Ask HN: Why doesn't your team ship? - <AUTHOR> Our industry is obsessed with shipping. And yet, I've been speaking to a lot of software teams lately, and it seems that everyone feels "behind". They all want to be shipping better software, more frequently.<p>What do you think the problem is? What's keeping your team from shipping? What slows down the development process? <comment><USER2> Here is a very popular Quora question that details alot of the reasons why software estimates are wrong:

[http://www.quora.com/Engineering-Management/Why-are- software...](http://www.quora.com/Engineering-Management/Why-are-software- development-task-estimations-regularly-off-by-a-factor-of-2-3/answer/Michael- Wolfe?srid=u8eL&share=1)

When I look back on my career the patterns that lead to good development were:

1) small team sizes, I'm a big believer that if version 1 of your product is developed by more than 4 people, its in trouble:) Small, super focused, and highly talented teams make the best version 1 products in my opinion, probably related to why some start ups can be more agile.

2) Everyone on the team has domain experience, ie its not the first time a product has been written. This is slightly at odds with the "second system syndrome". At my current company, when we wrote our algo platform, each member had done this before so we knew from a data, networking, machine learning, and trader's perspective what we wanted to get done. There was very little flailing around trying to learn the domain( ie no learning what ml techniques to use, how to connect to exchanges via FIX, no learning what a pairs trade was, etc).

3) 1, and only 1 person in charge of the vision. This might be obvious but debates, even when they are well intended, seem to slow things down. Having one person dictate what the next version will have seems to make things much easier. This is especially obvious in my current field of finance. Its very easy to spot the products developed by engineers for traders, vs the products developed by traders for traders, The former have lots of features that no one wants but they look pretty and the later, look ugly but make money:)

 __META NOTE TO ANYONE DEVELOPING A TRADING SYSTEM __No one cares what it looks like. I 'll say that again, no one cares what it looks like. The Bloomberg terminal is the ugliest thing on the planet and they mint money. Function over fashion, always. I'd go as far as to state that a small team developing a trading system having a designer is viewed in the same light as a small team having an mba. That person might add value, but you'll need to justify why you're there instead of another engineer.

I think alot of not shipping can be tied to these three things, too large of a team, not knowing what the final product will be doing and hence alot of experimentation and wrong turns and competing visions, or a lack of vision of what you are building.

<comment><USER3> I ask this without having my own opinion on the matter: Won't those debates improve the design of the architecture? It's hard to imagine the time loss of debates being greater than the time loss of a rearchitecture.

<comment><USER4> They do improve the design of the architecture, but the question is "Will they improve the design of the architecture more than shipping the product, letting it contact reality, and learning from experience?" There's an opportunity cost - debates cost time, time delays shipping, and shipping is what enables customer feedback. In my experience, customer feedback and actual experience is _much_ more important for improving the design of the architecture than debating with other people. You can try to make your design slightly less wrong by consulting with other team members who are equally as uninformed as you, or you can get it right by going out and getting hard data.

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately there is a psychological barrier that people must pass before having the understanding of their lack of experience and the need to face reality.

Only informing them about this, in some cases, is not enough.

It would really be well if people realized their bias, but they rarely do.

<comment><USER6> Very well put. Most experienced teams just execute very well and individuals can take on bigger roles while still seamlessly fitting into a bigger picture. I think there is a bit of a gut feeling when you have experience -- more likely your first step is in the right direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Changing requirements.

Us: "Well, we just got the roof on and all the walls sheetrocked!"

Them: "We want all the walls moved now."

Lately it's also been the strangely recurring request to do the impossible. I've actually been asked to use cross site scripting ("like the hackers do - why can't you do it") to implement features a customer just had to have.

</comment><comment><USER8> Culture of bullshit. In some companies, the better you produce bullshit and fluff the better you get treated. Nobody cares who is doing the actual work. Whoever speaks about that work will get rewarded. In such culture, people who can do stuff will escape and people who assemble bullshit all day will stay. Then people wonder why nothing is being shipped...

<comment><USER9> This is really tragic when it is whoever speaks _poorly_ about that work will get rewarded. It's easy to throw stones and sound smart; it's very difficult to create. And so many managers (and others, actually) can't seem to tell the difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Two main things:

* Bad estimates. When people are too aggressive with their estimates and miss them, it derails everyone that was depending on that team's stuff being done at a particular time. It causes blockages that cost way more than an over-estimate would have reserved as buffer time.

* Getting distracted. Dev should work really closely with design and PDM to get things done, but if Design / PDM has already moved on to the next project, it's distracting for everyone when they have to get pulled back in. Then, you have multitasking, and blockages, and stuff doesn't get done as smoothly as it should.

</comment><comment><USER11> I realize that I'm going to sound like a grandfather here, but I think it comes down to a lack of history. Teams with that young/old balance, people who have done it before ship more frequently, from what I see.

Years ago, that was called Build Management, now, we call part of it DevOps. But the reality is that most teams have forgotten about professional engineering.

Pausing to think about the 'how' rather than just hammering it out, and living with the consequences are enormous. The fact that I rarely see separations of concern anymore, let alone focusing on reducing build times or test run times, is massive. Ultimately, that means tradeoffs - the software triangle comes into play.

It's especially interesting to me, since I'm (today) working with a team I last worked with 12 years ago. There's been massive flux - only three of twenty originals are here. And yet, with multiple geographies, multiple age groups, multiple operating systems, and three distinct cloud providers (let alone the internal wannabe cloud) they push out a valuable release weekly, and micro-push to production ~3x daily. That's a testament to the engineer who manages the team, the same engineer I worked with on build workflows over a decade ago.

<comment><USER12> I call this the "steadfast captain paradox". Your engineer is like the captain of a ship who detours around storm and arrives in harbour two days late uneventfully.

Unlike the captain who lost a mast passing through the storm and limps to harbour a hero who saved the ship, our engineer goes unsung.

I hope your Collegue has been able to capture for himself the money his employers did not spend on crash rebuilds, massive emergency development programs and lost productivity of the main Dev teams ....

No?

Like our captain friend ... Only work for admirals who have sufficient ships that outliers stand out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Corporate release cycles... In large corporations, you rarely get access to the production environment and everything is managed by different departments. At my current client, we can only go to production a few times a year (except for hotfixes, but they need to be approved by a special board).

Luckily, our deployments are automated and we deploy to our testing environment multiple times a week, sometimes multiple times per day. That at least enables us to get feedback from the test team, which results in tickets either being moved to 'really done' or moving them back to 'in progress'. It's not the same as shipping, but in such an environment it at least reminds you of the important fact that things are indeed still moving and getting done.

<comment><USER14> Similar boat. Not corporate, but our paying clients are school districts. Plenty of teachers are technophobes, and evolving UIs and new features are a burden (in fact, we have a 3 month window each year where truly new features are rolled out), and users need to be retrained

Hotfixes ship as soon as they're done

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> In my experience it usually boils down to delusions of grandeur. Stakeholders often think __THE WORLD __is watching this upcoming release, so they can 't possibly allow the team to ship without features X Y and Z ready.

In reality, for the vast majority of launches very people are watching, and even fewer care about your features or lack thereof (that's just not how early-adopters think about products, in my opinion).

If founders realized how little traffic / how few downloads they were going to get out of the gate, they'd ship much earlier; unfortunately everybody thinks their project is going to be a TechCrunch headline, and that's just not the case.

</comment><comment><USER16> Looking beyond what other people have mentioned, these are things that plague teams:

1\. Fear of failure. Too many people are afraid to ship too soon. They fear a bad product out the gate, rather than getting out the gate in the first place.

2\. Lack of focus. You'll spend too much time focusing on things that don't really matter, such as building the perfect messaging system rather than reusing something that exists and works now.

3\. Busywork. You'll spend your time doing things that really don't matter, such as optimizing your icons to use fonts instead of a PNG, and then dealing with trying to make it work in older versions of IE.

<comment><USER17> 1\. Fear - this is a problem at ALL levels of organizations. Designers don't want something out that they think doesn't look jaw dropping, product managers don't define a clear MVP and feature creep keeps piling up, management doesn't want something released unless it feels groundbreaking...

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Not enough planning and general apathy.

We'll start a project and then half the devs will go on vacation. They return, and then the other half go on vacation. I guess that's summer for ya, but why not just close the office for a month and let everyone know that they should take their vacations around that time.

Devs will raise complaints about the work environment or a poorly written (but critical) module, but nothing gets done about it.

If a feature doesn't have strong executive support, nothing really gets done on it, and 3 months later someone will ask "hey, what happened to that feature?"

<comment><USER19> That sounds like a management / leadership failure (ok, I'm being Captain Obvious here).

I've been one of the "apathetic" people before, I've seen it happen due to burnout, too many times working with no recognition, lack of faith in the higher ups, etc...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Essentially the exact same issues everyone else faces, which are covered exhaustively here: [http://www.stevemcconnell.com/rd.htm](http://www.stevemcconnell.com/rd.htm)

I'm going to single one out though: _tweaking_ : making changes without adequate anticipation of the effects, or without the theoretical backing to expect that it will be correct. When you have a well structured high level understanding you can make changes knowing approximately what the effect will be and converge on the solution. Without that you end up thrashing around and making changes at random. If you take a random walk you're probably not going anywhere fast.

When you are dealing with a well designed and executed system, then tweaking actually seems productive, because you begin from a good place in the solution space, when you explore the "local neighbourhood", then the modifications still produce a functional piece of software and it might actually be better in some ways that you care about.

When you are making something new, tweaking gets you nowhere.

EDIT: Here is a foolproof process to get me to automatically disregard all your future ideas:

1\. Find some parameters that were chosen with theoretical justifications and a real analysis of historical data.

2\. Modify one of the parameters based on some flimsy rationale.

3\. Run some quick tests that are obviously designed specifically to confirm your expectations, declare victory and act like you've solved something.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's definitely a reoccurring theme here.

What do you think the best solution is?

<comment><USER20> If it is someone who is in over their head trying to meet a goal or deadline, then probably try to back them off before they burn out, and go back to the planning stage and come up with something that has a chance for success. If it is a noob-syndrome type then the best thing is to get them into an environment where they can learn quickly what the ante is for a "real" solution -- so high quality test data and mentorship are ideal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Well, some of this is also over exaggerated. I have spoken with some of the people who work at these "ship multiple times a day" companies and they only do this for their less critical systems. Their core money making stuff is less frequently updated.

It also depends on what domain your company is in. If downtime doesn't lead to anyone's death, doesn't send you to prison or millions in lawsuits from Enterprise customers...sure ship daily.

<comment><USER22> Are you implying that shipping multiple times a day means downtime? What about Etsy, where downtime means lost revenue? Facebook? I'm sure if they go down, and therefore people can't view or click ads, they miss out on revenue too.

<comment><USER23> I think the point being made is that ship cycles are very different between B2C and B2B. I've experienced both (and to be clear I love the idea of frequent small releases) but in a B2B scenario multiple daily releases are simply not possible as you cannot use your customers as testers, I can assure you if you try contracts will be terminated. We ship every two weeks and that has taken a huge effort on our part to help our customers understand the value of a frequent ship cycle. On the flip side I think you can do this in a b2c environment (with appropriate quality controls of course) providing you understand the revenue risks if something is shipped poorly (as you mention with FB and Etsy), at that stage it's pure business priority trade off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The No. 1 problem for me always seems to be:

Not having a clear and concise plan. For software development this means obviously a detailed and worked out feature set.

It amazes me how often a development team is set out on the journey of building a system without clarity of what it is it's trying to accomplish. Sure, the high level functionality is there but as developers you need to know low level stuff. Usually this due the lack of leadership. A word to the "CEO's" out there;

A vision that's not formalised in a document and shared with the rest of the team is not a vision, it's fantasy.

Sure, I get it. For you, the CEO, it's easier to make stuff up as you go along than it is to write stuff down and to commit to it.

As a developer, when you try to get functionality formalized then those meetings to discuss the functionality turn into "design" meetings where everyone has to come up with new "awesome" ideas which means that at some point the team stops having meetings to discuss things.

It doesn't matter how much experience I have as a developer, I simply can't cram the full time role of project/product manager and at least 40 hours of writing quality software into a single week. Something has to give.

<comment><USER25> It's not possible to have a clear and concise plan.

You first need to figure out what the problem is, and you won't figure that out by writing a detailed and worked out feature set solving a slightly different problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Red tape and general overhead of a massive corporation. We can't get anything done. They move way to slow for us (team was aquired ~3 years ago). We haven't delivered anything remotely useful for two years. I'm currently looking to switch companies. Oh also the mandatory 45 minute training we had on how to use a new internal HR website that was a complete waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER27> As a remote team, communication may be what slows our team down. But on the same token, in-office communication can slow things down too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you explain a bit more? I've heard some team leads say their teams need more communication.

<comment><USER18> In-office communication tends to be distracted by off-topic stuff like "Hey, nice t-shirt!" or "How was the commute in this morning?".

Remote communication will have technical issues once in a while. If not that, then it's the "telephone tag" game you end up playing. Also timezones.

I'm convinced that good communication is a symptom of other things being good. Project has clear goals and everyone knows what they're doing? Communication is good! Project is unclear, scope is too big, or just plain boring? Communication is bad.

<comment><USER28> Communication quality also varies based on team cohesiveness. When I'm working with people I like, I trust that they're being respectful of my time when they communicate with me, and I am less likely to push back on a request that delays my feature but is for the greater good. Employees are also better able to negotiate around features/architectural decisions when they trust each other.

I worked on a team with deep trust issues between the product manager and engineers; PM didn't believe engineers were doing their best/giving fair estimates, engineers didn't believe the PM was asking for features that would lead us to success in the market. This lack of trust meant a big fight every sprint, and a lot of productivity lost to arguments and the ensuing distraction. Sample size of one, but the PM never had lunch with engineers or otherwise engaged with them socially. I can't prove it, but I suspect things would have gone a lot smoother if we'd all been friends.

tldr: Off-topic communication can still be good communication (in moderation) because it helps develop/maintain high quality relationships between the people you work with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> _Bad estimates: You don 't know what you don't know. You don't know how much time it will take to do something you never have done.

_Problems are dam hard: What we do is really hard, so basically we have to trim our projects to the basics, instead of doing what we want to do, which is way more. Creative people want to start-create always way more projects that what they could finish, so we need discipline here.

*Complexity and lack of documentation. Another thing that needs a lot of discipline. People believe that what they know after thinking on it for a lot of time is evident for everybody else. It is not. Not only that, people forget what they know today if they do not document it, so if you do not document a year from now you will repeating most of your work, with the company's budget.

</comment><comment><USER30> Scope: The larger the project, the harder it gets to release.

Tools: The longer it takes to release, the less it will be done.

Culture: The harsher the response to failure, the less risk shall be taken.

</comment><comment><USER31> Requirements mostly undefined, delivered one semi-random brushstroke at a time. Part of requirements communicated so far changed as we go. Two rewrites of the front-end, including one with whole front-end stack changed from desktop client to webapp. Both rewrites used to change requirements for the front-end and back-end parts.

Only unchanging thing is the deadline.

</comment><comment><USER32> Not having a detailed and thorough product definition delays the end result. The development is fast but if you keep recoding the same functionality with different color, different fonts, different form fields you are constantly shifting the goal posts. The solution is to ship the ugly (unfinished version), get feedback and then ship again.

</comment><comment><USER33> Once we got to a stable functional release, the bar got raised for releasing a subsequent client. Change means instability; instability means it won't be shipped. So changes accumulate, the code never sits still long enough to shake out all the instabilities.

</comment><comment><USER34> Donuts and other crappy food. Typical office food treats like donuts, pizza, and beer will all have negative chemical effects on team members. They will be more sluggish, less creative, and less communicative in general.

<comment><USER35> Huh. I started off laughing at this comment. But, I work for an organic grocery company. Kitchen stocked with fruit, salad, healthy nut butters, etc. We ship frequently. I wonder if there is something to this.

<comment><USER5> Long term probably. I've read tents of studies on the topic and books on similar topic. Junk food has long term effects, non of which are good. They can affect various things, some of which, directly or indirectly, affect higher order thinking, levels of energy, mood, activity and etc.

Also *x increased chance of various debilitating diseases.

Not to sound like a crazy health nut - there are two stupendous studies on the citizens of Okinawa (The Okinawa project) and China (The China study) that leave little doubt on the long term effects of junk foods.

So yes, it can.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The industry is obsessed with shipping the same way humans are obsessed with breathing

</comment><comment><USER37> "frictions" is the best way to describe this.

</comment><comment><USER38> some things better be left un-shipped.</comment>


6 Companies Google Should Buy Right Now - <AUTHOR> http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/6-companies-google-should-buy-right-now-570740

<comment><USER2> Quick run down of my reactions...

Valve: This makes the least sense to me. You shouldn't enter a highly competitive market (like games) as a side project.

Twitter: I don't think all that many people care about the real time web. But even if they did the question becomes "Why couldn't Google create a search engine that crawls Twitter every few minutes?" They don't need to own Twitter to make a real time search product from Twitter's data (which is all public after all)

StumbleUpon, Last.fm & FriendFeed: In all these cases the author assumes there's some value in knowing what the users of these services find interesting. But the truth about all of them is they have a very small niche audience. Meaning if Google used them they'd be skewing their results to a small audience while possibly alientating everyone else.

<comment><USER3> Also, even if StumbleUpon provides targeted advertising, it's still quite likely to be very poor-performing traffic. If you're exposing people to things they were unaware of before, then, by definition, they're going to be very early in the sales process, and the conversion rate will be abysmal.

<comment><USER4> Because of StumbleUpon's very low costs ($.05 per unique visitor) for targeted traffic, their ads, which aren't even marked as such, can be a really good deal depending on what your site or product is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm going to make a new bullshit list and make sure my company is on it. Anyone else want to be on it?

</comment><comment><USER6> BS. I think Google is going to slow down on the acquisitions. Based on the ratio of projects they buy that die, I think they're going to begin pushing for more internal development and less acquiring outside technologies.

Of course if a site is a sensation and has an established community in a short time that may be worth purchasing but overall I don't think we'll see Google going after any of these.

</comment><comment><USER7> Don't agree with any except twitter and possibly FriendFeed

</comment><comment><USER8> They missed one: 7\. YHacker News

<comment><USER8> Why is everyone so negative on me suggesting Number 7: YHacker News

I was a joke folks! ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I want this prediction on the record, somewhere: Google will buy my company before any of these.</comment>


Why Is Gopher Still Relevant? - <AUTHOR> https://gopher.floodgap.com/gopher/gw?gopher://gopher.floodgap.com:70/0/gopher/relevance.txt <comment><USER2> It's really not though.

maybe some of us want this to be true but we're kidding ourselves if we say gopher is still relevant.</comment>


Dreaming in Code - Andy Hertzfeld Quotes - <AUTHOR> http://cycle-gap.blogspot.com/2007/02/dreaming-in-code-andy-hertfeld-quotes.html

<comment><USER2> Nice! I especially like the first one about getting it working and THEN making it great. Brings to mind in a round-about way Knuth's comments on premature optimization being the root of all evil. And it's very, very true.

Marginally OT: has anyone read the book these are from, "Dreaming in Code"? If so, is it good?

<comment><USER3> I really enjoyed reading it. I recommended it to a fee friends and thry liked it as well. I would highly recommend it.

<comment><USER2> Great! Thanks for the feedback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sorry for being picky. But it is Andy Hertzfeld. The z is missed in title.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed, thanks.</comment></comment>


Doing Data Science with coLaboratory - <AUTHOR> http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2014/08/doing-data-science-with-colaboratory.html <comment><USER2> I really wish I could use this without giving everything access to my google account. The ideas in the tech talks that describe it:

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

are too good to confine to Google's walled garden.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm an engineer on the Google team for coLaboratory. In order to have access to Google Drive (which we need for collaborative editing), the app needs access to your Google account.

I looking into using a weaker set of permissions, where you grant access to the app to read/write data only to files that the user opened with the App (see [https://github.com/jupyter/colaboratory/pull/82](https://github.com/jupyter/colaboratory/pull/82)). This is a much weaker set of permissions since that app cannot write to arbitrary files in Google Drive.

The port of IPython is itself open source (in the repo [https://code.google.com/p/naclports/](https://code.google.com/p/naclports/) using the build rule ipython-ppapi), so any developer is free to make their own version (e.g. as a regular web app). We are also working with the IPython/Jupyter team to upstream the collaborative features to the IPython/Jupyter notebook (in a manner that is not tied to using Google's realtime API, but could use any realtime collaboration back end).

<comment><USER2> Thank you! I'll look at trying this out, along with the Jupyter webapp.</comment></comment></comment>


"Free-to-play" misleading advertising in Europe - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-02-27-free-to-play-misleading-advertising-in-europe <comment><USER2> A lot of people are making false assumptions about what this is about; Here's the actual EU release rather than a blog rewrite:

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-14-187_en.htm?locale...](http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-14-187_en.htm?locale=en)

The actual issue is "Often consumers are not fully aware that they are spending money because their credit cards get charged by default." \- so it's not an issue of people disliking paywalls in free games, it's an issue of people not realizing they're handing over real cash in games which are marked free.

The EU also has't said they want Free/IAP games to not be marked as free, but what they said is 'Games advertised as "free" should not mislead consumers about the true costs involved' (i.e IAP should be made more explicit).

<comment><USER3> Thanks for going to the source for this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wholeheartedly agree with this. The point for me isn't so much "protection" against unforseen expenses it's just that I want to know up front what costs money and what doesn't.

When I browse for a free app I don't want to see the crippled in-app- unlockable app next to the truly free app.

Strict rules for prices in marketing is a prerequisite for a functioning market, my other pet peeve is the contract phone. Not only do I think telcos should be required to market the total cost (which they are already at least here) , I want to take it one step further and completely ban the marketing of the small upfront cost as the price.

<comment><USER5> But the upfront cost is the entire cost of the phone to the customer, as in the customer has title to the phone immediately they pay that cost. You're implying that you only want contract phones to be sold on a hire-purchase basis, which has its own problems.

<comment><USER6> Here in the UK, when buying vehicle insurance I have the option to pay for the year upfront, or to pay monthly. Paying monthly costs more as you effectively get a loan for the upfront fee and pay off the loan over the course of a year. So the documents often present it like so:

Pay Upfront: £57.16

Pay Monthly: Deposit: £5.45 Installments: (11 x £5.45) Total: £65.40 APR: 35.3%

<comment><USER7> You get that in the US too, however I wouldn't call it a loan because if you sign for a 1 year term and then cancel or switch providers after a month you get your money back

It's more like a SaaS offering you a discount for paying yearly

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> When I look at free games on the App Store I see if it says "offers in-app purchases".

If it does I look at the in-app purchases.

If the in-app purchases are "x00 Special In-Game Currency Units" then I don't install the game.

Not sure we need legislation to avoid being ripped off...

<comment><USER9> Unfortunately, most people aren't even that sophisticated. The average user isn't going to be able to differentiate between a free game and one designed to pry their wallets open.

I don't know if the solution to that is regulation, but it can't be reliance on the uninformed to know what's good for them. The exploitative industry moves faster than any but the most well-informed and most jaded.

<comment><USER10> Indeed. There is always a point where everyone of us starts being not sophisticated.

Each time somebody tells me that we shouldn't protect stupid people, I remember not feeling very smart in front of pages of legalese in insurance and banking contracts. I keep thinking, yes they are probably going to screw me, but somebody is working to prevent them from screwing me too overtly.

<comment><USER11> I guess I didn't realize the average person was that stupid. I play games with in-app purchases. It's pretty easy just not to pay for them.

If the public is this bad with something as simple as in-app purchases, why should we ever legalize drugs? This is a serious question.

<comment><USER12> That depends on the question if you think it's OK for you to take the rights away from someone that you think are stupider than you. And if you think it's OK if someone who thinks they are smarter than you would take your rights away. If you think that'd be fine - then indeed there's no reason to legalize drugs, at least until people smarter than you decide there is. There's also no point of discussing it, since the decision lies with people smarter than you anyway.

But if you think people are smart enough to vote and to discuss public matters and to make right decisions for themselves - then there's no reason why decisions about what to eat and what to drink and what to inhale should be any different.

<comment><USER13> People are selfish all the time. They threaten others with guns, to get cash. They blackmail, and coerce, and cheat. Smart people too.

Now, don't know if selfish irresponsible use of intoxicants rises to that level, but the argument can be made. E.g. alcohol laws are everywhere, and its not even a very good intoxicant.

<comment><USER12> Argument can be also made it's selfish for you not to give me half of your money. So I am entitled to threaten you with a gun, to get cash you're selfishly denying me. There can be a lot of arguments made once you abandon the notion of rights that people have.

<comment><USER14> Obviously we are talking about reasonable arguments.

I think if you go out and make a poll you will find intense disagreement on whether there is a right to [severe] self-harm. Please don't strawman into the idea of abandoning all rights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Personally I would like to see iAP to be considered like advertising and for it to be more heavily regulated at child audiences. Tired of my 4 year old crying because I won't let him spend another $4 to unlock another widget.

<comment><USER16> Next time a child asks for permission to make an in app purchase, turn off the electronics go down to the creek and jump in puddles together.

They are only four once. It's right now or it doesn't happen. There's no second chance.

<comment><USER17> _Kids should have a childhood like I experienced /like I wanted, or else it will be a wasted childhood._

I don't think that kids should play a lot of video games (I don't know what they should or should not do, since I'm not a child development expert). But this whole adults looking back at their "organic" childhood as the one true way to grow up ever is getting kind of old.

 _Lego? Damnit, take those silly toys away from him and give 'em a garn and let them make up their own games. I tell you these advanced toys destroys the natural creativity of children. Give 'em a stick and some garn and they will make up their own games; that's how kids are SUPPOSED to be._

<comment><USER16> I was working as a City Planner and an elderly black man was sitting in the visitor chair across the desk and looking out the window. He'd come there so I could say "no". He wasn't a first time developer. He'd known he'd get no when he'd been sent to the office with my desk. That's why he hadn't come there first and now that we'd gone through the motions and. the anticipated "no" had been said he asked if I fished.

A little. I like to take my son.

You will never regret a moment spent fishing with him.

I'm not waxing wistful for my childhood or for one I didn't have,. I'm waxing wistful for my first years as a parent and for the things I did and wish I had done more

<comment><USER18> Same still applies, though: You're jumping to conclusions about what is important to others.

I play video games with my 4 year old. He loves it, and he loves _doing it with me_ more than the games themselves. We take him out lots too, but I have equally fond memories of times I've spent playing games with him as the ones I've spent with him on outdoors activities.

<comment><USER16> Three years and two jobs later we were picking up dinner from the grocery deli on the way home from work and preschool and up he came and asked if we were going fishing and it wasn't for a day or two that I remembered who he was and what he had said the one time we had met.

It's hard for me to keep priorities in order sometimes. Even when I know, I just forget what really matters. Good luck.

<comment><USER17> > Three years and two jobs later we were picking up dinner from the grocery > deli on the way home from work and preschool and up he came and asked if we > were going fishing and it wasn't for a day or two that I remembered who he > was and what he had said the one time we had met.

What is this, a novel in the making? The whole strange-person-who-makes-an- unforgettable-impact has to be tied with some actual event, not just a random person who impacts some _sage_ advice, with no build up or context for imparting that _sage_ advice. Being old doesn't quite cut it.

If it's from your own life, then well... I guess we all know one or two eccentric elderly people.

<comment><USER16> The top level comment struck a chord because my son who used to be four was sleeping down the hall when I read it. Then in the morning a clarification that jumping in puddles is not something I claim by entitlement but something I can strive to create.

A lot of people came through my office to hear "no" or "yes" or "it depends". Only one of them had much impact on my life and that of my family and that's because the moment wasn't about making money or rather his not fixing to be not making money with his bright idea that wouldn't fly. He was fully present. That's why he could pick me out later in another context and remember what he had said and that's what makes it stick.

Deciding to put aside all the bullshit and be present for a child in a way that sticks is what matters. And it's hard sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is one of the areas where I wish EU would punish Apple for.

Their _free app of the week_ is often so-called free games but they almost always have in-app purchases that's required to take full advantage of the game.

<comment><USER20> You really want the government getting involved here? I mean, what's next? Attacking SaaS and PaaS for their "free" tiers that really don't provide you with much and you have to actually pay to actually get some real use out of it?

Take some responsibility and stop asking the government to be your nanny.

<comment><USER21> This is clearly a difference between the US and the EU. Most EU citizens (including me) think it is fine to regulate the market, e.g. if it is misleading.

Such games are often misleading, since they are not really free. The 'Free' label is just used because people will impulse-install a free application more quickly than a paid application and in the end an addicted gamer will probably spend more through in-app purchases.

I think there is a good middle ground that can be found. Instead of listing in-app purchases separately, Apple, Google, et al. could make three options:

\- <Price>

\- Free

\- Free with in app-purchases

It would also be nice if every app store listed all the in-app purchases. Then I, as a customer, can consider beforehand whether I found the prices to be acceptable.

<comment><USER20> Apple already does this. I am literally looking at a game right now in the App Store and it's free and Apple makes it very clear that it offers IAPs. It even gives you a list of the Top IAPs. So, listing every IAP, it does not do. But beyond that, it gives you exactly what is being asked.

<comment><USER19> Except there are confusion when Apple markets it as the "Free Game of the Week". Many people thought this meant IAP was free as well.

Say "Free game of the week with paid IAP still included", I don't have a problem with this.

<comment><USER20> Sorry, but it tells you the cost, right on the damn screen. It's not hidden. It literally tells you the price. This is well after you've already downloaded the free app. So you have the game. You are inside, and their are prices next to it.

I mean, damn. Do these same people go to a club, get in for free, and then wonder why they still have to pay for drinks?

> Say "Free game of the week with paid IAP still included", I don't have a > problem with this.

I guarantee that using that wording, people would think that the paid IAP was included with the "Free game of the week." I mean, they are already dumb enough to see a price and ignore it.

<comment><USER22> If it's "unlock extra maps for $5" I think that's fair.

If it's "125 tokens for $10", that's not really telling you the price. Video arcades used this abstraction tactic successfully. Make people convert money upfront, make the exchange rate difficult to calculate mentally, ensure that the user is left with worthless "change" so they top up again, to avoid being left with sunk costs.

If every time an IAP is offered it showed prices in real $/€, people would think twice.

<comment><USER20> I've never read so many comments from so many people wanting to give money to products they hate to support companies that use tactics you deplore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As a father, thank you. Games with in-app purchases are NOT free -- the reason of the intervention is that in a lot of cases, especially children, people were charged without noticing.

These game should not be mingled with free games and parents should have an option to forbid them.

<comment><USER24> Can children have credit cards?

<comment><USER23> No, but there are pre-paid Apple Store credit vouchers you can buy pretty much everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It would be interesting if one could differentiate between playable games, and in game purchases are "fun", versus games that are unplayable in the 'free' mode without purchasing additional tokens. Its the latter that people really hate.

<comment><USER26> I don't see how unless you have some third party reviewing each game.

<comment><USER9> Valve seems like an obvious choice on PC. It'll be interesting to see what their console push leads to.

<comment><USER27> How is valve the obvious choice? They are making games, and they are also making games that sell things in the game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The solution for this would be to change the purchase approval model where you have to enter your password to purchase anything. You can have to options: 1) authorize until closed, or 2) authorize just this purchase. This way kids could not run up charges using iAP.

However, if you an adult, and you have purchased $100s of iAP, and now you feel bad about it, I have 0 sympathy for you.

Overall, this is just EU being EU, nothing surprising.

<comment><USER29> _> However, if you an adult, and you have purchased $100s of iAP, and now you feel bad about it, I have 0 sympathy for you._

So you understand that companies like King design their "free" games to be next-to-impossible if you don't give them money, while employing teams of psychologists to determine the best way to subvert your will through forced failure while simultaneously driving manipulative CTAs at you while you are at your (carefully cultivated) most vulnerable? And, understanding that and with that first and foremost in your mind, you have no sympathy for the people who end up on the business end of that psychological weapon?

Because I certainly do. There are economies of scale to the practice of subverting people's will and in this war one side's got all the guns. These games are designed-- _designed_ \--to hit the same triggers as a fucking gambling addiction, man. I am so very not OK with abandoning those wired less effectively against it. (And as I get older I can see how insidious and easy it is for this shit to worm into me when I never would have noticed it, or thought it possible, a decade ago.)

<comment><USER30> How do you draw a line between deliberately designing a game to be enjoyable and have hooks in order to earn revenue, and "exploiting/subverting/forcing" them?

You seem to be making a distinction between people who pay money for "legitimate" enjoyment, and people who spend money for what they _think_ is legitimate enjoyment but is actually just a trick. I'm not convinced this is a meaningful dichotomy, and I've never heard anyone even try to explain what the difference is. I'm not a big fan of strict normative statements about where I can or can't spend my money on entertainment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> People in this thread are ignoring where the true responsibility lies here, Apple (or Google).

As a dev I have no control whether to call my app "Free" or "Free to download but contains IAP that are required to use the whole game."

Apple has two categories, "Free" and "Paid" and places your app in the category automatically depending on whether the download price is nonzero.

So really, if you want to blame anyone, blame the app store creators, not the app creators.

(Of course there's still the ability to blame companies who market their apps as "FREE" in advertisements in other apps).

EDIT: And of course Apple has already added the label "Includes In App Purchases" to free games with IAP. I think that's good enough.

</comment><comment><USER32> Hm. I see the good intent of protection against 'unwitting purchases' BUT still do not welcome the government intervention here. Governments have a tendency to work on 'soft targets' like software / app development. I would like to see them work first on unwitting charges/terms-and-conditions imposed by credit card or insurance companies.

The order of priority just feels wrong.

</comment><comment><USER33> That's a move in the right direction... All the nickel-and-diming is hurting the games and the industry in the long run...

</comment><comment><USER34> What about advertising? It consumes my time and attention, which is generally worth more (at least to me) than a few bucks. And advertising can have a powerful affect on susceptible minds. By this logic, all advertisement- supported games should be clearly marked as well.

<comment><USER30> And what about people who release free software with no in-app purchases _or_ advertising, who simply want to learn programming or get enjoyment from having people use their software? These people are exploiting their users for personal gain too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Seems kind of ridiculous to me.

 _" Consumers and in particular children need better protection against unexpected costs from in-app purchases."_

What are unexpected costs? Are users ever charged without explicitly agreeing to it?

 _" The use of the word 'free' (or similar unequivocal terms) as such, and without any appropriate qualifications, should only be allowed for games which are indeed free in their entirety, or in other words which contain no possibility of making in-app purchases, not even on an optional basis."_

What is the cost of someone downloading a 'free' game only to realize that they need to pay to get the experience that they expected? They can just uninstall the game. I've paid for and downloaded games that didn't deliver the experience I expected.

If the goal is protecting kids from making in-app purchases, maybe parents should learn how to use parental controls, or not attach credit cards to their children's devices. Does this really 'protect' anyone, or does it just change the language that game-makers use for this model, and nothing else?

<comment><USER36> The unexpected costs would be tied to game elements (like higher levels) that required IAP. If this wasn't made clear when the app was downloaded, it would be a deceptive means of marketing a paid app as free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I more strongly object to "Buying" DRM'd content that I don't actually own. It should say "License" or something.

</comment><comment><USER37> Awesome. These free-to-pay apps compromise the artistic implication the word "game" deserves.

</comment><comment><USER38> Companies will find a different name ... and go on with the same business model.

Just a naming game ... no real progress, yet.

Clever companies will always find ways, to fool not so clever people. I also think, that most people know, that F2P is not really free.

<comment><USER39> What does f2p stand for?

Although I'm cynical enough to not expect this, things could be partitioned into "grant access to people with no payment on file" and "need payment on file to download this app".

<comment><USER40> f2p: free-to-play -- normally with in-game purchases implied.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Banning the term "free-to-play" because there are optional features that cost money means you would also need to ban the term "free admission" when a venue charges for food and drinks. You'll also have to get rid of "buy one get one free" and, well, pretty much just strike the word "free" from the dictionary altogether since technically there is not a thing in the world that is entirely without consequence, tradeoff, opportunity cost, etc.

</comment><comment><USER42> Requiring explicit authorization would be really nice. I recently discovered that even if you set Google Play to always require a password (which apparently isn't even necessarily the default(?)), you still don't require a password for 30 minutes after any purchase. That means that if I buy a game for my son to play with, any in-game purchases he randomly clicks on automatically get approved.

Fortunately I get them refunded when I complain, but it's still a stupid policy.

</comment><comment><USER43> It'd be interesting if they required games with IAPs to show an "average spend/user" number next to the big "FREE" label, so you know how much you can expect you'll get suckered in. Although I suspect it would be pretty meaningless since users would be split between "doesn't pay a cent" and "whales who spend lots".

</comment><comment><USER44> This is silly. At the end of the day, game developers need to get paid for their effort and time spent. The days of $49 boxed games are over (on mobile). The iAP model is proven again and again across different platforms and the majority of the top grossing apps are following it.

It costs money to develop games and apps. A quality title might cost over a million dollars in development. What makes the consumer believe they deserve to get it for free?

iAPs are not necessarily evil - they are a great and perfect way of pricing things for different subsets of people. If you reduce iAP revenue, you make developers more driven toward ad revenue.

<comment><USER45> I don't think anybody was saying that games should be free or that iAPs are about to be illegal. But labeling something "free" that isn't really "free" is misleading customers. Games shouldn't be free since games aren't free to produce. But it's a reasonable expectation that games that are not free are not labeled as "free".

<comment><USER44> Are apps without iAPs but with ads to be considered 'free'?

<comment><USER46> Sure. The experience is the same for all users. Paying money doesn't change it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Some of these are reasonable protections, but I wonder if there's that many offenders -- are there really apps that don't follow "in-app purchases should not be made without the consumer's explicit consent?" I don't have an iPhone, but in Android you have to go through a Google Play dialogue to authorize any IAPs I've made.

Some, though, seem rather ineffectual. If the App Store and Google Play replace the button that says "Free" with one that says something else, and the game still doesn't cost anything up-front, is that really going to change anyone's behavior?

<comment><USER48> > _Some, though, seem rather ineffectual. If the App Store and Google Play > replace the button that says "Free" with one that says something else, and > the game still doesn't cost anything up-front, is that really going to > change anyone's behavior?_

Yes. Customer psychology is a fascinating thing. Even changing $100 to $99.9 generates more sales. And there are tons of examples like that (from the importance of colors to the important of shelf placement on supermarket). Wording is important.

I think it's not about in-app purchases being made without consent. The real issue is that a game with in-app purchases is not a "free" game exactly, it's like what we used to call shareware or light version. It's a different experience than with totally free games.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> This is not unlike 1900 numbers that children called to hear bedtime stories. Apple and other OS providers should be regulated to conform to standards that include parent control over purchases done by their kids.

Better labeling is always in the consumer's interest. If games and other apps encourage in-app purchasing for a good experience then this info should be clearly on the packaging. And I say this as an app developer with in app purchases!

Apple already shows this info but may have to label it better.

</comment><comment><USER50> As an adult iOS/Android user, I am annoyed by IAP games, but I don't feel like I'm being bamboozled or defrauded. Nothing warranting government interference.

But as a parent of a 2 year old, I am not pleased with some kids games developers trying to take advantage of children (and I'm talking toddlers) using devices where parents haven't blocked IAP, or placing ads that they presumably get click-revenue from kids not understanding what they're clicking on...

</comment><comment><USER51> BHAHAHAHAHA I just love how many people are getting their arms up about this, then you find out its because they're the CEO of Supercell.

"Free to play" should not be a model which says, "Free, but in order to actually, well, WIN, you need to pay". Take a look at Dota 2. Thats a successful f2p model. Game itself is 100% free and you can be a top player without paying a DIME.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady I actually think if Apple were to rearrange the App Store so that we had 'free', 'paid', and 'free with IAP' categories it might make discovery a lot better too. The 'top grossing' chart if currently pretty much an 'IAP' chart so just remove IAP apps from the free chart and replace 'top grossing' with top grossing IAP apps.

</comment><comment><USER52> There should be 3 classifications of apps. Free, Paid, IAP. I absolutely agree that IAP apps should not be able to be marketed as 'Free'. It's quite disingenuous to do so.

It's like a store saying everyone can have a free t-shirt. But then requiring that you buy $10 of stuff from the store first. You would still call that shirt free?

</comment><comment><USER53> I've said it before and I'll say it again: in-app purchases are the premium SMS scam of the '10s.

Companies making a killing on IAP these days are no different from Jamster mobile club and its kin.

Regulations will catch up soon enough but no doubt by then some other avenue for bilking kids out of their cash will have presented itself by then.

</comment><comment><USER54> Similarly misleading advertising: Telling that you can "buy" digital video when it comes encumbered with DRM that turns your "buying" into "renting for an undefined time period".

Maybe European Commission could do something about that too, it would most definitely be welcome.

</comment><comment><USER55> This used to be much easier when I was young. Freeware vs Shareware. Just searching for "freeware <x>" would normally find me the truly free (as in beer) thing if there were multiple versions.

</comment><comment><USER56> God Bless the EU.

They are the only ones fighting the good fight for the consumer these days. Thanks to the lack of campaign finance reform in the U.S., all our pols are on the take to those with the deepest pockets.

</comment><comment><USER57> It just boils down to the EU preferring to protect it's citizens/consumers/public, whereas the US loves to protect it's companies/corporations/lobbyists.

</comment><comment><USER58> What's it with America and its need to protect greedy, fraudulent business models at the expense of honest businesses and their customers?

</comment><comment><USER59> I propose to just call them sharewares. I, for one, like to be able to try a new app or game before buying it.

</comment><comment><USER60> There should be two different classifications for F2P games : Those who are pay to win, and others.

</comment><comment><USER61> PAYGRESSION is what I call them as you can progress, but usualy pay to progress much quicker.

</comment><comment><USER19> Maybe instead of calling them free, use _Freemium_ instead?

</comment><comment><USER62> There's a clear definition of what is free software: [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free- sw.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

The EU should not invent its own.

<comment><USER63> That definition is wrong, it implies that "free to use" also means "free to read/modify the code" and "resell it". By GNU definition, software like Opera isn't free. Not even something as basic as (most) Windows drivers. It also completely ignores microtransactions (though of course those wouldn't really be an issue if the user had the source). Completely useless definition for this case. It works with "free" as in "freedom", not "free to use" (it's right on the 4th line). I'm sure the people who don't breathe without looking up what Stallman thinks about it will down-vote me to hell, but that won't make this definition more relevant for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Free as in speech, free as in beer, free as in-app

</comment><comment><USER65> Such games should not be classified as free..

</comment><comment><USER66> Netflix is a free download, will it have to be banned?</comment>


Supersonic Travel, No Bullshit - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/23/boom-supersonic-jet-travel-affordable-business-class <comment><USER2> So why did Concorde fail? I'm legitimately asking, because in order to understand why this might succeed or fail, it is useful to understand why the previous incarnation failed.

I've heard people claim it was down to the Paris crash, but I'm skeptical since other aircraft designs have had multiple crashes and haven't been pulled as a result. Seems like it was already on the way out when Paris happened.

<comment><USER3> It wasn't the Paris crash. The jet never paid its development cost - if it hadn't been a sort of dual-country national champion it would have been cancelled years earlier.

Ultimately the problem was the per-passenger costs were too high. It didn't carry many passengers compared to the subsonic commercial jets, and anything moving that fast is going to use a lot of fuel both because of air friction and also because you can't use high-bypass engines. There are only so many people who are willing to trade $5k to save a few hours on a trans-Atlantic flight.

A separate but not insignificant problem was noise. It's quite noisy compared to modern airliners, and it was forced to ocean routes because nobody wants his windows rattled by sonic booms every day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Delete and repost with correct title, please.

<comment><USER2> Mods can update the title.

<comment><USER4> But regular posters can't.

That's why they should fix the article themselves, by reposting (rather than leaving it to the mods to both notice and fix the errant title).

<comment><USER5> Deleting and reposting is, I think, frowned upon.

Email HN and ask them to fix the title.

(What's the edit window for users to fix titles?)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pro-Trump propaganda manipulation live at Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/girlsforgirls.ngo.5 <comment><AUTHOR> Can you see how they do it? How they do the manipulation? My acquaintances, who got tricked into accepting the friend request, didn't see the propaganda, not even after I mentioned to them that it's pro-Trump propaganda. One of them did realize, a little bit later.

It's really insidious and manipulating in a clever way.

About the content -- apparently it's not true, see e.g. [https://nordic.businessinsider.com/trump-falsely-claims- demo...](https://nordic.businessinsider.com/trump-falsely-claims-democrats- border-family-separations-immigration-2018-6?r=US&IR=T)

I don't like this kind of manipulation. (Not pro-Trump, not pro-anyone-else either.) Any tips about what to do about it? Reporting the profile is one thing, however, there're likely 10 000 other similar profiles that I never found out about.

Cannot Facebook automatically find these things and ban the ip addresses or something?

<comment><USER2> Are you sure it is not a spam account from a clickfarm? Perhaps they only want to sell soap or whoever pay them to send spam and links. Make some friends and likes to build some credibility. Facebook is combating them and all the spam, but the spam filter is not perfect. [Disclaimer: I don't work t Facebook, so I'm only guessing here.]

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for that interesting thought. Yes I'm fairly positive this is about politics:

This "NGO" posted the pro-Trump "news" three days ago, and _thereafter_ they started sending huge amounts of friend requests, including to me and to some people I know. The last three _days_ the "NGO" has added 150+ friends. The 5 months before that, they added only about 4 friends per month.

So it's the Trump "news" they want everyone to see. (And there's an election later this year, so I suppose they do these things more often now this year)

I think they are talented, the people doing this propaganda.</comment></comment></comment>


Why is there no Nobel in mathematics? - <AUTHOR> https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/node50.html <comment><USER2> It's OK, there isn't one in economics either, they just stole the name..

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences#Controversies_and_criticisms)

<comment><USER3> That's a little misleading - despite some controversy it's a de facto nobel prize:

>it is identified with [the original nobel prizes], and prizes are announced with and awarded at the same ceremony

>The Prize is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences "in accordance with the rules governing the award of the Nobel Prizes instituted through his [Alfred Nobel's] will"

<comment><USER4> >The award's real name is the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." It was not established by Nobel, but supposedly in memory of Nobel. It's a ruse and a PR trick, and I mean that literally. And it was done completely against the wishes of the Nobel family.

>Members of the Nobel family are among the harshest, most persistent critics of the economics prize, and members of the family have repeatedly called for the prize to be abolished or renamed. In 2001, on the 100th anniversery of the Nobel Prizes, four family members published a letter in the Swedish paper Svenska Dagbladet, arguing that the economics prize degrades and cheapens the real Nobel Prizes.

>Most recently, in 2004, three prominent Swedish scientists and members of the Nobel committee published an open letter in a Swedish newspaper savaging the fraudulent "scientific" credentials of the Swedish Central Bank Prize in Economics. "The economics prize diminishes the value of the other Nobel prizes. If the prize is to be kept, it must be broadened in scope and be disassociated with Nobel," they wrote in the letter, arguing that achievements of most of the economists who win the prize are so abstract and disconnected from the real world as to utterly meaningless.

If you'd like to read about the history of the scam that is the "Nobel Prize in Economics", there's plenty more in this article: [http://www.alternet.org/economy/there-no-nobel-prize- economi...](http://www.alternet.org/economy/there-no-nobel-prize-economics)

<comment><USER3> I'm aware of the controversy, but it comes from a very vocal but small minority. That alternet article you linked to is a great example of the absurd bias and political agenda the minority has. Their main gripe is political, not factual - the article is about how many of the prizes go to "theories that concentrated wealth among the top 1%".

I called it a de facto prize, but it's also really a de jure prize: the winner is determined in the same way as the others, the prize is presented at the same ceremony as the others, and it's listed along the other nobel prizes on official lists. The prize carries at least as much prestige as the other prizes to both experts in the field and to the public.

Also, I don't see how family members of Nobel have any authority on the matter (they don't), and I think the prize is far more meaningful and free of bias than something like the peace prize.

<comment><USER5> Well, yeah, the prize is political because all who get Nobel Prizes in Economics are keynsians of different sort. When you take guys like Krugman - who has Nobel Prize in Economics - and just look at their track record and what they are in favor of like this 2002 piece in which Krugman advocates the FED to create a housing bubble:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan- needs...](http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs-to- create-a-housing-bubble-2009-6)

You really start wondering why complete idiots and morons like this are worthy of the Nobel Prize.

And then his response to this piece when asked about it in 2013 is even worse than the original piece. Krugman says in 2013 about his 2002 article: "What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that's just what happened."

Let me me repeat here for you this Nobel Prize Genius: "The ONLY way for the FED to get traction in 2002 was to INFLATE HOUSING BUBBLE"

Really? Like really, really? That's the ONLY way? Go to a bubble, so it bursts and destroys the US economy for years? He really, like really, really repeats that nonsene in 2013? You must be kidding me! If he can't come up with better idea to finish a crisis but with creating a bubble? Wow! Just wow!!!

And that's your Nobel Prize Winner in action. He's a moron. Yet, a professor and nobel prize winner. Economics has nothing to do with science, it is too rooted in ideologies. Left or right. But still, having prize for it is asking for trouble. And that's just one example of Krugman saying nonsense. I could go on and on.

<comment><USER6> Today I learnt that Friedrich Hayek and Eugene Fama are Keynsians.

<comment><USER7> Milton Friedman too! Not to mention the dozens of others which were not awarded to macroeconomists. Daniel Kahneman and Herbert Simon would especially be surprised to be called Keynsians, given that they are a psychologist and a political scientist, respectively.

<comment><USER5> They're not keynsians, sure. However, my point was that Nobel Prize in Economics is as risky as Noble Prize in Political Science. Or Philosophy. Or Ethics.

You don't do it. Period.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As an earth sciences student I heard exactly the same myth about Nobel being cuckold by a geologist, explaining why there was no prize in geology. It's funny to see that the myth knows no disciplinary boundaries.

</comment><comment><USER9> That's covered by the Fields medal.

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

<comment><USER10> Fields medal is an award that explicitly targets younger mathematicians (below 40), whereas the nobel has no such stipulation

<comment><USER7> The Fields medal for Economics is the John Bates Clark medal. I don't recall how many who win the Clark go on to win the Riksbank Nobel, but it's a lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Google cache entry, since the link is currently down:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math- faq/node50.html)

</comment><comment> daniel-cussen There is the Abel prize, granted by the Norwegian government, of a similar sum: $1,000,000 USD.

<comment><USER12> Also, the Fields medal

<comment><USER13> The Fields medal is deliberately not open to Mathematicians over the age of 40 to encourage young Mathematicians. Very depressing for older Mathematicians. Andrew Wiles was too old to win it, and Erdös is not a Field medalist (although not sure if that's because of age or oversight).

<comment><USER14> Do the rules explicitly say whether the age limit is in base 10?

<comment><USER15> I assume it says "forty" which is enough to avoid this kind of ambiguity.

Edit: Actually no, quoting the official website [1]:

> _A candidate 's 40th birthday must not occur before January 1st of the year > of the Congress at which the Fields Medals are awarded. _

[1] [http://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes/fields/details/](http://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes/fields/details/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _However, the story of some rivalry over a woman is obviously much more amusing, and that 's why it will probably continue to be repeated._

Great storytellers never let facts get in the way of a good yarn!

</comment><comment><USER17> there is less money in mathematics than in the sciences, unless you're the NSA or similar ;)

that said, i have a history as a math and physics geek and am disappointed to see a more limited patronage of mathematics compared to the sciences. mathematics would not have advanced the same way it did without substantial patronage from the european ruling class.

<comment><USER18> Unless you want to work for a hedge fund, in which case there's a ton of money to be made in mathematics...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> When Nobel created the price there were not computers, so Math was very similar to Philosophy, it became harder and harder to make great discoveries by the law of diminishing returns, while with other sciences it was different.

</comment><comment><USER20> Can you prove there isn't?

</comment><comment><USER21> This is very strange timing for me, I was positive there was a Nobel in maths and nearly said that instead of Medicine as the final quiz question last night! Would have cost me £300 if I did and this thread would have been horrible.

</comment><comment><USER22> Because the Nobel prizes are inherently political -- scientists and governments alike needed to justify the enormous investment in the LHC, and what better way than a token Nobel award?

The LHC may be worth the investment but the Nobel prizes aren't any indicator of it.

<comment><USER23> Whether a public work like the LHC is worth the investment _is_ a political decision. A award that only measured its scientific accomplishments could never tell you whether it was worth the investment or not.</comment></comment>


Hammer - A Web Development Tool - <AUTHOR> http://hammerformac.com/

<comment><USER2> I've been using Hammer since its beta release, and I've found it to be a great tool for easily prototyping CMS theme ideas.

If you tend to make a lot of themes for things like Wordpress or are interested in exploring that, I'd definitely give Hammer a shot.</comment>


Global Warming and Hurricanes, an Overview of Current Research Results - <AUTHOR> https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ <comment><USER2> Scientific consensus, as published by IPCC AR5, is that there was no clear change in floods, droughts, storms in the last century. People are often surprised to find this because of sensational media reports, but that's what we have.

[https://scienceofdoom.com/2017/02/12/impacts-v-climate- chang...](https://scienceofdoom.com/2017/02/12/impacts-v-climate-change-is- already-causing-worsening-storms-floods-and-droughts/) has detailed discussion.

<comment><USER3> Here's a table of the number of category 4 or 5 Atlantic hurricanes broken down by year range. Note that the first two rows are 50 year ranges, the next two are 25 year ranges, and the last is 18 years, so the import columns are the rate columns, which give the average number of storms per year of each category during the corresponding year range:

       Years     Cat 4     Cat 5     4 or 5
                Num Rate  Num Rate  Num Rate
     1851-1900   13 0.26    0 0.00   13 0.26
     1901-1950   29 0.58    8 0.16   37 0.74
     1951-1975   22 0.88    7 0.28   29 1.16
     1976-2000   24 0.96    7 0.27   31 1.24
     2001-2017   21 1.2    10 0.59   31 1.82

Data taken from Wikipedia lists of category 4 and category 5 Atlantic hurricanes:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_4_Atlantic_hu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_4_Atlantic_hurricanes)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes)

<comment><USER4> How accurate and complete are measurements across these time periods?

Are more recent periods inherently going to have more hurricanes because we now have the capability to detect more hurricanes? How has measurement changed over the past 175 years?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So I read that as there's no measurable impact on hurricane activity yet. The modelling indicates that they won't get more frequent, but will become more intense in the future (stronger winds, more rainfall).

<comment><USER6> Look at figure 2. There is a 'measurable' increase in hurricane activity that gets very severe in recent years. The problem is that the time series is very noisy because records were patchy going back to 1880. Therefore statistical tests cannot robustly distinguish signal from noise (if any).

The authors do cite a paper that analysed more recent records (from 1950 onwards) [1]. This paper (see figure 1a) demonstrates a very strong statistical correlation between sea surface temperature and hurricane activity. This supports a causal link between climate change and hurricane activity.

[1] [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1029/2007GC001844...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1029/2007GC001844/full)

<comment><USER5> I summarised their conclusion (section E) in which they specifically state there's no connection between warming and numbers of hurricanes.

what do you mean when you say "activity"?

<comment><USER7> That's a summary that leaves out some pretty crucial information. Here is the total of section 'E' and it reads - to me at least - as if there is an effect, but not _that particular_ effect:

"

In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. One modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century.

Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. ("Detectable" here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by IPCC AR4 scenarios, such as A1B.

The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to these projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature. In the case of global mean surface temperature, the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013) presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions."

Intensity and amount of rainfall would definitely qualify as elements in determining activity. So of the two factors that make up activity only one of those factors is now supported by the data and the jury is out on the other.

<comment><USER8> I think his initial comment is a fair summary of that section:

> So I read that as there's no measurable impact on hurricane activity yet. > The modelling indicates that they won't get more frequent, but will become > more intense in the future (stronger winds, more rainfall).

<comment><USER7> > The modelling indicates that they won't get more frequent

Is simply incorrect.

"One modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century."

Isn't saying they will not get more frequent, it is saying they _may_ get much more frequent but that it will take a long time before we will be able to detect this reliably.

Which is logical given the limited number of data points.

<comment><USER9> That's not quite an accurate rebuttal. That modeling study projects a large increase in _severe_ hurricanes, not in hurricanes overall.

My understanding is that the models suggest that hurricanes will get more severe, in a fashion that outpaces any downward trend in quantity.

"In the Bender et al. 2010 study, we estimate that the effect of increasing category 4-5 storms outweighs the reduction in overall hurricane numbers such that we project (very roughly) a 30% increase in potential damage in the Atlantic basin by 2100."

<comment><USER7> Right you are, but the main point stands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Am I misreading this or is it saying something like: Our models suggest we should be seeing an increase in qty or severity of storms. However, to this point the historical evidence does not agree with the models. That said, since effect should increase over time, we'll probably see it down the road. Either that, or we will need new models. :)

<comment><USER11> Close. The problem is not so much that the historical evidence disagrees with the models, but rather that it is consistent with both the models, and the null hypothesis. A major reason for this cited by the article is the low quality of historical records makes it difficult to use historical evidence. A related problem is that the trends observed in the historical record could be noise.

Similarly, the historical record does not provide enough evidence to conclude that are models are wrong.

As an extreme example, suppose our entire historical record was "September 10, 1900: sunny skys in Florida. September 10, 2017: Category 5 hurricane in Florida".

This is simply not enough information to draw any conclusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I find myself wondering whether the information published in this article is reliable or not, given the current Administration's bias and hostility against science ([http://thehill.com/policy/energy- environment/349877-climate-...](http://thehill.com/policy/energy- environment/349877-climate-skeptics-on-the-rise-in-trumps-epa)). I cannot just take the data, arguments, and conclusions and assume they have been reviewed and vetted by a panel of experts prior to publication. It is a sad day....

<comment><USER13> Its disingenuous to imply that there is not an incredible amount of money _pushing_ for "Climate Change" scenarios. The entire construct is to create carbon credit exchange (ie. Chicago Climate Exchange) which JP Morgan estimated to be potential $1.5T a year market.

Pretending that its honorable scientist on one side and medieval science- haters on the other is a childlike simplification.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm assuming the "% change in PDI" means "% change relative to some fixed point in time" and not "% change relative to previous data point" in that diagram.

But then what does the sharp downturn if annual PDI at the "present" point in time mean? Does that mean that this year's season is actually _weaker_ than last year's?

</comment><comment><USER15> Related:

More on Bayesian approaches to detection and attribution

[http://julesandjames.blogspot.fi/2017/09/more-on-bayesian- ap...](http://julesandjames.blogspot.fi/2017/09/more-on-bayesian-approaches- to.html?m=1)</comment>