What is the most ridiculous aircraft design? - <AUTHOR> https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-ridiculous-aircraft-design-that-people-have-ever-seen?share=1 <comment><USER2> One of the aircraft named is the Kalinin K-7 [1], which is a favorite ridiculous aircraft of mine. It's the most literally "flying fortress" looking aircraft ever made. The design process for the K-7 was "add engines until it flies".

Basically, the Kalinin K-7 was an attempt to build an extremely heavy, high capacity aircraft before the jet engine was introduced. As a result, the entire plane is prop-driven, and the plane has a crap-ton of engines. There's 6 on the leading edges of the wings, but when it turned out 6 wasn't enough, they just started adding engines anywhere they could until the thing flew. By the end, there were the 6 original engines on the leads of the wings, plus 4 more engines on top of the wings and two more on each side of the cockpit/cabin.

For some more reading/pictures, see [2][3].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_K-7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_K-7)

[2] [https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle- news/serio...](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle- news/seriously-the-kalinin-k-7-bomber-actually-took-to-the-air.html)

[3] [http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Kalinin-K7.html](http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Kalinin-K7.html)

<comment><USER3> Shades of the Convair B-36 Peacemaker, the predecessor to the B-52. "Six turning, four burning" because it had six piston-powered pusher propellers and four jet engines in underwing pods for take-off boost and high speed bombing runs:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker)

They also experimented with tracked landing gear:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_can...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/B-36_tracked_gear)

A parasite fighter for bomber defense (the XF-85 Goblin):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin)

And as a test bed for nuclear aircraft propulsion:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H)

<comment><USER4> I would say the NB-36H because it actually flew and because "The original crew and avionics cabin was replaced by a massive lead and rubber lined 11 ton crew section for a pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers. Even the small windows had 10-12 inch thick lead glass."

The thought that the X-6[1] and WS-125[2] would be good ideas further lead me to nominate the NB-36H.

1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6)

2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-125](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-125)

<comment><USER5> Sort of flew. It flew, yes, but the nuke was never used to actually generate power.

<comment><USER4> Yes, the didn't power the airplane with it, but my point is the thought it was a good idea to put a nuclear reactor in a plane.

As my Dad said to me a few too many times in my youth: "I'm amazed and appalled - amazed you thought of it and appalled you actually did it"

<comment><USER6> If any of the various ""intrinsically safe"" small reactor systems get into production, no doubt someone will propose this again. Or the Lockheed Martin vapourware fusion reactor. [http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact- fusion.htm...](http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know of one plane so crazy that it has to make this list even though it never left the drawing board, the Lippisch P.13A.

We all know the Nazis had crazy ideas, we know that had overambitious ideas, this is one of those crazy AND overambitious ideas that kinda, sorta made sense. It was a delta winged, pyramid shaped, supersonic interceptor powered by a coal-fueled ramjet: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13a)

It was basically an amalgamation of half-baked construction and propulsion ideas but the aerodynamic principles were fundamentally sound and incredibly advanced for their time. The aero research and data from this program was used with great effect by the US and USSR. It was basically the common ancestor from which all future delta-wing designs evolved.

<comment><USER8> ...coal?

<comment> Tuna-Fish Coal has a reasonable enough energy density to be used as aircraft fuel. The reason it isn't, and liquid fuels are used instead, is that solid fuels require very laborous processing and complex systems to produce the kind of even continuous combustion that liquid fuels can do with just a pump.

In peacetime, with oil as cheap as it is on the world market, it would never make sense to produce a coal-powered aircraft. At war, with no oil imports coming in, and in desperate need of operable aircraft, the investment of processing coal into even granules to burn in a ramjet might.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'll vote for the Lippisch Aerodyne. Picture here:

[http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s-- BN7-YDzh...](http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s-- BN7-YDzh--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18ca58wblfns3jpg.jpg)

Arguably an update of the Stipa-Caproni from the 1930s:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipa- Caproni](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipa-Caproni)

<comment><USER10> Well, that's one way to maximize thrust to mass ratio.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not super ridiculous but I thought the x32 which was Boeings competitor for the F35 was a bit silly looking. Also it came close to being the trillion dollar everyone must have it project if it had beat the F35 in testing.

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/USAF_X32...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/USAF_X32B_250.jpg)

<comment><USER12> My contender for silly-loking plane is the Caribou. The article has sillier planes, but this one needs to be added to the pot.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-4_Cari...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-4_Caribou)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you look at the Super Guppy with it's loading bay open [1] you can't help but wonder where they put all the wiring and hydraulics between the cockpit and the rest of the plane?

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy#/m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy#/media/File:LoadingSuperGuppy.jpg)

<comment><USER14> They had to be disconnected, reconnected, and recalibrated every time the nose was opened and shut.

[https://books.google.com/books?id=l4fSx5HoZWAC&pg=PA94&lpg=P...](https://books.google.com/books?id=l4fSx5HoZWAC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=super+guppy+hydraulics&source=bl&ots=zNg-9717qd&sig=IsRD0SqSrLXAr2XTcyl1Uxt1kdY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAjgKahUKEwjOgv6J_uTGAhVJNYgKHSrMDmY#v=onepage&q=super%20guppy%20hydraulics&f=false)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The asymmetric designs were to counteract the torque from the single engine.

<comment><USER16> Yep, I was a bit annoyed to find stuff like the Boomerang in here. Most people don't realize that losing the critical engine on a multi can be much more dangerous that losing both. Burt's Boomerang is probably one of the least ridiculous designs out there, as the asymmetric design of the wings is there to negate the adverse effects of a critical engine failure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The Custer Channel Wing is one of the strangest looking.

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

</comment><comment><USER18> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_airplane](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_airplane) Airplane with no wings.

<comment><USER19> Model version (only models it seems have flown) seen here - [http://youtu.be/Ra8y6gGotwY](http://youtu.be/Ra8y6gGotwY).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> My favorite is the Flettner aeroplane since it uses the Magnus effect [1][2] as it generates lift without a wing. Screenshot linked in the original post [3].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect) [2] [https://youtu.be/2OSrvzNW9FE](https://youtu.be/2OSrvzNW9FE) [3] [https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-ridiculous-aircraft- des...](https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-ridiculous-aircraft-design-that- people-have-ever-seen/answer/Nick-Spooner-2)

<comment><USER19> [http://youtu.be/Ra8y6gGotwY](http://youtu.be/Ra8y6gGotwY)

For me this is the final proof we live in the Matrix and flight is achieved by an unholy ugly hack in a perl script. Jumbo Jets just don't look like they belong and that thing ... That whatever is just the machines taking the p __s

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Spruce Goose, although the design conventional, was an oddity both for its size, very limited use, and backstory.

</comment><comment><USER22> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTF5hGFJ3p4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTF5hGFJ3p4)

EVERY NOW AND then a new aircraft design comes along that just makes you shake your head, wondering where to start. The Oliver Hexplane is one of those designs.

[http://www.wired.com/2012/01/hexplane-oliver- vtol/](http://www.wired.com/2012/01/hexplane-oliver-vtol/)

</comment><comment><USER23> I always was fascinated by the X-29 simply because it could not be flown without computers to make up to forty adjustments a second to keep it airborne. Hence the limitations imposed by the programming kept it from being as agile as many had hoped.

I have to wonder, if in drone form where crashing would not result in a pilot death could it live up to its supposed hype because its programming restrictions could be lifted to the point of it being always in near crash

</comment><comment><USER24> I would add the 1930s Gee Bee Racer. It won many races, but it was essentially like strapping the pilot onto a big engine, with barely any wings and tiny control surfaces, and it frequently crashed.

[http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/GeeBee- Racer/IMAGES/Ge...](http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/GeeBee- Racer/IMAGES/Gee-Bee-Racer-Lowflight.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm surprised the Pond Racer [0] isn't in there. With its (relatively) huge engine nacelles way out front dragging the tiny cockpit way in the back, I swear it's got to be the inspiration for the "pod racers" in Star Wars.

I'm also surprised to see the Proteus and X29 in the list. The Proteus was quite a ground-breaker and doesn't look too strange if you've seen a few gliders. I remember seeing the X29 on the front cover of (I think) Popular Science back in the day, and thought it was a beautiful design. Highly efficient, highly maneuverable, and I think this was the one with a vertical canard (under the pilot, not visible in most pictures) that allowed it to corner flat (for improved visibility during dogfights).

I think the Edgley Optica looks like something from Lexx, the Bartini Beriev VVA-14 belongs in a video game and the Handley-Page Victor belongs in Agents of Shield!

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p7iNuTe3w0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p7iNuTe3w0)

</comment><comment><USER26> It's amazing that with all that "experimental" stuff, the design of planes really has not changed much. I am sure there are certain things that were learned, but I also cannot get past the notion that there is a more appropriate method for initiating and supporting research.

I get that people's common refrain is "you never know what comes out of research", but I think that is also too easily used as an excuse to not apply some diligence and rigor. There are both real and virtual hangars chocked full of research that should never have been funded for a while host or reasons. I guarantee that a society that figures out how to more deliberately direct R&D funding will surpass the USA in technological advancement.

Does anyone know of any efforts to quantify the rate of return on R&D? I suspect that an honest calculation would invoke "abysmal" and "atrocious".

<comment><USER5> Are you kidding? Just because they don't _look_ much different at a glance doesn't mean there haven't been huge gains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> My favorite is the Vought V-173 (and XF5U). Also known as the flying pancake (or flying flapjack).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_V-173](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_V-173)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U)

[https://youtu.be/LfpTDOAfj7Y](https://youtu.be/LfpTDOAfj7Y)

Simple structurally, awkward looking on the ground, slow takeoff/landing speeds. Because of takeoff/landing dynamics I wonder if it would have been a safer platform for small civil aircraft. Though who knows how it would handle losing an engine.

</comment><comment><USER28> I find it incredibly sad that anyone would think these planes are ridiculous. Very fkn cool would be my thoughts.

But I'll switch my brain to thinking people are just using this poorly worded question bagging out hackers as a springboard for cool things people have tried (And some of them successful)

Back on topic always remember flying cars have been around or almost 100 years, it's not a technical problem -

[http://jeffwise.net/2010/07/28/flying-cars-a-very-old- dream/](http://jeffwise.net/2010/07/28/flying-cars-a-very-old-dream/)

</comment><comment><USER29> I wonder if we will ever see more use of rockets in aircraft design? With improvements in manufacturing (like 3d printed parts), simulation, cleaner fuels and better control (SpaceX) it could open up new possibilities.

<comment><USER30> What possibilities? Carrying your own oxidiser is always going to be wasteful when there's a plentiful supply of oxygen around already. If anything the opposite technology is more interesting - a space launch vehicle using air- breathing engines (i.e. SABRE). Where aircraft have used rockets it's been similar to use of afterburners - for emergency short-term extra thrust (e.g. JATO).

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> VTOL/STOL section is missing the _Grumman Nutcracker_ :

[1] [http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6...](http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=64011&d=1106120782)

[2] [https://books.google.lk/books?id=GQEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&redir_...](https://books.google.lk/books?id=GQEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

</comment><comment><USER32> There's a short documentary on the Martini Beriev VVA-14 on youtube: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZgWjxYTJS8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZgWjxYTJS8)

At least here we can see the wings, which aren't shown in the wikipedia article!

</comment><comment><USER33> Cracked.com put together a pretty good list here: [http://www.cracked.com/article_18839_7-planes-perfectly- desi...](http://www.cracked.com/article_18839_7-planes-perfectly-designed-to- kill-people-flying-them.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> Not surprising to see Burt Rutan/Scaled Composites highly represented.

[http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/design-by- rutan-1333...](http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/design-by- rutan-133347555/)

</comment><comment><USER35> OMG: 14) De Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle flying platform, designed to carry one soldier to reconnaissance missions (1954).

So you are basically standing on top of a large blender.

</comment><comment><USER36> Ekranoplans are the most unusual looking ones.

</comment><comment><USER37> And here I thought it was going to be the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter :-)

</comment><comment><USER38> It's a veritable KSP gallery in there.

</comment><comment><USER39> At first I thought this was going to be a joke about the F-35.

Then I remembered Hacker News hates jokes.

<comment><USER40> Aren't there enough people with little knowledge of the F-35 posting invective about it?

I, for one, don't hate jokes. But HN is still a place where it's possible to have a substantive interaction without devolving into tangential silliness. I hope it stays that way.</comment></comment>


Dribbble's Position on Spec Work - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dribbble.com/post/28570735139/spec

<comment><USER2> This seems to be an emotional, tribal issue for designers, particularly for designers who used to occupy the lower rungs of the value chain for corporate design work and who passionately believe that a teenager with Photoshop would necessarily produce a deliverable of lower quality than theirs but can't quite articulate why.

In many other fields of professional work -- which laugh in the general direction of $200 per project -- spec work is an unremarkable part of the customer acquisition dance. I need an accountant who understands how to legally minimize tax burdens of an IP based business with service components with activities split across Japan, the US, and the EU. I was interviewing two accountants to decide who I would use. Both of them a) reviewed 3 years of tax returns, b) spoke to me for several hours, and c) broke out the books and looked at tax treaties. _That is exactly indistinguishable from what the winner will eventually charge me for._ But that time isn't billable. Cost of doing business.

Similarly, many of my consulting engagements get sold on the basis of me going to a client's office, getting introduced to their CEO, lead tech guy, and head of marketing, and then talking for between 1 and 6 hours regarding plots I've hatched in advance, while everyone in the room takes notes. If there were already a contract in place, a) that presentation would be a deliverable and b) that meeting would be billable, along with the rest of the week. At the end of the meeting, sometimes the CEO says "Great stuff. Let's think about it and circle back on this later.", which occasionally turns into a firm "No." three months later. This is, to plagiarize Thomas, life in the big leagues.

Ways of compensating for this: a) Charge. More. , b) Minimum projects of sufficiently large size such that customer acquisition is just a cost of doing business., and c) if you can't reliably explain to clients why you're better than a teenager at 1/20th the price either you're looking for the wrong clients or you're in the wrong business.

<comment><USER3> "I was interviewing two accountants to decide who I would use."

And this is what makes it a bad analogy to spec work. Spec work is when you say "You 10 people make me a logo, and I'll pay whoever makes the one I like best." Did you get two accountants to do your taxes and then pay the person who served you best? No, you spoke to them first, interviewing them, having them explain why they're best for the job and how they handled certain other situations. This is how it's supposed to happen in the design world too.

You need a logo designed? OK, let's talk about how I can make that happen and what results I've had in the past and how I can serve you best. That's how a mature and respectable industry does business.

(rambling rant over)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> While its completely within Dribbbles right to not cater for Spec work, and might make complete sense. I really dislike and disagree with the indignation surrounding spec work and propogated by things like NO!SPEC.

Spec work doesnt harm the creative industry, the fact is a lot of clients just want cheap decent looking logos / website designs, and there are a lot of designers that are willing to do the work even with a risk of not getting paid, likely because they are inexperienced and have a hard time finding standard paid contracts. Designers get experience, some money and an opportunity to grow into a career they are interested in, the client gets a reasonable quality product at a cheap price and low risk to them.

Nobody forces designers to take on spec work, as long as the structure of the work / payment is clear to both the designer and the client then they are both willingly taking it on.

<comment><USER5> Designers don't need clients to get experience, they can just work on their own projects.

<comment><USER6> Not really. Designers don't necessarily _need_ clients. But they do need restrains. That's where creativity comes from.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So what are you going to do if a big brand (I won't mention any names but think of ___the biggest brands in the world_ __) come knocking on your door and request your company's presence in a pitch with two other agency's? You'll f*cking be there man. And you'll give it all you've got.

These companies know they can do it. They're so big and they'll bring a ton work if you win the pitch. Just one of their projects can be over 300 hours if you win. Even if you don't win, they'll know what you're capable off and you're on their radar. I've seen this happen a lot of times. Not winning the pitch, but still becoming a preferred supplier for other types of work.

Spec is here and it's not likely to go away unless you're a rockstar-designer. Even a lot of existing clients pitch their new design-jobs now. Optimize for it. Make sure you can debrief, brainstorm and create "rough-but-good-enough" concepts and designs as fast as you can. Just don't forget your existing clients. (They are the ones who are really paying for the pitches).

</comment><comment><USER7> I find this debate interesting. However, it's ultimately is up to the individual designer on work they choose. If you're an art director at an agency, or don't need to be on these crowdsourced sites, then don't.

Sales folks spend time on presentations and prep for business they never close, and some of the top tech companies the Valley require engineers and designers to complete projects as part of the recruiting process.

As founder of a crowdsourced design site (fantastic.me), we see this issue often. Here is a blog post I wrote on our position, and how we think there is business model where everyone wins.

[http://blog.fantastic.me/2012/07/is-crowdsourcing-design- rac...](http://blog.fantastic.me/2012/07/is-crowdsourcing-design-race-to- bottom.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> Stop doing spec work. Don't compete to make a for-profit company's logo or anything else in a contest.</comment>


Ideas for the Apple Watch - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/backchannel/5-ideas-for-apple-watch-393a7a16f8a1

<comment><USER2> Will the Apple Watch have enough precision in its location to be able to determine when you approach someone (suggestion #5 in the list)? GPS isn't nearly that precise, especially indoors or around tall buildings, which is why most people haven't done this yet and you see hardware like iBeacon for more precise location data.

The only reason we don't already have a few dozen apps that would do this on our phones already is because of the lack of precision.

<comment><USER3> GPS can be accurate to about 1 meter, I thought. Ten meters should still be good enough to locate someone, unless you're in a crowd.

<comment><USER4> Only outdoors though, right? When it doesn't work reliably it's a frustrating product.

<comment><USER5> I imagine iBeacons will help where GPS fails

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If Apple doesn't make an map-app that tells you which way to turn by vibrating selectively left-right on the watch then they don't deserve to succeed.

<comment><USER7> They announced this feature at the Apple Watch reveal last year. I believe the map and GPS runs on the phone.</comment></comment>


A Matter of Life – The death penalty as a conservative conundrum - <AUTHOR> http://harpers.org/archive/2017/03/a-matter-of-life/2/ <comment><AUTHOR> It's interesting to see how the party-faithful feel about issues that don't mesh well with major party tenets. In this case, most people seem to be more concerned with being tough on crime rather than limiting the power of government or having a fiscally responsible government.</comment>


46 percent of the public now uses the Internet, only 16 percent knows what it is. - <AUTHOR> http://www.deepscience.com/articles/usa_science.html

<comment><USER2> 46% of Americans used the Internet 9 years ago, only 16% of Americans knew what the Internet was 9 years ago. And I'd like to see what question they were asked before concluding that Americans were ignorant.

</comment><comment><USER3> this javascript plaything is really annoying, and stopps interest for the content.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm confused - what javascript plaything? Am I missing something?</comment></comment>


No Social Life in the Startup Phase? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2008/05/08/why-venture-capitalists-dont-want-you-to-have-a-sex-life/?mod=rss_WSJBlog

<comment><USER3> Yes, the article is correct, but it is talking about a side effect, and not the main point. Having no social life is common among the successful ones simply because they are focused. The neglect of a social life is a side effect of the extreme focus these men have put into their businesses.

To be successful, focus is the main requirement. Sometimes I hear it described as 'passion', but I'm not sure that that word is very accurate.

What happens is that a man is caught up with an idea and he obsesses about it, he thinks about it, he works on it, he changes it, fixes it, till at long last, he sits back and thinks - this thing bloody works.

Along the way, he's not going out and partying for two days, waking up with a hangover, deciding to take a week off from his business. He does not socialise because he has not solved the problem yet.

The failures are those who are thinking about money or how to get into yc or the big payout. Those ones are focused on the money, but instead of actually understanding that what they are interested in is the money, they pretend like their product is their interest. It's not.

Look at every successful entepreneur. They were driven by an idea on something in particular. They have an idea and they obsess till they get it perfect.

The companies who say 'We did not understand our consumers' were bound to fail from the start. This is because if you are not your own consumer, you cannot create a successful product. You won't have the focus, energy or drive.

When you choose your product, you have to choose one that you would choose to stay at home working on instead of going to a party with hot willing chicks. Even if you knew the product would never bring you any money. Does your current product fulfill this?

<comment><USER4> Binge drinking rarely helps anyone's case, even when picking up women. However, the rest of this describes the traits necessary to solve the Poincare conjecture, not be an entrepreneur. If you're choosing to stay at home working on a product that you know will never bring you any money, you're not going to be very successful from an entrepreneurial standpoint.

Also, the article is not talking about a side effect. It is doubtful the successes of Google and Yahoo and Amazon were ever in danger of being derailed by parties with "hot willing chicks."

<comment><USER3> You're wrong. The people who are successful are those who focus on solving the problem. If you are a marketer and you stay at home, you will fail because the problem the marketer faces is outside. If you are a business guy and you spend all day at the computer, you will fail too, because business is about networking and contacts. Each of those people, were they focused, would be doing the activities that are most beneficial for their line of business, and those activities are outside.

If however, you are a software developer, and you are outside trying to act like a businessman, then you will fail because you are not focusing on solving the core problem you set out to solve.

It's NOT possible to play all the roles. There is no super hacker who is also a super business man. There is no basketball star who is also an extremely successful musician. Those things require focus and dedication, and you cannot do both and be equally successful at both.

If you stay at home working on a "PROBLEM", not "PRODUCT" and the solution you come up with is better than every solution out there, and people want to use it, you will be successful because the guys focused on business will search you out.

If the problem you are solving involves search, you need to focus on that. Studying algorithms, AI, all that stuff. If you are spending half your time doing that and the other half looking for venture capital, you are setting yourself up for failure.

If however, you are creating a website for musicians and you are not going to music venues and taking notes, you are also losing.

Understand where your focus should be for the line of business you are in, and ... focus! If you find it hard or boring to spend so much time focusing on it, then that business was never meant for you.

Thinking about your product should be like playing a video game - <USER2> and fun. If it's not and you prefer to think about money or funding, then you have picked the wrong product.

<comment><USER4> It is indeed true that there is no basketball star who is an extremely successful musician. However these pursuits are very different than being an entrepreneur. If you're 100% focused on software engineering and 0% focused on the other things needed to be successful in the software business, you are a software engineer, not an entrepreneur.

<comment><USER3> Why do you insist on misunderstanding me? I am talking about solving a PROBLEM, and not creating an algorithm. Let's say you were the google guys at the start of their career. The problem they intended to solve involved getting the best result for search. This is a problem that requires 95% of your time spent at a PC. You are no enterpreneur if before you solve that problem, you are going out trying to mingle in startup school or so.

Contrast that with the Amazon guy trying to solve the problem of how to retail books successfully online. This problem cannot be solved by sitting at a computer - one needs to talk to the logistics industry, publishers and so on.

Focusing on the problem will lead to different social behaviour for both teams.

If a person focuses on the problem and solves the problem, the difficulty in selling the solution becomes trivial. If a fellow creates a digg clone, he has not solved any problem. If a fellow creates a tool to monitor the health of students in boarding schools, he has solved a problem, and will have no difficulty in selling, because boarding schools know they need what he is offering, but never had it before.

It's common sense, but people still don't seem to get it: Focusing on the problem is the only way of solving it.

<comment><USER5> I think the problem with your argument is you buy the "just build something you love and people will give you money" argument. My experience, at least, has shown that not to be the case.

Money needs to be balanced in the problem-solving equation along with all the other issues. Build something you love, focus on it, do everything for it - and also make sure it puts bread on the table. If you fail to do that last one, you won't be able to spend the time to really focus on the problem.

Daniel

<comment><USER3> Build something that solves a problem is what I said.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What Europeans do at Night - <AUTHOR> http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2009/08/what-europeans-do-at-night/

<comment><USER2> Interesting, but flawed to the point that the opposite conclusion is true. The median time zone for Europe is CET, which is GMT+1, not GMT as is put in the graphs, and the median American one is probably something like GMT-6.3 or so. If you move the graphs by 2.3 hours, they look pretty similar, except the European one has a steeper drop off. This can be explained by the fact that the majority of the U.S. population lives in either GMT-5 or GMT-8, but less in between. This tends to smear out the dropoff of people going to sleep in the U.S. On the other hand, the majority of European internet users are all in the CET time zone, so there is a sharper drop as they go to sleep.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't be so quick to assume that they don't take this into account:

 _"Even after we account for the multiple time zones in both Europe (3 if we exclude Russia) and the US (4 if we exclude Halifax and Alaska), European traffic really is different."_

This statement suggests that they've adjusted for the different time zones. Do you have evidence that they didn't?

<comment><USER4> 1) The used a wrong offset, as the parent poster indicated.

2) They assumed a simple offset could adjust for the differences.

A simple offset isn't enough:

The (by far) majority of Europeans are in a single timezone.

The majority of internet-using Americans europeans are in two timezones with a 3 hour time difference, and very few users in the timezones inbetween.

This makes a significant difference. To compare to Europe, they should split US into 2 "nations": east-coast and west-coast.

Their method was wrong. Not how they executed it.

<comment><USER3> _"The used a wrong offset, as the parent poster indicated. They assumed a simple offset could adjust for the differences."_

The parent poster didn't have any evidence for that statement; he just _assumed_ it, because of the way that the data was graphed. Point out the place in the article where they say that they used a single offset.

From the section I quoted, they seem to be aware of the problem. They could have easily adjusted each data set individually for time zone, then taken the average of the sets to make the graphs shown. They _do_ say that they're graphing _average_ European and American traffic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article mentions a peak during dinner time, but many Europeans eat dinner later than Americans. In fact, in some areas, the answer to "what do Europeans do at night" (7-10PM) might be: dinner.

<comment><USER6> I'm in the UK, we have dinner at 6:30pm but then we have a pre-schooler. Sometimes it's closer to 8, 8:30pm but rarely that late more than once a week. In countries with a siesta I'd expect this to push back at least an hour. In short, I concur.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> He completely ignores commute times. I think that's likely the cause of the dip during "dinner" time.

</comment><comment><USER8> Before I was working, mine was very much like the European one (and I _am_ in Europe, so...). So was the internet usage of a bunch of friends. Sleep in the morning, get on the net in the late afternoon and then go to bed somewhere around 6am - some people went earlier, though, so the 3am dropoff seems about right.

Now I get on the internet at 9am, stay on till about 6pm. Sometimes I use the internet after that, but often I don't.

</comment><comment><USER9> If the graph data is correct, there is a very interesting intersection between European and American usage about 4 PM (First graph). What I read from this is that we align our usage with each other. Europeans stay up late to interact with Americans, which also explains the early American peak.

</comment><comment> onreact-com I guess people in Europe go out at night while in American Suburbia there is no alternative to go online.</comment>


People adopt made-up social rules to be part of a group - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/people-adopt-made-up-social-rules-to-be-part-of-a-group/ <comment><USER2> A lot of the most useful bits of "software process" are just adopting norms around evaluating whether we like the norms we've built so we can change norms that have stopped being productive. We can't escape our social nature, but we do have a choice of how we use our instinctive drive to belong.</comment>


Biggest Technology Ripoffs of 2011 - <AUTHOR> http://www.mint.com/blog/saving/gadget-ripoffs-03072011/

<comment><USER2> "You may be better just outright selling your items on eBay."

What's an eBay?</comment>


Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users? - <AUTHOR> I would love to hear how Google pitches G+ and the disaster that is Youtube at this point internally. How do they keep morale up? <comment><USER4> Internally, G+ is marketed as a unified login/account system. Management's stated reasoning goes something like:

      * It's silly to force users to have separate accounts for
        Google services because most users would prefer to have
        Gmail, Docs/Drive, YouTube, Calendar, and so on under the
        same account/identity.

      * Users who want to have separate public identities will
        create pseudonymous "Pages" for each of their identities.
        These pages will still be owned by the same account, so
        the user only has to log in once.

      * Users who are strongly opposed to a unified Google account
        are a sufficiently small population that it is acceptable
        to inconvenience them if doing so improves the experience
        of every other user.

By itself, these arguments are reasonable and could probably have been implemented without too much trouble (though "Pages" continues to be a confusing and unclear term). The problem is that the new account system was introduced at the exact same time as a social network, with the /same name/, and that the social network decided to inject a hard requirement of Facebook- style name validation rules into the new profile system.

Now the term "Google+" has become so strongly connected with the Google+ social network (and its infamous names policy) that any attempt to expand the Google+ account system is met with fear and outrage. I don't think upper management expected this or understands why the community reacted thus, just as they didn't expect or understand why requiring a Firstname Lastname format on the Internet was problematic.

I don't believe Google+ management is malicious, but they do seem woefully unaware of how internet-native communities behave.

<comment><USER5> It's equally silly to force users who'd established _and clearly indicated they wished to maintain_ separate accounts for separate services, to integrate these.

Doing so where the user had clearly indicated they didn't wish that to happen was even worse.

Forcing users to not be able to independently toggle whether or not services were enabled for an account is another. I neither want my pseudonymous G+ account ("Edward Morbius") nor my personal Gmail account(s) (unspecified) to have _any_ association with YouTube. I simply cannot independently disable the latter, and my data leaks across the services.

I've consequently been experimenting with setting up hostfile blocks of various Google services. I'm in a weaning-off phase right now (I'm trying to unwind my Google presence rather than just nuke it entirely in one go), and I can assure you it's painful. A proxy front-end to YouTube would be helpful. I already have been making extensive use of youtube-dl largely because the UX sucks vastly less than running YouTube through a browser (and in some related side commentary I've seen references that other folks offering streaming vs. downloaded video saw 4x the downloads than streams, for, I suspect, similar reasons).

So, the fact is that Google outed me (fortunately, a pseudonymous profile), despite my clearly indicating repeatedly "no" (and documenting some of those "no's" in earlier G+ posts. I'd even brought this up on a post of Yonatan Zunger's, and, despite his really well-inentioned "Edward Morbius Hrm? If you want to keep the names separate, why not simply click on that option?" response (and I've really got no reasons to doubt his sincerity), 1) the option isn't presented, 2) the workflow I'd think I'd go through doesn't accomplish what I'd expect, and 3) I've reached the stage of a) having lost my trust in the company to respect my privacy wishes and settings in future and b) not wanting to continue jumping through hoops to fix what they broke in the first place.

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/XVFz...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/XVFzdMK8xbg)

I don't know _what_ the hell's going on with Google's management team, but something's badly broken. And I do agree with you that they utterly fail to understand the social aspects of communities.

<comment><USER6> > It's equally silly to force users who'd established and clearly indicated > they wished to maintain separate accounts for separate services, to > integrate these.

[...]

> I neither want my pseudonymous G+ account ("Edward Morbius") nor my personal > Gmail account(s) (unspecified) to have any association with YouTube.

I disagree: _in principle_ , making services and identities orthogonal is clearly the right thing to do. Having (for example) three different, unlinked identities, any of which can use or not use GMail, G+ or YouTube at the user's discretion, is clearly preferable to having a YouTube account, a G+ account, and a GMail account. If pseudonymous identity A doesn't want to use YouTube, then "don't do that, then". If the user later decides that identity A should post a video to YouTube after all, he/she can just do so. Under the old system, that would require the user to either give away the connection between (say) the G+ account and the YouTube account, or to create a fourth account - a second YouTube account - for identity A to use on YouTube.

The problem is that in _practise_ Google is making a bags of the transition to the new model (or what they're telling jmillikin the new model is) - <USER2> through incompetence, or not caring enough, or because they're duplicitous in claiming that they really want to support multiple (externally-facing) identities per Google user.

<comment><USER5> If Google wanted to offer combined accounts going forward, that would be fine by me. Though I'd also prefer the option of disaggregated accounts, and of disabling specific services on accounts.

If they wanted to offer the _option_ of merging existing accounts for which there was an underlying connection, that would also be fine. Though I'd really prefer they not do it with interstitials.

Merging identities in express violation of stated intent, or simply not offering the option to decline, is simply wrong, and will inevitably turn into a major PR disaster, as this is.

<comment><USER6> No argument from me there, except that I think we'll have to see how big and consequential the PR fallout really turns out to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So I don't work for Google and I've never worked for Google. I do, however, have two things you might want to keep in mind:

1\. Google, according to Wikipedia, has 46,000 employees. The number of employees who are in a position to influence policy regarding Google+ adoption over the Google suite of products is likely less than one hundred (or .2%). It is entirely possible -- likely, even! -- that the other 99.8% of those employees do not agree with the Google+ strategy. It is also entirely possible -- likely, even! -- that those employees are encouraged to voice their opinions internally (though voicing those opinions externally doesn't really accomplish anything extra.)

2\. You can disagree with Google's tactics, motives, and end-goals, but I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't believe that the average Google employee is very intelligent. It is entirely possible -- likely, even! -- that one of these employees did a cost-benefit analysis somewhere along the line (likely before Google+ was released to the public) and discovered that the cost of pushing an umbrella identity (pissing off users, possibly lowering retention and engagement) is outweighed by the benefits of such a strategy (attracting 'whale' consumers, strengthening advertising profiles for consumers).

<comment><USER8> I don't know what you were thinking when you added those interjections to every other sentence but this post is condescending as hell.

<comment><USER7> I honestly wasn't trying to be condescending, and apologize if it came off that way. (I'll leave the original post unedited so it doesn't look like you're crazy or anything.)

That being said, _Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?_ is an incredibly loaded question and I think my tone might have stemmed from that.

<comment><USER9> I think it's relevant to ask in the context of "just what the hell do you think you're doing when you get up every morning to feed this thing? You do actually have to justify that."

<comment><USER10> Actually you don't. Let's stop pretending that any you can't trace any product/service back to something "evil".

"Oh that MacBook you use for work...ya it was made in a sweatshop in China. How do you justify that?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not a google employee, but this disgusting mistreatment of its users may actually be a good thing if it blows up in their faces. My prediction is that the change to automatically showing the users g+ profile pic next to comments will be what gets them in hot water by empowering stalkers and trolls.

Here's a simple example, if you go to the video for Miley Cyrus - <USER3> Ball, there are the usual back and forth comments arguing her merits. However, you can now easily spot preteen girls if you were looking for that specific demographic, and then subscribe to them for more efficient creeping.

Shame on Google. This behavior is stunningly evil.

<comment><USER12> Preteen girls are not allowed to have accounts. That's COPPA.

<comment><USER13> Are you saying that no pre-teen girls have G+ accounts? Or that because COPPA gives Google some legislation to cover their asses if this kind of stalking were to happen, it's OK?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have no idea what the official party line is... but doesn't it make at least a little bit of sense to unify two social networks owned by the same company?

One thought about real names: what does your contacts database look like on your phone? While I know a lot of people by their online handles, I also know their real name, and I typically choose to enter that real name into my phone. Maybe this is uncommon, but if not, if you're building a communication platform, it does make some sense for the user-entered data to follow this format. Is there some intrinsic reason that someone be referred to as "Jonathan Rockway" when you send them a message via the SMS protocol, but "jrockway" if you send that same message via Jabber? It then follows to wonder: if you're talking to your friends via YouTube, why would you use yet another nickname?

Maybe what people want is a unique identifier that only they know, and then choose to share a different name with different groups of people?

I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other, but I am interested in what other people have to say.

<comment><USER15> >> _While I know a lot of people by their online handles, I also know their real name,_

This can't possibly be true. I easily interact with 100+ people on various platforms. I don't know any of their names. I consider them "friends" in a way, but their real names are wholly irrelevant to me.

>> _if you 're talking to your friends via YouTube_

No... You are having a discussion about the video. This is certainly not your friends.

You can argue this, but if everyone is friends talking to each other, why are there still so many people willing to blatantly troll people they obviously don't know?

I'm not sure what world you are painting, but this does not reflect any reality I am aware of.

<comment><USER14> I define friend as someone I'd invite over to my house. Those are the people I interact with on social networking sites and send YouTube links to.

Discussion forums are, socially, a very different thing than hanging out with friends, even though they both involve people and saying things. That's what I think HN collectively misses when talking about Google+ or Facebook; they think those are Internet Discussion Forums when they are actually something for closer friends.

You have to understand that very few people are willing to write this much on the Internet for public consumption by total strangers -- we are very unusual people, and most online services aren't designed for us. That's why we're typing hundreds of words into a Web 1.0 GUI written in a custom programming language, rather than using Facebook or G+ or Snapchat or whatever.

<comment><USER16> > You have to understand that very few people are willing to write this much > on the Internet for public consumption by total strangers -- we are very > unusual people

Seems you're a bit out of touch with "usual people" \- or at least "usual people" under the age of 35. I do agree HNers are unusual, but if anything I would say they are _more_ likely to be concerned with what they share publicly, not _less_.

<comment><USER17> You've missed the point entirely. That comment was about the nature of the content posted. Facebook, snapchat, et al are essentially click-click-clicking through pages heavy on visual stimulation and interacting through short bursts of text, now video and images too. HN is about reading and formulating arguments and exchanging walls of text in an environment completely free of visual distraction.

The type of person who tends towards HN will be different from the type of person who tends towards something like Snapchat on the above grounds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ever since Google has been integrating all their services to Google+, I have been using Google differently now:

1) Anonymous or no commenting on YouTube 2) Using Windows 8.1 Mail app to access Gmail. Because seeing that Google+ notification icon is distracting and annoying me 3) Stopped rating apps on Google Play store 4) Stopped contributing reviews to Local 5) Trying to stop using Google's Web products in favor of apps instead because of that damn Notifications bar.

I understand using a single Google Account for all services, but linking them all to one service where that service acts as a Social Network is not a service I would want to use anymore. They acquired Meeboo bar, and it seems they want every service they own have that bar and I despised that bar. Totally the wrong direction to take.

Treating each service separately would have been better and giving the option to the user to show that bar would have been great.

</comment><comment><USER19> Not a google employee, but here's my take. It seems like value in web ecosystem is changing from "views" to "verbs" \-- like, share, etc.. actions that spread content rather than passively consuming it. Google has based its business on monetizing "views" and its competitors (fb) are building on verbs.

Also, Google has to maintain a forest of separate identities for everyone. (youtube, gmail, g+, etc). It's super annoying just to maintain one login. There's huge business value in consolidating those, even without adding features.

Finally, Youtube comments are a cesspool. Even when they're not racist or threatening, they're immature and, at best "wow that's awesome". They drive viewers away. I bet google wants to try to do-over comments in a way that makes them useful to people, not unsettling.

And I would hesitate to call it a disaster. Sure there's a lot of whining about it now, especially in tech circles, but every big interface change comes with a wave of whiners. We'll see in three or four weeks if anyone is complaining.

They'd certainly have a much tougher time doing this if there were another option for the masses, but for most people YouTube is it. Saying people are going to quit watching or uploading to youtube is silly, they'll go where? Vimeo?

They're going to keep tweaking it, people are going to adapt and learn, videos of cats falling off objects will continue to be uploaded.

ps: "How do they keep morale up"? Free food and big piles of money. How else do you do it?

</comment><comment><USER20> This article that was submitted to HN had a section on Vic Gundotra that should have clues: [http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/09/20/sex_a...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/09/20/sex_and_politics_at_google_it_s_a_game_of_thrones_in_mountain_view.html)

<comment><USER21> Original: [http://www.businessinsider.com/sex-and-politics-at-google- it...](http://www.businessinsider.com/sex-and-politics-at-google-its-a-game- of-thrones-in-mountain-view-2013-9)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Former Googler here.

The vast majority of Googlers do not approve of G+ policies. However, Google has never been run democratically and most of the time that's probably a good thing.

Furthermore, the management has been much less forthcoming than usual about the thinking behind these policies. What they have said varies and usually sounds like excuses.

In short, don't expect actual information in this thread.

<comment><USER23> _The vast majority of Googlers do not approve of G+ policies._

For me, this is the most critical statement in the entire Google+ saga. _Most_ Google employees do not approve of a strategy that google is betting its future on. Has this ever happened before? Probably never before. And to me, it marks a clear beginning of the end of google as we knew it. The google we grew up loving was a google that put product quality before anything else. Everything else(such as market share) was a result of a good product. This is no longer true.

<comment><USER24> GMail and Instant both had significant internal resistance, as did several projects that were (rightfully, IMHO) canned. Meanwhile, Wave and Buzz were beloved by Googlers.

Much as it pains me to admit that I'm not omniscient, there are ample examples of products where the majority Googler consensus does not reflect the majority market consensus. There are also ample examples of products where the initial market consensus doesn't reflect the final market consensus. (For example, Chrome was beloved internally by Googlers, but was met with a lot of external skepticism when it launched, and then eventually became the dominant browser.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It seems simple, honestly. The likelihood that people will stop using YouTube because of G+ is nil.

<comment><USER26> It's quite the opposite for me. I've started moving my stuff off of Google as this was one of the last straws in my book. I'd already switched to using DDG and Startpage for my searches and am currently in the process of moving my Google apps email to my own server. When that's done I plan on deleting my Youtube and Google accounts.

This latest Google+ push has made me realize just how far Google is willing to go to capture more data on their users instead of focusing on providing the best service possible as they used to.

<comment><USER27> I'm sorry, but hearing geeks talk about quitting google as if it's some personal triumph (in nearly every google thread) makes the sentiment seem even more tone deaf and futile.

<comment><USER28> Sometimes thought leaders need to light the way when issues are not apparent to the masses. I have been saying for a long time that having companies own our identities is a bad idea.

<comment><USER29> What evidence is there that HN commenters are actually "thought leaders"? That sounds like just the sort of hubris the 4chan thread makes fun of.

<comment><USER28> Writing us off as "geeks" is absurd. A lot of us are high level developers, architects, consultants, and so on.

<comment><USER30> The public at large doesn't really give a shit if some developers, architects, or consultants want to send a message by deleting their google accounts and refusing to use google services.

<comment><USER31> They care, it just takes a little longer at times. One day, a person wakes up and realizes that the technophiles are someplace else, all of those blogs, videos and snippets they've been seeing hit home, and they have been personally affected by a real name policy. It starts someplace.

<comment><USER32> or the technophiles look up and everyone's using whatsapp while we're asking why google isn't using XMPP anymore. This meme needs to die. Sure, gmail rode the wave of the tech-in-crowd to success, but there are far more examples that didn't, or did but went nowhere. If we were actually a good crystal ball it would be a whole lot easier to invest in the market.

<comment><USER31> What examples might those be? When I look at many products that had the tech- in-crowd blessing and yet failed, often it appeared to be because of lapses in user experience and some humility.

It doesn't require a crystal ball to know when a product solves a problem for users in a way that leaves a good taste in one's mouth.

However, I'm still discovering great products and apps from technophiles who have found solutions to problems that impact me. I've also left detritus behind, not because the awesome folks of HN said it was time, but because of well reasoned thoughts that start here (I tend to favor here) and in other technology springboards.

At the end of the day, I believe that mainstream ultimately wakes up. The kernals for change start small though.

Personally, I don't follow a compass held by just the tech pundits or mainstream - I head toward the smell of good user experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> In addition to what other people have said: Googlers love Google Plus. I haven't met a Googler (and, I know many) that doesn't love it.

After all, for them, it's not a barren wasteland. They have a very active network (coworkers/friends). I don't think this answers your question, however most Googlers like G+.

<comment><USER25> It's a much better product than Facebook.

But a better social product means nothing without an active network of users.

<comment><USER34> Better in what way? G+ has confusing and horrible interface, it's slow, and keeps asking me to import friends every single time I open up the page. That's not 'better product' in my opinion.

<comment><USER35> Compared to Facebook, it's beautifully designed.

<comment><USER5> That ... actually makes me wince a bit. For the Facebookers.

[http://stylebot.me/styles/2446](http://stylebot.me/styles/2446)

That's what it took for me to be able to tolerate the Plus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> From what I heard from Google employees, G+ has been highly prioritized over many projects (and some others which closed like google lab, reader, etc.).

Facing the social network giant that is Facebook, G+ has to become successful after many past failures, and to do so, they try to force their way through, and make it ubiquitous.

However, this Youtube chapter was probably a step too far, since very intrusive and noticeable.

</comment><comment> s-topper YouTube comments were already a cesspool. Now, with added "shared via Google+", it has become unbearable. I added this rule in AdBlockPlus to block YouTube comments:

       youtube.com###watch-discussion

</comment><comment><USER37> I'd be more concerned when they start forcing G+ on open platforms like the Web and Android. Maybe it's already started with Android KitKat shipping with Hangouts as the default messaging app.

<comment><USER38> The worst part is I can't even disable it if I am using my another SMS app, so now I have to clear two notifications for my text message and 50% of the time I usually end up in the Hangouts app where I don't want to be.

When will this madness stop?

<comment><USER39> Your other SMS app is broken needs to update to the new API that was introduced in KitKat, which should fix both problems:

[http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2013/10/getting- your-...](http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2013/10/getting-your-sms- apps-ready-for-kitkat.html)

Intercepting SMS required using a hidden API before. Now it's an officially supported feature.

<comment><USER38> My apologies then. I will contact the app developer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Don't forget that one of the tacit reasons for G+'s existence is simply to have a reason to encourage G+ buttons on each page for further tracking of what's happening on the internet. Using a single identity helps to reconcile a unique user that help both the advertiser reach "uniques" and for Google to better understand that user's behavior.

Back to the point: Google's ethos is to track and analyze as much of what's happening on the Internet as possible. If, as an employee, you don't appreciate that this is Google's bread and butter, you simply may not care enough about these things to ever get worked up about G+'s account management.

<comment><USER4> From [https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1319578](https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1319578) :

      > The +1 button isn't used to track your visits across the web.
      > Google doesn't keep a persistent record of your browsing
      > history as part of the process of showing you a +1 button or
      > otherwise use the fact that you personally have visited a page
      > with the +1 button.

<comment><USER41> Frankly, I don't trust enough to believe they won't change this in the future, or even that they're telling the truth now. Tracking people is the only way Google makes any money.

<comment><USER42> Agreed. I recently discovered that they even track you when using incognito. e.g. I got a youtube suggestion whilst in incognito that I had searched for 2 weeks prior & the type of search precludes the possibility of it being a co- incidence. So much for no cookies in incognito...

<comment><USER4> Incognito mode doesn't block cookies, it creates a separate cookiejar. If you have the same incognito session open for two weeks, every cookie from every site you visited still exists. If you want cookie-clearing behavior, you'll have to periodically close your incognito window.

<comment><USER42> This was with a fresh incognito session, so theoretically there shouldn't be a cookie.

A bit more trial & error shows that its possibly connected via IP...switching IP seems to confuse it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There is also a dead comment by Gthrowaway1 in [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6732425](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6732425)

<comment><USER27> What are you linking to? The only comment about what Gthrowaway1 said is about Gthrowaway1 deleting the comment.

<comment><USER43> I'm not sure if reproducing a dead comment violates some kind of unwritten HN guideline, but here it is:

</comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=====

 _Gthrowaway1 2 days ago | link [dead]

The Google bashing is well deserved. Even people at Google despise Vic Gundotra (just check memegen.googleplex.com today), yet this incompetent figure is allowed to continue alienating users and driving Google's brand into the ground.

Vic, do us a favor: Go back to Microsoft and never return!

Disclaimer: I work for Google._

<comment><USER44> I can't help but feel that if someone deletes their comment, its polite to respect their wishes and keep the comment deleted.

<comment><USER45> I don't think that the person who posted that comment deleted it. I think his account got hell banned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm waiting for a Twitter video platform to settle these issues once and for all ... Google really needs more competition where users feel they are forced to do things because they have no choice.

<comment><USER47> That would be awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> These threads are already huge, but I'll take a bite.

I don't think it's G+ being more important than the users, I think it has more to do with YouTube. Currently, G+ is for nerds who care about anonymity and all the other things that Google is being criticized here. That's fine, I'm one of them.

However, YouTube is a shithole and it's likely that YT people don't care as much about _what_ they sign into as long as all their stuff is there. That Google would try to move YT users on to G+ makes sense in a "slum clearance[1]" way.

The Real Name vs. Nicknymity thing is a real problem, and for me I don't think Google is handling right, but I do think they're handling it in a way that is not out of line with the values of a stereotypical corporate bureaucracy.

Google wants to know the real names of everybody on its services, I get that, but users who value theirs and others' internet identity do so regardless of whether it's under a real name or a nickname. That Google has been found to be getting back alley sex from the US Government does not help their case for knowing who you really are.

In my more cynical moments I think comments and such are a ruse to get more PII from their users for law enforcement purposes. But YT is also a shithole, and the ad rates against combined-identity demographics ain't sour neither.

1\. [http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/30/the-controversial- legacy-...](http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/30/the-controversial-legacy-of- slum-clearance/)

</comment><comment><USER49> There used to be someone at google who would approve every UX/UI at pixel level. She now works for Yahoo!.

</comment><comment><USER50> So really the only way to identify high quality information is by what some would call "peer reviewed, authenticated content". That means you know something about the person who generated the content and a bunch of people (who you also know something about) review it and vote it up. Thats why a large percentage of high ranked search results come from wikipedia and stack overflow/exchange and quora.

LinkedIn and Facebook are leading the market in the authenticated peer reviewed content business, which is locked in to their platforms, and which search engines cannot index.

Extrapolate ten years down the line, and that means a scenario where existing search engine leadership is severely compromised.

And thats why the push for G+. Its do or die.

tl;dr: the goal is to have search access to authenticated peer reviewed content, and to mitigate the risk of existing market leaders in that space from cannibalizing the search business, and with it the lucrative advertising business.

<comment><USER5> _the only way to identify high quality information is by what some would call "peer reviewed, authenticated content"._

That's not the only way.

It _is_ a method that scales.

You can also identify content yourself, based on known sources (whether fully identified or pseudonymous), or based on the extant indicators within the text itself.

Traditionally the issue has been resolved through editors (not necessarily peer review) who would judge content on its merits and/or the reputation of its author(s). As Clay Shirkey has noted, "it's not information overload, it's filter failure", we've moved from pre-publication filters to post-publication filters. The incentives on and for publication have also shifted, with a huge increase in low-quality information being promoted (most of what's "viral"), something I'm increasingly getting sick of.

As for G+, as I've posted elsewhere (and Homer Slated points out very eloquently in a recent post), Google's formerly razor-sharp relevance algorithms are becoming increasingly vague. It's to the point it's becoming highly obvious to me, and it's very painfully manifested on G+ specifically.

Some of this might be attributed to SEO gaming of search, but tool design and selectin (see "What's Hot" and the _extremely_ limited search and noise controls on G+) make me increasingly think it's deliberate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Reading this thread I see some confusion about what YouTube and Google require with G+ account linking.

HN is full of smart people who work with tech all day every day.

Imagine what it's like for the average person trying to create a YouTube channel but trying to avoid leaking too much information to the creeps.

It's weird to me that Google would make things tricky for content creators on Youtube. These aren't people posting cat videos, these are people who are trying to build a brand and who spend time and money creating original content - some of it is "let's play" style video, or vlogging, but some of it is young people creating music video and sharing it. Pissing off those people leaves YouTube a wasteland of cat videos, adverts off the telly, and chopped up tv programmes posted without permission. Google can make lots of money off that, but it's a shame they don't want the original content.

</comment><comment><USER12> G+ leadership thinks the internet is for brand management for bloggers, photographers, etc. They aren't being sadistic, they are simply generalizing from their own experience ad successful public strivers.

Personal private use is simply irrelevant to them. And you know, maybe it wasted time and the world would be better if people stopped having anonymous debates that don't win over any minds.

Google doesn't run cafes and bars, and they don't run reddit, and they don't want to. They aren't trying to kill Reddit.

HNers write their blog posts and seek discussion here instead of in the blog's comments. Redditors can post YouTube videos and discuss them on /r/videos

</comment><comment><USER52> (not a G employee as well)

I scrolled through all the comments and at least in the first line I didn't see this yet, so I add it to this thread: Why does <X> piss of it's users? (doesn't need to be the big G)

A) Mostly people are using services that they don't pay for. But the service must be awesome. This kind of user is not so attractive to competitive, profitable companies. They don't add much but they cost much time, trouble, energy, money. If these users go away no company really bothers, even if these are 90% of the users. (keep in mind, I'm one of these troublesome users)

B.) Users that actually pay might not be unhappy with the results. E.g. a company that buys advertisement space from google will not mind if Google processes the user information more efficiently. Also a Google business account owner will not mind that his employees can't watch Youtube videos from his account that would be shameful to show publicly. Therefore I think the bigger part of the interesting cutomers might actually approve of the current changes.

C) Most users have not much power. They can basically choose between service A and service B but often both services exploit their users the same way (see G+ and FB). So even if they are annoyed as hell they might not even go away.

Now I'm really one of the people who is unhappy with Google as it is, but I think there are some very good reasons for them to do it.

</comment><comment><USER53> Not a Google employee, just a satisfied member. As far as I can tell, these are the following flaws with G+:

1) It's idiotic that my URL must be FirstnameLastname1234.

2) GDrive storage (which I use to upload 2000px G+ photos) is unfortunately expensive when compared to Everpix's unlimited storage. Everpix would have been quite profitable at G+'s scale, too. If Google invested this much in photo enhancement services, why not allow us to pay $50/year for unlimited full-size photo storage?

3) Not enough participation by other people, though it's getting there.

4) I'll never review a Google Play app or Youtube video if I'm forced to publish everything with my real name. They should allow pseudonyms.

Seriously, are there other problems? It provides fantastic value for me in the form of auto-awesome photos and the eventual integration of Google Voice. My profile is completely locked down to outsiders and unifies my Google services under a single identity.

I just don't see what the problem is. At worst, it discourages participation on the Play Store and Youtube. In exchange, I get cool photo stuff and a pretty great social network. There are still improvements to be made, but I don't understand HN's antagonism. Quite frankly, G+ is welcome competition to Facebook. G+ has better design than Facebook, respects my privacy vastly more than Facebook, and provides incredibly valuable photo backup and enhancement.

</comment><comment><USER54> Somehow I don't think that someone who is a cog in the machine has much say in this.

<comment><USER55> Maybe he/she is asking the non-cogs. Let's see if they speak up forthrightly, or give us another faux surprise "what the..." post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> DISCLAIMER: I'm not a Google employee. This is my guess.

Users doesn't make money for Google. Users are valuable only when they're in _sellable_ state. Ad companies don't want to buy fully anonymous, bogus or false profiles. They want real personal information from real human. To increase efficiency of target reaching / marketing cost.

Until now, Google didn't need to worry about quality of their product - I mean their _users profiles_. Because that was valuable enough. Because nobody else could provided anything better.

But now it's a little bit different. Especially with Facebook. Facebook provides _better product_ \- more accurate, proven, related, real personal information. There's mostly no spamming, bogus, false account. They offer interconnected and very clearly tasted profiles. The most fantastic thing is all the informations are input by users themselves. So accuracy of the data is incredible. Google' product - user profile - is mostly tracked by usage history. So inaccurate. People refuse to input something on Google. This degrades quality of their product.

To the marketers, Google product - user profiles - are now inferior. Nobody wants to buy Google product anymore. Not completely useless yet, but it's not competitive product to what Facebook provides. If this situation continues, Google has to bargain a lot, and finally will lose the only their profitable business - ad selling. Ad is not just an empty space on a website. Nowadays, you can't sell ad in high price without targeting information. Google's targeting was best in old days, but now Facebook offers even better which makes Google product crap.

That's why Google is pushing everybody to their copy of Facebook - G+. To survive. By making money. G+ can make money by delivering quality user profiles to marketers. But you, the users, are just nothing if you don't offer that informations. Because without informations, your account is just an useless binary junk which can't make money.

If you still love Google, please, feed them your personal information. That's the only way you can keep them (and their services) to survive. Anyway don't forget that any further marketing junks are also your responsibility. That's what you pay for Google stuff.

P.S.

If you think something wrong in my posting, please correct me. I also want to know if there's any other reason.

<comment><USER57> "They want real personal information from real human."

I don't understand why they would want that. The kind of analytics data you can get from a Google profile is _much_ more useful to advertisers than vague demographic categories like age or location (I mean, you can guess at these categories from Google's data, but if you know that someone _acts_ like a 23 year old woman from Austin, that's more useful for marketing purposes than knowing that they actually _are_ a 23 year old woman from Austin).

<comment><USER56> You're right. Nobody want approximated, imitated, false, or empty data.

And you're wrong. Facebook data is not vague. People use Facebook _to write about themselves_. And to announce it _to their friends_. People don't lie to their friends. And that's the miracle of Facebook to marketers. People write _truth_ on Facebook. Sheryl Sandberg knew it, so she didn't hesitate to get aboard.

Unlike Facebook, Google data is poor. They have only approximation and best- guess. People don't want to leave any personal stuff on Google. Google is a device for work, not a personal entertainment. They sometimes leave bogus data to avoid Google's tracking. Actually many people do. I had over 5 Gmail accounts for spam mailers and crappy web-service membership. That's the _vague_ data. They can't even dream some relationship data between users.

I don't understand your story about 23yo woman. What marketers want to know is the only thing - _how can I find a person would like to buy my product?_. Everything else is just a clue and device to track them down. Age, sex, location, taste, marriage… All are just parameters. But Google has only that stripped down parameters. No more. Those parameters are better than nothing, but completely useless when compared to what Facebook offers.

Facebook offers: (1) whether the woman actually married or not (2) who's' husband (3) what's their jobs = income level (4) whether they have children and how old are the children (5) when did she moved recently. She don't need to write about her children. Because Facebook will analyze photos and will recognize children's age, race, sex, and current living location. In addition, Facebook also let you know how many friends she have, and how are their children… recursively.

If you're in a diaper company, which profile would you prefer? I won't even consider Google data. That's just a crap when compared to Facebook profiles.

Of course, those data won't be offered as is. That's illegal. But each companies know how to deliver those data to their customers. And obviously, Facebook is expected to have much more fine gained control on choosing advertising target. Marketers also know the difference of that methodology. "You can pin-point bombing on Facebook."

<comment><USER57> I think you underestimate how much Google knows about people. It seems to me that what you _say_ is much less relevant to marketers than what you _do_ , and in what you do, it's not obvious to me that Facebook has a big advantage.

On Facebook, you might fill in a field saying that you are married or that you have kids of a certain age. Google knows that you have made a number of searches about diaper price, or quality, or about using cloth diapers, and have spent time on, say, price comparison web sites or parenting forums. From this kind of Google data, advertisers would know to send you adverts emphasising the price of their diapers (rather than trying to sell you high quality, expensive, diapers), and they know this with _more_ confidence than they could extrapolate from what you say on Facebook.

It's true that Facebook also has data about what you do (commenting and liking on particular updates and photos, for instance, and web traffic data from Like buttons on pages), but note that this doesn't depend, any more than Google's data depends, on the user being truthful about their own real-world identity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> If you reframe this question as "Why are your customers more important than your users?" it has an obvious answer.

</comment><comment><USER59> Something that Google fails to understand, is that the company unifying the authentication experience cannot be the same company unifying the web experience.

I like having one authentication service provider, but I cannot have this provider holding hostage my services, my data, my history etc.

In this sense Microsoft is better, because they focus more on the product and less on the identity (since the business model is around licenses this makes sense). However this could change soon... Bing, Office365 etc.

If Google wants to win this battle they need to allow users to expose themselves with nicknames at least, different names per service even. Internally they will have their unique ID to which they can attach their marketing business model. However, I will still feel something is wrong about one company knowing so much about me.

</comment><comment><USER60> This question should really be "VicG and Larry: why is G+ more important than your users".

</comment><comment><USER61> I don't get what all the fuss is all about. Why would you want to hide your identity unless you are writing something crappy or being a troll on Youtube or Play Store. A single sign-on service is a great decision and that't the way things should be when you have multiple services from same company.

You guys don't mind using all services like Spotify, Quora etc that are so closely tied up with Facebook login. But when google tries to integrate it's own services it is so wrong? What are we, Hypocrites?

Coming to Google+, it is a much better designed and well thought off social network. What is the whole issue about?

<comment><USER62> Try thinking this through. If necessary try to imagine what it's like in others' shoes. Please try to grant this the critical evaluation it deserves.

<comment><USER61> I have thought about this. Don't you think that the crowd at HN just goes too hard on anything Google does? Frankly i don't feel anything wrong is have a SSO for all google apps. There are always a way to hide identity if you truly want to be anonymous.

Agreed, there are some concerns as well. But again, aren't we living in an age where all our data is being sold to marketing agencies and companies. FB has been doing it since ever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I guess the real reason could be that they try to sell ads on YouTube to advertisers with a competitive rate (compared to popular episodes) because they now can reach the targeted audience directly. The integration is somehow a "solid" evidence to advertisers.

</comment><comment><USER64> Don't be silly; that would violate the 'do not discuss this topic' order...

</comment><comment><USER65> I think Google will do what Google wants to do and that there are other agendas in play.

The reasonable thing would be to give people the option of uniting their different accounts for purposes of convenience, or not as they so choose.

</comment><comment><USER66> The current crop of Youtube commentors are the target of this purge, not collateral damage. Big G's high$$ advertisers aren't interested in being associated with free-form comments.

</comment><comment><USER67> How is it a disaster? I keep hearing this from people who like to peddle filth on youtube. People who love Apple, people who have no problems giving up their privacy with Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER68> g+ needs to succeed. if it don't, then google is done. Search with no ads is something a startup can figure out. video with no ads is something a startup can figure out.

</comment><comment><USER69> Users != customers. Customers > users.

<comment><USER9> To be fair, even Google's paying customers get really pissed off at being treated like the users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I'm sure this is not developers fault. I'm sure it's management.

</comment><comment><USER71> I work pretty high up at Google, and I (obviously) made this account to post in this thread. Google is effectively "dead" in my opinion, and this mirrors (at least in my experience) the feelings of many of our other higher-ups who are concerned with technology rather than the business. Everything has stagnated, it's no longer fun to work here, and it's entirely about making money now. The claims that we don't bend over for government agencies is entirely bullshit. Most of what they wanted was done without question (though I can't say how much of a choice we had). The company will continue, but you'll see us fall out of style, in a similar fashion to what has happened to Microsoft.

<comment><USER72> [Not a Google employee] Effectively dead? Their share prices are soaring. Android is killing the competition. Google Glass and Self Driving cars are hep. They have the best talent at their disposal. I am a Google fanboy, so my view might be skewed here, but they indeed are prospering, probably to the dismay of many; but the truth stands.

<comment><USER73> That means little. Ballmer oversaw very profitable years in Microsoft history. But MS is no less of an undead cash-cow today.</comment></comment></comment>


Hello Kafka World the Complete Guide to Kafka with Docker and Python - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/big-data-engineering/hello-kafka-world-the-complete-guide-to-kafka-with-docker-and-python-f788e2588cfc <comment><USER2> We've been using this docker container for a few years now, and it's been really great for us. Every once in a while we get some wonkiness with committing offsets, but we haven't tracked down the issue, and I'm guessing it's our code, not the container.</comment>