Your close-minded disdain for anti-vaxxers isn't helping anyone - <AUTHOR> http://theweek.com/articles/537430/closeminded-disdain-antivaxxers-isnt-helping-anyone

<comment><USER3> Strident anti-antivax here.

The main sticking point that I have experienced is that anitvaxxers refuse to accept that their actions impact other people (children) by way of herd immunity.

When they do see it, they are often too deep into the argument to back out.

The other issue is that the argument is often heavily laden with emotion - <USER2> had a discussion with ageing hippy grandparents who blame a last minute MMR vaccine on the still birth of their second grandchild.

It's not a fair argument when you are showing data and they are reacting to a still birth. Even harder when you deeply love the people you are having the damned argument with.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think it's a little unfair to lump vaccination with diet/fitness/nutrition. The best of the university crop don't exactly rush into that field, so it's no wonder it's perceived (and rightly so) as pseudoscience or "junk" as the article points out.

<comment><USER5> Few studies on vaccinations are properly controlled for side effects or efficacy. And they mostly just compare their product to an older one and to vaccines for different diseases. Additionally, they are shielded from liability in the US.

Pharmaceutical companies have an atrocious record as far as product safety goes. I understand the theory of vaccines is sound but that hardly means anything when dealing with big pharma.

<comment><USER6> The studies I've _worked on_ looking at side effects and efficacy of vaccines, and that several vaccines have been taken off the market because of product safety concerns will be surprised to hear this.

<comment><USER5> > several vaccines have been taken off the market

This is what I mean by atrocious record. Not with vaccines specifically, but looking across all medications.

Anyhow if you can point me to double-blind placebo controlled studies on all the major vaccines, please do.

<comment><USER6> Two rotavirus vaccines were suspected of causing a rare but serious side effect (that they actually caused it at higher rates is somewhat less clear). They were immediately pulled off the market, and replaced with a vaccine that doesn't cause said side effect - which has been vigilantly monitored with post-market studies ever since.

A smattering of double-blind RCTs for you:

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00122681](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00122681) (HPV) [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01266850](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01266850) (Rotavirus) [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01171963](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01171963) (also Rotavirus)

You'll find them relatively easily for novel vaccines. In another post I mention unethical studies. Asking for new RCTs for existing vaccines used to prevent childhood disease is _absurdly_ unethical, and would never pass muster at any self-respecting institutional review board. The best you'll get is comparisons between new formulations and existing vaccines, ala [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00861744](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00861744) because there's no reason to put a swath of children at risk of preventable childhood diseases when we have working vaccines with very little evidence of serious side effects.

<comment><USER5> I think doctors will need to get over these ethical issues before immunization could ever be compulsory. It's just as unethical to force a treatment that's not been properly tested on a population, as it is to not expose them to that treatment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As an epidemiologist, what the author doesn't get is that we _have_ been empathetic. We have been patient. We have explained, using everything from complex math to simple metaphor how vaccination works to protect populations. We have spent millions of dollars and person-hours of valuable research time chasing down the ghosts of anti-vaxx fantasy to make sure there's nothing to them. We have let VAERS become irrevocably contaminated with their crackpot reports, making it useless for its actual purpose.

We catered to their whims. Their shifting goalposts and their conspiracies. We refused their unethical study demands while listening to them malign those we could conduct.

We asked nicely. In the meantime, they propagate beliefs that endanger children.

That wears down empathy and patience after a few decades.

<comment><USER5> Wakefield was one of your own and VAERS takes reports from the medical community.

Vaccine rates are pretty high. If they're effective then they should be effective for the 90%+ people taking them.

Meanwhile Ebola with >50% mortality is raging and the medical community is up in arms over measles.

<comment><USER7> This comment proves that you don't understand what you're talking about. I'm not trying to be condescending -- I've learned a lot about this recently due to the outbreak, and I encourage you to do some reading as well.

Some vaccines are very effective at the individual level. Others are not, and so the safety of any individual is _reliant_ on herd immunity. So when you say "they should be effective", I don't know if you mean to prevent an individual's illness or to prevent an outbreak. Either way, vaccines are not just intended to be effective for the individual -- they're intended to protect an entire society.

As far as Ebola: the medical community is certainly up in arms over that, as well. It's a huge crisis, and millions are being poured into its treatment and prevention.

The problem with Ebola is that there's a massive cultural barrier. Many of the most at-risk people are afraid of vaccines, and some of them totally misunderstand how Ebola is spread. Those two situations are getting better, but it's much harder of a situation to solve.

The reason you're reading so much about measles is that it's affecting a wealthy, educated country, and it's directly caused by misinformation from the "anti-vaxxer" movement. It's alarming because it's a backslide, and we know it's preventable because we did such a good job preventing it for so long.</comment></comment></comment>


Students Help Ford Bring [Web 2.0] to Cars - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/10/ford-michigan/

<comment><USER2> I think this totally makes sense - we are talking about a younger generation that is driving the need for web 2.0/social marketing integration with automobiles however, I find it strange that Microsoft would need outside assistance with growing Sync...</comment>


Removing oil left behind in 2.5B gallons of produced water every day in U.S. - <AUTHOR> https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2019/Q1/what-oil-leaves-behind-in-2.5-billion-gallons-of-water-every-day-in-u.s..html <comment><USER2> This is a great result, and then we get to this:

From the article -- _Researchers are working with the Purdue Research Foundation Office of Technology Commercialization to patent the innovation, and they are looking for partners to continue developing it._

What is the public good of patenting a process that would make usable water more available? Doesn't this graduate student get what they paid for? An advanced degree in chemical engineering from a prestigious school? Doesn't the school get what it wants from this, a reputation for doing solid research into big problems and coming up with good answers?

And then they want to take the idea out of considering by applying a 'tax' to it so that the university can extract some rent on work they have already been paid for. I find that so unpalatable.

<comment><USER3> It's a fairly natural outgrowth of the pressure (since 80s) to run (public) universities "more like a business". Funding was cut and restructured, a professional class of management moved in, and universities were encourages/mandated to look for new sources of revenue. One of the common variants of this was to develop fairly aggressive "technology transfer" offices. The idea being that IP was being developed, but not monetized. It hasn't been super successful, for a bunch of reasons.

<comment><USER4> Do you have any sources one could read into?

<comment><USER5> Look up the history of the Bayh-Dole act.

<comment><USER4> Cheers mate, I love reading about history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Assuming this works and is scalable, it's potentially a game-changer for Saudi Arabia.

All wells produce water along with the oil. Great background from the old theoildrum blog: [http://theoildrum.com/node/6052](http://theoildrum.com/node/6052) and [http://theoildrum.com/node/9045](http://theoildrum.com/node/9045)

The "water cut" is the percentage of water in the fluid coming out of the drill hole. Normally this is a disposal problem. If it's drinkable (and not saline!), Saudi no longer need to desalinate quite so much water, they can just use the water from the oil wells.

<comment><USER7> It is highly saline, according to the first article, more so than seawater.

<comment><USER8> You could say water from the depth of most petroleum reservoirs underground is _naturally_ polluted. It can be more than just saline polluted. Pretty much anything that can be in the earth and can mix with water.

There are cases of shallower reservoirs where the petroleum is mixed with otherwise potable water. If it is within an agricultural area, like Bakersfield, it may be treated and used for irrigation. The treatment is mostly just multiple steps of skimming off petroleum.

<comment><USER9> While I don't necessarily disagree with your first statement, your second statement seems to put things in the wrong light.

> _It can be more than just saline polluted. Pretty much anything that can be > in the earth and can mix with water._

Most water we drink is rain filtered through many different layers of earth. It's the cleanest source of freshwater we have. Minerals only mix to a very small percentage with the water during this process and this "pollution" is actually wanted to a certain degree, i.e. mineral water.

<comment><USER10> Rock layers on the surface of the earth that have water running through them that are drinkable have had rain water removing the elements and chemicals harmful to life for, generally, millions of years. The best water often comes from rock that was actually created by life (limestones, dolomites, etc), so that it had almost no harmful chemicals in it to begin with.

The poster you are disagreeing with is correct. The deep earth is full of really toxic stuff. Arsenic, lead, sulfur, radon, etc. Then there is the deep oil and gas, salt domes, asbestos. Huge volcanic eruptions called flood basalts are likely the cause of many mass extinctions due to the chemistry of the eruptions, not the ash. The mother Earth we all love is just the little skin on top of a cauldron of death.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is super weird but just a few days ago Mike Patey (guy behind the draco bushplane [1]) posted a video [2] about his next airplane build and briefly showed a huge evap tower that he described as being for separating water produced in the petroleum industry. Oil water separation doesn't exactly sound like a millennium challenge problem so I wonder if there's some sort of grant competition right now.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17743960](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17743960)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9MNWh8kkIM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9MNWh8kkIM)

<comment> semi-extrinsic Oil water separation is actually really hard, it's been a huge problem for over a century. There's a lot of research being done on the topic, dozens of teams from top universities around the world working on it; just look through recent issues of Energy & Fuels, for instance.

Luckily for the environment, it is one of those cases where "more oil emitted into waterways = less money earned", through less amount of product, or less valuable product - cleaning up the oil and cleaning up the water often go hand in hand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I imagine it still isn't household use ready after this since 5% of the contaminants are still there. However if they can reuse for their own internal purposes, that would be great.

<comment><USER13> Directly it isn't, but because it now meets the EPA standards for clean water from industrial sources it can be discharged into regular water sources where it dilutes and can be drawn from and further filtered by conventional water works, which helps lesson the impact of it's water usage a lot.

<comment><USER14> This is something I never understood. When everybody is polluting waterways and ground water, it doesn't really get diluted. These companies should be forced to operate responsibly are cease operations. Everyone is for capitalism until we start trying to hold them responsible. If we held them responsible, they'll either adapt or they'll go under and a competitor that is able to operate responsibly will appear.

<comment><USER13> It can still dilute if everybody is releasing different pollutants; it's only a problem in clusters of similar industry that overwhelms intake filtering.

As to your second argument, the EPA's literal purpose is to force citizens to operate their life/business responsibly; if you think their standards are too lenient than take it up with your elected representative. One of my biggest frustrations I see here are people pushing to overthrowing everything for grand new systems, completely ignore the implementation details for such a system, and then get frustrated when the system fails because of the details. The system to accomplish your goals is already fucking there, use it.

<comment><USER14> > take it up with your elected representative.

One of my biggest frustrations I see here are people suggesting that you take things up with your representatives as if big corporations don't control the government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Isn't DAF and skimmer already solved this ? The article does not goes in to details, but I reckon it's a oliophilic foam material instead of a rope or belt that we usually use, thus increase contact area ?

Edit: my bad, this article is about using nanoparticles to increase solar distillation efficiency.

</comment><comment><USER16> Article didn't link or cite a relevant paper[1]. It's from 2018...anything newer?

[1] [https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2018-86906](https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2018-86906)

</comment><comment><USER17> Is this water really being "held"? For how long? It's pretty tough to sequester water on that scale.

</comment><comment><USER18> I appreciate it when smart people solve problems I don't even know about.

</comment><comment><USER19> The title is a little hard to parse; this paragraph cleared it up for me:

> Handling that water is a major challenge in the oil refinery industry, > particularly because it is deemed unusable for household and commercial use > by the Environmental Protection Agency because of remaining contaminants. > Several commercial treatments are available, but they are expensive, do not > remove all traces of contaminants from water and can be energy-intensive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I fixed up the title

<comment><USER20> I still don't get it...

EDIT: the first paragraph in the linked article was very insightful

 _Purdue University researchers have developed a process to remove nearly all traces of oil in produced water._

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Produced_water](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Produced_water) may help?

<comment><USER21> That seems like an overly flowery term. Why not use "oil well wastewater" that a layman would understand immediately.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The New England Journal of Medicine on Data Sharing - <AUTHOR> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1516564 <comment><USER3> I think this paper summarises everything that is wrong with academia and why a lot of people have enough and are looking for ways out.

 _A second concern held by some is that a new class of research person will emerge — people who had nothing to do with the design and execution of the study but use another group's data for their own ends, possibly stealing from the research productivity planned by the data gatherers, or even use the data to try to disprove what the original investigators had posited._

According to the authors, trying to reproduce results or possibly disproving them is worse then theft. That already says it all. Especially in medicine, where reproducibility is severely lacking and research fraud is certainly far from uncommon.

 _There is concern among some front-line researchers that the system will be taken over by what some researchers have characterized as "research parasites "._

Wow, strong language here. Imagine everyone who used someone else's results to advance science would be called a research parasite. The authors have an extremely cynical view on science and are simply equating it to business and career.

To be honest, I am not surprised that this is coming out of NEJM or another medicine/molecular biology journal as this is a fairly common attitude once you rise in the academic ranks in those areas.

<comment><USER4> ... "or even use the data to try to disprove what the original investigators had posited"

\- isn't that the whole point of peer reviewed research?!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _There is concern among some front-line researchers that the system will be taken over by what some researchers have characterized as "research parasites."_

So we should consider Francis Collins & James Watson "research parasites"?

Without their own analysis of other researcher's data the double helix would not have been discovered.

You cannot control information/data just because you gathered it. Pick up your marbles because you do not like what your pears concluded?

Science is based on reproducibility and peer review.

Peer review without full access to data is a fallacy.

<comment><USER6> Francis Crick.

<comment><USER5> Freudian slip.

 _Before being appointed director of the NIH, Collins led the Human Genome Project and other genomics research initiatives as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)_

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This sentence in pretty staggering: "... people who had nothing to do with the design and execution of the study but use another group's data for their own ends ... or even use the data to try to disprove what the original investigators had posited." As in, science.

<comment><USER8> As a non-scientist who's seen that quote tossed around in a few different places in the past couple days... Is there a non-awful way to read that? It sounds almost like a parody of a tone-deaf status-obsessed researcher; is there some kind of context that makes it ok?

<comment><USER9> If you put the omitted "..." back in to the quote, it makes it clearer that the "for their own ends" is about appropriating credit rather than testing alternate hypotheses.

More importantly, the full paragraph starts "A second concern held by some is that...", signaling that this characterization is a not-universal opinion about what might be bad about data sharing. The _very next paragraph_ argues that it doesn't have to be this way, which is the whole (missed?) point of the text.

It's almost like the posts here are trying to make the authors' case about the hazards of data sharing for them.

<comment><USER3> The "second concern held by some" is clearly a rhetorical figure of speech to make it sound as if they are not really sharing it, although the rest of what the authors say only deals with this exclusively. The first concern complete disappears. They are also using the term parasite or parasitically throughout the paper, which is not really helpful in this context.

The real concern of the authors, as it appears to me, is that you "own" the data that you produce and should have the exclusive right to use it - <USER2> call it "obvious extension of the reported work".

 _How would data sharing work best? We think it should happen symbiotically, not parasitically. Start with a novel idea, one that is not an obvious extension of the reported work_

On the other hand, if you have a novel idea, you are supposed to work "symbiotically" with the authors with _relevant coauthorship_ :

 _Third, work together to test the new hypothesis. Fourth, report the new findings with relevant coauthorship to acknowledge both the group that proposed the new idea and the investigative group that accrued the data that allowed it to be tested_

The problem is that science does not work this way. You cannot own the facts, as someone famously said. Imagine people in computer science or mathematics held the same attitude, especially in artificial intelligence/machine learning.

<comment><USER10> _Imagine people in computer science or mathematics held the same attitude, especially in artificial intelligence /machine learning._

"Hi, I'm a patent attorney. What's going on in this thread?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10>
       "However, many of us who have actually conducted clinical
       research, managed clinical studies and data collection and
       analysis, and curated data sets have concerns about the
       details."

The rest of us have some concerns too, Doctor. [http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...](http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)

</comment><comment><USER11> The authors have chosen an unfortunate way of expressing themselves, to say the least.

The evident fact is that _published_ data is there for anyone to re-examine as they wish, however I believe that the authors are referring to unpublished data and archived materials.

In the latter case, I would agree that potential users of these resources should not be able to demand access without acknowledging and explicitly collaborating with the "owners" of said resources. A free-for-all access to unpublished data and archived materials would be a recipe for chaos and certainly would result in wasting rare samples and increased pollution of the literature with poorly performed studies. On the other hand, the guardians of these resources should not be able to deny access to said resources by qualified researchers.

</comment><comment><USER12> It is disappointing to see this kind of mentality in science, which is built on a foundation of the primacy and public availability of measurement.

To see an oncologist from Harvard / Dana Farber get something so wrong is really sad.

Self interest is an incredibly strong and insidious influence on our opinions, and I suspect it comes into play when senior academics stake out positions like this. Would they have agreed 20 years earlier in their careers? I doubt it.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think we are seeing the infectious effects of capitalism spreading throughout what was once the free domain of knowledge. Until the internet, the stuff that cost money was usually 'stuff'. Ideas, algorithms and even software was free, Then Bill Gates showed how something ephemeral as code (arrangements of electrons?) code could build a business colossus. Then Google showed advertising could be used to monetize not just information, but the desire to find information. Then Facebook showed how to monetize our identities. In all of this, the staid academics saw the efforts of their lives (theses, research, papers, etc.) reprinted, disseminated and reused by others and they got NOTHING. Of course a few people were lucky, Wally Gilbert had his insulin gene sequenced, cloned into a bacterium and made billions with Biogen. But most purveyors of knowledge have been left out in the cold. All the searches that led to the knowledge they farmed has been monetized by others. And they get nothing. So now we are in the era of flourishing paywalls, content restriction and even browsers that subvert advertisements. And the academic administrators have gotten so jealous, they have raised tuition beyond the reach of most people. They want their piece of the pie, civilization be damned. And the cannon fodder of the education machine, the teachers, are the ones getting shafted as well. It's not just the New England Journal. It's all of education.</comment>


Geithner forces Citi to cancel jet order - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4093646-eca6-11dd-a534-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

<comment><USER2> Anybody else see a problem with 1) the government propping up companies that should be reorganized by bankruptcy 2) taking over these zombie corporations like head crabs 3) and then interfering in all kinds of business decisions?

Air travel post 9-11 is ridiculous in this country. How Citi spends Citi's money is between Citi and Citi's shareholders. Except when the government intervenes.

Now we have a giant mess. Now every interference can be made in the "public interest." Why do employees get free coffee? Why do employees get gym memberships. What about education reimbursement?

What is in the "public interest" now?

<comment><USER3> I agree 100%, but supposedly the sky would have fallen if these companies would have gone bankrupt? (I have yet to be convinced of this)

<comment><USER4> From my understanding, there certainly would have been huge crack in the system had some of the big ones gone down just like that. This is because of the incest-like inter-connection between the major players; if one fails, it reneges on its derivative obligations, leaving several others' "naked" to risk. Those affected by this would have either lower credit rating or may not be able to fulfill _their_ derivative obligations and so on.. domino effect. So, agreed, some of these biggies just had to be stopped from failing (AIG was the king of them) But what I fail to understand is that why is the government supporting these on an on-going basis? I would expect the government to strictly save them on the terms that they eventually wind down the operations or at least break up and sell to interested parties. It is very important for companies to fail every once in a while; in this special case the govt. should have helped _soft-land_ their failure not _prevented_ it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is far more offensive that Citi is still using tax dollars to pay its shareholder dividend.

<comment><USER6> Why must the shareholder get stuck holding the bag? It's not like they get special inside knowledge or treatment. We're punishing the people who bought Citi's story instead of the ones who ran it into the ground?

<comment><USER7> So you'd rather punish the US taxpayer, who very likely has no direct investment in the company (outside of index funds), and has nothing to gain if the company does well? Sure, it sucks for the shareholders, but that's exactly what they signed up for - a share of the companies returns in good times _and_ bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "That money should be used to lend to consumers to get the economy moving again"

Maybe the problem was they didn't write that on the back of the check when they made the deposit.

<comment><USER9> Maybe the problem is that Americans are already bursting at the seams from too much debt and no matter how far you stuff that firehose down the pig's throat it just can't hold any more.

So no matter how much CONgress wants the banks to lend, it _just doesn't help_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The car companies that had to give up their jets aren't too happy about it either. And so goes nationalization.

[http://www.freep.com/article/20090126/NEWS15/90126063/1001/N...](http://www.freep.com/article/20090126/NEWS15/90126063/1001/NEWS/Levin+livid+over+reported+Citigroup+jet+purchase)

</comment><comment><USER11> If it prompts you to log in, use this link: [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4093646-eca6-11dd-a534-0000779fd2...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4093646-eca6-11dd-a534-0000779fd2ac.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Looks like they were going to buy a Dassault Falcon. I wonder how these kinds of decisions will affect Aerospatiale/Dassault? It's not like they make a lot of them.. last year they made eight Falcons per month. They've already fired all their temps and cut back on subcontractors hours.

It just goes to show, you can't win for losing. One more notch in the economic death spiral.

</comment><comment><USER13> While they're at it, make them fly economy class.

</comment><comment><USER10> More accessible article: [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/27/citigroup- nixes-p...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/27/citigroup-nixes-plan-m- corporate-jet/)

</comment><comment><USER14> As a taxpayer, I'm glad they canceled the order -- if it made business sense to do so. If it was just to look good (and they end up spending more money without the jet) then double bad on them.

As a pilot? A Falcon 6X? 5950 nautical mile range? 3 engines? Complete glass cockpit with lots of standby gear? Have you seen that cabin size? The possible configurations? Anybody like to have a private ride you could pick up in DC and get off in, say, Milan?

What were we talking about again?

</comment><comment><USER15> Don't jet companies deserve 'stimulus' too?

<comment><USER16> While the theory of your comment makes complete sense to me, I do have a problem with French (and no offense to the French people here) companies getting my tax dollars. Last I checked (and I could be wrong) Aerospatiale- Dassault was a French company. If U.S. companies are going to be buying corporate jets with my tax dollars I would much rather they buy them from U.S. companies.

<comment><USER15> What a fine recipe for recovery: every nation for itself, make companies buy only what's politically-favored, reduce competition, reduce world trade.

(Those were all popular-but-misguided mistakes that made the 1930's depression deeper and longer.)

<comment><USER17> I think the misguided mistake was giving Citigroup too many tax dollars.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


HOPL IV: History of Programming Languages – Accepted Papers - <AUTHOR> https://hopl4.sigplan.org/track/hopl-4-papers#List-of-Accepted-Papers <comment><USER2> "These are the nineteen papers that will be presented in London in June."

So many luminaries on that page: Guy Steele, Bjarne Stroustrup, Rich Hickey, Dan Ingalls..

"The Papers track of HOPL-IV will include published papers that will be complemented by oral presentations at the conference."

"The Program Committee encourages submissions that discuss and analyze the historical development of individual programming languages, programming language families, language features, design themes, and other strong influences on the direction of programming language design, implementation, and usage."

</comment><comment><USER3> Our D paper got accepted, too!

</comment><comment><USER4> I was super lucky to be able to go to HOPL 3 in 2007. Amazing conference. These papers are a little less exciting to me, but it sounds awesome all the same.

</comment><comment><USER5> LabVIEW! As a PhD student at the intersection of programming languages and computing education, the suggestion that Scratch delivered visual programming to the previously-unempowered masses has always ground my gears. Computer science academics can have a rather myopic view of end-user programming.

I'm _very_ excited to read this paper.

</comment><comment><USER6> Still waiting for someone to publish a volume of HOPL-III papers. The HOPL-I and -II books are essential for those interested.

<comment><USER7> Links for these prior books?

<comment><USER8> Clicking through from [http://research.ihost.com/hopl/HOPL.html](http://research.ihost.com/hopl/HOPL.html) gets one to electronic access to the volumes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wish there were the actual papers instead of titles only.

<comment><USER10> Usually these are published sometime after the conference, there are two volumes already containing the papers of previous conferences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting that Verilog is considered a programming language. And Smalltalk and C++ were both already covered in HOPL II.

<comment><USER12> I'll allow it as a mind altering substance, along with other HDL's.

Both let you think about the same problem in structural, behavioral, or dataflow styles. Taping out hardware is optional.

<comment><USER11> That's likely how SystemVerilog came into being.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How many domains do you own? - <AUTHOR>

I wonder how many of us are sitting on 100+. <comment><USER2> 38.

Of which about six are in use daily for email, blog, etc.

10+ are names that I registered with a project in-mind which didn't take off, or didn't get started. I'd be happy to lose them when they expire, but feel no need to actively sell/offer them anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER3> Around 50.. Not all unique, some are the same in different TLDs, and just different variations, especially when there is a number in the name.

I'm letting them mostly expire now.

</comment><comment><USER4> ~30, one for personal blog/e-mail, one for a game company I am growing slowly, a bunch for ideas that I had that I dont have time for.

</comment><comment><USER5> Three (two of them about fifteen years old). I would be more interested to know about the distribution of interest in all the new TLDs my registrar keeps trying to sell me.

</comment><comment><USER6> 5

Edit: I got lobi.mobi, no idea what to do with it.

</comment><comment><USER7> 5: Using 1, 3 for later and 1 regret that I won't renew when it expires.

</comment><comment><USER8> Around a dozen.

</comment><comment><USER9> Each dot-com domain costs me 1,49€ each month

I just reduced from 3 to 2

</comment><comment><USER10> ~30.</comment>


What kind of problems would face mankind in 150 years? - java-man

Imagine the world 150 years ago.  No radio, no television, no cars, no computers; few applications of electricity, steam powered locomotives only started to shrink the world distances.  Poverty, poor medicine, terrible work conditions are rampant.  Monty Burns utters "excellent".
Now fast forward 150 years from now.  Computers are probably thousand times more powerful, electric cars everywhere, advanced pattern recognition engines are operating the production, marketing, and distribution of goods.  Low cost robotic plants are located everywhere, just in time to take over low cost production after China's growing middle class leaves sweatshops en mass for higher education and creative startups.  America, suppressed by religion and enhanced visa regime, continuously loses innovative edge against young, energetic countries like Estonia which invested their GDP into education and innovation.
What problems will face the mankind?  What activities would take the most effort and time for the Earth's people?  What kind of products and services they will require? <comment><AUTHOR> I dont think we'll still be on earth, but this is what i think for humanity

1) Identity: What's real for people and things. Is this a real person or a robot impersonating a person. 2) Mortality: When do I want to kill myself? Because we'll have the choice of how long to live / when to die. 3) Security: how do i prevent someone from hacking into my brain

<comment> java-man interesting.

1) is it important? I mean, if one does want to talk to somebody, is it important whether the entity on the other end a human or a synthetic intelligence? conversely, if one does not want to talk, it is irrelevant who is on the other end.

2) I hope we'll solve this issue sooner. Euthanasia is already legal in more enlightened countries.

3) This will never happen (on a hardware level) :-) Or, perhaps, it has already happen: every time you buy things, think about all that effort they put into marketing and advertizing - in a way, they already hacked your brain.</comment></comment>


Have you inspired a B-Candidate to be an A-Candidate? - <AUTHOR>

We have seen articles about hiring A candidates, who in turn hire A guys or A+ guys. If you hire
B-candidate they in turn will end up hiring B
candidates or B- or C candidates.
In startup scenario, have you seen or have you inspired B candidate to be an A candidate, could you please share stories successes and failures in doing so?
For example, I am trying to find cases in startup companies similar to
Seabiscuit(Movie/Horse) which is physically
average horse winning triple crown and its trainer, jockey and owner are even greater for accomplishments with Seabiscuit.

<comment><USER2> I know this isn't answering your question, but why would you want to inspire a B candidate to be an A candidate? Isn't that a waste of time when you can just wait for the A candidate?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, if you've the ability to identify and coach B candidates to be A candidates and assuming that there are lots of B Candidates than A candidates, wouldn't you accomplish same things possibly in less time than A candidates could and may also eliminate time waiting for A candidates?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> nature vs nurture? In a start up, you don't have the time to nurture an employee. everyone is flat out doing what they do best, with little hand holding. B DNA will produce more B DNA.</comment>


Ask HN: Who is riding his weekend project straight to profitability? - <AUTHOR> Many of us are working on weekend projects. Some are being built just for fun, while others are being launched with the aim of generating some income.<p>I would like you to share the story of your revenue-generating weekend project, which would be a great inspiration for the rest of us. <comment><USER2> My little genius friend & I are working on a side project currently but it is starting to look quite viable.

In a nutshell it takes any word or PDF document, strips all the formatting and repopulates a new word document with predefined fonts, layout etc. Sounds simple & basic? That's the point. We're near completion and once we launch it will be a simple service that can have a significant impact on the industry I currently work in.

<comment><USER3> That is a great idea.

<comment><USER2> Thanks! We think so too. Always keen to hear other applications for the service though. I haven't had sufficient time to investigate how relevant it may be to other industries but I know there will be more significant applications other than our current focus.

<comment><USER4> This is a common feature in CRM software for the recruitment industry, where they want to rewrite people's CVs into the agency's 'house standard' (and remove the candidate's contact details, too).

If your version performs better than what some of the existing players are using, you might be able to OEM/white label it for them.

<comment><USER2> The current CRM features available are _terrible_. The other issue is that they generally come bundled with a CRM that companies are paying in excess of 7 figures for. We have a stand alone product that is efficient and affordable.

A lot of recruitment companies, at least here in the UK, pay significant annual salaries to an 'admin' person to sit and format CV's all day long. Why pay them £25k a year to execute a task that takes them about 20 minutes when you could pay us about 70-80% less (pricing point yet to be determined) for a product that executes the task instantly?

<comment><USER4> Your competitors in that market are people like Daxtra (my former employer) who do CV parsing and extraction.

They also do CV reformatting, and because they've got structured data to work with can even entirely recreate a new CV based on the candidate's data.

If you want to move into that market as a stand-alone reformatting product, you'd need to integrate with the range of CRMs in use (Adapt, EZAccess, Itris, etc - some of these have CV reformatting built in, too). This is a market where they want it all to 'just work', and you'll end up dealing with some really really demanding people.

And you also risk an established player deciding to extract out their reformatting tool as a stand-alone product and leveraging their existing sales network to block you.

Which is why I was suggesting OEMing it to CRM developers, which would let you side-step companies like Daxtra. If the recruitment agency isn't doing enough business to afford to get Adapt or whatever, then they're either just starting up (and will drop you for an integrated solution as they grow) or about to fail.

Edit: just looked at your profile, and I'm pretty sure you'll know all about Daxtra. :o) If Volt aren't using it already, ask your account manage for a demo of reformatter, and keep in mind that Daxtra could turn that into a stand-alone SaaS offering pretty easily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't have a current one to share but back in 2005 I decided to do a 24 hour project in Rails and built a tagged source code site called Code Snippets (it wasn't the first code snippets site but the first with tagging to get any traction). I let it run in the background with just a couple of tweaks here and there for just over 2 years and it was making $1000ish per month from Adsense with zero effort by me. I then sold it for a healthy 5 figures. It's still running at a new URL: <http://snippets.dzone.com/>

<comment><USER6> Interesting. I wrote <http://snipt.net> not long ago, but have had no such luck with AdSense (only made about $30/mo on 30k monthly uniques). Would you mind sharing your traffic that got you up to $1k/month?

<comment><USER5> I think it was around 250k pageviews per month. I don't recall the uniques as I don't pay attention to them (unless the visit-pageview ratio is really weird). It looks like they have it up to around 600-700k per month now: [http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm2snippets](http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm2snippets)

The butt fell out of Adsense for many areas in 2008-2009ish though and I've never had any further success with it in the _developer_ space (though I did very well in the mass market up till about 2009). I run some other reasonably successful sites in the developer space and Adsense is basically a no-go - results as bad as you've mentioned.

If I were in your shoes, I'd dabble with some affiliate programs. I've already been doing this and having success on my developer focused sites. Only high quality stuff but latest books, e-books, courses, events, etc. I notice you have Carbon on there and if I recall correctly, they approached me and the CPM was laughably bad (though this may have changed..), I want/need to be making $5-10 CPM overall from display advertising.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I just recently realized how many great ideas and projects I've wasted over the years with not riding them to profitability or even releasing them.

Now whenever I come up with something that doesn't leave me alone for a couple of days I just go for it, without any expectations.

The last one I launched was a very simple iOS App (<http://airlocationapp.com>) which was actually done in less than a weekend, pitched to only a single blog and generated about $700 since launch, which was roughly one month ago.

My best selling apps, a suite of remotes for iOS (<http://reemoteapp.com>) actually started off as weekend project just like that but initially hit a bigger niche and now turned into my main project/income.

<comment><USER8> I like the idea of the reemote app.

I can't read the text on your website though, and I'm sure that I'm not alone. (the captions under the logos)

<comment><USER7> Thanks, I've stopped messing with the current site, gonna rollout a entirely new one very soon.

<comment><USER9> Would love if you wanted to use <http://confered.com> for your mobile app site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm part of a project that's an art piece management solution for galleries to use for exhibitions. Right now galleries use paper reports to track art pieces between exhibitions, and we want them to use tablets. We currently have a gallery interested in the project.

I'm the sole technical force behind the project. Front-end is on Android Honeycomb tablets, back-end uses Erlang for the web server and middle-ware and PostgreSQL for the database. I also work full-time so progress is a bit slow.

</comment><comment><USER11> I learned to program by creating an ecommerce service for my pet store ("Outlet" at <http://cheekob.com>) in my spare time. I am now broadening it to help other sellers with a new selling format: automatic markdowns (<http://pricetack.com>). What really helped me was the awesomely simple, yet powerful Python framework Web2py.

</comment><comment><USER12> I taught myself Objective-C for fun last summer, then one day decided to release an app. I spent about 3 hours coding then about a day sorting out code signing, artwork, submission etc. As a result of that weekend I've ended up getting a pretty nice side income from advertisements from the free version and straight revenue from the paid version. In fairness, since releasing it I've quite considerably improved the application but its still less than 800 lines of code.

<http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/tooloud-pro/id425137981?mt=8>

<comment><USER13> Clever idea. How much are you making from it?

<comment><USER12> about $100 a month, more if i update it. 100K downloads and been featured a few times in whats hot and N & N, almost got featured on the front page of itunes too. Not bad given that I think the application is relatively pointless. I just wanted to submit _anything_ so I could learn the submission process

<comment><USER13> Wait, 100k downloads and you're making $100 a month? Those numbers don't seem right to me... Still, nicely done:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ask HN: Who is riding _their_ weekend project straight to profitability?

FTFY.

<comment><USER14> The correct pronoun is "his" since "their" is plural. While there is some debate about this "his" is still acceptable as a neuter pronoun.

<comment><USER15> "their" may technically be plural, but in everyday English usage can be and often is used as a singular pronoun. It's a lot shorter than "his or her" and much more common than the likes of "zir". "Their" also has the benefit of being gender neutral where even "his or her" fails, especially for genderqueer people that do not identify with either pronoun.

It is also far less offensive than using "his" to reference all hackers on HN, among which I fall into the female minority.

<comment><USER14> My point was more that "his" is grammatically correct and didn't need fixing than that "their" is wrong, but why is using "his" offensive? I see "her" used often as neuter pronoun and I have never found it offensive even though I'm not female.

<comment><USER16> Using his is not PC, there are female hackers.

In my experience I thought only other guys coded and then I went for an interview that went awful. I was interviewed by two people separately. First was a guy, who was the Director of Development. Before he left the room, he said Janice will be interviewing you next. I thought she must be the office manager or HR person and during interview I said "Oh so you do the HR stuff around here?" She said, "No, I code," to which I replied "You code - huh?" Needless to say I didnt get that job, yet I learned something.

<comment><USER17> Your kind is more common than some might think.

"Hi, this is $obvious_female_name calling from $company for $candidate, please?"

"Oh, I thought this would be a technical interview."

Result? Instant 1.0 score, which basically means that if you hire this person, I will quit.

Turns out they've hired a bunch of those people anyway, and I quit anyway.

<comment><USER18> If you were supposed to be performing technical interviews, why would you base the candidates' ratings on something completely non-technical?

<comment><USER17> It's not just a technical interview. It's also a "should we hire this person", and in that case, the answer is no.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well I just started on a 28 day experiment... a bit more than a weekend, but fun nonetheless. Myself and some other travelers are building a travel moabile app for a contest. We're documenting the whole process and our steps so we can publish our methods at the end... I'll post the whole thing at <http://LifeByExperimentation.com> when we're done in about 3 weeks.

</comment><comment><USER20> Made a little utility app for Mac that I needed, about 2 months ago, I was giving it away free with donations but after a lot of emails promising donations for this or that decided to flip the switch and start selling it. Been selling for a week now making $100+ a day! Im working on a few other projects in hope that combined they can become my main income.

<comment><AUTHOR> After a little search i found this <http://hddfancontrol.com/> — good work! Looks good, i will give it a try.

<comment><USER20> :-) Good searching! Was shocked to see ycombinator show up on my site analytics!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> We created one called <http://www.creatorfinder.com/> which helps developers showcase their verified portfolio.

It also adds a watermark for images created by designers. That helps designers to show verified websites that they have helped design.

No plans on making money yet. But we do have a fair number of registrations every day!

</comment><comment><USER9> I created an app called Scan4Points which uses your barcode scanner to get nutritional information and calculate the WeightWatchers points. Actually my wife had "forced" me to make it. She said it was finally something I made that she could actually use. <http://confered.com/apps/Ryb70>

</comment><comment><USER22> My most recent project is £18 in the black :D

<comment><AUTHOR> Purify, am i correct? Nice work, congrats on the positive income ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I was doing facebook games as side projects a while back. Now they're my main source of income.

<comment><USER24> The year of the platform launch I made a small novelty app called Name Analyzer. While scaling it ended up involving some work, the initial version was made in a weekend. It no longer exists, but while it was still alive it spread to a big portion of Facebook users. I got enough savings from it to feel comfortable to fulfill my dream of moving to Japan and start working on my own apps full time.

It got 9 million users and made quite a nice sum from ads.

<comment><USER23> I remember you from the devs forum :). Hope you get big in Japan</comment></comment></comment>


Free mentorship for 2k people from underrepresented communities - <AUTHOR> https://www.platohq.com/community-circles <comment><AUTHOR> A bit about my story, 50 years ago, my parents immigrated from Vietnam to France, and 5 years ago, I immigrated from France to America. A couple of folks have been helping me, Jason M. Lemkin, Michael Seibel, and others who trusted me despite my accent, origins, lack of experience, or race. I felt welcome and they helped to launch my career in the US. I won't ever forget this. I understand that not everyone has had this experience and despite this week DACA win, there is work to be done and for underrepresented/underestimated communities in the US.

Today, Plato is launching this program to offer mentorship for 2,000 people of color and people from underrepresented communities in tech for free.

Some confirmed mentors: Michael Seibel (CEO @ YCombinator) , Cathy Polinsky (CTO @ Stitch Fix) , Prashanth Chandrasekar (CEO @ Stackoverflow) , Papanii Nene Okay (Director of Architecture @ Venmo) , Rukmini Reddy (ex VPE @ Abstract) , Donal Sumbry (Head of reliability Engineering @ Airbnb) , Erica Locheimer (VP Eng @ Linkedin Learning) , Jason Lemkin (CEO @ SaaSTR) , Elias Torres (Cofounder/CTO @ Drift) , Sara Garner (Sr Software Engineer @ Stripe) , Nick Caldwell (CPO @ Looker) , Jason Shah(Director of Product @ Airbnb) , Nicolas Dessaigne (CEO @ Algolia) , Shivani Sharma (Sr EM @ Slack) , Richard Sun (Sr EM @ Facebook) , Tido Carriero (CPO @ Segment) , Will Larson (CTO @ Calm) , Eddie Kim (CTO / Cofounder @ Gusto) , Cosmin Nicolaescu (CTO @ Brex) , Pooja Brown (VPE @ Stich Fix) , Nidhi Gupta (ex CPO @ Hired) , Michael Pryor (CEO / Founder @ Trello) , Juan B (fmr GM / SVP Prod/Eng @ Braintree) , Daniel Saks (CEO @ AppDirect) , Luc Vincent (EVP Autonomous Driving @ Lyft) , Asanka Jayasuriya (CTO and SVP Eng @ Sailpoint, former SVP Eng @ InVision) , and 100 more...

In solidarity and hopefulness for change, thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> Would love to have your thoughts all on if mentorship is an interesting solution to help move the needle!

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Very important work! So glad to be part of this initiative

</comment><comment><USER3> Awesome initiative!</comment>


Showing anger 'is good for career' - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/4902394/Showing-anger-is-good-for-career.html

<comment><USER3> I wish articles like this would provide more detail (such as a link to the study itself). At the moment I don't know how to act on this information. It was a survey, so what exactly were the questions? How were "those who keep a check on their frustrations" determined? Lacking that, it's difficult to guess which way causation worked. Were these frustrated people failing because they didn't express anger, or were they more likely to reply that they had unexpressed anger because they were not doing well personally and professionally? Or maybe the causation is that successful people feel more free to express themselves while unsuccessful people don't like to draw attention to themselves.

The BBC article on the same study (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7918622.stm>) mentioned that "Outright fury was destructive, the researchers added", which sounds like an important caveat. If I were convinced that this survey shows that anger leads to creating value, I'd like more detail on constructive ways to express anger.

<comment><USER4> Why, look, it's another chance to flog my pet peeve!

Here's the problem: The citation in the news article looks like this:

 _A recent study published in the Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality..._

Visit the page of that journal and you can see a link to their "journal online". But the page at the end of the link is hilariously awful:

 _Your university's subscription to this Journal has just become even better value!_

Notice the complete lack of useful facilities for the general public -- and just about everybody else, for that matter. I can't even find a browseable homepage of the latest issue of this journal. There's a search box that I can type in, but I can't find a recent reference to the only scientist mentioned in the news article. When I do click on a random paper from the journal I can't read it unless I buy it, and I can't buy it or even see the price without registering.

They say expressing anger is good for your career. So let me advance my career by noting that the existing for-pay scientific publishing industry is a collection of hopelessly-obsolete parasitic middlemen that actively harms science education by keeping primary sources out of sight of the public, and that we should all lobby to have our government's tax-supported research grants come with a requirement to publish in open-access journals:

<http://www.plos.org/>

<comment><USER5> Some progress w/ this:

 _SEC. 218. The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law._ [1]

This is also prominently featured on the PubMed search page:

 _Does NIH fund your work? Then your manuscript must be made available in PubMed Central_ [2]

[1] <http://publicaccess.nih.gov/> [2] <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not much meat to that story...

" _those who let their anger out in a constructive manner_ "

The article doesn't explain what this means but sounds like it's probably "don't lie down and take it when you encounter bullshit" which is of course "good for your career."

</comment><comment><USER7> Showing that you care about your work gives people the impression that you care about your work; story at 11.

</comment><comment><USER8> This seems to me like a good example of an interesting subject, edited into an overly-condensed article, and tagged with a catchy, but somewhat misleading title. I imagine it would be very difficult to control an experiment just on response to anger (as opposed to other emotions). Without seeing more detail, this article to me basically says that being self-aware and having a healthy understanding of the full range of one's natural emotions "is good for career." Doesn't seem particularly groundbreaking that anger would be included in that list.

</comment><comment><USER9> It would be interesting to know what proportion of people are "constructively" letting out their anger. If everybody did it, would it still be an effective tactic? The standards of "professional behaviour" - especially in large organisations - tend to revolve around conflict avoidance, consensus and compromise. Is letting your anger out an abuse of that commons?

</comment><comment><USER10> Of three options, each subsequent is better than the previous:

      1. Get angry and stay angry but don't show it. Conflict is not resolved.
      2. Get angry and vent it, thus resolving the conflict (possibly by parting ways)
      3. Don't get angry, but work on the problems.

Brought to you by the institute of common sense.

<comment><USER11> I prefer 2b: If you feel angry (real anger is not a choice), express it in a passionate but productive way, and stir others into action.

Anger can be powerful and useful when its _righteous_ anger directed appropriately. Think about Jesus driving out money changers.

When it makes you a raving monster that hurls obscenities and nearby objects, well, that's not my style, but I've known big corp VPs that were like that.

<comment><USER10> Actually there was research on oil rigs team leaders published in Harvard Business Review which demonstrated that by selecting less aggressive team leaders (ones who were less macho but more likely to listen and try to understand) they were able to reduce accidents several times over and improve production. I can dig out the issue for you if you want to read it.

I claim that righteous anger only _feels_ good, but is really inferior to constructive if non-sexy working through the issues.

Of course limits of the study applicability need to be scrutinized - <USER2> applies to people who are already members of one team may not apply to strangers and you may have to yell and stomp your feet :) at the latter to reach the desired effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How do you think Steve Ballmer got where he is today?</comment>


Startup Quote: Larry Ellison, Co-founder, Oracle - <AUTHOR> http://startupquote.com/post/10226287179

<comment><AUTHOR> See things in the present, even if they are in the future.

\- Larry Ellison

<http://startupquote.com/post/10226287179></comment>


Gmail flags emails using images from Imgur as having "Suspicious links" - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/karllhughes/debugging-gmail-s-suspicious-link-warnings-45ia <comment><USER2> Imgur is a public host that does not authenticate sufficiently to allow prevention and prosecution of fraud and phishing content in emails.

In what way would you suggest that Imgur could be considered a "safe" image host for email images, without putting email recipients at risk of anonymous- untraceable image content?</comment>


Squeezing Every Last Bit of Performance Out of The Linux Toolchain - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mozilla.com/tglek/2010/04/12/squeezing-every-last-bit-of-performance-out-of-the-linux-toolchain/

<comment><USER2> This is pretty damned impressive.

My question would be whether the work that's gone into this will also help the Windows/Mac versions of Firefox to load faster...

</comment><comment><USER3> I've taken small example programs written in C# and pasted them into a java environment, changed the library references and I'm good to go. But doing that with 100k lines of code is quite another level. Still, I think the syntax and design similarities between C# and Java present a unique opportunity for this sort of thing... It would probably be prohibitively difficult to do with almost any other pair of languages.

<comment><USER4> The modern functional languages of the ML family may come closer.</comment></comment>


iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review - <AUTHOR> http://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-11-pro-review-china <comment><USER2> The photography in these kinds of reviews is amazing, and the camera looks pretty stellar compared to the XS, but I find myself reading them wondering if it will make my pictures any better. I'm a mediocre photographer at best, and I'm certainly not going to be able to capture many images like the ones in this review.

<comment><USER3> The key elements to these photos basically come down to dramatic lighting(dawn/dusk), leading lines(look at the bridge and waterway shots, your eyes are guided to the mountains and the horizon), and the rule of thirds(dividing your image up into quadrants, and keeping important subjects at their intersections). Basic stuff, but as always requires LOTS of practice and experimentation.

<comment><USER4> Over 20 years ago, my wife and I were driving up highway 395, just east of the California High Sierras. At the time, we were only using disposable cameras. She suddenly asked me to pull over, which I did, and backed up a bit, to right around here: [https://goo.gl/maps/dh4gyRPi71ZQmy4b7](https://goo.gl/maps/dh4gyRPi71ZQmy4b7)

She got out of our 1996 Saturn SL, walked around a few minutes, snapped a single picture, and got back in the car.

A couple of months later, she gave me slightly blown up print of that picture, developed in black and white, in a simple frame, and asked if I'd like to put it on my desk at work.

The photo was stunning, and so I took it to work.

Over the year, a number of people came by and commented on the striking beauty of that picture. In fact, two different people (at different times) came, looked at the picture very carefully, and said that they were quite surprised that there was an Ansel Adams photo they had not seen before.

At my suggestion, she entered it into various local and state photography competitions, and won all of them.

Alas, it was lost in a fire many years ago.

My wife has no training, formal or otherwise, in photography. But she has a naturally keen eye for graphic design and layout.

Equipment is good and important; location, timing, and an eye for composition is, in my opinion, far more important.

<comment><USER5> Equipment can't make you a good photographer. Luck and taking lots of photos sometimes can get you a good photo, but it's not reproducible.

The thing that better equipment gives you is options, and if you know how to use it, the possibility of getting photos you otherwise couldn't get (at least not a decent version of). That's it, really.

Even the most modest equipment can take a great photo - but the conditions have to be just right for that gear.

<comment><USER6> A great video I came across recently has a guy taking great photos with a $13 disposable camera: [https://youtu.be/TFVX0x0dCsU](https://youtu.be/TFVX0x0dCsU)

Like you say, equipment is only a small fraction of the equation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would love a high-resolution photos of these. The small size look amazing for phones like Huawei P30 Pro or Samsung Note 10, but then you realize that the full size version has blotched textures or excessive sharpness

<comment><USER8> Gruber has the originals on his review: [https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/the_iphone_11_and_iphones...](https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/the_iphone_11_and_iphones_11_pro)

<comment> sh-run People have always questioned the usefulness of smaller sensor cameras (Ie M43) with the improvement in cellphone cameras, but it looks like I'll still carry my Olympus EM5.2 when I travel.

The iPhone 11 gets great social media photos, but I wouldn't want to get any of those printed (at least not larger than 4x6). Of course the best camera is the one you have with you so I am still happy to see the improvements over my Xr and my wife's 8+.

<comment><USER9> M43 cameras are still relevant as the depth of field blur in these phone cameras is faked, sometimes with odd results. An f/1.8 aperture on most camera sensors translates to something like an f/8 full frame equivalent (for comparison, f/1.8 on M43 looks like f/3.6 on full frame). It still lets the same amount of light in, but there's no shallow depth/blur.

<comment> sh-run Yeah, there's also the benefits you get from longer exposures and the ability to swap lenses. I carry an Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 and Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6, which gives me a massive focal length range to play with in a relatively small package.

For a hobbyist like me M43 is great and won't be replaced by a cell phone any time soon. And as much as I'd like an A7iii I can't justify the extra cost and lens size for what I do.

<comment><USER9> I recently sold my M43 gear that I primarily used for video (GH5, GH5S), but I had to hang on to my GX85 and Oly 12-40mm f/2.8 for photos -- perfect little walk around combo!

Then I accidentally broke the GX85, and it didn't take long to get the itch to take photos again. So I finally made the jump to full frame with a used A7RII. Man, big difference. In image quality and size of course. Not trying to convert you, M43 still has a place in my heart, but check out used prices on the Sony Alphas. You can get something like an A7II for less than the cost of that Oly 12-40. ;)

<comment> sh-run Wish you wouldn't have shown me that.. this time next year I'll be surrounded by a pile of Sony GM Lenses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The pictures do look good, the colors are nice and the small image on the page is nice. But I haven't seen any 100% crops or full images. it's there that you'll see that the image is worse than a DSLR or another camera with a big lens and sensor.

I can get nice pictures (= vibrant and nice colors) with any camera, what I can't get is a sharp image, with sharp edges.

I went to a trip with my Android Phone and DSLR, and my GF has an iPhone 6.

We took pictures with all 3 devices. When I looked at jpg photos from Android phone on my PC, they had all "perfect" (=vibrant and catchy) colors, but when you zoom in, it's all a blurry mess with no detail. The iPhone was nice and sharp (at least much sharper than the android pics). The DSLR was of course the sharpest one.

Now on the android phone, I have a "pro" settings that captures RAW image. And it's incredibly sharp, the colors are bland of course, but the data is there and we can add/process the colors in post. But why is the image so much worse when using JPG.

My idea it that normal jpg has HDR enabled and is being processed too much, thus losing a lot of detail. You don't get that loss when capturing RAW.

What I'm afraid is that the new iPhone dark mode (or even the P30 Pro and other phones with post processing) will also process the images too much and stack them thus losing a lot of detail. When put on instagram or made smaller for Facebook/websites, you won't see the missing details, but the colors will be vibrant and that's "good enough" for most people.

When I take a picture I rather have the real RAW data in the picture instead of processed jpg that I can't control. What do you guys think about the automatic post processing done by your device, that when done incorrectly, you'll lose a perfect picture because the implementation just lost you a lot of detail...

I guess the post processing trend is there because you just can't make a good lens and sensor that small and still have nice results. The phone makers are just trying to fix this with post processing...

<comment><USER11> Most people don't zoom in on their photos. They look at them on their phones, full screen on their computers, or at best on a TV (1080p or maybe 4K, but sitting far away).

This is what manufacturers optimize for. Getting great pictures for the 95%.

Who cares if the hairs on the dog are blurry when you zoom in so much you can't see the rest of the picture? Well, Pros who might want to crop the photo later. And for them, DSLRs will still exist.

<comment><USER12> And that's why Apple and Samsung are still using 1/2.5 (5.8mm by 4.3mm) 12MP sensors, typical of generic point and shoot cameras. Compare to lower end 'prosumer' type fourthirds cams that use a 17mmx13mm sensor and 15-18MP. That's almost 9 times the area for 25-50% more pixels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think the iPhone 11 makes some good advances as outlined in the linked article, but a lot of the pictures didn't particularly wow me at all from a camera capabilities perspective. A bunch of the images at the top of the article are nice, but that is entirely due to the photographer's skill at composing aesthetically pleasing shots and have little to do with the actual capabilities of the iPhone 11.

As someone who owned the LG G3 years ago, and absolutely loved the wide-angle lens on that phone, most of these pictures would look identical. I guess the point I am making is that while it's exciting to have a wide-angle lens on the iPhone 11, it doesn't in any way move the bar compared to what's been out there for a while.

Where the iPhone 11 has improved drastically, is with night mode shots, and that's somewhere it has been lacking substantially compared to the competition. They've done a really good job catching up and maybe even surpassing the competition in some areas. Kudos to them for that.

That being said, you aren't going to get great prints out of night mode images for anything much larger than post-card sized prints with the iPhone 11 (or any other smart phone camera to be honest). I love the image of the person in the boat at dusk, but even at the size displayed, you can see a bunch of artifacts from noise reduction. As much as everyone loves to hate on DSLRs these days, you are going to get much cleaner images in these light starved environments with a large sensor and good lens. I personally think it's absurd to make that comparison, but I just had to say this because every article about the latest smartphone camera ends up having a bunch of comments about how they are superior to DSLRs at this point (which they are on the computational photography side of things, but good luck getting clean, large prints out of a phone camera, especially in low-light situations)

<comment><USER14> "As someone who owned the LG G3 years ago, and absolutely loved the wide-angle lens on that phone, most of these pictures would look identical"

They wouldn't look remotely alike. Many of those simple shots are incredibly complex dynamic range scenes were the results are quite spectacular. With a lesser device the results would have been a blah photo, which is the point of the amazing progress that is happening in computational photography and the hardware that feeds it (focus pixels, secondary depth analysis, and sensors that have much better dynamic range than they did -- even current SLRs have much better dynamic range than a few years ago).

As to print outs, almost no one actually prints out anything. Most photography is for social media, your own camera roll, etc.

"As much as everyone loves to hate on DSLRs these days, you are going to get much cleaner images in these light starved environments with a large sensor and good lens."

This is a strawman. No one is hating on DSLRs, and I can't find a _single_ comment claiming that they're superior to DSLRs, beyond in the computational photography realm. But yes, smartphones are good enough that we often leave our DSLR at home, and when we do bring it there are many situations where the smarts of the smartphone yield usable to excellent photos where the DSLR will stumble. All things being equal a larger sensor is ideal, though things get more debatable on the lens side (larger lenses equal a longer focal length equal a much shallower depth of field, which while beneficial for bokeh, in many situations because a serious hindrance rather than benefit).

<comment><USER13> I suggest you pick up an LG G3 and test it's capabilities out. It's not like HDR is some new invention that just came about in the smart phone space. It's been around forever. Yes, some of the algorithms have gotten better, and the HDR tonemapping has been improved, but I've taken thousands of HDR images with my G3 many years ago that looked great.

Case in point - [https://photos.app.goo.gl/RMMcJe9X6XjaEqcw7](https://photos.app.goo.gl/RMMcJe9X6XjaEqcw7)

> As to print outs, almost no one actually prints out anything. Most > photography is for social media, your own camera roll, etc.

Well, you're certainly very defensive for no apparent reason. All I stated was that it would suffer for prints, which is factual and nothing you stated really adds value to that. I didn't say that it was no good because of that...

<comment><USER14> I didn't say the G3 couldn't take good pictures. However saying "my G3 once took a good picture, therefore it's equivalent to this" isn't reasonable. Those are difficult scenes and unless _you_ have a G3 to take a picture in the same lighting and conditions, your claim is baseless. Taking even current, top of the line smartphones and taking photos in perfectly equal conditions often yields significant differences in outcomes, yet you're seriously arguing that a five year old smartphone would be equal, with zero proof.

"Well, you're certainly very defensive for no apparent reason."

You stated that they wouldn't look good printed out which is a claim I didn't even want to argue (despite it being very wrong), instead pointing out that people generally don't print out often anyways, so... That isn't defensive, it's factual, as you say. No need to get defensive about it.

Feel free to get a G3 and an iPhone 11 and take comparable photos and show everyone, including the entire industry that recognizes the advances, how wrong they are -- it will surely see a lot of hits and attention.

<comment><USER13> > I didn't say the G3 couldn't take good pictures. However saying "my G3 once > took a good picture, therefore it's equivalent to this" isn't reasonable. > Those are difficult scenes and unless you have a G3 to take a picture in the > same lighting and conditions, your claim is baseless.

Talk about moving goalposts. What a bunch of baloney. Apparently now you can't argue any point without replicating exactly those specific images in the article. It isn't worth continuing a discussion since you don't have much constructive to add. I actually showed you a great example of a challenging HDR image snapped by a G3, which is more "proof" than anything you've provided so far.

Like I said in my original post, the iPhone 11 makes a great improvement in general. I pointed out that a lot of the excitement that the OP has about the wide-angle lens at the top of the article is justified in that wide-angle on smart phones is a lot of fun from a photography perspective (I've been able to enjoy it for several years already). But it has less to do with the wide-angle shots being miles superior than what has already been out there. No reason to take those observations so personally.

<comment><USER15> Get a friend with an iPhone 11, the G3, and compare. No need for this whole word duel. I think you'll be surprised.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> mewse-hn How could anyone read this without knowing it's an advertisement:

"today I'm just as thrilled to be putting an entirely new Ultra Wide lens in my pocket. It gives us another format to tell the story, another perspective to visualize, and a better rounded tool for doing our best creative work."

<comment><USER16> Does the author have a bias? Certainly.

Is this an advertisement? Ads are paid announcements. There was nothing noting it was paid for in any capacity.

There's a difference between an ad and a bias. I find it useful to notice biases because we all have them. Ads are quite different.

<comment><USER17> First, there can be a big power discrepancy in cases where free product is provided for review purposes. It's different if you are part of a traditional media outfit and have a significant, steady readership. But for someone like this, there can be a _lot_ of pressure to give very favorable write-ups.

Second, this wouldn't be the first time someone did a paid promotion without noting it was paid. I don't know anything about this guy, so I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm just saying it's naive to think that everyone is always highly committed to playing nice with the FTC rules. (See game streamers and their odd tendency to open tons of 'loot boxes' on stream & get significantly better results than expected.)

Finally a lot of the copy reads like it's straight from a press release, with capitalized words and everything.

Whether it's enough to constitute an ad in a regulatory sense, I don't know. But you can be _advertised to_ without the source being a literal ad according to a legal definition.

<comment><USER18> Whats the point of muddying the waters without having verifiable facts? The thing with speculation is .. anyone can speculate, on anything, for any reason. That doesn't make it true.

>I'm just saying it's naive to think that everyone is always highly committed to playing nice with the FTC rules.

Who exactly said that?

<comment><USER19> Look at the quote at the beginning of this thread.

If it looks like an ad, if it reads unnaturally, like something no real person would say to convey a honest opinion, then it's most likely an ad.

<comment><USER16> I read the post and it read fairly naturally to me. There are a wide variety of people out there who communicate differently.

Given the date of the post, time to write it up, and time to take the pictures this phone is in the hands of something before the official release date.

I read this like I read something from John Gruber about something Apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Beautiful photos, but why is the Exif scrubbed? I would have liked to see details.

<comment><USER21> By the way, what happens to exif when you upload online (or also fb or instagram)?

Does it get removed or can everyone see my location?

<comment><USER22> It doesn't automatically get removed. Some services will remove some information. Facebook, predictably, uses the info itself but strips it from downloads. [https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/what-can-you-tell- fr...](https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/what-can-you-tell-from-photo- exif-data/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> My DSLR is aging out...they've changed lens mounts (manufacturers seem to do that just long enough to blow the cost benefit of keeping lenses long term...I use my phone for 98% of my photos. The last one I actually printed out (a panorama) came from my iPhone XS Max.

I just can't justify a $1200 camera purchase to replace my Sony A57...and I'm a little sad about it.

<comment><USER24> It must have been the move to mirrorless that forced a mount change. Even Nikon abandoned their F mount line (which started in 1959) and introduced Z mount for their mirrorless.

Also given how often Sony is churning out new cameras these days, going secondhand will save you serious dough.

<comment><USER23> I think you're right on all accounts. The adapter to let the old lenses work on the new bodies is the thickness of the pentaprism on the old camera. It's designed to keep the geometry of the stuff that got removed when they went mirrorless.

A lightly used A-mount (like an A77) is an intriguing thought...if it had a kit lens, then my kids could keep using the a57 til it failed completely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I have two requirements for camera: fast startup time from a standby to taking photos, and working touch exposure control. The majority of phones I've tested do not provide these. For some reason, on Oneplus 5 it works. I tested a newer model and it was worse. Sure, on a newer phone the photos are better for example resolution wise, but that's usually not the limiting factor.

I have some street photo / rangefinder hobby background where the idea is to not endlessly twiddle some knobs but be able to take technically decent enough photos quickly. No posing or setting up a still life but real events. When I carried a dedicated camera, it wasn't in a bag but in my neck, usually even without a lens cap. Fixed focal length lens, Canon Canonet or Panasonic GF. It's not necessary about automation or "AI" that helps you to be quick, but rather just less features and actual working interfaces.

<comment><USER15> > working touch exposure control

what do you mean? A long press gives you immediate access to exposure on the iPhone. There are also dedicated photo apps (like Halide, mentioned in the article) that offer more advanced controls.

<comment><USER25> Let's say I'm photographing someone who is backlit, against the sky. By default, the person looks like black silhouette since the camera chooses an exposure that doesn't make the sky completely white.

I also don't want to have the person in the center of the frame, because that would be really boring framing. Photography 101.

On my current phone I can do the framing how I want, then touch the person on the touch screen. The phone instantly readjusts the exposure upwards so that now the person is more properly exposed and the sky is overexposed. This is what I wanted. Then I continue on to take the photo. This doesn't seem to work on many other phones. I never enter any menus or do any wheel adjustments. It takes extremely little time and is a very natural workflow.

On a rangefinder camera one would aim the center of the screen at the person, then hold the shutter halfway so it would pick the exposure from there, then frame (=aim somewhere else) and take the photo. If you have autofocus, it also focuses on the half-press.

In neither case are there any manual adjustments or looking at any buttons. Your eyes are on the viewfinder / photo area all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> What I'd like to see is a direct comparison of an Xs running neuralcam and the 11 night mode. I've taken a couple of photos so far and the app has done wonders. [https://imgur.com/a/BwvW6J8](https://imgur.com/a/BwvW6J8)

<comment><USER27> Nice one, I've been looking for an app like that. The new iPhone does seem like it has a great camera but I wish Apple would bring "night mode" for all the other iPhones.

<comment><USER26> So far I like the app. It doesn't work miracles but definitely helps in low light situations. You have to hold it still while it does the work, and the best part is that it is all on the phone, no internet needed for it to work. I'm stingy but this is one app I actually bought and didn't feel ripped off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> >We are truly in a golden age for taking pictures of dark shit with phone cameras.

Apparently I take pictures of different things than the author. Different kinks for different folks I guess.

</comment><comment><USER29> Just wondering how much this is really just software performing the "upgrade"? The Pixel 3 camera app made every camera better in the end.

<comment><USER30> The new iPhone camera looks pretty sweet but the part that I'm starting to disagree with is what they call, "semantic rendering." This is where the camera recognizes different things in the photo and treats them different like sharpening some areas, smoothing others, etc.

To me this this aspect feels like basically an Instagram filter. Are we going for accuracy or how pleasing the photos are? They're definitely more pleasing but not an accurate representation.

<comment><USER31> There is no such thing as an accurate image. What your brain sees when it looks at an image is totally different from what it would see if it was standing in front of the lens. And what my brain would see is different still.

Lenses are subjective. The question is: what do you want to see, and what lenses see that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> These night mode shots are seriously impressive. This might give DSLR manufacturers something to catch up with.

<comment><USER33> DSLR manufacturers already have compact mirrorless to catch up with. Now only if the mirrorless moguls would recognize the potential of ehnancing their comparatively giant APS-C sensors with at least half the computational photography wits of modern camera phones, now that would be magnificent.

Also, for me personally, the next waypoint for the phones should be the development of compact telephoto lenses -- it seems only Huawei got that right with their P30Pro.

<comment><USER34> I'm not sure how it is at APS-C (I use a full frame DSLR) but I don't think there's much room in the workflow of a lot people using DSLRs for more computation I'm the camera itself.

I know if I want a _great_ picture I

\- shoot raw. \- shoot on manual mode (often still with auto exposure). \- put the photo into Lightroom.

With a huge sensor and a fast lens there's no need for a lot of the computational photography phones are doing:

\- "portrait mode" - unneeded when you have a fast lens and can get more real bokeh than you could ever need. \- "night mode" - with modern sensors you can get usable images even at 6400/12800 ISO. This lets you get a solid image even at a reasonable, handheld shutter speed.

The real improvement other than sensor dynamic range and pixel count has been in autofocus. I still miss some some shots with my Canon because I didn't react fast enough to nail my focus.

<comment><USER35> Panasonic has really good image stabilization for MFT systems where lens stabilization and sensor stabilization system work in tandem allowing to take shots with up to 1 second exposure handheld. Basically it's like having gimble inside the camera.

Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 (50mm f/3.5 equivalent full frame) is under $200 and is an excellent portrait lens.

With initial release of GH5 autofocus was pretty bad, but with the last firmware upgrade apparently it's quite good now.

I however cant yet justify upgrade from GH4, which doesn't have sensor stabilization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Can someone explain to me what is so special in those photos? These look like snapped on the phone...

</comment><comment><USER37> I want to see an app: full frame high rate recording with all cameras, marking "photos" as time & subframe. From there, be able to later roll individual "photos" forward/back in time, and shift/rotate/zoom/interpolate within that video space. When satisfied, dump the (massive) video and keep the selected photos. Likewise for sub-videos.

I want to focus on getting photos without having to get it right at that moment. Get me ALL the image data, let me indicate what/when I want a picture of, and save details of framing & timing for later.

Live Photos is just the smallest beginning of what we should be able to do with 3 60fps >4K cameras, a half terabyte storage, and an unlimited data plan.

</comment><comment><USER38> I wonder when Apple will address the elephant in the room: "how can we keep our lens always clean like our SLR lenses?" iPhone is a good camera but I haven't found any good case to keep it dust-free. It's even worse nowadays with lens bumps.

</comment><comment><USER39> Does this mean that I can justify the staggering price of an iPhone 11 Pro by saying that I won't be needing a new camera? Not that I was really in market for a new point-and-shoot, but I feel like I need something to justify it.

</comment><comment><USER40> Still prefer how Pixel 3 photos look like on the phone that was released a year ago [1]. Interestingly I recall my first Android to be Samsung i977 some 9 years ago and photos were more vivid than iPhone X.

However Pixel comes with unlimited (!!) photo and 4k video storage [2]. Apple cannot beat that.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_3)

[2] [https://store.google.com/product/pixel_3](https://store.google.com/product/pixel_3)

<comment><USER4> > However Pixel comes with unlimited (!!) photo and 4k video storage [2].

Yup, this is why we switched to Pixel, back when the first version came out, and we haven't looked back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> For some perspective on this, go look at Austin's iPhone 6s camera review [1].

If you aren't shooting photos like his with your iPhone X, upgrading to an 11 series is not going to make much of a difference.

1\. [http://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-6s-camera-review- switzerla...](http://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-6s-camera-review-switzerland)

</comment><comment><USER42> I have the Nikon full frame D850 along with the holy trilogy of lenses (14-24mm + 24-70mm + 70-200mm f2.8 zoom lenses).

in 2018, for every picture I took with the D800/850, I took +200 iphone pictures.

I still believe there is room for a high caliber camera but I don't want to own it anymore, I just want to rent whenever I need it.

<comment><USER11> I want a high caliber camera but I never want to have to carry it around with me...

<comment><USER43> If discouraged by the weight, but not the price, consider a compact Leica (e.g., the Q).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I feel for the compact camera manufacturers.

Smartphones killed the 2/3" sensor market. Now they've killed the 1" sensor market too. Micro 4/3 is stale with no major sensor advancements for years now. What's left, APS-C and up?

<comment><USER45> I feel for all camera manufacturers. Why isn't there a Canon or Nikon or Sony cloud service where photos are sent to? Why haven't the big camera companies embraced computation in their cameras? Do DSLR bodies even have GPS capabilities for tagging photos?

It feels like there's no innovation in the camera space outside of Apple and Google.

<comment><USER46> Very few DSLR bodies have GPS capability built in. This is kind of stupid because integrating a modern GNSS receiver would have only a trivial impact on size, weight, cost, and battery life. The odd thing is that GPS is somewhat common on much cheaper compact cameras.

Some of DSLR manufacturers do offer fragile, awkward GPS accessories that you can plug in externally. And they generally provide some sort of geo-tagging feature in the software included with cameras.

GPS does have some limitations for photography because it takes a while to lock on and doesn't work indoors. Modern smartphones can achieve much better location accuracy due to using multiple means. So the ideal solution would probably be for the camera to obtain location data from the phone via Bluetooth.

<comment><USER47> > So the ideal solution would probably be for the camera to obtain location > data from the phone via Bluetooth.

Which at least Nikon offers. But you have to have the paired device with you, leave the camera in the right mode, etc, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> It would be interesting to see how it will score in DxOMark (the best unbiased source for comparing both mobile and standalone cameras) tests comparing to current top-players. This review feels biased.

</comment><comment><USER49> Its nice that his wishlist are all software ux tweaks

I'll be getting the Iphone 11 Pro for the camera technology and wide support, along with the dual SIM feature that I'd like to know more about

</comment><comment><USER50> Super weird to read this text. I just came home from our first Japan trip and we both had a DSLR with us and three lenses. Heavy to carry around.

I expect 3-4k pictures from dslrs and 2k made by our smartphones. I'm really curious how our end result will look like.

I expect 100-300 images but this is our first holiday where we took considerable amounts of pictures/snapshots by phone.

At least on my Samsung s9 and my wives pixel 3a lots of those images look sharp.

</comment><comment><USER51> I recently started appreciating 60fps screen but,

iPhone 11 came up with 240 fps

Galaxy Note10+ came up with 960fps

and now Huawei Mate 30 Pro with 7680 fps

<comment><USER52> At what point is it no longer noticeable?

<comment><USER53> 120fps

<comment><USER54> Erm, the numbers he/she is quoting are video framerates

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I never considered the camera when buying a phone, and in fact would love a price discount in higher phone models with a cheaper or even no cameras.

Question for professional photographers from someone that has no idea about photography: why would you use a phone when you can use your professional camera?

<comment><USER56> I've been doing professional photography for over a decade, having used a wide range of DSLR's and mirrorless cameras.

I really enjoy using my iPhone for photography when not working. It removes the friction of taking photos. I don't have to carry a large camera while traveling, don't have to charge extra things, it's just overall easier. Whatever quality I'm losing is made up by simply capturing more moments than I otherwise would have if I was using my DSLR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> How much better is the Pro camera than regular iPhone 11 camera?

<comment><USER58> Cameras and chips are identical, however the Pro gives you the Telephoto lens. (That's the "third" lens on Pro.)

<comment><USER59> Actually, it's the ultra wide lens that is unique to the pro.

<comment><USER60> No, you have it backwards - the 11 got the utlra-wide lens as it's second camera.

[1] [https://www.apple.com/iphone-11/](https://www.apple.com/iphone-11/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Good to know that iPhone 11 Pro camera holds up to the expectations of a professional photographer. Now everyone else should aspire to be a professional photographer and buy iPhone 11 Pro according to Apple.

</comment><comment><USER62> The fisherman seen in that photo is also in these very similar photos...

[http://davidbuddphotography.com/galleries/01-places/china/gu...](http://davidbuddphotography.com/galleries/01-places/china/guilin- yangshou-comorant-fisherman/)

<comment><USER63> "Fisherman/men in a canoe like boat at dusk/night in asia" is such a cliche it should be forbidden...

Knowing the journalist/fixer trade a little, this is some well known place/person, and photographers who go to China are taken by their local helpers (who know the drill) there to shoot "interesting" pictures.

This fisherman guy probably makes (or could make) more money posing for tourists than fishing...

<comment><USER64> You can pay a photographer guide to help you get this exact shot. Author used this, as suggested by the footer perhaps: [https://www.mercierzeng.com/guilin- photography-tours](https://www.mercierzeng.com/guilin-photography-tours)

This kind of stuff exists for many popular shots with local photographers you can hire to take you and even have you get up close with locals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> La-ang I have a word for you Apple fans: H U A W E I

</comment><comment><USER65> Its amazing to me that the smartphone wars are now just about cameras.... and more broadly content generation.

It also amazes me that everyone's is wooed over these iPhone specs. I've had my OnePlus 7T Pro for a few months now. Most of the top-line specs match or beat the new iPhone. Nightscape on the OnePlus is also amazing - takes great low light photos.

Seems like iPhone has been chasing some of the more advanced Android-phones for a few generations now.

<comment><USER66> What I want to know is whether there are any phone-sized stand-alone cameras that can compete with any of the modern amazing phone cameras.

I love my Pixel 2's camera, it shoots gorgeous pictures, but I'm seriously considering downsizing my phone significantly. I'd love to have a nearly-dumb- phone but... can't give up the camera.

If someone sold a standalone camera that is as portable and as good, I would take it and a dumb-phone in a minute.

<comment><USER67> It's not _quite_ as small but _way_ better than every smart phone camera on the market, the Ricoh GR3.

[http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/gr-3/](http://www.ricoh- imaging.co.jp/english/products/gr-3/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> @Austin Mann, [https://letsencrypt.org/](https://letsencrypt.org/)

<comment><USER69> Looks like it's on SquareSpace, which does their own cert provisioning. Maybe the author just hasn't set that up or has it misconfigured.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Exotic locations and good light make a better photo than simply having the newest iPhone--I think everyone here can agree.

Brian Chen, whom I respect, from NYTimes reviewed the newest iPhone and compared all his notes, photos, and videos to his iPhone reviews in the past and said there was hardly a difference in quality and performance.

I'm not saying the camera advancements aren't nice, but as a working photographer I have pretty strong opinions about some of the new features like night shot. There are already apps that exist for iOS that do this (take multiple photos and average them out to produce a brighter image with less noise). Also, I believe that if it's really too dark to take a good photo, it's not worth taking a photo at all because even the night shot image won't look that great (and of course they look great when you see them because they are side-by-side comparisons with the darker, more crappy photo, but as standalone photos they look like garbage). I'd rather find or make good light if I want to take a portrait.</comment>