Google Takes on Uber with New Ride-Share Service - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-takes-on-uber-with-new-ride-share-service-1472584235 <comment><USER2> This is not about taking on Uber. Google is testing AI for self driving cars. Once we have self driving cars, the idea is that you deploy these cars and the cars figure out who to pick up and who to drop off and possible doing group pick ups along the way. Waze is going to predict who to pick up based on their collected data thus far using ML, their data scientists are going to supervise it and correct it. Once we have self driving cars, Google will have the tech that can manage assigning cars and picking people up. This is what it is all about.

<comment><USER3> You don't think that's exactly the market Uber has been going for? There's a reason Uber raided CMU for researchers:

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-uber-a-friend-or-foe-of- carne...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-uber-a-friend-or-foe-of-carnegie- mellon-in-robotics-1433084582)

And that reason became pretty obvious when they started testing self-driving cars recently in Pittsburgh:

[http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ubers-driverless- rides-i...](http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ubers-driverless-rides-in- pittsburgh-whats-happening-and-what-it-means/)

I don't think Uber started out with this plan, but clearly at some point they realized that they had to be a two-stage company like Netflix. Google's doing the same thing, but with a different stage 1.

My bet, though, is that Uber wants to own the market, while Google is going to go after a platform play. I expect it to be sort of like Android. Google will make the software and own important parts of the consumer relationship. But most people who can manufacture cars or otherwise acquire large fleets at low costs will not want to do the software work, so they'll partner with Google.

So yes, in the same way that Android was about taking on Apple in a way that makes decent money and keep Google from getting cut out of an important piece of the tech/human intersection, this is ultimately about taking on Uber.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Google is emphasizing for low prices and people not to make careers from this for one reason, automation. This is a pilot for them, and will be replaced by autonomous cars in a few years. They don't want to be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of jobs and fight that moral fight. Uber is about to have a huge amount of people displaced from the jobs they created, and Google doesn't want to share that reputational hazard imo. Good call for Google.

</comment><comment> luka-birsa Love it how Uber is getting Ubered by providing a service they were supposedly providing but it was only a marketing scam to get around Taxi regulation.

This is proper "sharing economy" where the other party isn't doing this to make a living out of it. I wonder who will Airbnb the Airbnb and is that at all possible.

The end will be the same anyways - both companies are competing for a spot on the customers mobile phone so that they could provide a service when autonomous cars are up and running.

<comment><USER5> I do not like the fragmentation though. I want one app to work everywhere. Uber in China is broken already and no way I could use Didi app.

Also, I do not think that there is any significant network or engineering value in the app itself. If Google or Tesla finally starts delivering self- driving car service for 10x less than Uber, users will flee in a jiffy.

<comment><USER6> You're overlooking the importance of competition when it comes to things like pricing and innovation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've noticed Google Maps will sometimes give me Uber ads when I'm looking up directions ("this route only $N on Uber" or such). Idle speculation but I wonder if this was a mistake for Uber -- perhaps Google has seen a high rate of click-through on these and will now try to get in on that action themselves.

<comment><USER8> In some places (all, IIRC, outside of the US), the Google Maps ride service feature already supports non-Uber ridesharing services. In the US, I think it only has Uber, but its basically a feature that lets GMaps be a platform for commoditizing ride services.

<comment><USER9> Nah. In many cities Uber is the only service.

<comment><USER8> If the GMaps ride service functionality is _accessible_ to other services (it currently is by specific negotiation/partnership only, apparently, so not really, but as a platform that _could_ change), it provides an avenue for weakening Uber's moat and making it easier for competitors to gain traction.

<comment><USER10> In my city in Spain Uber is not available but GMaps offers rides with Cabify instead, a local alternative. But I think it is negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Unlike Uber and its crosstown rival Lyft Inc., both of which largely operate > as on-demand taxi businesses, Waze wants to connect riders with drivers who > are already headed in the same direction.

Funny because that is Lyft's (né Zimride) original model. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

<comment><USER12> > Funny because that is Lyft's (né Zimride)

Holy crow, I've always seen it spelled née, and sure enough, it's because it's almost always used when referring to a woman's name before marriage. Turns out né exists for men! Are companies masculine, then?

(Gendered languages belong in the dumpster of history.)

<comment><USER13> In French, a company (entreprise) is feminine. I don't know the rule of agreement for loanwords, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Basically this is different from uber/lyft because it is trying to match you with someone already going to the same area, say on their normal commute. You are not just calling up a driver to get you from place to place.

I can't help but to think of Ford Prefect's Electronic Thumb from H2G2.

<comment><USER15> If it's as successful as Google+, you'll also be stuck waiting for 15 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was actually just thinking about this the other day- why doesn't a large tech company with lots of cash create a ride service which basically lets the driver keep everything? Uber can't possibly compete. Google can destroy them before they can become a threat in other tech spaces.

<comment><USER17> Network effect + first mover advantage. It takes a lot of time and money to develop the community if there already are major players.

In this particular case Google would have so spend a shit ton of money on advertising, and it's not guaranteed to work. They failed with Google+.

<comment><USER5> What network effects do you see in Uber?

<comment><USER18> Customers use Uber because there are enough drivers that service tends to be reliable; Drivers use Uber because there are enough customers to sustain a living.

It's the usual marketplace model.

<comment><USER13> A concurrent could book a Uber ride for their customer using the API when and where they don't have any driver.

Well, I checked the terms of use of Uber API and competing with Uber is forbidden...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Great news. As a PT worker at one of the articles mentioned companies, I know there is considerable demand for rides to and from the retailer. This could be huge if employees shift from dial-taxis or uber to "co-workers" via waze.

Other night a pizza server at a shop next door said she was very slow. It's summer and nobody buys pizza. She added it costs her $10 one way cab ride and makes nothing for the day.

This is the type of news I would post on employee board when it comes to my area.

<comment><USER20> I interpreted "pizza server" as a computer that produces pizza and thought about how cool that would be. I guess a pizza server could also be an oven.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Google is not "taking on Uber." An important point is that Google is not making money off the payments for the ride, which presumably all go to the driver.

For the driver that means defraying the cost of a commute in return for going a few minutes out of his way. True ride-sharing, not a gypsy-cabs-plus- reputation network. It's more akin to a transport-specific Splitwise than to Uber.

What Google gets out of this is a real-world model of on demand automated transport patterns, pricing, demand, etc.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's a good idea, and in Georgia there's a program to pay you to car pool ([http://gacommuteoptions.com/Save-Your-Commute/Earn- Cash.-Win...](http://gacommuteoptions.com/Save-Your-Commute/Earn-Cash.-Win- Prizes?_ga=1.167874657.1173807379.1472587947)).

I see this as something similar. But I was never able to find someone to car pool with.

</comment><comment><USER23> Honestly I wish they wouldn't try to compete on price. Maybe I'm alone with this, but I'd rather not feel obligated to tip a driver because the ride is so cheap. Pay them a living wage, let me pay the exact fee, and let me not have to carry goddamn cash like I used to in the era of Taxis.

e: Addressing common replies:

"This is for people commuting already" \-- okay, point taken; my point about Uber/Lyft still stands.

"Tipping isn't obligatory" \-- yes, it kind of is. Uber used to bar drivers form asking, but they recently lost a lawsuit over that rule and so now Uber drivers will occasionally ask for tips (which will cause it to slowly become the norm). When tipping becomes the norm, the low-base-wage of the driver becomes less of an 'issue', and then tipping becomes even more of a necessity as that is where the drivers will make their actual margins.

<comment><USER24> I took an Uber home from the train station last week and it was less than $15. I'm not sure how much a taxi would've been, probably at least $25.

I don't feel good about it. How can someone provide good service if they're taking home so little? I fear that soon Uber will be overrun with poor service because all the quality drivers have been driven out by low costs.

<comment><USER25> Talk to your drivers about it. So far they've all told me that they get more passengers thanks to the app, and the pay from Uber's base rate outweighs unpredictable tips.

[edit] NYC, and the drivers are pretty candid about still picking up rides from black car dispatchers and competitors. I have no reason to question their honesty.

<comment><USER26> All drivers I've talked to (mostly in the London area) told me they are very unhappy with their pay, but because Uber is so cheap, they can't drive for their old cab companies anymore (all business moved to Uber).

<comment><USER27> What shocks me is how slowly the taxi companies are responding to the Uber threat. I use Uber when I can and the price has nothing to do with it. It's better cars, better service, and friendlier drivers (usually).

Every time I get in some yellow cab that's a 5 year old Crown Vic with torn seats, rattles everywhere, and a driver that can't (or won't) tell me how much my ride is going to cost, I remember why I normally take Uber.

<comment><USER28> Feel free to explain how you think a small, regional company that actually has to, you know, turn a profit, is going to compete with a multinational losing billions a year to establish a global monopoly.

<comment><USER27> They are getting there, although slowly. They've had all the data and infrastructure necessary to get something off the ground for years, but haven't bothered because they've never had to bother.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> With so many competitors in the marketplace, such as Lyft, Gett, Via, Juno, and now Google, seems like Uber's leadership position is at risk. There appears to be very little differentiation between all of them, and while Google is starting out with carpooling, it is just a matter of time before they expand. Not sure how any investor could ever justify Uber's $60B valuation. In 10 years, will likely be 1/10 of that.

<comment><USER30> They've done everything right in terms of building a brand.

> seems like Uber's leadership position is at risk

You could have said that about any of the ex-Googlers who went off to try to develop a 'better' Google. At this point, Uber have the mindshare, at least amongst everyone I know, so unless Google have a 10x improvement planned then they'll just compete in Uber's shadow like the rest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> There are a whole bunch of .54/mile commute carpool apps out there. Uber & Lyft have them / have had them too. Usually they don't pan out because it's not enough money for the hassle.

</comment><comment><USER32> Waze carpooling has been around since May [1]

[1] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/alphabet-unveils-program-for- car...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/alphabet-unveils-program-for-carpooling- via-app-fraying-ties-with-uber-1463428668)

<comment><USER8> This is an expansion of the service area and availability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Back in the day, when Google opened up a 411 service, Microsoft did the same. It looked like a way to expand the search engine. After several years of operation, they shut it down. Why? They were collecting voice samples to feed into their voice recognition system, and they had collected enough.

I can't help but wonder if this ride sharing is a similar move. It sounds like a stepping stone for the kind of services that might be practical with self- driving cars. There might be some angle on collecting data that isn't obvious.

</comment><comment><USER34> Google had to get in at some point. They should have entered a year ago may be but I think this is a good enough time. Google can afford to not take a cut for their service and hurt Uber quite a bit. If they are not taking a cut they can also reduce the price for the rider.

However, how can it be viable to the driver. I understand if someone is already going in that direction they can make a little money but if I want to live on it (like Uber is pitching) will the price be enough?

</comment><comment><USER35> How are they vetting drivers? I wouldn't trust a driver if all they had to do to qualify is download the Waze app.

<comment><USER36> Once they have a critical mass of robberies, stabbings, etc., then the machine learning can easily filter out undesirable drivers. Not a problem.

<comment><USER37> Are you ironic? Do you see what's strange in that? Machine learning isn't exempt of racism. Google has a lot of background on people, but it's generally accepted as unethic to filter undesirable people based on generalizations, even if they were statistically correct.

<comment><USER38> I can't tell if you're continuing the jocular tone of your parent or if you're serious that this is the concern that actually came to your mind first. I charitably hope it's the first.

<comment><USER39> Haha, looking through your comment history, you have absolutely no right to be using such a concescending tone.

Does your resume include any position besides "old, disgruntled, unhappy, friendless programmer"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> This won't be the first true ride-sharing program, but it's high enough profile to show people how ubers and lyft of the world have highjacked and distorted the meaning of that word.

Uber is not part of the "sharing" economy. This is.

</comment><comment><USER41> Doesn't Google give "directions" to Uber? Literally & metaphorically?

If Google starts charging a premium for consumers like Uber who use its services with a major commercial reason, Uber wouldn't be able to sustain.

<comment><USER42> Uber bought their own mapping company for this reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This ought to be a boon for vanpool's where demand in terms of source and destination can be matched to drivers and 6+ passenger vehicles. Researching the necessary correlations would be fascinating work.

<comment><USER44> It's exactly @ridewithvia

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> What if actual there were a licensed Taxi service that offered the online/app capabilities of Uber? Do you think that would compete?

<comment><USER12> Many do. There are several reasons they're not very competitive. They were late to that market, just following Uber's coattails. Their advertising is not as slick and the apps often have poor UI, so it's not as enjoyable and effortless to use. And significantly, they actually follow the law, which results in higher costs to the end-user than law breakers like Uber.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> This is an actual ride sharing experiment instead of a taxi for hire business, quite nice to see this.

</comment><comment><USER47> Wait, doesn't Lyft use Waze? So it's Lyft in a different interface?

</comment><comment><USER48> Why would you pay to carpool to/from work instead of arranging carpool with a coworker, paying for your share of gas directly, and cutting out 1) the (future) middleman 2) the tax man?

<comment><USER8> > Why would you pay to carpool to/from work instead of arranging carpool with > a coworker, paying for your share of gas directly, and cutting out 1) the > (future) middleman 2) the tax man?

Because the middle man is charging nothing, and its easier to use the middle man to find people that are good car pool partners by both desired arrival/departure time and where you are going to work from or going after work than trying to ask everyone around your work, and the tax consequences of accepting money to defray expenses don't change with or without the presence of the middle man.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Google likes to use software to eat the world. But sometimes their software- only approach just ends up slobbering all over it. The point of Uber isn't the "sharing" of a ride, but the availability and predictability of getting one.

<comment><USER50> On the point of software eating the world google may be uniquely positioned to make something of this scale work- They have trend data for a majority of people with smartphones and I often see from Google Now cards that they know what I'll do generally before I have even decided. If used in the correct way it would deliver huge value and disrupt the established patterns of car ownership.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I predict this will fail as it is described today. Because it pays little and is meant to find people on the way already, 1) people won't be dedicated to driving people, 2) which will make it unreliable to get a ride, 3) which will cause people not to use it or at least not rely on it. Also, with little money, 1) whole segments of the (population (especially in the bay area) won't be incentivized by the money, 2) people will be less likely to go out of their way to pick anyone up, and 3) one or two annoying ride sharers will cause drivers to decide picking people up isn't worth the occasional annoyance.

</comment><comment><USER52> Ok, not unexpected given that Drummond stepped back from being a board member, of course they got that seat by buying nearly 7% of the company[1]. Which if they had sold it to the other investors who came in on $62.5B round[2] they could have taken about $900M out which they could use to start their own ride sharing service. Sort of like drinking the Unicorn's blood to create a spell that will kill the Unicorn. The irony here, especially after Google did the same thing at Apple, big investment, board seat, oh wait you have a business that seems to be a winner (iPhone) lets step back and do that!

I wonder if this will make it harder for GV to participate in any sort of funding rounds.

[1] "Google Ventures invested $258M at $3.7B post-money valuation in 2013" \-- [https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Uber-does-Google- ow...](https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Uber-does-Google-own)

[2] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/uber- raise...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/uber-raises- funding-at-62-5-valuation)

<comment><USER53> You're saying all that as if, right before Drummond stepping back, Uber hadn't announced that they'd start doing self-driving cars, pretty much forcing him to step down out of conflict of interest.

<comment><USER52> I'm not sure I understand, are you saying this is some tit-for-tat move after Uber acquired Otto? Sounds a bit Machiavellian even for Uber and Google. Would love to hear the actual back story if that is the case.

<comment><USER53> Absolutely not saying that. You're trying to portrait him as some kind of spy, waiting to see if Uber turned out to be a good idea to get out of the board. What I'm saying is you can only construct an argument like that by omitting the obvious reason he stepped out.

<comment><USER52> Not a spy, just not aligned well with the companies they partner with. Google is doing its level best to find additional markets it can expand into. And it has a history of expanding into the markets of people that it invests in. Your typical VC won't generally invest in a second startup going after the same market as one they are already invested in, and Google Ventures is nominally "separate" from Google, but they seem to jump in when without their partner from time to time. Once, maybe twice, can be a fluke but one of the things startups always worry about is Google (or Apple or Microsoft or Facebook) jumping into their space with infinite marketing dollars and hundreds of idle staff members. One could be forgiven to think that if they were investing in you they wouldn't do that, but this sort of behavior should make startups think long and hard about taking a GV deal over an investor who wants them to be successful.

I wonder if that impacts GV's ability to participate in future deals. It seems like it should but business can be funny that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Can we stop calling every new taxi service "ride sharing"? Are people "sharing" anything in any meaningful way? The drivers car isn't shared, he sells a ride, that's a Taxi. A medallion or other arbitrary system doesn't define what a taxi is.

Can I tell uber I want to share a ride to the airport with any stranger? (my taxi co will do that)?

<comment><USER8> > Can we stop calling every new taxi service "ride sharing"?

Yes, but this is a ridesharing service, not a taxi service.

> Can I tell uber I want to share a ride to the airport with any stranger? (my > taxi co will do that)?

Isn't that exactly what UberPOOL is?

<comment><USER54> My point really that we always had ride sharing, it's car pools (which is obvious from Ubers naming). The regular uber is a taxi service and a service for organizing car pools is a car pool service.

I agree that uberPool and this is much more ride _sharing_.

<comment><USER55> "The Renting Economy" doesn't have the same ring to it...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Uber and Lyft have had to tackle so many legal issues already. Drastically improving and modifying how they deal with drivers on a daily basis from both an operational and legal standpoint.

If what the article says is true about google vetting problem drivers with mere user reviews, they don't know what they are getting into.

I think the idea is great of course, and I imagine it would cut down on freeway traffic during commute hours. It just seems that the legal web of trust, insurance, safety, etc will be a lot to handle.

<comment><USER57> If this is strictly to more easily facilitate carpooling during rush hour, there's some precedent. In the Washington DC area, for at least a decade, possibly more, there have been "Slug Lines" outside the city for people commuting in. The idea is you go to a specific place via public transportation or park there, then drivers heading into the city pick you up so they can use the HOV lane. There's a similar setup in the evening where you'll catch a ride back with a different person.

I've never used it, but as far as I've heard it works well. I don't think there's any compulsion to pay, but maybe it's generally polite to offer a few dollars for gas. This sounds like a more automated version of that.

<comment><USER58> This happens in many places i guess. But when a company gets into picture to facilitate this, things like safety/insurance comes into picture. I am sure Google might have already figured that out, if not any small crime incident by a driver would cause huge reputational damage.

<comment><USER59> It's different because it's carpooling, which is typically covered by most insurance policies.

[https://www.waze.com/carpool](https://www.waze.com/carpool)

>Auto insurance policies in many states including California typically allow not for profit, share-the-expense carpooling. Waze Carpool is designed to help riders and drivers share the cost of carpooling on a given ride. It is not designed to allow a driver to make a profit or to earn a salary. Payments to the driver, by the rider, will always be less or equal to the cost of the particular drive, taking account of such factors as gas and vehicle depreciation.

<comment><USER60> Underscoring that, the WSJ article notes that "Waze's current pilot charges riders at most 54 cents a mile". This is equal to the federal standard mileage reimbursement rate for 2016 ([https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/2016-standard- mileage-rates...](https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/2016-standard-mileage- rates-for-business-medical-and-moving-announced)). Which suggests they're trying to aim for exactly that, using an established standard for the per-mile cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Am I the only one who laughs when I see, "Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., . . . ."?

Umm, who reading this article doesn't know who Google is? That construction is almost always there to let you know who some no-name subsidiary or division of a much more well-known company is.

In this case it functions in the reverse if at all--reminding people that Alphabet is a thing, in case you didn't know.

Anyway, I just think that's funny.

<comment><USER62> WSJ's primary audience is folks in business or finance. From my understanding, they have automated aggregators and algorithms that consume those articles, and look for constructs like that for tagging/categorization.

<comment><USER63> Well algorithms can be advanced enough to reference Google with Alphabet automatically without putting need to write Alphabet in article itself. I don't think what you're saying is the reason to write it in the article

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> > Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., began a pilot program around...

So, basic question, What is the difference between Alphabet and Google again? It seems like everything is still being branded as Google. I know it's slightly off topic, but I am honestly confused as to when something is not Google.

<comment><USER65> It's just your average shell company thing. People only make a big deal of it because it's a thing Google did.

<comment><USER64> Yeah. I realize the shell company thing, but I also seem to remember them talking about brands being differentiated from Google, but every announcement continues to be the Google brand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Lyft recently shut down their commute share program due to lack of interest... and now Alphabet is restarting it.

<comment><USER46> Was it a lack of interest or poor economics? My coworker found that he could take a Lyft commute share, which was often empty, get to where he was going and pay much less. So, just like a Lyft on discount.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> "Google takes on Earth by building a new mechanical planet"

</comment><comment><USER68> The best part of the interview is the way Sam has asked questions.

</comment><comment><USER69> Goober

</comment><comment><USER70> Wondering why Napster was ruled illegal :)

</comment><comment><USER71> When I was younger and financially unstable, I had a decision to make. Take a crappy restaurant job or live out of my car. I chose to live out of my car. Every time I hear the argument that people in the restaurant industry are getting unfair pay, I ask myself, "I wonder who made that decision to work there in the first place"

Stop this bullshit tipping. These people made a choice and then chose to complain about it.

Also, this only seems to occur with FOH employees in the restaurant industry. You don't really hear BOH employees (you know, the people who actually do the work of cooking your food) complain.

<comment><USER72> It is very interesting. I worked in restaurants for many years and I never knew a server who made less than the back staff - usually they made several multiples of their pay in a night.

I assume it's because servers (and I was one!) feel generally more empowered when it comes to their pay; they think complaining will accomplish something (strengthen social norms to tip), while kitchen staff know that what they get is what they get.

No doubt server pay varies _wildly_ , but I worked at a cheap buffet essentially just bussing tables and I _never_ made less than kitchen staff and sometimes made up to 6x what they would make in a shift - usually about 3x, and management directed that we report the minimum amount possible, to get out of their payroll tax contribution, I assume.

On top of that, employers are in fact _nominally_ required to pay the difference between their tipped wage and the "real" minimum wage if they don't get enough tips (for some reason this isn't commonly known) to make the difference, but that situation is probably rare enough that businesses skate by without fulfilling their legal duty. [1]

Frankly, I liked waiting tables and I'd do it again if it paid as much as programming. It's not all that crappy. :) And at the same time, I have a lot less sympathy for servers than I used to. Save your sympathy for the people who are paid minimum wage and _don 't_ get tips. Yes, that server is getting $2.15 instead of $7.25, but a) the business is required to make up the difference between $2.15 + tips and $7.25 and b) no server I have ever heard of, anywhere, is making less than $7.25/hour with tips.

[1] [https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/wagestips](https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/wagestips)

<comment><USER73> This is what I find interesting about the situation, and why I see tipping as a cultural rather than ethical imperative. If it was about poverty or social justice, it is a terribly inefficient way to go about fighting those battles. If instead you theorize that Tipping is largely about smoothing interactions between those of a higher economic class and the people who immediately serve them, the whole thing makes more sense.

Even taking class out of it, tipping when you are out drinking kind of makes sense like "hey thanks for working so I can go have fun. Here is a little extra so you can treat yourself when you are off work." The idea is to make it less awkward for the customer to drink in front of someone who is sober and working, Because that is kind of an awkward situation for many folks

<comment><USER71> Is there a possibility for smoothing out this social awkwardness that didn't involved monetary value?

Is there a way for society to make these jobs appear simply as a job and not some exchange of money for this psuedo caste system I am placing on you while I eat my salmon?

I am generally curious. I don't eat at restaurants for this reason. I have no interest in being involved with this human interaction. Which is a shame because food is my life...

<comment><USER73> Sure, there are plenty of places where you Walk up to order and pay and then walk up to get your food, and tipping norms seem super different there, I would assume because it seems a lot less like you are being directly served. If we are running with my model, the idea would be like they are manufacturing your food and you are buying it, rather than someone coming and serving you at your table.

If you are in the South bay, try dish n dash for super good food sold in that style.

To be clear, I am not super clear on tipping norms in that case, but observationaly, most people seem to tip a lot less, and some people just tip the change.

<comment><USER71> These types of establishments are the places I'm finding myself if I decide to go out to eat these days. Me personally, I come for the experience of the food, not the service.

<comment> nommm-nommm I much prefer this system too!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> We should stop calling this ride sharing. It's still taxi. Modern taxi.

</comment><comment><USER75> Larry finally got his way :D

<comment><USER33> That's an interesting comment. Would you care to elaborate?

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> RIP Uber. 8/29/2016.

<comment><USER30> More like "Google late to the party... again"

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> read: "Google ride-share is to Uber as Windows Phone is to Android". Late to the party, tragically deficient in first-mover network effect advantage, and on the decline in credibility since they're shutting down all moonshots, including, as we saw as recently as today, halving the staff at Google Fibre.

Talk about panic catch-up with no intrinsic advantage, nor vision. "Mountain View, start your photo-copiers". We know where that ends...

Larry and Sergei have shown in the past 3 years that they have no staying power on anything that isn't an obvious profit lay-up in short order. This thing will burn through cash at a rate that will make any of their other ill- fated ventures look like a bargain. I mean, UBER has already coughed 1.2 yards this year!

Smells like Google+ all over again. Isn't this the sort of sham that the Alphabet carve-out was supposed to avoid?

<comment><USER78> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Treo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Treo) was way before Andriod.

First mover advantage is rarely an advantage at all. My guess is that google sees this as optionality and testing to get things right like insurance etc. in anticipation of self driving cars. At the very least it allows them to extract more value from Uber when Google finally have self driving cars ready to sell them.

I really don't see how Uber is worth more than a few billion in a few years. Google is playing the long game hard and I think they are going to win here.

<comment><USER30> > First mover advantage is rarely an advantage at all

Genuine question (not a snarky comment as it might sound), but can you link to any research that indicates it's 'rarely' and advantage?

I've been reading books recently that emphasise the importance of being the first to market with something innovative. Your brand then gets associated with the product/service ("hoover", "Uber", "google") even when referring to the general category.

Second-mover advantages do exist, but is there any research on whether it's more advantageous than being a first mover who iterates? I know it can happen, but in this case I'd rather be Uber with an established brand & mindshare rather than Google playing catch-up.

<comment><USER53> Those books aren't really mentioning Google Search as an example, right? It didn't have first-mover advantage.

<comment><USER79> It kind of did, AFAIK it was the first functional search engine.

Everything else at the time was pretty terrible.

<comment><USER53> Yeah, no true Scotsman ends up losing first-mover advantage.

<comment><USER79> It's not no true scotsman though. Google search was very different to what came before it. The only similarity was the UI.

<comment><USER53> That's nonsense. The only two differentiators were the minimalistic UI (at a time when load speed of a web page was noticeable) and the better quality of the results. There were a bunch search engines already, all of them with a search box where you typed stuff and got a list of results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> This is a hitchhiking service, not a "I want to get from my hotel to the airport" service. What are the chances that someome happens to be passing by my hotel on their way to the airport and happens to have room for an extra passenger. LOL. Retarded (to view it as competing with Uber/Lyft) Just part of the media that is itching to start a new drama.

</comment><comment><USER81> This is it? Ha. Uber must be letting out a collective sigh of relief.

</comment><comment><USER82> I can't help but think that if Google is successful, the entire endeavor will end up like Reader: Google wipes out the competition, decides that they no longer want to run the service, end it, and there is no-one left to fill the void.

</comment><comment><USER83> Has Waze quit using the childish cartoon stuff by default under Google?

<comment><USER83> How should I reword this in order not to get downvoted? Is this better?

When I've used Waze in the past, I notice that the default UI features cartoon spermatozoa moving around a road system. Such an aesthetic is going to be off- putting to most serious adults, but it sounds from this article that Waze is playing an important role in some actively developed Google products. I'm curious whether anyone here can shed light on the marketing strategy.

<comment><USER53> Come one, most serious adults don't give a rat's ass about how cartoonish or not their mapping app looks, as long as it works well.

<comment><USER83> When I said adult, I was thinking of people over 40. I think you're thinking of younger people. There's no way, for example, my parents would use it. They'd feel uncomfortable, that they were stumbling into some sort of "thing for young people".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> Google is simply bored while making so much money so comfortably, with an absolutely dominant market position in search. So every few months they need to do these copycat things simply to entertain themselves ;-).</comment>


Show HN: I made a Klout killer in 2 weeks - <AUTHOR>

Quibird is a better way to measure relevance on Twitter: http://quibird.com <comment><USER2> In some parts of the world, they don't call someone or -thing a "X-killer" until they/it have actually killed the X in question. Cf. weed-killer, conversation-killer, cop-killer, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> I live in Silicon Valley

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Ok, I logged in and saw a bunch of seemingly random stats. Now what? (Please don't say "tweet it!")

<comment><AUTHOR> Tweet it for Quibird perks, free iPads, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I must say, this is at least as accurate as Klout! Let me down easy on my intelligence next time, but it's good to know I'm so attractive! <http://quibird.com/MrSpandex>

</comment><comment><USER5> What are the numbers based on? For instance, I have the maximum score for "well-read"... what is the ratio that score represents?

</comment><comment><USER6> It shows Kim Kardashian on the home page. Who are you aiming at, her fans or technical people? Surely there's someone in between like Brian Cox/Neil deGrase Tyson or Bradley Wiggins/Shaq?

</comment><comment><USER7> It actually resembles Whit.li (<http://www.whit.li/>) a lot more than Klout.

</comment><comment><USER8> Love it! The numbers may be off (I don't think I'm more relavent on twitter than Kim Kardashian) but it makes me feel good.

</comment><comment><USER9> 99 points overall. 93 points on Attractive and 82 points on Funny.

I bet you say that to everyone...

</comment><comment><USER10> Awesome, great work. When do you expect google+ integration to be ready?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. The algorithm already factors in the relevance of Google+

<comment><USER11> The relevance of G+ being null? ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is "I made x in y amount of time" the nerd equivalent to "I squat x for y number of reps?"

Just wondering.</comment>


Google App Engine Just Discontinued the Free Tier - <AUTHOR> https://cloud.google.com/source-repositories/pricing <comment><AUTHOR> Subtle but noteworthy change that happened today on Google, written on the top note. You cannot use that service anymore unless you register a payment method.

If you were a free tier customer, you just received an email saying you have 90 days before your service is shutdown... unless you give your card details ;)

<comment><USER2> It's vicious for a business to stop giving its product away for free? Stupid, maybe, but vicious?</comment></comment>


Adblock Plus now sells ads - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/13/12890050/adblock-plus-now-sells-ads <comment><USER2> uBlock Origin it is!

Extensions: Chrome: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock- origin/cjpa...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock- origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm) Firefox: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock- origin...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/) Opera: [https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/ublock/](https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/ublock/) Microsoft Edge: [https://github.com/nikrolls/uBlock-Edge#microsoft- edge](https://github.com/nikrolls/uBlock-Edge#microsoft-edge)

<comment><USER3> The only thing to do if you haven't already. uBlock is open source and does the job.

This all adBlock making money by blocking ads and then showing their own ads is becoming ridiculous and unethical.

So what does Adblock stand for now ?

<comment><USER4> Why is it unethical? What ethical principle is being violated? (These are not rhetorical questions.)

<comment><USER5> Blocking Ad is itself unethical. Ads are placed on pages to pay for the content. By blocking ads you are depriving the content creators of compensation for their work.

Replacing Ads with other ads is worse because you're not only depriving a content creator of revenue but then profiting off of their work. You could argue that it amounts to theft.

<comment><USER6> Do you also think that leaving the room or changing the channel when the TV or radio plays an ad is unethical?

Is using fast-forward on your DVR unethical?

Is skimming past the ads in a newspaper or magazine unethical?

Is it ethical to let your eyes glide past the ads shown in a browser?

Is it ethical to read books from a free library rather than buying the right to read a copy from a store?

<comment><USER7> None of those situations are very comparable.

TV is paid on viewership numbers. Newspapers are paid on circulation. Gliding past ads on a site is factored into the CPM values. Books in a library are paid for and covered by the first-sale doctrine.

<comment><USER8> They are completely comparable.

You don't think people who change channels to avoid ads/who use DVRs is factored into the price per viewer for TV ads?

Your individual impact might be harder to track than with ad-blockers, but on the aggregate you are driving down the price per viewer by switching on channels during ads, using DVR, etc.

(Imagine a world where 100% of people used a DVR and skipped ads. Obviously the price of TV ads would plummet. By using a DVR you are contributing to making our world, that world).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I, for one, agree with them.

We started blocking ads because they had become 1. obnoxious, interfering with the fruition of the actual content; 2. dangerous, being a vector for malware and disrespecting our privacy; and 3. costly, for those with a slow or metered connection.

Most people accept ads, if they are acceptable.

They are the first company to actually push through with a plan to restore this market to sanity, so it's only natural they would take a small profit from it. Other well-known technology companies grab well into the two digit percent off other people's earnings.

<comment><USER10> Well, the royal "we", perhaps :-)

I started blocking ads because they dramatically slowed down my browsing experience. But I keep blocking ads because, fundamentally, I believe that advertisements are neurotoxins, and nobody has the right to poison me.

The old Sean Tejaratchi quote - popularized by Banksy - applies here, I think - [http://www.readingfrenzy.com/ledger/2012/03/taking_the_piss](http://www.readingfrenzy.com/ledger/2012/03/taking_the_piss)

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "I believe that advertisements are neurotoxins, and nobody has the right to poison me."

And you have no right to the content you're viewing but blocking ads on. If you really consider ads 'poison' surely boycotting sites that use ads is the solution or offering an alternative solution this is actually viable.

<comment><USER11> When watching TV, I often switch away when the ads come. Then after a few minutes I switch back to continue watching the program. Do you think this behavior is also unacceptable? Or how do you feel about people who throw away promotional stuff found in magazines and newspapers?

<comment><USER12> On U.S. TV you can pretty much watch the first 5 minutes of the show and come back and watch the last 5 minutes without missing anything of consequence... everything you missed was flashbacks, bullshit and advertising. This describes 90% of all American TV content.

Edit: I guess the truth hurts. Thanks for the downvotes. Whatever, I stand by my observation as a foreigner having watched TV in many other countries and I can tell you from first hand experience that U.S. TV is the worst offender by a HUGE margin.

<comment><USER13> Have you ever watched American TV? This reads like someone who turned on Bravo at 2PM one time and decided all TV must be like that.

<comment><USER14> I think what they're commenting on is the sort of editing time-line encountered on such shows in the genre similar to "greatest ice-road vintage trucker sale digger catch".

These tend to be, in a 30 minute slot:

<2 minute highlight reel>

<2 minutes of original footage>

<1 minute of "coming up next">

<5 minutes of ads>

<1 minute of "previously on...">

<3 minutes of original footage>

<1 minute of "coming up next">

<5 minutes of ads>

<1 minute of "previously on...">

<3 minutes of original footage>

<1 minute of "next time on...">

<5 minutes of ads>

Which gives 8 minutes of original footage stretched over 30 minutes, with 15 minutes of ads and 7 minutes of rehashing.

This format, although now popular in other countries, is a "modern-classic" of US television.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I get that, but that's a fairly small sub-genre of TV. It's a common stereotype, and I agree it's warranted because that style is obnoxious, but it's not actually a problem if you live in the US and want to watch something different.

<comment><USER12> They do the same thing with sports - cutting out action to cut to commercial breaks... and I don't mean during timeouts or whatever. They cut off soccer to go to commercial break during play! Soaps are the same... educational shows are the same. Commercials every 10 minutes. It's a joke how much advertising is done on TV you pay to watch content - not ads.

While the UK isn't exactly a model citizen in this respect, at least on the BBC which everyone (arguably) pays a TV license for, there is content wall to wall... because you pay for that. On channels you don't pay for, there is advertising, and I think this is totally fair. But why should people pay to (mostly) be advertised to and not to be delivered the content that they're paying for?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> People talk about the ad blocking arms race, but they forget that advertising itself is an arms race. Often it doesn't even benefit the advertisers!

For example, everyone would buy food even if it wasn't advertised, so the food industry as a whole might well be losing money on ads. (If you're feeling nitpicky, substitute "cheap food industry" for "food industry".) It's a kind of prisoner's dilemma situation where each firm keeps spending money on ads to avoid losing market share to competitors, but all firms together would be happier with a blanket ban on advertising. I suspect that many online ads are also fighting for a share of a fixed-size market, and would benefit from a ban as well.

Ad blocking is a gradual way to institute such a ban without requiring everyone's consent. It's probably already making many companies richer without them realizing it, by suppressing the ads of their competitors. In fact, these are the companies you want to get richer, because their products are spreading by word of mouth instead of ads.

<comment><USER16> Blanket bans on advertising favour market incumbents. It's true that some companies will prosper through word of mouth but in the early adopter stage you need to reach those early adopters. If you're small and your early adopters are distributed, you'll die before you catch on through people talking about you.

I'd wager the net effect would be to entrench big brands.

<comment><USER17> I still don't see how this works out as an advantage for the little guy. At best, for every ad the new startup buys, the big incumbent buys two and you're back to more or less where you started. Worst case, the big incumbents and shady scammers buy up the majority of the advertising time, training consumers to ignore ads and making it even harder for a legitimate newcomer to get their foot in the door.

<comment><USER16> > At best, for every ad the new startup buys, the big incumbent buys two and > you're back to more or less where you started.

Are you? Previously no one knew about the startup. Now one in three people in the targeted segment see it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is extortion, plain and simple. Essentially they're forcing advertisers to funnel all ad content through them.

Good thing for uBlock Origin because otherwise they should be indicted to anti-competitive behavior.

No, I don't like ads and I run uBlock Origin. I don't work for an advertising company and couldn't care less about ads.

But what Adblock Plus is doing here is illegal.

<comment><USER19> >But what Adblock Plus is doing here is illegal.

What law are they violating?

I'm a software lawyer.

As far as I know, nothing they are doing rises to violation of any law or regulation with regard to this particular move.

Is it unethical? Maybe. That doesn't mean it is illegal. It is _certainly_ not coercive - you can freely install or uninstall adblock, and you are free to advertise or _not_ advertise with them. They do not have a monopoly, natural or otherwise, and their product is wholly voluntary. If _Microsoft_ were installing ABP as a matter of course in IE and _they prevented you from uninstalling it_ \- then there is an argument that this would be anti- competitive.

An independent third party distributing totally voluntary, uninstallable software? Unlikely.

<comment><USER18> Ok. I can't edit my original statement. I shouldn't have put it that strongly, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Adblock Plus sold out a long time ago. I switched to uBlock about a year ago, and haven't looked back.

<comment><USER21> Note the difference between μBlock and μBlock Origins.

<comment><USER22> Use uBlock Origin, not uBlock.

<comment><USER23> What the diff?

<comment><USER24> uBlock was maintained by one person, but they wanted to move on to other projects, so they handed the project to someone else. The other person horribly mismanaged the project, and contributed essentially nothing. The original developer decided to return with uBlock origin.

<comment><USER25> The other person also begged for donations while contributing nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I hate Adblock Plus, but this doesnt sound too bad

'''which will allow blogs and other website operators to pick out so-called "acceptable" ads and place them on their pages. If a visitor using Adblock Plus comes to the page, they'll be shown those "acceptable ads," instead of whatever ads the site would normally run.'''

<comment><USER27> The question is, how do you ensure they are just swapping existing ads, that they are all not acceptable, and that they aren't inserting ads where there were none?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I hate ads, absolutely hate them. I hate them on TV. I hate them on billboards. I hate them on the net.

If I want something, I decide I want it. I research it, and I make my choices based on multiple sources. Dancing clowns and phony sales do nothing but waste my time and annoy me.

Having said that, we need some way forward, even if it's nothing but a small step. I propose that all advertisers voluntarily place ads (and paid product endorsements) inside and <advert></advert> tag, preferably with an alt attribute. My browser could show me the ad or the text. It's up to me. Ad Blockers would no longer be a thing. Who would need them? And if advertisers really wanted me to see the full-bandwidth version of whatever schlock they're peddling, over time they'd develop a reputation for delivering funny/interesting/engaging ads. Then I might let some through. Hell, I might start following them on Twitter.

But don't hijack my browser, track me against my will, and force me to look at things I don't want to simply to find out what kind of car accident happened outside last night. Content producers and consumers should not be in an adversarial relationship. Yet this is what they've created.

<comment><USER29> How do ads hijack your browser and track you against your will?

If you don't want tracking, don't visit the website. Ads don't force you look at things. You're looking at it.

<comment><USER30> [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/online-trackers-and- so...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/online-trackers-and-social- networks)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> A missing factoid via the corresponding WSJ article:

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/adblock-plus-is-launching-an- ad-...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/adblock-plus-is-launching-an-ad- exchange-1473768022)

"Advertisers will not be able to target ads via the Acceptable Ads Platform using the granular behavioral data many have become accustomed too, however, to preserve user privacy and security.

Rather, they'll have a limited set of information with which to target their ads, including the domain on which an ad would appear; the device, browser and operating system on which it's being loaded; and the geographical location it's being loaded from."

OK, so the "limited" set of information is already 5 pieces of information, and without specifics about the geographical location I am going to assume it can vary on any scale determined and changed by ABP at their discretion. In combination this is very likely to be a UUID for a vast majority of people (sorry, I don't have a reference, but that is what I have read somewhere). More pertinently, I have a vague feeling that this combination is enough for retargeting (people in adtech, please give us your input).

Folks are mentioning uBlock Origin. But there is tremendous pressure from online publishers, who I expect are soon going to turn this into a game of Whack-a-Blocker.

<comment><USER32> > OK, so the "limited" set of information is already 5 pieces of > information...

Ehh...it'll probably be the useragent string and the result of geocoding the client IP address. This is fairly narrow (especially for obscure and/or out- of-date browsers), but I think calling it "unique" might be a stretch. I guess it would be highly dependent on the population of your city or town and on the popularity of the site itself. I might be one of just a handful of people who reads HN while laying in my bed at night on an iPhone 6S, but I'd expect quite a few people in a major metro area are hitting big media sites from Chrome on Windows.

EDIT: trivial wording tweak

<comment><USER31> This is what I used to think, but the diversity of the devices in the developing countries (for example) adds more specifics. Even in countries where there is a lot more homogeneity of devices - you mention HN for example, but if I install ABP on my device and visit multiple sites using the browser, remember that the list of sites is another little trail of breadcrumbs. That could only become significant if the advertisers themselves share this data amongst themselves and combine it with user-agent + geocoded address, but you can count on a service which will pop up to facilitate exactly that (assuming one doesn't already exist). Not to mention, what if these ad networks consolidate at some point in the future?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is nothing but a pirate business model, it's deplorable. Blocking ads alone is pretty bad but wedging yourself into the middle and then collecting a marketplace fee is nothing short of a pirate move.

<comment><USER34> I'll just say. Google offers and maintains reCapcha, while at the same time scrapes the internet using bots.

Wedging yourself in the middle is an awesome business plan.

<comment><USER35> Google doesn't make money from reCaptcha[1], and reCaptcha isn't deployed to stop the kind of crawlers Google operates (you'd just add a line to robots.txt if you wanted to do this), so I'm not sure how this is relevant.

[1]: OK, maybe in the extremely broad, indirect sense that reCaptcha helps Google solve image classification problems, which make Google products like Maps/Books/Images better, which increases traffic, which increases ad revenue

<comment><USER34> reCaptcha definitely does contribute to google's bottom line.

Google is involved in making it harder to scrape the web for the average person. They are involved in most web standards. If you go in to most robots.txt files, they have root forbidden for user-agent: *. But you can be sure that Google is whitelisted.

Google has a vested interest in making it harder for the average person to scrap the web. This is because they position themselves as a repository of information. This is a clear case of wedging yourself in the middle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> [https://acceptableads.com/en/](https://acceptableads.com/en/) for anyone who was looking for it

<comment><USER37> there's no such thing as acceptable ads

<comment><USER38> I disagree. See the Stack Overflow model: [https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2016/02/why-stack-overflow- do...](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2016/02/why-stack-overflow-doesnt-care- about-ad-blockers/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Business plan:

1\. Tell users you're doing something for them.

2\. Get lots of users.

3\. Change product to screw them.

4\. Profit!

This happens too often.

<comment><USER40> \</comment></comment><comment>----> erroneous comment deleted. Original suggested GPL was protection against dual versioning (Open Source/Enterprise) as opposed to permissive licences which enable @animats business model analysis.

<comment><USER41> AdBlock Plus _is_ GPL: [https://adblockplus.org/license- headers](https://adblockplus.org/license-headers)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Just another anecdote to "ad" to the pile:

In an effort to keep my Chromium/FF instances 'clean' I just use https- everywhere and uMatrix (since it came out - my trust in noscript and abp was waning a long way back). It's nice to block the vast majority of low-hanging trackers. I'm hoping that having FB, GA and myriad other tracking scripts auto-disabled circumvents some of their even smarter tracking methods (IP, cookie) but I'm always open to modify the setup, just not at the expense of my limited computing resources.

Using 10 privacy extensions is a non-starter, for instance. Not to mention how little I trust _most_ of the ad blocking efforts out there.

At home I have a pi-hole set up (as well as the pi being a media centre, IRC, IM and NAS... so versatile!) to block the low-hanging scripts and calls on my family and guests' browsing. It's a shame it blocks Piwik by default, but I can understand the reasoning. Log-based analytics really should be the norm, anyway. The speed boost is non-trivial, as is the peace of mind that most of our private life is not being sold to the highest bidder.

EDIT: I've just gone into the Privacy settings in uMatrix and checked everything on the basis of this post-as-reminder: Cookies, local storage, user agent, strict https... Don't think the last one allows me to drop https- everywhere yet though, only to avoid mixed content. I may end up unchecking that box if it gets too annoying... I know the risks!

<comment><USER43> As a NoScript user I'm curious what eroded your trust in it. Should I be looking at switching away from it for some reason?

<comment><USER42> Nothing major, beyond the controversies listed here[0] and the developer's more cavalier approach to whitelisting. Plus resource usage was double what was on offer by the much more fine-grained uMatrix. At the time at least. Maybe still.

The Tor project still bundle NS in with their browser, hardened, I believe (stricter whitelisting, for one) but they clearly still trust it. Better than nothing, but far from perfect IMO.

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript#Controversies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript#Controversies)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I block ads primarily for privacy reasons. I don't mind ads in themselves if they're just static and not trying to track my every move. I don't want ads to be "relevant" to me. I find that not only is it just creepy but really useless to see ads for something long after I've purchased. I'd rather it be more of a discovery tool for new products (movie trailers for example).

</comment><comment><USER45> uBlock Origin is where it's at nowadays.

</comment><comment><USER46> There are other ways to block ads besides this one solution. The web ad delivery mechanism is brittle.

But when will this game end?

Advertisers should just pay consumers (users). Why bother with a middleman?

Request for Project (RFP): Let _all_ users sign up to be paid by advertisers. (This is not a new idea.) Sign up with enough advertisers and one can have "universal basic income".

Users should not be giving away their time for free. Every time a web advertiser distracts a user, they are "stealing" the user's time.

Advertisers pay for this privilege. But they do not pay the users. They pay off someone -- you know who -- to help them steal users' time.

Just pay the damn users. Enough of this silly game.

Added benefit: It would open up the search engine market and social networking (photo database) market to competition and innovation.

</comment><comment><USER47> uMatrix allows you to fine tune rules for each web site.

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/umatrix/ogfcmafjal...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/umatrix/ogfcmafjalglgifnmanfmnieipoejdcf)

</comment><comment><USER48> I block ads (and lots of other things) because i will block any network traffic i do not want on my own network infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER49> I've got a deal for any company out there. Rather then spending millions on advertising provide to me a datasheet. Hell, pay for ad space where you can show off your datasheets. I'll buy the product with the best possible features for my use case.

If companies start doing this, I'll exclusively buy provided products from them rather then from advertised companies. If the data sheet you provide lies, I'll never buy your products again, so keep that in mind.

This is a simple and transparent way to get me to buy your products and it costs you less! Isn't that great!

</comment><comment><USER50> Juts use μBlock Origin.

</comment><comment><USER51> If you think about it, it's like responsive design for your ads. The "responsive" case being to show the nicer ads and the default case being to show the normal obtrusive ads (depending on the user's level of ad blocking).

I'm not saying I outright support, but some ads are useful — The Deck is one example. Amazon's "people who purchased this also purchased" is (kind of) another.

<comment><USER52> I wouldn't think of "people who purchased this also purchased" as an ad. An ad is characterized as not relevant to the current activity, but these recommendations usually are (except when they are hilarious, but that's another thing).

<comment><USER51> Yeah, the more I think of it, I tend to agree. Just because it's an unsolicited recommendation that influences your purchasing decision doesn't make it an ad.

I'm not quite sure how to categorize their affinity analysis in general. Perhaps it could be thought of as a cross-sell / upsell / impulse buy, depending on the item recommended.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> It's pretty despicable - let's block everyone elses ads so that we can put up our own and make money from them instead.

<comment><USER54> That sounds exactly like what browser based malware/adware does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Adblock needs an adblocker. An adblock-blocker, if you will.

<comment><USER56> To view this page, please disable your ad-blocker-ad blocker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> What's next? Hijacking affiliate links?

I do use Adblock Plus because there's a nice fanboy annoyances list that kills the latest scourge of Web UI: the pop up, in particular the "sign up to our newsletter since you've been here for 2 seconds!" pop up.

Is there ublock origin equivalent for this?

<comment><USER58> You should be able to use all these lists with uBlock too.

EDIT: the specific one you mention is even offered (but not turned on) by default in uBlock origin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Why not keep adblock plus, but also install ublock origin and three other adblockers as well?

Not only would they all have to sell out like adblock plus, but advertisers would also have to pay each of them before you saw a single ad.

</comment><comment><USER60> Oh goodie, a new tech protection racket. Keep innovating, gents!

</comment><comment><USER61> What happens if I develop an adblocker that also blocks Adblock Plus ads, but then I start adding in my own ads over the Adblock Plus ads? Where does this end?

</comment><comment><USER62> Really should change the name something else at this point

<comment><USER45> Change Adblock Plus to simply AdPlus

<comment><USER63> AdBlock Plus Ads

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> It is borderline malware at that point.

I don't like ads but I still want to contribute to the sites so I just pay with contributor: [https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/](https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/)

Disclosure: I work for Google but those opinions are my own.

<comment><USER51> First time seeing Contributor. This is interesting but… can you really use it everywhere, or do creators have to opt-in? I don't see pointed how Google sends money to authors.

<comment><USER65> The ads you see are generally the result of an auction. When you use Contributor it bids in that auction for you, and typically wins it for a small fraction of a cent.

Publishers generally don't have to opt in: if you're a publisher advertising with AdSense, and a visitor shows up who uses Contributor, they'll see "thank you for being a Contributor!" and you get a micropayment from them into your AdSense account.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, on things completely unrelated to ads.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Collective bargaining power is a nice thing to have. But it's also the question of who you're handing the power to. AdBlock Plus is out.

</comment><comment><USER67> I think the problem here is to leave decisions about what's good/bad ads to other people (e.g. EasyList). I believe blocking technology itself is a user's right and should be allowed, but deciding what's good/bad for others is meddlesome. Individual users should make their own decisions about what should be blocked and what's not, as easily as possible.

</comment><comment><USER68> I am not particularly upset (besides they have been going this direction for a while) I just don't like obtrusive ads and, odly, some websites have so many ads that their styling is incredibly messed up without them. I may switch to another adblocker if I see too much stuff, but seeing some ads doesn't really anger me.

</comment><comment><USER69> Thought the point of Acceptable Ads was to force publishers to self-regulate the ads that they publish to provide a better experience for all users and restore the balance of power. By allowing publishers to only provide acceptable ads to Adblock users, this seems to defeat the point.

</comment><comment><USER70> I agree with _an_ acceptable ads program. It shouldn't be an ad blocker running it, not if it's monetized. Paid access onto the acceptable ads list is the reason I stopped using ABP in the first place; this just put the nail in the coffin.

</comment><comment><USER71> Pretty soon competition in ad-blockers will result in advertisements.

The first guy to invent the Ad-blocker-Blocker will be rich. That is, until someone creates the Ad-blocker-blocker-Blocker. Then that is the guy who will be rich. That is, until the....

</comment><comment><USER72> Is there a middle ground between block all ads and each user individually white-listing sites? Anyone which produced a curated list of "allowed" ads would hit a similar narrative.

<comment><USER73> I'd support a tool which gave me the opposite of that: I'd like to see the ads at first to give the benefit of the doubt, but then be able to blacklist the site if it turned out I didn't like them.

When I say "blacklist the site" I mean _the domain I 'm viewing the content on_, not the domain the ads are being served on. Otherwise you're "punishing" poor sods who just happen to be using the same ad network as an abusive site.

I'm not sure any tool allows that right now. They all block-by-default and have a whitelist instead.

<comment><USER74> _> I'd like to see the ads at first to give the benefit of the doubt, but then be able to blacklist the site if it turned out I didn't like them. When I say "blacklist the site" I mean the domain I'm viewing the content on, not the domain the ads are being served on. Otherwise you're "punishing" poor sods who just happen to be using the same ad network as an abusive site._

If the ads are being served from the same ad network - then you will be served more or less the same shitty ads you didn't want to see on Site A when you visit Site B. Because it is the _ad network_ tracking you and deciding which ads you see with very little, if any, input from Sites A or B.

Furthermore, since advertisements are a security risk they should be blacklisted by default and only whitelist sites you trust. Which is still no guarantee you won't get infected by the 3rd party Ad Network of that site.

<comment><USER73> > If the ads are being served from the same ad network - then you will be > served more or less the same shitty ads you didn't want to see on Site A > when you visit Site B.

Not true.

> Because it is the ad network tracking you and deciding which ads you see > with very little, if any, input from Sites A or B.

I don't care about "tracking". I think that's extremely overblown paranoia.

> Furthermore, since advertisements are a security risk they should be > blacklisted by default and only whitelist sites you trust.

That is your opinion; I do not share it.

Regardless of what you "think" I should be doing, the simple fact is that I want a program that does X, and a program that does X does not exist.

<comment><USER74> The second statement that you separated from the first statement was to explain to you why the first statement is correct. I used some weasel words there ("more or less") because there will be some _targeted_ ads based on A or B - but the ads served from _the same ad network_ will be largely the same ads except when a placement ad wins the bid. That is how ad networks work. Especially Google. [0] [1]

The Ad Network tracks you and knows which ads to show you. It doesn't give a damn if you visit Site A or Site B it is going to show you the ads it thinks it should be showing you because it knows who you are. If Site A is about cars and Site B is about cleaning supplies, you may see more ads for cars/cleaning supplies on the respective sites - but any "irrelevant" ads will be shared between the two sites based on your user profile. I'm not bringing up the tracking aspect as a reason for blocking because some people don't care about that, as you mentioned you don't yourself. I'm bringing it up because it is what determines what advertisements you see - and no matter what site you visit, as long as they are using the same Ad Network, you will receive advertisements based on your personal profile with that Ad Network.

The company I work for exists to get people like you to click ads. Every large Ad Network works like this.

 _> That is your opinion; I do not share it._

I hope you have absolutely nothing important on your computer, are never the target of ransomware, never have any of your personal accounts compromised, etc. You're probably the first person I've ever met who doesn't care about personal security. For many people it is even a concern of financial security (identity theft) with the rise of online banking, but I'll assume you don't do any of that and you never make any purchases online.

[0] [https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/113771?visit_id=1-...](https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/113771?visit_id=1-636095711720734984-1013085954&ref_topic=23402&rd=2)

[1] [https://support.google.com/adsense/troubleshooter/1631343](https://support.google.com/adsense/troubleshooter/1631343)

[2] [https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/32856](https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/32856)

<comment><USER73> Except Site A could be consuming only text ads, and Site B could be consuming mostly rich media ads.

Even though I'd prefer Site A, because it doesn't have those nasty takeovers or anything, if I blocked the ad exchange I'd be fucking over both Site A and Site B. Site A would become collateral damage, in effect.

Believe me, I worked for Atlas for 5 years. I know how ad networks work.

> I hope you have absolutely nothing important on your computer, are never the > target of ransomware, never have any of your personal accounts compromised, > etc.

So do I.

> You're probably the first person I've ever met who doesn't care about > personal security.

I do care about personal security. I don't see what blocking ads has anything to do with that.

> For many people it is even a concern of financial security (identity theft) > with the rise of online banking, but I'll assume you don't do any of that > and you never make any purchases online.

I've never seen or heard of anybody who's ever lost any money due to an ad load. It's just irrational paranoia.

<comment><USER74> _> I do care about personal security. I don't see what blocking ads has anything to do with that._

Do you have absolutely zero personal information tied to or stored on your computer? A compromised computer would be compromised security in such a case.

 _> I've never seen or heard of anybody who's ever lost any money due to an ad load. It's just irrational paranoia._

Look into malvertising and especially ransomware. Just because it hasn't happened to you or someone you know doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It's also happened on big name and high trafficked sites like The New York Times, Yahoo!, the Huffington Post, and more. We're talking _hundreds of thousands of people_ who have been financially impacted due to malicious ads on otherwise "trusted" sites. Even sites that specifically requested they disable their ad blocker, like Forbes.

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

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/big-name-sites- hit-b...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/big-name-sites-hit-by-rash- of-malicious-ads-spreading-crypto-ransomware/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> You can always edit the hosts file.

[http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts](http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts)

</comment><comment><USER76> That's how it goes. I bet the ads they get payed for are the least annoying to AdBlock. The "Plus" now stands for "More Ads".

</comment><comment><USER77> I hope their ads are small unobtrusive and easy to _detect_ , so that another ad blocker can easily remove them :)

<comment><USER78> I'm not sure that I understand how exactly you imagine 2 AdBlockers being a good idea? Just use a proper one.

<comment><USER79> I think his comment was intentionally tongue-in-cheek

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> What's their plan to prevent malware from coming through their ad network?

</comment><comment><USER81> you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain

</comment><comment><USER82> AdBlock has:

* AdBlock

* AdBlock Plus

* AdBlock Ultimate, now AdBlocker Ultimate

uBlock has:

* uBlock

* uBlock Origin

...and I can never tell the difference.

<comment><USER83> Just use uBlock Origin. These details don't really matter to most people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> At this point Adblock Plus is little more than a cheap money grab.

</comment><comment><USER85> Why don't more people use hosts files and apps like gas mask to switch them?

<comment><USER86> Element hiding, selective re-enablement and the like.

Not that the hosts file thing is wrong, it's a bit of a sledgehammer approach though.

<comment><USER52> Agreed. But I'm still using domain-based blocking on my router as an additional line of defense for clients that cannot malware-block.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> No such thing as an acceptable ad.

<comment><USER88> Then pay for content.

Ads are how people who provide free content make money. Yes, they are often offensive (visually, not necessarily the content), slow to load, and contain or utilize some of tracker or retargeting mechanism. But if you can remove those and you basically just have a PNG telling you about a product or service, that is the very definition of acceptable.

But to freely consume content from someone (whether a single blogger or a massive company) then bitch about unobtrusive, nontracking, inoffensive advertisements is a pretty good example of entitlement.

<comment><USER89> I blanket block every ad (or whatever the list currently has). If a site has ads, I'll manually block those too. I'll go into their code and find their ad service url and add it into my list. I'll do whatever it takes to remove them, regardless if its simple or not. I do not want to see them and I will continue to visit those sites. I just wish a good adblocker would come to mobile because I'd use it there as well.

<comment><USER90> >I just wish a good adblocker would come to mobile because I'd use it there as well.

That's been done for a long time: uBlock Origin for Firefox has been around for ages, and Firefox has had an Android version for quite some time.

<comment><USER89> I only ever used chrome, never thought about using a different browser on android.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> I would like to see some examples of these new ads. I've seen some text based ads, which I think, are much better and cleaner than the early 2000s obtrusive style.

</comment><comment><USER92> I feel like there's a baseline assumption here that the people who make ad blockers would somehow be more ethical or "nicer" than the people who make websites that serve shitty ads that got us all to download ad blockers in the first place. But I don't see why that should be true.

</comment><comment><USER93> Opera is surprisingly nice browser.. with adblocker

<comment><USER94> The builtin adblocker is slower than uBlock last time I try. And we can't add custom list.

<comment> angry-hacker Every company wants to build their own racket e.g. Acceptable Ads manifestó.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN:Confused About Contest Rules - <AUTHOR>

I have been working on an Application (http://www.taggedback.com/) since Mid December. I recently entered it in a contest (https://microsoft.promo.eprize.com/myappisbetter/) Before uploading my work, I read through the rules again, and came to a confusing part. Here is the link to the full rules: https://microsoft.promo.eprize.com/myappisbetter/public/fulfillment/rules.pdf
The part I am confused about is on the bottom of page 2: "Uploading a Submission constitutes entrant's consent to give Sponsor a royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, create derivative works from, and display such Submissions in whole or in part, on a worldwide basis, and to incorporate it into other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed, including for promotional or marketing purposes. If necessary, entrant will sign any necessary documentation that may be required for Sponsor or its designees to make use of the non-exclusive rights entrant is granting to use the Submission. Sponsor is not responsible for lost, late, incomplete, invalid, un-intelligible or misdirected Submission, which are disqualified."
To me it sounds like uploading my App gives the Sponsor the right to do whatever they want with all of my hard work!
If that is the case, do I submit all of my hard work for the past 8.5 months to Microsoft?!? Any input would be appreciated!  Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> Clickables:

<http://www.taggedback.com/>

<https://microsoft.promo.eprize.com/myappisbetter/>

[https://microsoft.promo.eprize.com/myappisbetter/public/fulf...](https://microsoft.promo.eprize.com/myappisbetter/public/fulfillment/rules.pdf)

Why do people not bother to create the clickable links? Do they not care? Do they not know (despite it being in the FAQ and mentioned over and over again)?

Why?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about the links, as I am new to this site... Thanks for adding them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> As a point of clarification: Does the contest involve you uploading the source code? Or are you only to upload a link? (I'm guessing they want source, but I just wanted to be sure.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, they require me to upload the complete source code.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why pay for things instead of pirating? - <AUTHOR>

What are your reasons for paying for music/books/etc instead of simply pirating it? <comment><USER2> Working on my own projects, I've been starting to feel like: well, how can I expect people to pay for the things that I create if I'm never willing to do the same for them?

I've also come to the realisation that sometimes time is more valuable than money. How many people here know the experience of hitting a torrent site (or sites) to - let's say - find a song. Finding a good quality bitrate, how many seeds does it have? It's not a dodgy file? OK, yep cool. I used to have more time than I knew what to do with in my younger years. Those days are well behind me and now, more and more I'm finding that my time is the most important resource I have.

<comment><USER3> Agreed on both points.

The reason I don't pirate much (more on that later) is because I value my time and the time other creators put into their work. Even if said work may be shitty, that doesn't give me the right to steal it. A creator stealing the work of others—especially one that have the means of paying for it—is sleazy IMHO.

That being said, I still sometimes obtain music immorally if I cannot find a copy online that I can pay for. It's such a pain in the ass. Usually a good torrent will still be far from having the quality of a legal release: the cover art might be low res, the track names might have the track numbers in them, there will be a torrent scene slogan in the comments section of each track (or even the genre) and such. All these have to be remedied before an album fits in with my library. Even if I don't torrent many albums, it will all add up eventually and I'd much rather have iTunes, CDBaby or whoever take care of these matters for me.

<comment><USER4> It's probably due to the genres I listen to, but I usually have the opposite convenience issue. There are a few very good forums and mp3-blogs that track those genres, which have well-written posts introducing an artist or album, including some streamable samples, and then linking to a .zip or .rar download.

Very easy to browse and get an idea for what's what, and they explain things like what I might like if I liked a related album. I also get to know the tastes of a few posters, and how they relate to mine. Meanwhile, actually buying the CDs often involves mail-order from other countries, overpaying for out-of-print vinyl on eBay (which doesn't go to the musician anyway), and the official sources are terribly organized/presented: rarely any streaming samples, poor descriptions of what the album actually sounds like, etc. Even when I _do_ buy CDs, I would never have found out they existed if it weren't for the much more convenient mp3-blog/forum scene that actually brought them to my attention, reviewed them, and presented them in an attractive format.

I do try to give money to bands I like in one way or another, but I see it as more like donating to thank them for producing stuff I like, and encouraging them / supporting them to produce more in the future. Sometimes I literally donate, if they have a PayPal or something like that; other times I'll buy a CD, a vinyl record, or a shirt or something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Convenience.

Before I was making money it was more convenient to pirate. Time was plentiful, money was scarce. Lots of free time on your hands means you can afford to sift through garbage quality files, convert to different formats, etc.

Now that I have income and little spare time it's far more convenient for me to pay for something I know will be of great quality.

</comment><comment><USER6> Time, I don't want to spend hours trying to download some album. I'll pay for stuff if I can get it faster/easier/in a higher quality, which is pretty much always. Even better if I can support the artist with it!

That said, I think there are valid reasons to 'pirate' something. For example, when you can't get something from where you're living.

A good example of this are US TV shows. A lot of people in Europe watch them and wouldn't mind paying for them, but there are simply no options other then importing a DVD box 6mo-12mo after release or waiting until a broadcaster licenses the show. You could probably get Hulu or Netflix up and running over a VPN, but this is not something non tech people can really do and it's illegal by EU law as well I believe.

<comment><USER7> Another example of "valid" piracy: Satellite TV channels available in Britain don't cover Premiership football matches kicking off at 3pm, even if we've paid for all the sports packages we can buy. Ironically to watch sport being played in our own country we end up resorting to illegal streams of foreign TV...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I "pirated" when I was a stupid kid with too much time on my hands and not enough respect for other people's. Back then I downloaded a lot of stuff that I never got around to playing / reading / watching. It was free, it was there, so I just took it. I guess it was just the hunter-gatherer instincts taking over my immature mind.

These days I'm way more discerning. I'm engaged in many rewarding activities, from my day job to my startup, from my social to my romantic life. So I tend to consume less digital entertainment.But what I do consume, I pay for.

That way I'm supporting the authors and encouraging them to keep up their good work, so that in the future I may benefit from more quality entertainment. Prices are usually very reasonable anyway.

<comment><USER9> > Back then I downloaded a lot of stuff that I never got around to playing / > reading / watching.

One could argue that piracy in the above instance causes no economic loss to the producer. If you had to pay for it, you would not have purchased it anyway, therefore the producer is in the same situation in either case.

At the same time companies can hugely benefit from this kind of piracy. In the case of Microsoft, pirated versions of Windows allow them to maintain their dominant position in the market. If the Windows was really piracy proof then the people who could not afford to pay $100(ish) for it would probably switch to an alternative like Linux. That in turn would weaken MS's position since a strong userbase of an alternative OS would develop thus undermining their 'platform' strategy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> To say thank you to the authors and help them keep doing this, even in cases they only get a small cut.

</comment><comment><USER11> I want to reward the author(s) and encourage them to create more works.

I have purchased all the Futurama movies. A new season of the TV series was then released.

OTOH, the government should not protect flawed business models for 95 years at a time.

</comment><comment><USER12> I took a two-year break in the early 2000's from technology in general by living in a very impoverished nation--it simply wasn't available to 99% of the population where I was.

Before I left, I was all about piracy. I thought it was awesome, and I hoped kazaa, audiogalaxy, and others would be around in the mean time.

After getting back, piracy seemed so trivial and pointless--most things I was interested in pirating before leaving was media of some sort, and this media no longer interested me. BitTorrent was relatively new, and so I never really used it for pirating (just to get Linux iso's).

In regard to the OP, I guess I do neither?

</comment><comment><USER13> Well it may be selfish, but I like hardcopies. Actual books and CDs have a tangible value and I like that, it is part of the reason why itunes and kindle books are so hard for me to justify buying when I could be getting that for free.</comment>


Ask HN: How do I get 100 new customers every month? - <AUTHOR> I can get 100 customers if you give me a time span of 4 months but how do I get 100 in one month. I am open for both inbound and outbound approaches. <comment><USER2> Depends on what you sell...if you are a megayacht salesman you can't get 100 a month, there just aren't that many customers. What do you sell, and where do you sell it?

</comment><comment><USER3> this is too vague? what have you tried to get the 100 customers? what haven't you tried? what's your budget per customer? If a customer is worth $5000 you can do a lot to get their attention. if it's a 1 $3 transaction then you don't have a lot of options(blog or a convenience store). some kind of retail store distribution)

</comment><comment><USER4> Do whatever you are already doing, but 4 times more effectively?

</comment><comment><USER5> Customers for what?</comment>


Salesforce, the pillow maker and the $125,000 Amex bill - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/software/354146/salesforce-pillow-maker-and-125000-amex-bill

<comment><USER2> Long-term Salesforce consultant here. Can't speak to the specifics in this case, but mixups of this nature are sadly quite common in the Enterprise world. In the Salesforce ecosystem particularly the fast pace of growth in customers with complicated needs has not been met by either by internal professional services within Salesforce or by the larger partner community (it is difficult to re-train people in proprietary technologies and rapidly build up companies around them). This means that many partners are billing high rates for subpar services. In this case they appear to be under subcontract to Salesforce, which could mean that Salesforce is partially responsible (IANAL).

I don't think there is any silver bullet here. Large enterprise projects generally need a lot of hands in the implementation, particularly when there are tight schedules involved, and when there aren't enough quality resources available, people end up using resources that aren't able to deliver on what they promised in the timeline they promise.

I've seen this happen before (generally from a distance) and all I can say my condolences go out to all involved. As far as advice goes to developers, consulting in general is filled non particularly interesting repetitive tasks that rarely attracts great talent, and the most talented people tend to up into management (i.e. architects) rather than hanging around in the trenches. As far as advice to people involved on the purchasing side, make sure you vet your consultants ahead of time. Usually if take someone who promises something too good to be true, it will turn out just that way.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Obviously using your personal credit card for a $125,000 expense for your business is a little foolish, but does the employee have recourse against MyPillow if My Pillow is unsuccessful in litigation against Salesforce?

This case pretty much establishes that the purchase was made on behalf of My Pillow.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds like there was already bad faith from My Pillow on paying by that point, or else they wouldn't have made the demand.

Not much of a chance for the card holder, CC chargebacks aren't designed for contract disputes.</comment>


Safe Crackers: The Art of Warez (Demo History Documentary) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd-s9htpHgQ <comment><AUTHOR> It's more about the early day ascii art than the demos most of us think of these days, but still cool stuff.

Relevant link if you like the demoscene: [https://www.youtube.com/user/DemosceneArchive/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/DemosceneArchive/videos)</comment>


WSJ: 'Quit Chrome. Safari and Edge are just better browsers' - <AUTHOR> https://news.slashdot.org/story/20/07/12/2141207/wsj-quit-chrome-safari-and-edge-are-just-better-browsers <comment><USER2> This link hijacked my back button on Android Firefox.

<comment><USER3> Same on iOS safari. Had to hold back button and select a few pages back...

<comment><USER4> I never once thought of doing that. I always restart the browser. Thanks for the tip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find Chrome infinitely more pleasant to develop in: those developer tools just rock. As a user though, Safari just feels smoother, seems to render pages better, and feels more native. If it had webm support it would be close to perfect for me.

<comment><USER6> I started using the developer tools in Safari a year ago or so and found that it pretty much allows you to do everything Chrome does. It's just about getting used to it looking a bit different.

<comment><USER7> I'm only using Chrome for development because of the zoomable flame-graph in the "Performance" Tab. It's a fantastic profiling tool. Also, it's nice that they allow plugins for DevTools (e. g. the React one). If Safari had those two features, I wouldn't touch Chrome anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Edge is based on Chromium

<comment><USER9> But as the article points out, it's faster.

IMO the case for Edge over Chrome isn't that convincing, but the Safari one is. If it had container tabs like Firefox (which has become a must for me) I'd switch in a heartbeat.

<comment><USER10> Safari doesn't have container tabs, but the Intelligent Tracking Prevention is supposed to achieve some of the same goals (but much more opaquely unless you're familiar with it's mechanisms)

You could try to read up on wether it satisfies your requirements: [https://webkit.org/blog/category/privacy/](https://webkit.org/blog/category/privacy/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Safari doesn't have U2F/FIDO support, automatic non-starter.

<comment><USER12> Safari 13 does and the tech preview does

[https://developer.apple.com/safari/technology- preview/releas...](https://developer.apple.com/safari/technology- preview/release-notes/)

<comment><USER13> Mobile Safari included

[https://www.macrumors.com/2019/11/12/ios-13-3-fido2-security...](https://www.macrumors.com/2019/11/12/ios-13-3-fido2-security- key-support-safari/)

<comment><USER11> Hell yes! I'm switching as soon as this goes GA!</comment></comment></comment></comment>