Android's Overblown Fragmentation Problem - <AUTHOR> http://nick.typepad.com/blog/2012/05/androids-overblown-fragmentation-problem.html

<comment><USER2> Another area that can be quite tricky is games.

Most (but not all) Android phones being produced today support OpenGL 2.0 - even so, there are lots of tricky differences.

The obvious one is different screen sizes and resolutions. This can be a challenge, particularly for 2D games. You need either different versions of artwork, resolution independent artwork (through 9png, vector graphics, or something else), or to accept that your art is going to be stretched on most phones.

Additionally, different combinations of GPU/screen size have vastly different performance characteristics. A phone with a 720p screen might very well have the same GPU as a phone with an 800x480 resolution screen. Guess which one performs better? This requires a lot of testing, as the stereotypical "low end phone" might actually perform better than the latest and greatest with a giant screen.

Phones also differ, and sometimes greatly, based on the graphics chip/driver. HTC phones often don't preserve framebuffers in the way most other manufacturers do.

There are many more: non-po2 textures, compressed texture support, different context preservation behavior based on phone and OS version.

Games may not be the stereotypical application here, but they're a huge part of the market, and Android fragmentation has made developing performant, good looking games much more of a challenge than on iOS.

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure OpenGL ES 2.0 (pedantry: not at all the same standard as OpenGL 2.0) was a platform requirement for everything from Eclair (Android 2.0 -- the Nexus One) forward. I'm sure that factory-new Android 1.x devices still exist in the market somewhere, but you'd be very hard pressed to find one. Note that the original iPhone and 3G didn't do GLES2 either, so the platforms got the support at roughly the same time.

The bit about pixel-perfect art matters to some, I guess. PC game vendors have been doing resolution-independent games for decades now, so it's hardly a killer. But if you have to have it, then you're stuck with the iPhone (not even iOS, obviously, as you'd have to chuck iPad support).

And the rest is just saying that "OpenGL is hard". Yes: if you want to code to _precisely_ the extension support and bug-for-bug quirks of one GPU (presumably the PVR SGX 5xx in your case), then it's easier to support just that phone. Duh. But that seems like bad practice to me. What if Apple goes with Mali or Tegra3 for the iPhone 5?

<comment><USER4> It's deeper than "OpenGL is hard." Right out of the gate, you are hit with the one-two punch of different texture compression formats being supported on different devices combined with a maximum APK size on Google's store. The only standard Android texture format with compression is ETC which doesn't support alpha. So right at square one, if you want to use compressed textures for maximum performance and resolution, you have to release 3 separate APK's with a different supports-OpenGL-texture tag in each manifest. One for DXT, one for PVRTC, and one for ATC. Or dynamically download megabytes of textures after detecting which GPU you are running on.

That's a sharp contrast with iOS's unified, simple developer story: all PVRTC without any maximum app size.

<comment><USER3> That's not iOS's story, it's Imagination Technologies' story. The story from Apple will change the moment they ship a device on someone else's GPU. If this is something you expect to rely on, you're in the position of someone writing Altivec code in 2005.

But yes: texture compression formats and hardware support are a terrible, terrible mess. Happily I believe the early patents on S3TC are set to expire soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So Android's fragmentation problem isn't that bad for developers if they're used to working on an even worse platform (web developing)? That's a terrible argument. There is always something worse. That doesn't mean Android is any less fragmented.

<comment><USER6> Android fragmentation is worse than web fragmentation. On the web one only has to test on 4 browsers x two operating systems, as opposed to dozens of phones x several os versions x several carriers.

<comment><USER3> You're slipping your terminology here and achieving some pretty clever spin: It's only four browsers if you don't care about Opera users. It's only two OSes if you don't care about Linux users. If that's your standard for support, then why not look solely at the successful Android devices, which takes you from "dozens" of handsets to maybe seven at most, which is less than the web world.

And of course the 4/2 argument is bunk anyway. Web developers test ever major version of every browser (especially with IE) and every version of every OS. So for example it's {XP,Vista,7} cross {ChromeN,ChromeN-1,IE7,IE8,IE9,FirefoxN,FirefoxN-1} plus {Lion,Snow Leopard,Leopard} cross {Safari,ChromeN,ChromeN-1,FirefoxN,FirefoxN-1}, etc...

You can't have your argument both ways, basically: either the small market platform variants matter or they don't. If they don't, Android support is easier than the web by a significant margin.

<comment><USER7> I disagree. Testing is STILL much easier for web development, the android emulators are no replacement for the real thing. Yeah, if you want to give me the top 7 Android phones then yes, development becomes easier (I'm sorry but still no where near as "easy" as it is in the world of web development). We normally will test Win/OSX and the latest FF+Chrome and then IE7/IE8/IE9/Soon- IE10. This in total means testing 6 different combos (No IE on OS X and only test FF/Chrome in one OS). I might throw the site in safari just to double check but since it runs on webkit I usually can trust that if it works in Chrome it will work in Safari.

At the end of the day we have to much less checking in web development than we do in mobile because while browsers are different that are more alike than they are different. That cannot be said for Android/iOS, they differ down to their very core and most cross-platform attempts fall hopelessly short of a usable app.

<comment><USER3> This seems to be a digression. The point isn't that the "task" of development is easier than web development. Of course it's not, that's ridiculous. It might be done with fancy Java IDEs, but it's still embedded systems development on physically disjoint hardware.

The point was that the added cost to development due to platform incompatibilities is less than it is in the web world. And I think that's largely inarguable. Where is the list of Android incompatibilities that is anywhere near as complicated or exhaustive as <http://caniuse.com> for example? People in this thread are having a lot of trouble coming up with any specifics at all, in fact. Mostly just a list of apps that break somewhere; no one seems to actually remember any real bugs or workarounds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well it's also consumer perception. For Android I paid money for the phone itself, for a calling and data plan, and then for the apps (sometimes). So after putting down money and things not working right, yes that angers me.

But for web apps? The browsers are free, the apps are (usually) free, and there is an _expectation_ of approximate user experience on the web. On phones the standard is much higher.

That's at least the way I feel about it (and will be switching to an iPhone away from Nexus S because of all those reasons; my OS X / iOS devices always feel more "real" than my android phone).

<comment><USER9> > For Android I paid money for the phone itself, for a calling and data plan, > and then for the apps (sometimes).

Did you not pay for your computer itself, an Internet plan, and then for software (sometimes)? How is the Android experience any different?

<comment><USER8> In a strict sense I have a ton of different browser options on the same piece of hardware, so if one app doesn't work in Safari say, I can use Chrome or FF. Annoying? Yes, but not world shattering. In a sense you're correct, I've had to invest money to even get to the browser, but I think this difference is more emotional / psychology than anything else.

In a sense the "browser" is a different part of the overall experience.

I know that I've become accustomed to have different expectations of web apps, because they _are_ web apps.

I feel like when it comes to more native apps you have fewer excuses for something being wonky or broken.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not sure the "overblown" fragmentation problem is about the developer. I thought it was about the end user.

Sure it's somewhat difficult to develop and test Android applications due to fragmentation, but I see the bigger problem being the end users with Android devices in their hands that can't run apps because their particular device or their new, but ancient build of Android isn't supported.

What Color? is an example of this. It doesn't work on the Galaxy Nexus. Who knows why. The Netflix app was another example, for at least a while.

And who knows if it will ever be supported, because only $x number of people own that device, which is one of hundreds available worldwide at any given time.

<comment><USER3> This app?: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jarcikon.whatc...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jarcikon.whatcolor&hl=en)

Seems to work fine on my Galaxy Nexus, though I've never heard of it before and maybe support was recently added. And to be fair: this (a camera- integrated "what is this color?" tool for colorblind users) is a _really_ obscure app! The Netflix example is AFAIK wrong; I don't think it was ever "unsupported" in ICS, but maybe I'm misremembering.

Are there any real-world examples? I mean, sure: occasionally you see an app that has bugs on one handset or another, and sometimes those go unfixed. But to pretend that this is a serious problem for "end users" is vastly overstating the case.

<comment><USER11> Chrome (doesn't work on pre-ICS). Grand Theft Auto 3 (and most games - don't work on particular devices due to graphics). Firefox Native (only supports ARMv6 devices in unofficial builds)

<comment><USER3> The Chrome bit misses the point entirely. _Of course_ some software requires the latest version of the OS, if it didn't, there would have been no need to release the new version of the platform. You might as well talk about how terribly fragmented iOS is because Siri doesn't work on the iPhone 4.

The GPU thing is legitimate. If you let the market differentiate on graphics performance then software vendors will choose to optimize their platform compatibility in ways that don't include everyone. That's "fragmentation", though I'm hard pressed to see how you avoid it without making everyone code to a single core SGX 540 like iOS does.

And Firefox ships an app that doesn't support the native ABI of the platform (which, to be clear: has a _slow_ ABI precisely to _avoid_ fragmentation. iOS has the same backwards-compatible floating point issue, btw). Again, I don't see how preventing software vendors from making these decisions is helping anyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> We've spent 10+ years on the web trying to educate end users that things will _not_ be pixel perfect across webtv, ie3/4/5/6/7/8/9, netscape 2/3/4, firefox1-12, opera, chrome, safari on linux, mac, windows, on 10"-30" screens. Slowly, over time, it seemed to work.

"This rounded corner on ie7/winxp doesn't look exactly the same as the rounded corner on my iphone4!" isn't the type of complaint I hear from clients any more, but font renderings, aliasing, shape of rounded corners, etc are all things I've had to deal with in the past.

We're now entering mobile devices/tablets, which will bring with it its own version of the same stuff. It was easier to tell someone "that's _netscape_ , this is _opera_ \- they're different, and will look a little different*" than it will be to say "this is android, and that's android, but they don't work the same".

<comment><USER13> Sure it's not an issue if you think you have to support android. When in reality you just have to support the iPhone, and it doesn't have these issues.

Android support is helpful but not neccesary, like supporting IE alongside Firefox a few years ago. Sure people use IE more than any other browser (now Chrome, yes!), but that doesn't mean a lot of IE users are going to use your website in the first place.

IMHO that applies to android today, iPhone users are way more likely to buy your service in the first place so you should focus on them. No need to leave android users hanging, but clearly the platform doesn't warrant anyone's sole focus so much as basic support.

<comment><USER14> It's tough to tell if you are talking specifically about web apps for browsers or the platforms themselves. But in either case your comment is short sighted. Android has over 50% of smartphone market share, and that's only going to increase. Android support and Android versions of apps should be standard for companies and startups going forward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I design and support apps for iOS (Tablet and Phone), Android (Tablet and Phone), Blackberry (Tablet and Phone), Windows Phone 7.5, and various J2ME (Nokia s40 etc).

Android is not the very worst one to support (that would be blackberry), but it is the worst within its own ecosystem. As a designer it infuriates me to no end to never know the Dimensions, PPI, or general experience of any given user. It makes any refined UI design nearly impossible. While I can't create great experiences on specific devices, for Android I have to make glorified web apps at best.

If I were a Android customer, I would be irritated that my platform has significantly handicapped my apps.

<comment><USER16> > As a designer it infuriates me to no end to never know the Dimensions, PPI, > or general experience of any given user. It makes any refined UI design > nearly impossible.

This doesn't make sense to me. Android gives you all the tools you need to scale a UI to different types of screens, so why would not having a set dimension/resolution/PPI value make it hard for design? The added challenge is thinking about how your UI may work gracefully on smaller or larger than expected screens, but those challenges can be overcome as they are on other platforms like the web.

<comment><USER17> I've been told the concept of scaling a UI is akin to the concept of "write once, run anywhere".

That is, it works fine in theory. It just hasn't ever worked as advertised in reality. And trying has often generated more pain than it's saved.

It's worth noting that much of modern web design moved to a place of fixed minimum widths and white-space taking up the remainder. Responsive design promises to change that a bit _toward_ scaling UI, but thus far is just a mechanism by which designers can incorporate a few hand-tuned minimum-width variants.

<comment><USER18> Right from the start Android has been designed with a form of Responsive Design. With scalable XML layouts, and selectors to choose which layout is loaded for different DPI devices, one could argue that even early versions of Android are at least as design-friendly as modern HTML5.

That's not to say there aren't challenges. But the whole point of Android was always to create an industry standard for a wide range of devices. This requires - by definition - support for a variety of screen sizes, DPIs, hardware features, etc. When most people talk about fragmentation as a negative point of Android, they're forgetting what Android is. A common platform, running on an unlimited number of devices. That's by design, not accident.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The fragmentation is fairly significant, given that 85% of current Android devices are still running 2.2-2.3.x versions of the Android OS--both of which are now 2 years old.[1]

Four months ago, we were experimenting with a combination of PhoneGap and mobile website versions of an app, and that was an unholy nightmare of bugs-- not because of the version of Android, but because of the custom UI that phone manufacturers added on top of the stock OS.

We got three different Android devices (running 2.2, 2.3, and 4.1), and debugging for presentation, rendering, and behavioral issues was pretty painful. Two bugs that I can recall off the top of my head are:

* the "HTC Duplicate Input Bug", where the browser inserted a second <input> or <textarea> element on top of the original element in the DOM when you apply focus to a text input element and bring up the soft keyboard

* issues with heavy caching and cookie management that resulted in failed logins (depending on the user's device) and unpredictable rollout of new versions of CSS and JS

The problem with Android fragmentation is not necessarily that it's spread across the number of devices and versions; it's that the phone manufacturers have incentives to continue using legacy versions of the software (2.2-2.3x) because they have already invested time and resources into building their proprietary UI on top of them.

[1]: [http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform- ve...](http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform- versions.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> I think his argument is premature. His app is < 5k installs, he's only targeting phones, he's still using the option menu (i.e. using an old sdk), and his UI is simply an iPhone port.

Just from a UI perspective I'm not sure he has addressed: ActionBarSherlock, black vs. white (or any?) Option Menu icons, portrait/landscape layouts (i.e. sideways keyboards), and multiple layout folders (3x just for tablets).

He's confident now because the app is small & easy. When you get to ~100k installs you start to encounter the niche users and when you're missing something "critical" and unique to them you'll get a lot of 1-star drive- bys...

<comment><USER21> Just exclude your app from those devices in the market.

<comment><USER20> It usually takes the market a month or two to add new devices to the list. By that time you'll already be nailed by users of a popular new device with an odd screen. We went through that with the Galaxy Note. (Our solution was to express ship one via Amazon.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As he mentioned, it may be overblown unless you're in video. The streaming protocols don't get a lot of love (every 2.x.x version broke different bits of streaming in novel ways) and codecs don't work across devices either.

(Also note other comments here about Color and Netflix apps.)

<comment><USER23> It's not just video. It's any time you step out of the sandbox of "simple native UI app" that you start running into these differences.

<comment><USER11> I'm glad someone else said it.

I don't know how to put this more polite, but if _those_ are the only fragmentation issues he's had on Android, his applications are either fairly simple or they just don't have much users yet.

I don't have an opinion on whether it's worse on iOS (prolly not) or Windows, but it sure _is_ a pain.

<comment><USER7> Couldn't agree with this more. Once a bunch of people start using your Android app you will get buried under support issues. The company I wrote some apps for will email me all the time saying X device on Y.Z version of Android doesn't work... Most of the time it's just a dead end. Unless I get one of those phones in my hands to test it or if it is spitting out an error code that I know how to fix then there is no easy way to debug the problem. It's frustrating as a developer because I WANT to provide the best experience in my mobile apps but that is a very hard to do as the Android platform seems to be in a constant state of flux with countless new devices hitting stores all the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'll agree that the web development scene is somewhat "fragmented" but I would argue that Android's fragmentation is not only worse but harder to adjust for.

When coding a website and dealing with different browsers/capabilities/screen sizes I can test all of the different combinations on my laptop. The times when I need to test a site on windows I either get someone else to run QA on it at work or I fire up a remote solution such as <http://browserstack.com>. The bottom line is I CAN test all the combinations.

Now switch to Android. I'm sorry but emulators are NO EXCUSE for the real thing. I have had code fail in an emulator and then work fine on the device. The emulators are VERY slow and trying to run them on my Macbook Air (4GB RAM) is next to impossible. iOS's Simulator is 100x better. (Emulator != Simulator)

I'm sorry but I would rather write websites all day and have to test on 4 Browsers Across 2 OS's then write one more app for Android.

</comment><comment><USER24> I disagree that fragmentation is not a problem. I work on the mobile build/test infrastructure at Google, and fragmentation does cause us a lot of extra work. We have to track down and maintain physical phones from each vendor, and then we have to dole out time allotments for tests to run on each phone. (And of course, each model of phone runs a different build of Android for each carrier...) This is annoying because ideally we'd run tests for every affecting change, but there aren't enough phones to do that. (We can and do run the emulator for every change, but the emulator is a very optimistic simulation.)

iOS presents is own challenges; running emulator tests for every change is difficult because the build process is opaque and the emulator only runs on Macs, which we do not use in production.

All in all, the tools that are available to mobile developers are extremely primitive compared to what server-side Java developers get, and wasting time fighting fragmentation isn't exactly helping.

<comment><USER25> Hmm in your post I read "I work on mobile build/test infrastructure at Google" and "tools that are available to mobile developers are extremely primitive". So what are you waiting for? Pitch your ideas to your (relatively internal) Android team...

<comment><USER24> Yes, we do that :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "It can be tricky to take advantage of features in new Android versions (like ICS) while still supporting older versions (like 2.2)."

ummm...what was your argument again?

<comment><USER27> Tricky, but not impossible. The same as you would have to learn the API's and general usage patterns of new features, you just have to learn how to use the compatibility package or third party libraries like ActionBarSherlock to take advantage of the most common new features.

That said, I don't fully agree with the OP's argument. Fragmentation is a very real pain in a lot of subtle unexpected areas (mostly UI related).

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I make a living off of Android, and I don't think fragmentation is overblown. Sure, you can make the argument that the PC world has dealt with different screen sizes and hardware specs for a long time, but at least MS was the sole vendor of Windows.

As Android developer you have to deal with myriad of manufacturer and community developed permutations of the OS - TouchWiz, Sense, Cyanogenmod, MIUI to name a few. If you make a widget app like us, you not only have to deal with HTC, Samsung, etc's launcher you have to deal with 3rd party launchers too - ADW, Apex, Launcher Pro, GO, etc.

How about when HTC decides to break multitasking in favor of better battery life?

[http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/16/3024854/htc-one-x- multitas...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/16/3024854/htc-one-x-multitasking- operating-sense)

Personally, I think it's a bit of a double edged sword. A lot of the issues that make Android hard to develop good apps for make it a fun platform, ie the ability to choose whatever launcher or rom you want. That said, you're kidding yourself if you think fragmentation is not a major issue.

</comment><comment><USER29> The problem with Android fragmentation is the impossibility of most developers to reproduce device-specific bugs. Without physical access to one problematic device it could be very hard or even impossible to debug bugs. There's only so much you can do with the emulator. And most developers don't have access to more than very few devices. If you're not a company, it's hard to invest in all sorts of devices.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think the fragmentation issue has bigger impacts in software consumption, rather than software production. The fragmentation is really more of a symptom than the problem. That problem is disparate hardware as a result of how device manufacturers compete with each other. Instead of adding any value with useful features (NOTE: the additional battery drain of 4G and lessened security of using NFC are not features), they decide to manufacture devices using cut-rate hardware. The hardware failure rate of Android powered devices is staggering when compared to iOS devices. This hurts the user and it hurts the platform. The user is left with a bad taste in their mouth, which they attribute to "Android's fragmentation problem". Now, I'm not the biggest Apple fan and I love the philosophy behind Android, but I find the crappy hardware a big enough of a pain to deal with that I would rather use a device that's part of a more controlled ecosystem.

</comment><comment><USER31> I still can't read "The Economist" on Ice Cream Sandwich. I noticed it silently went away the moment I upgraded.

Anecdotal? Yes. But until it is more or less unheard of (especially for an application that "just" renders text and images), there is a fragmentation problem.

"Ice Cream Sandwich" has been available for months.

<comment><USER32> > "Ice Cream Sandwich" has been available for months.

And only about 5% of phones have it.

Devs have to prioritize. Obviously, power-users are going to be up-to-date, but the vast majority of customers are probably not affected. I would imagine the customers of The Economist on Android are less likely to fit the power- user profile than other apps.

<comment><USER31> > And only about 5% of phones have it.

This is a statement of the fact that seems reasonable.

> Devs have to prioritize. Obviously, power-users are going to be up-to-date, > but the vast majority of customers are probably not affected. I would > imagine the customers of The Economist on Android are less likely to fit the > power-user profile than other apps.

This is a justification I entirely agree with. It doesn't mean that there isn't a fragmentation problem that annoys customers.

I understand _why_ this is, there was never to be doubt about it. Just because it is understandable doesn't get to the heart of my disagreement with the headline: there is a fragmentation problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Price of testing on multiple flavors of web browsers: An internet connection & a few virtual machines to run versions of IE/Firefox.

Price of testing on multiple android devices: Thousands of dollars to purchase new phones without a contract.

</comment><comment><USER34> While the fragmentation such as it is really sucks for developers, I do see an upside.

It's a grand experiment with many competing designs, all striving to become the best and biggest (sounds like Osmos ;).

iPhone iterates down a closeted path. Innovation for iphone depends solely on the creativity at Apple. And while that is nothing to sneeze at, if some really left-field neato must-have innovative feature occurs, I think it's going to be found on Android first.

<comment><USER35> Except that you miss the point.

PCs have been doing this for decades without having the OS fragmentation problems. Why ? Because Microsoft allows OEMs to customise the experience while still allowing them the ability to upgrade the core OS.</comment></comment>


The Nixon Shock (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-08-04/the-nixon-shock <comment><AUTHOR> I'm not very literate in economics.

On this wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock) Krugman is quoted

> The current world monetary system assigns no special role to gold; indeed, > the Federal Reserve is not obliged to tie the dollar to anything. It can > print as much or as little money as it deems appropriate. There are powerful > advantages to such an unconstrained system. Above all, the Fed is free to > respond to actual or threatened recessions by pumping in money. To take only > one example, that flexibility is the reason the stock market crash of > 1987—which started out every bit as frightening as that of 1929—did not > cause a slump in the real economy.

> While a freely floating national money has advantages, however, it also has > risks. For one thing, it can create uncertainties for international traders > and investors. Over the past five years, the dollar has been worth as much > as 120 yen and as little as 80. The costs of this volatility are hard to > measure (partly because sophisticated financial markets allow businesses to > hedge much of that risk), but they must be significant. Furthermore, a > system that leaves monetary managers free to do good also leaves them free > to be irresponsible—and, in some countries, they have been quick to take the > opportunity.[18]

I'm still trying to understand why some people argue FOR the gold standard, and if they're right, does that mean the Fed must avoid financial crashes due to floating currency?</comment>


Ask HN: OpenWrt Router Recommendation? - <AUTHOR> Which router do you recommend for running OpenWrt? <comment><USER2> If you want to go cheap (I do) go for netgear R6220.

[https://www.netgear.com/support/product/R6220.aspx?_ga=2.213...](https://www.netgear.com/support/product/R6220.aspx?_ga=2.21329982.461859544.1572733536-508201475.1572733536)

Where I live after lease router is around 20$. IMO that's great for AC router compatible with OpenWrt.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I ended up buying a second hand TP-Link TL-WDR4300, a model I had used before.

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://www.gl-inet.com/](https://www.gl-inet.com/) They have a lot of great OpenWrt router.

<comment><USER4> Their products seem dangerous: [https://docs.gl- inet.com/en/2/hardware/ar150/#poe-connection](https://docs.gl- inet.com/en/2/hardware/ar150/#poe-connection)

In regards to firehazard with poe.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you pick colors - <AUTHOR>

How do you pick the colors that you use in logos and sites?  I've been using Photoshop's color libraries for years to find attractive color combos, but I wanted to see how others have approached the task. <comment><USER2> <http://kuler.adobe.com/> is a really good resource for this. You can name a general description of a color you want ("dirt" or "angry" or "light blue" or "cloudy"), and you'll get a ton of color combos, with a ton of complimentary colors thrown in for free.

<comment><USER3> I find the color schemes don't translate well to a web design from the format that they present on Kuler. But maybe that's just me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've used <http://www.colourlovers.com/> for years. Great site.

</comment><comment><USER5> <http://colorschemedesigner.com/> is also nice, it also include emulator for different eye diseases

</comment><comment><USER6> _"... observing nature is far more interesting than just trying to think about things ..."_

Nature.

I discovered this back in 2007 playing around with images I'd taken out my kitchen window ~ [http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/72157603995704881...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/72157603995704881/) I also keep a hand colour set on flickr for reference ~ [http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/72157600195794663...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/72157600195794663/)

Back in 2007: _"If I ever need to do things like come up with ideas observation of nature and complex systems such as the web is always a good place to start. Here I'm looking at colour & colour schemes. Never would have thought of this combo and ratios"_ ~ <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/541666109/>

</comment><comment><USER7> <http://zabadab.eu/colorwhore/> <http://www.knorrpage.de/colormatch.html>

</comment><comment><USER8> I use Color Scheme Designer, it's so easy to find complementary colors and its a beautiful UI.

<http://colorschemedesigner.com/>

</comment><comment><USER9> I use color theory. <http://www.worqx.com/color/index.htm>

</comment><comment><USER10> And moving beyond the visual to branding: if there is an entrenched competitor in your space that uses a certain color (lets say blue), pick an opposite color (say red or green). If you color your logo/colorscheme the same as them, you are just confirming visually that your brand is a copy of them, and not positioning yourself as different, which will make it harder to compete (gain mindshare as the marketers say).

<comment><USER10> So for example, if you're competing with national geographic, do NOT choose yellow :)

<comment><USER10> Competing with digg, do NOT choose blue. etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I 'lift' them from paintings :)

<comment><USER12> If you're really interested in how artists approach color and theory, you might pick up a copy of Kandinsky's _Concerning the Spiritual in Art_ , which puts forth a modernist/Bauhaus color theory:

<http://books.google.com/books?id=mG-VRWgfpuYC>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily_Kandinsky#Concerning_th...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily_Kandinsky#Concerning_the_Spiritual_in_Art)

<comment><USER13> Also, Josef Albers and his book _Interaction of Color_.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I use a lot of the sites mentioned elsewhere on this page, but other than that, one thing I also do is find pictures with color combinations in them that "jump out" at me and then sample those colors into a palette. This is how to get the most interesting combinations in my experience.

</comment><comment><USER15> I usually consider the psychology of the colors I use, especially from the point of view of whether or not I am designing a commercial site. In addition it is important to consider the age group of your website visitors.

I've written an article about my take on color psychology in web pages:

[http://experimentgarden.blogspot.com/2009/06/psychology- of-c...](http://experimentgarden.blogspot.com/2009/06/psychology-of-color-in- webpages.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> In the same way that I wouldn't ask an artist to design a software library, I don't expect myself to choose colors, layout, or design correctly. When shown choices from designers, I can tell which ones I like, and which ones work, and so on, but hacking graphic aesthetics is something that takes years to get good at, as any kind of hacking.

I would recommend that you hire a designer, or make friends with some designers who can help you with this.

</comment><comment><USER17> Sometimes I semi-arbitrarily pick two colors that feel right with each other (on a white background), and start there.

I makes adjustments over time, the more I look at something while I work on it.

Often I poke around with assorted tools to see what pops up.

<http://delicious.com/jamesbritt/colorpicker>

</comment><comment> n-named <http://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/ColorTool_appletMac.html>

</comment><comment><USER18> <http://aviary.com> has a great color picker called Toucan. It allows you to pick colours spaced out around the colour wheel based on a few parameters. Also does the colour-blindness emulator. You can check out colour palettes that others have created as well and modify them to become your own as you see fit.

</comment><comment><USER19> I pick a nice photo of nature and use a "color palette generator" (search for this, etc.)

<comment><USER20> colr.org is a good resource for this

<comment><USER19> Also this palette generator: <http://www.degraeve.com/color-palette/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wear very vibrant colors in life- lots of yellows, oranges and sky blues

This carries through in my designs-

So usually start with a color and may see a site with a scheme and alter it or use one of the color scheme choosers in google

</comment><comment><USER22> <http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_color_tryit.asp?hex=ffffff>

</comment><comment><USER23> <http://www.colourlovers.com/> is a great place to start. Loads of color pallets and textures.

</comment><comment><USER24> I look for nice colors that aren't blue. Too many things use blue.

I also use the previously mentioned colourlovers and colorschemedesigner.

</comment><comment><USER25> Completely randomly, and it shows:-/

</comment><comment><USER26> I see alot of posts from the design perspective but what is your brand trying to convey? Who are your customers? The sure fire way is to generate lets say 20 schemes, get friends, family, and biz partners to vote on their top 5. Get a collection of top 3-10 color schemes and show them to possible customers. Take their input and there you have a color scheme that has a high likelyhood of working for your target market. Attractiveness does not equal branding good, ex this famous brand: <http://www.arrogantbastard.com/>

<comment><USER26> oh and a few more famous brands to back my argument for colors focus on your brand (story)... <http://www.google.com> <http://www.purwater.com/#/healthy%20water,%20healthy%20you> <http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/> <http://www.teslamotors.com/>

As you see the color schemes are only there to accentuate the brand. Do customers buy teslas in order to be green or because their a luxury sports car? Their color scheme is chosen on the basis of their brand and who their customers are.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you think it helps to use colors that you find in brands that people are already familiar with?

<comment><USER26> The colors you choose shouldn't matter on what others choose. The colors you choose should convey your brand. Doing something different with your color scheme may even be a benefit in regards to being the purple cow.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


GitHub is partially down - <AUTHOR> https://status.github.com/messages?july10th=true <comment><USER2> "July 10, 2018

00:52 Pacific Daylight Time

We're investigating reports of connection failures."

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks like all Github pages are currently down.</comment>


Code Review from the Command Line (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.jez.io/cli-code-review/ <comment><USER2> Reminds me of Jane Street's code review in emacs: [https://blog.janestreet.com/putting-the-i-back-in-ide- toward...](https://blog.janestreet.com/putting-the-i-back-in-ide-towards-a- github-explorer/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've gotten used to Vimium [0] (a chrome extension that emulates Vim commands in the browser) and I rarely use the mouse or arrow keys now. For me, that has been the biggest leap in productivity for my CRs.

I agree that it's nice to review within the context of the terminal, but I still think the UI (at least for Github) is easygoing and productive (specially when you ditch the mouse).

[0] - [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/vimium/dbepggeogba...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/vimium/dbepggeogbaibhgnhhndojpepiihcmeb)

<comment><USER4> We implemented Vim like shortcuts for github enterprise code review screen and it works pretty nice, no mouse required. However I like the dependency graph, maybe we implement it too...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I thought it will be about git appraise ([https://github.com/google/git- appraise](https://github.com/google/git-appraise)) but it's still interesting. Thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER6> I've been using GitHub's code review features a bit recently. Something I really like is the ability for a reviewer to quickly make suggested code changes that the reviewee can can approve with a button push, instantly committing them. This saves a lot of time, especially for small, relatively insignificant changes.

Overall though I find GitHub's code review a bit fiddly and awkward, and it's features aren't "easily discoverable". Using the feature I mentioned above as an example, it's rare that reviewees actually know about it, or see and use the "Approve" button.

<comment><USER7> To your first point - how? I didn't know you could do this.

<comment><USER6> Haha, I guess that proves my point about discoverability!

First you hit "Start a review" when viewing a pull request. You can then click on any change and it opens a comment box - in that box, you add hit the button with a plus and minus symbol on it. It then adds the existing code in the box, and you can change it.

Better explained here: [https://help.github.com/en/articles/commenting-on-a- pull-req...](https://help.github.com/en/articles/commenting-on-a-pull-request)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a nice workflow - thanks for sharing!

We're using Bitbucket, not GitHub, but this would mostly work there too.

The one thing I was hoping to see and didn't was adding review comments from the command line. It's appealing to review changes in the terminal, but if I have to open another tool to comment the utility drops.

</comment><comment><USER9> # apt-get install tig</comment>


Seinfeld Calendar for Tracking Open Source Contributions - <AUTHOR> http://calendaraboutnothing.com/#2

<comment><USER2> I've seen this before, and I like the idea, but Seinfeld's calendar was for writing jokes, and he's a comedian. It's not at all clear that there exists an _X_ for which the statement "A hacker/entrepreneur should _X_ every day" is true. It's even less clear that _X_ = "make a contribution to open source".

<comment><AUTHOR> Do something that will improve your product every day.

Do something that will increase the value of your company every day.

Do something to increase awareness of your product every day.

<comment><USER3> Very Kaizen of you. I have used these small thoughts/questions in the area of fitness, diet, social awareness to great success.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Chaining is interesting as long as you don't make yourself feel bad for breaking the chain.

But the best implementation is a physical calendar. Partly because it's tangible and partly because we already have plenty of external motivators. This implementation is the archetype of a system the should not use a database.

</comment><comment><USER5> I posted this a couple of weeks back (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=407169>). I guess I should have titled it something else.

That or new year is the best time for things that require resolution ;)

</comment><comment><USER6> Read the lifehacker article which actually makes this make sense: [http://lifehacker.com/software/motivation/jerry-seinfelds- pr...](http://lifehacker.com/software/motivation/jerry-seinfelds-productivity- secret-281626.php)

Clever.

</comment><comment><USER7> shouldn't the month days link to the github page for the commit that warranted it having an x on it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Submit a patch? <http://github.com/technoweenie/seinfeld/tree/master></comment></comment>


SpaceX Gets FCC Approval to Sell Wireless High-Speed Home Internet from Space - <AUTHOR> https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/spacex-gets-fcc-approval-to-sell-wireless-high-speed-home-internet-from-space/ <comment><USER2> Every story about SpaceX satellite Internet (Starlink) is plagued by questions about high latency. I think Elon needs to plan on spending a lot of marketing money to overcome this specific misconception.

Starlink latency is quite good. LEO is a lot closer than GEO (less than ~1000 km* vs 35786 km.) SpaceX actually intends to compete with terrestrial systems on latency; many important routes will have significantly lower latency than any feasible terrestrial system.

Remember, fiber isn't latency free. It isn't even speed of light. It's about 70% SOL. Radio, on the other hand, is SOL (or so close it doesn't matter.) So there is a cross over point where the latency of a LEO satellite system is actually superior despite the uplink/downlink path.

*depending on which orbital "shell" is involved. figures range from 340 km to 1200 km.

<comment><USER3> No consumer will worry about latency or any other component of the physical feat of delivering internet via Starlink. Consumers are currently buying downstream bandwidth by the mbps from one or maybe two providers with no other options. Only technology oldheads who remember satphones and Hughesnet will worry, then research, then try it out for themselves. Starlink has the added benefit of being very easy to give a "consumer trial period." It will sell itself, in the USA at least.

<comment><USER4> > No consumer will worry about latency

I think this would only be true if internet gamers weren't a thing, but they are, and they'll care.

<comment><USER5> competitive gamers make up a very small percentage of all internet users (or even gamers!). Like professional athletes, they will move or go to a special facility for this sort of latency requirement.

Many games are not as latency sensitive as you think - people used to play over modems!

<comment><USER6> I play League of Legends and have only DSL but my ping is only 35 ms and I can't complain -- many other players have it worse than me.

What did make it impossible for me to get kills was having 30 ms of latency in my display system. I think the network latency is well-compensated (if the typical user has 50 ms of latency, just delay me by 20 ms) but the display latency kills me. When I switched to a different monitor I started playing much better in about five games.

I think the game generates a 10 MB log for a 30 minute session so the bandwidth requirement is not much.

I had the same experience playing Titanfall earlier; in that case turning on the "Game Mode" on the TV turned me from someone who couldn't win at all to somebody who could get halfway up the ladder.

<comment><USER7> Display (and input!) latency are real things, and matter quite a bit. There have been studies in the past where people measured the full button press to frame update time using high speed cameras, and not all games are equal. As for game mode on TV's, that specifically why it exists. As a passive medium a little latency doesn't matter, but when a system is responding to input, latency is noticeable.

If you're interested in how different TV's perform, segregated by their individual input ports (in cases where some ports are optimized) and modes, check out [https://www.rtings.com/](https://www.rtings.com/). I used it a couple years ago to pick out a good 4k TV as a monitor, and the _very thorough_ information helped me pick out something that works well as a computer monitor (and also for the occasional gaming).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> LEO vs. GEO networks are like plutonium bombs vs. uranium bombs.

One is simple to engineer, but resources are limited and expensive. The other is extremely complicated to engineer, but resources are cheaper and more available.

In this case GEO systems are simple: satellite is stationary (ignoring slight drift which causes microsecond changes in latency), beams are stationary, antennas on people's roofs have no moving parts. However, the GEO satellite is extremely expensive, the spectrum it is using is expensive, and the GEO orbital slot is expensive. Also, it's so far away that it's high latency making online gaming nonviable.

LEO systems are extremely complex by comparison: satellites are moving, thus the beams are moving, antennas are moving (motor driven, unless using electronic phased array which are currently super expensive). With everything moving you have to do constant beam hand offs, doppler correction, etc. But, the satellites are much cheaper and the latency is much smaller.

Kudos to whomever can pull it off - there are several contenders other than SpaceX like OneWeb.

<comment><USER9> Are hand-offs really all that complicated? Cell networks have to handle it.

I don't think you need to move the antenna, but you need a wide footprint and probably overlapping coverage between satellites.

How does Iridium work? I'd think this has already been done(quite a while back even).

<comment><USER10> Cell hand-offs don't happen nearly as frequently as they would for an LEO constellation.

The orbital period for a satellite at 550 km is ~01h 36m. That means any given satellite is going to be visible for a very short period of time, which means hand-offs will have to be extremely frequent.

<comment><USER11> Approximately every 2.5 minutes in fact.

<comment><USER8> That's per satellite; each satellite is going to have multiple beams, so you'll have to do a beam handover like every 15 seconds and a satellite handover every couple of minutes

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This page is awful, here's the article's content:

"SpaceX just received approval from the FCC to launch 4,425 satellites into space to build a low earth orbit network of satellites to sell home Internet.

Unlike current satellite Internet, these devices will be in a far lower orbit and offer far faster speeds without the data caps current satellite systems use.

The goal is that this new system will offer robust high-speed Internet, especially in developing countries and rural parts of developed nations like the United States. While you may not be running out to buy this if you have fiber Internet, it could bring true wireless Internet options to Americans who currently have no real options.

"This approval underscores the FCC's confidence in SpaceX's plans to deploy its next-generation satellite constellation and connect people around the world with reliable and affordable broadband service," SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said in a statement.

SpaceX has already launched several test satellites to prove the system works. Now they have permission to move forward with a larger rollout of 4,425 satellites.

The system also promises to help relief efforts that currently spend hundreds of dollars a day for 5 Mbps Internet. With this system, relief workers can access high speed Internet even in areas hit by a major disaster."

source: [https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/27/18519778/spacex- starlink-...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/27/18519778/spacex-starlink-fcc- approval-satellite-internet-constellation-lower-orbit)

<comment><USER13> Kudos for the text.

This would be truly remarkable if this comes to fruition as it has many applications for those parts of the world without ubiquitous access presently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Looks like they've got the pair from the "distracted boyfriend" meme in their stock image: [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/distracted- boyfriend](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/distracted-boyfriend)

[https://i.imgur.com/KYkIKbg.png](https://i.imgur.com/KYkIKbg.png)

<comment><USER15> Ha! Since it's SpaceX I wonder if that was an intentional Easter egg.

<comment><USER16> That's not a SpaceX page though.

<comment><USER15> Good point. OK, so just a stock image then!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For the frequent commenters about people not understanding latency, or the differences in technical terms around bandwidth, LEO/GEO, etc, imagine this: You may not be an economics or fiat currency expert, but given a choice of US dollars or Mexican Pesos, which would you pick? How do you know this? Do you work for the government or post frequently on the currency version of hacker news? No. You learn from people around you pretty quickly. If you're in a small town, you have limited options for bandwidth. There's Hughes Net (Satellite crap (high latency), but works if the only option) there's a new small Cable provider, there's DSL (phone company), etc. People chat, they gossip, they figure out how to get the best connection, in some ways embodying things straight out of movies like Hackers/The Matrix, even though they may own the local feed store. It's interesting to see. Don't underestimate people.

</comment><comment><USER18> why link to this low quality scammy page instead of the original source: [https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/27/18519778/spacex- starlink-...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/27/18519778/spacex-starlink-fcc- approval-satellite-internet-constellation-lower-orbit)

<comment><USER19> I agree.

I wonder if this is a situation where flagging the submission helps attract the attention of the mods, so they can consider changing the link?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Can we update to the original source? [https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/27/18519778/spacex- starlink-...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/27/18519778/spacex-starlink-fcc- approval-satellite-internet-constellation-lower-orbit)

</comment><comment><USER21> I have a friend who just started working on the assembling of these satellites and they are hiring like gangbusters. I was initially dubious that they would be able to make their number goal but they have people working 6 days a week 16 hour days to scale up to this goal. 4000 is a huge amount of things to build that you can shoot on top of a rocket. Not sure the longevity of the hardware.

<comment><USER22> People working 96 hour weeks deliver shitty quality.

<comment><USER23> I'm pretty sure he meant the production line is running 96 hours a week. They probably have it split between 2 shifts so each person is only running the line half the time.

<comment><USER21> 2 shifts but the push is def to have people work more hours. Seems the main goal is figuring out how to make all the satellites with relatively unskilled staff(relative to satellite building. prior to this my friend worked at a bike shop and construction and has a BS in physics).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Regardless of latency, I'm signing up. Anything's better than Comcast!

<comment><USER25> Everyone is super excited about this and I am sure its going to capture a significant market, but you have to realise what are alternatives and how much they cost.

I expect them to be utterly unaffordable at least for first half of decade.

Their biggest competitor is Iridium which offer similar service at $150 per 2kbps. I will let you extrapolate real life prices from here.

<comment><USER26> Iridium is not their competitor. Different market. Even the CEO of the company said so.

<comment><USER25> Sure, terminals are likely to be different, but service is the same. I don't see enough differences between two.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So many latency questions. Do a basic search: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_\(satellite_constellation\)#Satellite_hardware)

<comment><USER28> Yupp relevant bit from there:

Internet traffic via a geostationary satellite has a minimum theoretical round-trip latency of at least 477 ms (between user and ground gateway), but in practice, current satellites have latencies of 600 ms or more. Starlink satellites would orbit at 1⁄30 to 1⁄105 of the height of geostationary orbits, and thus offer more practical Earth-to-sat latencies of around 25 to 35 ms, comparable to existing cable and fiber networks[51] (although transmitting a signal halfway around the globe takes at least 67 ms at the speed of light).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> the biggest win here are productivity gains. After high speed internet is available, you'll be able to work in the bush with a laptop. away from ridiculous rents and rent-seekers.

<comment><USER30> This could pipe unfiltered Internet into places like China/NKorea/Iran.

<comment><USER22> Repressive regimes will ban importation and possession of the antennas, and will prevent citizens from paying for services. A few courageous dissidents will defy the bans but not enough to matter.

<comment><USER31> I don't see pieces of metal being possible to ban. Even a pizza pan would do.

<comment><USER22> A pizza pan will not do. This service requires specialized active antennas with beam steering ability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If Starlink can provide 4g quality service to Canadian cell subscribers at a reasonable price, they would have millions of users in months.

<comment><USER32> It can't. The size of a receiver is that of a pizza (this is the only way I've ever seen it described, I wonder if there is a more precise description somewhere) not that of a cell phone antenna.

It might contribute to providing backhaul services making cell-towers cheaper to deploy, and it might enable things like sticking an antenna in a vehicle, but it can't provide 4g style cell phone service.

<comment><USER33> Would it be feasible for them to build standalone cell towers of their own that connect to these space networks? So rather than "no cell towers at all", the benefit they provide is "no cables at all". They would just go around to remote areas and build towers without needing to lay down the cables. (disclaimer: basically don't understand this stuff at all haha)

<comment><USER32> [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1020479995028754432](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1020479995028754432)

Random twitter user (Anner J. Bonilla🇵🇷 <more emoji's, for some reason only 1 renders on HN>)

> can Starlink be used to back haul LTE/regular cell in rural areas or > emergency situations/disasters? Seems like a great thing for disasters where > back haul is damaged but not sure how useful it be due to bandwidth/latency?

> Would have been super useful in Puerto Rico.

Elon Musk

 > Yes, that will probably be its first use

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> folks, the latency of other space-based internet services is because you're talking to satellites out at geosynchronous orbit. starlink is low orbit, and depending on the route your packets need to take, might be lower-latency than ground-based links.

</comment><comment><USER35> The sheer ambitions and speed of execution of SpaceX (and even Tesla) is exhilarating. I hope they make it happen and put a dent in the deeply entrenched incumbent monopolies who are abusing their position. I would buy the service in a heartbeat.

</comment><comment><USER36> What are the odds that all Teslas magically get Starlink? Seems like a nice way for Musk to prop up one of his ventures with service fees from another.

<comment><USER37> Musk has specifically said that this is not a mobile solution and won't be used for his vehicles. The antennae is too large to be practical (the size of a pizza).

<comment><USER23> SpaceX won a $28.7 million fixed-price contract from the Air Force Research Laboratory for experiments in data connectivity involving ground sites, aircraft and space assets [0] so they definitely are looking to put these onto vehicles.

[0]: [https://www.geekwire.com/2018/spacex-strikes-28-7m-deal- air-...](https://www.geekwire.com/2018/spacex-strikes-28-7m-deal-air-force- data-connectivity-research/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Who else besides the FCC needs to approve SpaceX launching over 4,000 satellites into space? That seems like a fairly significant number of satellites, but admittedly I am a layman in this area.

<comment><USER39> I'm curious specifically about the prospect of circumventing firewalls in China or other places where internet access is heavily restricted and censored. I imagine that China could tell the US government to tell SpaceX to cut it out and cite various relevant international treaties, but in a lot of ways it's more of a political question than a legal one. I doubt many people outside the North Korean leadership would object to providing Internet access to North Koreans, for instance.

<comment><USER40> China has the ability to shoot satellites out of the sky. Now if they have the political will to do so remains to be seen. But they can also easily jam them in their own backyard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> How would the Starlink solution compare to Iridium's NEXT? Is Starlink simply a larger-scale version of the same idea, or is there some special sauce in Starlink vs NEXT that would differentiate their potential use cases?

From what I can tell, they are both LEO solutions but Iridium is using far fewer satellites to achieve 100% global coverage. I assume there is some reliability metric or other more obscure aspect that would make someone want to choose one over the other for some particular application.

The only tangible differentiator I can come up with right now "in favor" of Iridium (aside from the fact that it's already up there and working) is the multi-mission aspect of the constellation - science experiments, DoD contracts, ADS-B for Aireon, etc. But, for someone who is seeking an affordable, satellite-bound 50+ mbps pipe to the internet, a 1000-10000 satellite constellation sounds like it's more appropriate.

<comment><USER42> One big differentiator is the nature of the antenna needed. The phased array antenna for starlink is apparently the size of a pizza box. Iridium satphones are comfortably handheld.

<comment><USER41> Is this a consequence of Iridium having L-band capabilities, or is it something else in the design?

<comment><USER40> It has to due with the phased array antennas being used, which is basically a grid of antennas where each receives the signal at a different time (due to speed of light propagation). By delaying the processing of signals an appropriate amount from each antenna, all the individual signals can be combined to be the equivalent of pointing a dish antenna directly at a given satellite all the time as it is flying overhead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Fun idea: On-orbit CDN endpoints with predictive caching to warm up the next satellite before it passes overhead.

<comment><USER44> If you think of this as a graph database problem, it becomes pretty easy to solve. I'm sure this is how they will load balance between the satellites that you can see in the sky as any one moment.

Even better, you can pre-calculate this as long as you know where all the base stations are. Dynamic registration should be pretty easy to do too as it will need a GPS chip in it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Why only wireless internet from space? Will they provide a wired option in the future too?

(Edit: this was a wires to space joke)

<comment><USER46> Please tell me you're joking.

These satellites are 100km up, moving at 8km/s. You're not going to be able to run a cable from them to your house.

<comment><USER47> The op clearly means a traditional wired service like Google Fibre. E.g 'SpaceX Fibre'

<comment><USER46> Why would SpaceX run fiber? Wouldn't that be more in the boring company's line?

<comment><USER47> I don't know. I'm not the one who asked the question. I'm simply clarifying what someone asked.

Alternatively, they could be asking for 'wired' in the where there's a central base station, and each individual home has wired connection to that.

Regardless, I assuming the op _didn't_ mean running a physical wire from a sat in space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'm curious if this will become an ideal service for hackers or others seeking to hide identity to use as a random and mobile location from which to operate? Assuming it becomes ubiquitous as there are multiple companies racing to offer these "constellations".

<comment><USER49> You are triangulating yourself, while broadcasting kinda loudly to the sky. So not directly. This is no hackers pancea. But a network of them hidden on rooftops connected via side channel may find effective use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I do wonder a bit why why they need THAT many satellites. Assuming an orbit at 200 miles altitude, we have a horizon distance of about 2000 miles. Comparing the area of that 2000 mile radius ground patches with the surface of the Earth, we need about 10 such patches. Filling in the gaps between patches might require 10 more satellites. Naively I would have assumed that orbital mechanics costs us another factor of two, so fourtyish satellites required. But they plan to launch more than 4400 satellites. More than 100 times the naive estimate. And at the cost involved they don't do it for fun. Where does that discrepancy come from?

<comment><USER51> Is your horizon distance calculation based on no obstructions? Most people don't live on the plains ;)

I am genuinely curious how you arrived at that number, FWIW – I don't know how to go about calculating something like that.

<comment><USER50> That does indeed assume a sphere. If you are curious about the geometry, maybe [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon) can help.

If you run the calculation the other way around, every satellite has to service a ground patch with about 380 miles radius. And your antenna has to swivel to a point that might be more than 60 degrees away from zenith. So every obstruction of more than 30 degrees above the horizon will lead to at least intermittent disconnects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> If you have any interest in this sort of thing, get your amateur radio license and start making contacts on AO91/AO85. It's so much fun to talk to someone 500 miles away with a walkie talkie, through a satellite.

</comment><comment><USER53> This could eventually open up other markets for SpaceX. A communication network with that density would be able to offer a better resolution than GPS and sets up SpaceX to be a key backbone service provider for autonomous flying vehicles in any form. Be that personal transports/air taxis or courier drones.

Whilst not the intended market initially and might be some design considerations that prevent that level of branching out. But certainly, something to ponder down the line.

<comment><USER54> Offering a GPS-like service would require totally different hardware. Each GPS satellite has 4 atomic clocks. The StarLink satellites will basically be optical routers and their timekeeping needs can probably be handled by a cheap clock and NTP from the ground.

<comment><USER53> Could have multiple clock sources on earth that produce the clock signals for the satellites. So a satellite could get an accurate time if it locked onto a few ground based sources.

Just with that volume and density of satellites, kinda begs some lateral thinking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> The question i'd like to have answered: How long the sattelites actually last, considered the amount of space junk in orbit and amount of sattelites? Do they intend to launch several sats/day? [https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/9ud7s7/starlink_s...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/9ud7s7/starlink_satellite_lifespan/)

</comment><comment> grey-area A really interesting side-effect of the mass production of thousands of satellites for this constellation will be to make spacex a player in the satellite building business, bringing satellite production costs down significantly, and thus boost demand for their launch business, it will also demonstrate a high rate of launches. The two businesses can feed off each other, along with the revenue from starlink. Interesting strategy.

</comment><comment><USER56> If their service is reliable, I would join right away. I'm in a populated area and our internet is absolutely terrible. My internet stops working at least 5 times a night. I called the provider numerous times and I plan on switching. The problem is that the competitor isn't much better. I can't wait until someone disrupts this POS industry.

</comment><comment><USER57> I can see the appeal for customers who in rural areas with one or no real option for internet access, or if you like to vacation / travel via RV.

Will the SpaceX system use frequencies that allow decent reception and transmission (to the sats) if you're physically in a city? If you're indoors?

</comment><comment><USER58> Is snooping on satellite internet traffic a thing? Wonder what security implications this could have.

<comment><USER44> Oh it absolutely is. You park your collection satellite right behind the target satellite, so you soak up all the transmissions that overshoot.

[http://spaceflight101.com/shijian-17-rendezvous-with- chinasa...](http://spaceflight101.com/shijian-17-rendezvous-with-chinasat-5a/)

The NSA has been known to use their imaging satellites to find transmitters which they can then snoop on once they know where they are pointing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> The real end game has to be servers in space. Think about a potential extreme privacy model where servers exist outside the domain of laws on earth.

Of course, to be cynical, no earth-based company can escape being squeezed into doing what law enforcement agencies might need them to do.

</comment><comment><USER60> Starlink I think can consider heavily leveraging a multicast or hypercast protocol considering most bandwidth usage is related to video streams. Many downlinks can accept a broadcast level packet.

How does a system link Starlink handle channel and spectrum allocation?

</comment><comment><USER61> Are there informations available on the estimated cost to consumers for this service? Would it even be directly purchasable by individuals?

Edit: rephrased to emphasise cost for consumers (not launch cost), an engine search didn't return an answer

<comment><USER62> Musk said $50 USD or less at one point, but I don't have a source for that at the moment

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> How long till it's possible to deploy static content to "edge" nodes in LOA? Traditional CDNs typically advertise their geo-distributed POPs on a 2D map. I want my cloud provider to live above the clouds.

</comment><comment><USER64> What are the implication with regards to space debris? I hear it's a very real, growing problem. Will those satellites be able to withstand hits? Will they produce a lot of debris (if 2 collide for example)?

<comment><USER23> 1\. Space is really big so the odds of anything hitting each other are low.

2\. They are launching their initial satellites in extremely low earth orbit such that atmospheric drag will cause them to decay and burn up in the atmosphere within 5 years. They are also attempting to design their satellites such that every single part of them will burn up in the atmosphere so that there is no risk of any piece hitting someone.

3\. The US government is also concerned about this which is why spacex is doing their initial launch into a lower orbit that guarantees their decay into the atmosphere. Their future launches into higher orbits with longer decays will have extra considerations for such problem and thus will be evaluated by the US government individually so I would not be too worried.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Once there are space hotels, surely they'll be the default internet provider

</comment><comment><USER66> How many of these satellites can they orbit with 1 Falcon launch?

</comment><comment><USER67> For some reasons, I think underwater transoceanic cables are much more reliable for high speed internet that satellite based internet connectivity, for now at least.

</comment><comment><USER68> Does anyone have more details about the ground transceiver? How large will it be? What are the power requirements? How much view of the sky does it need?

</comment><comment><USER69> Does anyone know the EE/physics of the signal loss over that kind of distance?

What kind of band can reliably transmit that far with low power and high SNR?

</comment><comment><USER70> Do you have to have a clear view of the sky to access this, or would it work under a roof?

Also, what's the total bandwidth available?

</comment><comment><USER71> Is it time to seriously start worrying about Kessler Syndrome ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome))?

The individual satellites might degrade relatively quickly, but a collision cascade could make the system unfeasible for years at a time and a certain percentage of the garbage would be kicked into higher orbits.

</comment><comment><USER72> 5G is going to kill any prospects this internet service will have in big cities within the next 5 or so years. That leaves the rural and less served areas. Can the service be cheap enough without subsidies when a big chunk of the population won't be using it?

10 years ago this would have been a great business. I suspect the business will end up being a place to sink money for Space X.

<comment><USER73> I think you underestimate how much of America is "rural area" , that alone is a huge market that towers will never fill.

<comment><USER74> A lot of area with few customers. Will this tech truly work well? I recall using a satellite dish for access to more TV channels years ago was never quite reliable enough to be enjoyable. One storm or decent cloud cover and it was out.

This feels like another of Musk's ideas that's like, "give me a ton of money and I'll make this happen, and it only works if I can launch 100 satellites which will cost a few trillion"

How many of these have panned out? When has Musk made a profit? Will investors do due diligence this time, or just throw money at him because they perceive him as successful, despite the fact that his only profit came from a lucky website sale just before the dot com bubble burst?

I guess banks will pump this so they can get the business, and the general economy will be left to absorb the blow when this fails to meet expectations, like the rest of Musk's promises.

<comment><USER40> People that are a lot smarter and more educated in this subject matter than myself have looked this idea over (at least I hope so). And based on my level of understanding, the phased array antennas should be able to dynamically adapt to interference similar to how MIMO antennas work on wifi routers (the ones that have 2 - 4 antennas on them). At least is seems like a plausible enough idea that multiple other companies are going to be attempting the same thing.

The legg up that Spacex has is potentially very low cost launches on reused rockets. But I have a strong feeling that the major cost savings will only appear if and when BFR is ready (and if it does what is claimed).

<comment><USER74> Musk continues to promise more and deliver less. In my opinion, the fact that he's never delivered a profitable company disqualifies him from leading any major venture.

> People that are a lot smarter and more educated in this subject matter than > myself have looked this idea over (at least I hope so)

This was often said of companies before the dot-com bust, and very often said of Enron. Everyone thought someone else before them had done due diligence. Now that the economy has been doing well for awhile, it's worth taking another look at ideas put forth as "it can't fail".

<comment><USER73> It seems you're attacking Musk as a person more than the idea. SpaceX is doing undeniably well, who you can attribute that to is up for debate, but my point is you should be critiquing the idea, not the man.

How about hope for the best and if you don't believe in them, then don't invest?

Imo it's a really good idea, and I'm glad someone is trying to solve the broadband issue in rural America, because there's a serious one. I live out here, you're out of touch if you don't think there's a market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Isn't this a solution in search of a problem?

I remember Robert Pera, founder of Ubiquiti Networks, poking fun at Facebook for floating [pun intended] the idea of a giant hot air balloon to provide internet access while pointing out that Ubiquiti is already bringing high speed internet to remote places all over the world. I agree - skip the satellites just buy some some Ubiquiti gear.

<comment><USER76> Ubiquiti has made WISPs cheaper and easier yet there still seem to be plenty of places that aren't covered by WISPs.

<comment><USER77> And in my area a WISP would have a hard time getting it's upstream bandwidth because of no nearby large cities and therefore no high-speed fiber for a good distance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> I love how they added "wireless" to the title, as if to imply there is a wired space internet.

</comment><comment><USER79> For all the chinese users behind the wall, latency is not a problem at all for all.

</comment><comment><USER80> Hopefully to see this wonderful innovations during my lifetime. I am 50 yrs old.

</comment><comment><USER81> The economics of megacities, 5G and fiber strongly disfavor Starlink for the world's richest urban populations. They will have a difficult time finding enough paying customers in the barren spaces of the world.

</comment><comment><USER82> How does this work when things need to be launched into space? I get that 4,400 spread out over such a large area makes them minuscule but it's still something.

<comment><USER83> They are tracked and avoided, just like all the other satellites already up there. Low earth orbit is a large place, you could increase that number by many orders of magnitude before you'd have to start worrying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Couldn't the latency problem be at least partially solved by moving servers to LEO as well? At least as a CDN?

<comment><USER85> Servers break a lot, so no.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> I hope they call it Skynet.

</comment><comment><USER87> if anyone here thinks this stuff is super cool and wants to figure out how to solve internet for the public, by making it as cheap and as fast as possible, while private, please shoot me a note at email@example.com (it's my life)

</comment><comment><USER88> I guess it's time to move onto the next shiny thing to keep the fan-investors entertained. I wonder how long they can keep this up.

</comment><comment><USER89> How do clients retransmit data without extremely high latency? Is it just that LEO satellites aren't high enough for it to be a problem anymore?

<comment><USER90> The satellites are only a few hundred miles away, and light travels faster through the atmosphere than it does through copper or fiber.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> EDIT: I was wrong here to criticize the latency since SpaceX's implementation will attack the problem completely differently than traditional satellite internet which has has latency numbers measured in hundreds of milliseconds.

<comment><USER32> The latency numbers due to the laws of physics through space are _lower than_ the latency numbers due to the laws of physics through fiber when talking about reasonable distances (e.g. new york to london stock exchanges).

Light travels faster in space than fiber. SpaceX's satellites (unlike existing constellations) are low enough that that benefit makes up for the small of extra distance.

<comment><USER92> To expand on this further, current "satellite internet" offerings are through the use of geostationary satellites 22,236 mi above the equator. The latency to the satellite and back to earth, plus whatever the latency is to get to wherever you are actually trying to go, is significant.

In contrast, the offering that SpaceX has just gotten approval for would use satellites that are about 342 mi above, and the network of satellites would be used to route the connection to a hop close to the destination.

The result of the above is latencies that are actually lower than even a direct fiber connection if the haul is long enough, because connections across Starlink would be at the speed of light (minus the amount of time it takes to process packets at each hop), and the speed at which data is transferred over fiber is some fraction of the speed of light.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> Isn't space based Internet really second rate due to latency?

Of course its great if there's no other Internet access, like rural areas, but it's a really poor service isn't it?

Happy to be corrected.

<comment><USER94> That's definitely true for solutions in geostationary orbit where the signal needs to traverse 36000km twice between two ground stations, adding about 0.2 seconds delay for the request and again for the response.

SpaceX is planning a constellation in low earth orbit, that is supposed to route the traffic around the globe and down to a ground station near the point where the server is. That's saving the delay from having to go through an optically dense medium (fiber, speed of light is there about 200000km/s) and taking advantage of the much higher speed of light in vacuum.

<comment><USER95> I'm very skeptical that satellite-to-satellite connections have sufficient bandwidth to make that more effective than downlinking to base stations.

<comment><USER32> Why? (Genuinely curious if there is a reason, I'm not an expert on this)

Satellite-to-satellite connections are handled by pointing lasers at eachother. Ground-ground connections are handled by pointing lasers at eachother through a fiber. Fundamentally they seem pretty similar to me.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple Job Posting Seeks Creative Individual To Breathe More Life Into Siri - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/17/apple-job-posting-seeks-creative-individual-to-breathe-more-life-into-siri/ <comment><USER2> So here's been my experience with Siri since getting the iPhone 4S:

\- Try all sorts of stupid things, like you would when you're chatting with an AI bot online for amusement

\- Once or twice try to ask the weather, or some other trivial information that you're not sure how you could elsehow get more quickly

\- Become frustrated with inaccuracy, and high chance of the information you're looking for being unavailable

\- Not use Siri again, and eventually forget about it

Very, very interestingly, I _did_ start using the Google Now app... which works more responsively, and gives tremendously better results (in my estimation). If I'm not in a public space and don't care about looking like an overzealous geek trying to talk to my phone, I use the Google app and ask very basic information.

<comment><USER3> I find it very useful for just two things: texting while driving and setting alarms & reminders.

<comment><USER4> Alarms and reminders are the only thing I use Siri for, but I have stopped using it most of the time because it's not reliable.

I set alarms to remind me when I need to feed the parking meter so I often say something like "In two hours remind me to pay for parking". About 25% of the time Siri will get it right on the first try. It's pathetic. Usually it's a problem voice recognition problem ("I don't understand into hours"), but I have also had alarms not go off (apparently she didn't hear the confirmation).

I tested Google's voice recognition for the same types of queries and it nails it. In real time. If Apple ever allows users to decide what apps they want to use Google is poised to destroy Siri.

Now I just open Clock and set a timer manually. It's a little slower, but it works 100% of the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Any insight into what sort of work culture Apple has now?

</comment><comment><USER6> Actual job description: "Siri Writer/Editor", at [https://jobs.apple.com/us/search?job=25650673&openJobId=...](https://jobs.apple.com/us/search?job=25650673&openJobId=25650673&board_id=32301#&openJobId=25650673).

Erik Wolpaw, anyone?

<comment><USER7> Off topic: I hadn't heard that name, so I googled it and read his Wikipedia article. Upon reaching the end, I found the most bizarre "List of..." article I've ever seen, and that's saying something for Wikipedia.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_diagnosed_with_u...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_diagnosed_with_ulcerative_colitis)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sounds like a storyboard artist who worked on the Ice Age movies.

Or a concept artist who's done work for Disney, Konami, and Warner Brothers.

Humanizing technology must go further than simply a name and a voice.

<comment><USER9> After using Google Maps on iOS with its soothing friendly speaker, I wouldn't mind a new voice actor for Siri. It's downright painful compared to GMaps'.

<comment><USER10> But her voice is iconic now, not unlike the voice of GLaDOS.

<comment><USER11> It could be tweaked without losing its recognizability. A new approach to better model the rhythm and pitch of conversational English could do wonders with the same exact voice. To say nothing of helping Siri _generate_ conversational English.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is Steve Meretzky available? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Meretzky>

</comment><comment><USER13> Umm.. how about opening up Siri to the app developers? I think that will improve its utility. Oh and they could hire a few more top notch distributed systems guys to figure out how to handle server load better for the massive amount of real time natural language processing...

</comment><comment><USER14> Err, how about making it work first? (Perhaps they can outsource that to Google too and put the nice voice on top.)

<comment><USER15> Just copy Dragon

[https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dragon- dictation/id341446764...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dragon- dictation/id341446764?mt=8)

<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dragon-go!/id442975871?mt=8>

<comment><USER16> I'm surprised Apple hasn't bought them already.

Tim Cook needs to start spending money to address Apple's weaknesses – they don't have the talent internally, and no one with the talent wants to work there...</comment></comment></comment>


Arrays in Go - <AUTHOR> http://aaronoellis.com/articles/arrays-in-go

<comment><USER2> I've been using a pattern like this for my more complex initialisations:

s, i := make([]T, 0, 6), 0

s = append(s, 1, 2, 3)

//[1 2 3]

fmt.Println(s[i:])

i += 3

s = append(s, 4, 5, 6)

//[4 5 6]

fmt.Println(s[i:])

i += 3 // [etc...]

//[1 2 3 4 5 6]

fmt.Println(s[:])

You can easily make references to each chunk of the slice you append without much difficulty or any re-sizing (the first s[:] will remain a slice of the first 3 items).

</comment><comment><USER3> The []int{1,2,3} method for initializing slices was missed: [http://play.golang.org/p/FEXc1sxVLK](http://play.golang.org/p/FEXc1sxVLK)</comment>


African Bus Routes Redrawn Using Cell-Phone Data - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514211/african-bus-routes-redrawn-using-cell-phone-data/ <comment><USER2> Why not "Ivory Coast Bus Routes Redrawn using Cell-Phone Data" ?

As someone living in an African country I find this headline beyond ridiculous. If this was in Lebanon would we be reading "Asian Bus Routes Redrawn using Cell-Phone Data"?

<comment><USER3> Because the headline is written according to the expected understanding of the American reader.

"Ivory Coast" is about as descriptive to an American audience as "Africa". I would be shocked if more than a tiny minority of Americans could tell you where the Ivory Coast was outside of "Africa", and I bet many wouldn't even know to place it in Africa, thinking maybe it's in India or SE Asia or something.

It's written like that because Americans don't know and don't really care about African geography.

> _If this was in Lebanon would we be reading "Asian Bus Routes Redrawn using > Cell-Phone Data"?_

We'd probably see "Middle-East", the understood name for that region. We might even see "Lebanon" since its close to Israel and Americans like to feel involved in that scene.

<comment><USER2> _> Because the headline is written according to the expected understanding of the American reader._

Not exactly a high bar it seems...

<comment><USER4> Can you tell me where every country in the world is?

<comment><USER5> Can you use Google? :) Not meaning to offend! As someone who grew up in an African nation, I will easily concede to some of the parents in this thread that it's often just easier to get people's attention if you use something recognizable in a news headline. That being said, it is odd to me that it's the MIT Technology Review doing it in an age when anyone can double-click a string of text in the browser, e.g. Ivory Coast, and use the right-click menu to search with Google. Or copy and paste into their favorite search engine and instantly find out where the place is located with a string of search results and a map embedded into the page...

<comment><USER4> Here's the real kicker: if I don't know where the country is, why would I care enough to google it? "Africa" in this situation gives me more info than the name of the country would.

<comment><USER5> You never look up things you don't recognize? I care to look things up every day, and before the web I used physical dictionaries and encyclopedias on a frequent basis. Some people may never feel that inquisitive, but quite a lot of us are, and I'd imagine most people on HN are like that.

<comment><USER4> There's a lot of articles posted to HN every day that I don't understand. If I researched them all, I'd have no time to actually do something productive. I skip them and move on unless something else about it catches my eye.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if this was done in, say Poland, would it be titled "European Bus Routes Redrawn Using Cell-Phone Data"?

Why is it no-one narrows down descriptions of Africa to below continent-level?

<comment><USER7> Or possibly "Government monitoring citizens movements by cell phone tracking" if done elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is anyone else slightly annoyed that there is no imagery to show this data on a map? That's all I was actually looking for when I clicked the link. Had a quick look for it and can't see anything. Can anyone else help with a link for the lazy?

<comment><USER9> Yes, the article is essentially disappointing without an image of a map showing the current bus routes versus traffic/cell data versus proposed. Are they trying to promote interest in this project by creating a little buzz?

Wake me when there is one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> They talk about 10% time reduction(probably average). Does anybody know more fine grained statistics ?

<comment><USER11> Hi, I'm from the IBM Research team who worked on this.

The reduction is in _total_ system-wide journey times in passenger-minutes (travel time + expected waiting time). The model makes underlying assumptions on how people arrive at stops to do their trips, and how they choose paths through the network. The wait times are therefore related to frequency of services.

The statistic is also broken down by each route what happens when the changes (new routes or extensions) are implemented. For some routes, you see increase in ridership (on account of better connectivity), and on some you see decreased ridership (since the new routes offer more competitive paths through the network).

<comment><USER10> Thanks. Really interesting work.

Are you allowed to share some of the data ? If so:

Does the time includes time to walk to bus station or an estimate?

Is there some histogram of time saved per passenger ? or even something like X% of passengers save a big amount of time ?

Do you have a way to estimate time save by adding routes or alternative transport(like jitneys) before making the change?

Those are interesting, but i also think if some of this data was available(like for example big time saving for some part of the population), this would have better media coverage.

<comment><USER11> Yes travel time includes time to walk from the Cell tower (considered the "source" and "sink") to the stops.

We could generate passenger level stats for the sample we observed, but have presented it at the route level for now, since its targeted towards operators.

Yes, the improvements reported are from adding of new routes (the article title suggests that we "redrew" current routes). The new routes are generated from "frequent" patterns we see in the data. Haven't looked specifically at alternative modes, although there are several reasons to discourage jitneys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting as long as you don't ignore a whole demographic (e.g. very poor people without phones).

<comment><USER13> I read yesterday that more people in India have access to a cell phone than to a toilet or running water. I assume they are very poor since they have to poop outside on the street, but they do have cell phones.

<comment><USER14> "Access to" and "owning it oneself" are not necessarily equivalent. If a household of seven has a single cell phone, seven people have "access to" a cell phone.

<comment><USER15> Mobile phones and internet access via mobile phones is a pretty high priority, even if the other items on the list are a toilet, a scooter, or a stove. The rationale is that the phone and internet enables you to earn more and get the other items.</comment></comment></comment></comment>