A Mass Shooter's Tragic Past (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/02/11/a-loaded-gun?mbid=ob_ppc_magazine

<comment><USER2> For a more balanced account, see e.g. this one I got off of Wikipedia: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/us/21bishop.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/us/21bishop.html) which details a long history of violent tendencies and likely real violence, note the restaurant assault. A bit from the beginning:

" _Over the years, Dr. Bishop had shown evidence that the smallest of slights could set off a disproportionate and occasionally violent reaction, according to numerous interviews with colleagues and others who know her._ "

A tragic past, alright, but one she created, enabled by the sort of corruption and softness on crime Massachusetts is well known for (e.g. she was sentenced to probation for the restaurant assault, but wasn't technically "convicted" of a crime).

And a technical note, pump shotguns don't "go off" more than once without "pumping", moving the forearm back to eject a shell (and that's one way to unload them, granted, you have to hit a switch if you haven't just fired it), and forward to put in a new shell. Which she did twice: after she went outside and attempted a carjacking, the gun was found with a shell in the chamber.</comment>


Direct/Cloudless File Transfer - <AUTHOR> http://www.binfer.com <comment><AUTHOR> We're a young startup that creates a direct, vpn-like-connection between two parties so that data can be transferred securely, quickly and reliably. We're looking for feedback to create an even better product. Try it out hackers. Cheers.

</comment><comment><USER2> How do I specify where I want the file/data/whatever to go?

<comment><AUTHOR> Binfer to Non-Binfer User You can create a Link using 'Create New Link' and send it to anyone you'd like via any communication platform.

You can use the Messages feature to compile an email-like message to an email and a link (similar to the one above) is sent to the user.

Binfer to Binfer If both users have Binfer installed you can add a contact, and drag and drop them files in a chat message and they appear on their desktop.

You can draft them a message (just like above) and the receiver begins receiving the file.

You can create a sync, using the backup/sync' feature and the folder (same structure and data) is replicated on the receiving end.

Check out the product manual with any more questions. Thanks for the response Colin! help.binfer.com</comment></comment>


The London Tube Heartbeat - <AUTHOR> http://tubeheartbeat.com/london/ <comment><USER2> This is amazing, just spend 30 minute pouring over it and have barely scratched the surface.

I was surprised by the number of exits late at night at Heathrow T5, I guess it's all staff arriving for nightshifts, as there aren't many turning up to get planes at that time (last flight is 2240, meaning the latest you can enter security is 2205, meaning that you need to be off the tube at 2200 at the latest, and I doubt many risk cutting it that close)

<comment><USER3> I think you have misread that.

All three Heathrow stations have many _entries_ in the late evening, which will be people arriving on flights. They don't have many exits.

<comment><USER2> You're right, I guess I was thinking "entry into airport"!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Excellent work!

This detail probably doesn't matter for this nice visualization, but ... do you have details on how this data is attributed to specific lines? For example, District and Circle have such an overlap, and the changes in Circle appear proportional to changes in District. I personally have intended to take a Circle train but because District overlaps and is headed where I need to go, I'll just take whatever comes along next.

<comment><USER5> A more extreme example: At stations like Amersham there's no separate gateline for National Rail versus tube, and the tickets are interoperable towards London.

Many of Amersham's morning commuters board the (faster) National Rail service, even though (unusually for the tube) the Metropolitan line has express and semi-stopping services at peak times to catch up some of the difference.

<comment><USER2> Some may choose to take the slightly slower to the city with a city, rather than being dumped at Marylebone station (not passing go), which has pretty poor tube connections (or is a walk outside to Baker Street to catch a standing only tube)

Only way to work it out would be specific data (like axel weights), which may be whats generating the data sets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Like it - really nice visualisation.

A few suggestions that might be nice:

\- show entry + exit down to 5min and maybe even 1 min intervals if that data is available.

\- make it so I can filter lines I am interested in (e.g clicking on the colour bars at the top to toggle on/off) - in zone 1 its pretty hard to see what is going on without zooming riiiiight the way in, but then you miss the "bigger picture".

</comment><comment><USER7> I watched a fun show on CBBC last night where they looked at Slimemoulds and a prof was showing how they could use Slimemoulds to generate an approximation of the tube network for Tokyo. They place food on population centres on a scaled map and release the Slimemould in the centre and bingo, it grows a nutrient distribution network that maps onto the rail network! A search engine query (I use Qwant) will get you to the work.

</comment><comment><USER8> Very nicely done! Was just checking a few stations where I commute, and compared the intuitions picked up about horrible / acceptable times, and line choices. Seems to match up to my experience, which makes the data-diving even more interesting. Also since those parts match, I can now look at other stations with a different eye, and based on the data have a feel for travelling there/through... Good stuff!

</comment><comment><USER9> The journey planner site also has usage timeline chart, but not nearly as well presented as this. I despise the tube rush hours, I won't get on before 9:15am, and not before 6:30pm. I will happily watch over-crowded trains go by, and will get off a train the moment it starts crowding. I don't care what my boss wants. This information is useful for adjusting habits as time goes by and things change.

</comment><comment><USER10> At the top it says the latest dataset is of 2015. So maybe the title shouls also include that.

</comment><comment><USER11> Good thing it's not the Thameslink Heartbeat, otherwise it'd be flatlining right now.

</comment><comment><USER12> Is anyone aware of similar sites for other cities? Would be interested to see Tokyo.

</comment><comment><USER13> Loved the website, brilliant presentation for data

</comment><comment><USER2> It will be interesting to compare the data now compared with next year when crossrail is open. I suspect Oxford Circus will reduce

</comment><comment><USER14> Looks like an organism!</comment>


How Netflix Handles 36% of U.S. Bandwidth with Chief Architect Jeremy Edberg - <AUTHOR> https://scaleyourcode.com/interviews/interview/11

<comment><USER2> Enjoyed the first few minutes. Will check out the whole thing when I get home. Thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER3> It's a good video, but please don't do promotional voting or astroturfing on HN.

</comment><comment><USER4> I actually watched this the other day on youtube but would highly recommend! It's a very interesting interview about all aspects of scaling at Reddit and Netflix.</comment>


Documenting every apple variety in North America - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/history-of-apples <comment><USER2> I grew up near an orchard containing just over 120 varieties of apples and remember being very impressed that so many varieties exist and yet we end up eating only a few of them. Now reading that someone compiled an apple-o-pedia of more than 16k varieties just blows my mind!

</comment><comment><USER3> People in the South East of England who love apples could do worse than visit the Brogdale Collection in Kent. They have over 2,200 varieties of apple and do orchard tours as well as an annual apple festival: [https://www.brogdalecollections.org/the-fruit- collection/](https://www.brogdalecollections.org/the-fruit-collection/)

</comment><comment><USER4> For the welltodo apple aficionado this must be a treasure to have in the library. For me, it is the kind of resource I wish was available on-line, preferably with retained aesthetics. As far as I can see it is only available as (a considerable number of) books.

<comment><USER5> The illustrations from the USDA Pomological Watercolor Collection are at least partly digitized and are available on Wikimedia Commons at [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:USDA_Pomological...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:USDA_Pomological_Watercolors)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I only skimmed the article, but it's always been my understanding that apple trees are extreme heterozygotes and that a seed from any given apple can produce a wholly new varietal.</comment>


Ask HN: Entrepreneurs/hackers with children  - <AUTHOR>

How does having a family affect your value structure?<p>Does it replace your other baby (start-up, open source project) or just inspire you to do better? <comment><USER2> There isn't a high-pressure career you can choose that is friendlier to families than startup entrepreneurship, at least in the common case. I'd like to do what I can to end the myth that families and startups are incompatible.

Consider:

Biglaw is full of men and women associates who are having their first child. Compare the work for a biglaw associate and a startup:

* The associate might have up to 50% travel, which is rigidly scheduled

* Both the associate and the entrepreneur expect to work more than 60 hours a week.

* But the associate is _formally required_ to work 60+ hour weeks, and the entrepreneur merely _averages_ 60+ hour weeks.

* The associate spends the majority of their working time at a prescribed office working in person with other associates and partners. The tech entrepreneur not only expects to be able to work from home often, but their team might not even be colocated with them at all.

* The associate's day is spent in face-to-face meetings, often with clients, which can't be scheduled at their convenience.

The same is true of Big 4 accountants, management consultants, don't get me started on investment bankers, and I'd imagine the bullets for medical residents would shoot all the way down the page.

I'm not even convinced that startup entrepreneurship is the hardest job on families in _tech_. For instance: thousands of people in the tech industry work as pre-sales engineers, and have 30-50% travel burdens.

<comment><USER3> I see your pre-sales engineer and raise you an entire office full of _Japanese salarymen_. M-san once came up to me at 7 PM and apologized profusely for having to leave early. "It's my little boy's birthday and, you know, we've been in crunch for the last 4 months and I only see him on Sundays [+], so I really wanted to make it this year."

Seriously. Actually happened.

[+] Edit for clarity: No, this is not because M-san and his wife are divorced. This is because M-san was routinely working during substantially all of his son's waking hours Monday through Saturday.

<comment><USER4> Sorry to pick up the thread so late, but isn't this horrifically damaging to family structure in Japan? If the general idea that absent father hurt / damage kids is right is to this just creating generation(s) of damage? isn't there pushback?

<comment><USER3> _isn 't this horrifically damaging to family structure in Japan?_

Yes!

<comment><USER4> oh ...

I have for a while been working 20 mins from my house, for a university in Texas and other clients. The effect on my relationship with my wife and children was dramatic compared to the slogging commute and long hours (but naught compared to the salaryman stories I hear).

We lose sooo much with long commutes and long hours - and yet the gain for companies is trivial especially compared to gains that simple management improvements can make.

I spent last year holidaying on the Greek island of Kefalonia - and realised that if I stayed there and worked, I would be six hours out from Texas instead of five. And the holiday "campus" I stayed in was idyllic - and there was very little in my imagination stopping me and 25 other families from parking up there and living and working - I strongly suspect that an ideal arrangement is small clusters of live / work / school environments coming into being.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's tough, but doable.

Kids take up a lot more time. Partially because they need looking after, but mostly because they're so much fun. You want to spend all your time playing with them, teaching them things, or even just staring at them. It's a big (but very good) time sink.

And your outlook on money changes. I remember the month way back when, when my SaaS profit first hit $600/month. "I can _live_ off this!" Sure, you have to live kinda cheaply but a fella can scrape by on not much money, particularly if you're travelling in a cheap country.

But not now. My kids are not going to scrape by on ramen and crash on couches with me. We need houses, savings, and other grown-up things. And, sadly, that costs money. For that, you either need to 10X the old dirtbag revenues or take a contract gig.

You can see how it might spiral out of control if you're not careful. Take a job to supplement the business revenue, end up starving the business for time, while still not seeing the kids as much as you want. It takes some balancing.

But it's all doable. And the hard bit is transient. Once your business is ticking away well enough to not require a side-gig or take up 40 hours of your time each week, you'll find yourself chasing the kids around the lawn on a sunny Tuesday afternoon, knowing that you don't have to head back to "the office" at all that day if you don't feel like it.

Definitely worth it in the end. Good luck!

<comment><USER6> Kids are fun ... in moderation.

After all kids are inexperienced, don't know much, making mistakes ...

> My kids are not going to scrape by on ramen

Why not? The less they have, the more they value work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Children + business is quite doable, but it usually means there is not that much outside of these two activities in life.

Which is totally fine.

</comment><comment><USER7> An explorer on the entrepreneurship road, it is my children who gave form to what was just an abstract idea. The desire to be there for my kids deems necessary that I be my own master. Plus I love the freedom to generally work on what I love. Of course, this is not possible without the support of my spouse and his job :)

Also, time will always be a constraint. You need to be very focused and prioritize well. Distractions have greater penalties. Currently the kids are toddlers and I basically get only 2 hours of solid work a day. But there is so much one can accomplish if one stays focused.

</comment><comment><USER8> The essence of doing a startup efficiently is learning how to get leverage on your time. Having a family makes that non-optional from a company point of view, and you have to learn to find the ways to get similar leverage on a family front. Maybe you want to be there for bedtimes but don't mind a nanny doing the driving to school, for example.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think it depends on how young your 'babies' are. They will both require a lot of your time so if you are trying to be that super star dad, husband, entrepreneur, you'll burn yourself out quite quickly. You just have to prioritize and live with your choices IMHO.</comment>


Show HN: Wiiv - browse your cloud files - <AUTHOR> http://wiiv.co

<comment><USER2> Pretty interesting idea. I signed up, but it looks like you're not using SSL on your site, so I'm hesitant to give you access to my google account.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment. SSL is near the top of our list of feature priorities.</comment></comment>


Facial-Recognition Tools Pose New Risk - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576480371062384798.html

<comment><AUTHOR> If you hit the pay-wall try this link and then clicking on the article from there:

[http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tb...](http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=face- id+technologie+#sclient=psy&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=face- id+technology&pbx=1&oq=face-id+technology)

</comment><comment><USER2> Only in facial recognition would it be considered a breakthrough to have a 30% chance of coming up with one successful match plus nine false positives! It's kind of amazing how poorly this stuff still works.</comment>


Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinderkennzeichnungs-_und_Rindfleischetikettierungs%C3%BCberwachungsaufgaben%C3%BCbertragungsgesetz <comment><USER2> I remember this word coming up in /r/calligraphy as a joke, and doing it in three scripts, just for kicks: [https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3799/12643089914_a2fe5b5f5f_k...](https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3799/12643089914_a2fe5b5f5f_k.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER3> I love the German language! An even longer German word is Grundstücksverkehrsgenehmigungszuständigkeitsübertragungsverordnung (regulation for the approval of delegating the responsibility to allow traffic on premises) [http://www.sprachschach.de/das-laengste-deutsche- wort/](http://www.sprachschach.de/das-laengste-deutsche-wort/)

</comment><comment><USER4> So this is why HN's width was larger than my phone screen

</comment><comment><USER5> German usually packs descriptions into "single words" by starting with some base, like "meat" and further qualifying it with other adjectives but without a space. You can get away with not knowing every part of the word and still get the gist of it in the same way you might not know a word in "Cattle marking and beef labeling supervision duties delegation law" but still get the gist. This is an oversimplification of course.

</comment><comment><USER6> genau!</comment>


Startup Paradise - <AUTHOR> http://signup.startupparadise.com/ <comment><USER3> Having recently joined a startup as an early employee, I just can't think this is a good way to get anything really accomplished. We're running at full tilt to figure out our product fit, building backed systems we need, talking to prospective customers, etc. If we were lounging on an island some where, how could you possibly do those things well?

Truly successful businesses are not vacations. Coding on the beach with a mai thai sounds romantic, but comes across as foolish and a waste of precious runway resources _.

_ Exceptions might include if you and your team happen to be native to a luxourious beach, in which case your environment might contribute to your success. This has not been vetted yet, so far.

<comment><USER4> It won't be a waste of resources if the place you go is cheaper than your current location. Your burn rate will go down this way.

I know 3 teams first-hand who moved to "cheap" places (two in Bali, the other one being us, in a small rural village of France), all while doing remote consulting, to bootstrap businesses (I'm bootstrapping <https://www.wisecashhq.com>).

I can say we have a pretty good work-life balance, all while being indefinitely sustainable, under that setup.

<comment><USER5> can I suggest (completely off topic) before you launch to get a domain other than wisecashHq just because it would be better to not have 2 repeating H (especially if you are in france, where the ache sound might make pronunciation tough) wisecash.co ? or something easy to spell. good luck! or better said bonne chance!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am world traveler for past 8 years and I can tell is really hard to work at some paradise longer than normal vacation time. Typical paradise consist of beach, some local bar and maybe two or three crappy restaurants.

There are many different kind of people, but I dont believe that most of us will thrive in this kind of non stimulating environment.

</comment><comment><USER7> And how do I meet with my customers? How do I watch my users using my product? I know we have technological breakthrough using products like Telepresence, Skype but they'll never ever replace inter-personal communication. Especially, things like watching users play around our product and understanding the problems with our product.

<comment><USER8> You can alternate time on the island and time in your native place (the life is not black and white ;))

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This looks cool! There's a lot of hard things to figure out here (visas, internet access, pirates, funding landscape, and lots of things the naysayers in this thread are happily listing out), but if you can make it happen, it will be amazing. Best of luck!

<comment><USER4> I know the guy who's starting this, and can tell he is seems fairly motivated to make this happen.

I can't wait to see where this will go, too!

Sidenote: I'm on my own "startup paradise", a very small rural village of west of France with a nice weather :-)

<comment><USER10> Where in France is that, if I may ask? I might consider working in France and I'm fairly partial to nice weather.

<comment><USER4> A bit late, hopefully you'll still read: we're located here <http://goo.gl/maps/4UkZU>.

It's usually not as exceedingly hot as in the south-east, but still sweet.

Get in touch if you'd like more details!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sounds greattttttttttttt ... can you provide a new identity, hidden bank accounts and something that eliminates my sense of responsibility too?

I'm kidding of course, but my point is that not everyone can just escape their current situation ... and in my case I wouldn't want to. For me, start-up paradise would be a very quiet office within biking distance of my house.

Somewhere with like-minded people who would like to establish a show-and-tell hour each day. It would be great to have at least peer-review of ideas and some intellectual conversation, then be able to retreat into the zone and accomplish something worthy of showing at the next get together.

</comment><comment><USER12> I like "4 Hour Workweek" and its ilk ... particularly the message about not delaying gratification forever (or at least until retirement).

But come on ... does anyone really think that Google or Facebook or SpaceX or etc could have been built without significant personal sacrifice by not only the founders but also the employees?

I'm not saying that you should be worked like a slave ... but _if you go into it_ with the explicit goal of combining comfort AND entrepreneurship ... then you should prepare to be dissapointed.

<comment><USER13> That's a dangerous way to think about it. Success often requires sacrifice, but sacrifice does not bring success.

The median time to exit from venture funding is something like 6 years. During that, you need to be at the top of your game as much of the time as possible.

I have a friend who's a serious endurance athlete. He trains hard, but he's just as dedicated about rest. Weekly massages and spa visits, great food, a clean and restful home, a lot of quiet time. Sacrificing those comforts would make him look more macho, but they'd reduce his effectiveness.

If somebody needs a daily dose of sun and sand to be at the top of their game, godspeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I actually think this would be really cool for working on a book or similar creative project. But for a startup.. _"with bad internet connection"_ rules out almost anything I'd want to do startup-wise, alas.

One day I hope to try what John Carmack used to do. Go away to a really dull area with a nice hotel and spend a week working with zero interruptions :-)

<comment><USER8> No the idea is than normally you have bad connection, but to build that, we'll need the BEST internet connection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sounds great to me. I'd love to go. I would enjoy the change of pace and meeting some new people (who are hopefully working on interesting projects). Fast/reliable internet is a MUST. There are plenty of beautiful/relaxing places in the world with fast internet. I won't expect to get as much work done as I usually do. It would be nice if there were some side trips planned during the afternoons/evenings.

</comment><comment><USER16> Reminds me a lot of <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3956287> / [http://blog.simplehoney.com/how-to-build-a-startup-from-a- be...](http://blog.simplehoney.com/how-to-build-a-startup-from-a-beach/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Thrilling idea, but I have a hard time giving my email address to a service who can't even take the time to properly setup their root domain's page: <http://startupparadise.com/>

<comment><USER18> Or spell the header text correctly

         "We will be launching soon Sartup Paradise ! The place to be for remote workers"

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The background image appears to be from Dreamland Beach in Bali, if that's any clue.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is this a joke? I hope this is some kind of sarcastic prank to make a point. If it isn't then this whole startup trend,and that's what it's becoming - <USER2> trendy thing to do - has gone too far.

</comment><comment><USER21> This would probably be best for a focused sprint to build the first (or next) iteration of a product. You need to be back in real life to interact with users and pivot the idea if necessary.

</comment><comment><USER22> Nice for a lifestyle freelancer, but could be problematic for a speculative startup, except as an occasional offsite. Might make the team soft. Perhaps a 'startup purgatory' instead?

</comment><comment><USER23> Too much text, not nearly enough information. Not subscribing.

<comment><USER8> [http://quotations.about.com/b/2007/03/20/if-i-had-more- time-...](http://quotations.about.com/b/2007/03/20/if-i-had-more-time-i-would- write-a-shorter-letter.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It just sounds too fantastical and comes off as puzzling and suspicious.

For myself, paradise includes a good cup of coffee, an issue of the New Yorker, and some good music.

<comment><USER8> I'll have espresso, and amazing music. For the New Yorker... we'll see ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> 27" Apple thunderbolt display?

My computer does not have thunderbolt.

</comment><comment><USER26> I liked the idea. Hope OP delivers

</comment><comment><USER27> Bali?

<comment><USER8> Yep it's Bali</comment></comment>


Actix-web 1.0 – A small, pragmatic, and fast web framework for Rust - <AUTHOR> https://docs.rs/actix-web/1.0.0/actix_web <comment><AUTHOR> I'm using actix-web in my work and am familiar with the project, so I'll try to summarize for everyone why this 1.0 release is so significant.

This is a major milestone for the entire Rust community because we now have the first web framework written in stable Rust with an architecture that a credible author has deemed worthy of maintaining backwards compatibility for and a code base mature enough to have earned a 1.0 designation. This is real progress.

The architecture of actix-web 1.0 is very different from that of 0.7. In many respects, it was a rewrite that began last Summer. The architecture is no longer based on an actor paradigm but rather one of Services, largely inspired by Eriksen et al's finagle work [1] adopted at Twitter. This service architecture is accessible through a library known as actix-net. Essentially, actix-web is a web-based actix-net server. If actix-web were bitcoin, actix- net would be its blockchain. Because of this, actix-net may be even more significant to the broader Rust community. The actor models can still be imported and used but no longer act as the default mechanisms driving the server.

Regarding performance, according to the Tech Empower benchmarks that evaluate hundreds of web frameworks across all major languages, actix-web is top- ranking [2] and first in a few benches. The last benchmark represents a beta version of actix-web from last month and results may have slightly improved with 1.0. actix-web is very modular, allowing programmers to only use what is needed and no more.

In terms of usability, actix-web 1.0 api is far easier to approach than 0.7. Running blocking calls against a database effortlessly flows within combinators now where as before one had to implement a lot of SyncActor boilerplate. Endpoint resource registration can now either be explicitly registered within an App instance or with a new set of proc macros, but routes still need to be registered manually. The new testing api is far easier to work with for unit or integration tests.

A single person wrote two very different platforms in order to get to where it is today. I believe that future progress requires community participation at all levels. This is a great time for system programmers to take a deep dive and learn, from the network-level up, how to build a high-performing, flexible server. Write about it. Talk about it at meetups and conferences. Pay forward.

Thanks, Nikolay, for your hard work and sacrifice.

[1] [https://monkey.org/~marius/funsrv.pdf](https://monkey.org/~marius/funsrv.pdf)

[2] [https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=test&runid=9...](https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=test&runid=9f738614-61d5-4c04-a1a5-3778b2ac3003)

<comment><USER2> Related to web frameworks, what is the current status on ORM in the Rust ecosystem?

<comment><USER3> There is only one option: diesel [1]. It is a powerful solution for correctness, as it is completely type-safe. It's also really fast since a lot of work is delegated to compile time.

There are also plenty of drawbacks though: the extensive type system hacking can lead to very confusing compiler errors, it doesn't work well when you need to sometimes fall back to more dynamic db handling, and it doesn't handle large tables well. (very long compile times etc), and the documentation is quite sparse.

It's a robust solution for greenfield projects where you can design the schema partially with diesel in mind, but I wouldn't recommend it for existing DBs or projects that you know will grow large (eg 100+ column tables etc).

[1] [https://github.com/diesel-rs/diesel](https://github.com/diesel-rs/diesel)

<comment><USER4> _it doesn 't handle large tables well. (very long compile times etc) _

By large tables you mean a large number of columns, not a large number of rows, right?

<comment><USER5> Correct.

Fun fact: The amount of traits implementations that need to be generated to support tables with 128 columns actually makes diesel an interest benchmark of the Rust compiler.

<comment><USER6> Would the recent work on const generics help with this?

<comment><USER5> Not sure. Having the ability to abstract over tuples (using a similar mechanism as HLists for example) would help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Actix-web in used in production at Cloudflare for the image resizing feature.

It's been relatively easy to use and flexible enough to integrate with the rest of Cloudflare's stack. Feels vaguely similar to Node's express. Along with Rust it's a great fit for a service that needs to have high performance, tight memory usage with very low risk of leaks, integration with existing libraries, and a good security story.

<comment><USER8> > Actix-web in used in production at Cloudflare for the image resizing > feature.

Oh, that's really interesting. I actually used it for exactly the same purpose, but I was a bit disappointed by the image[1] crate for the image- resizing itself: it was several times slower than imagemagick (it was less the case on my decktop, when compiled with `target-cpu=native`, but on my low-end server many SIMD instructions weren't available and auto-vectorized code wasn't that efficient) and the image quality was also way poorer. Did you use that crate for the image processing ? Or imagemagick ? Or something you wrote internally ?

[1]: [https://github.com/image-rs/image](https://github.com/image-rs/image)

<comment><USER9> Did you try looking for Rust bindings to ImageMagick? If it's really that much faster, it might make sense to just call out to it. I found [https://github.com/nlfiedler/magick- rust](https://github.com/nlfiedler/magick-rust) with e quick search, but I don't know how well it works.

<comment><USER8> It was much faster (between 3 and 5 times) but performance wasn't a critical part on this project, the ease of use and deployment was higher on the list.

Also, I'm not sure I would trust imagemagick enough anymore to put it on a web-facing server, since its security track record doesn't smell that good [1].

But I was still disappointed by the poor performance of the `image` library because Rust has shown in many areas that it has potential to write code which is as fast as C, and in this case it didn't deliver.

[1]: [https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability- list.php?vendor_id=...](https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability- list.php?vendor_id=1749&product_id=&version_id=&page=1&hasexp=0&opdos=0&opec=0&opov=0&opcsrf=0&opgpriv=0&opsqli=0&opxss=0&opdirt=0&opmemc=0&ophttprs=0&opbyp=0&opfileinc=0&opginf=0&cvssscoremin=0&cvssscoremax=0&year=0&month=0&cweid=0&order=3&trc=505&sha=cad8183bd44fc4f183038a1ca8490122ee688f30)

<comment><USER10> It didn't deliver because the library is not good, not because rust is a bad language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> We (sentry.io) use actix-web (though not yet 1.0) for our symbolicator project. It's the service that handles all of our native events for symbolication. That's for minidump processing, dwarf/pdb based symbolication and much more.

Couldn't be happier with it. It's super fast and stable and does it's job really well. We run three machines for it and it didn't manage to go past 10% CPU usage yet.

Code is here for the curious: [https://github.com/getsentry/symbolicator](https://github.com/getsentry/symbolicator)

<comment><USER12> Sorry for the ignorance - what's symbolication? Sounds interesting and looking to learn.

<comment><USER13> I assume it's taking stack traces/ core dumps from stripped binaries and adding back the symbols.

<comment><USER11> Yap, pretty much. It's used as part of the sentry event processing pipeline for C/C++/Objective-C/Rust etc. crashes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think this is my 2nd HN post in 5 years. I just want to shout out to Actix- Web team especially Nikolay. I was a Rust noob and still a Rust noob, asking stupid questions on Actix gitter, but the community helped me and give me suggestions a lot.

Thank you! I am a really satisfied user of Rust and Actix Web! I hope I can retire my programming career just using Rust lol.

</comment><comment><USER15> Anyone know why the super simple Middleware trait[1] was replaced by the more complex (and confusing at first) Transform and Service traits?

Here's the simple middleware examples:

0.7: [https://github.com/actix/examples/blob/0.7/middleware/src/si...](https://github.com/actix/examples/blob/0.7/middleware/src/simple.rs)

1.0: [https://github.com/actix/examples/blob/master/middleware/src...](https://github.com/actix/examples/blob/master/middleware/src/simple.rs)

Could a simple Middleware trait be added that would implement both new traits for us?

[1]: actix_web::middleware::Middleware

</comment><comment><USER16> Is Rust a high-level language or a low-level language? Does rustlang's development prove you don't have to choose? My impression of Rust is that it's intended to replace C/C++, and that web frameworks are high-level libraries (whereas something like an HTTP library would be low-level). I guess you could write a web framework in C/C++ but I don't know of any that are popular or widely used off the top of my head. IIRC I think golang was meant to be low- level, but the community mostly came from high-level scripting languages that saw a visible boost in performance.

Congratulations to the authors/contributors of actix-web on the 1.0 release!

<comment><USER17> In my experience it has elements of both, but stuff like managing lifetimes means that (IMO) it's more trouble than it's worth when you're creating a web backend. Any more established garbage collected language is absolutely fine. Unless it needs to, say, run in a very resource constrained environment, in which case it's a pretty interesting possibility.

<comment> james-mcelwain It's certainly a less mature ecosystem, but once you get over the hump of _understanding_ lifetimes, there's nothing preventing you from using lots of owned values and clone in a way that makes it really easy to ignore annoying lifetime problems. And, the benefit being if you ever _need_ to get more performance out of a hot part of your code, you can always optimize to get that zero copy goodness.

<comment><USER18> There is however a downside to the "clone everything" approach: The performance might get worse than what it would be in an optimized GCed language that doesn't require cloning (eg C#/Java).

At least I would only reach out for Rust at the moment for performance critical code, and then don't leave easy optimizations on the table due to lifetimes.

<comment> james-mcelwain There are other solutions (like Rc<RefCell<T>>) that allow you to avoid cloning as well if you still don't want to deal with lifetimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm sure it's been posted on HN before, but a great summary of other Rust libraries/frameworks for web development can be found here: [https://www.arewewebyet.org/](https://www.arewewebyet.org/)

The couple of times I've checked it's been fairly up to date and helpful for understanding what's out there.

<comment><USER20> I've found this link helpful too:

[https://github.com/flosse/rust-web-framework- comparison](https://github.com/flosse/rust-web-framework-comparison)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Great to see actix-web reach 1.0. I've played with Rocket in the past and liked it, but ended up choosing actix-web recently for a production project because I don't want to rely on a nightly compiler for a production project. I'm only using actix-web in a small portion of a larger Rust project, but so far my experience with it has been quite pleasant.

<comment><USER22> First time I even tried to use Rocket, I couldn't get there Hello World thing compiled. I honestly don't know if it was my error or a nightly compiler incompatibility and that sucked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is the example program in Actix-web considered good programming style for that framework? The reason I ask is that the equivalent in Python/Flask might look like:

        @app.route("/<name>/<id>/index.html")
        def index(name, id):
            return form("Hello {}! id:{}", name, id)

This has the advantages that:

1\. the endpoint "/<name>/<id>/index.html" goes in the code right above the function that implements it.

2\. the variables are called `name` and `id` and not `info.0` and `info.1` which is a less informative naming convention.

<comment><USER5> I can't speak for the actix-web maintainers but I did find this in their examples:

        #[get("/resource1/{name}/index.html")]
        fn index(req: HttpRequest, name: web::Path<String>) -> String {
            println!("REQ: {:?}", req);
            format!("Hello: {}!\r\n", name)
        }

see [https://github.com/actix/actix- web/blob/e399e01a22b8a848ecbb...](https://github.com/actix/actix- web/blob/e399e01a22b8a848ecbbc21c362878cd59a4342e/examples/basic.rs#L7-L11)

<comment><USER24> I've just run it and it works! I didn't know about the macro.

<comment><USER25> The thing with actix's web stuff is that things like these are just not well documented yet.

I also had no idea about this macro until I was digging through documentation for something else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Example reminds me: I love Rust, but every decent programming language in 2019 should have actual string interpolation (the "Hello ${expression}" kind). It's just so much nicer to read and write, and it doesn't come with any downsides besides some slight, local compiler complexity. (I have raised it on the forums already...)

<comment><USER27> There's a library for that: [https://github.com/ct- austin/ifmt](https://github.com/ct-austin/ifmt)

In general, a lot of things that are language features in higher-level languages, can and are implemented as libraries in Rust. It's possible that this will make it into the standard library at some point.

<comment><USER26> The reason to include it in the core language, besides potentially not requiring the additional syntax of a macro call, is what another commenter pointed out: You want editor support (click to definition, syntax highlighting, typing).

<comment><USER27> IntelliJ provides syntax highlighting for common Rust macros.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Show HN via comment:

You can now deploy an Actix web app in production in just a few minutes.

[https://render.com/docs/deploy-actix-todo](https://render.com/docs/deploy- actix-todo)

A Rust user testimonial: [https://twitter.com/sebasporto/status/1136032748894736384](https://twitter.com/sebasporto/status/1136032748894736384)

</comment><comment><USER29>
        use actix_web::{web, App, HttpServer, Responder};

        fn index(info: web::Path<(u32, String)>) -> impl Responder {
            format!("Hello {}! id:{}", info.1, info.0)
        }

        fn main() -> std::io::Result<()> {
            HttpServer::new(
                || App::new().service(
                      web::resource("/{id}/{name}/index.html").to(index)))
                .bind("127.0.0.1:8080")?
                .run()
        }

How do you know the HTTP method your path is called with?

<comment><AUTHOR> that example isn't very good.. here's what the resource-registration for "/products" endpoint would look like (note the http method), where I've lazily omitted "/products" a level above because I wanted you just to see the http methods:

        web::resource("")
               .route(web::get().to_async(products::get_products))
               .route(web::post().to_async(products::add_product))

<comment><USER30> This syntax makes it look almost like [warp's]([https://github.com/seanmonstar/warp](https://github.com/seanmonstar/warp)) "filters".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I chose Rocket.rs instead for my personal project, because most of the things are built-in in the library, so there was no need for me to spend hours figuring out how to put my own database pool or something.

<comment><USER32> Agreed. Rocket has been an absolute pleasure to use. I'm looking forward to it being able to run on Rust stable at some point. Procedural macros abound!

<comment><USER31> They surely need to add security features like CORS/CSRF, which are already in the milestones. I adore the approach of the project to be easy, while maintaining the code quality.

<comment><USER33> Worrying about security while using a nightly version of Rust seems counterintuitive.

<comment><USER31> Stabilizing is the primary goal of the stable (1.0) release as well, so there is no reason to argue.

<comment><USER33> How's that going? Last I checked some of that stabilizing depends on nightly rust macro issues that are years old with no signs of progress. When is your rocket.rs project shipping to real users in production? When that issue is resolved in five years?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I wrote a relatively simple web application ([https://github.com/DSpeckhals/bible.rs](https://github.com/DSpeckhals/bible.rs)) about 9 months ago with version 0.7. The initial code changes to migrate to 1.0 weren't that bad ([https://github.com/DSpeckhals/bible.rs/commit/fbd7e8207023a0...](https://github.com/DSpeckhals/bible.rs/commit/fbd7e8207023a0bf9ce7b51b0943c24f30a7a662)). The most substantial changes I made during the migration weren't necessary, but according to the author, are a little more idiomatic actix-web: moving from sync arbiter actors for Diesel connections to just using `web::block`. Both use a threadpool behind the scenes, but `web::block` is less verbose.

I've been extremely satisfied with its performance and ergonomic abstractions over HTTP and async Rust that actix-web offers. And like others have mentioned, the author and other contributors provided me with some good, practical answers to a few questions I had.

</comment><comment><USER35> I think Rust has a very bright future in web servers. I have one small service (using warp[0]) in production. The level of confidence I have once the dang thing compiles is quite comforting.

[0] [https://github.com/seanmonstar/warp](https://github.com/seanmonstar/warp)

</comment><comment><USER36> Good to see that it supports async handlers. I feel like many Rust web frameworks look nice on paper but are completely useless for many real-world applications because of synchronous request handling.

</comment><comment><USER37> [https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=test&runid=5...](https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=test&runid=5cc1a314-4e0c-4294-b8f1-cb607e0a5440&hw=ph&test=fortune)

<comment><USER38> That's on 0.7, right? How does the new architecture of 1.0 compare?

<comment><USER37> This is 1.0 bench

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I was trying to get actix-web working on arm (hosting a small rust API on a raspberry pi seemed exciting enough to get me rolling). However, compiling it was slightly too much resource-intensive and building ARM docker images on a Macbook Pro was not straightforward (at least not with a "scratch" base).

I was a bit disappointed because I really wanted to use rust as a small- footprint app server :(

</comment><comment><USER40> Does anyone have experience/feedback using Actix with the juniper graphql library? Especially with the newer 1.0 changes.

[https://github.com/graphql-rust/juniper](https://github.com/graphql- rust/juniper)

</comment><comment><USER41> Does this framework support the use of the same language on the client as on the server? Can I send actix messages between client and server?

</comment><comment><USER42> How suitable is actix-web for serving static files? I'd love a programmable server for this, as opposed to dealing with nginx.

<comment><USER43> It seems fast enough for simple file serving, but if all you want is modify some of nginx's behavior I'd probably look to openresty or nginxcript instead. It's easy to underestimate how many edge cases that nginx (or similar mature web-servers) will handle for you and that you won't know about when rolling your own webserver.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> No one mentioned Riker [https://github.com/riker- rs/riker](https://github.com/riker-rs/riker), another actor framework for Rust. It would be interesting to hear comparison of both from those who used it.

</comment><comment><USER45> Off topic: Does it make sense (would it be useful) for a Python developer who uses Python for Data Analysis (Jupyter Notebooks, Pandas, Numpy), quick scripting, automating, scraping etc to look into Rust?

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm not sure if it's intended or not but every time I'm looking at this name I need to correct myself to not read/perceive it as ActiveX

</comment><comment><USER47> Is it just me? Every time I read headlines about this framework I misread it as active-x and it makes me feel uncomfortable ;)

</comment><comment><USER48> Just wondering, does anyone know off hand if there's any support for this in PAAS's like Heroku & Openshift?

</comment><comment><USER49> Look forward to perhaps replacing my iron based service with this if it really does solve some problems I have

</comment><comment><USER50> The title somewhat buries the lede: actix-web has had its 1.0 release today. See also the thread at [https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/bwy99w/actixweb_10_re...](https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/bwy99w/actixweb_10_released/)

<comment><AUTHOR> The title was a 1.0 release announcement but @dang changed it..

<comment><USER51> One of us did. When a project hasn't had significant attention on HN yet, the project itself is the story, not the release. But we can squeeze a 1.0 back up there.</comment></comment></comment>


Audi claims the A8 is the first production car to reach Level 3 autonomy - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/11/15952510/audi-a8-level-3-autonomous-driving-self-parking <comment><USER2> As someone from Europe it is good to see the EU manufacturers finally showing some serious progress.

I always chuckled a bit when (tech) press would say 'Google has beaten auto manufacturers' after Google released some PR videoclip of them showing a car driving.

European car companies just don't see the need to enlighten the world about what they're up to, how they are progressing, but simply work until it's finished for production and then unveil it.

Still haven't seen that 'vastly superiour' super-car from Google and Apple everyone claimed were coming to take over.

Tesla does seem to succesfully run their company as a tech start-up: hyping new products that are 1 or 2 year from being in production, personification of the brand via the CEO god-status, continuous deliviry of software updates to cars, public beta testing etc..

I am rooting for Tesla, I hope they find the capability to increase production levels to something that comes near of the existing car giants.

<comment><USER3> > There are a couple caveats, obviously. The traffic jam pilot only works on > highways with a physical barrier separating oncoming traffic, and the use of > the system is subject to the laws of whichever jurisdiction you're driving > through. So bone up on the rules of the road before pressing that button.

Being able to self-drive on highways with physical barriers between oncoming traffic is, like, the easiest use case for self-driving cars. This doesn't very advanced to me at all. Urban driving is the actual hard part.

<comment><USER4> True, but it's still the first time real world customers will be able to let the car take complete control/responsibility in real world traffic. For me as an automotive sw engineer this is truly massive step forward, even though what you see from the outside doesn't seem that impressive at a glance.

Also, being stuck in a traffic jam during the daily comute is one of the most annoying and most stressing parts of driving. Not having to deal with this is a significant improvement in the driver's quality of life.

<comment><USER5> Yes, I think this was an ingenious move: find a situation that is somewhat easier to deal with yet solves a real-world pain-point.

Almost an Apple move.

<comment><USER6> An Apple move would be building a car without windows and telling me that it's progress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This press release, when you read the details, is not very impressive.

The headline sounds good, but the details are that it only works on highways, up to 38MPH, and won't be enabled right away; they are going to roll it out later. The one notable thing seems to be that you can be stuck in traffic and take your hands off the wheel, unlike Tesla where you have to have your hands on the wheel.

I'm not sure how they call this "first", since it won't be on new cars released next year, until after some future software update, how is this different from Tesla that is already shipping cars that can do this and more with a software update?

Full disclosure: in Dec I sold my Audi A8 to get a Model S.

Currently, the Model S can basically drive itself in heavy traffic, but it will periodically want your hand(s) on the wheel. I recently was in stop and go traffic on a 2 lane road for an hour and the Tesla did great. The A8 won't be able to there, it won't work on anything but a divided highway which this was not.

Don't get me wrong, I've had 5 Audis over the years and have loved them. But this really isn't "news", Audi is still playing catch up.

Oh, and from the testing I've done this winter, the Tesla AWD system is at least as good as quattro. Probably better.

<comment><USER8> "This press release, when you read the details, is not very impressive."

This press release, like all high end / performance car press releases of the last 2-3 years, can be summed up as:

"blah blah, not electric, blah blah"

Like you, I am an ex-A8 owner who loved ( _loved!_ ) those cars and have no interest in buying another one - no matter how nice or feature filled or well- designed they are. There's no way they don't know this and it becomes more and more stupefying that they cede this highest-of-margins segment to Tesla.

"Oh, and from the testing I've done this winter, the Tesla AWD system is at least as good as quattro. Probably better."

Exactly - it has _two motors_.

My disappointment is wide and deep as the major manufacturers continue to refuse to make a modern car. However it is Audi and Volvo in particular whose inaction is truly mind-blowing. Audi because they could continue to own AWD/4WD and volvo because their target market is ripe for the aesthetic and social benefits of electric cars.

Instead, Audi has spent ten years going down the "in 2-3 years we'll have an electric platform" and volvo has committed to a shitty-hybrids-with-lawnmower- engines-inside platform for the next 8-10 years.

<comment><USER9> The reason they have to cede to Tesla is because of battery supply. There's a reason why Tesla invested in a huge battery factory and established contracts with a lot of providers so they could churn out the batteries cheaply.

<comment><USER10> Daimler has built and is building large battery factories. Posts about those don't get upvoted on HN. In the least it's best to see how this forum is a very partial / biased view of the industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I just want to say congratulations to all of the engineers behind it who are reading this thread! Im impressed!

Often when I see a big project come to an end I can not stop thinking about all the hours work put into something which didn't made it to the end. Features they had to abandon or wait with until next revision.

Im very curious how good it will work and will try to get the hands on it as quickly as possible. :)

</comment><comment><USER12> Level 3: the "you need to stay awake even though you have absolutely nothing to do" mode.

Probably going to turn out to be the most dangerous.

I am planning on dying in my sleep, but not because a Level 3 autonomous car decided to throw a "Can't handle reality" exception.

(This somewhat tongue in cheek response should in no way be read as denigrating the awesome technical achievement Level 3 represents. All speed to Level 4 and Level 5)

<comment><USER13> Not sure with the Audi but Volvo's level 3 is being build to pull over and park if you are asleep when it wants to stop driving so not that dangerous.

<comment><USER14> My Audi A3 has traffic jam assist and can drive itself in traffic jams as well. Above 20km/h it'll require steering input every ~12 seconds, but not below. When it does not receive steering input it'll turn on the hazard lights and slowly come to a stop without leaving the lane it's in.

Sensors: all-around ultrasonic, 1 monochrome camera, 1 front radar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In case anyone one else was wondering what these "levels of autonomy" that the article's author so haphazardly assumed was general knowledge, see SAE J3016A[1], which is free to download with a registered SAE account...or your favorite unofficial method.

Table 2 on p. 19 of the 30-page recommendation is a nice TL;DR summary.

Which begs the question...what part of Tesla Autopilot doesn't satisfy the SAE definition?

[1] [http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/](http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/)

<comment><USER16> I found the Consumer Reports version easier to read, if at the cost of precision.

[http://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/levels- of-...](http://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/levels-of-car- automation/)

<comment><USER17> Summary:

\- level 2: "hands off"

\- level 3: "eyes off"

\- level 4: "mind off"

<comment><USER18> I remember reading recently that we should probably be avoiding level 3 in production altogether (and possibly even level 2), since the general populace doesn't have the capacity for responding quickly to failures in automatic guidance systems; unlike perhaps aircraft pilots who are intimately aware of the limitations of the systems.

<comment><USER4> But that argument ignores that these systems help stop accidents from happening 99% of the time and focuses only on the 1% when they fail. (numbers are made up) Automation has lead to accidents in aviation as well. But it's still being pushed forward, because when looking at total miles traveled, more automation tends to be significantly safer. The same principle holds true for ground vehicles.

<comment><USER19> Driving is _infinitely_ harder than flying, from the perspective of a truly autonomous system. Once at altitude, there isn't much to run into. There are also very few possible emergencies that demand the pilot's attention within the next few seconds. Midair collisions are about the only exception I can think of, and there are already automated systems in place to prevent those. Bird strikes might be another, but those don't tend to coincide with periods of autopilot usage.

For a motor vehicle, though, the idea that "eyes off" and "mind off" should exist as separate levels of autonomy is just nuts. "Eyes off" will absolutely be interpreted as "mind off" by the majority of real-world drivers. It doesn't make sense to offer an "eyes off" solution at all, IMHO. Wait until we can genuinely call it a "mind off" solution.

<comment><USER20> eyes off means a driver is available. Its perfectly reasonable to cope with a problem by slowing down, pulling over and asking the driver for help. This is a choice that aircraft autopilots don't get to make. I agree that eyes off should not involve sounding an alarm and make the distracted driver take over in an instant at highway speed, and any solution that did that would be really dangerous.

mind off would need to cope with there being no capable driver or even any occupants at all. And even those systems will need to phone for roadside assist sometimes.

<comment><USER21> I think that is level 4 you are describing as "eyes off", not level 3, at least according to the Consumer Reports summary of the standard:

"The car can drive itself, but the human driver must still pay attention and take over _at any time_. The car is _supposed_ to notify its driver if intervention is needed." [my emphasis.]

Pulling over or shutting down appears under level 4.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Its looking more and more like I'm going to get what i want. I'm almost 50 so i could get a fully autonomous car before i can't drive. Won't that be awesome though?

<comment><USER23> I hope it is _much_ sooner than that!

<comment><USER24> I hope and expect it to be within the next 5 to 10 years, tbh.

<comment><USER25> It probably depends on your budget. For a $100k car? Could be. For a $20k car? Now that's quite a challenge!

<comment><USER26> 5 or 10 bucks. Pay per trip.

<comment><USER23> I hope we get this sooner than the privately-owned self-driving cars. So long as folks can buy monthly passes (or give poor folks the passes at free and/or reduced rates), I think this has the potential to greatly improve lives.

<comment><USER27> Municipalities that run demand response bus services will be quick adopters.

One of their big costs is drivers, so they tend to use a few medium sized vehicles. No drivers, they move to smaller vehicles and deploy more of them (they probably even shift their level of service up, because why not).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What I find even more exciting is that they're finally deploying their predictive suspension technology in a production model.

What this system does is utilize the front cameras to scan and map the road surface ahead. It can then apply up to 20 kN of force via electric motors to raise or lower the wheels individually. This mitigates bumps from potholes or uneven roads, which, apart from being more comfortable, will also ensure the suspension lasts longer. This system also decreases body roll during turns, and squat / dive under accel / decel. All of it is powered by the 48V semi- hybrid electric system. Expect this to become much more commonplace with further electrification.

Mercedes has a similar technology called Magic Body Control, but it can only tighten or loosen the dampeners, rather than directly move the wheels. What the Audi system can do, which the Merc cannot, is to raise the side of the car during an impending t-bone collision, which allows the main body structure to take the impact instead of the doors.

<comment><USER29> The impeding t-bone collision thing sounds fascinating. Do you by any chance have any links with more details on that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> At this point this is vaporware. The car is still nearly a year away from being on sale, and the software will come even later. Talking up something like this so far ahead is just an attempt to depress sales for its competition.

Calling it "level 3 autonomy" is misleading as well, given how highly constrained the situations are in which it can operate at level 3. From what I can tell from the press release, it only promises that the car can handle a freeway traffic-jam situation, ie, it knows how to stay in a lane and not hit anyone when traffic is crawling on a freeway.

Admittedly such a system would be nice for millions of people who commute through such conditions daily, but that is probably one of the easiest tasks for an autonomous system to perform because huge amounts of complexity can be ignored: pedestrians, cyclists, intersections, road hazards, trip routing. This is a baby step taken at the edge of a huge chasm. Good luck!

<comment><USER9> My 2015 Hyundai Genesis can already do exactly that. It has automatic cruise control with lane keep assist. Sure, it beeps at me if I leave my hands off the wheel for more than 10 seconds, but if you disabled that in the firmware, it would technically work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> In an advert I saw yesterday, this car also features wireless charging, through a charging plate installed on the ground.

I know the HN crowd is very pro-Tesla but do not underestimate traditional car-makers.

<comment><USER32> Wireless charging for what? It's not EV, it's a hybrid. And not a plugin- hybrid, from what I can tell.

<comment><USER31> Charging is optional but supported.

Random video of A8 wireless charging: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME8nFtbTH44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME8nFtbTH44)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I must have missed something in the text but doesn't the current production VW Golf (part of the same company as Audi) also feature traffic jam assist and lane assist?

I think it uses RADAR instead of LIDAR but I don't know for sure.

Could any explain what the new A8 is offering in addition to the Golf?

</comment><comment><USER34> In a "level 3" system, how does it know the destination? I suppose, you have to put it in as with a normal GPS first? Then, what does it do at the point the GPS would say, "your destination is ahead on the right, the route guidance is now finished"?

<comment><USER35> My VW's onboard GPS (same group as Audi) actually says "you have reached your destination" when passing in front of the destination.

But I suppose it will probably start scanning the road for parking spots like in the auto park feature that exists for years like in this demo from a few years ago: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt20UnkmkLI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt20UnkmkLI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> There seems to be a fairly big caveat in that "the A8 is capable of driving all by itself at speeds of up to 37 mph.".

And also:

"The traffic jam pilot only works on highways with a physical barrier separating oncoming traffic."

<comment><USER36> So, not in London where it would be useful...

<comment><USER37> I don't know. I've spent a load of time stuck in traffic on the North Circular where there are barriers a lot of the way. But then there are junctions with traffic lights quite regularly I suppose.

<comment><USER36> Actually yeah, the north circular qualifies. The south circular? Nope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I find comparison tests, like this one from last year, far more useful than marketing or discussion of "levels": [http://www.caranddriver.com/features/semi-autonomous-cars- co...](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/semi-autonomous-cars-compared- tesla-vs-bmw-mercedes-and-infiniti-feature). tl;dr: Tesla's autopilot was substantially better than BMW, Infiniti, and Mercedes.

</comment><comment><USER39> I did not expect Audi to be at the forefront of autonomous cars! But what do these level exactly mean? 'Level 3' and 'level 4 by 2020'

<comment><USER40> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classificatio...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classification)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Sounds like a feature my Volvo XC-90 already has. Up to 35 MPH it can follow traffic in a traffic jam. If it gets confused it beeps and tells me I need to steer. I use it all the time, I love it! And it's a 1 year old car. I can only imagine what Volvo will have once the new Audi comes out.

And I'm saying that as an Audi fan. My other car is an A4.

</comment><comment><USER42> I know the article mentioned NVIDIA GPUs but who are their partners? Is this developed by Mobileye?

<comment><USER14> According to an Audi video on the new A8, this is the computing hardware inside: [https://i.imgur.com/euwi7eZ.png](https://i.imgur.com/euwi7eZ.png)

In short: \- MobilEye EyeQ3 \- Nvidia K1 \- an Altera Cyclone FPGA \- an Infineon Aurix microcontroller

Each is used for a few different functions.

<comment><USER42> Thanks.

Impressive specs. And it looks like Mobileeye is inside every self driving car I've seen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The new A8 looks quite a bit like the new Lincoln Continental. If you integrated the door handles on the A8 with the window trim, it'd be hard to distinguish between the two cars from an appreciable distance - at least the rear, profile, and 3/4 views. The rear light arrangement, the integrated dual exhaust ports, the silver trim character lines, even the A/B/C columns.

A8: [https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1-- FKfJ3y71OTTYIz91rno4mYNs=...](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1-- FKfJ3y71OTTYIz91rno4mYNs=/800x0/filters:no_upscale\(\)/cdn.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8832289/A178299_large.jpg)

Continental: [https://www.cstatic- images.com/stock/1170x1170/99/img-122263...](https://www.cstatic- images.com/stock/1170x1170/99/img-1222639871-1488390548499.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER44> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14748510](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14748510)

</comment><comment><USER45> But a Model S does all of this already. What makes this "far ahead" of a Tesla? Is it that I do t have to keep my hands on the steering wheel?

<comment><USER32> That's right - requiring you to keep your hands on the wheel makes the Tesla not level 3.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> The system as described is considerably weaker than what my _previous generation_ Model S actually _does_. On a highway with a barrier and traffic I can basically leave autopilot engaged indefinitely without having to correct it. Perhaps Audi handles a wider variety of weather conditions?

<comment><USER47> That's the Tesla "self-crashing car" feature. Watch these videos.[1] Teslas will run into a clearly visible obstacle partially obstructing the lane. Tesla is a level 2 system with inadequate safety interlocks and crappy obstacle detection.

[1] [http://autoweek.com/article/autonomous-cars/tesla-model-s- au...](http://autoweek.com/article/autonomous-cars/tesla-model-s-autopilot- strikes-again-dallas-crash)

<comment><USER48> Do you have statistics that per kilometre it makes stupid mistakes more than a human driver?

Lots of human caused accidents were driving into obvious things too. I don't drive drunk or sleepy, so maybe I'm above average, but my only standard for safety for a self driving car is that it's safer than me driving.

<comment><USER49> It's absolutely irrelevant if it crashes "less" than a human driver. It just cannot fail to detect an obstacle in front of it to be allowed on the road, period. If there is any edge case where that can happen, then the car shouldn't be certified as safe to use. Like, I don't understand how it's not obvious. A heart surgery machine that kills the patient every once in a 1000 operations would be taken off the market faster than you can say "litigation", even if a human surgeon has a worse survival rate(say 1 in 100 operations, so lets say the machine is an order of magnitude safer). That has already happened with radiotheraphy machines, there was a model that _on average_ definitely saved lives but it had a failure mode where it would kill a person. Would you continue using it? Of course not.

Or airplanes - autopilot in planes has contributed tremendously to improving flying safety, but every time there is a crash under autopilot both Boeing and Airbus will ground every single plane of the same type to figure out the cause, they don't just go "oh well, it's still safer than flying manually so it's good for us".

I really don't understand this notion that an autonomous car merely needs to be "better than average driver" to be allowed on the road. Absolutely disagree here.

<comment><USER50> Here's a justification for you: It's impossible to get a failure rate of 0, so there has to be a point where we get a satisfactory(for now) level of safety.

Traffic kills so many people annually, that even a slight increase in safety is going to save more lives that are lost to aircraft accidents, radiotheraphy machine failure and such.

<comment><USER49> Of course, and I acknowledge that accidents will happen anyway. But we cannot have a car that is on the road with "autonomous" driving functionality when it is _known_ that the sensors can't detect an obstacle above half-pillar height(like in that famous tesla crash), or that the lane detection can fail in intense sunlight(like dozens of videos on Youtube show). It should have no known failure states upon release, and then ones which are found should be fixed later. I'm just worried that we're in such a rush to release autonomous cars on the road that we are ignoring known issues for the sake of improving average safety on the road - literally no other industry works like this.

<comment><USER51> Isn't your argument why we have the saying that "the best is the enemy of the good"? You seem to be dismissing any automated product that is not perfect even if it is demonstrably already much safer overall than the manual human equivalent. Surely this can't be the right policy if the goal is to maximise safety.

This is not to say that current autonomous vehicles actually are much safer than the human equivalent. Indeed, everything I've seen so far suggests that they have a long way to go before crossing that threshold, so personally I'm a sceptic about claims that we will see viable fully autonomous vehicles any time in the next few years. But this doesn't seem to be your argument here.

<comment><USER29> > Isn't your argument why we have the saying that "the best is the enemy of > the good"?

Regardless of the OP's position on this, I do think the reality is that in practice it's difficult to sell or legalize anything that isn't _significantly_ better than 'the average driver'. Whether it makes sense or not, we seem to demand any 'AI-powered' system to be better than the average human. I personally wish this wasn't the case, but it appears to be so.

For example, I personally marvel at the abilities of Siri and Google Now, at the very least when it comes to understanding what I'm saying. It's quite possible, in fact, that both are often objectively better at understanding me than most people around me: more than once I said something to Siri where I immediately realized that it was mumbly enough for any real human in my vicinity to ask 'what?' (often only to right away act on what I said, indicating that they did manage to interpret what I'd said). And yet Siri or Google Now actually transcribed what I'd said.

Being as good as the people around me would not be good enough, because every time Siri fails it makes me shake my fist at the whole concept of 'personal assistants' on my iDevices, rather than sigh at the umpteenth person around me saying 'what?' and then obviously acting on what I'd said, which is much more common.

I've not studied this properly, so I might be wrong. But I get the impression that I hold my AI to a much higher standard than I would my human interactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> 37mph? Sounds like they're way behind what I've seen a Model S do.

<comment><USER4> This article is about a traffic jam assist that is robust enough that the driver doesn't need to pay attention at all. The Tesla S can't do this. Audi have lane keep and ACC as well, just like Tesla, but that's not what we are discussing here.

<comment><USER32> Below 37MPH, I actually trust Tesla's AP (v1) a ton. At slow speeds, it doesn't nag you about putting your hands on the wheel very often either. I still pay attention (no phone reading, etc), but I've never had to take over control at low speeds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Should people still to learn to drive today?

<comment><USER54> I have never learned to drive and I don't plan to learn it anytime soon, unless I move to somewhere with abysmal public transport for some reason.

Of course it all depends on your personal mobility habits and where you live, but in many big cities, you can absolutely get by without ever sitting in a car.

<comment><USER55> Driving is fun. You should give it a go. The sense of freedom is amazing.

<comment><USER56> Yeah, my car doesn't charge me surge pricing. I never have to stand in the rain waiting for it to show up. I can set the HVAC controls the way I want. The mechanic doesn't take my money up front and bleed it away for boondoggle politically motivated projects then ask me to pay more to do the work I already paid him for.

For day to day commuting public transit can be less stressful but for going where you want when you want it's hard to beat a car.

<comment><USER57> This is a perspective from a very specific environment. If you live in a dense city, chances are you won't get to keep your car near you house or the other places you're going to, so you'll have to walk in the rain to and from it. Plus, European gas prices feel like surge pricing every day :|

<comment><USER56> I live and work in a city in the Northeast US. The number of easily accessible parking spaces to me is less than the number of vehicles and people who need to use them in my household. It's no different than college where parking is a "long enough to be annoying in the winter" walk away.

I generally walk anywhere under two miles and avoid driving between 7am and 7pm. Having a means of transportation under my personal control readily available to me is well worth it. Tonight I'm going to go meet someone selling something on Craigslist. It's about the size of a milk crate and weighs >50lb. I could carry it on the subway and do it for free (monthly pass).

Next week I have to get a coffee table. Sure, I could buy one online but I think buying a used high quality one for cheap/free on CL or from a thrift store and having the ability to get precise measurements in advance

I could take an Uber or taxi but it only takes a few Ubers a week to be more expensive than owning a car (if you own it outright).

If your life involves doing anything more than being a worker bee who goes lives by a schedule and pays someone else for assistance with transportation outside that scope then having your own means of transportation is invaluable in terms of convenience and possibly cheaper.

<comment><USER57> I agree about owning one's own means of transportation, that's why I have a bike :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> > _first production car to reach Level 3 autonomy_

> _when it goes on sale next year_

> _The traffic jam pilot only works on highways with a physical barrier > separating oncoming traffic_

> _Audi says it is rolling out this feature "gradually,"_

I applaud the development and effort, though I have had enough of people claiming to be first at things that are not yet possible to buy and use.

</comment><comment><USER59> Tesla fanboy here. It's a little silly to say "Our car is level 3 autonomy, but only when it comes to market sometimes next year." By then Tesla could be level 3 autonomy, as all that's required to achieve that is for Elon to push some software updates and voila, the car is now smarter than ever. Being capable of something in theory doesn't make it a practical statement, imo.

<comment><USER60> Teslas do not have the required hardware to reach Level 3 autonomy unless they've been secretly including LIDAR in all of their vehicles.

<comment> crush-n-spread Humans can drive perfectly fine with just two cameras and mirrors, I'm sure it's possible with Tesla's standard 8 cameras and neural net software.

<comment><USER61> Humans can drive perfectly well with monocular vision. Plenty of people either only have one eye, or don't integrate 3D for some reason.

The variance on human driving ability is higher than we would accept from a machine, but I have two friends who don't have stereoscopic vision, and I trust both of them to drive me</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Good resource for circuit designs? - <AUTHOR> I am looking for some resources (books, web sites etc) where ideally there are some reference circuit designs with tradeoffs.  For example, there are many different power circuits & techniques when powering the PCB and the components, I'd like to review the most common methods and  understand the tradeoffs better. Is there anyplace that has that type of resource to learn from?  Any open source designs that anyone can point me too that are good to learn from?<p>Essentially, I have considerable software development experience but have been spending more and more time on firmware only projects (which I am loving).  In doing so though, I have run into quite a few patterns that I'd like to get better at identifying up front when evaluating the hardware (and while debugging) so I can be more efficient. <comment><USER2> Afrotechmods, GreatScott and old army electronics videos on Youtube. I also got some courses on Udemy when they were on sale. I didn't find one perfect source but after a while, I think I finally got it.

What really made a difference was getting an Oscilloscope and Function Generator. I'm looking to add a bench power supply too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, just watched a couple of these, that will help. Thanks for sharing

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The Art of Electronics -Paul Horowitz and Winfield Hill

Well worth the money for anyone who wants to build practical circuits

<comment><AUTHOR> Perfect. Will pick it up, thanks for the recommendation,

<comment><USER4> I highly recommend the lab manual to go along with it as well:

[https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Art-Electronics-Hands- Course...](https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Art-Electronics-Hands- Course/dp/0521177235)</comment></comment></comment>


Let's Use DNS Records to Provide Decentralized Identity - <AUTHOR> My proposal to standardize decentralized identity:
A domain name owner could add a TXT record to their domain configuration that would contain a path to their public key. For example:
TXT pubkey=http://tautvilas.lt/mykey.pub
This would leverage domain names as decentralized identity providers. It could open new possibilities to have loginless web platforms, more wide-spread PGP adoption and so on.
What do you think? <comment><USER2> Keybase already supports DNS as one of their identities you can stitch into your keybase account. It signs a declaration that you own the domain name which you post as a TXT record. The records signed content links back to your keybase account.

<comment><USER3> Keybase is great, use Hacker News as an additional source to validate identity, provided you have at least 2 Karma points :)</comment></comment>


Joi Ito: Formal vs informal education - <AUTHOR> http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2010/02/28/formal-vs-infor.html <comment><USER2> > I wonder how many people there are like me who can't engage well with formal > education

Well considering nearly 1/10 people have ADHD ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/09...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300729.html)), I'd say that's a good starting estimate.

I'm starting to think making it a _disorder_ is just a way to preserve the current education system... What's more likely: 1/10 kids need drugs to succeed, or perhaps there's something wrong with the education system... Let's pull out that Occam's razor and start cutting some of this crap.

</comment><comment><USER3> I realized late that attending college and university is also about meeting your peers. It's a head start in building your network of people before entering the work force.

</comment><comment><USER4> Personally I think the internet (and multimedia) should be changing the whole paradigm of formal education... of course universities are using IT but their lecture hall + library short-loan shelf approach is still at the core (and has been for a long time).

<comment><USER5> I agree that the internet can really improve education, but I'm wary of taking it too far. Some people envision a totally digital experience, which I would be against. Actually living on campus is a great experience and (I think) a useful one.</comment></comment>


Google's China plan isn't just evil – it's bad for business - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/googles-china-plan-isnt-just-evil--its-bad-for-business/2018/08/09/143046be-9c12-11e8-8d5e-c6c594024954_story.html <comment><USER2> 1\. All other major tech and non-tech companies comply with Chinese regulations, to access their market. Why's Google's attempt any different?

2\. If not Google, another American company, like Microsoft, will gladly fill Google's void in China by cooperating with Beijing. This is Google's loss with no impact to China, and gain for Google's competitors, who don't give a crap about being evil

3\. While criticisms levied against China are fair and valid, America has an equally hostile tech policy - it routinely restricts tech exports to countries it sanctions, leveraging it's tech leadership position. For certain markets, alternatives don't exist, like in desktop PC processors where AMD and Intel are the only practical options, both of which are American. No wonder China arm twisted Intel into licensing x86 to Chinese manufacturers

While IP theft is unacceptable, China's stance of restricting American tech penetration de-risks itself from sanctions. Not to mention all the NSA backdoors in American tech that make it untrustworthy to adopt without audit.</comment>


James while John had had had ... had had had had a better effect on the teacher - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

<comment><USER2> Pretty sure I saw this recently on HN, perhaps in a comment. It's similar to Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo .. (infinity). <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo></comment>


Apple is the New Microsoft - <AUTHOR> http://www.herlein.com/index.php?entry=entry090811-070238 <comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure my karma will take a hit here.

Apple is hardly the new Microsoft. Microsoft's developer relations are bar none the best for any commercial entity or platform I've ever developed for. That's not saying their API's or SDK's are well designed, what it is saying is their developer support simply cannot be beaten.

Now, I've been entirely Apple based for the last three years and - in terms of hand holding tool chain support - it's a relative ghetto in contrast to what MS provides.

MS is definitely more open than Apple is, specifically when it comes to the iPhone, so I'm not sure how Apple is the new Microsoft in the slightest sense. Now, I don't mean open in terms of open source and all that, but I mean open in terms of what, when, where you develop and deploy.

In many ways, I wish they were the new Microsoft. That would mean that iPhone is an open landscape with API's that aren't encumbered with a "father knows best" mentality, which, as a developer, is frightening if it's a picture of what's to come. Can you imagine a future where Apple dictates what you install on your laptop or desktop? Why is the iPhone/iPod Touch any different? Because it has a GSM chip?

The problem is that if consumers accept this scenario, which they've readily done with the App Store, then the next logical conclusion is that the next device from Cupertino that isn't a laptop or desktop will come with the same closed, crippled, handicapped (from a developer's perspective) ecosystem. Then the next iteration after that will move it closer to the reality that your desktop will be locked down in the same fashion.

No, Apple is not the next Microsoft. They've become their own brand of monster.

<comment><USER3> Gotta give you some solidarity here even though it's the unpopular opinion. As someone who's been Mac-centric for the past few years I have to say: anyone who claims that Apple supports devs as well as MS is on something.

Apple's documentation cannot begin to hold a candle to MSDN, their direct developer support even worse. Developing on MS platforms is a joy - it's straightforward with copious amounts of documentation provided directly by Microsoft.

Developing on iPhone/OSX is a pain. Much of the "documentation" resembles a Obj-C header file, important details hide in gigantic tomes of text with zero sample code to bring it out. Unexpected/weird behavior is rarely documented... the whole thing is a gigantic labyrinth that breeds tribal knowledge instead of documentation.

Ugh.

<comment><USER4> My experience with MSDN is one of the biggest reasons why I avoid Microsoft tools. Now you're telling me that Apple's documentation is much worse, and that depresses me.

<comment><USER3> The problem with straight-up documentation is that much of it is unreadable technobabble that makes no sense until you, say, throw in a diagram or a chunk of sample code. Then you go "oohhhhhh" and are enlightened.

Apple's documentation is "complete" insofar as all the major bits are _written down somewhere_ , but it's very opaque and hard to read. Their ridiculous lack of diagrams, visualizations, and sample code also makes your life much more difficult than it must be.

In fact, I do not think there's ANY sample code anywhere that isn't a "sample project". As in, when Apple does decide to grace your presence with sample code, it's a large, integrated _thing_ that really doesn't help you learn a specific API or component.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Honestly, I stopped reading after the first few paragraphs. "The iPhone has taken the world by storm." We know. "The Apple AppStore is not an ecosystem and it's not a new market where companies can participate freely." We know. "So why do I think Apple has created the modern equivalent of the La Brea Tar Pits?" Let me guess... because of the App store gatekeeping? "So Apple controls the gateway to even offer an application to the market." Bingo!

I'm not trying to be condescending, but these points have been beaten to death on HN already, right down to barking "Just open the iPhone for third-party developers and allow other application stores," which, while it gives me warm fuzzies, is just clearly not something Apple is willing to do without serious forethought. Why not add something novel to the debate?

<comment><USER6> Apple is the new Apple. This is the way Apple has always been. Apple is the original closed box consumer platform. It's part of the company's DNA, if there is such a thing. The only difference is that now they also control the distribution channel, not just the hardware/OS.

<comment><USER7> I think that's stretching the point. The Apple II was certainly not closed. Literally the whole design of the thing was cleanly documented, right down the IC selection and the (hand assembled!) firmware. The original Mac was likewise an open book (albeit one without an expansion bus). Take a look at the first edition of Inside Macintosh. Even modern macs aren't "closed" in any meaningful sense. You can develop and deploy software for them using most or all of the tools Apple has internally.

And in any case, it's not the "closedness" that people are complaining about with regard to the iPhone; that's just the practical tool Apple is using. The complaint is about Apple's attempts to use dominance in one sector (smartphones in this case, though I think a similar argument can be made about media players and iTunes) as leverage against competitors or to favor its own products, or those of its allies.

And it is _that_ behavior that seems very Microsoft-like to those of us who remember the 90's.

<comment><USER8> _I think that's stretching the point. The Apple II was certainly not closed._

How many decades ago was that??

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Forbes, 2005: Is Apple the new Microsoft?

<http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/04/cx_ld_0304aapl.html>

SitePoint, 2006: If I had my doubts before, I stand corrected: Apple is the new Microsoft.

[http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/01/17/apple- photocasting...](http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/01/17/apple-photocasting- mac-only-uses-invalid-rss/)

Macworld, 2007: It's official: Apple is the new Microsoft.

<http://www.macworld.com/article/59914/2007/09/newms.html>

So is it a seasonal thing? Like brown becoming the new black in Autumn?

<comment><USER10> It doesn't even make any sense. Microsoft doesn't care what applications I run on Windows, sometimes to a fault.

<comment><USER11> Microsoft doesn't care? They remove the oxygen supply of some competitors...

<comment><USER10> Welcome to 1992...

<comment><USER11> That was a reference to a quote regarding Netscape. Not 1992.

But maybe the US and EU monopoly courts are complete idiots...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _"First of all, to be an ecosystem there has to be an open marketplace."_

I know we're speaking in analogies, but Wikipedia defines ecosystem as:

 _"An ecosystem is a unit of interdependent organisms which share the same habitat."_

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem>

...I fail to see what disqualifies the App Store as an ecosystem, analogy- wise.

I've had enough self-described "rebels" (in this case, _"heretic"_ ) who think they are going out on a limb criticizing Apple and making broad statements such as "Apple is the new 'X'". The author doesn't appear to know much about how Microsoft operates or how it attained it's current (perilous) position, otherwise the flaws of this comparison would have been obvious during the first edit.

 _"...comparisons are odious, Smith."_

Has Apple done some questionable, uncharacteristic things lately? Sure. Does it make life difficult for Developers? You bet. Is this something they've never done before? Absolutely not.

So instead of trying to draw attention to yourself by invoking dramatic characterizations (I once heard someone say that anytime someone compares something to Hitler in an argument, they automatically lose) how about "sticking it to the man" by building something better yourself. If you're right, maybe someday someone like you will come along and write a rambling diatribe about your creation (and then you'll know you've really made it).

</comment><comment><USER13> "Is the new" is the new "fucking annoying".

<comment><USER14> if flagging a post like a down vote ? I don't feel that the 'community' based filtering of news is working too well here..

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> But I thought _Google_ was the new Microsoft?

How many New Microsofts can we have? :)

</comment><comment><USER16> Every article I've seen on this topic (and there have been many) confounds what it means by "the new Microsoft." Most use the term to mean "plays hardball and engages in appalling practices that alienate certain groups of people," which, while arguably true, are not against the law. The discussion then gets defined by a group of folks pointing out the problems with this behavior, opposed by libertarians who claim that they should be allowed to do whatever they like. In turn, this leads to an uninformed, boring discussion: I'm not interested in discussing what other people believe Apple "should" do from an ethical/moral perspective -- Apple clearly knows its own interests better than any johnny-come-lately blogger, and they have decided that screwing around with their developers is good for their bottom line.

The proper point to focus on is a simple one: is Apple using its monopoly power in one application area (e.g. the App Store), to gain a monopoly in another (e.g. voice applications)? For to do so _is_ illegal. Our lawmakers have already pondered this issue and deemed it unacceptable. They have stated the illegal behavior precisely. A proper DA should have no difficulty prosecuting this behavior.

P.S. I also don't understand the level of whining among the iphone devs. The Android is an open platform, move over already - you can't choose to be punished and then whine about it.

</comment><comment><USER17> [I did a quick search, didn't see anyone mention games yet, so I thought I should]

People bitch and moan about this, but the fact is that for a lot of developers this won't be an issue. Why? Because the game market for the iPhone is HUGE and you can bet there will almost never be an issue with duplicate functionality or explicit content because a game can incidentally download the Karma Sutra.

Games account for about half of the top selling apps (12/25 last I checked), and some games are getting so many downloads they are getting installed on almost a third of all devices (Tap-tap revolution got to 30%).

The game market is huge and will continue to thrive. The video game industry is entirely accustomed to this! It's just another console to them, albeit one with LESS restrictive rules. No price restrictions, no strict content or style guidelines, and no content requirements. Apple is hands-off compared to Sony and Nintendo.

</comment><comment><USER14> HN is the new tabloid. :(

</comment><comment><USER18> From The Dark Knight:

Harvey Dent: You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain

</comment><comment><USER19> Why? (Article doesn't seem to clarify the title)

<comment><USER20> Because this is what his colleague and friend says.

<comment><USER21> And because it gets him traffic when he posts it on HN

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I feel like Microsoft has gone through many stages as a company throughout time. Any software company could be matched to be _just like microsoft_ at some point in microsoft's timeline. Same with google...

</comment><comment><USER23> Hahaha, what a joke.

This is what happens when you let propaganda factories take over news outlets.

<comment><USER24> hah. Apple can be the new Microsoft when they have as much cash as them. Apple is a strong company, but they have a while to go...

<comment><USER25> Apple was comparable to Microsoft in "on hand" cash in 2008 - [http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/23/microsoft-closes-the- quart...](http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/23/microsoft-closes-the-quarter-with- less-cash-than-apple/)</comment></comment></comment>