ring a civil defense siren.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's interesting to consider how much money is required to validate this idea -- there are multiple companies, many investors, and focused engineers trying to solve this problem. Are those resources emotionally driven to a short-term outcome that is proving to be far away (how far, and can this push result in a non-linear jump somewhere?). What is the real hypothesis here that bridges the idea and valuation creation?

<comment><USER26> The market is so huge that it's worth it even if it takes decades of R&D costing billions a year. Some numbers:

~100M cars are made a year

If 10% of those are self driving, and if they have $1,000 in gross margin due to self driving features, that's $10B a year to cover past R&D. Over 20 years this adds up to $200B. Optimistically, if the tech eventually reaches 80% of new cars and $3,000 margin, then we're talking $4,800 BILLION in profit over 20 years to cover R&D. Waymo is probably spending like $1-$2B/yr right now. Their engineering headcount is not huge, it's like under 1,000 based on a LinkedIn search I did last year.

Really the potential market is so huge that it can justify many many billions spent on R&D. I am relatively bearish on the technology, and doubt it will be commercialized in 10 years, but I still think the investment is justified.

Apologies for the poor writing - typed from my phone. I have more thoughts here: [http://www.tedsanders.com/on-self-driving- cars/](http://www.tedsanders.com/on-self-driving-cars/)

<comment> semi-extrinsic I think the main point, as this article alludes to, is that we may end up with safe and actually fully autonomous vehicles, but they're bloody annoying to ride in. At that point nobody will be willing to pay that $1000 premium, and you'll never recoup costs.

Personally I think given the prior that we can achieve self-driving tech, there's a ~75% probability people won't want that tech.

We've seen it so many times before, companies spending $$$ on R&D of some cool new thing and people just go "meh." I don't see a compelling argument for why this won't just join the ranks of 3D-TVs, Google Glass and flying cars.

<comment><USER21> > I think the main point, as this article alludes to, is that we may end up > with safe and actually fully autonomous vehicles, but they're bloody > annoying to ride in. At that point nobody will be willing to pay that $1000 > premium, and you'll never recoup costs.

I think you underestimate what a difference riding in back makes.

Yes, yes, when you drive, you get angry and aggressive. I do too; my observation from taking ride share (I gave away my car and now almost exclusively use the rideshare) is that almost everyone rages out from time to time when they drive.

Sitting in back with a book is such a different experience. "Wow, I used to be like that?" I mean, it seems so weird to see someone get mad about traffic when you haven't taken the wheel for a month yourself.

Edit:

To be sure, if we don't get full level-4; if you still need to be the 'safety driver' and actually pay attention, that's a different thing, and yeah, that's a whole lot less useful.

And to be clear, I am not saying that I think we are close to full level-4. I'm just saying that if we get there? it will be wonderful in ways that weren't obvious to me until I switched from driving to being driven for quite some time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm only about halfway through, but what are the chances 'Carl' doesn't get identified through this story? It seems like it'd be very easy for them to cross check this story with ride history to figure out the person, especially since it's a closed beta kind of thing it sounds like.

What kind of consequences will 'Carl' face by speaking to the press about this? Do you just get dropped from the program or are their real consequences? (It doesn't sound like 'Carl' is a Google employee at least)

<comment><USER28> I'm pretty sure I know who Carl is. I don't think he's concerned about his identity as much as the article has been written to make you believe. I think the author was trying to make it seem more like an inside scoop when it isn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Off topic: Is it just me or is the font on this site completely unreadable? I had to copy and paste it into a text file so I could actually read what was written. It's like medium but 80x worse.

<comment><USER30> Agreed. In Firefox I had to Ctrl+ 3-4 times to enlarge the text to make it readable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> > it would seem Waymo programmed its autonomous vehicles to treat turn signals > as an indicator that the car is about to execute a turn or merge, not an > indicator that it is looking for the opportunity to do so.

Well, here's one, if not the issue... I do not know the precise wording of trafic Laws in each state, but in many if not all, turn signals should _not_ be used as "an indicator of opportunity".

Now, it is already difficult to build a law abiding autonomous car; expecting the car to also break the law in day-to-day cases (not just an emergency) will be downright impossible -- and I'm not even considering the media storm that would be created by a company saying "we program our cars to break the law all the time"...

<comment><USER32> > turn signals should _not_ be used as "an indicator of opportunity

Are you certain about that?

When I learned to drive, we were told to indicate a few seconds _before_ turning, changing lanes, etc. This communicates your intentions to other drivers. In other words, the blinker says, "I'd like to get in the left lane" or "I'm getting off the highway", not "This car is currently moving leftward." Otherwise, why not just connect the turn signals directly to the steering wheel?

<comment><USER31> Yes of course, but it is a _signal_, not a request. You should _not_ put your signals if there is no room, just to "ask" other drivers to clear the other lane.

<comment><USER32> Suppose you're in the center lane during some stop-and-go traffic. You want to take the next exit. Do you really just drive along in quiet desperation, hoping for a gap?

I—and everyone I know—would leave their blinker as they creep forward, "requesting" that someone leave a gap big enough to take the exit.

<comment><USER31> Of course, the vast majority of drivers would do so (including me). That would just be incredibly inefficient to do otherwise. Nevertheless, in my home town, it is against the law (Ontario btw, so I confess I cannot speak for the US).

Same thing goes for the left turn on yellow light. If there is a gapless traffic coming from the other direction, you will probably just creep in the intersection and turn at the end of the yellow, when the other cars have stopped. Nevertheless, by doing so, you are doing two illegal things: 1) going further than the stop line and 2) passing on a yellow (or even a red) when you could have stopped (easily, you _were_ already stopped). Is it a bad thing that people (again, including me) do this? Probably not, doing otherwise would be a huge loss of time for everyone and it does not really increase the accident rate. Yet, it is against the law.

<comment><USER32> Here's the text of Ontario's Highway Traffic Act: [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK232](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK232)

"The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway, before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway, shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and, if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement, SHALL GIVE A SIGNAL PLAINLY VISIBLE TO THE DRIVER OR OPERATOR OF THE OTHER VEHICLE OF THE INTENTION TO MAKE THE MOVEMENT."

I guess one reading of this suggests that you must first check if it would be safe to make a maneuver, and if so, then and only then, must you use a turn signal. I think you could also read this as requiring safety checks and indicating (in either order) before turning, but I'm not a lawyer. I can't imagine that people are actually prosecuted for signaling out-of-order though.

The driving handbook, however, tells you to check your mirrors, then "Signal that you want to move left or right." (here: [https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers- handboo...](https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers- handbook/changing-positions)) which seems to suggest some level of intention- indicating is okay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Seemed like it fairly good from what I heard. It didn't crash which is the bar they are going for. Driving past a place not only is ok I'd be more than comfortable having the car do so. The issue opponents are going to have in the future is when waymo actually has a chance to go to the general public in one of these cities and doesn't crash. The number of riders will easily outstrip the people screaming. Just like the scooters they will leave for a while but the damage will have been done. There are no fans currently that depend on this but thats easily going to not be true.

<comment><USER34> I agree. When I'm dropping someone off, I often drive past the intended drop point, let them out across the street, etc, because there is an unreasonably high cost to hitting the exact drop point. It sounds like self driving cars are only allowed to do exact drops, which is an irrational constraint IMO. Clearly there's a trade-off between trip time and drop accuracy, and time is usually 10x more important than accuracy.

<comment><USER35> > ...because there is an unreasonably high cost to hitting the exact drop > point.

That is literally the difference between a professional driver and a "ride share" amateur.

Yeah, yeah, cheap shot but those ride share drivers drive me crazy with their antics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> _What good is a newborn baby?_ Benjamin Franklin [1]

[1] [https://www.americanheritage.com/content/"what-good-new- born...](https://www.americanheritage.com/content/"what-good-new-born-baby")</comment>


The Room Where the Internet Was Born - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/where-was-the-internet-born/413221/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7357708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7357708).

</comment><comment><USER3> I expected to see a picture of Al Gore.</comment>


A team of scientists think they may have found first complete cure for cancer - <AUTHOR> https://m.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/A-cure-for-cancer-Israeli-scientists-say-they-think-they-found-one-578939/ <comment><USER2> Original link is a 404 because of the trailing slash. Good link here...

[https://m.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/A-cure-for-cancer- Israeli...](https://m.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/A-cure-for-cancer-Israeli- scientists-say-they-think-they-found-one-578939)

</comment><comment><USER3> Preliminary tests going to start in Raccoon City in Q4/2019?

</comment><comment><USER4> 404?</comment>


Rescuing a hosed system using only Bash - <AUTHOR> http://fakeguido.blogspot.com/2010/08/rescuing-hosed-system-using-only-bash.html <comment><USER2> Those are some pretty slick tricks. Too bad the author didn't know how to craft his own ls, cat and other commands using bash builtins and functions, as I wrote here: [http://www.h-i-r.net/2009/08/cratered-your-linux-box-here- ar...](http://www.h-i-r.net/2009/08/cratered-your-linux-box-here-are- some.html)

I'm definitely adding some of this to my little book of tricks!</comment>


CS vs. engineering starting salaries - <AUTHOR>

Something that's jumped out at me while researching salaries of engineering and computer science salaries is the fact that starting salaries of graduates of schools with well regarded programs (e.g. Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Illinois, Cornell) are much higher for CS majors (~$90k/year) than they are for mechanical or electrical engineers (~$65k/year).
This is puzzling, because CS majors don't make more money than engineering majors do in general, and according to some sources, even if one looks at the 75th/90th percentiles of incomes within a given major, CS majors don't make more.
What is going on here? Do salaries for CS majors from top schools start off higher but plateau faster? Are CS majors from top schools substantially higher than the 90th percentile of programmers (after controlling for age)? <comment><USER2> Degree chosen has very little to do with market demand for talent.</comment>