Bootstrap 4 drops IE9 support and goes full flexbox - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/21389 <comment><USER2> For everyone saying "Foundation" when people ask what else... let me explain why Bootstrap is used so much more frequently than all other options combined.

[http://foundation.zurb.com](http://foundation.zurb.com) vs [http://getbootstrap.com](http://getbootstrap.com)

Each has a link to 'download'.

Foundation's link takes me to a page where I have a bunch of options, and a bit "build a custom generated version".

Bootstrap's takes me to a screen with 3 options, but also - and this is key - CDN links. Right there. I can paste a few lines in my HTML template and start working.

I don't need to download/generate code.

I don't need to install node/npm/etc.

I don't need to install and learn sass stuff.

I don't need to make a lot of decisions or do a lot of extra unrelated stuff to get started.

Bootstrap is the PHP of the css/grid/framework world (for better and for worse).

I truly hope they keep the CDN hosted stuff for Bootstrap 4.

EDIT: didn't mean to pick on foundation specifically - this "take control of every aspect of all your layout/grid/css" that most other frameworks require works to their disadvantage when it comes to popularity and uptake.

<comment><USER3> The need to just copy and paste code that links to CDNs is why so many people don't take frontend development seriously.

<comment><USER4> npm, bower, grunt, webpack and whatever is trendy right now, is the reason why some front development isn't take seriously.

Having the CDN link, or download with the js and css files is in my view a sign that you know what you're doing. Requiring me to use two package managers and a build tool that I didn't pick is uprofessionel.

<comment><USER5> > two package managers and a build tool that I didn't pick is uprofessionel.

I don't see the difference from Ubuntu forcing you to use APT or C++ applications forcing you to use Make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find it extremely powerful that major open source projects are calling the shots instead of the major browser vendors.

For some who may not recall, I think the most famous / historic move was when jQuery decided version 2 would deprecate support for IE 6/7/8.

Originally jQuery project would go out of their way to make sure all browsers were covered. Needless to say these days Microsoft is far more receptive to the needs of the open source community.

<comment><USER7> >Microsoft is far more receptive to the needs of the open source community.

They are, but not for this reason. Microsoft doesn't even support IE9 anymore, so there's not really any reason for any open-sourced project to do so.

<comment><USER6> I apologize for not being more clear. I was thinking about the flexbox more than the IE9 deprecation. The jQuery story was only to reinforce the idea that open source projects are "at the negotiating table".

[http://caniuse.com/#feat=flexbox](http://caniuse.com/#feat=flexbox)

There is a footnote on that page for IE11 (I believe still supported by Microsoft) that says:

"Partial support is due to large amount of bugs present (see known issues)".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > [http://flexboxfroggy.com/](http://flexboxfroggy.com/)

<comment><USER9> This is amazing. Do you have something similar to learn HTML or CSS?

<comment><USER10> yes, CSS Diner: [https://flukeout.github.io](https://flukeout.github.io)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's so great that IE9 is essentially extinct.

<comment><USER12> It must be nice. I work in commodities and there are many plants and facilities that still only have access to IE8/9\. It was a large struggle to even drop IE6/7 with a huge amount of backlash.

<comment><USER13> I just tell them that anything below IE11 is a violation of corporate security standards and won't be supported.

<comment><USER12> I am not a direct employee. It's actually the IT departments that push back.

<comment><USER13> What I did (last year) was to make sure they had at least read [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/WindowsForBusiness/End-of- IE...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/WindowsForBusiness/End-of-IE-support).

IT only pushes back because the business users who use old web apps push back. Gotta make sure that IT knows the MSFT no longer has their back and so they need to be more aggressive with the business users and their app vendors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Drop IE9 support for v4 beta?" "fuck it, why not"

[https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/21387](https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/21387)

This isn't how you should drop support, it might be a good choice but can we at least have some discussion, maybe even an RFC, not just declare it be so within the space of 3 hours and lock the issue...

Like this: [https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs/pull/45](https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs/pull/45)

<comment><USER15> It's worth noting that nothing on github suggests that the person who made that comment is a contributor/maintainer for Bootstrap.

<comment><USER16> mdo is one of the creators of bootstrap. I also feel it's probably time to move on from IE < 11, and possibly even then depending on your real needs. Even MS has worked pretty hard to get people off of IE and into Win10+Edge

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Finally! Every other major framework needs to jump on this bandwagon and stop supporting IE9 and then the users will realize they are outdated...at least I would hope so. Every aspect of Frontend development adds a ton of extra hours when building around IE9's quirks. I had the same idea as Bootstrap building my own Flexbox based CSS framework Useful.ly

</comment><comment><USER18> Ah the worst thing about Bootstrap is jQuery because it's a pain to integrate it into Single Page Applications properly. That's why I enjoy Bulma (bulma.io) so much - just CSS but still 90% of the stuff you get in Bootstrap.

<comment><USER19> I don't really understand whats so hard about using Bootstrap with it's JS in SPA. I've adapted BS components for Ember.js, I've did same with Mithril.js and then React.js, and I've never had problems.

My only pain points were lack of proper destructors for use in tests.

<comment><USER18> I also use it with React, but it took me some time to set it up properly. The challenge is, that

        import jquery from 'jquery'
        window.$ = window.jQuery = jquery;

        import 'bootstrap';

doesn't really work because webpack (what we use) moves all import statements to the top. That can be solved by import bootstrap with

        require('bootstrap');

though.

However, the more challenging and annoying part are plugins because jQuery uses it's own plugin registry ($.fn). Most of the plugins are so nice to require it if require is available. But, the things you get from require are cached, thus, if you do

        const $ = require('jquery');
        $.fn.yada = ...

your registered function will not be available to other jQuery imports.

Long story short, what's so annoying about this technology is the fact that it does not fit the modularized setups very well but you are forced to find a way for it to work when you want to use bootstrap with the JavaScript additions.

<comment><USER16> You can inject window.$ and window.jQuery via webpack directly, making the inclusion implicit... there's a minor amount of additional script added, and it makes it unavailable to attach to the actual window, but I find the DOM interfaces sufficient in the console anyway.

<comment><USER18> I added it via expose-loader and with the ProvidePlugin but neither of it worked. Eventually some technique (loader, plugin and/or require()) made it work and I gave up and didn't touch it since then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've replaced Bootstrap with Milligram ([https://milligram.github.io/](https://milligram.github.io/)) on all of my projects.

Yes, it weighs far far less (which makes it suitable for inlining directly in the head tag), but mostly I just find the source far more readable.

<comment><USER21> This is actually kind of nice. I hate frameworks like Bootstrap that try to make any design / styling decisions. It's my experience that unless you're fine with that out of the box styling, you'll actually fight the framework while customizing it.

A small, lightweight framework that focuses on the very basics, avoids styling and frees me from repeating boilerplate code in every project is most welcome.

Milligram looks promising in that regard. My other alternative was Corpus: [http://jamiewilson.io/corpus/](http://jamiewilson.io/corpus/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> traditionally the reason I've avoided flexbox for layout (fine for most items within that layout) is the wonky rendering on slower connections[0]. is bootstrap doing anything to get around this or did they really go "full flexbox"? since I use susy[1] I'll never need bootstrap for grids, but I'm curious about the flexbox adoption and tradeoffs.

0\. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPryjyFP5FM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPryjyFP5FM)

1\. [http://susy.oddbird.net/](http://susy.oddbird.net/)

<comment> angry-hacker Uh, does connection speed really plays a role when it comes to browser painting the elements? I'm not sure of I understand.

<comment><USER23> The observation in the linked video is that, when the browser is incrementally rendering the page, a traditional "grid" layout will put the content in its final location, while a flexbox will render a box of content that's bigger than usual and shrink it later -- because the items that cause the content area to shrink haven't been loaded yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What are peoples' opinions whether CSS Grid will replace Flexbox usage in a lot of simple layout cases?

<comment><USER25> The general thinking is

* use CSS Grid for layout in 2 dimensions. Page level layout essentially

* use Flexbox for layout in 1 dimension. "module" level layout.

These are not hard and fast rules, like much in CSS.

<comment><USER26> I am really confused with CSS grid. How does it adjust to smaller screen sizes? My impression is that it is rigid like an html table, and we have mostly abandoned these for good reasons.

With flexbox I can make the sidebar float below the content at a certain screen size. Can I do this with grid?

So if anything, it seems to me that the global layout should be done with flexbox, and the grid is for smaller, more rigid elements that do not need to re-order on different screen sizes.

<comment><USER27> Most of the same tricks to flexbox reordering and reflowing for responsive layouts apply to CSS grid as well. You can use @media queries to switch grid layouts based on things like screen size. With more recent specs you get a further advantage in that where flexbox reordering is based on easy to mix up numbering (at this media layout this Div A is 1, Div B is 2, Div C is 3, but in this other layout Div A is 3, Div B is 1 and Div C is 2) for naming your grid sections (Div A is "sidebar" and Div B is "main-content" and Div C is "footer"); the names stay consistent and only your designation of which name goes where in the grid flow (which is managed at the parent container level) shifts with media query reflows.

<comment><USER27> For what it is worth, I built a complicated 2D, responsive layout for my blog (mostly to amuse myself). I allowed myself whatever tech choices I felt comfortable using and I wish I could have used Grid but browser support wasn't where I would have liked and neither was prollyfill support. The Flexbox version I built is a lot less simple to follow in the CSS media query switching than the Grid equivalent would have been (but Flexbox version has been quite reliable across browsers). Though the biggest loss in not having Grid support turned out to be what I wanted to do for DL (DD, DT) layout, since I tend to use those quite heavily, and neither Flexbox nor CSS Table Layout suffice (due to DT+DD[+DD...] sets lacking a wrapper element, per HTML spec).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> An unfortunate tipping point for accessibility. My personal project natUIve is full flexbox, supports IE8, doesn't require JS even for the slider. [https://radogado.github.io/natuive/](https://radogado.github.io/natuive/)

<comment><USER29> Nice project.

The immediate visual difference with Bootstrap is square corners vs rounded corners. Buttons and other components look strange after years of Bootstrap and its impact on web design. There is probably a few rules to edit to fix that, still... why having to do the work?

Anyway, I'll try to remember natUIve if a customer asks me to support old (but not so old) browsers.

<comment><USER28> Hi, thank you. That's one of the biggest problems with Bootstrap – a framework should not impose design on the creators.

The issue isn't just about old browsers. IE8 might not matter, but by supporting 10 years in the past you also make sure it will work 10 years in the future, following the standards. Simple, accessible HTML is under attack by the JS frameworks and most of the industry. When the framework du jour collapses under its complexity in 5 years, we'll be back to HTML.

Regards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm a bit sad for the dropping of IE 9 support, if only because it was the first IE that had a "fast" JS engine and didn't take forever to render our JS heavy site.

</comment><comment><USER31> Of course there's a flexbox JS shim.

[https://github.com/jonathantneal/flexibility](https://github.com/jonathantneal/flexibility)

<comment><USER32> Does anyone have experience using this with an SPA (React/Angular/etc)? I'd love to try it out so I can avoid having two layout styles.

<comment><USER16> For many of the components, it's easy enough to do the necessary styling via your own controls (tabs in particular) as opposed to trying to map the jquery + bootstrap.js... if you can avoid their JS, you can save some overhead. ymmv.

If you're going with React, you might want to look at material-ui[1] with a normalize css include and a basic (manual) flexbox layout to begin with. The components offered are really complete for a UI framework, and depending on your needs, working from dev branch may be a good option.

[1] [http://www.material-ui.com/](http://www.material-ui.com/)

<comment><USER32> Flexibility is for browser compat, not sure how this helps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Slightly off topic but ZURB Foundation for Email is a nice tool for generation markup that'll work in most email clients

FWIW you don't really know a lot of Foundation to use it.

</comment><comment><USER34> That's great. I wonder how much traffic will be saved worldwide without .col- md-6 html being sent around. Just straight up content HTML with minimal "boxing".

This is great news!

</comment><comment><USER35> I'd love it if they had a things don't look broken promise for IE9. Seems like it should be relatively easy to sequentially layout the page in IE9 without flexbox?

Is everyone else dropping IE9 support at this stage...

I'm a bit out of the frontend developer loop these days being full stack and learning things like docker or elixir is more fun, and useful, than the vagaries of the latest promise library/CSS Pre processor/awful class naming scheme/etc.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is a pull request that hasn't been merged yet. Maybe the title should be "Proposal to drop IE9 support and go full flexbox in Bootstrap 4"

<comment><USER16> The PR is from MDO, and I'd be surprised if he didn't have commit access.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Since Google, is essentially what everybody in the western world uses to search, ( Russia, China, Japan, Korea all gets their own search from somewhere else. )

I wish they could release some stats on browser usage. Otherwise i dont know where to get concrete information without substantial bias. Also the time which browsers are used. Since people are likely using different browsers in School / Work compared to at Home.

</comment><comment><USER38> IE7-IE9 still receive security updates on some versions of Windows. [https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/gp/microsoft-internet- ex...](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/gp/microsoft-internet-explorer/en- us)

IE9 is the newest version of IE available for Windows Vista SP2 for example.

<comment><USER39> Vista extended support ends in April of 2017. It's the last holdout of Microsoft-supported mainstream versions of Windows (i.e., excluding fringe versions like Windows Embedded) that can't upgrade beyond IE9. Seems reasonable that the new version of Bootstrap (which you don't have to use--v3 still works fine) should not bother with support for a browser that will soon be no longer supported by the browser's own creator.

They should probably even consider dropping IE10 support if it is _any_ sort of burden to them. IE10's marketshare is so tiny (smaller than IE9, IIRC). Windows Vista (i.e., "Windows 6") users used IE9 since MS didn't support anything beyond that for Vista while Windows 7 users mostly auto-updated to IE11.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Right move. We need to push forward.

</comment><comment><USER41> Migration from 3 to 4 will certainly be a pain but then you're gonna love it. I love new cards, utility classes, better out of the box support for mobile browsers.

But beware of breaking changes between alphas, there are quite a few.

<comment><USER33> I'm presuming it's not a migration as much as a complete makeover/refactoring. Which could be interesting. Does that open the door to Foundation? That is, if you're going to more or less start over is now the time to jump the Bootstrap ship and climb on board with Foundation?

<comment><USER41> By migration I meant migration for a project that already uses Bootstrap 3 and considers using 4.

Speaking of Foundation, I dunno, it depends on one's needs.

Some people say Bootstrap is too big but I appreciate its vast collection of components. Especially when you do CMS / control panel kind of apps and you need to make them quick, Bootstrap is a saviour.

Also, aesthetically I like those rounded form controls, buttons and cards. Plus it takes only a few lines of scss to make bootstrap look branded, add custom fonts and most people won't even guess it's Bootstrap.

<comment><USER33> Yes. I got what you meant by migration :) My arc was that the difference from 3 to 4 looks to be fairly vast, and that you're all but rebuilding (i.e., it's a new site/application). Or darn close.

So if you've been considering Foundation this could be a window for Foundation to pick up some marketshare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> My front-end framework is simply HTML, CSS, and JavaScript.

Why complicate my life?

I do love flexbox, but I would rather simply code it by hand rather than have some tool/framework/precompiler do it for me.

<comment><USER43> > Why complicate my life?

Why reinvent the wheel? Unless you've already created your own pattern library to draw from, you're not going to save time writing it all yourself. How are users going to benefit from your hand-rolled code?

There may be plenty of good answers to these questions but they should be asked.

<comment><USER44> I'm pretty sure using bootstrap is re-inventing the wheel more than hand coding is. Using a framework which when installed and configured gives you the end result of a "wheel", as opposed to just coding up the wheel using HTML/CSS. Let's also make it clear that hand coding doesn't mean sitting there repeatedly typing out every character on every new job. There is always previous jobs and code to draw on to flesh out the needs of a page or site build efficiently and reliably. The benefit for developers is that you have very detailed control and knowledge of the frontend, rather than some broad "does Bootstrap do this thing I want" buffer between you and your own work. Each to their own. No right or wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Was about damn time a major player like this dropped IE, should have been IE10 though. Good move nonetheless.

</comment><comment><USER46> I thought you never go full flexbox

</comment><comment><USER47> Does anyone know when to expect a RC? Looks to be in alpha still.

<comment><USER48> At this rate, I expect Armageddon before Bootstrap 4 gets an RC.

<comment><USER49> It's better than angular going to RC 5x and making huge changes inbetween. lol

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I feel I have gotten too used to Material design and I hardly ever use bootstrap. Do anyone of you feel the same?

What are the advantages of Bootstrap over Material Design?

</comment><comment><USER51> What percentage of users still use IE9?

<comment><USER52> It's mostly government offices and large firms. I believe IE9 support is still required by most government agencies.

<comment><USER53> Large firms pay large bills. So IE9 will not die without a fight.

<comment><USER52> True. I think MS just gradually shifts the costs so that at a certain point the cost of upgrading everything to the latest OS version seems like a good deal compared with the support requirements of IE9.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Excellent choice!

</comment><comment><USER48> Bootstrap is really so far behind now I don't know why anyone even considers it as a viable option anymore. How long have they been in alpha/beta stage without a solid RC? It's legitimately pathetic and abysmal at this point.

I'm honestly really confused. I'd love to ask one of the devs how they've managed to literally do nothing while other, better CSS frameworks have been created AND versioned in the same timeframe.

Bootstrap 4 is just a sad attempt at preventing obsolescence. Time to let it die.

<comment><USER55> Any other options you can recommend that have any traction among developers?

(I know about zurb)

<comment><USER56> I'm really enjoying using Semantic UI. They have an official version of it specifically for React.</comment></comment></comment>


Learn Enough HTML to Be Dangerous - <AUTHOR> https://www.learnenough.com/html-tutorial <comment><AUTHOR> The link is to the free online HTML tutorial, which deploys a live website in the first section and ties everything together in a way you haven't seen before.

The ebook version is around 130 pages and is available for purchase. For more information (and a 20% launch discount on the ebook), see the launch post here:

[https://news.learnenough.com/learn-enough- html](https://news.learnenough.com/learn-enough-html)

Enjoy!</comment>


$7.1 Billion Fraud - Could Be The Largest Trading Fraud Ever - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/business/worldbusiness/25bank-web.html?hp

<comment><USER2> Never trust a trader who only has 4 friends on facebook.

<comment><AUTHOR> It might also help to be wary of those 4 friends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Boy he really screwed the pooch on that one. LOL!

He was described as "a fragile individual, with no particular genius who was facing family problems." That describes the majority of people I know! Somehow though he weaseled his way into the center of operations.

The big question is was it incompetence (i.e. doubling down to cover earlier losses) or was it sabotage. The press says it was not for personal gain. He made a salary under 150K USD.

</comment><comment><USER4> Anybody ever read "Ugly Americans" by Ben Mezrich? This reminds me of that. (BTW - he was the guy that wrote "Bringing Down the House")

</comment><comment><USER5> White Collar Crime exposed by an insider: [http://smartstartup.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/01/business-b...](http://smartstartup.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/01/business- books.html)</comment>


Advocates want to name heatwaves like hurricanes to raise awareness of dangers - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/naming-heatwaves-custodians-vs-covid-19-nba-barbers-online-moderators-jesse-owens-granddaughter-and-more-1.5719784/advocates-want-to-name-heatwaves-like-hurricanes-to-raise-awareness-of-their-dangers-and-save-lives-1.5719800 <comment><USER2> I am not a fan. We're heading to naming all the major weather which happens often and is just going to desensitize people.

The NOAA already doesn't recognize winter storm names and I would expect them to use the same rationale for not naming heat waves, cold waves or any other extreme weather events that don't bring destruction. (Not arguing against the danger of heatwaves).

<comment><USER3> That's exactly it, it's the "boy crying wolf" issue and everyone will just shrug. I found them starting to give "regular" storms already overly dramatic, or that they have started to hand out "yellow", "orange" weather alerts. Those are just not actionable for me as an average regular citizen. Mind you they probably mean that measures are being put in place for others though.

<comment><USER4> I fully agree with that, but I think it's a manifestation of a far wider trend that might be far more worrying.

In this age of information overload, where the struggle for people's attention has become nothing short of warfare, I see both advocacy groups and commercial entities ever so further seek to dramatise their message, just to "maximize their reach" and not get drowned out in the sea of other sensationalized/polarized information. While this motivation or a even sense of need is understandable, with everyone "competing" only for their own interests in relationship to everything else, it essentially is a race to the bottom.

The (psychological) effects of it do (already) go a bit further than people just shrugging. On the population as a whole, it (significantly) increases stress levels, general distrust (certainly warranted), and maybe even cause a constant sense of danger or a believe that this world has gone mad. The effects of which should not be underestimated. All of which can cause both individuals and groups of people to make really poor decisions.

<comment><USER5> It's essentially the tragedy of the commons, with the commons being the audience's attention and stress level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While we are at it, can we change some vocabulary used for sensitising climate change from ' _For the planet_ ' to ' _Your children will die soon, your grandchildren sooner_ '?

<comment><USER7> People will be able to smell the bullshit. The idea that climate change will be apocalyptic (for first world nations) in your grandchildren's time frame is just as loony-toons as denying it exists at all. The scientific consensus is nowhere near that bad.

<comment><USER8> I'm taking no particular position, because I don't go out of my way to read on the subject, but I did notice an article recently which said that we seem to be firmly on the worst of the likely IPCC scenarios from a few years ago, not in the middle.

<comment><USER9> The media have been pushing hard on the idea that we're living in the worst- case RCP8.5 IPCC scenario. The article that particularly annoyed me was the Atlantic one which based this claim on a Twitter thread that, if you actually clicked through to it, showed us right in the middle of the middle two IPCC scenarios plain as day on the graph. (The tweet actually claimed that we were closer to RCP8.5 than he'd like, which is of course true since all the emissions scenarios are relatively close together early on and he wants us on the best one.) It's not true, of course. Similarly, RCP8.5 is not the "business as usual" scenario that happens if we don't take action, as the media also likes to suggests - it actually requires a rather improbable combination of events. The media are actively making people less informed on this stuff in order to sell fear and a narrative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Are we going to officially name every tornado? Every earthquake? The article leads with "we need more drama..." - I think we have enough, thank you.

We need to consider the psychological affects of these things. We already stir people into collective panics for so many things. Do we need to add another? People need less anxiety in their lives.

<comment><USER11> We ABSOLUTELY need to make people panic about heatwaves. We need to make people lose sleep about it. Get distracted by it. Feel sick about.

Climate change is going to kill millions if we don't act hard, and fast. We need a global, coordinated, war-like effort immediately to prevent the displacement of billions and a new world war.

Coronavirus lockdown is not even going to be a blip on the radar compared to life on this planet if we don't start removing carbon from the atmosphere on a global scale.

The fact that it's inconvenient for your stress levels is irrelevant.

<comment><USER12> How exactly does climate change lead to a world war?

I can understand that there will be many climate refugees, but refugees don't form armies that can stand up to a standing Western army. I've always understood the biggest threat to be mass displacement and starvation, leading to closed off borders, and poverty and death in severely impacted countries like Bangladesh.

But world war? Not so sure. The world powers will easily adapt to climate change.

The US is immense and for every county with more forest fires, a faraway county will have better crop yields. For every city abandoned by floods, inland cities will swell in population and prestige.

<comment><USER13> > For every city abandoned by floods, inland cities will swell in population > and prestige

That will be poor consolation for the inhabitants of the flooded cities. Also, a lot of infrastructure (think docks and roads) is located on the coasts, often associated with the cities. This will be very expensive to replace in a carbon neutral way, especially as the sea levels continue to rise.

<comment><USER12> I understand it is not ideal, but that's a huge jump to "world war".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's worth mentioning here that heatwaves are the leading cause of weather- related death in the US for the past 30 years.

[https://www.weather.gov/hazstat](https://www.weather.gov/hazstat)

I'm not advocating for the personification of all extreme weather events, but the lethality of heatwaves is often overlooked.

<comment><USER15> It doesn't kill you directly, but the vulnerable are easy prey (elderly, immobile, etc.). A story that was shared with me about the lethality of heat was basically an overweight individual fell off his mobility scooter and was knocked unconscious, and just cooked to death.

<comment><USER16> I am terrified of a hurricane knocking out power throughout Florida followed by even a mild heatwave. Nursing homes could barely handle keeping their staff from going to the bars and getting Covid- are we to believe they are prepared to deal with hundreds of cheaply built old-person dorms turned into sous vides?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think this may be a misconception that names raise awareness. In Japan, typhoons and large storms (tsunami..) get scientific names. However awareness is quite well represented in the population. I think what you need to change is how information is distributed in a culture that is more focused on video/music than reading. As well, tying this back into the costs they may face if they ignore it (fear sells)

However since we are now entering a solar minimum (entered?) I think this problem will disappear in the next few decades (or centuries). The question is does this problem need to be tackled with this new paradigm?

</comment><comment><USER18> They lost me at "We need more drama..."

No, I do not think we need more drama.

</comment><comment><USER19> How about not naming weather events at all?

We shouldn't have to anthropomorphize something before people consider it a threat, like telling children to go to bed or the boogeyman will get them. Asian countries tend to assign typhoons a sequential id but they're still somehow cognizant of the danger.

<comment><USER20> Naming large weather events makes a lot of sense. Hurricanes are very good example of that. They are actual entities which behavior gets tracked. It is much easier for the public to keep up to date, when there is an easy to remember name.

<comment><USER19> But does it matter to the public whether they roads are closed due to Irene or Jacques?

Admittedly, the names are catchier but I'm not certain they're necessary to convey information. It's not as if they have to keep track of a dozen hurricanes at a time.

<comment><USER20> Giving a hurricane a name raises awareness. When a named hurricane is coming, people have a very clear sign, that they should spend attention. Having the name, also makes following the events easier. So it would be quite logical to name other similar dangers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sounds like a good idea. It might be harder to delineate when a heatwave is worthy of being named, but I'm sure the Met office (or the equivalent across the Atlantic) can manage it.

That said, I'm not convinced that giving it a name is enough to make people consider it dangerous.

<comment><USER22> Don't we anthropomorphize things to make them more friendly? Here comes Heatwave Henry III. Everybody wave back! Hopefully, he won't be nearly as bad as that evil Henry II.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Has there been any research into general population behaviour when faced with unnamed vs named events?

My first thought is that anthropomorphizing dangerous weather phenomena to neutral-sounding beings could downplay their dreadful potential.

People seem rational enough to dehumanize mostly anything (or anyone) else they perceive as a threat. In fiction, writers use sinister names of characters, as a warning to the reader to prepare for the protagonists inevitable trial later on.

<comment><USER24> They sure do! (Only if the names are female.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> While we are at it we should name some of these west coast fires after the politicians who have supported shutting down the forests to sensible resource management.

<comment><USER26> Yet west coast politicians want to stop calling them "wild fires" in favor of a new term "climate fires".

So the question is, how much of these wildfires are due to climate change, and how much is due to bad forest "resource management" (not sure what this entails - preventing more frequent smaller fires with firefighting which causes bigger fires years later?) and how much to some other reason (water table depletion, etc)?

<comment><USER27> Pre-1800, about 1.8 million ha burned each year in CA:

[https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi...](https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/FireScienceResearch/FireHistory/FireHistory- Stephens07.pdf)

> Approximately 1.8 million ha burned annually in California prehistorically > (pre 1800). Our estimate of prehistoric annual area burned in California is > 88% of the total annual wildfire area in the entire US during a decade > (1994–2004) characterized as ''extreme'' regarding wildfires. The idea that > US wildfire area of approximately two million ha annually is extreme is > certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective. Skies were likely smoky much > of the summer and fall in California during the prehistoric period.

See also: [https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.201...](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345)

> Many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem [...] however, important > exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these > perceived overall trends.

<comment><USER28> I'm not sure who the best person to ask on this topic is, but do you have any sense for smoke prediction models? Over the weekend, I put together the resources I could find easily, but I'm wondering what, if any good prediction models exist.

Copernicus - [https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/global-forecast- plots](https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/global-forecast-plots)

NASA GEOS - [https://fluid.nccs.nasa.gov/cf/classic_geos_cf/](https://fluid.nccs.nasa.gov/cf/classic_geos_cf/)

From those, I concluded that we could see fresh air in san francisco as early as this afternoon. Right now, that doesn't seem possible, so I'm wondering if there are other models that exist?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think this is a better idea than naming winter storms, the comparison we seem to have settled on.

The first criterion is coherence: a hurricane has a (somewhat) well-defined magnitude while frontal systems have different intensity in different places, highly subject to geography. A heat wave is more well-defined than a front but less than a hurricane.

However, the more important thing to know is that extreme heat is already the _deadliest_ form of weather event in the United States and will likely get worse in the coming years. Being able to put a name to the phenomenon that killed your grandmother has a powerful psychological effect. See:

[https://weather.com/safety/news/2019-09-17-top-cause- weather...](https://weather.com/safety/news/2019-09-17-top-cause-weather- fatalities-nws-cwa-united-states-map)

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm from Florida, and I think this is a good idea. Giving our hurricanes names helps cement them in the collective conscious of the region, and it definitely helps with awareness during early schooling.

I don't think having names for hurricanes ever desensitized me to them. The main driver for desensitization is time. It's either been so long since the last catastrophic hurricane that you're underestimating how bad they can get, or you've seen so many Cat <=3 hurricanes that you literally don't consider them a threat (a classic mistake, since they can gain strength so quickly).

<comment><USER31> I agree with you — one thing that is different with hurricanes is that every one is a different distinct event and when talking about a hurricane it's important to distinguish between specific storms.

Even snowstorms are pretty much cut and dry. If it snows a lot, it sucks for a couple of days. The biggest variable is the competence of whomever is plowing.

With heat, forget it. "Heatwave Harry" vs "Coldsnap Sally" are exactly the same — there is no variance in hazard. Bad things happen at specific known extreme temperatures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Give natural disasters a CVE code

<comment><USER33> And the bigger ones get a punny name, a logo, an information website with a half description screaming doomsday - and Merch, of course ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Half-jokingly: let's give them some scary sounding, hellish names. Hurricane Benedict sounds like a friendly neighbour. Heatwave Astaroth - that's some serious stuff right here.

<comment><USER35> Name them after oil and coal companies. "Death toll of Heatwave Exxon rises".

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> In germany, the high pressure areas are named after male names and low pressure after female names: [https://www.bavariannews.com/blog/2018/10/03/how-storms- in-g...](https://www.bavariannews.com/blog/2018/10/03/how-storms-in-germany- get-their-names/)

<comment><USER37> As the article you cited points out, this has been changed in 1998. Low pressure areas get male names in odd years and female names in even years; vice versa for high pressure areas.

<comment><USER22> great, that's not confusing at all. hmm, i'm seeing a warning. i should know what to do. wait, what year is it? damn, if only i could remember even/odd male/female cycles. oh well, best if i just ignore it and carry on with my day. at least it's not a tuesday. i never got the hang of tuesday.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> In the US the weather channel tried to do the same thing for winter storms. No one else pays any attention to their names at all.

</comment><comment><USER39> The evidence of climate change isn't about some place being warm. That would make some place being cool counter-evidence.

I've already seen this play out with multiple years of seeing one side screech, "look how hot it is" and the other, "this winter is cold."

</comment><comment><USER40> how about a name for when the air quality on the entire westcoast becomes very dangerous for anyone with lung problems, asthma, COPD, post-covid, etc.

[https://www.purpleair.com/map?opt=1/mAQI/a10/cC0#2.56/28.39/...](https://www.purpleair.com/map?opt=1/mAQI/a10/cC0#2.56/28.39/-87.34)

</comment><comment><USER41> i'm sorry to say but all this will do is desensitize people further. it used to be that when they named a storm it was going to be bad and you paid attention. now they name every damn storm out there and it just makes you tune out.

</comment><comment><USER42> What if they just assigned "categories" like they do to Hurricanes?

</comment><comment><USER43> We should have extended lockdowns for each heatwave

</comment><comment><USER44> It's worked for malware, hasn't it?</comment>


Are You Living in a Fourth Amendment Exclusion Zone? - <AUTHOR> http://www.storyleak.com/are-you-living-in-fourth-amendment-exclusion-zone/ <comment><USER2> I think it's a story that deserves to be told, but this particular blog adds very little value over the source material the ACLU published in 2006-2008: [http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and- liberty...](http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are- you-living-constitution-free-zone)

Here's the HN discussion from two years ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1961071>

</comment><comment><USER3> A friend shared this video of assorted people exercising their fourth amendment rights at some of these internal checkpoints:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg>

Predictably it isn't long before Godwin's Law is invoked.

While some were obviously successful through simple civil disobedience, I wonder how others turned out. The guy that apparently ignored an order to pull into secondary may have had a rougher go at it. The California agricultural inspections have stood up to challenge [1] and I sympathize with their purpose more so than a 'zone' including most of the population of the country.

[1] <http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/104/505.html>

<comment><USER4> > Predictably it isn't long before Godwin's Law is invoked.

The purpose of Godwin's Law is not to gainsay all comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, but rather to gainsay _inappropriate_ comparisons. I would argue that a US federal law enforcement checkpoint that clearly, unambiguously and persistently violates the US Bill of Rights is a reasonable place to start thinking about other governments that violate human rights. The comparison to Nazi Germany may by hyperbolic but it's not beyond the pale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The solution to this is to find a whole bunch of DHS employees who feel that these seizures are unjust and who are authorized to perform seizures themselves. Then have them go around rampantly seizing as much as they can from as many high-profile people as they can. Seize the devices from judges, lawyers, congress members, TV reporters, actors, children, and so on. Only by flagrantly exercising the "rights" the DHS claims they have will sanity ultimately prevail. They may lose their jobs, but I'm sure there's people willing to make that small sacrifice for defending liberty.

<comment><USER6> "They may lose their jobs, but I'm sure there's people willing to make that small sacrifice for defending liberty."

Are you? It's remarkably easy to say that getting fired from your job to make a point is but a "small sacrifice" when it's not your job, your livelihood, your family and/or home on the line.

If it's such a small sacrifice, perhaps some people could game the system - apply for a job with DHS (they're hiring! [https://dhs.usajobs.gov/JobSearch/Search/GetResults?Keyword=...](https://dhs.usajobs.gov/JobSearch/Search/GetResults?Keyword=border&Location=&search.x=-1475&search.y=-403&search=Search%21&AutoCompleteSelected=False)), and do this to make a point. In fact, I volunteer you for this noble, but small, sacrifice, that you're so willing to suggest others do.

<comment><USER5> I'm not American but if I were and working at the DHS already and hated where things have been going, then for sure I would. I spent some time in the reserves knowing full well that I could be called to defend my country with my life. How utterly trivial in comparison losing one's job is. I wouldn't recommend it for someone with a family, kids, and a mortgage but if you're young and single, why not? Who cares about keeping a job that consists of depriving your fellow citizens of their constitutional rights?

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure some one like that would actually work in the DHS. It would be anathema to them. Is it possible to sue them for this? Even if you yourself have not yet had your rights removed?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I see a bunch of stories about this recently, but they all seem to derive from this 2008 one: [http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland- sec...](http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-security- assuming-broad-powers-turning-vast-swaths-us)

Has there been any actual new reporting since then?

<comment><USER9> Cases are making their way through the courts. House v. Napolitano is the furthest along, I think. The court denied the government's motion to dismiss. [http://www.uscourts.gov/Multimedia/Cameras/DistrictofMassach...](http://www.uscourts.gov/Multimedia/Cameras/DistrictofMassachusetts/11-cv-10852.aspx)

I really think this just needs to move up the chain. I can't imagine higher level courts weakening the fourth amendment.

<comment><USER10> Is this a case where the plaintiff actually crossed the border, or an exclusion zone case where he just happened to be within about 50 miles of the border?

<comment><USER11> It was at the O'Hare airport: [http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2011.09.21_-_doc_17_-_pl._s...](http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2011.09.21_-_doc_17_-_pl._statement_of_material_facts_and_response_to_defs.__statement_of_material_f.pdf)

<comment><USER10> Not the best case for the original issue then.

<comment><USER9> Why not? It's in the zone. House is a US citizen. The only complicating factor is that he was involved in political speech, so now we're dealing with first amendment issues, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Let me repeat what has been said in the other Hacker News threads about the same story:

This is neither the law nor the actual practice in the US. It is just something crazy that DHS once said. If they ever actually searched someone 100 miles away from the border, that person could sue and there is no reason to believe that the verdict would be different from Almeida-Sanchez v. United States.

<comment><USER12> What you are repeating is wrong.

There are checkpoints a hundred miles from the border in many states and several videos of people suffering horrible results when they refuse searches at these checkpoints.

The TSA also routinely performs searches far from the border with their VIPR team. (because someone might drive a train into a building? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_a...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team) )

<comment><USER13> Interesting section in that wikipedia about Amtrak temporarily banning TSA/VIPR from its property.

<comment><USER12> That ban is over and VIPR has been back at train stations since.

Here's a story from January 2013 [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay...](http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8957075)

The most alarming part is how the "news" is now seemingly okay with all this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Well on the one hand you have to draw the "customs/immigration enforcement" line _somewhere_. And "defense in depth" certainly makes as much sense in the real world as it does in computer security.

But on the other hand I don't see a way for this to actually appreciably positively affect U.S. border security without stripping away most of what it means to be an American at all.

Even random checks at a high enough interval to give a good chance at making it too risky to attempt a terrorist plot would be tremendously impacting on day-to-day life. The effect of the DHS would be much more severe than the effect of any supposed terrorists themselves!

Better instead to use any such resources on things more beneficial to the common welfare, and to get rid of the extraneous legal authority.

</comment><comment><USER15> I am in support of privacy and therefore I'm in support of the ACLU in theory on this one, but...

That map is fucking ridiculous. There is no way they would search in the middle of a rural area without access from waterway, etc., and yet that is what much of this map highlights. Even if it is "factually correct", it isn't realistic, even for the most nutcase DHS employee. The everglades? Give me a fucking break.

[http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/fourth-a...](http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/fourth-amendment-free-zone-dhs.gif)

<comment><USER16> Huh? That map highlights 2/3 of the country's population because of dense population centers near the coast. Just because it happens to overlap with the everglades is kind of irrelevant.

<comment><USER15> It isn't just the everglades. Most of the area covered is rural, swampland, farmland, etc. and would not be under suspicion, ever. It is a ridiculous map. It would be one thing if waterways and major cities were highlighted, but it is just over the top, completely. Highlighting all of it makes people in those areas worry unnecessarily when they need not. Finally, Homeland Security does not have the resources to implement searches in all of these places, nor will they knock on the door of every random apartment in Washington, D.C.

This is a sideshow to real privacy problems and a waste of my time and yours. The ACLU should be focused on the fact that our communications are being monitored, because that is something that is much more worrisome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Appalling, but sadly, not at all surprising. We have not-so-slowly been losing our rights for a very long time.

<comment><USER18> It's the other way around.

The America the constitution talks about never existed. Most especially if you were black or female, but even if you were white and male if you were poor, or a union organizer, or a communist, or an anarchist, or a protester, or a striker, or a member of an unusual religion. In fact basically it was a pack of lies for anyone not already in the mainstream elite. And if you are in the mainstream elite in 2013, rest assured, this one does not apply to you either.

In fact, the virtue of the constitution is that as a lie, it has inspired people to strive to demand it become true. And slowly by piecemeal, always hard fought for, always opposed, the golden age of the past that never existed is being constructed in the present.

<comment><USER19> Or a descendant of Japanese people: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment>

<comment><USER20> that mar on our history should be a warning to everyone that wants the government to provide (whether it be retirement, medical, food, whatever) - the government giveth, and the government taketh away, as long as we are unresisting.

<comment><USER18> You really think it would have helped to resist? In a war?

Also compare the fate of the native Americans who resisted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> How can it be legal to have Fourth Amendment Exclusion Zones in the United States?

</comment><comment><USER22> Any organisation that creates a "Civil Liberties Impact" department, really needs to think about its basic job function !

Then again, as a UK citizen, I thought the fourth amendment was not letting soldiers billet in your house.

</comment><comment><USER23> Population is concentrated on the coasts. Has anyone worked out what fraction of US Citizens have lost their 4th amendment rights?

<comment><USER23> "Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders."

From:[http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and- liberty...](http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are- you-living-constitution-free-zone)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> In theory this makes sense: you cross the border...or live near the border...blah blah...keep US secure...blah blah... In reality, this is the latest attack and restrictions on our freedoms. Their tactic is brilliant, they pass xx laws that are unconstitutional and overwhelm the courts. Courts try to be reasonable and in many cases give half to one side and half to the other, every year.

I wouldn't be surprised if you still have quite a few rights down the line but only inside your home and a few decades after that only in the bathroom.

</comment><comment><USER25> What preschooler drew up this idea? Path of Rome, here we come!</comment>


Anatomy of a launch post-mortem: What went right, what went wrong - <AUTHOR> http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/blog/anatomy-of-a-launch-post-mortem-what-went-right-what-went-wrong

<comment><USER2> On turning business away: My boss has a really hard time watching a possible sale slip away, he doesn't really have a concept of letting a sale go because it's not a good fit, not the right product for the client, or not a good client.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> well, it's been 3 hours and only 4 upvotes. Guess I can kiss another front- page hopeful goodbye. :-(

I need to get in with one of the gangs that mass upvote anything one of their members posts. :-/ </wry></comment>


Google Announces Q3 2011 Financial Results, Google+ has 40 million  users - <AUTHOR> http://investor.google.com/earnings/2011/Q3_google_earnings.html

<comment><USER3> Just a datapoint, but out of all the invitations I sent out when G+ first launched (100-150, I don't recall), 40 or 50 friends signed up. ~3 of them still use it at least once a week.

From my observations, G+ still seems to consist primarily of three major user groups:

      1. Tech celebrities
      2. Technologists in general
      3. Non-US users

Facebook's feature set is killer, but at some point, I really would like to use some social software that doesn't silently launch a blinking GPS signal when I'm reading my news feed (I know, I can disable it, but still...).

<comment><USER4> You forgot professional photographers...

<comment><USER5> Yup and also remember that Facebook beat MySpace because of the techie users. It's not the masses that determine success its the influencers.

<comment><USER6> Were you around when Facebook came out? Its early users were not tech types.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Scanning through the comments here, in the media, and lots of tech blogs, google+ is taking a bit of a battering. Everyone seems to be hating on it.

Sure, it's quite likely it will never "beat" facebook, but what happened to: <http://xkcd.com/918/>

I'm still very happy there is an alternative. I don't care if people think two social networks is one too many. Competition is good.

Facebook = { All the people I know (pretty much) }

Google+ = { All the people I care about what they have to say }

I think google+ will always have a place, regardless of whether it crushes fbook in terms of active users or not.

<comment><USER8> I agree, I rarely go on facebook anymore. Picasa + Google+ blows facebook out of the water... except it lacks users :)

<comment><USER9> A social network that is great but which lacks users... it reminds me of Radio Yerevan jokes :) (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan>)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How do they define 'user', for Google+? Facebook's metric is 'active users' which I believe are people who have visited the site during the past 30 days.

If Google+'s definition of 'user' is simply someone who has registered for a Google+ profile, then they are overcounting enormously.

My feeling is that they are indeed disingenuously overcounting, in the same way they do with Android, where they talk about the number of 'activations' rather than device sales.

<comment><USER10> In the case of android, Google doesn't even have relationships with every carrier that sells android phones so 'activations' are the only metric that would actually cover everything.

why do you think that they are not using a 30-day active definition of user?

<comment><USER6> Because I know a lot of people who use Facebook, and next to none of those use Google+ (even though many registered in the beginning). This is the same for many people I know. So I'm taking a guess.

As far as I can tell the only people using Google+ are tech people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Cash – As of September 30, 2011, cash, cash equivalents, and short-term marketable securities were $42.6 billion."

During this quarter, Google made $302 million on interest alone. That's an impressive 11% of this quarter's net profit. I wonder what they plan to do with all that money.

<comment><USER12> Buy patents apparently :-) More seriously, I asked once about this when they were removing bottled water from the local mini-kitchens and dropping over 1 billion dollars a quarter into the bank. My question was "Gee, can't you spare a couple of million this quarter to keep the bottled water restocked?" and obviously the answer was that they could not.

But from a corporate/strategic point of view having a lot of cash on hand makes executives more aggressive and that can be a good thing for the company. Just like employee's that are too afraid to lose their job to say what they really need to say, executives who are too afraid that their next decision could doom the company won't take those risks.

Like anything there is a balance.

<comment><USER13> Removing bottled water is not a financial decision, but an environmental one. Every new employee is given a water bottle they can fill with water an infinite number of times.

If they took away bottled water, I'm sure they replaced them with fruit juice, organic teas and all sorts of ambrosia.

<comment><USER12> I should have noted that the bottled water 'discussion' at Google was long and heated and what Googler's would call a multi-centa-thread [1]. There were folks who shared the position stated above that it was environmentally 'better' to not have bottled water in the mini-kitchens. And there were folks of a more empiricist frame of mind who analyzed data and came to an alternative conclusions. Understand the company is very data driven.

Watching it unfold was educational on so many levels.

[1] A 'Centa-thread' being an email discussion that gets to 100 replies where Gmail would fork it and start new conversation.

<comment><USER14> Interesting, since I've never got to a 100 reply email I've not seen this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> An interesting meta data point here is that out of the short few sentences they chose to quote from larry page, more than 50% of it was about Google+. Even though it generates no revenue and has a tiny user base compared to the rest of Google's products.

Which is to say, whatever you think about Google+ it is undeniable that they see it as a huge strategic priority.

</comment><comment><USER16> I know I need to just be patient and wait for Apps users to get Profiles/Plus, but I don't find it particularly sympathetic of Google when they keep saying that "everyone" can use Google+ now, even in their financial results announcements. From the CEO.

(Yes, technically anyone can use it by signing up with a free @gmail.com account, but I consider that a cop out.)

<comment><USER17> You don't need to use a gmail account. You just need to create a Google login that isn't an Apps login. You can use the same domain as your apps account - <USER2> use that, just with a slightly different username for Google+

<comment><USER16> While this is true, it's in the same class of work-around as just registering a @gmail.com account. It doesn't let an Apps user use their Apps account in a unified way, which is what I was getting at.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Yes, but how many monthly actives?

<comment><USER19> Exactly. I hate these misuses of the word 'Users'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't think Google+ will ever be a Facebook killer (Is Bing a Google killer?). Google's strengths are search and advertising, but not social networking. Given that Google+ is integrated to many google products, its not going to die soon IMHO, but it will be just there for sometime (Yahoo/excite never closed after google success).

Contrary example is gmail which caused a dent in Yahoo mail and still gaining momentum. But gmail was re-inventing email access (gtalk integration), but Google+ is no way close to revolutionizing social networking.

</comment><comment><USER21> And how many of those accounts are spammers getting in early to build rep and appear legitimate?

</comment><comment><USER22> The number of users doesn't mean much, everyone is invited now.

<comment><USER23> Unless you're under 18. And the high school demographic seems like it would be pretty relevant.

<comment><USER24> The fact that high-schoolers couldn't join Facebook for years didn't seem to hurt it too much.

Edit: downvoted?

To quote Wikipedia:

 _The Web site's membership was initially limited by the founders to Harvard students, but was expanded to other colleges in the Boston area, the Ivy League, and Stanford University. It gradually added support for students at various other universities before opening to high school students, and, finally, to anyone aged 13 and over. However, based on ConsumersReports.org on May 2011, there are 7.5 million children under 13 with accounts, violating the site's terms._

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> that is a huge gain....but how many of the 40 million users are still using Google+???

</comment><comment><USER26> For comparison, Facebook has 800 million users and hit 500 million active users in a single day.

<comment><USER27> For comparison Facebook is 7 years old and Google+ is 3 months old.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Isn't it pretty significant that most high schoolers (under 18) can't even sign up yet?

</comment><comment><USER28> Something like 20 million of their users are in India, a lot of those look like Orkut (Google) converts (edit: maybe notsomuch, add FB and look at last few years).

[http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=google%20plus%2Cork...](http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=google%20plus%2Corkut&geo=IN&date=6%2F2011%205m&cmpt=q)

<comment><USER4> Search doesn't correlate to usage. I don't search for Facebook, but use it a lot.

<comment><USER10> a lot of people search for facebook. search is just faster than navigating or bookmarks a lot of the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Their naming /branding scheme is not good. Google + sounds like an API extension or a bad programming language. Sometimes it's better to give a product a human face...beginning with a name that communicates what it is.

<comment><USER30> .. only if you're a programmer, most of whom would probably know what Google+ really is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Guess it's time I get a google+ account.</comment>


Ning Proves Ning Proves That There's Life Outside of Facebook and Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.briansolis.com/2009/12/ning-proves-that-there%E2%80%99s-life-outside-of-facebook-and-twitter/

<comment><USER2> Dup: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1009942>

</comment><comment><USER3> > Ning Proves Ning Proves That...

I see no meta-proof here.</comment>


Google to AdSense users: Please don't dump us in crap economic times - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/30/google-to-adsense-users-please-dont-dump-us-in-crap-economic-times/ <comment><USER2> Those bastards!

How dare they communicate with their customers! They have no right to try to persuade anyone that despite the downturn, they are still investing in their product and trying to improve ad effectiveness. Don't be evil indeed!

</comment><comment><USER3> Now's probably a good time to ask to be reinstated if you've been kicked out, I imagine.

</comment><comment><USER4> AdSense helped boost our number of daily visits when we experimented with it, but we've had much more success getting traction other ways. Once we stopped advertising the boost subsided. We get better kick for the buck directly sponsoring private forums with decent niche traffic.

We will probably experiment with higher value keywords at some point. The major issue is mostly conversion rates though - you need to charge a high price to justify spending a significant amount to attract one paying customer.

SEO is a much better approach, but it's interesting to see Google getting taken to the cleaners here by some of the more spam-oriented sites out there that really push the keywords into their domain names. Even the market leader in our field is not listed on the first page for the most important keyword related to their product.

<comment><USER5> You mean adwords. You posted on the wrong thread :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So I wonder, if they sent such a letter, does this mean they already started to see a decrease on AdSense use?</comment>


Microsoft had shifted at least $39B in U.S. profits to Puerto Rico - <AUTHOR> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-irs-decided-to-get-tough-against-microsoft-microsoft-got-tougher <comment><USER2> "Who deserves a corporation's taxes?" is still an unanswered question globally.

A company pays employees who pay income taxes in jurisdictions where they live and work.

It pays payroll taxes in the regions it operates and employs people.

It pays sales taxes on the materials it purchases and collects and transfers sales taxes for stuff it sells, to the state/jurisdiction where the sale takes place.

It pays property taxes on buildings it owns.

All of this is obvious, but then the company as a whole likely has some revenue and (maybe) profit - who taxes those? The country where it is registered? Where it has the most employees? _Every_ country and jurisdiction it operates in or has sales in, with some agreed-upon split?

This last question is the cause of every single "company XYZ paid nothing in taxes" or "company XYZ uses a tax haven" article out there.

</comment><comment><USER3> Um. Puerto Rico _is_ part of the United States.

<comment><USER4> Except PR citizens and corporations don't generally pay US income taxes. There are exceptions though, like if the income is from US activity. They do pay a few other federal taxes (like FICA, FUTA), but those aren't relevant to the article.

<comment><USER5> No taxation without representation.

<comment><USER4> Yes... I mention this because it's the only reason Microsoft's tax dodge works, since as Joe mentions, PR is part of the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Some thoughtful consideration of corporate welfare:

[http://pitchforkeconomics.com/episode/corporate-parasites- ho...](http://pitchforkeconomics.com/episode/corporate-parasites-how- taxpayers-subsidize-profits-with-rana-foroohar-and-david-dayen/)

</comment><comment><USER7> If the fitness function of your system is to accrue as much capital as possible, why wouldn't you perform actions that advances your fitness function?

</comment><comment><USER8> I wish people were able to think about what is really doing on here for themselves for a few seconds instead of swallowing whole the prepackaged rhetoric from either side; on one side we have "corporations are evil and must be taxed just as heavily as we want to tax the life out of all citizens to support others against their will", and on the other side we have "corporations are benevolent angels who are constantly persecuted and hunted for their life blood while only ever having the most pure intentions and thoughts any angel could ever have.

Reality though is quite a bit in the middle-ground … corporations are enterprises headed by purely selfish and overwhelmingly people that are living embodiments of the dark triad of personality traits (narcissism fueled by psychopathy enacting machiavellianism), but on the other hand they are also very much not wrong in simply wanting to preserve and keep what they have, regardless of whether they got it illicitly and immorally in the first place, largely enabled by the other tribe of the dark triad that only carry a different banner, while also being corporatists, but feigning "concern for the common man" while devising ever more elaborate schemes for how to disposes people who actually earn things through productive and hard work of the fruits of their labor in order to support themselves and those who empower them.

What it all can be reduced down to when you start disassembling the various shields, force fields, lies, misdirection, and deception to get to the core of things; what we are really facing is an actual, real, objective new form of the parasitic exploitation model humanity has known in many forms, but most often refers to its most obvious incarnation as slavery … we have a system of modern slavery, one that long ago realized it is way more profitable to not have to worry taking care of unproductive slaves you physically control, but rather you simply take a huge chunk of most people who are productive and your net profit is wildly higher. It's precisely one of the reasons that oligarchs make sure to push everyone's attention to the trope of slavery, so most people do not realize that "slavery" (a term referring to the systematic exploitation of the slavs … a European people … even far and beyond feudal serfdom that was also a "slavery" business model) pivoted its business model.

<comment><USER9> Corporate "slaves" are some of the best paid in history. I'm sure the "model" figured out that if their labor is generally wealthier, it is far more productive and profitable.

<comment><USER10> >"it"

refering to people as "it" is kind of wrong

also the only reason its better (if thats even true) is because things used to be so shitty that anything is better than that

<comment><USER11> > refering to people as "it" is kind of wrong.

I don't agree. labor is functioning as a collective noun here. it's common to use "it" to refer to a collective noun (even if the collective is people), especially when there is a sense of the collective acting as a single unit (eg, the jury delivered its verdict).

<comment><USER12> And a gentle reminder not everyone is native in English.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Arguments in favor of remdesivir for treating SARS-CoV-2 infections - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300832 <comment><USER2> Very cool article summarizing potential of remdesivir as potential therapeutic vs Covid19. Submitted 16-Feb-2020, published 6-Mar-2020, and as of today 15-Mar-2020, it is the third-most-recently published article about remdesivir vs covid19 as indexed by google scholar [1].

interesting notes: remdesivir was given to the first reported covid19 patient in the usa under a compassionate use exception. Impossible to say if it helped, but the patient's condition did improve the next day.

> "Treatment with intravenous remdesivir (a novel nucleotide analogue prodrug > in development) was initiated on the evening of day 7 (illness day 11), and > no adverse events were observed in association with the infusion." [2]

Also see "Therapeutic options for the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" [3]

[1] [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=remdes...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=remdesivir+&scisbd=1)

[2] [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2001191](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2001191)

[3] [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00016-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00016-0)

<comment><USER2> the following article, published 13 Feb 2020, provides an exhaustive list of potential covid19 therapeutics, including remdesivir and a variety of other antivirals.

Zhang, L, Liu, Y. Potential interventions for novel coronavirus in China: A systematic review. J Med Virol. 2020; 1– 12. [https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25707](https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25707)

open access via publisher: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.25707](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.25707))

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It should be noted that Remdesivir is already being actively given to patients in critical/severe state in several EU countries.

This is outside clinical trials.

See a compilation of updated guidelines I submitted yesterday.

These are the guidelines for Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22574183](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22574183)

Or for direct link

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200314093143/https://epidemio....](https://web.archive.org/web/20200314093143/https://epidemio.wiv- isp.be/ID/Documents/Covid19/COVID-19_InterimGuidelines_Treatment_ENG.pdf)

France is clearly pushing Remdesivir while others seem to consider it mainly for severe to critical cases. Surprisingly France is also somewhat dropping the cheap chloroquine option in favor of Remdesivir and Lopinavir/ritonavir.</comment>


Why Every Movie Looks Sort of Orange and Blue - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/why-every-movie-looks-sort-of-orange-and-blue/ <comment><USER2> In The Matrix, you could tell which "world" you're in by the general grade of color. When in the Matrix, everything had a greenish overtone, and when in the "real world" it was more blue. I really liked that use of color to be a part of the story telling process.

<comment><USER3> Steven Soderbergh's Traffic (2000) made heavy use of this, too, to distinguish different locales and parts of the story. The Mexico/Benicio Del Toro partions were heavy on gold/orange, burnt, sepia, while the Washington/Michael Douglas parts were blue, cool.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, Breaking Bad always painted everything a lurid yellow for scenes in Mexico.

<comment><USER5> Which inspired this funny photoshopped image on Reddit, poking fun at the border:

[http://i.imgur.com/PXMGX.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/PXMGX.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> At least they had the good grace to link to [http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange- ho...](http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood- please-stop.html) before effectively rewriting his original blogpost (and copying some of the images directly from it!)

<comment><USER7> Those priceonomics guys really care for their SEO. They are one of the few websites that writes totally unrelated articles to sell a product.

I kind of feel used when I see them pop up.

<comment><USER8> I work at Priceonomics, so maybe I can shed light on our motivations.

We make the kind of content we love and we sell products so that we can afford to make more of that content. The two products we actually sell (data crawling for companies and books for people) aren't particularly well-suited toward SEO (though our original idea, a Price Guide which we killed years ago, was).

Anyhow, we're a content site that's trying to get by without using ads. I think most of our regular readers appreciate we're trying to pay the bills by selling things instead using ads. We'd like to avoid jamming our site with advertising if that's possible.

Happy to answer any questions you have.

<comment><USER9> I miss the price guide :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ironically, teal and orange reached its peak with tranformers. With the rise of RED cameras (which have useless colour reproduction) we've gone the opposite way, low contrast, lots of grain.

[http://emertainmentmonthly.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/in...](http://emertainmentmonthly.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/intothewoods.jpg) (warning, 5k image)

[http://applications.creativeengland.co.uk/assets/public/reda...](http://applications.creativeengland.co.uk/assets/public/redactor_images/e10892d041ac4eaf76778da4c7730d8f.jpg) note the softness on james corden's face, thats most likely someone painting out blemishes.

Fun fact, virtually any special effects movie that you've seen since 2000, all the film grain you see, is faked. So the people who bemoan the loss of grain with the move to digital need to reassess what they are saying:

[http://conradolson.com/frame-by-frame-painting](http://conradolson.com/frame- by-frame-painting)

<comment><USER11> I'm curious about what the makes the colour reproduction useless. Based on the low contrast comment, I'm guessing it has to do with the log color space?

<comment><USER12> It's true to a point, the RED isn't the best camera at reproducing colours. But then again most of the time you're going to be filming in RAW so it doesn't really matter as much since you get a flat image in post that you can grade.

An advantage the RED cameras have say over a Alexa is that they can film in 4k,5k,6k (Alexa only shoots in 2k). So that you can get a sharper image by editing in 6k, and then exporting in 4k or 1080p.

If you look at video cams for projects that need to be finished quickly, of course your not going to choose a RED. Canon Cinema Cameras (c100, c300) have the best colour science out of everyone (Sony and Panasonic are known to have pretty average colour reproduction). The only downfall with Canon cameras is that they use crappy codes and compression so when you start pushing to extreme looks, you'll get alot of noise and loose sharpness in your footage.

I use Blackmagic cameras, which aren't know for their colours either, but they own the industry standard grading software (DaVinci), so it is quite easy to get your footage balanced before you do a grade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> One movie that seemed to play with color to a fantastic effect is Traffic - [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181865/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181865/) I noticed when it came out that color played a subtle role in setting the mood of each scene and aspect. For instance, near the border towns and where where the "hot zone" of illegal drug traffic occurred, it was more yellow/orange tinted. Then when you head back to the suburbs and see privileged kids doing drugs in their large homes, the color was much more blue and lighting was much softer. I wish that more movies would employ tricks like this without using a "template"...

edit: looked on IMDB and it looks like 3 different films stocks were used:

To achieve a distinctive look for each different vignette in the story, Steven Soderbergh used three different film stocks (and post-production techniques), each with their own color treatment and grain for the print. The "Wakefield" story features a colder, bluer tone to match the sad, depressive emotion. The "Ayala" story is bright, shiny, and saturated in primary colors, especially red, to match the glitzy surface of Helena's life. The "Mexican" story appears grainy, rough, and hot to go with the rugged Mexican landscape and congested cities.

<comment><USER14> Side-note: Soderbergh's editing is absolutely fantastic and original too (see: The Limey, Out of Sight). Fine, fine film-maker, one of the few to be able to cross from pure art film to Hollywood blockbuster and back again through everything in between with ease. It will be interesting to see where his "retirement" takes him.

<comment><USER15> Soderbergh recently did a recut of 2001 to make it less 'obvious'...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > There's no specific colour decision-making process where we sit in a room > and say, 'We're only going to use complementary colours to try and move the > audience in a particular direction – and only use those combinations.'

A lot of production designers would strongly disagree with this statement. The color palette of a film is very much a part of the decision-making process (pre-production as well as post-production), and it's used primarily to "move the audience" in one way or another, as per the film's theme and story elements.

It may just be that the colors within a chosen palette are often classified as either "warm" or "cool" \- orange and blue being the most obvious manifestations of those classifications - so we tend to see a lot of them. Without contrast (literal and figurative), a film simply doesn't _say_ anything. Warm and cool colors go a long way in helping the audience feel positively or negatively about certain story elements.

<comment><USER10> Having worked in a grading suite, I can say that the quoted statement is indeed false.

Colour usually is considered right at the start, as dperfet correctly points out.

<comment><USER17> Right. There are also those color houses that standardize more or less the worlds palette for the next few years. It is not an accident that we all had avocado refrigerators and green minivans. It is a truly big brother industry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Funny to see Amelie there as a counter-example - it's pretty much my favourite movie, and one of the things I love about it is the autumnal quality of the light. Normally I wouldn't notice that kind of thing at all, perhaps it's the contrast with all the orange-and-blues (or maybe just the exceptional loveliness of the film itself)

<comment><USER19> On the director's commentary, at 21:50, he talks about pushing the digital grading and that "sometimes it's a little bit too much." (But obviously he didn't tone it back!)

<comment><USER20> He did, however, go completely overboard with A Very Long Engagement, which is drenched in yellow/orange:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYfo3nt- O_U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYfo3nt-O_U)

It's a fine film, but the grading is rather extreme. It does the opposite for the war scenes, which are quite desaturated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> One of the most interesting exceptions I've seen on this convention was the 2011 movie Limitless([http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219289/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219289/)). They still used the orange-blue complement, but switched saturation between them, sometimes every scene. It was used as an indicator of how the protagonist views the world: bright and with an orange saturation for when he is on NZT, dull and blue when he isn't. I thought it was a great way of deconstructing this particular trope.

<comment><USER22> To join in, I too loved the use of color in Limitless. I personally associate vibrant autumnal colors with clarity, not sharp blues, so when the characters go on NZT, it feels _fuller_ , not just sharper. It looks like something a person would actually _want_ , as opposed to losing one's humanity in a soul- crushing washed-out green or blue usually seen in sci-fi.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Recently when watching stuff on Netflix I found myself amazed at how ridiculously orange and teal movies were getting. Even the pilot episode of House was ridiculously Orange'n'Teal.

Then I twigged it was because I was running F.Lux.

</comment><comment><USER24> One thing that isn't mentioned is that realism doesn't seem "cinematic." It's just like people not liking high frame rate because of the "soap opera effect," or even some people's preference for black and white. Visible grain, non-subtle bokeh effects and lens flare, etc are other things that aren't realistic per se, but for some reason they make it seem less "cheap" and bring more emotional weight than a more perfectly realistic image.

I think these sorts of forced palettes do the same thing. Maybe a different color combination will become trendy at some point, but for now, orange/blue is a pretty safe bet that it will achieve the emotional effect, without it just looking weird.

</comment><comment><USER25> A few years ago there was a good article on Cracked (of all places) about the annoying trends for movies:

[http://www.cracked.com/article_18664_5-annoying-trends- that-...](http://www.cracked.com/article_18664_5-annoying-trends-that-make- every-movie-look-same.html)

There is the orange and teal trend, but also color trends by genre, and of course lens flares...

<comment><USER26> I was just about to post this link as well. Glad someone else had the same thought. Cracked, while an absurd humor site on the surface, is one of the most reliable resources of new-perspective intellectual stimulation on the web, IMO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> A fun read, but I'm not convinced the reason for all the orange and blue is rooted in trendiness, as the article makes it seem. It suggests that this color combination "might not be naturalistic", but in my experience with light, color, and art, that statement couldn't be further from the truth.

Look around, in light, orange and blue hues dominante our world. Sunlight, moonlight, street lights, sky, incandescents, the glow of lcds screens, etc - blue and orange everywhere. If you take notice, you will realize this is true.

As the article points out, in art, when wanting to create vibrancy and visual interest, one of the best tools in our arsenal is the use of complementary colors.

No other compliments are even close to occurring as frequently in the lighting of our natural world. This, I believe, is the true reason for its abundant use in cinema.

Of all the compliments, orange and blue is just the most natural.

</comment><comment><USER28> While working at a tv distribution company about 8 years ago, I used to design these promotional one-pagers for various shows. After a while I noticed all of my designs were mostly blue and orange (or at least the main components of the design were). Then I started consciously trying to use other colour arrangements but orange-blue just always sort of looked best. I celebrated any time i managed to get a good looking poster/one-pager without relying on the orange-blue complementary contrast.

I wonder if women might have an advantage here due to many men being red-green colour blind to some extent.

</comment><comment><USER29> Here's a visualization summary of entire movies in a "barcode" timeline format from the start of the film to the end.

[0] [http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/movie- index](http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/movie-index)

[1] 2001: A Space Odyssey [http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/3432026155/2001-a-space-...](http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/3432026155/2001-a-space- odyssey-1968-prints)

[2] Aladdin [http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/5766889425/aladdin-1992-...](http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/5766889425/aladdin-1992-prints)

[3] Beyond the Black Rainbow [http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/39051819960/beyond- the-b...](http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/39051819960/beyond-the-black- rainbow-2010-prints)

[4] Blade Runner [http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/4438993828/blade- runner-...](http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/4438993828/blade- runner-1982-prints)

[5] Star Wars Episode IV [http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/13255664875/star-wars- ep...](http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/13255664875/star-wars-episode-iv-a- new-hope-1977-prints)

[6] The Wizard of Oz [http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/3512965847/the- wizard-of...](http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/3512965847/the-wizard-of- oz-1939-prints)

</comment><comment><USER30> One argument in favor of using orange-blue as opposed to other contrasting colors, is that humans associate blue with darkness and depth. Our eyes and mind, too, perceive blue at a lower resolution as other colors (We perceive green with the greatest fidelity).

Colorizing the screen in orange and blue, then, imposes a hierarchy on the objects in the screen. Whereever the orange-blue scheme is used, the blue depicts the background and the orange depicts the action.

This adds to the illusion of depth, which is extremely important especially for Hollywood action films, as they need to feel big and grand amid fast-paced movement and short takes. Where objects flash across the screen in split seconds, the orange-blue contrast can provide a natural vocabulary to re- orient the viewer as to what is happening in the 3D space depicted by the 2D screen.

I would guess that the blue-green colorscheme is overrepresented in action films and especially in action sequences, and underrepresented in say, comedy and romance films.

</comment><comment> m-i-l Danny Boyle's Sunshine [0] also made good use of colour - the interior of the ship had no reference to red, orange or yellow to make the appearance of the sun more striking.

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_(2007_film)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_\(2007_film\))

<comment><USER31> Sunshine was a criminally under appreciated movie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> An interesting persuasive technique here: When they linked to "some filmmakers" not using this scheme my guess before clicking was it would be to a scene in The Grand Budapest Hotel. I've never thought about color in film before so this didn't feel like it should be an easy guess unless the article is correct about how pervasive orange/blue is, so when it loaded and it was correct it added a lot of emotional force to the argument. Though I suspect it is actually a pretty easy guess: they didn't choose a random film, they chose an extreme, recent, popular counterexample to their argument. I'd bet my mind was already thinking about that movie in the background while trying to come up with counterexamples, and they successfully turned this into enforcing their argument rather than the opposite.

</comment><comment><USER17> Color theory is like a fractal. The closer you get the more detail there is. The Color Correction Handbook: Professional Techniques for Video and Cinema by Alexis Van Hurkman is a great book if you really want to geek out or are considering working in DI. Two particular topics come to mind. One is memory colors which describe the ideal colors people within a cultural group tend to think of when remembering common elements such as grass (greener) or brick (redder). The other is cultural preferences regarding saturation. Seems UK audiences like things a bit less saturated which I now understand is why all my British photography magazines "look washed out". In a the 90's there was a craze for bleach bypass and other alternative film processes. I'm pretty sure the 3 Kings dvd says not to adjust your tv.

<comment><USER33> UK light is very different to California light.

Colours here really are washed out. A long time ago I was in Australia. My then gf bought a bedspread by an artist called Ken Done - lots of bright primary colours.

It looked great in Sydney.

In UK light - even in sunlight - most of the colour punch disappeared. It actually looked kind of grey and old. Disappointment...

So if supersaturate movie colours, they look surreal here.

But California really _is_ teal and orange. The light is warm and intense, and LA gets a lot of clear blue sky. So I wonder if directors like TnO because it's a variation on natural Hollywood light.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Kubrick was always masterful with colour, and while he is probably best known for his fascination with red [1], it's actually the orange/blue contrast in "Eyes Wide Shut" that is most memorable for me.

[1]: [http://vimeo.com/112129153](http://vimeo.com/112129153)

</comment><comment><USER35> Moviebarcode [0] provides some nice visualizations [1][2][3] of the color palette of movies and other things.

[0] [http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/](http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/)

[1] [http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/104685404787/transformer...](http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/104685404787/transformers- age-of-extinction-2014)

[2] [http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/3432016573/traffic-2000](http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/3432016573/traffic-2000)

[3] [http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/8951346287/tron- legacy-2...](http://moviebarcode.tumblr.com/post/8951346287/tron- legacy-2010-prints)

</comment><comment><USER36> If you are interested in colour grading, this is a wonderful piece of software - [http://3dlutcreator.com](http://3dlutcreator.com)

That and davinci and you'll be fine

<comment><USER37> Can you elaborate a little on how this is different from Photoshop or Lightroom?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Final Cut Pro X literally has an effect called "Teal and Orange": [https://www.dropbox.com/s/kdbub5jctmn4lqh/Screenshot%202015-...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/kdbub5jctmn4lqh/Screenshot%202015-01-29%2011.34.17.png?dl=0)

I applied it to one of my (totally amateur) drone videos ([https://vimeo.com/95716566](https://vimeo.com/95716566)) and thought it looked kind of "good", now I know why.

</comment><comment><USER39> _Drive_ has some great usage of this type of cinematography if I recall correctly. I think the author may have ruined watching movies for me now though. :/

</comment><comment><USER40> Overdone computer-enabled post-production colour manipulation is one of the (many) reasons I find it hard to watch a lot of film and television drama productions of this century.

I much prefer the result when the manipulation of colour is achieved through lighting on the set or location.

Two examples of films I think have fantastic use of colour in the lighting are _Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom_ and _Desperately Seeking Susan_.

</comment><comment><USER41> How do to color grading in Final Cut X [https://vimeo.com/58051635](https://vimeo.com/58051635)

</comment><comment><USER42> I remember this from a while ago - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1193657](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1193657)

After I read that post it took something away from a lot of films for me, since it was hard to not notice. In this context, ignorance is bliss I say! I wish I could go back to not noticing.

<comment><USER43> I'm not totally opposed to the idea since there's an artistic goal behind it. Kinda like Instagram filters, which I admittedly used to oppose, but for Instagram's purpose, which isn't vying for National Geographic awards, they work well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I enjoyed Dead Silence, but some of the blue they do was overkill. For example: [http://static.yts.re/attachments/Dead_Silence_2007/Screensho...](http://static.yts.re/attachments/Dead_Silence_2007/Screenshot_006_large.png)

I hope we get a more natural dynamic range of color in the future.

</comment><comment><USER45> There's a really good video that illustrates & describes this effect. It's targeted towards users of the color grading tools, but it's an interesting watch nonetheless.

The Summer Blockbuster Colour Grading Tutorial: [https://vimeo.com/65617394](https://vimeo.com/65617394)

</comment><comment><USER46> Full Metal Jacket had it's moments of blue and orange, but I'd classify most scenes in the film as 'green'. Then again, Kubrick was known to be obsessive in regards to attention to detail, especially when it came to lighting and colour reproduction.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is all a little bizarre, as these are my two favourite colours, especially in combination. As a teenager getting to paint my walls my own colours for the first time, I chose orange walls with blue trim. I had not idea it was so prevalent in movie-making!

</comment><comment><USER48> When I shoot portraits of people with a flash I will sometimes use an orange gel to give people's skin a more human look. White flash tends to take that out of the final picture but the orange gel makes skin look more natural.

</comment><comment><USER49> gold and blue, due to the price of the paint components, were hallmark of an expensive art painting through the history until very recently. Thus using those colors allows to exploit that association and puts your movie at perceived level of the old masterpieces.

That also correlates nicely with the fact that cheap or produced in other countries inferior color film (like in the USSR for example) didn't have good blue, was reddish-greenish instead, and thus this gold/blue of today also suggests associations with better quality.

<comment><USER50> Maybe somewhat ironically, this assumed association with quality without an associated real correlation with quality leads to crap trying to pass itself off as amazing stuff by using such techniques. This then leads to an association with crap rather than the quality they intended....

[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tawdry](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tawdry)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> My girlfriend and I noticed this in 2001 with the movies "Sword Fish" and "Traffic", We made fun of it and called it the cool movie filter. lol.

</comment><comment><USER52> I usually dislike any color grading over an entire movie. I recently re- watched Snatch and its heavy green cast felt so obnoxious and ugly.

<comment><USER53> That's kinda weird, considering the vividly red cover.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> 1950s films looked washed out. Little green in outdoors Westerns or indoors movies.

<comment><USER52> Probably a limitation of the color film stock at the time. Technicolor used a beam splitter and three strips of black-and-white film. It made super-vivid colors but was expensive. Single-strip color film rose to the top in the 50s and 60s with worse colors, but much cheaper and easier to shoot.

<comment><USER19> The Adventures of Robin Hood, the Errol Flynn movie from 1938, is an excellent example of three-strip Technicolor, and on blu-ray some scenes look like they were shot last week, not 80 years ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> -1 for disabling zoom on mobile devices

</comment><comment><USER56> tl;dr human skin is orange

edit: why the downvotes? it's actually in the article

> Most skin tones fall somewhere between pale peach and dark, dark brown, > leaving them squarely in the orange segment of any color wheel</comment>