Pornography sites found to be riddled with trackers from major tech companies - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/opinion/google-facebook-sex-websites.html <comment><USER3> I feel like all these articles follow a pattern: they take a common, well known aspect of technology (in this case, analytics trackers), search for any cases where a major tech company is involved, and come up with the most clickbaity headline possible ("Google and Facebook Are Quietly Tracking You on Sex Websites", when it's actually the website owners adding this tracking code in the first place, explicitly for the purpose of understanding user behaviour.) These headlines are then shared and reshared by nontechnical users, prompting outrage when there isn't a good reason for it.

<comment><USER4> > prompting outrage when there isn't a good reason for it.

Can you expand on why there's 'no good reason for it'?

The equivalent is my peering in your window to see and note down what you rub one out to... every time. And you don't know what I do with that information or where it will leak to.

That sounds perfectly fine to you, does it?

<comment><USER3> No, the equivalent is you walking into a store to buy DVDs, and the store manager keeping a record of what sells well, and what you show interest in, etc. to drive decisions about what to stock next.

<comment><USER5> ... and then cross-referencing your purchase with everything else you ever purchased. And also every article you ever read. And then selling that information to others.

<comment><USER6> ... and claiming it's not a privacy violation because they don't let the others search for martingoodson, they just offer selection criteria including your age, gender, geographical location, inferred income, inferred religion, inferred skin color, and of course interests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some privacy tips:

1\. Use firefox with multi-account containers, with each domain set to auto- open in a different container (google, gmail, amazon, facebook, youtube, etc.). Make sure you're logged into google only in the gmail container (and not in the google search container), etc.

2\. Use uMatrix and uBlock0, and enable limited third-party access using uMatrix dashboard only when a site breaks.

3\. Enable DNS over https in firefox

4\. Enable privacy.resistFingerprinting in firefox's about:config to thwart fingerprinting

5\. Use the tor browser for browsing porn (or any site you really do not want associated with your IP).

Edit: Added resistFingerprinting to the list.

<comment><USER8> One might think that since browsing privately and securely is such a pain point, there would be more than one product (firefox) to solve the issue. Any HN entrepreneur types out there reading these posts?

<comment><USER9> Practically speaking, you would have to use Chromium as a base, if you want the product to be successful. And if you do that, Google has a million ways to screw you up. One of the first obstacles you will find will be Widevine. Hardly anyone moves past that point.

<comment><USER10> Not sure why you got downvoted. Practically speaking, A fully fledged and compliant modern browser would require a team to build if not built off the back of another browser. So either you're a funded non-profit or you need to make money which doesn't seem compatible with privacy on the internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why would anyone expect porno sites to track users less than The NY Times (for example) does? I mean, it's not like they're your friends.

<comment><USER12> Second author here. Many people carry over 'real world' privacy expectations to online interactions, often unwittingly. While this may be technically naive, I don't think it is wrong for people to assume established social norms around sex and privacy, which have existed for millennia, are suddenly null and void b/c they go online. Porn stores in real life often have curtains, dark windows, etc. to protect privacy, and some people likely have that mental model ingrained, even if they do have a suspicion they are being tracked.

<comment><USER11> I suppose. But I'd think that people would know by now that online tracking is ubiquitous. Arguably there are no "established social norms" online. That's one huge advantage, when it's about accessibility of stuff that's verboten or restricted in your society. Such as, for example, porn.

But it cuts both ways, of course. So established social norms about privacy are also widely ignored. The fundamental business model is _based on_ violating users' privacy. Two of the largest online businesses, Google and Facebook, rely on monetizing the violation of users' privacy.

So yeah, perhaps it's understandable, but it's gobsmacking naive to think that online porn would be an exception.

<comment><USER12> I fully agree, but people are often capable of knowing something abstract is true in general (web is full of tracking), but often fail to make the cognitive step to apply those facts to the specific case (there is tracking on porn sites).

Nearly 20 years ago I worked as a Dell phone support technician for a few months and it was the best learning experience I've ever had in terms of understanding what the "average" person can actually comprehend. I think many technical people have experience with non-technical people who are otherwise fairly educated and clever (eg parents/grandparents), but there are a lot of people who have difficulty with the concepts, let alone the details. I think those people still deserve privacy.

<comment><USER11> I agree that they deserve privacy.

I just think it unrealistic to expect that they'll get it.

And it's also arguably unrealistic to expect that they'll learn how to take it. So for sure, jawboning is also a viable option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Direct link to the underlying paper:

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.06520](https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.06520)

The "even in incognito mode" part seems odd:

> What Jack does not know is that incognito mode only ensures his browsing > history is not stored on his computer. The sites he visits, aswell as any > third-party trackers, may observe and record his online actions

<comment><USER14> I think it's not that odd. People assume that incognito means, well, "incognito" – like "anonymous browsing". But there are obviously more ways to identify a user besides cookies that are cleared/reset when incognito mode is closed and re-opened.

Edit: To clarify: The easiest would be an IP address check. More sophisticated techniques are browser fingerprinting. And I think there's no reason to assume that Google/Facebook/AdTech companies DON'T use these techniques.

<comment><USER15> > To clarify: The easiest would be an IP address check. More sophisticated > techniques are browser fingerprinting. And I think there's no reason to > assume that Google/Facebook/AdTech companies DON'T use these techniques.

Regarding IPs: it would be legally problematic and might be exposed leading to terrible press, large fines and a strong argument for more regulation, so there's a lot of incentive not to use it, and I'm not sure they would even need it given the vast amount of information they have on users.

Regarding fingerprinting: I believe somebody would have noticed. Google and FB are generally scrutinized much more than a random small ad-tech vendor.

<comment><USER14> Sorry, are you serious or is this sarcasm? Facebook has shown in the recent months that they try to obtain data about users in every possible way. Collecting and comparing the IP address is the simplest exercise in the book. This, of course, is probably sold as "making your account more secure".

It's incredible that on a site like HN people truly seem to believe that "incognito mode" equals some sort of anonymity and that there is such as thing like goodwill of Ad companies and that they won't take whatever data that is served on a silver plate (like the IP address).

And you know what's really troublesome? One's sexual preferences are unlikely to change by a lot. Once captured by tracking companies, it's in your profile. Doesn't matter if you prevent tracking later on.

<comment><USER15> > Collecting and comparing the IP address is the simplest exercise in the > book. This, of course, is probably sold as "making your account more > secure".

Sure, and if you agree to it, they can. If you don't, however, and somebody blows the whistle, they'll be looking at huge fines in Europe and most of their lobbying will be void because their bought politicians will look very corrupt if they try to stop regulations.

Again, I don't believe that they don't do it because "it's not ethical". Rather, it's going to cost them lots of money if they do and get caught (and lots of good will, too), and I doubt that they _need_ it. IPs would be another data point, but they have so many already that it may not add as much value. That's for FB, Google & co, of course, for small ad-tech companies it's different.

> Once captured by tracking companies, it's in your profile. Doesn't matter if > you prevent tracking later on.

That's true, and the reason why you'd want to disable tracking completely. As a user, you gain nothing from companies being able to track you, but you lose plenty. Again, I'm not suggesting that companies aren't tracking users, I'm saying that Google and FB are likely not operating that obviously that far outside the law. They can, sure, but they'll need to run a large conspiracy to keep it secret, and large conspiracies are hard and rare.

<comment><USER14> Facebook collects phone numbers of random people, if a FB user uploads their contact list.

Facebook collects data in shadow profiles.

Facebook collects login credentials for email accounts.

Facebook asks for phone numbers for "two-factor authentication" and then uses it in different ways.

Similar for Google. Most default options are enabled if you set up an Android phone (and these options and settings track you). Opt-in? Off by default? Nothing. Just to name one example.

Dark patterns to give consent everywhere, like buttons suggesting that opt-in is the only way to do it and so on.

All of this is kinda known, and illegal under GDPR. Consequences so far? None.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Second author here, I'm busy for the next couple hours, but happy to AMA. Put any questions here and I will reply as I'm able.

</comment><comment><USER16> Should be easy to avoid with simply using another cookie jar or blocking third-party cookies. It seems the direct connection can only be made when a user is logged into a facebook or google profile. Otherwise the data can not be connected to a personal account without some degree of uncertainty and illegality.

G and F could use other data, like the browser fingerprint, OS information and the IP address to associate the data, which may be illegal, at least in Europe. Thus they probably use some other technique, for example creating pseudonymous shadow profiles and associating them based on similarity. In their front-end the data would just show clusters of profiles, which means they can claim they do not collect personal data, but from a quick glance it would be obvious to see connections between a user and "anonymous" clusters, if the similarity borders on 100%.

Thus a good practice would be to use a different Operating system and browser, together with the usual protective measures.

<comment><USER12> IP address is a very strong signal and short of Tor you cannot do much about that. I'm hesitant to recommend VPNs just due to the high level of trust you need to have in your provider. It isn't that easy to avoid tracking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> But _every_ big site is riddled with trackers. Why single out pornography websites?

<comment><USER18> In order to get people to care about their online privacy, use what they're most private about. Last Week Tonight used the same trick on their segment with Snowden.

[https://www.wired.com/2015/04/john-oliver-edward-snowden- dic...](https://www.wired.com/2015/04/john-oliver-edward-snowden-dick-pics/)

<comment><USER17> Ah, that makes sense, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Nearly all tracking is by default and governed by impossible-to-read privacy policies. [...] For more detail please see our privacy policy."

Ironic.

<comment><USER20> How is this ironic? Having a privacy policy is not the same as having an 'impossible-to-read' one. Also, I doubt the journalists at the New York Times are responsible for what the company's tracking policy is. Are they suddenly not allowed to write about privacy issues?

By this standard nobody would be allowed to talk about climate change, seeing as probably nobody has a 0% impact on climate change.

<comment><USER21> That's still ironical.

if their claims are valid or not is absolutely unrelated to the irony of that situation though.

Did anyone imply that if the content is 'ironical' we shouldn't write it or discuss it?

<comment><USER20> It isn't ironic just because they also have a privacy policy. It has to be unreadable to come close to irony.

Lets say that I own a burger restaurant and I tell you that burgers at McDonalds are crap. Would that be ironic? Because that is what you are saying.

> Did anyone imply that if the content is 'ironical' we shouldn't write it or > discuss it?

I interpret the original comment:

> Ironic.

as a means to discrediting the journalist. You are right though and instead of "Are they suddenly not allowed to write about privacy issues?" I should have written something along the lines of "Is it suddenly not credible for them to write about privacy issues?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The industry has moved from pay sites and piracy where you wouldn't track people to free porn sites that are ad supported. Obviously it's easier to use the free sites so the data tracking is not surprising.

If you don't want to be tracked, pay for your porn. Or pirate it.

<comment><USER23> I agree with you, but remember that VISA/Mastercard/etc are selling your purchases to whomever would like to buy them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Interestingly, I've noticed some adult websites (not necessarily pornography) are requiring Google captcha.

That thing is spreading like weed.

<comment><USER25> Most of them already have the social sharing buttons. I suspect those are able to catch the vast majority of users who don't use an incognito mode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is it just Google Analytics and similar things? Pretty much every website has some tracking of this sort.

<comment><USER27> Yes, mostly just analytics and standard fare from all websites. For the most part, it's just the regular "Share on Facebook/Twitter/Etc." buttons that you see all over the internet. All of the social media have trackers embedded in those buttons. It's always confused my why anyone would actually share what porn video they were watching with their friends on social media.

The one thing that isn't standard for porn sites is ad serving/tracking. They usually don't use ads served from Google and Facebook, probably because most people don't want their "regular" ads being served on a porn site. So most major porn sites have their own ad system.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, big players with brand value like Google or FB do not dabble with porn or other socially unacceptable content. At all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is a great example that should be used more often when communicating the risks and privacy violations and implications these ad trackers have.

Its disturbing to know that Google and Facebook have access to all this - <USER2> indeed know more about you, then you yourself.

<comment> m-p-3 To be fair, I always use incognito mode when using this kind of website, but Google can probably track me through the IP address I guess.

And I also use PiHole at home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Have people stopped using usenet and bittorrent to get these things? I prefer SFTP. No HTML, no ads, no MITM. Mumble servers + SFTP servers are a good combo to decentralize the most important part of the web (porn).

</comment><comment> lota-putty Tangent: How many here have verified their Phone# for recovery reasons?

Or even installed some apps like true-caller?

Browser finger-printing, 3rd-party tracking or the website itself. Better off with p0rn-torrents' magnet-URLs?

</comment><comment><USER30> Somewhere at Google, someone has a Google Map showing who is consuming porn at what moment.

<comment><USER31> Pornhub probably has such a map, and their data analysis on Pornhub Insight is always a great read [0].

Of course google connecting porn searches with your other behavior is another level of scary.

0: [https://www.pornhub.com/insights/](https://www.pornhub.com/insights/) (sfw)

<comment><USER32> That is indeed fascinating.

"Thanks to a Facebook event called "Storm Area 51" ...

Since July 12th, searches for "Area 51" have surged from zero to 160,000 in just 4 days. July 16th alone had nearly 59,000 searches.

...

The most popular alien related search is "alien impregnation" followed by "alien sex". Other interesting searches include "alien belly" (a reference to the scene from the original 1979 Alien movie?), "alien eggs", "alien abduction" and "alien probe". "

So I always suspected, that the internet is a weird place, but good to have data to back that up.

But seriously, out of porn consumption statistics, you can get a deep analytical experience of the population. So yes, it is scary, if some companies have all that knowledge.

<comment><USER31> > But seriously, out of porn consumption statistics, you can get a deep > analytical experience of the population. So yes, it is scary, if some > companies have all that knowledge.

Indeed. It gives you insights that are otherwise hard to get.

Like predicting the viewership of events based on traffic changes like these:

[https://cs.phncdn.com/insights-static/wp- content/uploads/201...](https://cs.phncdn.com/insights-static/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/5-pornhub-insights-2018-year-review-tv-live- events-1.png)

Or how many people care about a solar eclipse:

[https://cs.phncdn.com/insights-static/wp- content/uploads/201...](https://cs.phncdn.com/insights-static/wp- content/uploads/2017/08/pornhub-insights-2017-eclipse.png)

Or these graphs:

[https://cs.phncdn.com/insights-static/wp- content/uploads/201...](https://cs.phncdn.com/insights-static/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/1-pornhub-insights-2018-year-review-favorite-times-to- watch.png)

[https://cs.phncdn.com/insights-static/wp- content/uploads/201...](https://cs.phncdn.com/insights-static/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/maps-pornhub-insights-2018-year-review-most-viewed- categories.png)

[https://cs.phncdn.com/insights-static/wp- content/uploads/201...](https://cs.phncdn.com/insights-static/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/3-pornhub-insights-2018-year-in-review-age-group- searches-categories.png)

And all of those graphs are just scratching the surface. For example they seem to have good data on age, gender and sexual orientation (likely from signed up users and statistical inference), which allows them to say what percentage of lesbians aged 30-40 living in Minnesota watch solar eclipses or watch the royal wedding.

<comment><USER32> I would be curious how they get the age data, though. Do they have the connection to facebook?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's funny an article published behind a paywall about facebook and google partnering to track your pr0n use has a message that says, as soon as the page loads, you're in private mode".

NYT has become such a tabloid.

Study is here: [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.06520.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.06520.pdf)

Now we can have a REAL Discussion.</comment>


Tricki, a repository of mathematical know-how - <AUTHOR> http://www.tricki.org

<comment><USER2> I've started contributing recently to proofwiki ([https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page](https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page)) which is a similar sort of collection (this one is strictly proofs though).

I think there's a pretty big fascination among mathematicians to collect and organize the universe of information. It's always fun to think of mapping dependencies between all known proofs

</comment><comment><USER3> Timothy Gowers wrote _Is the Tricki dead?_ back in 2010 [1]. In it he effectively said that Mathoverflow emerged after he started it, and _it_ seems to be better at some of the types of things the Tricki was meant for. He also talks about the fact that articles on the Tricki are harder to write, and involve more effort.

[1] [https://gowers.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/is-the-tricki- dead/](https://gowers.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/is-the-tricki-dead/)

</comment><comment><USER4> For anyone looking for a good resource for improving their mathematical problem solving (especially for the Olympiad level), I highly recommend the Art of Problem Solving wiki. [1]

That homepage isn't very informative, but you can search for any topic and find explanations and problems that can be solved from that. For example: radical axis [2]

If you're looking for a book, The Art and Craft of Problem Solving by Paul Zeitz is the most recommended.

[1] [http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page](http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page)

[2] [http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Radical_ax...](http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Radical_axis)

</comment><comment><USER5> This is interesting, but unfortunately the community looks stagnant; there have only been 5 edits and 1 new article in the last year (excluding the 2 edits I just made).

</comment><comment><USER6> Always wanted to see something like this! Hope it'll get referenced a lot on resources like Mathworld or Wikipedia. Love the extensiveness!

Dumb question maybe, but is knowledge like this often used in symbolic solver software? If so, would it be useful to implement examples in a programming language like Gerald Sussman did in Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics?

<comment><USER7> I've been working on a symbolic solver lately and have had to implement a lot of techniques manually. I'm not aware of any machine-readable database of solving techniques (which would be great for this, especially for integrals, because right now my code doesn't know any integration techniques that I don't know myself).

A lot of big solvers use algorithms[0] that can't always be reduced into a reasonable series of steps for producing nice step-by-step output, which is why e.g. Wolfram Alpha will occasionally manage to symbolically integrate something but tells you that a step-by-step solution is unavailable. (This happens even with plain algebra; Wolfram Alpha can explain how to derive the quadratic equation but not the cubic.)

Could you elaborate more on the nature of the examples from this book for those of us who haven't read it?

[0] Risch algorithm, Gaussian elimination, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I always thought it would be nice to have a GitHub-like thing for formal proofs. Where anyone can define a theory using a set of axioms, and everyone else can build theorems on top of it (and on top of existing theorems), with a series of formal steps that are verified by the system.

<comment><USER9> Cameron Freer started something like this, but I think it stagnated: [http://vdash.org](http://vdash.org) . Tom Hales put a lot of his formal proof work on Google Code: [https://code.google.com/p/flyspeck](https://code.google.com/p/flyspeck) . I don't know if he has any plans to migrate to GitHub, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I believe this was started originally by Terence Tao and maybe Timothy Gowers, though I don't think it's actively maintained anymore.

<comment><USER9> As EdwardCoffin mentions above ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9892043](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9892043)), Gowers says at [https://gowers.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/is-the-tricki- dead](https://gowers.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/is-the-tricki-dead) that it was started by Frolkin, Sisask ([https://people.kth.se/~sisask](https://people.kth.se/~sisask)), and him.</comment></comment>


Displaying Linux Memory - <AUTHOR> https://enc.com.au/2016/05/07/displaying-linux-memory/ <comment><USER2> God damn they finally added 'available' in 2014. I will never have to explain to someone who knew enough to run 'free' but didn't understand cache that the system isn't running out of memory.</comment>


Why is there no fake news on LinkedIn? Listen to its editor explain - <AUTHOR> http://www.recode.net/2016/12/29/14100064/linkedin-daniel-roth-fake-news-facebook-recode-podcast <comment><USER2> Instead, because it's a self-promotion site, it's filled with content-light marketing posts. Slightly less harmful than fake news, but equally vapid.</comment>


Hyperloop One – Propulsion Open Air Test - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e-Po9C8Kj8&feature=youtu.be <comment><USER2> How is the propulsion system different from the California Screamin' launched roller coaster?

[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/30/technology/how-it-works- th...](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/30/technology/how-it-works-the-latest- at-the-theme-park-a-magnetic-attraction.html)</comment>


Google shreds 2005 promise of 'no banner ads', Do Be Evil next? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/24/google_banner_ads/

<comment><USER2> Original discussion, still on the front page and with nearly 200 comments: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6605312](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6605312)

Another submission, but with no real discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6604925](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6604925)

However, that original now has so many comments any additional thoughts will get lost in the noise. I suspect that's why there's another one shooting up the front page:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6606662](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6606662)

People see that one and upvote it to make sure their comments get seen.

<rambling rant>

I wish there were a more sensible way to organize discussions like this, so that well-thought out, comprehensive and useful contributions were easier to find. Instead, the discussions become so sprawling that anything after the first few comments and replies are lost, so when something is popular we get split discussions with significant replication and duplication.

Feels like such a waste of time and effort - the engineer/hacker/problem- solver in me is offended, even though others think there's really nothing wrong with it.

Maybe it's just me.

</rambling rant></comment>


Show HN: A designer friend and I made ffffallback.com for testing fallback fonts - <AUTHOR> http://ffffallback.com

<comment><USER2> It took me a bit to figure out what exactly it was doing on your site, especially with it turning purple. Having a three step sample use-case guide on your homepage would be helpful.

Also, rather than specifically tell it what font to fallback to, I'd love to be able to just choose an operating system and have it show me what font would have been used by a user on a default installation of that OS.

<comment><USER3> I agree, I don't know what to do so I got bored and didn't bookmark it. It's not intuitive.

Good idea but it would be better if it was easier to understand.

The drop arrows look like they are going to drop some fonts out, they don't they drop more options out. More options I don't understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It would be helpful if you just had a demo video (short video), showing what the site does. It took me a few seconds to even understand the concept fully. In those seconds, you could lose many potential users.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think this would be easier if:

\- You could click a font's name to set it as the fallback font for that element,

\- and to display the selector that font applies to (I assume you're getting this from the CSS).

However, this is a very useful tool, and saves having to pop them out by hand; kudos.

<comment><USER6> Second on all the requests above. Looking forward to the update to this soon- to-be frequently used tool of mine. Great start!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Couldn't quite figure out how to use the tool, but it did manage to create a pretty rad 3D version of my site (using the "Both" setting and varying font sizes on each). I'll probably have another go when I've got less homework.

</comment><comment><USER8> Was fffallback.com taken already?

Nice site.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's an homage to <http://ffffound.com/>, a wonderful site for finding inspiration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Cool, thanks!

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm sorry if this is not the world's best HN comment, but I really enjoy the aesthetics of this site. The colors and font choices are fantastic, at least to me. Thumbs up.

<comment><USER11> This comment essentially got me to click the link, and I agree (with the exception of the animated-on-hover bookmarklet... that's _nasty_ ). I was curious, but not overly.

speaking of magical unicorns and javascript rainbows... (might take a moment for the first run to work)

      javascript:(function(){var d=document,j=d.getElementById('__cornify_nodes'),k=null;var files=%5B'http://cornify.com/js/cornify.js','http://cornify.com/js/cornify_run.js'%5D;if(j){cornify_add();}else{k=d.createElement('div');k.id='__cornify_nodes';d.getElementsByTagName('body')%5B0%5D.appendChild(k);for(var l=0;l<files.length;l++){j=d.createElement('script');j.src=files%5Bl%5D;k.appendChild(j);}}})();</comment></comment>


Samsung announces 48 layer, 256 Gbit vNAND flash chip and 16TB SSD [2015] - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-announces-16tb-ssd/ <comment><AUTHOR> I wonder if the newly acquired Joyent people will get to work on making OpenZFS take much better advantage of the internal parallelism in these drives (as leaf vdevs) and these 2U boxes.</comment>


Zero-Suppressed Binary Decision Diagrams (ZDDs) - <AUTHOR> http://crypto.stanford.edu/pbc/notes/zdd/ <comment><USER2> Ha! Don Knuth came to CMU last week, and his talk was entirely about BDDs and ZDDs. He said he wouldn't tell us where the ZDD name came from, because many people are already forgetting, and it would just be staving off the inevitable.

<comment><USER3> Interesting. KonaB should probably have submitted the definition on <http://crypto.stanford.edu/pbc/notes/zdd/zdd.xhtml>

That would have been more accessible than talk about American states.</comment></comment>


To AppStore or not to AppStore that is the question - <AUTHOR> http://www.zoomstra.com/2012/01/to-appstore-or-not-to-appstore-that-is-the-question/

<comment><AUTHOR> Looking for your + or - on going the route for native iOS app or using an HTML5 framework.</comment>


New Insights into Hikikomori – People Who Withdraw from Society for Years on End - <AUTHOR> https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/05/22/new-insights-into-hikikomori-people-who-withdraw-from-society-for-months-or-years-on-end/ <comment><USER3> I was a Hikikomori (In North American) for 1 year. These bits from the article really resonate with me "I am anxious about the possibility of meeting people that I know" and "These anxieties may be related to a sense of humiliation, which suggests that they are afraid of being seen in their current situation". Before becoming a Hikikomori I had failed out of University and felt embarrassed to leave my room, also felt embarrassed at my physical appearance. Looking back at it, I wasted a year of my life doing nothing but getting high, and consuming entertainment. Great news though now I work 40 hours a week and waste my time getting high and consuming entertainment only during the evenings.

<comment><USER4> The joys of capitalism.

I jest, though. While it probably feels the same on paper, your mental health is (probably) much better now, I would assume.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hikitomoris often have low status. They aren't respected in the eyes of their peers, because they lack either a job, skills/education, a spouse, or looks. So when they talk with their peers, they feel inferior, and are often reminded about their position. That's why they rather step aside. Some of them are unwilling to integrate with the ill values the society has, and that paralyzes them, since they don't have where to go. Mental issues are related to this matter, at least partly caused by the system, and maybe childhood experiences, traumas, etc. The longer they stay isolated, the more they fall behind, and the harder it gets for them to go out and compete.

</comment><comment><USER6> Is there really anything to gain from contact with society? Most people run some sort of scam.

I ghosted a few years ago after bad divorce, and it was very good decision.

<comment><USER7> I've also noticed the perspective that a majority people seem to "have an angle", whether that's an outright financial scam, emotional manipulation, some sort of hustle, wanting to monetize your brain by employing you, or whatever. Interested to hear other people's observations related to this.

<comment><USER8> Not to forget they want to fuck you if you're a woman. But there are people who genuinely also want friends, but they are rare as you age.

<comment><USER9> Also people who just want to genuinely have fun in this life - they are a treasure

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I felt probably like a Hikikomori when I moved to the other side of the country for my now ex and worked remote for two years. I basically never left the house except for walking the dog and doing grocery shopping. I had no friends and no real social life except when my ex and I visited her friends and family or if I flew back to my hometown.

Even as an introvert I felt fucking miserable for the entire time. I enjoy solitude but that shit wasn't it, it was isolation.

<comment><USER4> This is my fear of working remote. Seems to come up relatively often in threads that discuss remote work -- needing to force oneself to leave the house (which is also the workplace)

<comment><USER9> Working from home when remote seems like the most dangerous idea if your work does not require human interaction (live meetings etc)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "But one local demographic variable did stand out as being protective"

What does 'protective' mean in this context? I wondered if it was somehow a typo of 'predictive', but that's a bit of a leap for a typo.

<comment><USER12> you see it in medical literature; i believe it just means what it sounds like, ie that living in the environment they describe makes one statistically less likely to be a hiki

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> >But if these anxieties are keeping people inside their homes, what's prompting them to retreat there in the first place? The survey also revealed that hikikomori are more likely to have dropped out of high school or university. Perhaps finding ways to keep young people in education may, then, reduce the risk.

Holy God no! I had excellent grades and extracurriculars but in high school there were months I would cry every day in class or even cut my wrists in class to relieve social pain by replacing it with the more endurable physical pain. A few angelic classmates tried to help but teachers did not, although I learned after the fact that they talked about me a lot in the faculty lounge where I was called "Boo Radley". One doctor at the high school said I was autistic so my parents gave me to the local university's psychology department and paid a bunch of money so every week I had an hour appointment each week one on one with the dean of the department. It was maybe worse than nothing. I never had any idea what to say and he had no idea what to ask and he would tell my parents that I wouldn't talk (when it was more that I didn't have the ability to skill or something to - he would ask queations that I could totally understand were normal for normal people but as for me answering them - <USER2> wouldn't know how to even begin because usually either they didn't prompt a verbal reaction in my consciousness, or it would prompt the beginning of an potentially-endlessly complicated chain reaction that would take hours and hours of me forming and conducting a commission investigation in my jead) and, as far as diagnosing me, one prof gave me an IQ test and called me a genius and they said that once I got to grad school I would fit in. The professors told my parents I wasn't autistic, and that's all my parents heard. The professors diagnosed me with "Pervasive Developmental Disorder", which was later replaced with "Autism Spectrum Disorder".

Anyway, I got into my first choice school, and I got accepted by all of them except the ones that have interviews to keep people like me out, but I was afraid of debt so I went to my last choice school because I got a full ride for academics. I was still extremely depressed but felt better overall than high school, although I attempted suicide at least once in high school and once i college. I missed two questions on the GRE and got into the #1 ranked program for my major. I was leaning on not going to grad school because it seemed insane to borrow $60K a year for three years but my parents wanted me to go and said they would pay for the first semester and my godparents talked about how they met in grad school and I thought about how the psychologists said I might not fit in until grad school.

So, I went, but I was still the most awkward person by far. I couldn't get any mentorship from my mentor anymore than I could connect with that psychology dean. The final straw was this irrelevant-to-our-major class we were all required to take, one of those ones where they get a not-a-professor maybe as desperate as I am, and one where you have to write papers. This guy was a Marxist homilist, just about literally. He would start each class reading from the original Marx (never Zizek, Bookchin, Foucault, Butler, no not for him). Guy would tweet about how Dungeons and Dragons had a dangerously inaccurate portayal of agriculture. I shit you not. Anyway, there was an essay prompt that really inspired me, and I wrote what I thought was the best writing of my life. I worried if the teacher would like it and prepared to really try to learn from the feedback. The next day, the teacher told us he wasn't going to read any of the papers and as long as he got an email from us with a document attached, we would get an A.

I switched to computer science where the professors openly hated their lives and had absolutely no flame of earnest passion to pass on. Students would openly cheat and I was the only one who would complain. Profs would tell us they were being forced to pass incompetent undergraduates to maintain revenue. The #1 student in my year was an audacious sociopath who loudly bragged about hacking university systems and businesses for money, with no shame or hint of ethics or philosophy. I was #2 and #3 was a girl that really wanted to be a math major and was leaning back and forth. Well, I guess one week she decided it was going to be math and blew off studying for an exam. As the professor roams the room during the exam, he looks at her paper and panics, realizing he could lose his job because she's the 1 female out of the 3 in the 80 person class that is holding up the female average and he's already under investigation for gender bias. So he just starts telling her the answers and trying to get her to cheat on a test she doesn't care about. I lost the last of my hope in the utility of universities and made to leave. They offered me a teaching position if I finished, as if that was an enticement. Somehow Google got my phone number and wanted to interview me but I couldn't work there in good conscience. Out of all the cs jobs I applied for, I finally got through an interview, and I was offered $500 to work the entire summer as an internship. The charity I had been doing volunteer computer work for two years offered me a position for maybe 80% of federal minimum wage. I went back to my janitor job because it paid better. But I was completely alone and eventually I had more and more sleepless nights and when I kept having 2+ sleepless nights in a row and I decided I couldn't safely drive to work anymore.

Fifteen years earlier, in middle school, I remember when my babysitter heard that my friend was paid $500 by his uncle to work all summer she called him up and cussed him out until a fair wage was paid. I worked on her farm for many years. I still have only worked for people that loved me. Why did I make an exception for schoolwork?

I tortured myself for years, submitting to this imposition of school for what? To come up with answers for people that do not care for me, do not pay me, already have the answers to the objective questions, and are not interested in my subjective answers.

So, no, keeping kids that are emotionally wrecked and socially destitute coralled in schools will not help because that's not their function.

Our society can't turn off the media and go back to each other now because we wouldn't know where to even begin.

</comment><comment><USER14> I've cut off all family and friends for a long period of time now, and discontinued my career/work after finally reaching a cynical point of no return a few years ago. My only interactions at this point are with food service workers at the store or coffee shop, or other shopping/errands. Perhaps this is a variant of Hikikomori. In fact, the characteristics of one for me are essentially spot on, except that I'm more of a shut-out (in public alone often).

I've given away my retirement and am preparing for suicide. I'm not in search of advice nor assistance regarding my situation. I smile in public, but inside I'm meditating in preparation for the unknown void of the afterlife. There are almost certainly many others like me.

For a long time, I wondered if it were possible for people to treat each other better and whether that would have changed anything for me. The reality is that I was unequipped to build a healthy place in society because I decided a long time ago that I hated being alive and hated people. It's my own shortcoming, and suicide is a valid way to remove a weak seed from the gene pool, if not controversial or taboo in Western society. My understanding is that it's not as frowned upon in Japan but not sure if that is still the case.

<comment><USER15> Take LSD or mushrooms before you go. Not because it will make you no longer be suicidal, but because it is one of the most powerful experiences that you can achieve in this universe. To die without such experience, is incredible tragedy, especially for someone with your perspective. It also may inform you of ways you can optimize your impact on departure, given your reasoning about being a 'weak seed'.

But its really best if you don't kill yourself.

<comment><USER16> Telling someone with mental issues to take strong psychotropic drugs for the first time, without anyone to keep an eye of them is one of the most retarded things I've heard in a long time.

<comment><USER17> They've already decided on suicide, so does it really matter?

<comment><USER16> Ethically: yeah.

<comment><USER17> Why?

Sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

The way I see it is if he's made up his mind, then there are really three possible outcomes by suggesting drugs: 1. best case, he feels better, yay! 2. worst case, it makes him worse, he kills himself, but was going to do so anyway. :( 3. he has an interesting experience before the end.

I don't see any ethical issues with suggesting something that if it goes wrong, leads to the same outcome as not doing anything. To me, it seems like he has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'd like to hear your opposing view, though, so I can understand where the flaw in my reasoning is, if there is one.

<comment><USER16> Because you do not know how the trip will impact him. It could be that he self-harms in a way which only makes things permanently worse. It could be that he hurts others during the trip.

There are so many factors which could go badly wrong that it is (in my opinion) unethical to suggest this is a good approach.

<comment><USER17> Ok, I understand. Thanks!

What if they took some precautions, eg someone was with them to make sure that they don't do any harm (to themselves or others)? People generally recommend that one take psychedelics with a sitter, after all. Or is the concern also about their mental state in the coming days/weeks/however long after the trip?

<comment><USER18> Don't backtrack yourself. The day I took shrooms was the day I understood my place in the grand organism and the true power unto a god that each person has in their potential and the only inhibitor is how willing they are to confront that level of their own power. I only continue to understand myself and those around me, and how to forge my life to its fullest with every instance I take entheogens.

I have very little respect for hand-wringing types like those above. All it does is plant undue anxiety in a mind that could easily be calm waters. I could go so far as to say I loathe them. But I'm trying hard to see this person's point.

Also, I can't believe I'm becoming active after years again to infodump this. But I can only hope the original parent sees it and knows they're not alone.

Edit to be abundantly clear: Entheogens did nothing short of saving my life. And it has since only been an upward trend. To the extent that I hilariously enough stopped coffee after a powerful experience forced me to observe just what such things can do to anxiety and blood pressure and the like. On an intimate level akin to detached observation from outside a lab. Except one's own mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is literally survivorship bias.

The people who were suicidal and who took psycadelics that didn't work for them can't comment here. They're dead.

<comment><USER19> Oh spare me. Not only do I not care to debate pseudo-intellectually in this fashion but my sample size is far beyond myself. Once again, cold cynicism doesn't make you cool. No more than unsubstantiated idealism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Full title is: New Insights Into Hikikomori – People Who Withdraw From Society For Months or Years On End.

Don't forget that the BPS can sometimes misrepresent the research so you need to be a bit careful with anything from this source.</comment>


New York Times - Chrome version - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/chrome/

<comment><USER2> I'm just really uncomfortable with a "chrome version" of the New York Times. How many of us would be freaking out if it was "The New York Times: Internet Explorer Version"

I don't want versions of the web. That's the whole point of the web.

<comment><USER3> They stated numerous times during the announcement that these apps will work on all modern browsers, the web store is there to help discovery and monetization.

The Chrome label on this NYT app is merely promotional as they were launch partners.

<comment><USER4> There are -webkit- prefixes everywhere in the CSS. This isn't a cross-browser site.

<comment><USER5> Ever heard of graceful degradation?

<comment><USER6> Gracefull degradation is for making sites work on older browsers. What about making sites work on modern browsers which are other than your favourite one?

Using just -webkit prefixes everywhere will make sure it just plays nicely with webkit, and not with IE, Opera or Firefox.

<comment><USER7> It detects your rendering engine when you connect to the server and only serves up the relevent stylesheet. This way you don't get -moz, -o, or IE fixes if you're not on IE, Mozilla, or Opera.

Save bandwidth, load time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would rather like to see it named as "HTML5 version". Oh, and please use CSS transforms/transitions instead of Javascript animations. Otherwise, nice work.

<comment><USER9> does not work in Firefox / Safari. I wonder what "Chrome" features does it use.

<comment><USER10> huh? it's working on safari for me (5.03 on OS X 10.6)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> NYTimes likes to sleep around. They've developed quite a few frontends: a WPF/Silverlight version, an AIR version, and now a "Chrome" HTML5 version. Next will be an Oracle version in JavaFX.

<comment><USER12> I think I remember a lean-back version. Are any of these still around?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> UX TIP:

To scroll I have to go to the bottom of the page and click on the little arrow. Go to the other side if I want to go back.

The mouse solved that problem last millenia with the scroll wheel. Anywhere on the page, if I decide to scroll, it will scroll, right there, without moving the pointer or my eyes. Simple huh?.

If I want to scroll, just let me scroll. Don't impose restrictions on me.

<comment><USER14> You can hit the right/left arrow keys, and up/down to navigate between sections and articles. I hadn't actually discovered this before reading your comment. Whether it's better or not than horiz/vertical scrolling is a debatable issue.

<comment><USER13> Sure, but how hard is it to implement onmousewheel/dommousescroll if we are showing off an html5 app?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Looks a lot like the Editor's Choice iPad app adapted for a browser. Very nice and clean.

That said, I'm not sure how sustainable it is, unless they're planning on turning it into a paid thing. Any significant number of users is going to put a damper on their bottom line because no ads means no ad revenue.

</comment><comment><USER16> I love how de-cluttered it is. I have a sinking feeling, though, that when a homepage gets into production, feature creep has to happen because of all the different departments within the company -- everyone wants a link to their specific subsite for the traffic.

</comment><comment><USER17> Looks like some of the features aren't quite on the level of the Skimmer:

<http://www.nytimes.com/timesskimmer/>

But it's a good start.

<comment><USER18> One notable difference is that the chrome version reworks the article pages, the skimmer appears to just frame them

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Resizing the window messes up the layout. Then it hangs saying it used too much memory.

<comment><USER20> Safari became completely unresponsive when I tried to resize the window, all its window chrome disappeared and the whole system got so bogged down that it took me at least three minutes to force quit Safari.

<comment><USER19> Resizing was the first thing I tried because that's what borks my app sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Mostly works in Mobile Safari on my iPad, after a prompt from the browser to allow 10MB of offline storage (which in turn appears to be an iOS 4.2 feature, since older versions simply silently disabled offline storage when any page's cached resources totaled >5MB).

Performance isn't _awesome_ , but then again, the flagship NYTimes iOS app hasn't worked for me in weeks (crashes on startup, fails to refresh articles when no other app has connectivity problems, etc.) so I might just give it a shot as a Times UI for a while.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's not just for the chrome browser because it's built on HTML5 and JavaScript and can be used on any modern browser. I'm currently using firefox to view this "app" which is just a regular site, well it's actually a very clean & impressive design and great UI features. Some of the so-called apps in the chrome store are merely bookmarked links that go directly to the page, for instance the gmail "app". I'm having a really hard time to accept these as "apps"

</comment><comment><USER23> Does any know whether "Chrome" signifies the browser or the OS? Everyone here seems to assume the browser, but my first thought was that it referred to the new OS since I was reading just yesterday that you will be able to read the NY Times offline on there. Also, when I opened the link in Opera it asked me if I wanted to let the site store 10mb of data, which I assumed related to that feature.

</comment><comment><USER24> I wish that more news sites had such a clear interface; they're usually so cluttered. Though I'm not sure why this interface is specific to chrome.

</comment><comment><USER25> Looks fuzzy.

<comment><USER26> On OS X Safari, the articles are in Georgia 13, but the subpixel rendering is disabled. The result is ghastly. The type appears randomly weighted and poorly kerned.

If you copy a paragraph and paste it into TextEdit you can see the same text still in Georgia 13 without broken rendering.

You can use the assistive zoom to see clearly what is going on. (Hold control and "two finger up" on the trackpad, or scroll wheel up if you are that sort.) The color fringe at the edges of the zoomed letters is the subpixel rendering.

<comment><USER27> Can you explain why the aa gets disabled in Safari but not Chrome? Seems strange considering they're both running Webkit.

<comment><USER26> I wish I could. I looked with the inspector for -webkit-* trickery in the CSS and didn't see any on the element.

Antialiasing is still on. The pixels go through shades of gray at the edges, it is just the subpixel that is off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The variety of UI options they give in the "customize" tab shows that NYT knew they had a problem and didn't solve it.

</comment><comment><USER29> I really want the New York Times website to look like a newspaper. Changing it to a non-descript anybody site throws away the richness of its heritage. I know the richness is in the content but warm fuzzy feelings help you digest the brain matter.

</comment><comment><USER30> What exactly has been done here that couldn't have been done with every other browser?

<comment><USER31> Nothing, which is kind of the point of the Chrome Store: It's just a new distribution channel for modern web applications. The upside is the discoverability, along with the assurance that your end users have a modern browser.

<comment><USER32> Well technically you don't have that assurance right? Since anyone can hit your app's "store" URL from any browser.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's great -- but the navigation really belongs on the left side, right- aligned text.

<comment><USER34> It absolutely doesn't, because if you look at it as a touch screen app for a tablet then the highest portion of users will hold the tablet steady with their left hand while gesturing with their right hand. If you put the nav on the left you make people reach across the screen (covering it with their arm).

<comment><USER33> You raise a good point. As a lefty, I don't want to be left out. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is there any possibility that they'd start redirecting to this based on User- Agent?

</comment><comment><USER35> Hopefully anyone checking this out will get the same top headline I got, "For Obama, Tax Deal Is a Back-Door Stimulus Plan" wow... just wow.

Also, is 'chrome' here referring to Chrome OS or the browser?

<comment><USER36> Both. Chrome OS is Chrome the browser in a delectable OS form.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Meh. Clean, yes, but:

\-- Back button doesn't work. Must click tiny "close" box.

\-- Rather than simply scrolling, must paginate with tiny "next" arrow.

Usability loses.

<comment><USER38> Esc key closes an article, right and left arrow keys flip pages.

<comment><USER39> They should highlight this to new viewers, I was about to complain about the lack of scrolling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It works very well on iPad. It's responsive to touch gestures.

</comment><comment><USER41> Clunky in Chrome browser, broken on Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER42> A bit clunky in Chrome beta... Barely works in Canary build. Maybe I should stick to stable.

</comment><comment><USER43> Very buggy: <http://imgur.com/GH5C0>

</comment><comment><USER44> Seems to work just fine in Firefox.</comment>


Stop trying to kill the headphone jack - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/gadgets/2017/08/31/stop-trying-to-kill-the-headphone-jack/ <comment><USER2> Reasons I hate removal of the headphone jack on the iPhone:

      1. Bluetooth headphones require extra charging.  I'm always looking around for somewhere to plug in my phone AND
      my bluetooth headphones.  And no, I don't want to buy Apple's easily-losable ear bud things.  Since the batteries
      may die on my bluetooth headphones, I always still have to carry around the original headphones that came with my
      iPhone, leading to extra cord/dongle #1.
      2. Bluetooth headphones require a charging cord that isn't the same as the one on my iPhone.  Extra cord/dongle #2 to
      take with me everywhere for the old-style 8mm adapter.
      3. My traveling Bose noise-canceling wired headphones require the carrying of extra cord/dongle #3 to take with me
      everywhere.
      4. Bluetooth headphones don't interface in situations like that healthclub exercise bike I want to plug into.  Neither
      do the standard iPhone headphones that come with the iPhone 7.  So I need to carry extra cord/dongle #1 with me
      everywhere, the old style 8mm ones off a previous phone.
      5. Bluetooth headphone batteries eventually stop working.  I was making due with going mostly wireless for about 2
      months and then the headphones I bought stopped working.  Judging from Amazon reviews, people don't get a lot of life
      out of these little rechargeable devices - whereas normally the wired headphones I get with an iPhone last me
      for the life of the phone.
      6. On the iPhone 7, at least, the headphones go into the combination charging/headphone jack.  That means that I need
      extra cord/dongle #4 with me because of items #1 and #3 above, if I want to charge my phone and use headphones at
      the same time.

So that's 4 extra cords/dongles on top of the iphone charging cord and the need to have my Bose traveling headsets.

It's a shit show.

[edit: tried to make formatting less hideous and to make a couple of items clearer... and because I miscounted]

<comment><USER3> Reasons I hate wired headphones:

1\. I have to carry around a mass of wire that it always getting tangled with its self and other items in bags and pockets.

2\. I have to fiddle around to plug a port into my phone, that often scratches the surrounding material.

3\. I have a port that gets full of lint and I have to pick it out.

4\. The headphone cord gets caught on things and rips the headphones out of my ears.

5\. When ever I knock the cable it amplifies the noise into my ears (isolating earbuds).

6\. The little remote dongle gets caught on my collar or buttons and rips the headphones out of my ears.

7\. When I jog I get a cable bounding up and down, often tugging on my ears.

8\. If I just want to use one bud, I have to have the other dangling around.

9\. If I want to switch between devices I have to manually plug in and out, often scrabbling around on the floor for a desktop computer.

10\. Cable connections ware, and can result in audio only coming out of one ear.

I have a set of wireless headphones that use the same cable to charge as my phone. I charge my phone once a day when I sleep, and my headphones about once a week. If I want to use wired headphone I have them permanently plugged into a free dongle that came with my phone, but I haven't in months... they are in my bag... tangling stuff...

[Edit, as above, formatting etc]

<comment><USER4> You understand that having a jack doesn't mean you can't use wireless, right? Glad you like wireless, but (obviously), not everyone feels the way you do.

<comment><USER3> I know, I was just adding balance.

People loved and still miss Micro SD slots on phones too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Call me oldschool, but my headphones that work with everything else, should work fine for my phone. I will continue to vote with my dollar and only buy phones with 1. Removable battery 2. Removable storage 3. Headphone plug.

Don't think me some luddite, I love my wireless buds when working out, or riding a bike. But when I want it to 'just work', no drivers, no batteries, no formats, just a plug and good sound. It seems steange to me, as apple used to be known for its quality D/A converters, and they are cheaper than ever now.

<comment><USER6> Replacing simple, robust and inexpensive technology with complex, fragile, and relatively more expensive electronics seems to be the "modern" trend these days, and I am also opposed to it.

Wireless certainly has its advantages but I am unconvinced that it should be the _only_ way to connect headphones or other things "going forward".

But given the economic incentives, it's not surprising why things are moving in that direction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am happy that someone is writing about this.

Essential broke my heart when they launched without the headphone jack (okay, not really, but you they did eliminate me as a customer for this version -- maybe I won't need the headphone jack for their next release).

Survey from Nov last year: [https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/01/life-without-the- headphone-ja...](https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/01/life-without-the-headphone- jack/)

It is a survey...so who knows how real it is, but 55.86% were negatively impacted Apple removing the headphone jack. While Apple customers don't have a choice, Android users do and we will vote with our wallets.

<comment><USER8> Apple customers have a choice. Which is why I'm typing this from my brand new Galaxy instead of an iPhone.

<comment><USER9> I could suffer android, or like you know I could plug in the 3 cm converter onto my 20cm cord when my can't find my airpods.

<comment><USER5> Dongles are never the best answer. Either bulky and akward, or tiny and lost/broken. It would take a bit less than 3cm to just add the extra chip and jack.

<comment><USER9> You have a massive wire attached to your headphones already...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >It isn't a forward-thinking move like Apple's decision to kill off the floppy disk, because no one's playing along.

In an article about how too many phone manufacturers are removing the headphone jack? A lot of people are playing along. The market for bluetooth headphones has blown up, covering a range of prices and form factors - it's absurd and perhaps wishful thinking to say this isn't a real trend. I also don't believe there are no benefits to the manufacturing process.

I predict this article will feel very outdated in a couple years. I was very skeptical of the removal of the headphone jack, but six months ago I tried out a bluetooth headset, and I would never go back. It's easier and doesn't snag, and is easier to put away. This isn't to say everyone should get rid of the headphone jack, but I don't see why manufacturers shouldn't be able to.

<comment><USER11> Here's my problem with bluetooth:

Sound quality.

Bluetooth is not able to offer the fidelity of a standard 3.5mm jack. Until it is capable of doing so, I will not even consider using bluetooth headphones.

Plus, industry standard high-fidelity and studio quality headphones don't come with bluetooth due to the fidelity issue. I already have a several hundred dollar pair of awesome headphones. Why would I purchase a phone that I can't connect them to?

Let's call the removal of the headphone jack what it is: a cash grab. The only reason manufacturers are doing this is to increase profits. By removing the 3.5mm jack companies no longer have to pay for the part or attaching the part to the board. On top of this, manufacturers can now charge for special dongles and proprietary wireless headphones.

<comment><USER12> Some devices can send AAC at up to 96KHz over Bluetooth, and its compression is considered transparent by the ITU at 128kbit/s.

I think the manufacturers didn't want to add cruft to their headphones, as the batteries and decoding circuitry would probably begin to crowd out the actual sound reproduction hardware.

Of all the complaints I've heard (and agreed with) on removing the 3.5mm jack, inability to send high-fidelity audio over BT is the one I think I disagree with the most.

(I agree with the rest of your comment, though.)

<comment><USER13> I don't know... quality is one of my primary concerns too.

To be clear, I'm not someone who romanticizes audio quality. I'm really about hard facts. But bluetooth audio quality is a known issue, and although there have been attempts to address it, it seems like nothing is really quite there yet.

Yes, there are higher-quality audio bluetooth standards, but not everything works with them, and there's interference, and general glitchiness, etc. Bluetooth audio quality is one of these things where there's a huge difference between what's on paper and what reality is.

To be fair, I think there's issues with wireless and wifi audio in general (not necessarily with quality, but the whole package: quality, reliability, open standardization, adoption, etc.). I also think bluetooth audio is fine for some basic level of audio quality.

But bluetooth audio as a _general standard_ is just not up to snuff. It's certainly not comparable to other AV jack/port/interface standards, like 3.5mm jacks or HDMI or whatever.

I definitely do not consider myself an audiophile, but I can only listen through bluetooth audio for so long before it drives me crazy. The closest thing I can think of is mono AM radio or something.

This was a random page about bluetooth audio--I just picked it because it was the near the top of a Google search. It sums up the situation with bluetooth well, though, and being random from my perspective kinda underscores it's not a niche perspective:

[https://www.lifewire.com/what-to-know-about- bluetooth-313459...](https://www.lifewire.com/what-to-know-about- bluetooth-3134591)

Personally, I'm pissed about getting rid of headphone jacks, and for the general trend of manufacturers to think eliminating things in the name of minimalism is a good idea. It's ok to a point, but 3.5 mm elimination is past that point IMHO.

I fully suspect someday 3.5mm jacks will be outdated, but we're not there yet.

<comment><USER12> "Interference" and "glitchiness" are kind of hand-wavy, and so is the "known issue" of BT audio quality. If you could link some "hard facts" about those, I'd love to read on.

Yes, you can experience wireless issues with poorly designed devices. But I know people that use BT audio as their primary ways to listen to music, and I'm personally building such a device for my car. I can send audio to it from further than I am willing to test, and I haven't yet had my audio interrupted.

As far as I can tell, as long as you're making sure you're using the highest quality standard possible, you'll receive a decent experience.

Where the experience breaks down, as I mentioned earlier, is the lack of high- fidelity sound reproduction options due to the size of the decoding circuitry and battery pack. BT audio headphones, though usable, are generally not great. If you have something externally powered (e.g. my car) it is fine... but that use case occurs less often.

Perhaps your devices only support the SBC codec, mandatory for inclusion in the standard. Or perhaps your devices have chosen to communicate over the hands-free profile instead of A2DP, which is another issue I've had.

I don't claim that 3.5mm jacks will be outdated, and I certainly don't think so either. I just think that BT audio is "good enough" _strictly in terms of fidelity_ , and that _other factors_ confound its inclusion in high-fidelity headphones.

<comment><USER13> Fair enough in some respects, but the facts you're looking for are really about product quality ratings, which gets into a quagmire.

My point isn't that decent quality audio with BT isn't possible, it's that I don't think BT standards are at the same point as 3.5mm. As you yourself said, if you're saying that BT is fine "as long as you're making sure you're using the highest quality standard possible" then there's a problem.

It sounds like you've run into some of the same issues ("choosing to communicate over the hands-free profile"); I think my broader point is that with BT, it seems like there's a lot of those sorts of things.

Something like car audio or home stereo, with a nice, well-configured set up, is fine, but for a lot of things it doesn't have the same plug and play kind of simplicity of 3.5 mm.

Maybe we agree more than we disagree, although come to different opinions about jacks in phones. To me, BT is a promising thing that's not quite foolproof enough to compare to 3.5mm.

In general I feel like mobile device design has this tail-wagging-the-dog problem the last few years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Apple's AirPods, in their tiny package, are capable of 5h of battery life. The case recharges the buds about 5 times, giving you almost 24h or battery. If headphone makers can't bundle at least a comparable battery life in their extremely larger package, that's not bluetooth's fault.

<comment><USER15> AirPods are impressive in that sense, but they have the disadvantage that their integrated batteries are un-replaceable. iFixit recently dismantled them... no, that's too kind a word... they destroyed the earbuds trying to figure out their design, and concluded that it's totally impossible to replace the batteries, which are glued in place within a plastic housing that is also glued together. When your AirPod batteries no longer hold charge, you'll end up buying a new pair, and there is no option to switch to a cabled connection.

You get what you pay Apple prices for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> >We've tested a wide range of phones over the past year, and found that a number of premium handsets like the the iPhone 7, the Essential Phone and Xiaomi's Mi 6 have nixed the jack.

I giggled a little at the idea that testing was required to find out that the iphone 7 had ditched the headphone jack.

<comment><USER17> I take this phrase as meaning something like this: "Since we're in the business of testing phones, we see a lot of different phones, and we noticed that more and more have nixed the jack."

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I didn't hate my iPhone 7+ because I could use the regular headphones with the adapter. It was definitely a pain point though.

But I must say, after I got my airpods, my usage habits have changed. That is how wireless headphones should be. Heck I have never used even the wired headphones as often as I use the Airpods.

Seriously, if you don't intend to use Airpods like wireless headphones all the time, its going to be a pita to use a headphone jackless phone. As of now, there's no Bluetooth headphones out there that comes close to the amazing UX of Airpods.

So think about buying that jackless phone based on how you intend to use it. Airpods will make a huge difference.

<comment><USER19> _the amazing UX of Airpods_

Genuinely curious. What is so amazing about it?

<comment><USER18> 1) I never liked wireless bt headphones earlier because they'd still tangle (like the Bose Bluetooth wirelsss which has a wire/strap connecting the two

2) I don't have to think about charging the headphones, with a dinky small usb chord, which I had to carry with the Bose. The Airpods charging case actually makes a big difference in the whole UX of Airpods. You use it as a storage case. But it charges the Airpods. I charge the chase once or twice a week when I remember to charge it.

3) It feels so comfortable in ears that i tend to forget that I'm wearing the Airpods. The only other earphones that were as comfy, were the ones from Bose with the silicone ear tips.

4) seemless pairing and switching between devices (Mac and iPhone) makes it even more amazing to use. (Certain apps on Mac though have a problem working well with the BT headsets, so I hate the MBP for that)

<comment><USER19> So the amazing UX comes down to a clever charging case, and comfy in-ear experience? Point 1 is a statement about your other headphones, not the airpods; Point 4 is ambiguous.

That isn't really enough for me to say "lets ditch wired headphones". Here is my "Amazing UX" list:

My headphones _always_ work, across an incredibly wide variety of devices. Phones, Tablets, TV's, stereo systems, mixing consoles in studios. Basically, if it can reproduce sound, there is a near to 100% chance my headphones will work with it.

 _never_ have to charge. I literally never have to worry about charging them, or battery life, or fancy charging cases (that would need to be kept on a charger) or anything like that.

 _extreme comfort_ \- in-ears don't do it for me, and cause me ear infections. I used to own a pair of custom-fit etymotic in-ears that would give me the comfort and quality I wanted, and would fit under my motorcycle helmet, but after a while ear infections started coming up, and my physician advised me that in-ears were not for me.

 _superb quality_ \- I enjoy listening to Sennheiser HD-280, HD650 or when traveling, the HD4.20s, and when the mood takes me, the AKG K701. I'm not an audiophile or sound quality snob, but once you have heard good quality playback through a pair of high quality earphones it is really difficult to listen to something else.

 _never have to worry about using them_ \- I plug them in, put them on my head. Done - a UX so slick and smooth, I never even have to _think_ about it.

I really don't understand why phonebuilders are getting rid of jacks. I know I won't be joining the ranks of wireless headphone users.

<comment><USER18> I know quite a few who dont like the new in ear shape of apple headphones (and they swear by the old round ones). For them, Airpods will be an issue.

But in my case I'm fine with no headphone jack iff there's something like Airpods with me and I think the lightning adapter is a good compromise. I'm sure those who love their wired headphones wont agree with me. If number of phone buyers who don't care about using wired headphones (like me) is >> ṭhose who care (like you) then headphone jack will die.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> First of all, LeEco's president of R&D Liang Jun said that it is more complicated to include USB 3.1 type C than 3.5mm jack AND USB 2.0. It certainly frees up space and makes it easier to make the phone water- resistant, IP68 certified.

Secondly, I personally own a pre-USB-type-C phone and a Sony bluetooth headset with a 3.5mm jack option. I'm looking at buying a new laptop, with as many USB type C 3.1 ports, as possible. Why? Because I buy one for about 5 years, and its the future, and I'm happy that we are converging to a single laptop charger and data port. Don't get me wrong, I don't say that it hurts to have a jack as an option, but I do say that it hurts not having an USB type C port. If I got the latter, but not the first, I don't mind. Anyone can buy an adapter, the USB 3.1 supports analog audio in and out and has an audio controll interface ([http://www.anandtech.com/show/10719/usbif-publishes- audio-ov...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/10719/usbif-publishes-audio-over- usb-typec-specifications)), so no functionality is lost. Of course, it is a change, and people tend to take changes quite badly. If someone is afraid of losing the adapter, just tape it to the headphones, if they are using a 12 dollar one, I'm sure it won't make worse the experience. As for quality, I'm sure audiophiles will welcome that now they have more power over the DAC. And yes, it can help a lot.

So stop whining, if you want a phone with a 3.5mm jack, buy one, there is plenty, and there will be quite a few for many years. Postpone the change, but keep it in mind when you buy your new pair of headphones.

</comment><comment><USER21> HN: where commenters gleefully battle with Javascript standards daily, but find keeping track of a 3cm long adapter that came with their phone literally impossible.

<comment><USER22> HN: where commenters gleefully carry water for companies doing their best to spin naked profit motive as a customer benefit, most often by mocking the legitimate complaints of their peers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I frankly don't get the obsession with wireless: it's consistently a worse experience than wired. Wireless networking is slower & less predictable than wired. Wireless keyboards enable attackers to sniff one's password. Wireless mice need charging (remarkably, Apple's wireless mouse is _unusable_ whilst charging — notably poor UX). Wireless headphones cost more, have worse quality, introduce lag & last a shorter time — and they (at least potentially) enable an attacker to listen to what one's hearing.

Wireless is convenient, yes. But I'd rather have a living room keyboard with a 24-foot cable than a wireless keyboard from which my neighbour's kid can steal my passwords. I'd rather have a pair of wired, electric earbuds for a decade or more than a pair of wireless, electronic earbuds which last a year or two.

Getting rid of the headphone jack isn't courage: it's folly.

<comment><USER6> _I 'd rather have a pair of wired, electric earbuds for a decade or more than a pair of wireless, electronic earbuds which last a year or two._

Another advantage: wired earbuds are easy to retrieve if they fall out of your ear. Depending on when and where they fall out, you might not be able to retrieve wireless ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Most BS reason I heard Apple give for ditching the jack was for waterproofing. Yes, waterproofing is quite desirable in a smartphone, but Samsung managed to IP44-rate their Galaxy S5 (of which I have one) without dropping the 3.5mm jack. They didn't even put a cover over it, which they did for the USB3.0 connector.

Any manufacturer who gives this as a reason for ditching this ever-useful connector, please explain how other companies have managed.

I do prefer the convenience of bluetooth, but I also like that I can use a cheap 3.5mm cable to connect my phone to the stereo in my car, which does not benefit from a bluetooth adapter. It also means that when my bluetooth headphones run flat, I can switch to cabled while they charge.

</comment><comment><USER24> Reminds me of the Apple Plug:

[http://appleplugs.com/](http://appleplugs.com/)

The looping gif at the end is a masterpiece.

<comment><USER25> The other parody this reminds me of is this one. It is NSFW.

[https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/09/17/airpod- accessory...](https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/09/17/airpod-accessory- subwoofer/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm fine with it.

For a highly mobile device like a phone a wireless solution like Bluetooth makes a lot more sense.

Meanwhile, for audiophile scenarios, a powered digital connection offers better options.

Phones are space constrained so you really have to consider whether a large single-purpose port is worth it when there are better options avaialable.

Here's another way to put it: if the 3.5mm jack didn't already exist it is nothing like what you'd propose for an optimal audio interface. The only thing it has going for it is the historical ecosystem. That's certainly not nothing, but given it's drawbacks and the availability of better options, it seems worth the cost to move on.

<comment><USER6> _Here 's another way to put it: if the 3.5mm jack didn't already exist it is nothing like what you'd propose for an optimal audio interface._

I think it's close to optimal --- and for a while, the slightly smaller 2.5mm size was also extremely common in dumbphones and media players.

<comment><USER26> The main problem is the digital to analog conversion has to happen in the phone. DACs involve trade offs and they aren't all equivalent. With the 3.5mm jack you get whatever your phone has.

The early conversion to analog has other implications. Distortions in the signal can more easily affect what you hear than digital, which can do error correction.

Also, you might want your headphones to do signal processing. That probably needs to be done digitally, so if your signal is analog you'll have to digitize, process, then convert back to analog.

And the 3.5mm jack doesn't deliver the power. So if you want to do any processing or amplification you'll need a battery that you have to charge or some other power supply.

3.5mm also allows for only very basic controls.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> There's simply no worse technology that I've used in my life than Apple's Bluetooth and I've tried most things out there. A bt speaker can literally be touching its bt source and still can't play music without constant skipping. This is in multiple environments in multiple locations. The same speaker has no problem playing from other devices. I can't imagine buying an overpriced iPhone to get such a shitty experience. Apple used to make good technology, now they just make garbage. Let the ignorant masses use this garbage and be forced for no good reason to but substandard bt headphones when they have plenty good wired ones that bt can't even come close to in quality, reliability, usability, or battery life (infinite). Companies that follow Apple are making a mistake but idiot consumers don't know any better. I'm sure there'll be plenty of phone makers keeping the jack for users who actually understand what they're buying.

<comment><USER28> I've had the opposite experience lately. Using both the MacBook Pro 2016 and iPhone in combination with the Bose SoundSport, and later the AirPods, has been a surprisingly seamless experience. The pairing occurs virtually instantly. I imagine this is a result of devices using the latest Bluetooth protocols.

The AirPods even pair right away with my linux laptop (Dell XPS 9550), as well as my linux desktop workstation. I've begun using them with the new Xfinity cable box, for which Bluetooth can be toggled in the 'Comcast Labs' menu.

In fact, the AirPods have solved every annoyance I've had with previous Bluetooth earbuds (clunky charging cables, manual power cycling, pairing speed, battery duration, portability, etc.). They're the first wireless earbuds that I use every day, easily slipping into my pocket. By contrast, the Jaybird and Bose equivalents require you to carefully wrap up the earbuds and cables, squeezing them into a small case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> As long as there are wired-only devices that people might want to use, having wireless-only devices as well forces lots of people to have either two headsets or one with a dongle. Somebody else mentioned treadmills at a health club. I'll add airline seats. Also, some environments just aren't that conducive to interference-free wireless listening. Hell, I've had multiple computers that created their _own_ interference between wifi and Bluetooth.

When Bluetooth is truly universal, and it's more resistant to interference, and pairing is less of a pain than it is now, then it will be time to get rid of the jack. Until then, this trend is an annoyance. Maybe it's small in the grand scheme of life, but it's enough that any such vendors are automatically on my boycott list.

</comment><comment><USER30> I use a Bluetooth dongle (Taotronics TT-BA08) with my normal Etymotic headphones for my iPhone 7. Works fine. The TT has ~20hr battery which is a week of usage for me.

(Also doubles as a 3.5mm-to-Bluetooth transmitter but I've not used that yet. I think it also has a microphone for hands-free calling.)

<comment><USER31> My $3 headphones are guaranteed to last as long as the phone I'm using, can be toggled between my phone and laptop with one touch, have never had driver issues, are far greener and less power hungry, do not induce noticable EM interference, have perfectly fine range and fidelity, and can be used as a defensive garotte if I'm attacked. I'm sticking with jacks.

<comment><USER32> I finally gave Bluetooth headphones a go recently with a pair that cost about £30 and I've found that I really like them - I was always finding that cables got in the way and although audio quality isn't brilliant I mostly listen to audiobooks where I don't mind it.

I'll probably stick with wireless headphones in future.

<comment><USER31> But are they 10x better, for the price? I listen to music. You mentioned the quality was poor. I won't compromise quality for cables, and cordless is a bit of a non-benefit to me.

<comment><USER33> You seem to forget you can still have wired headphones connected through the USB c port. It's just the standard jack that's gone. It's not wireless or jack as the only options.

Personally I've loathed wired for almost 8years now. I was happy when they removed the jack, and kept, in my mind, still an alternative if you really want to stay wired sometimes.

<comment><USER34> > You seem to forget you can still have wired headphones connected through the > USB c port.

I already went through the adapter shit with my Sony Ericsson Walkman dumbphones 10 years ago. We have _moved on_. I refuse to technologically regress to that point because Apple wants to milk people with a new fashion accessory and the other manufacturers want to "look cool" imitating that idiocy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I would think a true audiophile wouldn't mind that much about this, because they would prefer to run their own DAC and amp off the digital signal instead of using the internal sound card anyways.

<comment><USER36> Attaching a DAC to a lightning port is always a pain (last time I tried, it require a lightning to USB host, then USB to DAC), not to mention it's not a great portable solution.

<comment><USER35> No, it's not a great portable solution, but honestly I thought most audiophiles looked down at portable music listening anyways. They prefer their big hifiman headphones and hifi speaker setups, no? I could be wrong.

<comment><USER36> The second (somewhat ironically my setup, minus the "big" adjective) setup does not negate the first use case. I simply enjoy listening to high quality music wherever I happen to be. And I can with good headphones, which pretty much universally use a 2.5mm jack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I wouldn't mind seeing phones with 2 USB-C connectors instead of USB + headphone jack. If I'm using 3.5mm headphones it takes a dongle anyway, or there are starting to be cheap USB-C headphones, or if I want high sound quality I'd be buying an external DAC anyway so having the USB port open would help. The problem with having only one port on the phone is trying to charge and use the headphones at the same time, which the vast majority of adapters / phones don't support.

</comment><comment><USER38> I have an iPhone SE right now. I was going to upgrade to a Pixel at the next opportunity, but knowing now that the Pixel 2 has no jack, I won't. I will not buy a phone that does not have a headphone jack.

Here's the thing: I don't want to listen to music from my phone most of the time (except in my car, which already has Bluetooth). When I _do_ , though, I want a high quality experience, so I use the same (relatively nice) headphones I use with my desktop most of the time. I cannot not justify buying a pair of expensive Bluetooth headphones just for the less-common case of wanting music from my phones; Bluetooth monitors are generally worse than non-Bluetooth counterparts in the same price range.

Now, I could certainly get one of the adapters others have mentioned here - but I don't want to do that, because I don't want to send the message that I'm OK with paying for more redundant dongles so that phones can be 4% thinner. I won't buy any phone that has lacks a jack.

<comment><USER39> USB-C will actually be better for audio quality since you can have a DAC in your headphones, rather than the phone, so I would expect high end phones to get on this trend first.

I do wonder if Apple will stick to the Lightning standard while the rest of the industry (and even Apple's laptops) move to USB-C.

<comment><USER38> Even if they do, the device will still likely only have one USB-C port - so I would only be able to both listen to music and charge wirelessly, and we're back to square one, unless I get yet another overpriced dongle. It's still a non-starter. (Though if wireless charging becomes a big thing, maybe that'll change things.)

<comment><USER39> I don't see why Charging cables won't just start coming with an adapter that lets you plug in headphones. It's either stationary, so the extra bit doesn't really matter, or you're already carrying the cable + battery, and you probably don't care about the extra piece too much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I just want cheap sound, that costs as cheap as possible to replace when I lose whatever it is I'm using to listen and talk, and no dongles.

</comment><comment><USER41> I have a headphone jack on my pixel. But I just use BT headphones. I don't have a problem with it being removed.

<comment><USER42> I do - especially with all the BT problems that Oreo has introduced into the mix. Lots of people reporting that the connectivity between their handset and their headphones is now dropping out frequently. (Somewhere on google groups in the pixel support forum, where there's a massive thread on this - can't access google groups from work, or I'd find the link).

<comment><USER43> Oh Google BT issues have been going on for far longer than Oreo. BT support on Android is garbage. Put your phone in your back pocket, lose BT. Stuck paired with your car? Restart your phone. I've had nothing but bad luck with BT as far as reliability goes. It works fine for my runs but drops out so easily it just proves how not ready for primetime it is.

<comment><USER41> I had a few issues with Nougat when I first got it. At some point an update fixed all issues. I just upgraded to Oreo and other than being blinded by the UI nothing much seems to have changed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> to listen to music in future we'll have to get mp3 players again, but that'll be a good thing (independent battery, storage and a dac), mp3 players might also be able to double up as battery banks (you can keep it in you pocket at all times, less need to look at it than a phone)

</comment><comment><USER45> Apple did away with the headphone jack, Essential too, now the Pixel 2, the trend will continue. At least in the context of the smart phone there is no more "trying", it's done, we're really just waiting for the victim to bleed out at this point.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm not buying a phone without headphone jack nor FM radio.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm pretty sure the motivating factor is waterproofing. The more places where the insides of the phone need to connect to the outside, the harder it is to protect from water damage.

<comment><USER48> that and encouraging people to spend $160 on bt earphones

<comment><USER49> You mean by including both headphones with a lightning connector _and_ an adapter?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Others should keep it as a feature, and Apple should get lost with their DRMed audio idea.

<comment><USER51> > Apple should get lost with their DRMed audio idea

Did I miss something? What DRM are they planning in relation to headphones?

<comment><USER50> This introduces possibility of DRM, while regular audio jack has none.

See [https://boingboing.net/2016/08/12/how-a-digital-only- smartph...](https://boingboing.net/2016/08/12/how-a-digital-only- smartphone.html)

<comment><USER51> If they wanted to add audio DRM, could they not have done so with a regular 3.5mm jack? Just because the physical interface is a "standard" doesn't mean they have to send standard data over it.

<comment><USER5> Because this is a cheaper and easier way of introducing it? Sure his idea is unlikely, and unfounded, but its not stupid. Putting the quality of experince to a lower standard (audio conversion and quality), even more in the hands of 3rd party, and eliminating their market position as 'the audiophiles phone' all together is odd, just to make the phone thinner, when ther camera is protruding already, and most people seem not to care. Its the kinda tinfoil hat thats worth donning once in a while. Even if they never pull the trigget, I don't belive for a minute they have not tabled the idea, and considered its possibilitu during implementation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> After buying a number of apple accessories, I've come to the conclusion that Apple treats them as disposable items.

I've upgraded from the Apple 1 through 3 and then switched to the Fire stick.

Airport Express? Got a number of those AND an old XP machine to configure them since Apple abandoned support on macOS.

Their routers don't do WDS with other routers.

When the 7 came out without a headphone jack, it was the last straw. I don't know what I'll buy when my 5s dies, but it's not going to be an iPhone.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you meet with angel investors? - <AUTHOR>

OK. My question looks silly but it´s not. I have met with angel investors, i want to know how you get in touch with them.
I am co-founder of two succesful internet businesses and im in for the third one. The previous two were bootstrapped so there were no angels or VCs.
I am half way in the process of creating my product using the profits from my previous business but we realised we should be taking the fast-growing-startup path and looking for angel investors.
Where should I start? <comment><USER2> [https://angel.co/](https://angel.co/)</comment>


Ask HN: Mesh networking? - <AUTHOR> Doing a little research this weekend on mesh networking and it seems like most efforts stopped in 2015 at least any that are related to raspberry pi...  Anyone have suggestions for setting up a neighborhood mesh network?  My goal is for the network to support a camera system and provide shared wifi to the neighborhood.  The reason for wanting it to be a mesh is so as people move in and out of the neighborhood we can maintain a loose governance over the network, not requiring us to have a single homeowner in control of the network.  The cameras would be for us to catch hooligans in the act... if we get the camera's really working well we'll hook the drones to do fly byes and point at people with lazzzer beams<p>[update]: this looks pretty good https://github.com/urlgrey/hsmm-pi <comment><USER2> Why not just use ip cameras? Most neighborhood ISPs will give you public IPs, just slap a camera on your pi and fire up ffmpeg.</comment>


Conservatives at big tech companies believe diverse opinions aren't welcome - <AUTHOR> https://www.foxnews.com/tech/conservatives-at-big-tech-companies-believe-diverse-opinions-arent-welcome <comment><USER2> Coming from Fox News where we know diverse opinions are definitely unwelcome, is this not a case of the kettle calling the pot black?

I mean one of their own talking heads was campaigning for Trump/GOP last night. So I am not sure what this is all about, and why it's even posted. I, along with most people here are not going to click a link to foxnews.com.

If this idea has any merit, someone should post it somewhere that is not on a garbage site like foxnews, dailycaller, breitbart, etc. Because I am not going to give those sites the clicks.

And for the record I would feel the same way if it was posted on the liberal equivalents: shareblue, etc.</comment>


Kanban Development Oversimplified - <AUTHOR> http://www.agileproductdesign.com/blog/2009/kanban_over_simplified.html

<comment><AUTHOR> The best article on Kanban I've found so far. If you know other good resources on the topic please tell me.</comment>


Which Y Combinator startup(s) have been the best source(s) of ideas for you (not necessarily ideas that you will pursue)? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Most of the Winter Founders Program groups had some notable impact on our product and business...

Talking to Tsumobi and Heysan convinced us to add mobile capabilities to our products. That was a big thing. Tsumobi also gave me some new ideas about APIs and how to make them more valuable.

The fact that about half of the groups in WFP were using Ruby On Rails gave us the impetus to add RoR and Ruby Gems support. That one has just been released, so I'm not sure how important it's going to be for the majority of our customers. But it's probably good for buzz.

I got lots of good feedback on our new website during development from overhear.us, and then here on News.YC once it launched publicly.

Alexis' (of reddit) stuff about getting publicity on the cheap was inspiring, and we're starting to put some of it into practice now...I expect it'll be a good thing. Reddit also has awesome design.

I liberally stole design ideas from Wufoo and SocialMoth and Overhear.us.

Zenter and Octopart were awesome to watch presenting. I hope I picked up a few things.

We added a template-based WYSIWYG website builder to our product after Weebly dragged their feet on launching some sort of call-back API. (We'd still like to call out to Weebly, if they ever add an API, but that may not make business sense for them.)

Talking to Beau from Snipshot was also useful. Not sure what exactly we got out of it, but I seem to recall he brought up a lot of fantastic ideas in a very short period of time.

Hmmm...That's the bits that spring to mind. I'm sure I'm leaving off something...

</comment><comment><USER3> For me it is the news..get the right buzz at the right time.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> For me, they are justin.tv, likebetter.com, and reddit.com.

</comment><comment><USER4> news.yc</comment>


Microsoft's IFTTT alternative is now open to everyone - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/1/13491500/microsoft-flow-ifttt-available-now <comment><USER2> I was looking at flow earlier today to potentially set up some combined smart home automation controls but they don't seem to have adressed that segment yet.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I looked at it recently and it seemed very narrow in scope atm.

I'm finding IFTTT and Integromat together covers most things, I'd love a good selfhosted option though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> sometimes Microsoft makes me wonder wth they are doing, the flow.microsoft.com only mentions android and iphone apps and nothing about a uwp app

<comment><USER5> They have startup envy, they are throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks in a desperate attempt to avoid becoming irrelevant.

<comment><USER6> Sounds like ca. 2010 Yahoo.</comment></comment></comment>