The Repeal of Net Neutrality Is Official - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/technology/net-neutrality-repeal.html <comment><USER2> > Its chairman has long argued against the rules, pointing out that before > they were put into effect in 2015, service providers had not engaged in any > of the practices the rules prohibited

That's because those practices were prohibited by the 2010 rules. There was only a year between the court striking down the 2010 rules in early 2014 and the FCC adopting the 2015 rules in early 2015.

The court that overturned the 2010 rules _told_ the FCC how they could fix them, and the FCC got to work on that right away, so the ISPs _knew_ that replacement rules would come out soon. Of course no sane ISP made any changes during that year.

<comment><USER3> > Its chairman has long argued against the rules, pointing out that before > they were put into effect in 2015, service providers had not engaged in any > of the practices the rules prohibited

This whole thing just has me stumped as to how we even got into this position. How in the hell does a single bureaucrat have this kind of power in the US to make a unilateral decision affecting millions of people and billions of dollars in commerce?

<comment><USER4> He's the scapegoat for all the other government officials on both sides of the aisle who have had their pockets filled up by the telecom industry.

<comment><USER5> Except in this case it was only FCC board members from one party that voted for the repeal, I'll let you guess which one.

<comment><USER6> I guess the party the won the election and therefore has legitimate authority from the citizens to do that. It sounds like a much more fair and accountable system than giving the power to people who are neither elected nor appointed by elected people.

<comment><USER7> > It sounds like a much more fair and accountable system than giving the power > to people who are neither elected nor appointed by elected people.

This response is kind of ironic in context of net neutrality being repealed considering it is a decision which empowered those who are neither elected nor appointed by elected people against the will of the overwhelming majority of the citizens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Kudos to the NYT for leading with an accessible and informative description of the discriminatory consequences of the repeal of net neutrality, rather than the nonsensical, meaningless, and ultimately harmful "it will allow ISPs to charge more for faster service!" line that is often parroted by the media.

</comment><comment><USER9> I do not look forward to having to pay for a "performance gaming" or "performance VPN" or "awesome streaming video" package...

I have one ISP in my area that offers speeds above 5m consistently :(

<comment><USER10> There's absolutely nothing wrong with vendors offering different QoS for different scenarios.

Why would no not what a specialized network option for 'super low latency' for things like games?

Or if you don't use any kind of streaming, then why not get cheaper rates for 'super high latency'?

This is good, it's their job.

Where it gets ugly is if they start discriminating between customers, i.e. Netflix has to pay $X while their parent companies other asset, HBO only has to pay $Y.

Or if you have a 'Facebook package' that optimizes for FB or something like that.

So QoS, yes, content discrimination, no.

<comment><USER11> Because all I want is a dumb pipe. I don't pay the water company based on how wide _their_ pipes are (backbone bandwith) or how far I am from their treatment center (latency); I pay based on consumption alone, as it should be. Why do you think Internet access needs to be treated any differently?

<comment><USER12> But you do pay the water company based on how much water you use. Why shouldn't certain providers like, say, Netflix, not have to pay more when they use nearly 40% of the pipe? ([https://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix- bandwidth-usag...](https://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth- usage-internet-traffic-1201507187/)).

<comment><USER13> Netflix only uses 40% of the pipe if the ISP consumers request their data. ISPs are already paid by their consumers to provide them their requested data.

<comment><USER14> Exactly. How hard is this to understand? The cost is already being met by consumers.

It's like if a football stadium was located near a tollway, and the tollway decided to start charging the stadium itself during sporting events.

That's not a legitimate business transaction, it's a cash grab.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Its chairman has long argued against the rules, pointing out that before > they were put into effect in 2015, service providers had not engaged in any > of the practices the rules prohibited.

But this is a bald-faced lie, and the proof is in the public record; while there was en evolving approach to enforcing the open internet principles prior to the 2015 Title II rules (in large part because the prior approaches were struck down by the courts, forcing changes in approach), there is a long line of enforcement actions by the FCC against ISPs for actions that would be in violation of the 2015 rules. ISPs blocking legal P2P traffic, ISPs blocking legal VoIP services, etc.

</comment><comment><USER16> "Its chairman has long argued against the rules, pointing out that before they were put into effect in 2015, service providers had not engaged in any of the practices the rules prohibited."

That begs the question: Why then do they oppose the rules if only to start engaging in the practices they prohibit?

<comment><USER17> 2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013 - AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012 - Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012 - AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

<comment><USER18> In other words, Ajit Pai is blatantly lying. These rules were put in place in response to abuses by telecoms. I'm disappointed at how little context is ever given by the media on these issues.

<comment><USER19> > Ajit Pai is blatantly lying

He is, for sure. I don't think Pai is an idiot, or a moron or ignorant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He realizes it's all bullshit and is selling this crap to the public anyway.

<comment><USER20> He's a tool's tool. That giant mug? He literally mugs[1] for a corporation's product that is flavored sugar for children. He knows what he's doing.

[1] "mug" v. slang (orig. Theatre). a. intr. To pull a face, esp. in front of an audience or camera, to grimace; to over-act.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I feel very happy to be a Canadian right now. The CRTC's (Canadian Radio- television and Telecommunications Commission) laws on net neutrality are considered to be some of the strictest laws in the world.

Here is a great quote from a 2017 music streaming case requiring all data to be counted against a user's data cap, regardless of its source:

"the aim [of] the decision was to encourage Internet service providers to compete on price, speed and network quality instead of acting as a gatekeeper." \- Chairman of the CRTC, Jean-Pierre Blais

<comment><USER22> And yet Canada has one of the highest costs for Internet bandwith (~80 CAD for 75 Mbps, data capped at 500gb), no phone costs covered (another ~80 cad month)

<comment><USER23> Ya, it's pretty bad. Resellers are at least at a little nicer. There's rules regarding how much Canadian Telecoms have to charge resellers access to the network. I get 150Mbps for $70 no data cap from a reseller called VMedia. But we are generally hosed in Canada for internet services.

<comment><USER24> I'm in the heart of San Francisco, and I get 40Mbps at $90/mo USD (Comcast). Kind of pathetic that that's my only option in the tech capital of the world.

<comment><USER25> I get 1Gbps up/down at $60 per month through webpass... also live in San Francisco

<comment><USER24> Not available where I am =[

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > "The United States is simply making a shift from pre-emptive regulation, > which foolishly presumes that every last wireless company is an anti- > competitive monopolist" Mr. Pai said

So clearly we have no established precedent(1) of this sort of behavior in the past and happening again before our very eyes. Suggesting that these rules were conjured out of hysteria is not only wrong, it's insulting. But that's to be expected from a corporate shill.

(1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System)

<comment><USER27> Corrupt bureaucrat. We're talking about a man who flew to Barcelona to collect a bribe before passing this regulatory change.

<comment><USER28> Do you have a citation for that? It's a serious enough charge that it should never be made without one.

<comment><USER29> From the FOIA [1] done by a NGO [2].

[1] [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4106241-FCC- Calendar...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4106241-FCC-Calendars- and-Communications-with-ISPs.html#document/p207/a426454)

[2] [https://www.americanoversight.org/watchdog-demands- details-o...](https://www.americanoversight.org/watchdog-demands-details-of- private-meeting-between-fcc-and-att-executive-who-hired-trump-lawyer)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Does this mean that ISPs can block users from connecting to known VPNs or the TOR/P2P type networks without any recourse?

<comment><USER31> yes, you'd probably need to pay for a business account to get VPN access anyway

<comment><USER32> I am intrigued: do you know of any good writeups on how to discern the SSL-VPN traffic of Cisco AnyConnect from SSL-HTTP traffic of a browser?

<comment><USER33> I have no details but wouldn't be surprised if especially Cisco announces as metadata something like "this package is encrypted by Cisco AnyConnect version 1.2.3 [https://cisco.com/"](https://cisco.com/").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The USA is effectively becoming an innovation black hole from all angles of late. I predict people moving away until only the ultra right remains.

<comment><USER35> Doubtful. You underestimate the inertia of resources. Wages for tech are more competitive in the US. I also bet if your prediction started to become true then lobbyists would push regulations to reduce the brain drain.

That being said I'm a US citizen that thinks about moving increasingly all the time.

<comment><USER36> US is already experiencing a significant brain drain. This is currently offset by new immigrants, but if you look at how many talented people are leaving it's shocking.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_United_States)

<comment><USER37> Do you have have any data on that? Asking as I'm considering moving to the US and the climate there matters to me.

<comment><USER36> Exact numbers are hard to come by. _The United States does not keep track of emigration, and counts of Americans abroad are thus only available courtesy of statistics kept by the destination countries._

 _As of June 2016, the State department 's consular section estimated that there are 9 million non-military U.S. citizens living abroad,[3][4] an increase from the 4 million estimated in 1999._

The above includes many retirees, who find their retirement incomes stretch further abroad. But, it also includes a lot of PHD students who have troubles finding academic jobs inside the US etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I want to take the devils advocate position here and ask: why shouldn't a vendor be allowed to charge more for tiered service? With FANG and other tech companies sitting on so much cash, why cant they build out competing networks if the prices get too high or the services they want to deliver require them? Wont the consumer benefit from this?

<comment><USER39> THERE AREN'T ENOUGH VENDORS. That's the problem. They got scooped up and bought out; then, they had implemented local laws that prevent community ISPs. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?!

<comment><USER40> If that's the problem, then why don't we tackle that problem? Legislation should be geared entirely towards solving problems, not their second-tier consequences.

<comment><USER41> Utility companies usually enjoy both natural and state-granted monopolies for many reasons. The state grants them monopolies because cities don't want multiple companies laying conduits or having disputes over access to existing conduits. Imagine the difficulty of having 10 different cable companies, each wanting to lay cable throughout the city!

Even without state intervention, utility companies tend to become local monopolies, duopolies, or non-competitive oligopolies because of the high barriers to entry. This makes it difficult for startups to compete with the incumbents.

In this case, legislation is much more effective at handling the second-tier consequences of utility companies (e.g. the natural tendency away from competition) than handling the problem itself (the high barriers to entry)

<comment><USER42> I know this is America, but from a conceptual standpoint, my natural reaction to that is to think that Internet access should be an infrastructure maintained by the state. It solves the practical problem of multiple companies wanting to dig the same holes to put the same pipes; solves the liberal problem of forcing companies to comply with an arbitrary way to pursue business; solves the problem of neutrality since by virtue of freedom a state- maintained Internet would be neutral.

It raises the problem of the state controlling Internet. But 1. They already can pass laws to outlaw some parts of the Internet if they want to and 2. ISPs are so big I'm not sure them controlling Internet is more reassuring.

This is just a suggestion. I didn't process all the implications.

<comment><USER43> > Internet access should be an infrastructure maintained by the state.

Some cities and counties have tried this and were immediately sued by the incumbent operators. Cable and Telco have multidecade long contracts with local municipalities. Having a government just up and attempt to start doing their own thing is arguably a breach of contract/illegal.

<comment><USER44> I mean, they sue regardless of if they have contracts or not.

Comcast et al. sued Longmont, CO up the road from me when they first started their municipal internet, and tried to get the state senate to retroactively change the law in their favor. Luckily that didn't go anywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> How I plan to protest. I'll use as little internet as possible if need be. I'll not upgrade to any expensive "special package".

I'll support municipal broadband and will volunteer time and efforts even for cities not near me.

<comment><USER46> I considered shamming people working for these companies.

I give my dad a hard time for working at Blue Cross.

Remember that these organizations are people, every cog is responsible this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Welp, the Senate did what they could to overturn this. Thanks House of Reps [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2018/05/16/611598361...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2018/05/16/611598361/senate-approves-overturning-fccs-net-neutrality- repeal)

</comment><comment><USER48> Will our institutions be incompetent under this administration? Maybe. Can they be incompetent, period? Sure, its like swinging a dead cat and hitting the target. Checkout exhibit A: [https://www.propublica.org/article/us- immigration-agency-wil...](https://www.propublica.org/article/us-immigration- agency-will-lose-millions-process-visas-fast-enough)

</comment><comment><USER49> I'm having a hard time finding a link to the results of congressional votes related to net neutrality. Does anyone know which politicians voted for it, and which against? Which party did most of the pro-neutrality politicians belong to, and which party did most of the anti-net neutrality politicians belong to? I'm eager to vote for pro-NN politicians, so I'd like to know.

<comment><USER50> I feel you are being disingenuous. It's long been known that the republican party is spearheading the effort to end NN, while the democratic party wishes to protect it. It was a nearly party line vote

<comment><USER49> I was shocked to discover the same thing! It seems like the best way to preserve Net Neutrality is to vote Republican career politicians out of office.

<comment><USER50> Why would you be shocked to find such a thing? Republicans wish to remove regulation (usually). Supposedly even republican voters like net neutrality, but that has not been reflected in their votes. More so, if you ever bring up how republicans are on the warpath to kill net neutrality, you often get responses of "But both sides", despite specific things like this being hard party line votes.

<comment><USER49> Gosh, it seems strange that we apparently have such a readily-available mechanism for rescuing Net Neutrality (the only viable mechanism, apparently)--namely voting Republican career politicians out of office--but so few people are talking about it!

Wow, is it really true that you often get responses of "But both sides", despite specific things like this being hard party line votes? If so, that argument seems truly disingenuous!

<comment><USER51> Welcome to politics!

<comment><USER49> Hi! I'm not sure what you meant by that, can you explain? It seems you were implying that you have an understanding of why someone would falsely claim that "both sides" oppose Net Neutrality, when in fact the votes show that it is Republican politicians in Washington that consistently vote against Net Neutrality, while Democratic members of congress consistently vote to protect and safeguard Net Neutrality. I'd love to learn more from you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> If the United States want's to compete with other nations...its best bet is to have an informed population. An internet where information is on a pay to play basis will cut out the poor and weakest links...leaving a massive portion of the population under-informed. How does this make sense in a national security capacity?? Completely backwards .

<comment><USER53> What's information on now, an SEO to play basis? A buy targeted ads to play basis?

Not arguing against net neutrality by any means, but if an informed populace is really the goal then the ISPs are a side show.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Let the deconstruction of the Internet begin! "And with your Internet package, which search engine would like? ... And which streaming services? ... Oh, Netflix is only available in our premium package which will cost $20 more a month..."

</comment><comment><USER55> The proper rules are Congress writing updated laws for the internet and VOIP (and then letting the proper agency/ies regulate them) but of course they're too out of touch and bought-off to make anything sensible.

</comment><comment><USER56> Naive question: is it foreseeable that Google or someone else could take advantage of 5G technology and we could all just abandon cable/DSL companies and handle all our data needs wirelessly?

</comment><comment><USER57> _> "The United States is simply making a shift from pre-emptive regulation, which foolishly presumes that every last wireless company is an anti- competitive monopolist" Mr. Pai said_

No need to presume. Most of ISPs are. So US is making a shift from having some (not even sufficient) safeguards, to letting those monopolists abuse their monopolistic position to fleece their users left and right and limit their choices. Too much weasel wording Mr. Pai?

</comment><comment><USER58> As usual, the republicans work against the will and simply against the American people. The environment, the Internet, the economy. Just vote the SOBs out next time around, please.

</comment><comment><USER59> Cool. Now where's my FTTH?

</comment><comment><USER60> Just leave that country.. It is as good or mehr in literally any other developed country.

</comment><comment><USER61> A fair reporting of the news. Really understand both sides

</comment><comment><USER62> I am surprised that no one on HN is discussing what I consider an important point of the repeal, namely clipping the wings if the federal government (a good thing), and letting states decide for themselves how they want to regulate internet access. Heck, I'd even be in favour of this being regulated at the municipal level, to curtail state power.

<comment><USER63> How is it "clipping the wings of the federal government" if a federal agency decides itself to stop making rules about something? It can unfold it wings again at any time.

<comment><USER62> Doesn't really matters if it's self-inflicted. The result is the same: the fed have removed a regulation at the federal level. The state are now free to choose what they do. States who make the "wrong" choice will get get punished economically. Free market. Nothing bad about it.

<comment><USER64> Meanwhile, the people in those states suffer. How is that better for the people of this country?

Without getting too deep down the rabbit hole of representation and balance of power in many states, Federal regulation generally exists to protect people in States that refuse to make the "right" choice, as you put it. Removing Federal regulation isn't a net-good by default — in this case the regulation served a legitimate purpose to protect consumers and should have been left alone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I think what we'll really see in practice is this being used for political purposes, with pressure groups getting ISPs to block so-called "hate" or "extremist" sites.

The stuff about service tiers seems less likely and less concerning.

<comment><USER19> I think blocking content and net neutrality are mostly totally different issues. (Although content blocking I guess is one subset of NN).

It's interesting because, due to free speech laws in the US, ISPs can't really block anything. But they are required to monitor and report people who transfer illegal content:

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/11/microsoft...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/11/microsoft- employees-child-abuse-lawsuit-ptsd)

That being said, big tech does have the power to squish people they don't like, as I wrote about a while back:

[https://fightthefuture.org/article/the-new-era-of- corporate-...](https://fightthefuture.org/article/the-new-era-of-corporate- censorship/)

<comment><USER65> What are the free speech laws that prevent ISPs from blocking controversial content?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> It will be interesting to see whether American and European views of the internet converge or diverge in the long term. I've noticed that American norms tend to flow towards the old world, and the reverse is rarely true, the GDPR being the most impressive counter-example I've seen.

Or perhaps we will all move towards something similar to the Chinese model?

<comment><USER67> The story isn't over within the United States. Many states are defying the FCCs interpretation and enacting their own version of net neutrality.

It's going to be interesting to see if the FCC tries to strike those local laws down and how ISPs will handle the things from State to state.

<comment><USER68> I don't think the FCC would have the power to strike down local laws, if they even had any desire to.

The best they could probably do would be a lawsuit, but the states would be well within their rights to add new laws on top of federal ones.

<comment><USER69> What makes you so confident the FCC couldn't win in court? My understanding is that states have some right to additionally regulate, but only to the extent that federal law allows it.

<comment><USER70> In Tennessee v. FCC, [1] the FCC, under the authority of §706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, attempted to preempt state laws that prohibit municipalities from building their own broadband networks under certain circumstances (these laws were obviously lobbied and passed by ISPs in the state legislatures). This was struck down by courts because, although the supremacy clause means that federal law supplants state law, the federal law at hand was so far removed from what the FCC was doing in this particular case, that the FCC was essentially creating "directives" which overruled state law in pursuit of a vague goal that was defined in federal law. In essence, federal administrators/bureaucrats had the power to overrule state law. Although the ISPs "won" in that decision, it cuts both ways -- which means that any attempt by the FCC to preempt net neutrality regulations under §706 is likely to fail as well.

Sorry if my take is a little confusing, here is some more coverage: [2], [3].

[1] [http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0189p-06.pdf](http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0189p-06.pdf)

[2] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/08/10/fcc- los...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/08/10/fcc-loses-bid-to- preempt-municipal-broadband-laws-in-tennessee-n-c/#7e9e24a64e7f)

[3] [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/in-blow-to- muni-...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/in-blow-to-muni- broadband-fcc-loses-bid-to-overturn-state-laws/)

<comment><USER71> Problem is: if New Mexico passes a Net Neutrality law but all of the Netflix data centers are in Arizona it's suddenly going to be "interstate commerce"

<comment><USER72> Something being interstate commerce does not prevent states from legislating on it. Under that logic, states couldn't regulate the sale of anything produced in another state, which is obviously untrue.

<comment><USER71> no it just means that the federal government has constitutional power to over rule it if they feel like it, no need to argue on the basis of any existing case law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> I'm interested in whether one of the two extreme sides of this debate will admit they were wrong when their prediction doesn't pan out.

Either we wind up with a tiered, cable package style internet or we don't. I'm in the "we won't" camp", but I'm also more disturbed by the monopolistic nature of ISP's that the regulations emboldened.

<comment><USER74> And what if we get tiered internet... and consumers like it? "All the websites I use for one low price? Wow!" Internet nerds assume the public at large shares their romantic ideals of the open web but that might not be true.

<comment><USER75> Count me in. I never watch HD video, which is a huge % of all the traffic of every ISP. I wish I could pay less money for an internet connection that was cheaper in exchange for not being able to watch HD video.

<comment><USER76> Do you really want a slower connection, or just a smaller data package? I'm ok with the latter - pay for what you use. The former, especially if it's bundled by content provider, worries me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Incorrect title. Americans thave opted out of net neutrality. We canadians are keeping it, so too many other countries. It is still a thing for much/most of the world. Title should reflect that this is happing in only one country.

The rest of us are watching rome burn. We would like to help put out the fire, but the romans seem intent on burning down thier own houses. Just over half of them seems rather happy about the situation. The rest arent putting up much of a fight.

<comment><USER78> The headline if for an article written by an American newspaper about an American situation. It isn't necessary for EVERY single article written in America about an American situation to specify it as being 'in America' in the headline. 90% of the headlines would have to include 'in America'.

The article makes it clear who they are talking about.</comment></comment>


How to use Private Methods in JavaScript  - <AUTHOR> http://andrewkelley.me/post/js-private-methods.html

<comment><USER2> Surprisingly, I get much worse performance from the prototype version than the "external method" version (I wouldn't exactly call it private). Up to 50% worse in fact on Windows Chrome 28.

Interestingly, just defining initializeSomethingElse within Cell only results in ~10% slowdown, and that yields a truly private method. E.g.

        function Cell(x, y) {
          var self = this;
          self.x = x;
          self.y = y;
          self.things = [1, 2, 3];

          // private -unreachable- method
          initializeSomethingElse();

          // Private methods here
          function initializeSomethingElse() {
            self.dir = Math.atan2(self.y, self.x);
            self.total = 0;
            self.things.forEach(function(thing) {
              self.total += thing;
            });
          }
        }

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting results. The only problem with that kind of private method is that another Cell method wouldn't be able to call it either.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, for that you can go back to your original solution, but wrap it all in a (function(){ })() so the scope of the functions is limited to that function. I think you need to assign the Cell function to window.Cell as well to escape the scope for that one component.

Unfortunately, it was much slower when I tested it last night. Close to 60% slower compared to your original solution, or 7% - 10% slower than the original prototype method version.</comment></comment></comment>


AlphaFold: DeepMind predicts 3D shapes of proteins - <AUTHOR> https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2018/dec/02/google-deepminds-ai-program-alphafold-predicts-3d-shapes-of-proteins <comment><USER2> Solving Protein folding is low key one of the most important scientific endeavors. Understanding and being able to reconstruct the building blocks of the human body's (proteins) will make modern pharmacy/medicine obsolete.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> For me, the most amazing part was the relative performance in the competition:

> On its first foray into the competition, AlphaFold topped a table of 98 > entrants, predicting the most accurate structure for 25 out of 43 proteins, > compared with three out of 43 for the second placed team in the same > category.

though in looking at the link [1], I don't see that result very clearly...

[1] [http://predictioncenter.org/casp13/zscores_final.cgi](http://predictioncenter.org/casp13/zscores_final.cgi)

</comment><comment><USER3> Any research on how this compares to FoldIt, or is it apples and oranges?

<comment><AUTHOR> Did FoldIt switch from being humans doing it by hand?

<comment><USER3> No, it is humans doing it by hand, and apparently that was really effective. I'm wondering how this deepmind system compares, or if humans are still king.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is there a link to an original publication?</comment>


Fig: Visual Apps and Shortcuts for Your Terminal - <AUTHOR> https://withfig.com/ <comment><USER2> Hey HN! I'm Matt Schrage, one of the cofounders of Fig.

We were planning on launching on HN later on, so this caught us a bit off guard. (As someone noted, our 'Fig' icon is, in fact, an emoji pear). Still we're super excited to share what we've been working on.

Fig lets you connect web apps directly to your terminal. You can use Fig like a browser to get quick access to sites like Github, Stack Overflow, or Notion. You can also run apps built on the Fig.js runtime that integrate directly with your terminal. We want to be a low-cost abstraction. Use a Fig app when it's useful, drop back down to the shell when it's not.

I just wanted to respond to a couple of points.

The app is actually written in Swift: we're using a WKWebView under the hood but the majority of the codebase is native. Also because we aren't built on Electron, we don't need to bundle v8 and node along with the app, so the binary is pretty small (12mb).

Fig is extensible. The apps shown on the website (git, curl, and finder) are just a few examples of what is possible. You can check out the documentation at [https://withfig.com/docs](https://withfig.com/docs) and build your own.

Fig works with the tools you already use - we integrate with any terminal emulator (iTerm, Terminal.app, Hyper, Alactritty, etc.). Previous attempts at building GUI terminals have required throwing away 50 years worth of tooling and transitioning to a new application entirely. Fig is built around the premise that in order to upgrade the terminal, _changes must be backwards compatible_.

Happy to answer any more questions and really appreciate the feedback we've gotten so far.

<comment><USER3> I'm very happy to see it's a Swift/native app! One request, I would love to see an API (JS or a native bundle or anything) so that I can write native UIs, not just ones in WKWebViews as I personally think having native UIs are important.

Also, (I've already written this on the TypeForm, but) I would like if Fig spits out information that can be useful to stdout/stderr. For example, user interaction can go to stderr and the result (I guess user commands?) can go to stdout. I understand this might be a bit hard as I guess Fig is working asynchronously - but maybe changing so that people can build on Fig with shell scripts might be better.

Thanks!

<comment><USER2> Yeah, these are both great ideas.

I was inspired to use web technologies for building the UI by this discussion ([https://lobste.rs/s/vrb7qh/web_as_gui_toolkit](https://lobste.rs/s/vrb7qh/web_as_gui_toolkit)). Ultimately, I want to port Fig to Linux and Windows, so having a UI layer that works cross platform is useful. But it would be very cool to enable access to native UI directly. (I'd love to chat with you about how this could work.)

Outputing to stdout and stderr doesn't happen right now, but is on the very near term roadmap. The ultimate goal is for web apps to slot in seamlessly to shell workflows, so getting this right is really important.

Thanks for your comments!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wow, HN is really harsh on the idea of merging CLIs and GUIs...

I think that merging CLIs and GUIs have a great potential.

GUIs are superior than CLIs on interaction because it gives context of the current state and visual cues. (And no, TUIs aren't CLIs nor are they better than GUIs.) However users still use CLIs - the biggest advantage that CLIs have is that it allows various programs interact with each other, e.g. via piping. That's why we have CLI programs that's sole purposes that are communicating with GUI programs, for example almost every programmer's text editor ships with a binary that can i.e. reading from stdin, opening an temporary file, and spitting out to stdin (or at least gives the capability of doing that) so that we can use it in e.g. moreutils vipe.

It seems Fig is an product that allows the reverse, e.g. tying GUIs to CLIs so that people can use git, curl or other CLI programs in a more interaction- friendly way. I think this is has a great potential, if it's rightly executed (i.e. hopefully doesn't use Electron...?)

PS: The argument that 'every programmer knows how to use CLI, so this isn't needed' is just proving the point - programmers deserve better than an plain- text 1970-era interaction, yet we have to use the Terminal daily to accomplish something.

<comment><USER4> I think the problem is that historically when people have done this they've made a total mess of it, and inevitably it doesn't support all options so the GUI always plays catch up (and no one is interested in keeping the GUI up to date).

I think the example for this was the wget gui.

My take on this is that for beginners this is really useful. It can also help show you new options that you might not have been aware of. (Have you read the full man page?)

<comment><USER3> > I think the problem is that historically when people have done this they've > made a total mess of it, and inevitably it doesn't support all options so > the GUI always plays catch up (and no one is interested in keeping the GUI > up to date).

> I think the example for this was the wget gui.

Yeah, that's true, but I think it'll be easier than binding GUI to the CLI.

The reason CLIs could get this usefulness was because it mixes up user interaction with it's programming interface (which is ironically what people most hate). If you want to make a CLI program, you almost need to spit out useful information to stdout, which means I can extract info from sed. GUIs are much harsher to extracting information and there are some solutions like AppleScript, but it doesn't fly.

Which means, exposing the CLI's capabilities to GUIs are much easier than exposing the GUI's capabilities to CLIs. While Fig isn't taking this route, one could write an man-page parser (like how fish does for it's completion) and expose CLI functionality automatically and increase it's usefulness with human annotations.

> My take on this is that for beginners this is really useful. It can also > help show you new options that you might not have been aware of. (Have you > read the full man page?)

Yeah, agreed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The initial example with curl looks very compelling. I like that it's not a replacement for the CLI, just a graphical way to build the CLI commands. Seems like a much better way of learning arcane command line arguments than the searching through man pages that I do now.

Some of the other examples like changing directories and the git client are less interesting for me - if I wanted to actually replace the CLI with a GUI there are better options.

I signed up for early access.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have no idea what it is. The main page is really terrible in telling me how it even looks like, I don't even know why I would want this.

Is it a small web browser embedded into the terminal window? Or it's a different thing? No idea.

GUI wrappers for common tools? How do you create a GUI wrapper for 'bg'? With a form and 1 button named "Run"?

<comment><USER7> Try reloading the page. There's a (pointlessly animated) video right on the front page that shows exactly what it does.

Direct link: [https://withfig.com/video/final.mp4](https://withfig.com/video/final.mp4)

<comment><USER6> Uh, you're right. I had to click an empty portion of the screen and click 'Play', then the video showed up. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "TRUSTED BY ENGINEERS AT WORLD CLASS COMPANIES". This is embarrassing. Please stop doing this - just because a friend from a FAANG company installed your app, doesn't mean its trusted by any company, or that anyone would use it on their internal codebase.

<comment><USER2> You're totally right. We're deleting it from our site now. Change should be pushed in a few minutes.

<comment><USER9> Developers are allergic to feeling like they're being marketed to, as GP comment proves. That doesn't mean it's a bad marketing direction, just that more specificity is needed.

If it really is just "my bff from high school that works at a FANG installed my software on their own personal time on their on personal laptop", then yeah, get rid of it.

But somewhere between one person at a FANG using the software professionally, and _everyone_ at said FANG using the software (eg an HR ERP system like Workday), is an individual's personal threshold for what "used by a FANG" means to them. As long as it's reworded to be represented honestly then I'd keep it. FANGs are the gold standard for a reason, and the social proof gained by having your software used there _is_ valuable to the segment of the population that gives it value. (The intersection of "the segment of the population that gives it value" and your target market, may (or may not) be an empty set, however.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I should have closed the tab when I saw the boast of Facebook/Google/Microsoft logos and the words "trusted by". But I thought I'd join the waiting list to see the product in action. So I give my email, I'm then whisked away to TypeForm's website and I have to fill out a fucking form which starts by demanding my full name. I'm not giving an "online survey service" any of my details just to join a waiting list.

</comment><comment><USER11> I use a terminal because it is NOT a GUI, significantly improving productivity once learned. I cannot grok this, it feels like a step in precisely the other direction.

<comment><USER2> When you know the commands by memory, the terminal is hands-down the fastest way of interfacing with a computer. The trouble is when you're using a new command or toolchain and don't know the commands by heart.

For instance, code signing and notarizing a Mac app is a huge pain. It's not the kind of thing I do all the time, but it took quite a while to figure it out. I spent a few hours piecing together StackOverflow answers, assorted blog posts, and the threads on Apple's Developer Forum before I got it to work. It would be great if this workflow could be encapsulated an app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I can see the power in a future OS interface that really combined the terminal and GUI in a powerful way. Maybe this is a good start to thinking about that.

<comment><USER13> I think we are going to go the way of Semantic ML [https://stadia.dev/blog/creating-game-ai-using-mostly- englis...](https://stadia.dev/blog/creating-game-ai-using-mostly-english/) Being able to use natural language to send commands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> To me the logo looks like a pear instead of a fig

<comment><USER15> I think it's the pear emoji [https://www.iemoji.com/view/emoji/602/food- drink/pear](https://www.iemoji.com/view/emoji/602/food-drink/pear)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just a reminder that Dialog/Zenity/KDialog can be used to create "friendly" user interfaces to scripts.

</comment><comment><USER17> MPW (Macintosh Programmer's Workshop) had a feature like that, called commandos IIRC, over 30 years ago. It did not set the world afire.

Furthermore, a closed-source solution is a non-starter.

The fish shell has an interesting feature where it parses man pages to autocomplete commands.

</comment><comment><USER18> I personally don't see the point. If you want a GUI for some commands, why not just get GUI apps which do those things? Why try to bolt a GUI onto a CLI, especially one that works by pasting commands back into a CLI? You're relying on fig to develop UIs for all of your frequently used commands, and if you don't like fig's UIs for certain commands, you're SOL until they let you make your own UIs, and at that point it's basically an OS with an App Store. If you want a productivity boost from eliminating repeated commands, you're better off writing aliases or bash scripts for your personal use, in my opinion.

Side note: I think the title should reflect the name of the service, Fig.

<comment><USER19> I worked on this idea in 2003 [1] and we envisioned it to help a lot with discoverability and consequently learning curve. Our idea was more interactive in that editing in the UI would immediately be reflected in the terminal and vice versa. A power user would just type the whole command from memory but still have the ability to click a checkbox to add that rare/elusive switch. Beginners could do everything in the UI but quickly learn from seeing the command line string being built.

We worked towards automatically generate the UI from man pages (prioritized from examples found online) rather than manually developing each tool. As a student project we did not get very far.

[1] [http://www.mi.fu- berlin.de/wiki/pub/SE/ThesisCommandLine/Ski...](http://www.mi.fu- berlin.de/wiki/pub/SE/ThesisCommandLine/Skinning_the_Command_Line.pdf)

<comment><USER2> This is really interesting! I think that the scalable approach like you proposed in your thesis makes a lot of sense, but comes at some cost to the user experience.

Rather than being 'smart' and automating everything, we want to make developing apps really easy and familiar.

I'm curious what the biggest challenges were for you with the project? Maybe we could build on your research.

<comment><USER19> It has been a long time, but I think we struggled most with:

\- What is the best architecture to enable this? I think we struggled a lot with wanting to hook on the shell level where the commands are managed, the UI client where the user interface would have to be shown and terminal emulation where it is all key strokes and cursors.

Today I believe that this would really need something like the Language Server Protocol being implemented in bash itself. Today we have bash completion scripts, but still not something as comprehensive as needed.

\- How to separate everything into reusable blocks? For instance extracting parameters from man pages, storing as generic config files, whether to offer a DSL for designing the UIs, etc. We did not want to be stuck with one particular terminal, such as KDE's Konsole (for which a student did another prototype [1] in German).

[1] [https://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/inst/ag- se/theses/QuintelaGarci...](https://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/inst/ag- se/theses/QuintelaGarciaL06-command-line.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I really like this idea!

There are tons of CLI tools for which I've burned pretty much every flag that I'll ever need into my muscle memory. But there are far more tools that I use only ocassionally -- like mysqldump -- where I have to dig through a manpage or tutorial just to get basic tasks done.

Something like this built into my terminal would make my life so much easier. It's almost like a quick reference card or cheatsheet, except it's totally interactive.

</comment><comment><USER21> So this is basically just an Electron terminal emulator with some shortcuts included? You can already do all this in a fair few existing terminal emulators, not to mention shell aliases et al. I mean I get the problem space they're trying to solve but the landing page is so hyperbolic I'm put off investing any time to see if this actually has usability gains over what the team already do use

<comment><USER2> Completely agree about Electron - it's really heavy. That's why we built Fig as a Swift app.

Also, just to clarify, Fig isn't a terminal emulator itself. It attaches to whichever one you currently use.

<comment><USER21> Your landing page does an absolutely terrible job explaining anything about your product though. I assume this is aimed at engineers and technical managers rather than non-technical folk (because why would a non-technical manager be using the terminal)? The fact I had to scroll 5 pages (on iOS Safari), past multiple elevator pitches, FAANG "testimonials" (who cares if a couple of engineers in Google liked your Github repo?) and sign up pages just to see a single screenshot, and not even one that does a good job at demonstrating your product, shows just how out of whack the landing page is with your target audience.

As it is, I am a manager myself and looking at standardising some of our toolchain ahead of onboarding around 8 new engineers in September (4 of who will be graduates so might benefit from tools like this) and I gave up with the idea of this when I couldn't extrapolate how we would use and integrate it into our existing workflows.

Frankly, it was frustrating to find something that went from "ohh this might be useful" to "I've read their content and I still have no idea how this thing works".

<comment><USER2> Honestly this is really useful feedback. I think the page might be broken on mobile. There should be a large video demonstrating the product at the top.([https://withfig.com/video/final.mp4](https://withfig.com/video/final.mp4))

You're exactly the type of person we're trying to help, so we clearly need to communicate our value prop better!

If you have some time to chat, I'd love to talk. My email is matt [at] withfig.com

<comment><USER22> FYI, the animations didn't work for me in MacOS Safari (with AdGuard extension, though I'm not sure thats the reason)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It might not be directly related to this, but I think it's way better for learners to actually read the docs/manpage and then try to craft the command themselves (getting it wrong a couple of times as well). This is kind of like copy/pasting the answer, which solves the immediate problem but is terrible for learning what's going on or how it works.

</comment><comment><USER24> For whatever hate this is getting, I like the idea a lot and signed-up and hope to be able to play with this. I can already think of a ton of apps I would build/use with something like this -- not just for me, but for demos/tutorials/documentation I make for other users.

Keep doing your thing! It's a good idea!

</comment><comment><USER25> Unfortunately, it's gotten to the point where adding anything proprietary to the workflow is a liability.

</comment><comment><USER13> Should call it Fig leaf, because you're hiding the best bits.

</comment><comment><USER26> Firstly, the webpage _bluescreened_ my Windows 7 box in Firefox ESR _twice_ with Javascript disabled.

Secondly, this is a stupid idea. If you want to do something like this to help folks learn the CLI, a tool like SMIT/smitty ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Management_Interface_To...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Management_Interface_Tool)) is the way to go.</comment>


Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox - <AUTHOR> https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/walt-disney-company-acquire-twenty-first-century-fox-inc-spinoff-certain-businesses-52-4-billion-stock/ <comment><USER2> Sane antitrust regulations should kill this deal.

It is bad for everybody other than shareholders of those two companies. In particular bad for customers, other companies and employees: [https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and- economics/2172555...](https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and- economics/21725552-new-research-suggests-too-little-competition-deters- investment-americas)

[https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits- are...](https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-too-high- america-needs-giant-dose-competition-too-much-good-thing)

<comment><USER3> It's not so black and white. Stratchery posits consolidation may _promote_ competition at the distribution layer, where Netflix presently stands to dominate:

"To that end, might it be better for consumers, not-so-much today but ten years from now, if Disney were fully empowered to compete with Netflix? What is preferable? A dominant streaming company and a collection of content companies trying to escape the commoditization trap, or two dominant streaming companies that can at least try to hold each other accountable?" [1]

An analog might be found in the T-Mobile/Sprint merger [2]. It is not obvious whether their consolidation would have reduced competition, by turning two options into one, or increased it, by creating a stronger number three to AT&T and Verizon.

[1] [https://stratechery.com/2017/disney-and- fox/](https://stratechery.com/2017/disney-and-fox/)

[2] [http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/04/news/companies/sprint-t- mobi...](http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/04/news/companies/sprint-t-mobile- merger-deal/index.html)

<comment><USER4> Is Netflix approaching monopoly?

If anything I've seen a ton of competition coming up from the likes of Amazon, HBO, and a billion smaller services.

<comment><USER5> Netflix is on the trajectory to becoming a monopoly, yes. HBO is hamstrung by its lucrative cable tv deals in the US, which prevents it from competing effectively with Netflix in the streaming market. They will keep making money hand over fist from cable tv until suddenly they don't. If Netflix is Google, HBO is Yahoo. Amazon in this analogy, of course would be Bing. At a glance they seem to have what is required to compete with Netflix: Deep pockets and technological competence. But to compete in this market is for Netflix a matter of life or death, whereas for Amazon, it's a side show. As for the multitude of smaller competitors, they are all the search engines we've forgotten the names of or never heard of to begin with.

<comment><USER6> If HBO is hamstrung by lucrative deals, then it stands to think that HBO's own deal making has prevented them from usurping Netflix. To my knowledge, I haven't heard of Netflix having overtly anti-competitive behavior but I'm all ears for examples. It seems as though HBO is capable of competing, but they have to make a risky play and get out from their cable TV bubble to do so, which is no fault of Netflix.

If anything, this shows that the monolithic telecoms that have large stakes in these cable TV brands are facilitating monopolies elsewhere because likely competitors are locked into their current markets.

EDIT: to be clear, HBO's unsuccessful attempt to be level with Netflix in the streaming arena is more "don't want to" and not "can't". I wouldn't call a lack of wanting to be monopolistic. If HBO suddenly turned around and wanted to compete directly with Netflix and got boxed out by Netflix in some way, i.e. Netflix striking deals with Level 3 or similar providers to prevent HBO from getting equal treatment, then there's a strong case for them being labeled a monopoly.

<comment><USER5> _To my knowledge, I haven 't heard of Netflix having overtly anti-competitive behavior but I'm all ears for examples._

I' not aware of any either, but one does not have to engage in anti- competitive behavior to become or be a monopoly.

 _If anything, this shows that the monolithic telecoms that have large stakes in these cable TV brands are facilitating monopolies elsewhere because likely competitors are locked into their current markets_

Yes, that's right. But like HBO, they are trapped by their business model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So along with Disney pulling all their titles from Netflix for their own streaming service, I guess the FX content will be next to go from Netflix.

<comment><USER8> Oh it's crazy how much stuff Disney can pull off Netflix, I don't know if they will, because it's in their interest to have some stuff accessible over more than one place, but they own ABC (Lost, Castle, Firefly, etc), ESPN, Marvel, LucasArts, now Fox and their assets, not to mention they distribute on behalf of many publishers (Dreamworks for example), they would probably clear more than half of Netflix's content if they pulled everything.

<comment><USER9> Almost seems like Netflix knew what they were doing when they started funding a bunch of original content. I remember when people thought they were being silly.

<comment><USER10> "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." \- 2013, Ted Sarandos, Chief Content Officer, Netflix

[https://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become- hb...](https://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-hbo-faster- than-hbo-can-become-us)

Edit: He just got the company wrong.

<comment><USER11> Kind of like how Google made Android free to head off Microsoft, not realizing that Apple would be their mobile competition.

<comment><USER12> Google did make Android free to head off Microsoft, but it was already very clear Apple was the primary competition. They were trying to take Microsoft's place in the new Duopoly.

<comment><USER13> From my understanding Android's launch was delayed because they didn't know how amazing the first iPhone was before its release. That seems to me they were taking it seriously as they were competing with Blackberry at the time if I am correct.

<comment><USER14> The big 3 were BlackBerry, Windows Mobile & Symbian (Nokia)

Android was built a lot like a BlackBerry/Window Mobile competitor in its early stages. Nobody knew Apple was making a phone, there were heavy rumors of course, but people weren't expecting the impact it would have.

Google obviously had to know something about it, as they provided maps apis for the first iPhone. But Apple probably kept as much secret as they could.

But none of them were really prepared for iOS's leap in touchscreen UIs. Android was the fastest to adopt, took about 2-3 years still though. BlackBerry & Windows Mobile waited to late for a reboot and Symbian just died silently.

<comment><USER15> > Android was the fastest to adopt, took about 2-3 years still though

Is that true though? The first iPhone released in June 2007, the first Android phone (already with proper touch interfaces) came out a year leater, in September 2008.

<comment><USER14> Yes that is correct, the G1 came out already a year later. But it was still very clearly inferior to the iPhone, the UI was slow, things like scrolling lists was laggy and unresponsive, and no multi-touch gestures like pinch-to- zoom for maps/photos/webbrowser. IMHO Android really started to catch up around the time Nexus S and then Galaxy Nexus came out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Predicted by Matt Groening

[https://goo.gl/images/pPPy6o](https://goo.gl/images/pPPy6o)

</comment><comment><USER17> So what are the next movie franchises to get Disney-ized, like they did to Star Wars? All the super hero stuff, I get, but that's not the only thing that 21st Century makes is it?

<comment><USER18> > So what are the next movie franchises to get Disney-ized, like they did to > Star Wars?

The Simpsons Cinematic Universe

<comment><USER19> Starting with origin story films for each character.

<comment><USER20> A self-contained spinoff "Shelbyville One"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I, for one, welcome our new mouse-eared overlords. /s

At this rate, I wouldn't be too surprised if Disney ends up buying WB and a rather awkward Marvel/DC crossover is gonna happen on the big screen.

</comment><comment><USER22> So, will the Fox fanfare return to all Star Wars films, past and present, from now on?

<comment><USER23> Serious question: why do people want this so badly? Just nostalgia? (Too young to have see the OT movies in theaters, so I don't have that)

For me, sticking the cheesy fox logo and fanfare at the beginning of the movies would make them worse, not better.

<comment><USER24> Another interesting tidbit:

John Williams put the opening theme to star wars in the same key as the Fanfare (b-flat major)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox#Logo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox#Logo)

<comment><USER25> He wrote the fanfare too (the one that comes before Star Wars, which was an adaptation of the original).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The new thing that worries me about the deal is what might happen to Hulu? Now Disney owns 66% and Comcast owns 33%. Will Comcast take its content off of Hulu once the consent decree expires?

</comment><comment><USER27> Maybe there will be a consolidation and some crappy repetitive movies will go away? I think these businesses are overvalued. What happens when consumers get sick of the super hero genre?

EDIT: for whoever down-voted - that wasn't a sarcastic question. Honest question of what happens when the main products lose popularity? If there is a downturn in interest in that, will they get their $50B back?

<comment><USER28> An interesting datum is that movie ticket sales are actually down, _big time_. [1] Movies hit their peak, in tickets sold, way back in 2002. We're down 26% since then. Factor in population increases which should have resulted in a roughly proportional increase in ticket sales and it's shocking how bad movies are doing. But record breaking sales...? That's gross receipts or _tickets_sold x cost_per_ticket_. Ticket sales are dropping fast, but the price per ticket is increasing even faster. Some masterful grasp of supply and demand there...

Movie companies seem to be in completely denial about the change in quality being the source of their problems. This goes to explain many otherwise bizarre behaviors such as the cinemas absolute obsession with piracy even though most studies show it has at worst a modest effect. That's actually perhaps the thing I find most ridiculous about mega corporations. There seems to be this complete lack of self accountability. When reception or sales are poor they will blame absolutely everything under the sun, except their own decisions.

It's like how in the video game industry there was this belief that game review ratings had a _causal_ relationship to increased sales. So the games industry completely gamed ratings and the correlation all but entirely disappeared. Go figure, games actually being good was the confounding variable. Who could have guessed?

[1] - [https://www.the-numbers.com/market/](https://www.the- numbers.com/market/)

<comment><USER29> > Movie companies seem to be in completely denial about the change in quality > being the source of their problems

Don't you think on demand internet distribution is the true source of the problem? Record sales were at their peak in 2002 too.

[https://kyigt1bcans3ofli94di0kch-wpengine.netdna- ssl.com/wp-...](https://kyigt1bcans3ofli94di0kch-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/blogs.dir/9/files/2014/02/dollars-inflation-edited.jpg)

<comment><USER28> Streaming services like Netflix didn't even exist, as streaming services, until sometime around 2007. And prior to that the vast majority of people would not have had the hardware/connection to be able to stream effectively in any case. Movies had already long since been in decline. Similarly, the time line is also another bit of evidence that piracy is also not the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> My knee jerk reaction here was "ugh, more consolidation of the media by US mega corporations." But then I noted that Fox is owned by News Corp, which owns the Wall Street Journal and New York Post.

<comment><USER31> Fox continues to own News and Sports. However rumors are that Murdoch may also be shopping other parts of what remains. Disney gets Movies including Avatar and XMen, etc, 300 other channels, production studios, controlling stake in Hulu and for some bizarre historical reason, now own the rights to Star Wars IV, A New Hope.

<comment><USER32> > and for some bizarre historical reason, now own the rights to Star Wars IV, > A New Hope

These were distribution rights, some of which were going to expire in 2020 anyway.[1] So now we may finally get some official unspecialized Star Wars.

[1]: [http://www.slashfilm.com/20th-century-fox-still-owns- rights-...](http://www.slashfilm.com/20th-century-fox-still-owns-rights-to- first-six-star-wars-films-making-original-box-set-difficult/)

<comment><USER33> no, Fox OWNED A New Hope, and it says so in the article you posted

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm kind of torn on whether this is the same as other media mergers like Comcast-Universal or the upcoming Sinclair-Tribune mergers. I think mergers of news and broadcast outlets are generally bad but the bulk of what Disney is buying is intellectual property. Can owning tons of trademarks and copyrights ever be considered a monopoly? I am uncomfortable with one company owning Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, Aliens, Predator, and all the other things. But if they make crappy movies then people will just watch something else.

<comment><USER35> Media properties are natural monopolies thanks to copyright anyway so, sans quality, it really doesn't matter who owns them.

On the other hand it's definitely possible to have a monopoly on distribution but good luck arguing that it's possible to have a monopoly on art.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony)

In U.S. publishing, five publishers known as the Big Five account for about two-thirds of books published.[1] ...

Thus authors have fewer truly independent outlets for their work. This simultaneously depresses advances paid to authors and creates pressure for authors to cater to the tastes of the publishers in order to ensure publication, reducing viewpoint diversity.

</comment><comment><USER37> So now we can finally get X-Men characters in MVCI (Marvel vs Capcom Infinite)

<comment><USER38> Wolverine (and others) have been around since the very first MvC. Heck, the direct precursor to MVC was X-Men vs. Street Fighter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I have a hard time believing this will be approved. Given how much regulatory scrutiny the AT&T/Time Warner merger is under as a vertical merger, it would be wildly inconsistent to then approve a horizontal merger of this size, even if the AT&T/Time Warner merger ultimately goes through.

</comment><comment><USER40> Awesome, two large media companies becoming one giant media company. This should concern everyone.

</comment><comment><USER41> The deal might be quite good for my country. Fox operates as Star Channels in India. They are major entertainment and sports provider. They also have a streaming service 'Hotstar'. Hopefully will see more content on the streaming service.

</comment><comment><USER42> Wow, Disney didn't ask them to divest FX, which means they're knowingly acquiring _It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia_ among other content they'd normally not find palatable. They even call out that they're bringing in _The Americans_ and _Deadpool_. That's kind of strange for Disney, given that historically they're careful about what they're associated with. I really hope they leave their new portfolio alone, but that's not their MO with content that they find controversial.

<comment><USER43> You know Disney released Pulp Fiction and Scream right?

<comment><USER42> I do, yes. Disney took incredible heat and a number of shareholders bailed as a result of Miramax releasing _Pulp Fiction_ , and Weinstein had to fight for it, if I recall my film history. Disney also refused to allow Miramax to release _Dogma_ , which is history that is guiding my surprise. That studio is part of the reason they started being more careful, and they finally divested Miramax in 2010.

It'll be interesting to see how they handle their portfolio going forward.

<comment><USER23> 1999 (Dogma), not to mention 1994 (Pulp Fiction), was a long time ago, and things do change. Since then I remember Disney being one of the first big companies to get in the national news for offering same-sex partner benefits; they didn't seem to care how many people that offended.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Hopefully this deal is killed. Its really bad for consumers, content creators, and actors. Monopoly on too much media all under one roof is bad all around...

<comment><USER45> Monopoly in _any_ market is bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Generally what does huge mergers in industry mean for disruption (in the more traditional Clay Christensen model). For example, if the #1 and #4 player in a specific industry does that mean there is more space for an upstart to grow since #4 has left the party? Or does the new #1 suck up all the air and put such a choke hold on industry that new players cannot flourish?

<comment><USER11> (Christensen model) Disruption is about business models, not competition. New technologies that help existing companies improve their products are "sustaining innovations" (e.g. 2.5" hard drives let laptop companies make smaller, better laptops). But if they don't help existing companies and allow the development of a "worse" alternative, it's a disruptive innovation (e.g. SSD drives were too expensive and low capacity for laptops, but they were perfect for iPods and smartphones, which have now surpassed laptops in sales, use, etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Great! Now they can fit even more superheroes into one movie...

</comment><comment><USER48> It's a media-opoly! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh6Hf5_ZYPI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh6Hf5_ZYPI)

</comment><comment><USER49> I hope everyone likes the Fantastic Four, because we're probably going to get a few years of Fantastic Four Marvel Cinematic Universe movies out of this deal.

<comment><USER50> I really like the original Lee/Kirby comics (and Byrne's run in a similar style), and I'd love to see movies that were true to the best parts of those comics. The only good FF movie we've gotten so far was called The Incredibles, but there's no reason why the real FF movies couldn't be at least as good and successful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> What does this mean for the Star Wars Franchise?

<comment><USER52> The same that it's been since they bought it in 2012: will be subject to decades of safe, mediocre, corporate focus group-mediated content

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> fingers crossed for firefly season 2

<comment><USER54> This is a monkey paw thing where you get it, but it's the bland by-the-numbers Disney version carefully built by committee to avoid offending the largest number of people and just revisits all of the same ideas from the first season.

<comment><USER35> I really don't get why people are upset about this. A company trying to make money by going for mass appeal. _For shame_.

Until someone shows that an unsafe movie can be popular it's going to continue just how it's been since Gilgamesh.

<comment><USER53> Logan, guardians of the galaxy and Deadpool fairly soundly proved that unsafe movies can be popular. But at Disney it's about maximizing profits. If you can get all of the family to go see a movie rather than just anyone over 16, you're making more money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Disney is now officially too big to fail. This deal needs to be stopped right away.

<comment><USER56> Not really, the world doesn't end if Disney goes broke. its not like 2008 where 60% of all high street bank accounts were in danger.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> which means less content for netflix I would assume. not worried to much about the R rated content they got, they are staunch anti gambling not exactly staunch anti R except under the original brand

</comment><comment><USER58> As if media consolidation is bringing any benefits, rather than harm.

</comment><comment><USER59> Any chance Disney could bring back firefly?

</comment><comment><USER60> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTk6m3U54po](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTk6m3U54po)

</comment><comment><USER36> Why not go all the way and merge all companies into 1 big one.

Being born on the wrong side of the iron curtain I already saw economy based on monopolies. Communism failed because prices were centrally set. We knew how to build useful things (that don't break 1 day after warranty) but not which ones to build and how many.

(wiki)

A price signal is information conveyed to consumers and producers, via the price charged for a product or service, which provides a signal to increase or decrease supply or demand.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_signal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_signal)

<comment><USER45> That's what I've been saying for a long time. Some people say "it's just capitalism working as intended", but that's not exactly true.

A lot of the mechanisms of capitalism depend on competition. Capitalism without competition is no different from Communism or any other system in which one party rules supreme.

<comment><USER61> Incidentally Marx argument for why he believed a revolution would eventually become inevitable _also_ depends entirely on competition: He argued that it is the ongoing effectivisation of capitalism through competition that will eventually trigger revolutions by making too many people unemployed and/or destitute.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> So what you're saying is that Disney will own The Simpsons? [https://i.redd.it/cx2j4c9aufwz.jpg](https://i.redd.it/cx2j4c9aufwz.jpg) (predicted in 1998)

<comment><USER63> That's visionary. Actually the Simpsons got lucky with several of their goofy predictions, it's always amusing after the fact.

<comment><USER64> Can we have a list of mispredictions?

<comment><USER65> * Trump as president, predicted in the 2000 episode "Bart To The Future" [0]

* Top 10 Simpsons Predictions That Came True [1] (not a great video though)

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZyaDKaun7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZyaDKaun7w)

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

<comment><USER54> But they assumed that a President Trump would put the country in a huge debt hole, and the Republicans have assured us that their enormous giveway to billionaires would cause the economy to grow by 3% annually for the next 10 years, just like every other time that policy has completely failed to do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> [https://youtu.be/PXBJIZ1NXFU](https://youtu.be/PXBJIZ1NXFU)

(Epic Rap Battles of History, Stan Lee vs Jim Henson)

Whole video is good imo, but skip to around 2:06 onwards for the relevant bit. Sums up the feeling nicely I think.

<comment><USER67> Awesome episode this one. It looked to be ending at a nice amicable juncture and then the epic sinister twist. It's mind blowing how many properties Disney owns.

<comment><USER68> When I heard the news, all I could think of was this Lee vs. Henson ERB, and the South Park episode where the mouse becomes a rampaging daikaiju.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> What will happen to the Nakatomi Plaza / Fox Plaza (skyscraper in LA). Would like to see a remake with little CGI, like the original Die Hard 1/2.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Plaza_(Los_Angeles)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Plaza_\(Los_Angeles\))

<comment> matt-attack Firstly, Fox doesn't own that building. It's owned by The Irvine Company. The 50 acre Fox Lot next door however is stated to _not_ be part of the Disney deal [1]. Meaning, Rupert would retain ownership of the land (valued at $1.8 Billion).

[1] [https://deadline.com/2017/12/fox-studios-lot-future- disney-m...](https://deadline.com/2017/12/fox-studios-lot-future-disney- merger-1202225435/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> "There Can Be Only One"

<comment><USER71> \- Capitalism, errr, wait no....

<comment><USER72> Market freedom leads to competition, doncha know?

<comment><USER73> Market freedom leads to consolidation which leads to the exact opposite of competition.

This is why the United States, contrary to popular opinion, is not a purely capitalist nation; it is instead a hybrid between socialism and capitalism. Reasonable regulation protects the free market.

<comment><USER74> Its simply false that market freedom always leads to consolidation. There is a very complex interplay between transaction cost, information problems, scaling economics and so on. You are just throwing out populist phrases because they sound good.

The solution is not to declare some kind of neo-progressive trust busting but locking at individual industries and figuring out why they are consolidating and if it will be bad.

In this case Disney can only do what they do because massive help from government protecting their intellectual property. Intellectual property, both patent and copyright, need reform. This is the relevant practical problem here.

<comment><USER75> So, I'm curious: why _not_ engage in some neo-progressive trust busting?

<comment><USER74> Because the whole point of a market is that it acts as a process to discover the most efficient way to do something in a complex system.

Every individual market has huge amounts of complexity by itself and competes for the same resources as many other market creating huge amounts of complex dependencies.

If in these system a particular structure emerges, there is reason to think that it is actually pretty efficient compared to most alternatives.

Just willingly going around trust-busting because 'cooperation are evil' or some other popular phrase is a terrible idea most of the time it will hurt more then it does good.

If you want to do something useful make sure the citizens have rights and that there is a good legal system to arbitrate the interaction of people, companies, non-profits, clubs and so on.

Real change happens because a change in the rules of the system, not in a temporary heroic political trust-busting campaign to score political points.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> As an American, I've always found it mind-boggling how average Americans cheer these types of M/As. The argument is that consolidation leads to more "efficiency" and "synergy", but those benefits are usually not passed down to consumers (actually, market domination allows a company like Disney to price- gouge even more on movies and merchandise).

<comment><USER77> This is basically just entertainment (Fox News included) so they can do whatever they want. If this was healthcare, for example, it would require a bit more scrutiny IMO.

<comment><USER76> As noted in this thread, the entertainment industry is almost single-handedly responsible for the draconian Copyright laws in the US. So the harm caused by consolidation can extend beyond entertainment (think software).

Also, there is almost no alarm being raised by consolidation in healthcare, such as the CVS/Aetna deal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> It's mostly was they can control over the animated titles the Marvel franchises. Next is Sony studios.

<comment><USER43> I suspect that's part of it but you don't spend billions of dollars just to make a few X-men movies.

<comment><USER79> Yes you do.

According to wired, [0] Disney paid Lucas Arts $4.5B, which half was cash.

In 2016, [1] The Force Awakens made $1.54B globally. Maybe it's more now.

Lets say that the last Jedi manages the same success? Well, they made their money back and the new rumored trilogy. That's profit.

When you can put Spiderman and the X-men in the same universe as the Avengers and do the next 20 or 30 super hero movies where one, two, three, four, etc characters from the universe makes an appearance?

I'm pretty sure fans of whatever franchise will line up to throw money in seeing the movies.

This really sounds like a no brainer to me.

[0]: [https://www.wired.com/2015/12/disney-star-wars-return-on- inv...](https://www.wired.com/2015/12/disney-star-wars-return-on-investment/)

[1]: [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-star- wars-...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-star-wars- force-852198)

<comment><USER80> Your math is impeccable. But I do wonder if someone is considering the possibility that people will get tired of superhero movies in the relatively near future and the whole concept will seem dated.

<comment><USER81> I've been hoping for this for... I mean it must be a decade now.

<comment><USER82> I thought I could wait out Britney Spears, and the entire industry became Britney Spears, and stayed Britney Spears.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Disney missed an opportunity to improve the world by shutting down Fox News or changing its editorial viewpoint to be more in line with their own and retiring th Murdoch's completely from the news propaganda game.

<comment><USER84> I was feeling the same</comment></comment>