Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/10/red-bull-f1-traction-control/ <comment><USER2> In an environment where innovation has been strictly regulated against (better engine management software? NOPE. better foil design? NOPE), the fine art of sticking to the letter of the law but totally bending the spirit of it is naturally where the bleeding edge of F1 design is going to lie.

<comment><USER3> Much the same in cycling - there are many innovations that could potentially improve speeds: as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions.

But, the UCI sets its rules based on innovations up to 1972, in order to make a fair comparison with Eddy Merckx.

Consumer bikes surely suffer for this lack of innovation at race level.

<comment><USER4> This is wrong on two important levels:

\- the UCI limits bicycles so that it's a race between cyclists, not bank accounts. Currently, a top pro's bike costs about $10-15k, and a competitive bike can be bought for as low as $2-3k (even lower at the amateur level). If they removed the technical limitations, that number would be at least an order of magnitude higher, and potentially two or three.

\- bike races are not just about speed, they're about speed and tactics

I think a relevant comparison is the America's Cup race. Back when they raced tubby, slow, antiquated 12 Meter yachts, there were dozens of countries competing, viewership was high, and the races were exciting tactical battles from start to finish. Then they switched to super high tech wonderboats costing 100s of millions. Those boats are amazing feats of engineering, no doubt, but after you've watched them for 5 minutes, there's really nothing left to see. The costs are so high that there are now only two competitors, and the event may die entirely next go round, as there may be only one (Ellison) willing to pony up so much money. Viewership has plummeted as a result.

<comment><USER5> > \- the UCI limits bicycles so that it's a race between cyclists, not bank > accounts.

The UCI has been hypocritical, inconsistent, and mendacious in its claims here.

At the dawn of racing the UCI banned the recumbent Velocar not because it was so much faster (it was), but because the powerful (ahem) upright bicycle lobby demanded it.

The there was the Moulton, which started winning lots of races on its 17" tires in the 1960s. The UCI notionally banned it for nonsensical "safety" reasons, while it was really about small wheels being too fast. The big-wheel bike manufacturers had gotten scared.

Meanwhile, while the UCI was busy banning minor things like beam bikes, disc brakes, and even different rider positions (!), it was perfectly happy to allow huge changes in materials (carbon fiber notably), pedals, and wheels.

And then there's the UCI largely ignoring and wrist-slapping the biggest technological improvement by far: performance enhancing drugs.

So if you don't mind, allow me to be annoyed that the UCI has destroyed the small-wheel and recumbent market in the name of consistency, while being largely complicit in the biggest sports drug scandal in history.

<comment><USER4> So much distorted history.

Recumbent bicycles are _older_ than the modern "safety" bicycle. They lost in the marketplace on their own merits long before the UCI even existed. They are faster in some scenarios, they are slower in others. They cost more, they weigh more, they break more, they're less agile.

The '30s were not the "dawn of racing." The _peak_ of bicycle racing (and technological progress) was 1880-1917. That would be when the safety bicycle was emerging as the dominant configuration.

Moulton wheels had over 30 years to prove themselves before they were banned in 1996, following the Lugano Charter. They didn't.

<comment><USER5> I want to reply to another odd piece of your claim. Why are you comparing recumbents to _safety bicycles_? We're talking about uprights. And so far as I know, recumbent velocipedes are later than upright velocipedes, recumbent pedaled bikes are later than upright pedaled bikes (notably the boneshaker); and recumbent chained bikes are later than upright chained bikes.

And surely you realize that all of your claims (cost, weight, breaking, agility) can be more easily ascribed to the fact that uprights are a huge mass market with enormous R&D funding, and recumbents are a tiny little hobbyist thing. Okay, maybe not agility, that's probably inherent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My theory is that they implemented an equivalent to traction control, but with no sensors at the wheel. It's all internal to the KERS, and probably a software hack. For example, if a drop in current from the KERS indicates the motor/generator needs less power even though the throttle is open, you might be able to infer wheel-spin without measuring it directly, and momentarily shut down the KERS to reduce power to the wheels.

Even if they audited the code, it might look like code that protects that motor/generator from over-revving than a software traction control.

<comment><USER7> I'd be surprised if they hadn't looked at something like this, but it wouldn't explain the suspicious sound. The electric motor that KERS controls would be relatively silent compared to the V-8... (Oh how I miss the V-12's...)

<comment><USER8> And they're moving to turbocharged V-6's soon. [http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2013/8/14875.html](http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2013/8/14875.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The smeary tone of this article is really quite obvious and unpleasant, and I don't think qualifying it as a "conspiracy theory" makes up for that.

For example the claim that "Christian Horner isn't saying much", when in fact he's flatly denied any kind of rule breaking.

<comment><USER10> When one guy leads by 30+ seconds, while everyone else fights for fractions of a second, either there's a major breakthrough or somebody is cheating.

<comment><USER9> Vettel has won races by large margins before, without any accusations of cheating. The time difference of ONE LAP is under a second, but that adds up over the course of an entire race.

Red Bull have the best car, Vettel is the best driver, they do the fastest pit stops, and with a little luck this creates big wins.

<comment><USER11> A 30s gap over an entire race isn't that big of a deal, Hamilton won the 2008 British GP by over a minute but that was changeable conditions. Watch the first lap of any race and see the gap Vettel builds in a single gap, it has hovered around 2 seconds for many races...

<comment><USER12> I think it was Singapore where a safety car blew out Vettel's advantage and the pack caught up. Obviously tyre wear was very low in that period, so the team told him to put his foot down, at which point he again managed to increase the gap by about 2s per lap to the point where he had gained back an entire pit stop. Even with a favourable track, I'm sure those in the paddock can't help thinking of the similarities with the 1994 season. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Formula_One_cheating_contr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Formula_One_cheating_controversy)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a fan of the sport, I've so far only read about this unsubstantiated conspiracy theory on forums and low-end blogs.

Wired adds no new insights, no facts, no sources, not even new speculative theories, it just rehashes old gossip. Fuck, this is one step down from Gawker.

I'm so glad I stopped taken Wired seriously since the 90's.

<comment><USER14> As a non-fan of the sport, this story sounds exciting. Clearly something interesting is happening in the F1 scene, and nobody knows for sure what it is. It's a great mystery.

Even if this story is a rehash of what has been already said in F1 fan blogs, it is very accessible to people who know little about the sport.

Journalism is about so much more than pure facts.

<comment><USER15> "As a non-fan of the sport, this story sounds exciting. Clearly something interesting is happening in the F1 scene, and nobody knows for sure what it is. It's a great mystery."

This is the case most of the time whether it's a new design, or political. That's F1.

<comment><USER16> The point isn't that it is or isn't interesting the point is that Wired is bringing an intriguing technical story to a population who wouldn't normally care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was at the Formula 1 in Melbourne this year, back in March, and definitely noticed the unusual engine notes of the RBR cars as they accelerated out if corners.

But it was definitely both cars making the sound, so both Webber and Vettel had the system, if it did in fact exist.

</comment><comment><USER18> Link to Racecar Engineering web article: [http://www.racecar- engineering.com/news/red-bulls-traction-s...](http://www.racecar- engineering.com/news/red-bulls-traction-secret-revealed/) This is a very nice magazine to read/subscribe even if you are not a race fan. Lots of technical discussions.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think the BBC's article from Oct 3rd has some good commentary on this topic:

"Red Bull's advantage is believed to come largely from a more effective use of the exhaust gases for aerodynamic effect. This creates more rear downforce than the other cars, meaning Vettel has the rear grip to enable him to accelerate sooner."

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24381349](http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24381349)

<comment><USER20> Blown diffusers. They did outlaw hot blown diffusers but blowing cold is still within the sporting regs. Thus the odd sound at low power, they are flowing air through the exhaust when they arent on the power to flow over the diffuser to provide more down force to accelerate quicker.

Seems like there could be some clever uses if kers to bleed off power for traction control like applications though. This is what f1 is all about people... That's the drama and excitement. There is technology, intrigue, and then the real debates start when you simply suggest Vettel is the very best in the world and that's the difference. Fun stuff.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, the weird plut-plut-plut of the Renault engine in the RBR is a result of the cold blowing.

KERS based traction control would be silent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I love that this is really a cutthroat battle of engineering. Behind every driver there's a team of really bright individuals who are brainstorming, modeling, designing, tweaking, and refitting, to figure out just how Red Bull's doing it.

<comment><USER23> Wouldn't it be even more of an engineering battle if the drivers were replaced with computers?

<comment><USER24> A lot of NASCAR fans argue that F1 is just that - driving skill has been replaced by technology. I think that's nonsense. Better cars are an advantage, but ultimately, it's the driver's nerve and imagination that wins. I'd choose a lesser car with a greater driver any day.

<comment><USER25> I wouldn't. Not in F1, at least. Not if you wanted to regularly come in the points. You could stick Vettel in a Marussia, and he'd still finish near the back of the pack.

<comment><USER26> Vettel won his first race with Toro Rosso. While he may not be able to win in dry conditions in a Marussia he could certainly get the most out of the car, and help the team build it over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've been keeping up on this and I don't believe it to be what Wired speculates (though I've seen those rumors myself). The generally accepted answer to this seems to be that the Redbull's engine (Renault) cuts half its cylinders[0]. Yes this can be seen as a type of _torque_ control, not traction control.

The sound was what my engine sounded like when a spark plug cable came loose and thus not firing the cylinder.

As for why Webber doesn't sound like that - well you can speculate that Webber just doesn't have the trust in his car as Vettel has to get on the power that early. And, if you've kept up with this season at all, you'd understand why Webber has no trust in his car[1].

[0] [http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/racing/red-bull- traction](http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/racing/red-bull-traction)

[1] [https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- frc1/600837_1010...](https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- frc1/600837_10101889413082864_224334807_n.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER28> Or maybe their technical team is just better. Adrian Newey[1] has designed some very fast cars - at Williams, McLaren and now at Red Bull. Michael Schumacher managed to win seven championships in his career, but he was often racing against a (much) more superior Newey-designed car. F1 was fun in those days. With Vettel, arguably the most talented driver to drive a Newey designed car since Senna, it's no surprise Red Bull is cleaning up.

Red Bull's pace is unfortunate, because with Alonso, Hamilton, Kimi and Vettel you have four incredibly fast drivers. And without Red Bull's dominance, the current era could have been one of the most exciting in F1 history. It doesn't help that Vettel is a bit of a dick, or at least that's the perception. Schumacher was a bit of dick too, but the crowd (or a sizable portion) liked him - the fact that he didn't always have the best car, also helped.

1\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Newey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Newey)

<comment><USER29> Eh, I wouldn't say Schumacher won against vastly superior Adrian Newey cars. Once Ferrari hit their stride in the Schumacher years they often beat McLaren by being far more reliable and robust. They also built up their advantage with their Bridgestone partnership to a level that made them dominant. So dominant in fact, that it led to a spec tire.

Adrian Newey designs in the past ran on the ragged edge of fragility in order to make the cars as fast as possible. But that resulted in many costly DNF's that cost McLaren at least one championship. Now the Red Bull cars are still blazing fast but they're also very reliable.

I'm pretty sure Red Bull is cheating with traction control through their KERS system but I'm also sure they'd be winning races without it.

<comment><USER28> He won his first two titles in a Benetton Ford that was widely considered to be inferior to the Williamses. At Ferrari, it took the team four years after Schumacher joined, to build a car that was truly on par with the best on the grid. But even before that Schumacher had come close to winning the championship, challenging Villeneuve's Williams for the title in 97, and Hakkinen's McLaren in 98 and 99.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is pure speculation, I am sure Red Bull are doing some things with there car but it's not as big of a deal as everyone makes out and I don't think it's one thing.

It's worth noting, that Rosberg's engineer said that the rubber caught in his front wing for that race was costing him 1.7 seconds a lap. That's where the biggest difference came, Vettel wasn't that much faster in Korea.

</comment><comment><USER31> I think they should just let the teams use whatever technology they can invent, as long as it doesn't make it unsafe. Who cares how good the drivers are? The technology is far more interesting.

<comment> k-mcgrady That wouldn't work. Firstly the smaller teams would be gone as they couldn't afford to compete. It's also likely a lot of the mid-field teams would struggle to afford to compete (Lotus, one of the top 5 teams can't even pay it's top driver). Secondly your qualification 'as long as it doesn't make it unsafe' is one of the reasons there are so many rules in F1. It's an incredibly dangerous sport. The engineers could easily make the cars go much quicker - but it would be too dangerous and costly.

<comment><USER27> I would love to see that elusive budget cap implemented but if that were to happen, I would want to ease the technological limitations.

Imagine the kind of innovation if you were free to do what you want up to a max of X million/year.

<comment> k-mcgrady I agree, but I don't think a budget cap would be easily enforceable which is why - after years of talking about it - it has never been implemented.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> An old remark was, without rules, auto racing would soon become about as exciting as watching the jets land at JFK.

Another point is, mostly sports are sold as drama, that is, about human characters the audience can identify with, characters taking on challenges. So, see lots of pictures of the drivers, that is, the characters in the drama, and commentary about the characters, but next to nothing on the engineering of the cars. So, what's the bore/stroke ratio, max piston speed, max RPMs, number of valves per cylinder, valve spring design (last I heard, they don't use metal springs and use compressed gas instead), intake boost design and pressures, intercooler design, fuel injection design, fuel chemistry, clutch design, transmission design, suspension design, etc.? Don't hear much about those details!

So, it's not sold as a competition or lesson in engineering or the old "improve the breed" but as human drama.

So, have rules to deemphasize the engineering and just let the drama show. On with the show!

</comment><comment><USER33> The FIA must be aware of the system that they are using, buy looking at this section of the rules:

8.2.1 All components of the engine and gearbox, including clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA. The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA. Additional information regarding the ECU software versions and setup may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.

</comment><comment><USER34> Regarding the mysterious hidden traction control that no one can find.

How about a modified wireless air pressure sensor inside the tires that also reported tire slippage?

Then perhaps that slippage info gets received by electronics built into the drivers shoes?

Then the millisecond acceleration and braking is controlled by actuators inside the shoes that hit the pedals, faster than any human can and using instant, actionable slippage data.

When the driver walks away, nothing unusual can be found on the car when it is presented for inspection.

</comment><comment><USER35> If the secret is the automated use of KERS, you'd see it in the on-screen graphics (the HUD-esque display shows when a driver is deploying KERS).

Also the article makes the comparison in noise - but surely that noise is caused by the engine being limited/throttled, something which they could not get away with in this season since the ECUs are all the same. A KERS-based traction control wouldn't make the same noise because it doesn't work in the same way.

<comment><USER36> I'm not an engineer but couldn't you adjust how much energy the system generates on the recovery stage? If the magnets in the generator are electrical rather than rare earth you could adjust the strength of the magnets and the breaking affect of the generator would be adjustable. This would be akin to how ABS uses brake friction but with faster adjustment and less loss of energy.

<comment><USER18> Exactly. They can program the KERS to increase its resistance under given situations, and then tune the suspension to better respond to it. I can speculate about how this might seem less upsetting to the chassis, because it is not using force in the braking system (in the corners of the chassis). Having the resistance generated in the powertrain means that the tires do not have to deal with anything other than normal breaking, and acceleration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Would it be fair to fine the team if they were in fact using the "assisted KERS suspension"? Technically it is not traction control.

<comment><USER2> Technically correct - the best kind of correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm a huge F1 fan and this is the best wrap up of what red bull are probably doing:

[http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2013/10/so-how-is-red- bull-r...](http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2013/10/so-how-is-red-bull-running- traction.html)

</comment><comment><USER39> I am not really a huge racing fan, but am fascinated by the innovation going on in formula 1, and other race circuits. These innovations eventually make it into mainstream cars. By self-imposing constraints, they are pushing the engineers to get creative.

</comment><comment><USER40> I find the justification presented for only Vettel having the technology a little strange.

It's common to test new systems on one car before rolling them out across the team. If the technology works and is reliable, Webber will have it before the end of the season.

<comment><USER41> It could very well be that just in this race the technology was not working on Webbers car (as would be no surprise with new techology). Just wondering because of: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6532428](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6532428)

<comment><USER30> Well Mark Webber did end up retiring from the race so something was not right with his car...

<comment><USER42> > Well Mark Webber did end up retiring from the race so something was not > right with his car...

Yes, what was not right was the car being in flames because a crash :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Personally, I'd be all for a league similar to F1 that allowed for much greater disparaties between teams.

We're talking about the most well funded teams in the world; no chance of a small upstart coming in with a low bankroll and making a splash anyway.

<comment><USER24> There used to be such a beast. It was called Can-Am, and the rules were basically that cars had to have two seats, fenders, and at least one engine. Other than that, it was anything goes. It made for spectacular racing, but tended to be dominated by one team at a time, and it was ridiculously expensive. It was ultimately shut down for cost reasons.

<comment><USER44> Not the sort of thing you could bring back today, even without the cost concerns. The "let's do everything we can do to make this fast" cars competing in that series killed a lot of drivers.

<comment><USER24> Yeah. I used to watch Can Am when I was a little kid. Drivers got killed a lot. Those cars were insane - 1000 horsepower sometimes.

<comment><USER44> Something like the Porsche 917k30 was capable of close to 1500hp. (I can't imagine you'd actually run on race day with that setup) My dad and his friends commented on watching that car many times, and specifically the amount of noise that it made.

That car was illustrative of a few of the problems with the "let's just allow the teams to build the fastest cars they possibly can!" notion. Teams didn't pay as much attention to safety in general as they should have in the seventies, but more to the point: the performance differential between some of those cars - racing on the same crowded track - was just too extreme. There is no safe way to run when that extreme difference exists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Minardi's old team was bought out by Dietrich Mateschitz and converted into Torro Rosso. I feel there is some bad blood still around, since it was Giancarlo Minardi who pretty much started this theory/conspiracy.

</comment><comment><USER46> Obligatory Smokey Yunick mention. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick)

The guy was a hacker in many senses of the word!

</comment><comment><USER47> _the RB9 could limit power when compressed and boost power when expanded_

Isn't that backwards? If you're light on the suspension, that means you have less grip, and thus less traction.

<comment><USER48> Right turn: right suspension compressed, left wheels on the outside have further to travel, if both spinning at the same speed then you will break traction on one side or the other. Not sure what type of differentials are legal in F1, but the technology in the article is plausible in the absence of some fancy limited slip diffs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Couldn't it be some sort of new notification system for the driver which gives him instinctive feedback and lets him drive the engine the same way traction control would?

<comment><USER50> From my (limited) experience in (not even close to F1-level) racing, the physical sensations of the tires being near the limits of grip are fairly obvious. The reason why traction control helps so much is that a computer can adjust power accordingly vastly faster than a human ever could.

The drivers are extraordinarily focused professionals during races. I can't imagine adding some signaling system that would let the driver react any faster than he already was.

<comment><USER47> Not only that, but the traction control system can control wheel slip at a per-wheel basis. Something the driver can't do, with his single brake pedal.

<comment><USER51> Has anyone tried an input system that would allow that? I'm thinking some kind of split brake pedal that you can press either side of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm pretty sure there's a ton of money in constructors' points, way more than the entrance fee, but the prize money isn't disclosed.

</comment><comment><USER53> F1 was supposed to be about the fastest cars with the best technologies, why did they ban traction control (among other things)? What a joke...

<comment><USER7> While I agree with your disappointment, many people believe F1 was supposed to be about the best drivers more than about the best cars. I will admit that the regulations have made the races more exciting in the sense of competition, even though I would love to see what happened if you just let the engineers go crazy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> What I'd do if I was in charge of it (and I never would be) would be to outlaw all semiconductors in the car.

</comment><comment><USER55> I wonder what a race with "truly, anything goes" as the rule for car design would be like?

</comment><comment><USER56> Traction control sounds on youtube are very similar.

</comment><comment><USER57> This is why I hate all sports.</comment>


JSON.org License Literally Says it "shall be used for Good, not Evil" - <AUTHOR> http://java.dzone.com/articles/jsonorg-license-literally-says <comment><USER2> The JSON spec is no longer exclusively under this license as it's part of both the ECMA 5 specification and formalised under RFC 4627 so the "do good not evil" tidbit (which, by the way, SQLite - <http://www.sqlite.org/different.html> also mentions) to me, doesn't appear to apply.

Can we get over this and move on? Anyone would think a lot of people were swindled of something that was clearly not ill-intended.

<comment><USER3> jslint (and it's derivatives) are still under this license.

(which is a shame, because this clause makes it incompatible with the GPL family of licenses).

<comment><USER4> I happened to come across that clause last week and tracked down some humorous commentary by jslint's author:

      Douglas: That's an interesting point. Also about once a year, I get a
      letter from a lawyer, every year a different lawyer, at a company--I don't
      want to embarrass the company by saying their name, so I'll just say their
      initials--IBM...

      [laughter]

      ...saying that they want to use something I wrote. Because I put this on
      everything I write, now. They want to use something that I wrote in
      something that they wrote, and they were pretty sure they weren't going to
      use it for evil, but they couldn't say for sure about their customers. So
      could I give them a special license for that?

      Of course. So I wrote back--this happened literally two weeks ago--"I give
      permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for
      evil."

[http://www.mail-archive.com/debian- legal%40lists.debian.org/...](http://www.mail-archive.com/debian- legal%40lists.debian.org/msg40723.html)

<comment><USER5> His javascript minifier 'jsmin' was causing projects to get removed from Google Code and other places that only host open source code, so I emailed Mr. Crockford to ask if I could get the same extension he gave to IBM. His response was less than thrilling-

 _I released to free use for all with the only condition that it not be used for evil. If that is unacceptable to you, then you may not use it. Your options are to bend to the pro-evil fanatics, or to find a more reasonable hosting solution._

Ultimately I wrote my own called JShrink (which I just moved to github this weekend - <https://github.com/tedivm/JShrink>).

The point being, he's not actually willing to make the change.

<comment><USER4> Nice work. Google also reimplemented jsmin as jsmin.py here: <https://github.com/v8/v8/blob/master/tools/jsmin.py>

Now we just need an evil-friendly reimplementation of jslint.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> People may make light of this, but as the dzone.com article points out, it's what's known as a Field of Use limitation [1], and it's an actual problem.

The "good" vs "evil" thing is perhaps a red herring, but you can imagine the practical consequences if "free" software developers licensed their work for all purposes except competitors, etc.

The Free Software Foundation raised this issue in the context of royalty-free patent licenses years ago [2], and the Open Source Initiative went so far as to say that if a license allowed for a "Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" then it wasn't an open source license at all [3].

I'm sure D. Crockford didn't do this to be malicious in any way, likely he even did it just to be cute, (maybe he even meant well by it!), but it's also a shame that it's persisted this long, as it sets a bad example for others.

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-of-use_limitation
      [2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html
      [3] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html

<comment><USER7> What a rotten shame that an author decided what he did or didn't want others to do with the fruit of his labours. As you point out, this sets a _bad example for others_.

Seriously? He's an adult, he makes his choices, if it means people prefer other, fully free software that doesn't necessitate lawerly wrangling, so what?

His software isn't free, and I'm fine with that, he did the work, he decides what we can or cannot do with it.

<http://raganwald.posterous.com/the-freedom-to-drink-coffee>

<comment><USER6> Sure, but his making this choice means that his work is incompatible with the much larger body of already-established work. His decision is his own, but it's a direction I wouldn't want others to follow, since we all benefit more from the common adoption of a smaller handful of mutually compatible open source licenses.

(Being legally allowed to remix code across projects is one of the great things about the OSI model. There are some silos within open source, such as copyleft vs permissive licenses, but at least each of those are already big enough sustain their own ecosystems.)

<comment><USER8> Tricky tricky. Is it evil to release software that may not be used for evil?

<comment><USER9> If so, would that make it illegal to redistribute code with a license like this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I remember a talk of Crockford, where he explained that. He also explained that it worried IBM lawyers, to the point that he signed them a document "authorizing IBM to do evil with his software".

<comment><USER11> Here is a clip from that talk where he mentions IBM contacting him. Pretty funny. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA>

<comment><USER12> An hour long video by Douglas Crockford where he explains about the licence somewhere after 40-45 minutes i think. <http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Heretical-Open-Source>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > _But, the most important thing I take away from this license is that this > additional clause adds an unnecessary complication…_

The standard (and correct) response to this is that if you don't like the license either don't use the code or negotiate (as IBM have done in this specific case) alternate terms.

> _one that many people don't even know is lurking in their dependency tree._

That is a due diligence failing on the part of those people, rather than a problem with this specific license. If you don't know that this clause is relevant to your dependencies then what else might be hidden in there that you are unaware of?

A bit like the "blue M&Ms" (and other such) found in the riders for celebrities, they do that as a test to make sure people have bothered to read the information provided rather than any real need for the specific demand to be complied with.

</comment><comment><USER14> I saw this license buried within the iOS "Settings -> General -> About -> Legal Notices".

So I guess neither Apple nor any iPhone-owning user may use the phone for evil.

<comment><USER15> Well, what if they do? Would they get sued for at least two crimes? How silly.

<comment><USER16> There's a common mistake - assuming "evil" is a crime. (and it's obvious counterpart, that "good" can not be a crime)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> JSMin was removed from Google Code because of this licence. Douglas Crockford explains the reasoning behind the license: <http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt- welcome-on-google-code>

<comment><USER7> Courtesy @llimllib:

      "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." site:http://code.google.com
      yields 35k results, they've got a lot of banning to do

<comment><USER18> The problem with this license is that this phrase is simply there to be cute. There is no legal definition of Evil and I don't see how you can come up with one. It accomplishes nothing other than making the license incompatible with other licenses and adding uncertainty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have been using similar license with my freeware apps for some time <http://www.rw-designer.com/entry/315>

I think when giving something away for free, it does not hurt to try to make the world a little better...

<comment><USER20> You're not making the world better though. Evil people will ignore your warning, and, if you're releasing as open source, people who are serious about licenses can't integrate your code with other stuff because of the "weird" license that doesn't make sense (who gets to define "evil"?).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've been thinking about this problem with law a bit lately. It seems like our laywers & politicians want every legal question to be completely decidable, and this attitude leaks into popular culture too (or is it the other way around?), hence this article's preoccupation with the fact that good or evil intent cannot (as far as we know) be identified by any mechanical process.

This type of thing is of course a problem in computer science, but _the law is not a computer_ , and I wish we could stop treating it like one. With humans involved, it's quite feasible to make decisions about undecidable things. This process is called exercising judgement, and we hire judges to do it. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is with a "don't be evil" clause. Pretty much everyone understands what it means in most any given circumstance, even if we can't write down a decision procedure for it.

I understand that part of the motivation here is the urge to CYA and offload all accountability for bad decisions from people to "the law". Not sure what to do about that.

Further reading: [http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120...](http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all) ; appeared on HN yesterday; from paragraph 7, argues that these attitudes are partly responsible for the current incarceration problem in America.

(I wonder, can we make a proof of the undecidability of the good-vs-evil problem? I don't think it'll be as easy as for the halting problem; we know how to make a program halt or not halt, but it's unclear how to make a program "do something evil" or "do something good".)

<comment><USER22> The law should be predictable. This is obviously also not perfectly attainable, but we should not deliberately put ambiguities in there. Unpredictable laws directly lead to rule by men (as opposed to rule by law) and there's a lot of history and tradition on why that is undesirable.

<comment><USER21> Very good point. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Well there goes my evil scheme to take over the world with a lightweight, text-based open standard. CURSE YOU LICENSING AGREEMENT!!!!

<comment><USER24> +1000 for Dr. Doofenshmirtz allusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."

Surly this is just a statement of fact. That once embedded in your software, you program will be considered Good.

It doesn't change the line above which grants the user the rights to use the software "without restriction"

</comment><comment><USER26> This would also appear to violate the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), clause 6, and possibly 5.

<http://www.debian.org/social_contract>

... and there's a reimplimentation, jsmin.py:

[http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google- code#comm...](http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google- code#comment-5681)

(Joey Hess is a long-time Debian developer).

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't understand why this poses a problem, even for lawyers. The clause is clearly unenforcible so why can't it just be ignored? Is there seriously some concern that a judge would decide that it is enforcible?

</comment><comment><USER28> But how can the Javascript Object Notation have a license? It's part of the Javascript language isn't? So we cannot use javascript objects for evil or?

</comment><comment><USER29> Google won't have any problems then.

<comment><USER30> Iff "don't be evil" = "don't do evil".

<comment><USER29> Evil is as evil does. Or are you suggesting that it's possible to be evil without doing evil, or vice versa?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you do evil despite such a license, and get caught, are you forced to undo it?

</comment><comment><USER32> isn't it also has an exemption for "IBM and their minions" to do evil with json?

</comment><comment><USER33> Good for who?

<comment><USER34> whom _

<comment><USER33> Sorry, English is my 4th foreign language. However, for more than some decades, both is gramatically correct (unlike in my native language where you actually have to use declinations).

Anyway, it was a serious question.

<comment><USER26> While we're at it: "both are grammatically correct", would be grammatically and homographically correct, though counterfactual.

But yes, the license does raise some rather intractable problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> So the TSA and CIA cannot use it?

</comment><comment><USER36> More emo trash on Hacker News. 4chan invasion?</comment>


Apple Watch Series 5 - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apple-unveils-apple-watch-series-5/ <comment><USER2> > all-day 18-hour battery life.

Is there a standard for what "all-day" means? I think most would initially assume 24 hours, but thinking about it more, it seems reasonable to consider "can work from wake up to sleep" or "can work from sunup to sundown"/

<comment><USER3> I quite like the idea of a smart watch, but having to charge it every day is much less appealing.

<comment><USER4> I agree with this sentiment. But then I discovered the Fitbit has a 7 day battery life. That's a game changer.

<comment><USER5> I got a Fitbit for this reason but I've been incredibly dissatisfied with the quality. I'm now on my 3rd device in ~6 months. First one stopped taking a charge, second the screen went out. Hopefully the 3rd time is the charm

<comment><USER6> Try a Garmin Forerunner or Fenix.

My wife and I have had the same bad luck with most wearables. I went through 3 MS bands, she went through 2 fitbits and all of them physically broke.

I had a Motorola Android Wear and Polar M600, both of which degraded to less than 24 hours of battery life after less than a year of ownership of each.

I have a Garmin 645M, which I've had since launch, and it still works fine and has days of battery life, even when doing morning runs listening to spotify from the watch. I finally convinced my wife to try a Garmin 245, and she hasn't destroyed it yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Only reason I don't have an Apple Watch is because you can't stream Spotify over cellular, you need to have your phone with you. What's the point? I want to go for a run and stream music with just the watch to my Bluetooth headphones. I don't need the watch if I have to bring my phone with me.

<comment><USER8> You can stream Apple Music over WiFi/cellular without the phone. Not sure if that will include Spotify at some point but I do know the new watchOS has opened up a lot of those APIs.

<comment><USER7> That's nice, but I already pay for spotify and use it on my non-Apple devices. Does Apple Music let me stream any song in their library?

<comment><USER9> Yes. Apple Music is just like Spotify.

<comment><USER7> Oh, huh. Thanks for the info, might open up the watch for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For me, the single biggest problem with Apple Watch is battery life, and they seem to have done nothing to improve it.

Garmin has always-on, reflective screen watches that can last for weeks on a single charge. I shouldn't need to babysit my watch.

<comment><USER11> I'm curious, does anyone with more knowledge know how Garmin are able to get so much more battery life out of their watches? Their official spec definitely lists "2 weeks" in "Smartwatch Mode" (which seems to be GPS disabled, but still heart rate tracking and similar).

It is impressive and I'm curious why Apple cannot compete.

<comment><USER12> > I'm curious, does anyone with more knowledge know how Garmin are able to get > so much more battery life out of their watches?

Yes, I can.

I have a Garmin 5 Plus and the reason it can get such great battery life is it's ####ing massive, with most of the volume devoted to battery. It also doesn't do a bunch of the stuff that the Apple Watch does, with all wireless connectivity requiring Bluetooth sync to your phone.

It's fairly rugged and a decent enough watch but, unless you're outdoors all the time, I wouldn't recommend it: it's bulky and somewhat ugly. I've stopped wearing it because I didn't find it that motivating in terms of keeping fit: ironically I did better before I got it, and am doing better again now I've stopped wearing it.

Also, that battery life tanks the moment you switch on GPS: then you'll be down to about 24 hours.

Overall I'd describe Garmin smartwatches as highly overrated.

<comment><USER13> I could also never get my Fenix 5 to give me acceptably accurate distances on twisty mountain trails. And, as you say, even as a big guy it's just too bulky a watch to wear day to day. Maybe I'll get another someday but my tracking needs are mostly just hiking distances and the Apple Watch eorks for that plus being nice as a day to day watch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> While I am looking to upgrade to the Series 5 from a Series 1, I'm disappointed in the lack of native sleep tracking functionality... it's a glaring hole in the concept of overall health tracking.

Similarly, I'd hoped they would announce some standardization to weightlifting in HealthKit. The watch and iphone health options are very cardio-centric, and every weightlifting app has implemented their own internal 1RM tracking which should be at an OS-level instead.

<comment><USER15> I've been using the app called AutoSleep (I think it was like $5) and it's pretty awesome. You can even export your own data. Highly recommended.

Obviously not a solution to the native sleep tracking issue but definitely good for what's available right now.

<comment><USER16> Use this as well. Great app! Found that I need to sleep more :).

<comment><USER15> Haha I found out the same thing. Has been the most impactful purchase on my personal health in the recent years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Perhaps it's naive of me to think that Apple will ever detach the Watch from the Phone and allow set up and full use cases for users who don't have an iPhone. I'd definitely buy a cellular enabled Apple Watch and ditch my phone if possible.

<comment><USER18> This is exactly why I purchased the Apple Watch. I leave my phone at home more often than not. The Watch does just basic comms and I've removed notifications of everything else. It's the essential communication/navigation device that I need and all I really want. For anything else I'd much rather open my laptop. Hoping one day it can be a standalone device.

<comment><USER19> _Hoping one day it can be a standalone device_

With all the watchOS 6 stuff that makes it more independent (App Store on watch, iPhone-less apps, etc), I was thinking this might be the year. Oh well, bet it happens next year.

<comment><USER18> I don't think it will ever happen if I'm honest. Would take away from iPhone sales.

<comment><USER20> I think this depends on whether other manufacturers go that route. Apple would rather have their own Watch cannibalize iPhone sales than some Android Wear gadget.

<comment><USER21> It looks like their long term strategy, i.e. put smartphone functionality into a watch, put tablet functionality into a phone, put laptop functionality into a tablet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is probably off topic for the S5 release, but I keep sort of hoping for a smartwatch I don't have to wear as a watch.

Because I wear a nice watch already. It only tells the time, but it's also jewelry. A lot of us still want a mechanical watch on our wrists.

So where does that leave us if we also want what the Apple Watch offers, but aren't willing to displace our nice analog timepieces?

Sure, I could make an Apple _PocketWatch_ (and it's tempting, since iPhone is now available only in "big" or "huge") but one of the most interesting things is the sensors on your skin and vibration as notification.

Maybe you could wear it on your ankle like a convict under house arrest?

<comment><USER23> Can't you just turn off the auto-lock and remove the straps? I think you can even get "amputated " strap ends.

Boom - timepiece.

<comment><USER22> That's what I was thinking of for a PocketWatch more or less. Take off the straps, somehow attach a chain to the spring bars or whatever the Apple Watch uses.

Probably needs more fashion-hacking than that, but as the phone is more stand- alone capable... one day I'm sure it'll have some ride-share apps built in, and at that point it'd be enough for a night on the town, right?

<comment><USER24> Those exist, and that's actually what's kind of fun about the watch - you can play with the strap structure:

[https://www.bucardo.com/collections/pocket- watch](https://www.bucardo.com/collections/pocket-watch)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Scrolling down there's the Nike and Hermes editions. Maybe this is a cultural difference between here (Frankfurt) and elsewhere - I fail to understand how one would willingly pay extra to advertise a brand. The way I see it is that Nike for example should pay ME to wear their branding.

And even then I wouldn't. I'm not a walking billboard.

<comment><USER26> Would you wear a Nike band for $3M a year?

<comment><USER25> That is a sufficient amount to turn me into a walking billboard, yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> No sleep tracking, no SpO2 sensor.

They must be working on this, it would perfectly well into their health theme, and they bought Beddit.

Another year.

<comment><USER28> It doesn't have enough battery life to last through the night if you've worn it all day. They probably intentionally don't have sleep tracking to avoid emphasizing that.

<comment><USER29> It probably does have enough battery life if my watch is any indicator. And if it doesn't a small change to your daily routine, such as charging your watch both at night while you prepare for bed as well as in the morning while you get ready for the day, will make getting through the day + night no problem. You get most of a charge in something like 30 minutes.

<comment><USER16> I don't understand why so many are saying that sleep tracking is a problem? My series 4 taking up 10-20% over night. Then I charge it for a bit in the morning before going to work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is it just me, or has the surge in popularity of smart watches also caused a surge in the popularity of regular watches too?

Speaking of myself, I bought a Pebble watch back in 2013 or so. I quickly realized I liked wearing a watch. Then I also realized I really only needed the time function. I then went from the Pebble to a Seiko mechanical. Now I have no smart watches and about ten different mechanical and quartz watches.

The main reasons I prefer conventional watches: 1) They come in a much wider array of styles 2) They don't run out of power on long flights and leave you without your time reference right when you need it the most 3) They are generally cheaper 4) Some of them, like my Casios, have great features that work offline, like a digital compass, thermometer, altimeter ... all powered by solar! 5) To me (and this is a matter of personal preference) they look better 6) There are a lot of closet wristwatch nerds lurking in tech companies. Once you start wearing a Seiko mechanical, for example, you will soon get comments from other undercover watch nerds. I actually enjoy this random camaraderie.

<comment><USER31> I like Withings watches, they last 30 days and have tracking I like (HR & Sleeping) but no fancy display or anything like that. Design is also much nicer than any other smart watches I've seen.

<comment><USER32> Could you share your experience with Withings ? I love their looks but I have wondered about the accuracy . I use my Fitbit Ionic mostly for tracking my daily calories burned. I was looking at Withings but I saws on message boards that it seemed to have having difficulty calculating calories. Is this still true?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a frequent traveler the emergency calling feature in so many countries without needing to sign up for another service is pretty dang cool. I was in an apartment in Eastern Europe sleeping when the kitchen caught on fire, luckily I woke up from the crackling of the walls/roof and no alarms went off. Luckily I had memorized the local emergency number and had a local sim (I don't always if I'm not in a place long enough) and was able to call the emergency services but it could have easily gone the wrong way. Sometimes seconds count and you don't want to be googling a local emergency number

<comment><USER33> 112 for Europe

<comment><USER34> Wait, it isn't 0118 999 881 999 119 725 3 any more?

<comment><USER35> An IT Crowd reference.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab8GtuPdrUQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab8GtuPdrUQ)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I like the compass! It's nerdy, but I like to carry one when navigating an unknown city, and I find it very helpful.

<comment><USER37> Don't you already have a compass in your phone?

<comment><USER38> Most of the Apple Watch features and apps are in the phone. Still nice to have them on your wrist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Is Google still committed to Wear OS? They're so far behind.

<comment><USER40> I wish Apple would make their watch work with Android phones, similar to how they made iPods work with Windows computers way back when.

<comment><USER24> Or make them independent of the phone. It looks like iOS 13 takes some steps towards that independence. I'd honestly like to have a watch _instead_ of my phone.

<comment><USER7> Exactly. We want the watch instead of the phone, not in addition to. And I'd like them both to use the same account and number. Why don't these companies get it? They'll probably shut down the divisions and say "nobody wanted wearables" despite never having unchained them as consumers desire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Finally with an always on display, but otherwise mostly a spec bump and new finish release.

<comment><USER2> Titanium as an option is worth calling out as well. The navigation stuff seems like it could be more fully-featured in the future (would be cool to get Google maps-esque nav directions on my watch instead of keeping my phone in my hand, for example).

<comment><USER42> You can get turn by turn on Watch without a phone.

<comment><USER2> But can I look at my Watch, see the map and an indicator of the direction I'm currently facing? I assumed the directional indicator required an internal compass, but maybe I'm wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I actually hope Apple had a "Watch Lite" version. Because I don't need all the features Watch provides, I just want a smart watch that track my sports activities and health, I DON'T NEED the retina display, multimedia apps or ability to take phone calls, let my phone do those things and just keep the watch minimal and only act as a brilliant health monitor on my wrist

<comment><USER44> Mi Band is pretty good for the price.

Th app is so so, I am trying to work out if I can get the raw data from it. It does sync with a load of other apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is a big let down for me. I love endurance sports and currently use a S3+LTE with bluetooth headphones and it's the perfect running companion. I don't have to carry anything to track to run and listen to my music, podcasts, or audiobooks.

But I was really expecting more innovation from the "by innovation only" event. Garmin's flagship watch has a feature that extends the battery life by embedded TWO SOLAR PANELS into the display. That is innovation.

[https://buy.garmin.com/en-CA/CA/p/641375](https://buy.garmin.com/en- CA/CA/p/641375)

<comment><USER46> _"Garmin 's flagship watch has a feature that extends the battery life"_

By about 15%, according to that page. Anybody know how realistic Garmin's battery estimates normally are or have a pointer to a real world test? I find it hard to believe that a watch's face would be facing the sun a lot, even when not wearing a coat or long-sleeved shirt.

<comment><USER47> I have a Garmin FR 945, keep most sensors on all the time. I used it on a 2-day, 25 mile hike while recording everything and using its navigation and maps to figure out where I was on the trail for a good chunk of it, about 11-12 hours of recording, and it still didnt hit low battery by the end of the next day.

Generally I charge it every night or every other night so I don't know how long it stacks up against its estimates, but with some activities sprinkled in I think it's fair to say that a "1 week" estimate is closer to "4-5 days" if you're active, depending on how long you're actively recording activities for during that time. As a plain smart-watch without tracking an activity or listening to music, it's down about 10% at the end of the day on those sedentary days, so I think that's pretty in line with its numbers

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> "International emergency calling also works with fall detection, if enabled, to automatically place an emergency call if Apple Watch senses the user has taken a hard fall and remains motionless for about a minute."

I like how they have thought, don't need a sim to make an emergency call, let alone credit, why not add the ability to call emergency services and use the GPS to pick the right local number.

Equally the safety feature for older people is great initiative, though I do feel for younger users, this may cause some false positives and produce an unhappy ending when suddenly your watch has called the emergency services because you had a rest after some form of exercise.

With that in mind, I'd imagine that during that minute a countdown upon the display starts and audible alert of about to call the emergency services - just to limit false positives taking up emergency services time. Also for legit cases, would offer reassurance to somebody who may be incapacitated but able to hear. Maybe they do have that, not sure, and will find out come an in depth review.

<comment><USER38> I'm pretty sure that fall detection only activates when it senses rapid acceleration. Just because you stop moving doesn't mean you'll trigger fall detection.

<comment><USER49> Everyone knows what you mean, but the technically accurate account is that during normal use or while sitting still on a desk, the device's accelerometer registers an acceleration of approximately 1 g directed towards the center of the earth, and when the phone starts falling, the acceleration drops to approximately 0.

(Then the acceleration will asymptotically approach 1 g again as the device's velocity approaches terminal velocity, but well before then the software will have determined that the device is in free fall.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I love my Series 3 Apple Watch, with a data plan.

I now usually leave my iPhone at home. I am trying to follow a digital minimalism program, following slow media ideas, and using digital devices for highly productive activities, not to waste time.

I find AirPods work really well with my Apple Watch, no iPhone lifestyle.

<comment><USER51> What do you do with the AirPods? I thought the watch could not yet stream music without a phone.

<comment><USER52> You can do this with Apple Music, and once watchOS 6 is out, with many other apps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> > it's easy to see the time and other important information, without raising > or tapping the display

> the screen intelligently dims when a user's wrist is down and returns to > full brightness with a raise or a tap

These two statements seem somewhat contradictory.

<comment><USER54> Well I assume you can still see it when it's dimmed, however if you can't, you can simply lift your wrist.

<comment><USER55> So it still does the wrist motion detection thing.

I wonder if you can turn this feature off so that it behaves like the previous Apple Watch and save more battery.

<comment><USER56> Based on how carefully they worded it during the keynote, I'd say yes for sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Hard to beat the watches Garmin is making. 18 hour battery life isn't great compared to the fenix series with a _week_ of battery life. And the features don't even come close.

<comment><USER58> The Fenix is also $900. For that price you could buy two Apple Watches to switch out when one is charging and still have money left in your pocket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I very much want this, but I very much don't want to buy an iPhone when my pixel 2 still works as well as the day I got it.

</comment><comment><USER60> Always on display, but 18 hours of battery life? I'd rather have a display that turns of and 36 hours of battery life.

<comment> 52-6F-62 I'd definitely appreciate being able to change it as a setting.

Is there a hardware reason that couldn't have been implemented?

<comment><USER61> Nope they're just taking advantage of the OLED screen which only turns on the pixels it needs to, I doubt you could double the battery life by turning off always on... you might get 2-3 more hours out of it.

<comment><USER62> 2-3 hours is still a lot when you're only getting 18, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> This is one of the places where Apple could test new Battery Tech.

People seems to value things very differently, so for iPhone, they valued it as a Phone, when it is more like a Pocket Computer with very decent Camera. But they still see it as a Phone, so $1099 is expensive.

When it comes to Watches, we are used to seeing Super expensive watches, I don't ever see people ( General Public, not tech nerds ) comparing Apple Watch with what ever Digital Watches, like Gear Watch. And for this reason Apple Watch is affordable to many.

And I see it is very much possible for Apple to bump the price and include Solid Battery or some other form of Breakthrough Battery technology along with Super fast Charging.

I wouldn't mind spending $1099 if it had 3x Battery Capacity and Super Fast Charging.

</comment><comment><USER64> How does that ambient light sensor behind screen works?

</comment><comment><USER65> They mentioned that the Series 3 will start at $199. What about the Series 4? I hope they don't discontinue it, since this is the model I would plan to get. Bigger screen, but not the top-tier pricing of the Series 5.

<comment><USER66> The Series 4 is now officially discontinued. I'd set up an alert for the refurb store.

<comment><USER65> Out of curiosity, using what service?

I have wondered if they use the refurb store to clear out new inventory at a discount, but retaining more revenue than if they sold to a retailer. By officially discontinuing a product, they can force (most) people into buying one of the new models.

Protip: the extended warranty that comes with buying something with a credit card DOES NOT APPLY to refurb purchases. That means if you buy a refurb, or even if Apple swaps your device for a refurb when you take it in for service, you can't utilize the extended warranty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I love the watch - but its painfully tied to location - due to the lack of space inside it (US watches - don't work in Europe) - has this watch been updated ? [https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/can-i-use-apple- watch-l...](https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/can-i-use-apple-watch-lte-in- different-country-where-i-have-bought-it.2104119/)

</comment><comment><USER68> Am I correct that if a Watch user goes far away from his/her phone, receives a SMS during that period of time, and then comes back, the notification is never shown on the Watch?

If so, how come this is not a #1 issue Apple needs to address? The Watch is then unreliable for notifications and doesn't eliminate the need to check the phone from time to time. I'm amazed this is not talked about.

<comment><USER69> If your watch has WiFi or Cellular connectivity while away from iPhone, it will show you the notification, and will even let us reply (iMessage)

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> The Watch does too much. I love the Fitbit Versa because it helps me get off my phone. Just important notifications and reading texts and that's it. I can't really "do" much on it except glance at notifications and that's exactly what I want. Helped me keep my phone in another room in the house or in my bag at work and not look at it at all.

<comment><USER39> Most of the Apple Watch complexity is only disclosed if you go out of your way to find it by pressing the crown and going to the home screen. I do think it's a bit much though that Breathe notifications are "important" in that they're on by default.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I wonder how they solved adding the magnetometer without interference with the magnets used for the charging cable?

<comment><USER72> I feel like it has something to do with electromagnets. Perhaps the charging magnet is only magnetic when electrified? Does that even make sense?

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> It looks like they dropped the stainless steel case. Too bad, that was always my favorite.

<comment><USER41> They haven't dropped it, it's available in black, gold finish, and black pvd finish... they've added titanium and brought back ceramic but otherwise the finishes are unchanged.

<comment><USER73> It was the polished stainless that I liked though, and that's not there.

<comment><USER74> It says they have stainless in silver. Pretty sure that means polished. They said polished on stage.

<comment><USER41> Yup, I think they specifically referred to polished steel in the keynote as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> What about sensitive information on compilations that were hidden in the old tap to wake up screen mode from before?

Imagine a calendar event entry on the watch face you didn't want the world to see but now that it's always on it will be shown.

<comment><USER76> some complications "hide" when the watch is locked now (Fantastical's "next calendar event" being one of them). I'm guessing it'll support something similar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> The battery issue with smartwatches drives me nuts. My Citizen uses a solar panel, and it's been ticking for years. It should last about 20 without needing a change of battery/capacitor.

</comment><comment><USER78> "...so it's easy to see the time and other important information, without raising or tapping the display." Did the whole watch industry for at least 150 + years...truly innovative

</comment><comment><USER79> So, the LTPO display is not new. It was introduced in the Series 4. What is not clear to me is whether in the low-refresh low-intensity mode it is still subject to burn-in.

</comment><comment><USER80> I still have 2 Pebbles working perfectly and I will continue to stick with those. I haven't seen much yet that makes me want to replace them. Perhaps I have simple needs but Always On Screen, Notifications (SMS, Email, Calender), Voice Messaging and the Ability to dial calls is all I need a smart watch to do. My Pebbles still do it with 5+ days of battery life. Outside of the bio features some people use I really feel a lot of smart watch features are looking for a problem to solve.

<comment><USER39> How's the user experience and polish of the OS?

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Have they solved OLED burnin? A static always-on watch face seems risky.

What do people think the lifetime of this is, 3 years? 10 years?

</comment><comment><USER82> What is the average lifespan of an iWatch? Paying over a 1k for a watch that may last 5-6 years seems not a good idea.

<comment><USER52> It'll probably not last you that long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Nice, but I just got myself a Casio F-91W

</comment><comment><USER84> I wish they would add a CO2 sensor, so everyone can monitor the health of the world they live in

</comment><comment><USER85> Can't they make something which looks more like a sportswatch or e.g. Rolex?

<comment><USER86> At this point the square design is "iconic" and they don't want to change it.

<comment><USER85> It doesn't look masculine nor feminine, and as such not "sexy".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> I wish someday Apple Watch can charge itself by harnessing the power of arm swing. I know some mechanical watches do that. Not sure though if it can gather enough power to sustain indefinitely.

<comment><USER88> That would be a lot of mechanism to jam into the already (IMO) oversized case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> Is it still water resistant?

<comment><USER39> Yup:

>Apple Watch Series 5 and Apple Watch Series 3 have a water resistance rating of 50 meters under ISO standard 22810:2010. This means that they may be used for shallow-water activities like swimming in a pool or ocean. However, they should not be used for scuba diving, waterskiing, or other activities involving high-velocity water or submersion below shallow depth.

[https://www.apple.com/watch/compare/?afid=p238%7CsR2VtjPIL-d...](https://www.apple.com/watch/compare/?afid=p238%7CsR2VtjPIL- dc_mtid_20925qtb42335_pcrid_381793516974&cid=-slid--- apple+watch+series+5+specs-e)

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> I have a Xiaomi Amazfit. Cost me 55€, and the battery lasts 15 days with an always on display. It has included GPS, compass, pressure meter, heart rate monitor and sleep monitoring.

Sincerely, other than looks (and I woild still not bring an Apple phone to more formal occasions just like I don't bring my Amazfit) I can't understand why anyone would pay 10x more for an iWatch not can I stand that I would have to charge it everyday.

<comment><USER91> Exactly. Actually, the Amazefit Bip can go even much longer (six weeks) if you don't use GPS daily and as a benefit, fully FLOSS (unofficial) companion app Gadgetbridge ( [http://gadgetbridge.org/](http://gadgetbridge.org/) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> > so it's easy to see the time

Revolutionary!

</comment><comment><USER93> A watch where the time is always visible. Hard to believe we have such tech in 2019.

</comment><comment><USER94> A compass, wow! That's what I have always wanted: a compass small enough to fit on my wrist.

</comment><comment><USER95> Does it make an automatic emergency call just before it runs out of battery?

<comment><USER52> Why would it do that?

<comment><USER96> So the paramedics can bring you a charger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> I find the current generation of smartwatches a complete waste of money. Other than the signaling factor of the iwatch, i found it annoying and utterly useless. Between the wrist-shock vibration (hey my phone is already vibrating in my pocket) to the annoying "breathe" app, this is by far the worst apple product i ve used. But it's not their fault, it's a problem with the genre. Between the daily-recharge hassle, the inability to have an always-on screen, the lack of a killer app and its relative fragility , watches like these are doomed. I much prefer the $30 xiaomi mi band as a sort-of tracker.

(this is just my opinion)</comment>


Show HN: StackCrunch – A platform to share your development experiences - <AUTHOR> Hello HN,
My name is Deepak. I've created this platform (https://stackcrunch.io) where developers can share their experiences in form of short stories linked to real-world practical solutions on Q&A platforms.
This project is currently in early access mode, where you can check out the platform & start writing your stories.
Also, please do check out the launch article and how to create a story at https://stackcrunch.io/posts
I'd love to hear back from the community.
Warm Regards, Deepak <comment><USER2> This looks like a fun product! One thing though, I am not a huge fan of the long transitions when activating the colored cubes on the right. They take like five seconds to activate, and it makes the experience kind of frustrating and painful!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi @eat_veggies, thanks for checking out my project.

I admit I was having too much fun with threejs & react-motion, that I forgot how it would feel for the first time user. It does indeed feel a little slow. I'm working on a few other animations to make it more snappy.

Please do check out the launch article as well. I'd love to get your feedback! (link in description) :)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi! Just added a twitter account for stackcrunch - [https://twitter.com/stackcrunchio](https://twitter.com/stackcrunchio) Will post all updates there.</comment>


Benchmarking Http4k, Ktor (Kotlin) and Actix (Rust) Microservices - <AUTHOR> https://matej.laitl.cz/bench-rust-kotlin-microservices/ <comment><USER2> I would like to just point out, the actual bottlekneck is not the framework which many frameworks and blogs tend to put on their cover photo, but the logic, database, 3rd party APIs or other micro services. Please do look into them before optimising your framework aggressively, even if you use a framework written in Godslang and your database can answer only 5 Req/sec its no use. As a young developer I was there, and now I speak of experience that framework Benchmarks dont workout in real world as expected. New comers beware.</comment>


Bulk Email Solution? - <AUTHOR>

Hey,
 I am looking a solution to email our customers. I am aware of MailChimp however I do not want it to sound like marketing email but rather a personalized email.<p>What do you think are the options for me ? <comment><USER2> [http://www.mandrill.com](http://www.mandrill.com)

It's a spinoff of Mailchimp targeted at transactional e-mail although you can use it for marketing mails too.

</comment><comment><USER3> Amazon SES [http://aws.amazon.com/ses/](http://aws.amazon.com/ses/)

</comment><comment><USER4> drip (.io?)</comment>


MARS-500 - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500 <comment><USER2> _" Marina Tugusheva, the only woman of the crew, was excluded from the longer missions, to prevent sexual tension from jeopardising the mission."_

Thats from the year 2009 folks! Depressing :(

She put it best

 _" Anyone who's ready to participate in space exploration should treat it as serious work. Quite consciously we must treat others as not men and women but as colleagues"_ [1]

[1] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1165837/Women...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1165837/Women- excluded-Mars-mission-crew-prevent-sexual-tension-ruining-105-day-voyage.html)

<comment><USER3> And as we have seen in catholic monasteries, suppressing sexual desire works really well. Oh wait...

I'm not saying its a valid reason to exclude women, but denying that the issue exists is not the best comeback to that argument.

<comment><USER4> Nuns suppress sexual desire and I haven't heard of any fallout from that. Maybe it exists and it's just not well publicized?

<comment><USER5> Years of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of children perpetrated by nuns in Ireland don't make you think there's maybe something about some manifestations of nunnery that are harmful?

(Although I agree that this is a bullshit reason used to exclude women from anything. See also the Mecury 13 - a bunch of women who did the same astronaut tests as men, often outperforming those men, who were denied astronaut status because that could only go to military test pilots, and they could only be recruited from military fighter pilots, and they could only be men. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_13) [http://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/flats.html](http://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/flats.html) )

<comment><USER6> Orphanages and prisons have along history of abuse, regardless of the private sexual behavior of the staff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I suppose this is on the front page because NASA just began a similar experiment.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11832279/Nasa-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11832279/Nasa- Mars-isolation-experiment-starting-in-Hawaii.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> The closest experiment to Mars is the space station right? How long do people stay up there?

<comment><USER9> The typical stay on the ISS is about six months, however there is currently an ongoing mission for astronauts Scott Kelly and Mikhail Korniyenko to stay on station for a total of 342 days.

This still does not exceed the 437 day stay by Valeri Vladimirovich Polyakov (on the Russian space station Mir)</comment></comment>


Orbiter: Simple, extendable PHP tool publishes beautiful sites from text files - <AUTHOR> http://viaorbiter.com/

<comment><USER2> Am I right in thinking that you could easily hook up a folder in dropbox with text files and have these automatically compiled and served up on a website?</comment>


YouTube restricts 'creepy' videos aimed at children - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41942306 <comment><USER2> As mentioned in the article, most of the videos being discussed don't contain violent or sexual content - and I can understand age restricting that material, since I suspect it was never targeted to children to begin with.

But, I don't believe "creepiness" alone a valid reason to restrict content to children, if it's _adults_ , not children, who find the content upsetting. Unless there's evidence of actual harm being done, then it seems that this content is serving a legitimate market need for parents who want something to babysit their kids, but who don't actually care about its intellectual or educational content.

And I find it a bit odd, given how blatantly these videos seem to violate copyright, that Google hasn't banned them outright, particularly given Google's own unwillingness to even defend fair use of copyrighted material in reviews and parodies elsewhere.</comment>


Coding Horror: Monty Hall, Monty Fall, Monty Crawl - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001278.html <comment><USER3> "Some objected to the way I asked the question...."

Here Atwood links to a very insightful blog post by Paul Buchheit: [http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2009/01/question-is- wrong.h...](http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2009/01/question-is-wrong.html)

To continue the quote:

"...but it was a simple question asked in simple language."

Yes, a simple question, with two perfectly valid interpretations, as described by Buchheit. When I first read the question, I interpreted it the "wrong" way. The simple language that is used to ask the question is _too_ simple, to the point of not being specific.

"I think what they're really objecting to is how unintuitive the answer is."

No sir. I am in fact objecting to the wording.

<comment><USER4> I interpreted it the "wrong" way too. I thought about it like this: Instead of telling me that there is a girl or a boy tell me only that "1 + 1 = 2" and then ask me what the odds of the mothers child are for being a boy. I'll say 50%. I don't care what the state of some other child, I just care what the state of the unknown is. Now, if he had said, "you ask a woman that has a random assortment of children if she has at least 1 girl and she answers 'yes', what are the odds that the other is a boy" THEN I would be fine with the problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm always surprised by how the Monty Hall problem (and other similar problems, like the Bellhop and the missing dollar) messes people up. It's really terribly simple when you consider that Monty is _adding information_ by acting non-randomly. The 3-door problem seems counter-intuitive to most people, so it is easier to imagine 10 doors-- after you choose, Monty opens 8 other empty doors, leaving one. It should be evident in this case that your choices are either a) to keep the original door, with a 1-in-10 chance of winning, or b) take the other 9 doors (8 of which are open) with a 9-in-10 chance of winning. Clearly, the winning move is to switch, and there's nothing counter-intuitive about it. People tend to let the details of the set-up get in the way of their seeing the structure of the problem. It's a cute puzzle, but it really shouldn't have confused Erdős.

<comment><USER6> I doubt Erdős was really confused. The Monty Hall problem is complicated because usually the person explaining it _tries_ to make it complicated by leaving out necessary information. Specifically, they often leave out that Monty _always_ opens an empty door and his choice of which empty door to open is done at random. Without those facts (which some but not all people take for granted) there is not enough information to solve the puzzle.

<comment><USER7> Why is Monty's choice of which empty door being random important? Isn't the fact that he always opens an empty door alone sufficient?

If you select the correct door, switching will yield an empty door.

If you select an empty door, switching will yield a prize.

You have a 2/3 chance of selecting an empty door, thus, 2/3 of the time, switching will grant you the prize.

<comment><USER8> The reason it's important is that the problem, as usually phrased, is a conditional probability problem. Say you picked door number 1. Given that Monty opened door number 3 and it's empty, what's the probability you'll win by switching?

Now suppose that Monty will always open the empty door as advertised, but he will also always prefer to open a door with the smaller number, if he has a choice of two empty doors to open. If that is how Monty always acts, then given that he's opened door number 3, your probability to win by switching is 100%, and not the usual 2/3. If he's opened door number 2, then your probability to win by switching is 1/2, not the usual 2/3.

If Monty will always choose which of the two empty door to open by random, then the probability to win by switching is indeed 2/3.

There is a way to phrase the problem differently, so that it becomes an unconditional probability problem, and then it doesn't matter how Monty chooses the empty door to open. One way to enforce this interpretation is to phrase it as follows: Suppose some player always chooses to switch. Over many attempts, what will be the approximate proportion of his wins? The answer will be 2/3. But that's not how the problem is usually phrased.

<comment><USER7> Oh, wow, you're completely right. That connection eluded me; thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _When told of this, Paul Erdos, one of the leading mathematicians of the 20th century, said, "That's impossible." Then, when presented with a formal mathematical proof of the correct answer, he still didn't believe it and grew angry. Only after a colleague arranged for a computer simulation in which Erdos watched hundreds of trials that came out 2-to-1 in favor of switching did Erdos concede that he was wrong._

Can somebody please verify this from source, seriously !!

<comment><USER5> Sure.

It's the main subject of Chapter 6 of "The Man Who Loved Numbers: The Story of Paul Erdős and the Search for Mathematical Truth", by Paul Hoffman. He quotes Andrew Vázsonyi (who introduced the problem to Erdős) and Ronald Graham (who provided the proof that finally convinced Erdős).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hey doesn't the Monty Fall problem also have the same answer as the Monty Hall problem - since the host falls and opens that door which always contains the goat, its same as saying that he knows which door contains the goat and opens that only.

Please correct me if I am wrong !

EDIT: Saw the soln in the pdf and not able to digest it though. Well if Erdos wasn't able to see it...

<comment><USER10> Well, I think most of the confusion comes from the way that Rosenthal ignores a key part of the Monty Fall problem.

In the monty fall problem, you first choose a random door. Assuming a random placement of the car and a random guess, you should have a 1/3 chance of choosing the correct door on your first guess, and therefore a 1/3 chance of winning _no matter what else happens_.

I believe what's really happening in this example is that the Rosenthal is allowing for a possibility that he doesn't explicitly mention: the chance that the host opens the wrong door, nullifying the game and ruining the show.

Since there is a 1/3 chance that you picked the right door, it's a probability of 2/3 that it is in one of the other two doors. The host accidentally opens one of the two remaining doors. Since the host _randomly_ chooses one of the remaining doors, the chance that _he_ picks the door with the car is 1/3. If he does that, the game is invalidated, so Rosenthal ignores that result.

Therefore, the chance that you picked the correct door is 1/3, and the chance that the remaining door is the correct one is 1/3 (the remaining third is the chance that the host ruined the game). Since those are equal probabilities, you end up with an even chance whether or not you switch.

<comment><USER11> What's actually interesting is linking this result back to Deal or No Deal.

This implies that if you got down to two briefcases on the show, with both the $1,000,000 and $1 left, it's a 50/50 chance of picking the million dollar case whether you switch or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm confused about why people argue that it is not necessarily 2/3.

I assume that the sample space is: [(b,b),(b,g),(g,b),(g,g)] where the four possible birth sequences are [(younger child is boy, older child is boy), (younger child is boy, older child is girl), (younger child is girl, older child is boy), (younger child is girl, older child is girl)] and the sequences are all equally likely.

So now if you ask, what is the probability that the person has a girl and a boy given that at least one of them is a girl, you can discard (b,b) from your sample space because you know that there is at least one girl.

Now your sample space is [(b,g),(g,b),(g,g)] and the odds that the person has a girl and a boy are 2/3.

<comment><USER8> The way you phrase it - "given that one of them is a girl" - the answer is 2/3.

The people who argue that it is not 2/3 and yet aren't confused are choosing a different interpretation of the problem. When your acquaintance tells you "one of my children is a girl", they interpret it not as pure information, so to speak, but as an event to condition on.

It's reasonable to suppose, for example, that your acquaintance could have said "one of my children is a girl" or "one of my children is a boy", and used the actual knowledge of his children's gender to pick one of the two possibilities to say (choosing randomly if it's a boy or a girl). In that case, the question becomes: given that he/she said "... a girl" rather than "... a boy", what is the probability that it's a girl and a boy?

In that case, the sample space becomes larger: to (b,b) etc. add also B or G, which is whether the acquaintance said "one of my children is a boy" or "... a girl". The possibilities are:

b,b,B: 1/4 (b,b,G is impossible) g,g,G: 1/4 (g,g,B is impossible) b,g,B: 1/8 b,g,G: 1/8 g,b,B: 1/8 g,b,G: 1/8

Now if you condition this sample space on the event "G", you rule out exactly half the possibilities, and the answer is 1/2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> A reframing which makes intuitive sense (to me):

There are two bucket containing a number of balls. A third of the balls contain iPhones inside, two-thirds contain only navel-fluff. The balls are mixed at random. You have to chose a single ball from one of the buckets.

Obviously the chance of any ball you pick to contain an iPhone is 1/3 regardless of which bucket you choose from - even if the buckets does not contain the same number of balls.

But when you decide on one bucket to pick from, the host takes the other bucket, and removes half of the balls. However, he doesn't remove balls at random - he primarily removes balls containing fluff.

After this you are allowed to reconsider your choice of bucket. I think it is pretty obvious now that there is a better chance of finding an iPhone if you chose from the other bucket, where the host have removed some of the fluff- balls.

The critical point in the Monty Hall problem is that the host eliminates a bad choice, but he always eliminates it from the set of doors you didn't chose. However, this is a subtle detail in how the store is told. If for example the host randomly choose between opening any door containing a goat - <USER2> potentially the one the protagonist chose if he happens to choose a door with a goat behind - then it doesn't improve the odds to choose a different door.

<comment><USER14> Everyone agrees that your odds get better. Most people intuitively guess that the odds go from 1/3 to 1/2. It's getting them to understand how you got to 2/3 that's the problem.

<comment><USER15> I found the easiest way was this: You pick door A, the host opens door B or C and offers to let you switch to door C or B. He is effectively letting you choose between either A alone (by sticking) or B & C together (by switching) - i.e. by switching you open two doors instead of one, hence twice the probability.

<comment><USER14> I've found that the most enlightening explanation is to increase the number of doors. What if the game is played with 100 doors, and the host opens 98 of them after you've chosen yours? At the start you only have a 1% chance of winning. Most people see right away that the host can't be increasing the odds to just 50% by opening so many doors. They don't always see the logic immediately, but at least they begin to question their intuition. Getting people to admit that they might be wrong is often the first step toward getting them to accept the correct answer. (That last sentence is a general observation that applies to a much wider range of problems.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> From the Jeffrey Rosenthal paper that Jeff Atwood suggests (<http://www.probability.ca/jeff/writing/montyfall.pdf>):

<Quote>

Nebulous Neighbours:

Your new neighbours have two children of unknown gender. From older to younger, they are equally likely to be girl-girl, girl-boy, boy-girl, or boy- boy. One day you catch a glimpse of a child through their window, and you see that it is a girl. What is the probability that their other child is also a girl?

Solution.

The probabilities that a glimpsed child will be a girl for each of the four possi- bilities (girl-girl, girl-boy, boy-girl, and boy-boy) are respectively 1, 1/2, 1/2, and 0. Since the probabilities must add to 1, the probabilities of these four possibilities are respectively 1/2, 1/4, 1/4, and 0. Hence, the probability is 1/2 that the other child is also a girl.

</Quote>

Can someone explain how glimpsing to one child and seeing that is a girl is different from hearing the parent saying that one child is a girl? How come and getting the same information from your eyes instead of your ears changes the probabilities? (1/2 for the other child to be a boy when seeing, 2/3 when hearing).

<comment><USER8> Seeing vs hearing is a red herring.

What really matters is whether information about one child being a girl fixes a particular child. It doesn't matter how the child is fixed (a popular variation is "I have two chilren and the older one is a girl"), but it does matter that out of the two children, it is now known about a specific one of them that it is a girl. In that case, out of 4 possibilities, 2 are ruled out, and the answer is 1/2.

If all that is known is that one of the children is a girl, only one possibility out of 4 is ruled out, and the answer is 2/3.

<comment><USER16> "If all that is known is that one of the children is a girl, only one possibility out of 4 is ruled out, and the answer is 2/3."

Well, that's the case when you glimpse from the window. Probably I'm wrong but I don't see why there is a fix, you still don't know if you see a G in GB or in BG or in GG

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "If all those Ph.D.s are wrong the country would be in serious trouble."

Yes. And yes.

</comment><comment><USER18> Monty Crawl: if you pick the 1st door and the host opens the 3rd door, you have 100% chance to win if you switch.

<comment><USER19> Yes. But if picks the second door, it no longer matters whether you switch or not.

Your final probability in Monty Crawl is still only winning 2/3, because you can't do better than an always switch strategy, and you will pick the winning door initially 1/3 of the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Can anyone confirm this article by Atwood is worth looking at?</comment>


The Cognitive Style of Unix - <AUTHOR> http://blog.vivekhaldar.com/post/3339907908

<comment><USER2> Dup: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229833>

Many, _many_ comments there.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry. Saw it just after i submitted.</comment></comment>


Windows zero‑day CVE‑2019‑1132 exploited in targeted attacks - <AUTHOR> https://www.welivesecurity.com/2019/07/10/windows-zero-day-cve-2019-1132-exploit/ <comment><USER2> Note this attack is for Windows 7 and 8 only.</comment>