Developers don't build cheaper housing because we make it illegal (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://letsgola.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/the-lamborghini-and-the-dingbat/ <comment><USER4> This is one of the reasons why I have zero interest in wasting my hard earned money propping up the insane housing bubble in western cities.

Building a simple house is a 5000 year old technology.

I know that since we brought a small piece of land outside the city - <USER2> the raw material and paid some local laborer to help us put our family home together.

It cost us a grand total of 10,000 dollars. The only difference was - we did it in india where there are no nonsense housing regulation.

Getting internet was supposed to be hard, but we were allowed to just use the telephone pole to get copper internet ( instead of fibre ).

From a business perspective - no wonder it temping to offshore - when putting a roof over your head eats so much into your income.

<comment><USER5> I used to be a structural engineer, and I can tell you _exactly_ what you're giving up if you're interested. The cost difference isn't $10k vs $700k because of building materials. The cost difference is $5k (land) + $5k (construction) vs $600k (land) vs $100k (construction).

What I've seen is that most people in the West end up thinking that that $95k difference is worth it.

Let me start with a true story of what happened to me the first time I represented myself in court back around 2005. Someone had moved my motorbike to make a bit more room to park their stupid oversized Hummer. My bike was now just past the legal line so I got a $45 ticket. Outraged I vowed to bring this to court. In the pre-meeting with the prosecutor the cop didn't even remember the location of the motorcycle, let alone what was around, whereas I had drawings and the license plate number of the Hummer owner.

The prosecutor said that if I plead guilty with an explanation that they would drop the charges. So that is what we did. Right afterwards I got a $40 "courtroom fee" because I'd plead guilty. That's when I learned the adage "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client".

5000 years ago children died because they crawled between the banister railings. Our building code stops that oversight. 5000 years ago houses collapsed during hurricanes. Our building codes severely reduced that. I could go on and on.

The main issue isn't the building code. The issue is that it is difficult in modern cities to get the local population to agree to expanding the housing stock with taller buildings. It ruins views, it's noisy, excess supply collapses housing prices. It changes the city's charm and culture. So they elect people that slow it down.

<comment><USER6> Charming? Drive through any single family detached neighborhood in America during the summer and count how many people are actually enjoying their yards.

Where you see charm some of us see waste. Grass is ugly and so are single detached family homes. Row houses look nice, so do skyscrapers. Inventing a simulacrum for the country estate and calling it a "dream" is a bad joke I'd like everyone to start laughing at.

This is it. This is the mother of all bad policies in the USA! From keeping African Americans out of our neighborhoods via red lining, to increased police presence, to one generation's artificial chokehold on the housing stock. Americans should feel nothing but disgust for most of our housing policy, and single family homes should be derided as one of single worst allocation of resources the American public makes. People defend these things as lifestyle choices, and almost never live into the carrying capacity of the asset they buy. It is one lifestyle choice I feel comfortable judging.

Just so no one thinks I don't have any skin in the game I do have a child.

<comment><USER7> You're a delusion fool if you think row houses are nice, especially as the aesthetic of the house is the least important part of living in it.

I live in the UK where they are common, they're a nightmare to live in, you can hear people arguing or babies screaming 4 houses down.

A lot of houses are detached but very close to each other or semi-detached (linked to one other house). Both are far more pleasant to live in than row houses or sky scrapers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So, if the problem is that real estate in cities is too expensive to build affordable housing... isn't the solution to build more cities?

There keep being more people and those people keep wanting to live in the same places.

But, the people already in those places don't want them - charitably, because it gets too crowded. Turns LA or SF into Manhattan, where you pay a lot for a mediocre shoebox.

Better transportation gets us a ways - when you ask someone in LA how far away something is, they tell it to you in time, because that's what matters - <USER3> the physical distance, but the temporal one. Better transportation means more physical space is accessible within the same "city".

But, it strikes me that this is nearly the same problem as corporatism and monopolies - as power concentrates, power concentrates faster. I guess that extends past money and politics to society and populations.

So if the government needs to redistribute power - wealth (universal basic income), politics (democracy vs autocracy), access (mass transit, education)... does it need to build more cities? Not build existing cities larger, mind you - but cause more cities?

The west coast grew later than the east coast. We have, what, three major cities / metropolitan areas? San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle? Five if you move the bar to include Portland and San Diego? East coast has more than a dozen MAJOR metropolitan areas, and how many more when you move the bar?

Maybe the answer isn't higher density housing in the cities we have where everyone wants to live. Maybe the answer is getting more cities where everyone wants to live.

Sure, it's not exactly like New York has a monopoly on metropolitan-ness, and we need to go all anti-trust on it... But you get the idea, yeah?

Make me think of Dublin. What was Dublin two decades ago? What is it now?

Makes me think of - what was it called, where you make a city with different laws, one part test bed, one part diversity? Happened in the Renaissance, and it's what Hong Kong is.

<comment><USER9> More cities?

This sounds like a solution China would come up with.

<comment><USER8> That's a very good point, although I don't think I'm taking it the way you're intending it. I'm taking it as "here are case studies".

I've been to a couple of planned cities (Astana and Pavlodar in Kazakhstan - that was a trip!), and I've been to suburban developments, and there IS a distinct difference, but neither has that... /something/ that established cities have. Ironically, Pavlodar, I felt, had it more, and what I think it it is, is...

...Space for the people to own what they bring. Planned cities don't let you own it, and HOAs don't necessarily give the you the metaphorical space to bring it.

If you don't own it - and not in the simple legal property sense, but the sense of "if I invest myself in this thing, it's not going to be taken away one day" \- you won't work on it. If there's no "space", only one vision (and likely one that isn't even present) can exist. Need both.

I think you CAN make a city. )*( does it every year, after all, and while much of that event can't persist year-round, some of the ideas about how to make a city definitely could (I would expect).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have predicted this for a long time (not just me, but a lot of people).

The demand for human labor is going down on average, so wages are going down - and have been on a decline since the 70s. Capitalism relies on employers to value their employees for the money to trickle down and the system to work. Our grandfathers used to work for the same employer for decades and got a pension. Today, that loyalty is unheard of from either side. We have the rise of temps and the contractor economy and unemployed living with parents.

Yes, the cost of mass produced consumer goods is going down. So the wage repression is mitigated. With the explosion of consumer credit in the 80s and 90s, the unsustainability of consumer spending was also masked. Now it has come to the fore, in exactly the areas where costs are not going down: rent and real estate. In every major city including NYC and SF, the costs of rent are sky high relative to wages. Wonder why? Look at the rest of the country and it's true too -- the rents are slightly lower but the wages are lower too.

So the predictions are borne out... automation has reduced demand for human labor, reduced wages for the average worker (or they got laid off / became temps), reduced the prices of mass produced goods, but the cost of real estate keeps rising.

<comment><USER11> I guess there could be more than one single thing causing this problem. So, overly restrictive zoning might contribute to the problem, but so might reduced demand for human labor and the government/banks printing too much money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Must be a weird California problem. I simply don't see this problem in Texas. I have known several people who have fled California to Texas for exactly that reason.

EDIT:

Look through the data and ask yourself why you would want to pay more for what appears (according to the data) to be a less diverse, more expensive, and more dense area. What the data doesn't reflect is home size. I paid $125k for a 3000sqft foreclosure a few years ago that is now worth $200k. I couldn't get half a garage for this in the bay area.

[http://www.bestplaces.net/compare- cities/san_francisco_ca/fo...](http://www.bestplaces.net/compare- cities/san_francisco_ca/fort_worth_tx/people)

<comment><USER13> It's more of an everywhere-but-Texas problem. Texas has a great tradition of respecting property rights. Most states are not like this.

<comment><USER14> But this comes at an expense to nature and or natural preserves for wildlife. California has some of the greatest protected forests and areas like Yosemite.

So, yes we pay more and have more restrictions, but a better question is is it worth it?

Following the articles car analogy, this is like requiring cars to have airbags for the safety of the people in them, but that comes at a higher cost on the purchase price of the car.

<comment><USER15> I think you miss the point:

Two words: Eminent Domain. Silicon Valley (and other areas in CA) need to use eminent domain to build high-rises.

The housing crisis can be solved without impacting nature preserves.

<comment><USER16> Or tech companies could just move to the many areas of the country, such as many areas of the Midwest, where housing isn't so constrained. There's plenty of space in the US. Just not in the Bay area.

<comment><USER17> Sure, and then they'd be stuck with Billy Joe and Jim Bob, who once used a computer back in the 90's, as a workforce.

Or they could offer the same California salaries to programmers, who would live like kings in a small town but wouldn't have the same conveniences, and still spend the same amount of money.

Moving to the countryside doesn't always make business sense. Sure, costs to have a business in an urban area, but it's easier to find workforce at all needed levels and the trappings of urban civilization keep your workforce occupied and happier in their off hours.

Case-in-point: I work for a cash-strapped startup (for reasons) and sometimes have to live off my savings, but I live in an urban area. I could move to my hometown, where my costs would be about 25% of my current expenses, but then I'd be living in a special kind of hell where there are few good restaurants and the nearest bookstore is 60 miles away.

<comment><USER18> Oh my god, the horror of not having five-star restaurants!

If Google or Apple moved from the Bay to anywhere else, their workers would follow. Don't doubt that for a second.

Or we could just embrace technology and stop insisting that all your workers have to breathe the same oxygen, and allow remote work. There are huge swathes of the United States that are becoming depopulated because industry died and all of the young people have had to leave to find work. I just got back from a trip home to western Maine, and it's disturbing the number of houses that are just abandoned up there.

<comment><USER17> > Oh my god, the horror of not having five-star restaurants!

It's not just the lack of 5-star restaurants, it's the lack of 2+ star restaurants and everything else that goes with it. If your job relocated to western Maine, how much of a wrench in your life would that be?

> If Google or Apple moved from the Bay to anywhere else, their workers would > follow. Don't doubt that for a second.

Only if the pay incentive was great enough, I'm sure. Otherwise, it might be easier to just get a new job in the same area. Google and Apple might be exceptions, considering that they're pretty much both loaded, but any smaller company would have to think long and hard about the expenditures required to get the bulk of their employees moved. People get rooted in their communities, especially if the standard of living is higher than where they're expected to move.

> Or we could just embrace technology and stop insisting that all your workers > have to breathe the same oxygen, and allow remote work.

And someday pigs might fly, but not this century.

<comment><USER18> > If your job relocated to western Maine, how much of a wrench in your life > would that be?

I'd be fucking stoked. Cheap land, low population density, mountains. But I'm originally a redneck from that area to begin with, so my expectations of amenities and services are very low.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Seems like a bit of a clickbaity title when this is the only part of the post that mentions laws:

> In reality, housing construction is very limited; it's being restricted by > zoning and permitting laws.

<comment><USER20> Yep. In LA Large empty lots are hard to come by. A 6k square ft lot might be 100k for an undesirable location in an undesirable nbhd, but 400k is probably typical. Not sure how much cost "zoning and permitting" really adds on top of that.

<comment><USER21> Zoning can affect how many residences you can build on that block. If the zoning laws say you can only build one on that lot, then the land cost is $400k per residence. But if you're allowed to build a 5 floor building with two apartments per floor, then the land cost is $40k per residence.

<comment><USER22> No it isn't. The land cost goes up, because now it's possible to use it for a much more lucrative purpose. This is called the zoning windfall problem.

At some point, in theory, the greater supply begins to bring down land costs in aggregate, but since real estate pricing is a localized phenomenon, this effect isn't universal.

<comment><USER23> The original owner gets some money from that windfall. The developers make money by selling 10 units on a lot that used to have a single residence. The new tenants get to live closer to jobs and nightlife and possibly pay less in rent. The city makes more money from property taxes.

That seems like a win-win-win-win for everyone directly involved in this growing city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> >In reality, housing construction is very limited; it's being restricted by zoning and permitting laws. Because developers can only build a few new units, they're building luxury, since that's the most profitable.

Having more space thanks to laxer regulations would just mean that they build even more and even bigger luxury housing because it would _still_ be the most profitable.

Besides, one of those permitting laws they absolutely _loathe_ are laws that say that they must build a certain percentage of affordable housing (not mentioned in this article because that would be inconvenient).

These articles are so disingenuous. They're telling you that the solution to your housing woes, caused by and large by the ultra-wealthy, is to give into the ultra-wealthy's demand that they shouldn't face laxer regulation. We know how that story always ends.

The solution to housing shortage in high cost of living cities is and always has been to build high quality government housing. Singapore provides a stellar example of what that would look like. Literally the day a program like that is announced prices and rents would tumble.

>The global elite argument really falls apart here.

No it really doesn't. The global elite will happily swallow up all available prime real estate in their portfolios and A) tell you to fuck off to cities with no jobs if you complain about the house prices and B) tell you that the lack of jobs in nowheresville is your problem since you chose to move there.

THEY'RE the problem.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you want affordable, build dense, urban cities; not NY style rows after rows of 2 story building, separated by roads, but USSR style large 4-6-9 story blocks, build from concrete (longevity, privacy) with no eventually moldy drywalls, closed for through traffic, with parking garages, public places, playgrounds etc. American university campuses can be good models for residential neighborhoods.

<comment><USER26> Buildings which are just residential (and, for that matter, ones which are just commercial) still tend to produce dead zones, with little to no street life; and it's street life (and walkability) that makes a city, at least if you ask me.

I'd say that the best kind of city -- or district/neighborhood, more accurately, since cities tend to be a patchwork -- is an area of multi-storey buildings with businesses on the ground floor and apartments above them. My understanding is that this is the usual pattern in the Old World; in the US, the North End and Allston-Brighton in Boston, Seattle's Chinatown, and of course Vancouver are among the examples. This isn't a common pattern in the US; I know that parts of NYC fit it (although I don't know that city particularly well), but I've heard that even Manhattan Island is all office buildings, and becomes a wasteland after dark.

I certainly agree, though, that 4-9 storeys is a pretty good height. Smaller than that and you don't get enough density to support interesting streetscapes; larger, and you get wind tunnels and the need for more parking. Of course, sometimes geography (San Francisco, Tehran, most of Japan) or politics (Singapore) force a denser population, and require a more built-up area...

<comment><USER25> USSR has always had ground floor shopping on the street facing residential buildings, also major bus stops have convenience stores attached.

<comment><USER26> It sounds like I should visit Russia, then! Whatever else can be said about them, it sounds like the Soviets really knew how to build a city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> And this is why almost all US cities are incredibly hostile to anyone walking. Also, while this is subjective, they're unattractive as well.

This is a helpful illustration of how parking minimums raise rents by several hundred dollars a month and make the streetscape less appealing.

[http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/420062](http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/420062)

</comment><comment><USER28> Software developers these days can move to many other major cities and find a job instantly. They are in very high demand. They don't have to live in the Silicon Valley area and pay 3x the price for rent.

If I was a property investor, I wouldn't want to build properties there either. The risk would be extremely high that property values are going to come crashing back down to reality at some point. There is a serious property value bubble out there.

<comment><USER29> I lease a home in North Houston owned by an attorney in LA - all of his real estate investments are here and Brownsville, Tx. (And I pay $1150 for 1600 sq ft with a giant yard, stand-alone home, not an apartment)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> > "In reality, housing construction is very limited; it's being restricted by > zoning and permitting laws."

So what about all the small cities where there are no enforced zoning/permitting laws and developers get literally anything they ask for?

If zoning/permitting is the issue, why do all these areas without zoning/permitting have the same problem?

<comment><USER31> Are you talking about cities/towns in the middle of nowhere? Meaning cities, and towns that business left years ago?

I've found small towns overly red tag heppy, and these small towns realized they could make a lot of income by enforcing building codes--to the Teee.

In my small town, we have building inspectors who are literally looking for errors in the permitting process. Why--the extra fees it brings in. Oh, they will always claim it was Safety, and just following procedure, but these fees are outragious. The average person has no idea how the permitting process works, or just how difficult/expensive it has become to do any building.

Let's talk about small town zoning. In my little town, it's tight. Fine--we have a way fight the rigid system. You fine a Variance! You pay $1000 fee. That's if you can fill out the paperwork. In my small town, since the invention of the internet, I don't believe they have ever passed a variance. They look at it, and deny it, but keep the fee. A fee for what? Five minutes of their time?

People don't realize how little towns keep bringing in money. A lot of it is fees/fines--and is going up yearly? No inflation, but constantly going up?

Don't get me started on our little town Revenue Squad--also know as public safety, or the people in blue. They are literally just collecting revenue now. Crime has never been a big problem here, and they will always claim they are the reason. The real reason is it's too expensive to live here, but you can't argue. Just pay the ticket! It's not about the ticket, it's the financial punishment you take.

(I got off topic on that last paragraph--sorry, this is an important topic. I just see it getting worse. Every new law/regulation adds to the problem. I've lost hope actually.)

<comment><USER30> I'm talking about small cities, like Toledo, Milwaukee, Rochester MN, South Bend, Lansing, Kalamazoo, etc. They are in the middle of nowhere, but they still have people and jobs.

I live in Grand Rapids. There's lots of zoning and permitting rules. None of it is ever enforced. All a developer has to do is ask, and they get literally every non-safety rule waived.

\- Don't want to build kitchen or bathrooms in your studio apartments? Just say your "micro-unit focused" and the already-tiny minimum unit size no longer applies to you. People are so desperate for housing, they'll pay luxury price premiums, even to live in door rooms. Extra money, for free!

\- Annoyed about having to pay for your tenants parking? No worries! Just say you are a "transit-oriented design" and all parking requirements are waived -- you can dump infinite cars on the street for free! (Despite the fact that, like most mid-west cities, we only barely have transit at all)

\- Want to skip out on your make ready costs? Just claim your lot needs "brownfield redevelopment" and the city will _reimburse the developer for all of the make-ready expenses in cash_.

I get that in California, the zoning and local governments are the major roadblock. But I have a hard time believing "zoning/permitting" is the root cause for this issue.

Because there are places where developers have no rules and get literally _anything_ they ask for, _anytime_ they ask. And yet even these places _still_ only get luxury apartments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> It's not illegal. It's not even expensive. Take a look at this catalog of manufactured homes.[1]

[1] [http://www.claytonhomes.com/find- homes.cfm?categoryID=1](http://www.claytonhomes.com/find- homes.cfm?categoryID=1)

<comment><USER33> Then, take a look at the zoning restrictions on where you can(t) place those.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article is a little all over the place:

> at the expense of people living in Lagos or rural Appalachia or San Salvador

Which is at the end, but seems to have little to do with the points earlier about restricted building laws in cities. I get the argument, it's been made in many economics books, but I don't think it comes at the expense of the people in Appalachia. It comes at the expense of people living in the expensive areas. The people in Appalachia have other issues dealing with jobs and investment in the local area.

Is the alternative that we allow people to build however and wherever they want until there is not quiet nature within driving distance of anyone?

</comment><comment><USER34> The problem isn't just building affordable houses but building affordable houses in locations people want to live. But how essential would location be if an autonomous vehicle could take your child to a quality charter school beyond your district? How essential is location if long commutes can be turned into productive time because you don't have to focus on driving? All those construction regulations holding back affordable housing; they don't apply if it's on top of a set of wheels. I have my doubts that the status quo is sustainable for too much longer.

</comment><comment><USER35> > One of these vehicles offers the possibility of huge profits off rich > d-bags. The other one, not so much.

I stopped reading when I reached this caption. Companies exist to make profit, not act in the public interest.

Demonizing normal business behavior is counterproductive. There's a huge gap between Goldman Sacks/Enron/etc and most companies.

</comment><comment><USER36> Aren't there cities close to silicon valley, with nicer zoning laws enabling sane housing prices ? And if so, why don't they become the 2nd silicon valley ?

<comment><USER37> Because major employers of the valley don't open offices in Modesto, Stockton, Tracy, Fairfield, Gilroy, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Another solution would be improvements to transportation. If we had something like Hyperloop, ET3, skyTran, etc., we could increase the radius we could live from work. It's traffic jams that drive up the value of land in the inner city. If you can get to work in 20 minutes, you don't care how far you have to live from the city.</comment>


Apply HN: MalleableByte - Ensure quality web traffic - <AUTHOR> MalleableByte is developing an automated web service to help growth hacking site owners eliminate spam traffic with predictive machine learning.
Value Proposition: Help site owners understand human visitors not spam.
Website & Video: http://malleablebyte.org
Why are we doing this? We encountered this problem ourselves and wanted to solve these 3 main pain points: 1) Manually updating block filters/firewalls regularly is painful and unproductive. 2) Spam and bots messes up the analytics and analysis. 3) Spam and bot traffic is often indicative of potential security issues.
How are we doing this? 1) Quarantine web traffic with automated filtering. 2) Apply machine learning and prediction to manage constantly evolving thread.
Who is it useful for? Growth hacking site owners or webmasters.
How are we measuring our results? 1) Reduce overall bounce rate. 2) Increase visitor page views per session. 3) Increase visitor average session duration. <comment><USER2> How is your service different from what CloudFlare offers with it's DDoS mitigation? I think I might misunderstand your goals.

Is bot traffic a nuisance or actually a problem? If it's not enough traffic to bring my site down, why would I care as a website owner? If the bots are probing for security vulnerabilities, how do you detect that? Do you plan to add services to address the vulnerabilities?

> How are we measuring our results? 1) Reduce overall bounce rate. 2) Increase > visitor page views per session. 3) Increase visitor average session > duration.

How will eliminating bots help this? Why doesn't (or can't) google analytics filter out the bots?

<comment><AUTHOR> > How is your service different from what CloudFlare offers with it's DDoS > mitigation?

CloudFlare's main goal is to accelerate web browsing performance via a reverse proxy. DDoS protection just happens to be one of their big feature. They are not solving the spam traffic problem with their DDoS features or reverse proxy. I have a more detailed response to this question in another post @ [https://medium.com/@wantastartup/thanks-for-your- feedback-f3...](https://medium.com/@wantastartup/thanks-for-your- feedback-f322960a5255#.5wgidq6bw)

In fact, I was wrongly banned by their service when I tried to access my medium blog while traveling in Malaysia. You can read more @ [https://medium.com/@wantastartup/cloudflare-is-doing-it- wron...](https://medium.com/@wantastartup/cloudflare-is-doing-it- wrong-97b3bc2f2573#.z1ygk5m2g)

The key problem with CloudFlare is that they are using a firewall (the wrong tool) to tackle spam.

> Is bot traffic a nuisance or actually a problem?

If you do A/B testing on your site, landing pages, or try to figure out what is the most popular item/post on your site to convert visitor to paying customer and you cannot differentiate between bot from human, you have a serious problem. All the results from your analytics will be wrong.

Bots don't crawl everything, including your file, images and videos. If you host them on your site, you will be paying for the bandwidth.

Bots also clone and steal information from your site for many evil reasons. Like scammers trying to do a phishing hack, competitors trying to steal keywords or down your Google ranking and etc. You can read more @ [http://blog.malleablebyte.org/2015/08/digital-creepy- crawlie...](http://blog.malleablebyte.org/2015/08/digital-creepy-crawlies-are- not-as.html)

If you actually use your site for important work (eg. growth hacking, eCommerce, ...), then they are a problem. However, if you are a 'put up a website and let it rot', then no, it is a nuisance.

> If the bots are probing for security vulnerabilities, how do you detect > that?

We do it via machine learning and pattern recognition. We have already detected 3 third party sites that was hacked using ransomware. Their traffic probes via the network of the hacked site was discovered by our service and we managed to quickly notified the owners. Read more @ [https://medium.com/@malleablebyte/machine-learning- discovere...](https://medium.com/@malleablebyte/machine-learning-discovered- hacking-e6ed8e15c0c9#.ykjjj4rbe)

> Do you plan to add services to address the vulnerabilities?

No, that is not our focus. However, we would love to work with others who are dedicated to fix those vulnerabilities.

> How will eliminating bots help this?

Bots are the key contributors to these web metrics. On our site, we have seen our bounce rate, pages per session and avg session duration greatly improve after we implemented our solution. Check out our video on our website to see the numbers.

> Why doesn't (or can't) google analytics filter out the bots?

Taking web traffic spam out of your Google analytics is like sweeping the problem under the table and pretending that it does not exist. Google merely reports the data and cannot do anything else except remove ghost spam from the data. It cannot actually stop bots or real traffic going to your site. You can read more @ [http://blog.malleablebyte.org/2015/07/what-is-google- ghost-s...](http://blog.malleablebyte.org/2015/07/what-is-google-ghost- spam.html)

The key problem is the javascript approach to their solution, which has limited them in the way they handle spam.

<comment><AUTHOR> On the question below.

> Is bot traffic a nuisance or actually a problem?

I meant to say "Bots crawl everything" and not "don't"</comment></comment></comment>


The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/03/the_tsas_select.html <comment><USER2> Unlike all the other restrictions on material allowed in-flight recently, this ban only applies to specific airports/countries. One must ask why shoebomber or liquid explosive plots resulted in universal bans while this one is country-specific. Imho this is business and politics. This everyday safety mesure is being applied selectively in order to disadvantage some and advantage others. If ipads are a threat, ban them. Dont ban them only on routes dominated by non-US airlines.

I am glad to see that Canada hasnt joined the madness. Flying dubai-new york? Connect through toronto and the kids can keep thier ipads. ... for now.

<comment><USER3> Or those airports have poor security or are at risk of penetration by bad actors.

<comment><USER4> Or not. I've never had them check my laptop once (other than the scans) in any airport I've been through, and that's quite a few. (Not that I haven't seen it done though)

This isn't about an assessment on airport capabilities in laptop security vetting.

<comment><USER5> My personal experience has been that Dubai (which I believe is one on the list?) has some of the highest security I've seen. Everytime I go through it as a passenger connecting on another flight (not leaving the airport) I've been though security (shoes off x-rays e.t.c.) after leaving the plane and getting into the terminal proper. In addition there were spot checks in the waiting lounge before actually bording my onwards flight (on one trip, not all) where my belt was swabbed (presumably for explosives?) and I was asked to turn on my laptop to prove it worked. Never had that happen anywhere else.

<comment><USER2> The Dubai people have always been great to me. They are intrusive but they are polite. They don't make you feel like a criminal or that you have done anything wrong. Being spot-checked in Dubai isn't anything as embarrassing as being surrounded by TSA agents angry because you forgot a thumbdrive in your coat pocket. In Dubai I feel like a customer purchasing a product. At US airports I feel like a peon asking permission to borrow bossman's car.

<comment><USER5> Yes politeness goes a long way in such situations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> At some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always going to want to target aircraft and just live with it. This ban makes no sense because $BAD_GUY can just via some intermediate airport with their iPad Bomb.

It's interesting that El Al has not decided to ban laptops (despite undoubtedly being a target) and, in fact, advises people _not_ to put valuables in the hold: [https://www.elal.com/en/PassengersInfo/Baggage/Pages/Policy....](https://www.elal.com/en/PassengersInfo/Baggage/Pages/Policy.aspx)

 _" EL AL reminds all passengers not to pack valuable items in baggage send to the hold of the plane. These items should be carried in the hand luggage"_

<comment><USER7> EDIT: I am not defending the policy. I would like to address the specific argument you've used to attack it. (I don't agree with the laptop ban, and I want strong arguments being made against it, not weak arguments.)

\---

>At some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always going to want to target aircraft and just live with it.

I would like you to please pay attention for a moment (try to follow my train of thought), maybe I can convince you of something. So, I think that what you've just written is a particularly/incredibly weak argument and regardless of your or my position on the issue I really would like to take a minute to try to convince you not to make _this_ argument again. Make a better argument!

So, suppose that someone said, "At some point we should just accept that ransoms will happen" and so simply stop supporting the FBI and let bad guys kidnap any family of billionaires whenever they want, and to have these billionaires start paying ransoms.

Or you can apply it to anything really. Suppose you said "violent rapes will always happen", so we should just learn to live with it instead of having infrastructure to deal with it.

I don't know - make a list of heinous things people can do to each other, employers to employees, everyday people, whatever. Think of things there are laws and policies against - and imagine someone suggesting that instead, people just learn to live with the problem.

I think there is a large chance people will misunderstand the point of my comment: the point of my comment is that as an argument, "terrorists are always going to want to..." so "just live with it" is a very weak argument. Instead of this argument, a different argument needs to be made.

It simply shouldn't be made on this, or any other subject, I feel. I would like to expand the topic in question to show how problematic the argument is: I think, conservatively, a sum total of $1 trillion (current dollars) will have been spent on researching/curing/innoculuating against/preventing AIDS. Suppose someone suggested that instead of spending $1 trillion on curing it, we simply "learned to deal with it." (Or imagine the same attitude toward cancer research.)

I hope at least this example will show why _the argument itself_ ("we should just accept that there will always be AIDS") is particularly weak. It's simply not true!

I hope I've convinced you to avoid using this argument again. This does not mean other arguments can't be made - just this particular specific variation. Use a stronger argument against bullshit policies!

\----

EDIT: as expected people have misunderstood my point. I will give your argument a name: "argument from helplessness." We can't solve it, so we should just accept that it will open happen. Why would it be a given that explosives can always be brought on planes? I am not defending this particular policy, but the argument from helplessness should not be one of the arguments made against it! It's a bad, weak argument, period. It won't convince anyone. Make a better argument!

<comment><USER8> > So, suppose that someone said, "At some point we should just accept that > ransoms will happen" and so simply stop supporting the FBI and let bad guys > kidnap any family of billionaires whenever they want, and to have these > billionaires start paying ransoms.

No one is saying we shouldn't attempt to stop an attack that is known, or that we shouldn't investigate who carried out and authorized an attack and seek justice. The primary role that government serves to the people with respect to crime is the serving of justice. Protection from all things harmful and crime prevention are not guaranteed. Anyone trying to sell you such guarantee is either lying or delusional.

The more we realize we are responsible for our own well being, take responsibility, and keep a watchful eye, the safer and better off everyone will be. When it's finally understood that people will protect themselves and deny a terrorists ability to carry out a plot, the less of these monsters we'll have to deal with.

<comment><USER9> > The more we realize we are responsible for our own well being, take > responsibility [...]

How, exactly, am I supposed to "take responsibility" for spotting someone with a hidden bomb when I get on an airplane?

<comment><USER10> You can always not fly! Seems silly to be so scared.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I just transited through Qatar yesterday, bound for JFK, and had my electronics forced into the cargo hold. They made us check a bag 3 separate times: for a hair straightener, a Nintendo Switch and a Kindle.

Following a mind-numbing 25 hours; it turns out that our bags then got lost and we're now awaiting some update from the airline.

<comment><USER12> Ouch. Your story has already been the backing of my policy even before I knew it: Never ever fly without my most valuable things in carry-on luggage (and twice I refused to board the plane because of this - both times they relented because getting my checking in luggage out of the plane (required by safety regulations) would have been too much).

Good luck with your lost luggage :(

<comment><USER11> Yeah I'm also wary and _never_ check a bag. But there is literally no option, they were very thorough and serious about this. You do not want to be stuck in Doha, Qatar- with no visa- arguing over your {iPad}. They had setup a new scanner checkpoint _at the gate_ to our flight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> According to this Guardian article, the ban was caused by a plan to hide a bomb in an iPad: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/plot- explosive...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/plot-explosives- ipad-us-uk-laptop-ban)

I always thought it was weird that you could keep an iPad packed in your carry on but a laptop had to be scanned separately even if it was a similar size to an iPad.

<comment><USER14> Every security check in Europe and SE Asia I passed in the last few years (~60 flights) mandated to take every device out of the bag, iPads and smartphones included

<comment><USER15> Weird. I've been to Italy, Scotland (via Dublin), and Iceland and never have to scan small devices separately.

The laptop gets pulled out and placed in a bucket. The tablet and phone stay in luggage.

It's all so inconsistent, it makes you wonder if any of the security agencies half any clue at all.

<comment><USER16> I tend to bring an insane amount of electronics in my hand luggage. The reason that need big objects like laptops separately is that they block too much when they are scanning the rest of your luggage. So if on average the scanner can see through an ipad then there is no need to take it out.

I my case, all they see is a huge collection of wires and small devices, so all of that needs to be put on separate shelves and scanned again.

<comment><USER15> Still weird. My carry-on for all of trips I listed above was MacBook Air, iPad, iPhone, Olympus mirrorless camera, 2-3 lenses, Canon P&S camera, 2 USB charging bricks, chargers for the camera batteries, charger for the MBA, a bunch of USB cables. Some snack food, a light jacket, and toiletries.

Of course, the really maddening part is the inconsistency. I use TSA Pre-check when possible, so I'm accustomed to not taking off my shoes, unpacking my bags, etc. It's a giant hassle when I'm flying abroad and the rules change. Especially since the rules change arbitrarily - I've passed through Edinburgh a few times over the past 2 years and sometimes the laptop comes out, sometimes it stays in the bag.

<comment><USER16> The ultimate reference point is whether the person watching the screen at the scanner can see everything or not. If most of the time laptops are transparent enough then why bother asking people to remove them.

On the other hand, if routinely they can't properly scan it and have to deal with delay, they will instruct people to take it out of the bag.

In the end it still is security theatre so it doesn't have to make sense as long as it looks convincing enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> These policies continue to infringe more and more of people rights of free movement, privacy and communication and exposes serious limitations of democracy.

The government can continue to take anti-people actions without anything approaching debate and discussion under the 'frenzy of an external threat' as all authoritarians in history have done and tend to do, untill it is operating for all intent and purposes like a quasi-authoritarian state.

As we can in the UK and here this has come to pass and democracy has no response for 15 years and counting. Elections are 5 years apart, and even then political parties advocate near identical policies. By the time people can organize, and they would have to take a break from their day-to-day lives - which many would have to think seriously about - and try to effect change, decades could pass with the situation getting progressively worse and without making headway.

</comment><comment><USER18> > Why not require passengers to turn their laptops on as they go through > security? That would be a more effective security measure than forcing them > to check them in their luggage.

The reason that security checks aren't going to ask you to turn your laptop, ipad or mobile on, as a standard process, is that it takes too much time.

<comment><USER19> The other reason is that it's going to be of limited use these days, since I'm pretty sure some devices such as iPads effectively have multiple cells in parallel and should power on just fine with all but one of them replaced with explosives.

<comment><USER20> Also those laptops with detachable screens, which then operate as tablets.

There clearly isn't any critical hardware in the base bit...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm interested in the idea that turning on your laptop somehow "proves" that the laptop isn't just a box for explosives.

Presumably the "on" test is considered sufficient both for a mid-2000s brick of a laptop, and a thin modern laptop like a 2016 MacBook. But you could pack a MacBook into a bulky laptop's body and have plenty of room to spare.

</comment><comment><USER22> > And lastly, why is there a delay between the ban being announced and it > taking effect?

Would this not simply be to give airlines and people time to adjust policies?

Was there a delay on the Note7 ban? Or perhaps they decided to implement one after some lessons learned from it?

</comment><comment><USER23> One explanation I haven't heard, is that this is about the idea that somebody could hack a plane from the passenger compartment. There doesn't even have to be evidence of a concrete plan - it would be enough for someone who knows about these kind of attacks to get the ear of somebody influential in the government, who then proactively enacts this ban. (The hacking story might be a good pretext to convince people internally, while the real motivation might be economic.)

<comment><USER24> This (and the whole "airplane mode" issue) could easily be solved by a few things. 1\. Adding a faraday cage around the passenger sections of the plane would stop wireless connections from passengers to the panes main systems. 2\. Completely separate the passenger systems from the plane systems - not unlike separating a monolithic application into a few smaller applications.

<comment><USER25> Adding a faraday cage would cost money and weight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is there any reason to think that Trump doesn't have investments in airlines that are competing with the ones hurt by this ban?

<comment><USER27> The Ethics in Government Act of 1978[0] mandates annual financial disclosures for high offices, so we'll see soon enough. Here's Obama's 2015 disclosure forms[1], for example.

It's times like this that I'm actually glad that the Middle-eastern oil-funded airlines are all private, since this way there's no way for Trump to short them off the books.

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

[1] [https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/05/16/preside...](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/05/16/president- and-vice-presidents-2015-financial-disclosure-forms)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Apparently, it's not a free market.

</comment><comment><USER29> In the news recently we've seen that illegal border crossings from Mexico have gone down substantially just because the administration has signaled that there will be more deportations. This laptop ban could have the same effect. Increase the barriers for visitation from some countries and people think twice.

If this is what the administration is doing, it's very Machiavellian.

<comment><USER30> Illegal crossings from Mexico had been going down for years prior to the current administration. And I imagine the numbers are seasonal, tied to harvesting work that probably gets a little slow in February.

Not that I exactly trust the current administration to tell the truth on the subject in the first place.

<comment><USER31> Border apprehensions are way down, unseasonably. You can critique the metrics if you have reason to, but 'golemotron is correct as far as official metrics go.

[http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings- huge...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop- trump-tough-talk/)</comment></comment></comment>


Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America's Latest Obsession - <AUTHOR> https://www.similarweb.com/blog/pokemon-go <comment><USER3> If Google had any sense, they would be throwing a tonne more at this. It may be Ingress with less features and a Pokemon skin but that latter part is exactly the mainstream appeal they need to make AR big. This is their big chance to create a new market. If they sort out the bugginess and roll out decent features in the next couple of months to keep retention, they're onto something big.

At near-on midnight on Saturday, there were 150-200 people sitting in a 70m stretch of the main public park area here in Brisbane CBD (Southbank). During Sunday when I walked through, that was closer to 250-300. This is purely because there's 3 or 4 points of interest in close proximity so people congregate there to interact with it. It's truly a sight to behold.

This game has captured the imagination of non-gamers better than anything I can think of in recent history. It's nearing WoW / CoD levels of ubiquity.

<comment><USER4> The one thing which is missing (and which made Ingress the amazing game it is) is ingame notification and ingame player activity.

Based on the gym activity there are at least 15-20 players in my town but there is just no way of contacting them. If I am lucky I can manage to meet one by random chance but currently Pokemon Go is a rather single player game.

The other thing which is missing is a system which shows ingame player activity. At any given point I can open my scanner in Ingress and see exactly what's going on around me. I can see if there is a new player in town, I can see if my favorite enemy is active again, ... but in Pokemon Go I feel like I am blind.

I know that there are other Pokemon Go players out there in my town but I just can't see them or interact with them.

<comment><USER5> This game is targeting young kids, so I'm not sure there will ever be any person-identifying interaction. A lot of online multiplayer games for kids don't have interactions beyond friending/favouriting someone. P-GO would be a prime candidate for 4chan type people and you can imagine how that would work together with location spoofing and global playground. I expect that Nintendo & Niantic know this (Ingress never solved the chat spamming issues - <USER2> advertising resources for real money)

<comment><USER6> If the game is targeting young kids, it's missing out on its primary audience. For one thing, young kids often do not have cellphones of their own. But for another, I was recently at a mall in a fairly major city, and I did not see one person under 18 playing, but near every Pokestop, and every lower spawn rate Pokemon, I found dozens of people. Pokemon games have had somewhat adult humor and themes for years, though the TV show is undoubtedly meant for a younger audience. Given that most of the people who really wanted this game are people who grew up on Pokemon and are now adults, not at least providing the option to have social interaction feels a bit wrong. It could be abused, sure, but I think throwing the necessary resources at keeping it from being abused, and punishing abusers would be worth keeping the game relevant to its current primary consumer.

<comment><USER7> I believe the point is that if the target audience _includes_ kids, you get stuck with the restrictions that implies, whether or not they are the majority. Some of this is directly legally mandated, some of it is indirectly legally mandated by fear of lawsuit, and some of it is mandated by avoiding bad PR about any bad thing maybe possibly happening to some kid somewhere because of your app. By that, I don't mean to minimize concerns about the real possibility of things that could be bad, but to highlight the fact that the PR disaster doesn't even need a real bad thing to happen, just a semi-credible accusation made to the right media for any reason.

None of those three concerns can be fixed by any amount of "resource investment" that will satisfy anyone. It would just get them accused of censorship anyhow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ignoring the comparison with Twitter for a moment, this shows that Nintendo's mobile strategy has been woefully slow. They've been ignoring a huge market segment to try to shift hardware instead, and this toe in the water shows that _a lot_ of people are interested in playing their games but not necessarily buying their consoles. I'd argue this means their business needs to change dramatically - away from their own hardware and towards leveraging their terrific IP on other platforms. Very much like Sega did a while ago.

<comment><USER9> Doesn't that depend on if they can make money on this model? This is a 126-year-old business, not a startup that's starving for "eyeballs" to increase their VC valuation. Selling hardware and $60 games could be a better (and more long-term) business than selling in-app "coins". (Or not!) I guess we'll see now.

<comment><USER10> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Nintendo is not the creator of the Pokemon Go game. Niantic (spelling?) licenses the Pokemon brand from Nintendo.

So in this case the comparison is not between selling in-app coins vs games. It's between licensing IP to the company that sells coins, vs selling games.

<comment><USER11> Technically Nintendo is not even the full owner of Pokemon, that would be The Pokemon Company [1], which is only partially owned by Nintendo

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

<comment><USER12> Yet Nintendo market cap gained 7 billion on Pokemon Go alone. I wonder if these investors really have no idea that the tech behind the game is Niantic and that Pokemon isn't even completely owned by Nintendo, or that there's something I'm missing here.

<comment><USER13> Pokemon Go is magnitudes larger than Ingress, their previous project, even though it's been plagued with more issues than Ingress and is arguably not as fully featured.

The difference?

Pokemon, which Nintendo owns.

If I was an investor, I'd view the potential for licensing the Nintendo IP (something Nintendo has been extremely reluctant to do in the past) as a huge potential growth vector for a struggling market segment (consoles, specifically Nintendo-made ones.)

<comment><USER12> True. Nintendo, of course, has a lot more IP than just Pokemon that they could license for all kinds of stuff. And the people who grew up with their games are now earning money, so they can actually buy the licensed material. Good point.

<comment><USER14> They could be like Marvel. Tons of characters and story lines to license for film and games.

<comment><USER15> Marvel licensed their IP out to Marvel Puzzle Quest (which was somewhat of a Bejeweled clone) and was quite successful with it. They didn't have a huge studio behind it either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The amazing thing to me is that, at least on iOS, the game is pretty objectively bad.

Of course that hasn't stopped me from sinking a lot of time into it this weekend. I've spent $10 on it, which is easily a record for free to play game for me.

The server issues are one thing, but the game doesn't even get lots of basic things right. If the server goes away, or sometimes if I'm just out of the app too long, I have to log back in. It seems to forget my settings for weather I want sound and music on, or to use the AR functions. I've run into numerous crashes and graphical glitches. Input getting confused requiring app restarts. Poor handling of the (common) network/server issues.

One of the mechanics requires walking around, which it won't track outside the app despite the fact that iPhones have had motion coprocessor for years. So they offer a special mode (very poorly documented) that basically turns the screen black and tries to reduce power usage a bit. But you have to keep the Pokémon app open to track steps.

I am having fun. I REALLY hope they can fix these issues. I sought earlier today that they do plan to add Pokémon trading and expand the functionality of the various waypoints in the world. I'd also love to be able to battle my friends.

The social aspect on this just amazes me. In the last couple of days they're been numerous times when I saw a random people clearly playing this game. Guys walking around parking lots at work, cars parked at empty banks that were closed because there happened to be a gym there. Numerous posts on social media about random gatherings and flash mobs because of something going on in the game.

It's clear that Ingress had a pretty good idea. Tying it to a major brand (not unlike the way Mario kart was created) that really encourages the collecting aspect and getting it out on iOS at basically the same time have clearly made a huge difference.

I'll also say, is a Pokémon fan I'm glad that it's only the 150 original in the game. At this point there are way too many Pokémon that seem the same to me, so I'm glad to see my old friends instead. I imagine that'll change someday but this is a good start.

<comment><USER17> Speaking as someone who has helped develop two extremely successful mobile games "objective" goodness is pretty meaningless. People have more patience than you expect for a game that captures their imagination and will put up with buggyness. In the long run, if a game isn't polished it will lose because of retention. But pure technical polish is often overrated.

<comment><USER18> Agree, just look at DayZ. Players stuck with that through extreme buggyness. Sure it might not have the same number of players as it once did but there were periods during which players were putting up with a lot of bugs.

<comment><USER16> I don't really 'get' DayZ, but I also know that it was a pay-once game, not free to play. Once you've paid the money you might as well get your fun out of it. But if you're constantly losing items and getting frustrated by bugs what's the incentive to keep playing and possibly giving Niantic money?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think people will look back on this game as important, as something special. I've been playing video games for over twenty years, and I can't remember the last time something felt quite as exciting as this. Each time I've gone out, I've seen other people walking around playing, and everyone gets the same goofy smile when you ask them if they're playing Pokemon too.

It shows the potential for AR games, and I think it will help a lot of people get in shape. I've walked around outside more in the past three days than I have in the past two months. Even hanging out with friends, rather than sitting inside watching tv or playing xbox, it's like "let's check out that lure", or, "I see a Bulbasaur, let's go get it".

When I was a kid, I remember wishing that Pokemon was real. This game really captures some of the magic and sense of adventure I felt when I first played it so many years ago.

<comment><USER20> Ingress was as exciting as this. And it was a lot of fun running into other players (friendly and enemy) and spotting them from a few dozen yards away. I still regularly talk to people I met on the Ingress scene, including one enemy player who was, at the time, my "archnemesis" of sorts. I did meetups with other local players to takeover large areas as a group and stuff as well.

But yeah, version 2 is cool too, I guess. ;)

Like Ingress, it'll be pretty busy for a few months and then it'll probably recede back to a core community of people who really really get into it.

<comment><USER21> No doubt Ingress was exciting, but it was a new AR/VR concept and an original sci-fi plot, putting it in the same ballpark demographic as a AAA video game.

Pokemon GO has the advantage of being based on an multi-billion dollar, 20-year-old franchise. Its appeal goes beyond that of a typical videogame, so has a significant leg up over Ingress in people's hearts and minds. Its popularity will eventually segment into a hardcore group and a mainstream group, but its mindshare among the wider population is likely to remain strong.

<comment><USER16> One of the big problems with Ingress was it wasn't available on iOS until maybe a year ago.

Since Google made it I don't exactly blame them, but that was a huge chunk of the market. I wanted to give it a try and I'm sure there were tons of other people but we couldn't since we didn't have Android phones.

That's not an issue with Pokémon GO.

<comment><USER22> Ingress on iOS was 7 months after Android.

Closed beta - November 15, 2012

Open beta - October 30, 2013

General Android Release - December 14, 2013

iOS Release - July 14, 2014

<comment><USER16> Really?

Huh, I only heard about it last year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The previous iteration of this concept was Ingress, by the same developer. It's an active subculture, but not to the level of Pokemon GO.

The marketing is ingenious. It manages to capitalize on the nostalgia of two generations that grew up playing Pokemon games, and the fact that the stated (virtual) premise of Pokemon was always to roam the world and catch these creatures.

Regardless of the longevity of the game, this phenomenal marriage of a popular videogame series with an experienced alternate reality company will be studied for many years.

<comment><USER23> And clever reuse of user-collected data from Ingress, to find good public landmarks all over the world.

<comment><USER24> I had a hunch thats what was going on

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm in Australia, and I've never seen an irl viral phenomenon on the streets like this. In the inner city of Brisbane, every second person I see is staring at their phone, swiping up to catch Pokemon. Mobs of 100+ people chasing 'lures' are being moved on from parks in the middle of the night. And there was a pub crawl: [https://www.facebook.com/events/267390546965461/](https://www.facebook.com/events/267390546965461/)

<comment><USER26> I think the real tell will be how many people are still playing in a month. The game can get very expensive, especially if you're in a rural area.

<comment><USER16> I do hope they rebalance it a bit. The only way to get coins without paying money is to own a gym, which is difficult to do. And less you're willing to go farm a bunch of little Pokéstops then you probably have to buy potions. If there was something equivalent to the Pokécenter then things would be better. It be nice to be able to battle friends to train your Pokémon as well.

<comment><USER26> Niantic are either too busy or really don't care about social media. There's lots of people pointing out real problems with the game. I hope it's not like Ingress all over again, where the only way to get something fixed was to know someone at Google.

<comment><USER16> Since it has the Pokémon company's brand (and therefore Nintendo's) I really hope to be a great app. One of the things I love about Nintendo with how well they polish all their software.

Instead it's very clear to me that it's a Google app with Pokémon branding. Release fast, bugs are OK, we can fix them later. Don't worry about the fact that the iOS version feels like an Android app and is somewhat obnoxious to use.

I can't help but think that if this game had another two months of polish it would be amazing. Instead, it's in its current slightly crappy state with a serious server issue going on.

<comment><USER27> Pokemon Go isn't made by Google, it's made by Niantic. Niantic were originally linked to Google, but have been independent since October 2015.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niantic,_Inc](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niantic,_Inc).

<comment><USER16> It was an internal Google startup that spun out, so I'm assuming they're used to 'the Google way' of operating.

I don't feel great saying this stuff, but I don't know how else to communicate just how startlingly bad the app can be, and how much it feels like a terribly lazy port of an Android app.

I don't know. Maybe if I use the Android app for a few days I'd find out that more or less every single issue is just as bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm surprised there's so little talk about privacy and nuisance implications of this.

We've had a large number of "suspicious behavior" reported in our neighborhood in the past week - and, honestly, it really is suspicious, as in people crawling through the bushes on private property at dusk snapping pictures with cellphones; you know, the kind of stuff that would normally make you go "hmm, I wonder if this house gets robbed soon", and give your local PD a quick call.

But I'm pretty sure it's mostly GO, just looking at how many are around. What's worse is that the game places some of those pokemons in private yards or even inside buildings, with no way to access them short of trespassing...

<comment><USER29> I just turn off AR mode if it's in someone's house or yard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I expect this to go quite a bit like Miitomo. Quick uptake, followed by most of the userbase getting bored and forgetting about it.

This game is pretty superficial. There isn't much to do. It unfortunately perpetuates the notion that mobile games cannot have depth or good, lasting gameplay.

Last phone game I really enjoyed was Tiny Wings. That was a while ago. Since then, anything I play on my phone has been in an emulator with a GameKlip and a DualShock 3.

<comment><USER31> If you are looking for an AR mobile game with more depth maybe you should try Ingress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> All I know is that I mentioned Pokemon GO to my kids (it's not out in the UK yet, so no advertising push to make them aware of it already) and they were instantly telling me that they _had_ to have it.

I can't imagine any other brand having that kind of impact - Talk about an unmet need in the marketplace waiting to be filled!

</comment><comment><USER33> Central Park now [https://twitter.com/IGIhosT/status/752357024156028928](https://twitter.com/IGIhosT/status/752357024156028928)

</comment><comment><USER34> The data and methodology is pretty suspect here -- Google for Pokémon Go reports 5m-10m installs while Tinder is reported to have 50m to 100m installs. This is an order of magnitude more worldwide installs. I think the 'current data' is being heavily weighted and producing a too sensational of an article.

For Tinder, about 25% of it's installs came from the US on Android. That still puts it at 12.5m - 25m Android installs range.

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tinder](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tinder)

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nianticlab...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nianticlabs.pokemongo)

<comment><USER35> Yes, but there were also many uninstalls. These numbers are accounting for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The crazy thing for me is the sheer explosive growth this has seen. I was walking around downtown Redwood City last night near the theater. Easily 50% of the people on the sidewalk walking or standing around were playing as verified by glancing at their screens as I passed them.

And these weren't just kids. Adults, men, women, all ethnicities, etc. were all playing. I've never seen anything like it. They've really stuck to their goal of getting people outside as summed up by this hilarious Reddit post [1].

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/pokemongo/comments/4rwf24/pokemon_t...](https://www.reddit.com/r/pokemongo/comments/4rwf24/pokemon_trying_to_get_people_outside_for_2_decades/)

<comment><USER37> It honestly has reminded me of when Facebook launched at my college back in 05. I remember being in the library and had Facebook pulled up, another student who I didn't know walked by and was like "Facebook! Add me!"

Immediate flashbacks when last night I was walking to my car from the grocery store with Go up on my phone. Guy yells "Pokemon go, right?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Currently discussing with friends best way to crack it and make it seem like there's a rare pokemon just up ahead - for all those people who slowly clog up the sidewalks and stations staring at their phones.

Ideas welcome!

(For the official record, since you have to say this these days - I'm only joking)

<comment><USER39> It's already been noted that the application itself doesn't verify the validity of TLS certs, so it's trivial to MITM the connection and there are currently people working to learn the ins and outs of the API.

<comment><USER40> It verifies certs, it just doesn't _pin_ them. So if you can hack your phone, you can hack it, shocker. Not a security flaw.

<comment><USER41> Curious why you don't think this is a security flaw. Surely a browser failing to pin certificates would be a bad thing, no?

<comment><USER42> There are legitimate reasons to extend the trusted root certificates (notably: corporate deployments). Admitted, I cannot come up with a reason that has anything to do with Pokemon, but - in general I think this should be possible.

Plus: Who do you want to protect and from whom? The only person able to make Pokemon Go (locally, on their phone) accept another certificate is by having full access to the phone in the first place. It's the user, 'hacking' his own device.

If this leads to exploits on the Pokemon Go server for some reason, than _those_ are the problems. The communication between app and Pokemon Go server uses TLS, even if I spoof a certificate for my very own device.

For me this is one of the examples of Raymond Chen's "If you're already on the other side of the hatch it isn't a security exploit", but I might absolutely fail to understand the risks of course.

<comment><USER41> wow, thanks for the reply. Although i'm not sure why my question was downvoted...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The Twitter comparison seems very off. Note that the article is talking about Android only. According to [https://about.twitter.com/company](https://about.twitter.com/company), Twitter has 310 MAUs and 83% are Mobile. They've publicly stated MAU to DAU retention is 44% (Bloomberg, etc). That leaves Twitter on Android with 40-60M+ DAUs. Pokemon Go's download number which is plainly visible in the Google Play Store is >5M but <10, and that's worldwide. So Android Pokemon Go = 5-10M DAUs MAX, Android Twitter = 40-60M DAUs

</comment><comment><USER44> Has anybody gone through their privacy policy? The speed that this became viral and the possibilities to have an enormous amount of people take video all over the place gives me the heeby jeebies.. Some of the things in the policy sound very, very invasive.

[https://www.nianticlabs.com/privacy/pokemongo/en/](https://www.nianticlabs.com/privacy/pokemongo/en/)

Edit: Heh, I went on indeed to see if there was a spike of video analyst jobs and got this awesome ad on the right: [https://imgur.com/MMyjbQN](https://imgur.com/MMyjbQN)

</comment><comment><USER45> Let's wait a month to see what engagement looks like. Most people are downloading simply because everyone is talking about it - especially news media

<comment><USER46> Engagement is crazy right now. I drove home at 3am last night and stopped by a PokeStop, and as I was leaving the parking lot, another car pulled in just to play... Same at the church by my place 15 minutes later. Different car.

What will really be telling is how many people still play after a week or two.

<comment><USER16> I feel that if they don't get the server issues under control soon (I saw they delayed the European lunch) then it doesn't matter what WOULD have happened the game is going to lose players in the social/network effects won't be there.

<comment><USER47> I think more of an issue will be people hitting "completion" relatively soon. Certainly, the most interesting part right now is just catching new Pokemon, but there aren't so many that you can't burn through most of that enjoyment fairly quickly.

The gym battles are terribly boring.

<comment><USER48> So far the game only includes the 151 original Pokémon, and I imagine it should be pretty straightforward to add in the later generations (700-something total). That's without adding things like shinies, gender, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> This game has all the makings of a fad.

The AR angle is new but this is simply Flappy Birds all over again.

<comment><USER50> Not saying it's not a fad, but isn't it different in quite a number of ways? The Pokemon brand and geo coordinate aspects had all my friends ("core gamers", if you will, who would probably not have dreamed of playing flappy birds for fun) playing it all weekend.

<comment><USER51> I'm into this game. It's fun, it gamifies walking and going to parks. I love that I can play this for a few minutes while walking my kid to the park, or while he's at the park playing.

Is it perfect? Hell no, but I play it in spite of how popular it is. It is fun, engaging, rewards activities I want to do more (walk) and really doesn't work well in the house. My wife likes that I wanted to get out of the house more this weekend.

Is it kinda sad that I need a videogame to make going outside fun for me? Yeah sorta, but that's who I am.

EDIT: One final note. This game uses the Pokemon _I_ played with as a kid. The ones I traded on cards and really leverages that nostalgia to make it something I want to do. I want to catch these specific pokemon because I've done it before. And it's more rewarding because I have to physically earn them too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Cave lector: Twitter, in this case, seems to refer to the Android twitter app, compared against the Pokemon GO Android app. If that is the case, I expect the reported Twitter DAU to be much lower than the actual Twitter DAUs.

<comment><USER53> Caveat? ;) I mean, those readers can be scary, but...

<comment><USER54> Cave is the singular imperative form. Cave lector therefore makes sense, meaning "beware, reader", while caveat means "warning".

<comment><USER52> Either should be fine; caveat is the jussive subjunctive, and so the meaning is similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> It's difficult to escape the feeling that Nintendo is not exactly central to the success of Pokémon Go, and that the 7BB increase in market cap is. . . excessive.

Fact is, this game is the work of a small VC-backed game shop in San Francisco with some great talent. They license the Pokémon characters, which are owned by The Pokémon Company, which is minority owned by Nintendo.

<comment><USER56> Nintendo is also an investor in Niantic Labs. If you think the price is high, you're welcome to short it.

<comment><USER55> Do you have a link for this? (I believe you, but I don't see it reflected in any of the VC DBs.)

<comment><USER56> [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nianticlabs- google#/...](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nianticlabs- google#/entity)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just image if the game was actually good... It's kind of a shame :(

<comment><USER52> I'm optimistic that the game will continue getting fleshed out; there's no way Niantic isn't going to capitalize on this.

<comment><USER11> I don't doubt it'll get better, but I also don't expect any major rewriting of the core loops / mechanics, which might invalidate user progress

<comment><USER57> The way I see it, they've got like two weeks tops to flesh it out more. Because after that, running around catching them and struggling against the weird gym system until you win is going to stop being enjoyable at all (and I do find it enjoyable for now!). Even just a bare bones friends system and a combat system that utilizes the 2 attack method gym battles have could go a long way to give the game a little more staying power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> The terrifying thing is how the games location of items can manipulate foot traffic and could show bias of one business over the other across the street in turn manipulating be economy by moving us and our eventual spending around like lemmings....but it's just Pokemon right?

<comment><USER59> Yeah - it's definitely "new age" advertising but why jump to a "terrifying" "moving us around like lemmings" conclusion? If a company wants to spend money to drop lures good for them. People can go there if they choose or just ignore it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I am really surprised it has taken this long for such an app to emerge. After smartphones took off and gained GPS, I remember sitting in a friend's student den (ca. 2009) idly brainstorming an AR game that would let you roam the city as an RPG character, occasionally battling or collaborating with other players. We thought it was pretty obvious and we wouldn't be the first to think of it, so we never bothered to actually pursue the idea.

Ingress was the first big game I remember that provided something similar, but it kind of ended there. The Pokemon theme is pretty much perfect for such a setup: inventory, challenges, not too martial and you get to piggyback on an existing story. Our vision was more geared towards the WoW gamer crowd.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm just waited for the first theft tied to this. Shouldn't take a thief long to get the app and find a seedy area to drop a Lure in. Wait for unsuspecting hapless victim(s) to stand around staring at their phones oblivious to the world for an extended period of time and it would be like shooting fish in a barrel for a ride-by phone snatcher on a bike.

<comment><USER61> Wait no longer: [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/thieves-pokemon- find-p...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/thieves-pokemon-find-players- rob-missouri-article-1.2706417)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned anything about Niantic being an "independent" spinoff from Google/Alphabet.

Interesting to think about what personal information they're gaining from this, as well as mapping information.

<comment><USER63> Nintendo (along with Google and the Pokemon Company, which Nintendo also partially owns) invested $30 million into Niantic 9 months ago [1].

[1] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-16/nintendo-g...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-16/nintendo- gains-on-investment-pokemon-go-game-developer-niantic)

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Is Tinder the right app to make the comparison with? Game vs Game would be better, like Angry birds or something.

<comment><USER16> The only good reason I can think of Tinder being used is because it's a well- known app and involves real life social things. I can't think of a well-known game that has in person/real world social interaction like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> This Guy Used a Drone to Try to Catch Pokémon

[http://gizmodo.com/can-you-speed-up-your-pokemon-go- progress...](http://gizmodo.com/can-you-speed-up-your-pokemon-go-progress- with-a-drone-1783418966)

</comment><comment><USER66> Release in Germany is delayed due to server issues. You can download the APK and play the game if you want to. I'm sticking with Ingress until the final release.

It's pretty bad that Google can't scale this. It's not like the mass of users is unexpected. They have Ingress data to go on and there's the Pokemon factor. Makes me not want to use the Google cloud for my next project.

<comment><USER26> Google / Alphabet != Niantic. [1]

I'd be pretty embarrassed at not predicting the load that a game like this would put on servers. I wonder if they got a good deal from GCE?

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niantic,_Inc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niantic,_Inc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> The game is acting like a Tinder for Pokemon fans. I've seen hoardes of people gathering around Pokestops and socializing as a side-effect.

</comment><comment><USER68> Can someone explain how it works? I understand that it's AR- and location- based. How/where/why do you acquire the virtual creatures? Do you have to look for them aimlessly or are there clues?

<comment><USER69> Just played a little bit on someone else's account. You walk around looking at a map on your phone (very little detail on the map, it's just a 3d street map) and sometimes you see a pokemon running around on your block. You tap on the pokemon and a screen opens up where you have to throw a ball at it. When you hit it, you capture it. There are also these floating disks with images of local landmarks, and when you swipe on them, you get more balls or other prizes. That's about it.

<comment><USER70> You missed leveling, evolving, gyms, the meta game, searching for rare Pokemon, and more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> To be fair:

> Data published today by SimilarWeb indicates that the mobile game is poised > to surpass Twitter in daily active users on Android.

</comment><comment><USER72> It seems to me that almost every other app is about to or has surpassed Twitter in Daily/Monthly active users. Twitter seems to have some pretty big problems keeping its users engaged.

<comment><USER73> Instagram and Snapchat are not just every other app. I think Twitter is used as a reference in these kind of statements because their number of active users is pretty stagnant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> I don't do much cardio but I walked 4 miles this weekend trying to catch Pokemon. I love a game that makes me healthier.

</comment><comment><USER75> Just a side note I leave here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12069450](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12069450)

<comment><USER76> You should look at auto detecting the users location instead of a drop down menu.

<comment><USER75> Thanks for the suggestion. => Done :)

<comment><USER76> Could I be cheeky and ask to see the bit of code that achieves the affect?

<comment><USER77> [https://github.com/Eun/is-pokemon-available/blob/gh- pages/in...](https://github.com/Eun/is-pokemon-available/blob/gh- pages/index.html#L32)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> I think this number is considerably more impressive than beating the number of Tinder installs.

<comment><USER79> Indeed, although I'd bet a much larger percentage of the population knows about Pokemon than Tinder.

<comment><USER80> Going with that, I'd bet a much larger percentage of the population knows about Pokemon than Twitter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Well, doubt how many will remain after 1 month.

<comment><USER82> I'd imagine people will stay as they did with the original Pokemon. To this day, they are still adding more and more Pokemon. I'd expect they'd treat this game in a similar fashion. They'll probably introduce trading (already confirmed), a battling system amongst peers, side objectives, events (battle Mewtwo) as we saw in the commerical, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> I've run into people playing this game in the park, at Publix, in Costco and even restaurants. It's a SENSATION, never quite seen something like this. I'm excited for the future for Nintendo - we could be witnessing the birth of a new age of Nintendo supremacy!

</comment><comment><USER84> The most important quality for such a game is how many players are playing it. In that sense, Pokemon GO is already far better than Ingress or anything else.

</comment><comment><USER85> It's a much less cringey way to meet someone than Tinder, especially if you want to meet someone who's into Pokemon.

</comment><comment><USER86> Pokémon Go is very similar to the Nintendo DS game "Treasure World" (2009), where you collect randomized virtual loot based on Wi-Fi networks around you:

[http://www.gamesradar.com/treasure-world- review/](http://www.gamesradar.com/treasure-world-review/)

</comment><comment><USER87> Do I need to feel out of place in this world? I still dont understand why the game is so popular!

<comment><USER88> It's the social aspect and the act of "dude there's a Snorlax at the basketball court let's go" and getting a group of your friends to go, then as you show up you see other people doing the same thing.

It's an innocent conversation starter. What better ice-breaker between social groups than "You playing Pokemon?" Even people who aren't playing know what's going on. The game itself isn't the selling point here. Being an IRL Pokemon trainer is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> A story of how 2 people nearly died playing this game [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2KXVfnw4rg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2KXVfnw4rg)

</comment><comment><USER90> Yeah, but will it get me laid?

<comment><USER91> If you count meeting people and possibly getting to know them to be a first step on the path to that, then yes. It's very easy to see who's playing the app nearby, and people often get talking while they're trying to take over a gym over waiting for spawns near a lure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> Yeah, but what's the daily active users like?

</comment><comment><USER75> Just a side note I leave here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12069450](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12069450)

</comment><comment><USER93> I wonder what the intersection of the sets of gamers and people that wonder how they can improve their productivity is.

</comment><comment><USER94> Does this include downloads from apkmirror etc.?

</comment><comment><USER95> Tinder - gotta catch 'em all!

</comment><comment><USER96> Who cares about Tindr. Tindr is the poster boy for lowest common denominator both in the social and technological sense. Ok, maybe Ashley Madison.

<comment><USER97> >Tindr is the poster boy for lowest common denominator

Why yes, it does have very broad appeal.

<comment><USER96> So do porn, gambling, and films like 'Transformers' that literally have no plot.

<comment><USER98> That's pretty harsh for an app that just shows you people's European vacation photos and lets you talk to them.

<comment><USER96> Aside from some basic benefits, it mostly encourages people to make judgements about important things ('human relationships') based on the most absolutely material, fleeting and trivial physical elements. Especially given the magnitude of 'choice', it commoditizes people. Even worse, it normalizes this behaviour. Far from connecting us, it actually disconnects us.

Talking recently to a female friend recently who is on Tindr ... it was pretty astonishing how numb she'd become to the profiles... absolute objectification. Even as she was fairly self-aware about it.

It's about as healthy as nicotine.

Admittedly, it's an absolutely brilliant business model, tapping into primal forces, but it's not a step forward. It's a step sideways, at best, and maybe even a little step back.

When VC meets creativity meets technology, it will induce a lot of dollars in this direction irrespective of long term positive economic or social outcomes, often taking attention away from 'better' causes. Absent reasonably enlightened consideration (and I mean just 'basic' consideration, not some holier-than-though ideology), there is no moving forward - just moving in random directions, pulled by the arbitrary forces of hyper-populist memes and trends. Some will make a lot of $$$ as the money sloshes around in a zero-sum game, but surely, but that really isn't the point. In the long run, the Valley and tech scene will lose authenticity and be about as credible as politicians, homeopaths, or Amway.

I'll bet $100 that anyone working in tech or any other industry for more than 5-8 years, will start to understand that it's not about 'a job' or 'making bling', or 'being startup famous' and that they work they do has impact across cultures and communities, and that they are ultimately responsible for whatever it is they are working on. Given that there are 10 000 projects around to chose from, it's hot hard to climb higher on the ladder than Tindr, by almost any measure, even $$$.

I don't really care about Tindr that much, I have about as much 'against it' as I do a ridiculous Transformers film (which is nothing), but it's not worth any attention either.

I'm looking forward to Pokemon :)

<comment><USER99> > absolutely material, fleeting and trivial physical elements

What would those be? Whether they find the potential date attractive in the first place?

Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words.

<comment><USER96> Making a snap decision about a person based on a 1/2 second assertion.

Of course, looks matter. We make such 'snap decisions' all day long. The problem is, absent anything else, that's the _entire_ decision. In the real world, personality goes a much longer way than the 1000 words in a photo.

At least most online dating apps try to develop and communicate a sense of who you are, which in some cases, they do very well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER100> AR >> VR</comment>


Experimental 3D page layout inspired by Flipboard - <AUTHOR> http://tympanus.net/codrops/2012/05/07/experimental-page-layout-inspired-by-flipboard/ <comment><USER2> This is very pretty, but the UI is anachronistic. Whilst it is very cool to _be able to do this_ and I really hope that people _don't do this_.

Scrolling through is a much nicer way to read through a site as you're not limited in your presentation of information by a form factor as you would be in a magazine - you don't need to fill a page and you don't need to cut information out to make a limit. If you need separators, use horizontal line separators.

This is a pretty technical accomplishment, but I see no reason to use it other than "wow! cool!".

<comment><USER3> at the same time, a UI like this can be really nice. I don't think it limits the presentation of information but actually simplifies it and let's you gain more info with a single glance. It also allows the designers/editors to draw you in with headlines and pictures in a traditional way, placing what is most important (we would hope) front and center.

will it actually be used effectively? eh...probably not for anything other than on the ipad.

<comment><USER4> You can do the exact same thing without page flips. Headlines and pictures front-and-center? Sounds like almost every blog ever written.

<comment><USER3> it's not about placing headlines and pictures front and center, it's about placing the right ones there, without adding too much complexity...you get the headline, the first few lines of text.. that's nothing new, look to techcrunch or pretty much anything as an example of that. It's the layout and the fact that you see the entire page without being inundated with scroll bars and overloaded with information... and a blog isn't exactly the right thing to be using as an example to compare? in fact, a blog seems like it would care less about which article's are being read and more about just articles being read in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This works surprising well on my iPad. Nice work.

But, I hope this doesn't mean I'll see more of this on websites. It reminds me of OnSwipe, which almost always results in me immediately hitting the back button (if my browser doesn't crash first).

A don't want novelty UIs. I've never had a problem reading a 'non-tablet- optimized' article on my iPad.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is definitely a cool demo.

One detail I noticed that might be worth adjusting is that I assumed clicking on the "Flip" box on the right side of the page would actually flip the page.

So from a usability perspective if you were actually implementing this on a real site, a popup when you click on that explaining how to swipe/drag the page over could be helpful since this is a new style of changing pages not everyone would expect? Or just make clicking on that button actually flip the page, although that kind of ruins the point of the design.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, "cool demo, but..." -- I was also surprised that clicking the "Flip" 'button' didn't flip. Between that and the fact that you have to be on the left side to flip back, and on the right side to flip forward (just like a real book), instead of being able to flip either way from anywhere on the page, says that they are concentrating on the gimmicky "RealThing" metaphore of a book, and ignoring usability and Fitts' Law.

The User-Interface-Hall-Of-Shame-Worthy QuickTime 4.0 player and IBM's "RealThings" interface design methodology made the same mistake.

<http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iarchitect/qtime.htm> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealThings>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love the layout. It looks like it would be great for touch screen devices.

My first instinct was to click the "flip" button. It takes a lot of effort to click and drag with my mouse.

If it's possible I would consider something like making the page lift a little bit when the user hovers over an edge. Then just click to flip the page.

</comment><comment><USER9> Very nice (as mentioned, very natural experience on the iPad). Constructive criticism: I really don't like how the back button works at all. Flipping pages here intuitively feels like scrolling, not page navigations. I really don't want to mash my back button 50 times to go back to the previous site when I'm done reading an article.

<comment><USER3> completely agree. If I click the back button, I want to go to where I was before accessing the entire "newspaper" not just back one page (which kinda defeats the entire purpose of being able to flip the pages back).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For a moment I considered buying the ad space on the final page of the demo just to capitalize on the blip of traffic you'll be seeing today.

The space is 175x125, which is not a size I have a creative ready for. I've never seen a space that size before. Any reason for the nonstandard dimensions?

<comment><USER11> I would imagine because most people are not aware of the standard dimensions for banner ads. Plus, in my experience, it seems like most people who think they know the "standard" dimensions would be surprised to learn that other people may think of different dimensions as "standard".

<comment><USER12> I always assumed these were the standards:

[http://www.iab.net/guidelines/508676/508767/displayguideline...](http://www.iab.net/guidelines/508676/508767/displayguidelines)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looks nice - I noticed that when you pop-out an article, the back button still changes the pages behind the pop-out, perhaps it should add that to the stack as well to be able to get back to the page you were at.

</comment><comment><USER14> looks like lots of work went into this. it work great. respect. one suggestion. you made me click on article and it zoomed alright, my second thought was i can double click to close it down which obviously did not happen - and believe it it took minute to figure there is a close button on the top lol.

if you made me assume that i can click on the text anywhere to navigate, I immediately stop looking for buttons. adding double click would be awesome. thanks!

\- what are the usage terms. can I build a project using this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! You can use it of course (with caution :) )

<comment><USER14> what you mean - caution?

<comment><AUTHOR> it's just a proof of concept.. not fully tested

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> You might consider adding a curl to pages where there is a next page. Once you get to page 2 there's no real indication that there is more content after it.

</comment><comment><USER16> Very neat demo! Works in Firefox 12 as well, but the rendering is not quite as smooth as in Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is really good and I can't wait to crib this once I have an appropriate idea :D

</comment><comment><USER18> The filler copy for all the stories is hilarious. How was it generated?

<comment><USER19> It looks like Hipster Ipsum:

<http://hipsteripsum.me/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Very cool demo!

</comment><comment><USER21> Really good!</comment>