Who Owns Work, and Its Future? - <AUTHOR> https://workfutures.io/who-owns-work-and-its-future-65da5728c4ee <comment><USER2> One possible future we should think about is one where humans are more capable (through technology) and can provide for more of their needs. So work would go back to being owned by us.

It would be a more self-sufficient life style, but on a higher technology base than farmers.

I'm blogging about it here at [https://improvingautonomy.wordpress.com](https://improvingautonomy.wordpress.com) . My post on universal basic income is probably the most relevant.

[https://improvingautonomy.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/what- afte...](https://improvingautonomy.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/what-after- universal-basic-income/)

I hope this line of thinking can be part of our discussion about the future of work.

<comment><USER3> It will be interesting to see what will happen when we have the technology to live in a self-sufficient way. My pessimistic self tells me that capitalists will find ways to make this impossible or illegal without paying them through IP or other laws.

<comment><USER4> I'd point to property taxes as a plausible way this can happen. They're already a non-trivial consideration for people looking at low-tech self- sufficiency, and I can only see this getting more pronounced.

(This is something in the back of my mind whenever I hear calls for a shift to land value taxation. I can't really see it happening in a way that doesn't further normalise wage labour).

<comment><USER2> This will be a big thing. We could give people an allowance of a certain amount of land that is tax-free (as we have in the UK for income).

In the longer term, government could also be self-sufficient. This might be unstable though, it might be better for there to be a contribution of materials/energy/information to the the government from self-sufficient communities. The government would still provide the value of protection/arbitration to the self-sufficient communities.

<comment><USER4> Agree an allowance would be a sensible way to go about this. But given that, as far as I can tell, most of the motivation for an LVT in the UK is some variant of "stick it to small private landlords", I think it's unlikely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _For the individual, work is at best an accommodation to the pressing need > to provide for ourselves, and that can provide the wherewithal to pursue > happiness. At the worst, it is a global system that requires the majority of > adults worldwide to dedicate a large chunk of their waking hours to > demanding bosses, harrowing commutes, stressful and dangerous work places, > and often tedious, repetitive and unrelenting labor._

Well that's a cheerful perspective...

How about this for the "at best" scenario?

Work is how we give meaning to our lives. It is our way of contributing to each other's existence, and to challenge ourselves and thereby grow as human beings. Without work, with only leisure, our lives become superficial and less meaningful.

Now let's talk about the future of work.

<comment><USER6> Indeed. The article is based on a false premise, and that quote gives a very good idea of the framing of the entire piece.

<comment><USER7> Which of those descriptions of work resonates best with you will differ from person to person, and I would imagine that the description from the article resonates very well with a substantial fraction of all people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One of the dangers of writing structural critiques like this is that it's easy to feel like the problems are structural in a way that makes individual effort irrelevant. On this particular topic, I think there is a huge amount of individual latitude to attack the problem.

I'm lucky enough to work on problems that I find interesting, important, and personally challenging. I optimize for this at the expense of salary and stability. One of the biggest things that's helped me in a cultural safety net of believing that this is OK, with a network of people that help me out. I think there's also enormous potential for individuals to reinforce the values they think will define work in the right way.

\- Can you support your friends when their companies attack their work/life balance? Can you help them come up with ways to fight back without hurting their careers?

\- Can you share information that's not typically public, in order to help others make better decisions? Salary to peers is an easy place to start. Harder is telling younger folks what Sales Engineers and Product Managers do (and how it can be really fun, fulfilling, and lucrative!).

\- Can you normalize behaviors that benefit workers at the expense of companies? Unions used to be great, but I personally think they're the wrong tool for the problems of 2017. Working from home 2 days a week shouldn't break any team, but it's still a cultural taboo.

I'll admit that these are pretty 1st-world problems and I can't do much for people outside of Bay Area tech, but Bay Area tech is where I live and work. We can't change where we are right now, but there's a pile of small problems that are right on your doorstep that you can shove in the right direction. I think there's more ground to be won there than trying to overhaul the whole system.

We overestimate what we can do in a year and underestimate what we can do in a decade ;)

Aside: I disagree somewhat with the framing as a Wicked Problem. That method seems to deliberately conflate multiple problems, in order to make the discussion more sweeping. I think there's value to breaking down "Work" into smaller, more tractable problems. That aside, there's a lot of meat on this bone, so it's good to acknowledge that.

</comment><comment><USER9> Work is an abstract concept, not a tangible object. We can spout all the baloney we want about it and it won't change a darned thing.

Everyone's got an opinion, everyone's got a magic bullet policy. I implore everyone who has a _" solution"_ to first consider if it is really any better than doing nothing at all, all things considered.</comment>


Startup Cargo Cults: What They Are and How to Avoid Them - <AUTHOR> https://codingvc.com/startup-cargo-cults-what-they-are-and-how-to-avoid-them/ <comment><AUTHOR> This has been posted a couple of time already, but for some reason it as got zero traction.

I have always found it really worthwhile to question my assumptions - when I have been bitten in the backside it is always because of something I assumed to be true that wasn't.</comment>


One pixel attack for fooling deep neural networks - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08864 <comment><USER2> wonder if gans could be used to help with adversarial attacks. build an adversarial attack generator and train your DNN as the discriminator</comment>


D.C. to AT&T: All Your Unused Minutes Are Belong to Us - <AUTHOR> http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/03/dc-to-att-all-your-unused-minu <comment><USER2> If you're surprised by this legal requirement, see here: <http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20060127a1.asp>

This was almost a pain point for me when I thought of offering rebates the first time ("Buy today and get 10% back"), since some states require unclaimed rebates to be escheated. It turns out that the service I was thinking of using (RebateDelivery) handles this nonsense for you.

</comment><comment><USER3> From the original wire article:

> "AT&T's prepaid calling cards must be treated as unclaimed property under > district law," the attorney general's office said in a statement.

More from the wire article:

> According to the attorney general's office, that sum, known in the industry > as "breakage," represents some 5 to 20 percent of the total balances > purchased by consumers who use the calling cards.

It's actually an interesting bit of case law insomuch as how the law applies to modern technologies, and if it IS in fact the case that AT&T has to turn the minutes over as unclaimed, a cash-strapped operation like D.C. would be crazy to leave the money sitting on the table.

<comment><USER4> DC is only cash strapped because of gross mismanagement and systematic corruption.

<comment><USER5> Not saying there isn't gross mismanagement and systematic corruption, but not being a state also puts DC at a serious disadvantage. They don't have access to state funds, or any government programs that only work through states (though many government programs working through states do make a point of including DC, not all do). Also, they lose out on a lot of corruption not having senators at all. Senators regularly ship large amount of pork back to their state. No senators, no pork.

A large city in your average state can get away with a lot more corruption and mismanagement than DC could. They'd have state government, certain national programs, and national representatives to fall back on. DC gets none of that.

<comment><USER6> On the other hand, given the amount of time they spend in the area, and their dependency on the federal workforce in DC, to some degree _every_ other Senator and Representative looks out for DC's interests. DC has plenty of de facto power to get pork, even without the de jure representation.

<comment><USER7> Spending time in DC does not equate becoming a resident of DC, nor does it posit in one a sense of ownership necessary to take care of DC. This is especially true when the part of DC these senators et al live in is not representative of DC as a whole: DC does a very good job of fencing off the haves from the havenots (e.g. no metro stop in Georgetown).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Link to the actual article [http://us.mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/AnyArticle/p.rdt?URL=h...](http://us.mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/AnyArticle/p.rdt?URL=http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BU3NF20091231)</comment>


SpaceX satellites' effect on night sky can't be eliminated, astronomers say - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/spacex-satellites-effect-on-night-sky-cant-be-eliminated-astronomers-say/ <comment><USER2> Arguing about this is absolutely pointless. The US Department of Defense is not going to suddenly give up on Starlink, no matter how many complaints a vocal minority sends out. And neither will all of the underserved people in rural areas that need the connectivity.

Also, increased access to space means that astronomers will have access to far more powerful space-based telescopes. Obviously that's not an immediate thing, but it will happen. Look at what the Hubble deep field images did for astronomy!

If you don't know what I'm talking about regarding the military, just read this:

"Last month, the Army announced plans to experiment with SpaceX Starlink satellites on its own networks.

Meanwhile, Air Force officials have touted the satellites' potential to be used in a hypersonic-missile defense system."

[https://www.investors.com/news/spacex-starlink-satellites- ma...](https://www.investors.com/news/spacex-starlink-satellites-may-network- air-force-tactical-cargo-tanker-planes/)</comment>


A Woman Was Killed by a Superbug Resistant to All 26 American Antibiotics - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/a-superbug-resistant-to-26-antibiotics-killed-a-woman-itll-happen-again/513050/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Dup of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13391886](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13391886) which has comments.

Mods can you merge?</comment>


The limits of Google's openness - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/08/15/the-limits-of-google-s-openness.aspx <comment><USER2> A summary for those not following along at home:

The Youtube app for Android is developed by Google

The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google

The Youtube app for Windows Phone is developed by Microsoft, with some reverse engineering, at first _not serving ads on purpose._

It is easy to argue that a Youtube app for Windows Phone would be nice for WP users. It is also easy to argue that MSFT writing such an app would be a tad antagonistic, seeing as the first version released contained no ads. One might suspect Microsoft wanted a PR fight more than they wanted a Youtube app, or that they wanted both.

Alas, we can read for clues.

The title of the article is: "The limits of Google's openness"

But the tags are: "marketplace, Windows Phone"

It's not an article about Google now, is it?

<comment>

The article doesn't help WP users. Instead they get no Youtube app while watching a hissy fit occur if they google (ha) to find out why the app is gone.

I like both these companies, but for however-much of a PR stunt this is, Microsoft does not come out looking good.

<comment><USER3> >The Youtube app for iOS is developed by Google

Except that the original iOS app was developed by Apple and Google had no issues with that

<comment><USER4> YouTube isn't open source or open content, they're a business and their services aren't free, they're subject to the wishes of YouTube and its content owners.

The iOS app would've been developed in partnership and with the blessing of Google (aka Co that owns YouTube).

Microsoft had no such relationship with Google and instead chose to release their own unofficial YouTube app (first without ads) clearly violating the YouTube API TOS. Knowingly breaking the law and expecting a favorable outcome reminds me of "Queue Jumpers" who illegally enter Australia, they're not legally allowed to enter, but they continue to do so because the outcome is more favorable to their lively-hood when they do.

So Google blocks Microsoft, who wants to turn this into a anti-Google PR stunt and is openly crying foul trying to rally public support for their plight since they have no legal recourse.

Which is odd for Microsoft who loves exploiting the legal system to others detriment. I'm honestly shocked that Google isn't bending over backwards to help a competitor who is actively extorting the Android ecosystem through patent litigation (on tech created by Google), who makes more money on Android sales than even Google does (who has contributed significant resources into making Android).

<comment> test-it Crazy talk.

>> Knowingly breaking the law

Yeah, mythz's crazy anti-Microsoft law ...

MS argument here is that Google is pushing for open platforms and standards when it's profitable for G and closing their own when not.

<comment><USER4> It's not argument, it's a carefully crafted anti-Google PR statement with the goal of getting the public to do their own bidding for them, so they can get Google to do as they wish and further their own competitive platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Disclosure: I am a Googler, though not working on anything remotely near YouTube. Obvious caveat: this is just my personal opinion.

> With this backdrop, we temporarily took down our full-featured app when > Google objected to it last May

If I remember right, this full-featured app included features like:

1\. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider disallowed that.

2\. Allowing users to not view ads even when the content provider specifically required ads to be shown.

3\. Using YouTube's branding without permission.

I am but a lowly engineer and the actions of executives confuse me, but I don't see how Microsoft didn't realize the above was batshit crazy. I can only assume this is some sort of weird ploy.

YouTube's entire business model is about getting content providers to put videos up there so that people will watch ads to see them. If you let people take videos off the site, or just skip the ads, that breaks the fundamental business proposition.

This would be like me making an Android app called "Bing from Micrsoft" that let you perform bing searches but then stripped out all of the ads. Microsoft would shut that shit down, with good reason.

> When we first built a YouTube app for Windows Phone, we did so with the > understanding that Google claimed to grow its business based on open access > to its platforms and content, a point it reiterated last year.

"Open access to content" doesn't mean "ignore the requirements of the people who created that content". People make their livelihoods producing YouTube videos and the only way that money flows to those creators is because of ads. If you make a Windows Phone app that lets you watch Cooking with Dog without the ads, you aren't doing Francis any favors by giving out "open access" to his content.

(Yes, I did just imply that they are the dog's videos. He is the host, after all.)

<comment><USER6> > 1\. Allowing users to download videos even when the content provider > disallowed that.

This was poor judgment from Microsoft, and as far as I can see, was addressed in this new version of the app.

> 2\. Allowing users to not view ads even when the content provider > specifically required ads to be shown.

Blocking on this basis alone is a double standard from Google. As others have pointed out, the iOS app developed by Apple never showed ads, even if the videos were monetized. Google never unilaterally revoked Apple's API access over it.

Though one could argue that they did and that's why iOS 6+ doesn't include it. But that doesn't explain why Apple TV, to this day, still plays all videos—even with required monetization—without ads. Why is it okay for Apple to do this, but not Microsoft? Why won't Google license YouTube API access on the same terms?

> 3\. Using YouTube's branding without permission.

As above, why won't Google license this to Microsoft on the same terms as other competitors? Why is it tying a "must be HTML5" requirement to Microsoft alone, and no one else? Apple's Apple TV app isn't in HTML5 and uses the YouTube branding.

Heck, there's even a third-party app for iOS called Jasmine[1] that is a native app (embedding just the HTML5 video player inside the app as y2bd points out below) and uses YouTube branding. Why is Google making it more difficult for Microsoft to do the exact same thing? We're clearly not getting the full story from anyone here.

[1]: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/jasmine-youtube- client/id554...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/jasmine-youtube- client/id554937050?mt=8)

<comment><USER7> A nitpick, but although Jasmine is a native iOS application, when it comes to actually playing a video, it opens a YouTube video embedded in a web view. That is why you see the YouTube player for a brief moment before the video starts.

<comment><USER6> That's true; I updated my comment to clarify that. If that's the difference between Google being okay with it and not, I guess I don't see where the chasm of difference is:

* Microsoft claims they've enabled ads on YouTube videos. How, if they're not using the same technique as Jasmine?

* If they are using the same technique as Jasmine, why is that not enough? Why is Google still saying (or at least Microsoft is claiming that Google is still saying) the entire app must be HTML5?

* If the technique Jasmine uses does, in fact, satisfy Google's "HTML5" requirement, but for some reason Microsoft isn't using it (but somehow is playing ads anyway), why doesn't Microsoft just do it? Embedding a web view into a native app isn't exactly rocket surgery: why do they claim it's technically difficult and time consuming?

<comment><USER7> Assuming they figured out how to display ads without using the embedded HTML5 player, a guess I can offer (as a WP user) as to why they don't is that if they do, the video would launch in the default webview video player, which is honestly pretty terrible. You can't even scrub through videos. The MS-built YouTube application however had a much-more featured video player[1].

Quite a few WP applications that are video-centric (such as the non-MS YouTube apps, Netflix, etc.) use their own much-improved video player. Even Microsoft provides a better video player for usage in WP/W8 applications[2]. Making an improved video player on a per-app basis probably would require a lot less overhead than changing the system-wide video player.

This is all just a guess of course.

[1] [http://www.windowsphone.com/en- gb/store/app/youtube/dcbb1ac6...](http://www.windowsphone.com/en- gb/store/app/youtube/dcbb1ac6-a89a-df11-a490-00237de2db9e), check the screenshots

[2] [http://playerframework.codeplex.com/](http://playerframework.codeplex.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This whole thing is passive aggressive, but the best part is:

>"Google objected on a number of grounds. We took our app down and agreed to work with Google to solve their issues..We enabled Google's advertisements, disabled video downloads and eliminated the ability for users to view reserved videos. We did this all at no cost to Google, which one would think would want a YouTube app on Windows Phone that would only serve to bring Google new users and additional revenue."

"We stopped breaking Google's ToS at _no cost_ to Google"

Cry me a river, Microsoft.

<comment><USER9> And after they stopped breaking Google's ToS, they decided to re-release the application that was breaking the ToS, and decided to cry foul on Google, for not liking that they re-released the old app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Apple, Google, Microsoft: they each act like bullies when they have the upper hand and whine when someone else makes them dance.

If you react emotionally to arguments between these companies (unless they pay you to) you should find something worthwhile to be angry about. They're all whores who would screw every customer they have for a dime.

Use them any way you can but don't invest in them emotionally. It's a waste of your time.

<comment><USER11> As a Microsoft employee, I endorse this position.

<comment><USER12> We, as consumers, may still identify with issues imposed (e.g. content owners charging extremely high prices to Netflex). I'm not saying Microsoft is right and Google is wrong. I'm saying that I agree that Google is not helping the ecosystem and should be shamed for it, in this one very specific instance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Karma is finally biting Microsoft in the ass. Who else remembers the refrain "it ain't done 'til Lotus won't run!" from Microsoft's earlier years?

Having said that, I would expect the "do no evil" company - directly referring to not being like Microsoft - to do the right thing, if, in fact Microsoft is being fully forthcoming in stating they have complied with all of Google's objections.

In the end, both companies have blemishes and so far I can't determine who's really at fault here. The soap opera will continue, I'm sure.

<comment><USER14> Sure it's in vogue to say Microsoft is "finally" getting their comeuppance whenever something like this comes along, but I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins.

Are we really going harp on Lotus Notes, or, heaven forbid, IE6, five or ten years from now?

Note that I think that the post from Microsoft is 90% self-serving. It's just a general thing I notice with Microsoft bashing.

<comment><USER15> > I wonder how long they can be held responsible for past sins.

They are still threatening Android handset makers with patent lawsuits, and in fact making more money from Android patent extortion than they are from Windows phone.

The whole UEFI Secure Boot requirement is designed to thwart Linux adoption under the guise of safety.

It is NOT sins of the past. The only reason they're not pulling another IE6 or Lotus Notes is because they aren't as dominant now, not because they aren't as evil. (The UEFI thing is on the same league of evil, if you ask me, just not as successful)

<comment><USER16> designed?

<comment><USER17> Sure. What's your question about the threat UEFI Secure Boot poses to an open PC platform and its ability to run GPLv3 software?

<comment><USER16> My point is I see no evidence it was deliberately designed to do so, other than on WinRT that they stupidly decided to lock down like iOS.

<comment><USER17> I'm deliberately saying "GPLv3" here.

If your laptop comes preloaded with Microsoft's signing key and is also set to fast boot [1] so that you can't even get into the BIOS, your system does not have the ability to run a GPLv3 OS. You can't get into the BIOS so you can't change the fact that it refuses to run anything not signed by the Microsoft key!

Yes, I know Linux is not GPLv3, but it is GPLv2 "or any later version." Also, I already know that Windows 8 has a way to get to the BIOS (hold down shift, click the restart button). Neither of those is a valid counter-argument.

[1] [http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24869.html](http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/24869.html)

<comment><USER16> After you go into the BIOS using Win8, you should be able to disable fast boot, secure boot, change between BIOS and UEFI boot modes etc.

<comment><USER17> That's what I said above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Rather hypocritical of Microsoft to complain. They're doing the same kind of thing to Google Mail users [1,2].

[1] [http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/ILHhp40ze4...](http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/ILHhp40ze4A/0l1SHvUTz0sJ)

[2] [http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail- em...](http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/mail-email/unable- to-send-mail-as-through-outlook-smtp/6f88fc11-16d9-4f56-9008-c65bc59bef5e)

</comment><comment><USER19> It seems Google will allow them to build an HTML5 app, even though Microsoft has repeatedly breached their TOS multiple times (like allowing users to download the videos). If Microsoft's WP8 platform is so behind the times, it can't even make an HTML5 web-app possible, that's really Microsoft's problem.

If I'm not mistaken all the other "native" Youtube apps on other platforms are Google's own apps, and it's also their prerogative to choose the platforms they want to make native apps on. For example, they haven't made one for Roku either, and it's the #1 media streaming box right now.

So I don't see the problem here?

EDIT: One other thing. Google told them _from the beginning_ that they'll only allow an _HTML5 app_. So what does Microsoft do? They make a native app - again. And then Microsoft releases the native app to their store, without Google's approval, even though they were supposedly "collaborating" on this, and then seeds press releases to the media that Google-the-bad-guy blocked them "again" \- like it was "completely unexpected" or something.

<comment><USER20> Prerogative or not, it's still douchey of Google to outright block Microsoft. The original Apple version of YouTube only shows videos that do not want advertising (granted a smaller and smaller # of videos).

<comment><USER8> >Prerogative or not, it's still douchey of Google to outright block Microsoft.

Why? The two customers are competitors and Microsoft has a history of just ripping off Google's services _.

_[http://www.wired.com/business/2011/02/bing-copies- google/](http://www.wired.com/business/2011/02/bing-copies-google/)

<comment><USER21> Do two wrongs make a right?

<comment><USER8> No, but Google doesn't owe Microsoft any favors.

<comment><USER22> I genuinely don't get this line of thinking. This isn't about Google or Microsoft, rather it's about the end user who is essentially a customer of both parties. IMHO, Google aren't just screwing MSFT, they are screwing users, which doesn't really hold with the image that they like to portray. It's actually rather spiteful.

<comment><USER8> How is it spiteful to the 7 people who own Windows phones?

This is Google saying "because of their behaviors, we don't want to allow them to consume our services." Microsoft is trying to weasel this into good PR for themselves, but the fact is this: Google has no obligation to people that are not making them money. It is not their responsibility to keep people buying Microsoft phones.

<comment><USER22> > "How is it spiteful to the 7 people who own Windows phones?"

That is a snide comment that reveals much.

> 'This is Google saying "because of their behaviors, we don't want to allow > them to consume our services."'

That right there. _That_ is spiteful. It's not Microsoft that they are restricting, it's Google users; the very people that use YouTube. It's certainly not the behaviour of the company that Google projects itself to be. I totally agree that Google owe Microsoft nothing, but this has the potential to do much harm to their image. A good check is to switch the protagonists around and ask yourself how you would react then. I'm not suggesting for one minute that were Microsoft to do the same it would be OK (or that indeed it _is_ or _was_ OK). I'm suggesting that there appears to be a double standard being applied to Microsoft from more that a few parties. Google cannot have their cake _and_ eat it, as the saying goes...

Edit: Cleaned up my shameful grammar and spelling...

<comment><USER8> >That is a snide comment that reveals much.

How so? It's not that popular a device.[0] If you work at Microsoft or have a significant interest in them not failing, you might want to divulge your bias here.

>That right there. That is spiteful. It's not Microsoft that they are restricting, it's Google users; the very people that use YouTube.

You're treating YouTube as if it's water. It's a business.

>A good check is to switch the protagonists around and ask yourself how you would react then.

If Microsoft cut off access to Bing from Android Phones (and if, for this example, if Bing was as ubiquitous and useful as Google Search) due to Google flagrantly violating ToS, I'd understand and be mad at Google for selling me a device and then fucking me over by locking me away from a good service through their posturing.

Microsoft is becoming less relevant, but they're still trying to act like the big bully of yesteryear.

[0][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_share)

<comment><USER22> > How so?

If you can't see it, there is no point explaining. There are significantly more than 7 users.

> You're treating YouTube as if it's water. It's a business.

You are semantically correct. 2 issues though. If it's business, surely developing a version for the device is worth the ad revenue. Also doesn't this directly contradict the benevolent and altruistic business image that Google like to project. Microsoft are trying to provide access to a popular service. Google are blocking it on frankly extremely spurious grounds and refusing to develop an app of their own (that I don't take issue with). For the final time; _it 's about users_.

<comment><USER8> >If you can't see it, there is no point explaining. There are significantly more than 7 users.

I can see it. But you're acting as if Google just blackholed orphans from getting food.

>Microsoft are trying to provide access to a popular service. Google are blocking it on frankly extremely spurious grounds and refusing to develop an app of their own (that I don't take issue with). For the final time; it's about users.

Microsoft is trying to access a popular service while breaking the terms of service. What guarantee does Google have that Microsoft won't try to pull more shit in the future, requiring Google to take action in response (at a cost to themselves)? Everything is opportunity cost; why should Google spend any more time on Microsoft's phone's relatively small user base?

Edit: Also, Microsoft phone users could just open a webbrowser.

<comment><USER22> And if it'd been Microsoft (or for that matter Apple) doing the blocking there would've been an enormous outpouring of indignation and scorn from the Open Source crowd. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

> "But you're acting as if Google just blackholed orphans from getting food."

I disagree. My indignation is firmly rooted in Googles bare-faced hypocrisy. [http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/](http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/) This is hypocrisy. This is what Google want you to believe. Their behaviour suggest that this is marketing bullshit on their part.

From where I'm standing Google are essentially harming their own users for what seems like nothing more than malicious reasoning masked as T&C's. It is they and no-one else who are getting fucked in all of this. I couldn't give a shit about Microsoft. Do they deserve it? Yeah probably, karma and all of that. I _do_ give a shit about the utter hypocrisy exhibited by Google and their fans however. The double standards on display in this and other threads on the 'net are astounding.

> "Also, Microsoft phone users could just open a web browser."

Indeed they could (funny, but when that was the response to the lack of Flash on iPhones, it was mocked...). Or Google could just stop being hypocrites and practice what they preach. We'll see snow in Hades first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's my understanding that YouTube officially supports access via either a Flash applet or the HTML5 <video> tag. Windows Phone doesn't support Flash[1], so the only option for writing a mobile app using the official API is to use HTML5.

It's not obvious why using the HTML5 API is "impossible". Windows bundles a <video>-capable browser; assuming IE's capable of playing either H.264 or WebM, it should be relatively easy to build a YouTube app on top of it. Maybe there's some internal reason why an app can't easily embed an IE widget.

[1] [http://www.winrumors.com/no-flash-for-windows-phone-as- adobe...](http://www.winrumors.com/no-flash-for-windows-phone-as-adobe-kills- off-mobile-development/)

<comment><USER3> The experience you can provide with an HTML5 app are many times subpar as compared to a native app. Note how facebook abandoned their HTML5 app and went native.

<comment><USER24> YouTube's API only requires the video player itself to be in HTML5, the rest of the app can be native or whatever the hell you want. The engineering work here is youtube hands you an HTML snippet (specifically an <iframe>), and you plop that into a UIWebView where you want the inline video to be and you're done.

[https://developers.google.com/youtube/iframe_api_reference](https://developers.google.com/youtube/iframe_api_reference)

<comment><USER25> The issue then is that Google will complain that the rest of the app doesn't adhere to all of Google's terms of services regarding displaying of ads, which are difficult to implement without their blessing.

<comment><USER24> There is no such ToS. Nor is there any "app must be HTML5" requirement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is just like Google blocking Maps on Windows Phone; there's a video where someone changed the agent from "Windows Phone 8" to "Windows Phne 8" and suddenly maps.google.com actually worked. I'm not a Microsoft fan, but I do rather like my Windows Phone, and I wish they would stop squabbling so I can have a YouTube app and change the search engine from Bing.

<comment><USER27> At some point, google were sabotaging any page visited through their domain using WP8.

It would proxy everything alla google translate and serve a text only version of the whole web under the pretext that "my phone's browser sucked and they were helping me".

But it's ok as long as you pretend to do no evil.

<comment><USER28> That's because there was /\bPhone\b/ in the user-agent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Really annoying Google blocks IMs from other services now as well. Lots of people complain to me they can't IM Google users any more. Apparently Google removed server to server XMPP support, a standard open IM protocol, in favor of their own lock in protocols. Other products are following suit, Chromecast doesn't include support DLNA or other standards for example, but tries to force you to use Google proprietary stuff instead. In many cases this is a worse situation for users and only benefits Google by locking more people in and forcing more people to use services that aren't superior. Many people have their own media center or media server setups that are incompatible for example, like XBMC, a popular media center.

<comment><USER23>
      > Really annoying Google blocks IMs from other services
      > now as well. Lots of people complain to me they can't IM
      > Google users any more. Apparently Google removed server
      > to server XMPP support, a standard open IM protocol, in
      > favor of their own lock in protocols.

Google Talk still works, and still supports server-to-server XMPP federation.

Some users have chosen to switch to Hangouts, which is a separate product (affiliated with Google+) that doesn't support federation.

      > Chromecast doesn't include support DLNA or other
      > standards for example

I'm of mixed opinion on this. On one hand, it's obviously better to use an open standard when available. On the other, DLNA and UPnP and all the other associated standards were terrible. As a user I was never able to get my TV to stream music from my computer, and as a developer I couldn't wade through all the XML and acronyms to get something that worked.

Sometimes "open standard" is code for "designd by committee, compliantly implemented by nobody".

<comment><USER30> > Some users have chosen to switch to Hangouts, which is a separate product.

This is only partially true. Many folks had no choice.

For example, on Android, anyone who had automatic updates enabled was automatically upgraded to Hangouts. No choice involved, Talk simply worked one day, and was gone the next, replaced with an purposely-incompatible 'Hangouts' app.

Additionally, if your device doesn't have the Talk apk already on it, there's no user facing way to get it back. (you can only 'uninstall' Hangouts if it Talk shipped on your device. The 2013 Nexus for example, is blocked from installing Talk from the Play Store, and blocked from uninstalling Hangouts. Users have to either root, or hunt down the APK from random internet sites to get Talk back).

<comment><USER23>
      > Users have to either root, or hunt down the APK from
      > random internet sites to get Talk back).

Or install a different XMPP client; Xabber ( [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.xabber.and...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.xabber.android) ) seems to be popular.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Looks like Microsoft disabled comments.

Smart move, look at what happened to the previous one where they DID allow comments :p [http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/01/03/the- ftc-and-google-a-missed-opportunity.aspx)

<comment><USER32> I can't imagine TechNet being so full of Microsoft-haters. Was this sponsored by HN/reddit/4chan or something?

<comment><USER33> That's because Microsoft kind of screwed over its TechNet subscribers. In a way, they poisoned their TechNet community.

There is a petition on change.org with almost 10,000 signatures.

[http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/continue-technet-or- cr...](http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/continue-technet-or-create-an- affordable-alternative-to-msdn)

<comment><USER34> They have also tightened the screws and raised prices on the only alternative, MSDN subscriptions. Plus cranked the prices on SQL Server, fucked the GUI up in Windows, screwed the pooch on RT and back-peddled on the new Xbox, etc...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'd be more inclined to give Google a bit of leeway here if they hadn't already pulled out some petty behaviour against Windows Phone.

This is somewhat similar to Google's blocking of Maps from the Windows Phone web browser. A feature that worked fine originally and once there was uproar from users came back and continued to work fine.

Google is attempting to deny service to Windows Phone users to avoid competition in the handheld market. It isn't pretty and it does make me rethink my daily usage of Google services. Windows Phone users are Google customers too and I couldn't care less about their petty rivalry with some other mega-corp.

<comment><USER15> Microsoft is _still_ threatening Android makers with lawsuits, and making way more money from Android patent extortion than from Windows Phone.

There's a bully in the handheld wars, and it isn't Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Some background for people who may not have followed this:

In May, Microsoft released a YouTube app for Windows Phone that didn't show ads and allowed users to download videos. Google said no.

Microsoft removed the download capability _but didn 't restore the ads_. Google said no.

Then the PR comes out that Microsoft and Google are working together on a new app. I'm guessing that was PR from Microsoft's side.

Now Microsoft has tried to release an app that follows the rules but Google looks like they are being petty about it after Microsoft has repeatedly violated their terms of service.

So Microsoft posts a blog article angling for FTC intervention, and here we are.

<comment><USER37> Microsoft could not restore the ads because Google provided no API access to them. They weren't being contrary, they were making due with what they had.

<comment><USER15> "Your honor, Microsoft did not provide me with a way to sell Windows 8 for $3, so I had to find my own way to crack it. It's not my fault, it's Microsoft's fault for not giving me any way to do that"

Doesn't sound very convincing, does it?

<comment><USER38> Isn't that the basic argument Microsoft is making about "standards-essential patents" in the Microsoft v. Motorola suit?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Another too wordy document on Microsoft's part. The core of the issue is that Google is forcing Microsoft to jump through hoops that it is not forcing iOS devices to jump through.

Its clear this is an anti-competitive action on Google's part and while they have that right (if they aren't a monopoly, which is increasingly unclear), they really can't claim with the other side of their mouth that they are open.

<comment><USER40> Doesn't Google publish its own YouTube app on iOS now?

<comment><USER41> Yup, there is at least one major third-party one, though (Jasmine), which complies with the API requirements that Microsoft is apparently not willing to deal with (presentation of the actual video via HTML5, etc.)

<comment><USER42> Does Google abide by its own API usage restrictions? It might seem like a trite point, but it's important given that it publishes for the two dominant platforms. It'd be an easy way to edge out competing applications restricted to a less feature-rich toolset.

<comment><USER41> No, I don't think so. Certainly, Youtube for iOS lacks the behavioural problems that showed up when Jasmine shifted to HTML5 for the video pane

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> M$: "Google also says that we are not complying with its 'terms and conditions.' What Google really means is that our app is not based on HTML5. The problem with this argument, of course, is that Google is not complying with this condition for Android and iPhone."

Google's T&Cs that M$ is citing, it would seem to me, apply to third-party use of YouTube data. Since Google _wrote_ the Android and iOS YouTube apps, this is not "third-party use." Google makes the rules for YouTube, and can therefore bypass them with impunity. M$ cannot.

Presumably, a Google-written YouTube app for WinPhone would also be allowed to be non-HTML5. However, I'm sure readers here have a pretty good grasp on the chances of that happening.

<comment><USER44> > Google makes the rules for YouTube, and can therefore bypass them with > impunity. M$ cannot.

Well, yeah. But for a company so heavily invested in HTML5 to demand another company apply it, while simultaneously not doing so themselves, is a little hard to stomach.

<comment><USER45> I've ben using thé web app on iPhone and iPad recently, and I'm guessing thats not flash. Whats wrong with thé WinPhone browser that it xan't use that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> You can down vote me all you want, but I feel zero sympathy for Microsoft. If their app is being blocked from YouTube is because they deserve it. Google has all the right to choose which third parties can access YouTube. Microsoft is in no positing to criticize the actions of other companies.

<comment><USER47> Agreed 100%, but my question is, can Google still [call itself]/[be considered] open and "not evil" ?

<comment><USER46> I'll take Google over Microsoft anytime. I believe there are no absolutes everything is relative, everything depends on the context, on our scale of values. Personally I don't care about such concepts as open or evil. If the actions of a company are illegal they should be punished. If they are not but they ought to be, you can try to build enough consensus to legislate on the matter.

I personally feel more wronged by Microsoft than by Google, I've never been forced to use Google products. The pervasive dominance that Microsoft still holds on the desktop is poisonous. Until I am free to choose or not to choose Microsoft products I will feel wronged by Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This discussion brings up the point about how the usage requirements and restrictions of the API applies to third-parties and not Google itself. If Google, for example, wanted to keep the iOS platforms and Android platforms in an advantageous spot for whatever reason, they could just write the apps for those platforms themselves and say that the terms don't apply.

I'm not saying that's what happened in this case. It sounds like Microsoft's application added features that even Google wouldn't give its own apps. However, the argument that Google is simply allowed to write its own apps, for its own platforms and them impose extra restrictions on third parties who use its APIs is anti-competitive. This is the kinda crap that got Microsoft in trouble in the first place.

Again, I'm only speaking to the argument I see in the threads here, not the reality as it appears in the story. In reality, it appears Microsoft may have overstepped a bit.

</comment><comment><USER48> The author was given the tricky task of padding out 60 or so words to nearly 1000, it's almost prose.

The hypocrisy is truly hilarious, lambasting others for "Antitrust violations". They can still be the victim here though, I'm not ruling that out at all.

Microsoft is truly synonymous with Antitrust in my mind, on an unparalleled level. With regards to Windows/Xbox/anything they can really.

I don't think Google are playing fair here either, but MSFT are hitting new levels of childishness in my mind. If MSFT truly believe it's unfair, why not take them to court in CA for Antitrust? Take a shot at being on the side receiving the settlement for once.

<comment><USER49> Um, it _is_ prose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> This has always been somewhat true, but this is a definitive sign open has lost all meaning. Now it means you have to allow third parties to use your resources to do what they like?

<comment><USER51> Google requires MS to display ads based on information they won't release to them. That's not open.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Could this post be designed to provoke a reaction that might lead to (or contribute to pre-existing) FTC anti-trust inquiries about Google's practices?

<comment><USER53> The only thing is that this isn't anti-trust. If you want to use a google product, then you have to follow the google rules. I think the rules are a bit ridiculous, but YouTube doesn't have a monopoly on online videos. Well, except maybe cat videos.. so there might be a case in there somewhere. No app or company has a "right" to create Youtube apps. For anti-trust, one would have to prove a monopoly and they would be difficult despite the ubiquitousness of Youtube.

Also, Google isn't preventing Microsoft from creating a Youtube app, they are only requiring that it meet certain requirements. Since Microsoft is a direct competitor in the search (and therefore advertising) space, it's not unfounded that Google do what they're doing.

I personally think it's crap, however Microsoft brought this on themselves by blatantly violating the Terms of Service.

However, when all is said and done, Microsoft deserves it -- they are, after all responsible for Internet Explorer and while it isn't related to Youtube, they deserve to suffer for all of the hours and hours developers have spent trying to make their products compatible with that hell-demon of a browser.

<comment><USER52> I'm not so sure. You don't have to prove a monopoly. You have to show a selective targeting of a competitor. Manufacturer's using Google as a search engine allegedly have a different set of standards for their YouTube app than manufacturer's that don't use Google as search default. Whether or not that's how things _actually_ transpired, it sure smells awfully fishy to an FTC regulator. This isn't about following rules or APIs, it's about provoking regulatory authorities to investigate Google so they maneuver more conservatively. And watch, now that Windows app will be approved post haste!

<comment><USER54> You actually do have to show a monopoly. A monopoly is prohibited from doing certain things that would be perfectly legitimate if a smaller competitor did it.

Example 1: The EU required Microsoft to offer a version of Windows with a browser choice screen. However, Apple does not have to offer an alternative to Safari. Reason: Windows was a monopoly, but Mac OS X wasn't.

Example 2: The EU permitted Windows Phone and Windows RT to default to IE, without offering a choice of other browsers. Reason: Windows Phone does not have a monopoly of the smartphone market, and Windows RT does not have a monopoly of the tablet market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Google's becoming the new Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER56> Wow haters gonna hate.. If company names where swapped the cpitchforks would be out long time ago. Stay calssy hn

</comment><comment><USER57> Microsoft, build your own YouTube.

<comment><USER58> Even better, acquire the #2, DailyMotion.

But that's impossible: the company is French, and partially owned by the French government which keeps its companies valuation as low as possible by forbidding US companies to acquire DailyMotion. Yahoo! wanted to buy the company, and the "French Productivity Minister", no joke, killed the acquisition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> It seems like Microsoft and Google have switched places. I tend to trust Microsoft more these days.

</comment><comment><USER60> Not related to the article but Firefox (23.0) is giving me a mixed-content warning and blocking most of the CSS [http://i.imgur.com/CWysR0Y.png](http://i.imgur.com/CWysR0Y.png)

</comment><comment><USER61> Why doesn't Google write a youtube app for the windows phone? Google has written one for the iphone.

Am I missing something with what is going on here?

Disclaimer: I don't have a windows phone and have no intention of getting one.

<comment><USER62> Your disclaimer probably says it all. Why bother when there just aren't that many people on windows phone. It seems like a matter of "who is helping who?". if Google didn't support the iPhone, there would be an outrage and people would move to other video service because of the number of people on iphone. If google didn't support android... well that would be silly, wouldn't it? But there aren't enough people on windows phone for it to matter to google, however, there are enough people on youtube for it to matter for microsoft.

<comment><USER63> Except BB10 has a YouTube app.

<comment><USER64> Yes, an icon that opens up a link in the browser is a wonderful YouTube app Microsoft couldn't replicate: [http://forums.crackberry.com/blackberry-10-apps-f274/why- the...](http://forums.crackberry.com/blackberry-10-apps-f274/why-there-no- real-youtube-app-bb10-839346/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Sounds like Microsoft is just experiencing Google's normal level of customer "support".

</comment><comment><USER65> Karma is a bitch, isn't it Microsoft? Remember when you were the dominant player back in the mid 90s? Does the term 'Halloween Documents' ring a bell?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents)

> ... Document I suggests that one reason that open source projects have been

> able to enter the market for servers is the use of standardized protocols.

> It then suggests that this can be stopped by "extending these protocols and

> developing new protocols" and "de-commoditize protocols & applications."

> This policy has been nicknamed "embrace, extend, extinguish".

Now all of a sudden Microsoft is the underdog, and you're whinging in public when the dominant player locks you out?

Cry me a river.

(Not that this is a defense of Google, mind you: I think MS is right on the money w.r.t. to their behaviour. Just saying that Google's tactics couldn't be employed against a more deserving target).

</comment><comment><USER66> I wonder if the HTML 5 requirement might be Google trying to use the YouTube app as a bargaining chip when it comes to HTML 5 video codecs. Google & Microsoft have locked horns a bit in that area.

History: [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video)

</comment><comment><USER67> Ah, corporate pettiness. Is there no end to the fun you create?

</comment><comment><USER68> GOOG is the new bully.

</comment><comment><USER69> Perhaps if MS stopped extorting money from Android manufacturers, Google may be more willing to cooperate with the YouTube app.

</comment><comment><USER70> What does Google even mean when they say that they want it HTML5? Do they want it as a web app? Running inside a WebBrowser control? Do they just want the video to be an HTML5 video tag? I feel there is some very important piece of information missing from this discussion.

</comment><comment><USER71> Eventually both Google and Microsoft give a damn about openness. They all care about their own profits. "Openness" is just a cute cover. Microsoft's own track record in such things has been very bad (hint: Samba, Wine).

</comment><comment><USER72> So, if Microsoft blocks all Google sites and applications that would be fine?

<comment><USER46> Is Microsoft giving copies of Windows for free now? No customer not even the most loyal, would accept this behavior from a product they paid for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Youtube has had HTML5 opt-in for a while now, and it is certainly a technology used by their product: [http://www.youtube.com/html5](http://www.youtube.com/html5)

<comment><USER74> It is not used by their native iOS or Android apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I think that Google has a Search app on Windows Phone. If the platform does not have the numbers, then why make the Search app? When Search app is released, why not release Youtube and other apps?

</comment><comment><USER76> Love Windows Phone, but Google's service, Google's rules.

</comment><comment><USER77> There are only a handful of people who actually know what transpired between these two corporations. I would guess that none of that small group actively comment on hacker news.

</comment><comment><USER78> If Microsoft can't make an HTML5 app they are doomed.

</comment><comment><USER79> Given this is Microsoft this feels ironic.

</comment><comment><USER80> There are people that actually use Windows Phone? Who knew.....

</comment><comment><USER81> Curiously, Windows Phone is pretty much the only 'big' mobile platform where Google search is not the default.

<comment><USER82> It's a bit worse than that. There's a dedicated button on every Windows Phone (that I know of) used for searching with Bing. You can't change the search engine that's used, you just have to live with it.

It's hard referring to something as a "default" search engine when you can't change to another search engine.</comment></comment>


The Apple Watch can detect hypertension and sleep apnea, a new study suggests - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/13/the-apple-watch-can-accurately-detect-detect-hypertension-and-sleep-apnea-a-new-study-suggests/ <comment><USER2> The only downside to the Apple Watch in my book is the short battery life which should theoretically make it impractical for sleep tracking.

I was recently stupefied to discover Nokia Steel [1] and how virtually unknown it is to the general public, my former self included. It comes with great design, no bullshit digital screen, the usual tracking features, and most importantly seems like it's a return to form for Nokia, considering their country's outstanding design heritage.

edit: lol I forgot to mention the best part. THE BATTERY LASTS EIGHT MONTHS

1: [https://health.nokia.com/es/en/steel](https://health.nokia.com/es/en/steel)

<comment><USER3> This perception of low battery life has really lasted from the first apple watch. It was the reason, along with that it wasn't water proof enough for me, that I didn't get the first one.

I wear my apple watch 2 all day, sleep in it, and charge it in the time I'm getting ready in the morning. that's all it needs and it never runs out of battery.

<comment><USER4> I completely agree; I wore my watch series 3 (no cell) all day yesterday, tracked sleep last night, and this morning I still have 65% battery left. I quick charge while I shower in the morning is all it's needed and I'm blown away by how long it lasts. (I had a Pebble Time previously.)

<comment><USER5> I also have a Series 3. What app do you use to track sleep?

I'm using AutoSleep, but it seems to really overestimate the time I'm actually asleep, and as far as I can tell it doesn't take into account tossing/turning during the night (either that, or I'm getting way better sleep than I think I'm getting).

<comment><USER6> You can tweak its sensitivity +/\- dramatically, even for the past night, in the Tweak tab in the app. That did it for me.

<comment><USER5> I'll try that. Thanks for the tip!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm skeptical about the accuracy of applications like this running on Apple Watch. I bought the Apple Watch Series 3 precisely because of articles like this. I now routinely get messages about how I've achieved my standing goal - while lying in bed watching TV or working on my laptop. If it can't accurately tell whether you're lying down or standing, it is unimaginable to me that it could be remotely accurate in detecting far more complex conditions.

<comment><USER8> > I now routinely get messages about how I've achieved my standing goal - > while lying in bed watching TV or working on my laptop.

I routinely get messages about having to stand up while standing up on my standing desk at work. (Series 2 here)

<comment><USER9> Apple calling it a "standing goal" is a misnomer. Its more of a walking goal. I'm pretty confident that they're actually looking for 1 minute of consistent steps every hour.

<comment><USER10> It doesn't have to be walking. It needs to be one minute of movement in a standing position. You can do jumping jacks or walk in place and it counts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Danger, danger: heavily regulated waters ahead! Remember these words well: "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

<comment><USER12> I came to say "danger, danger" but for another reason.

I think a whole generation of fitbit users are going to be horrified when their insurance premiums go up based on data that was purchased by insurers. If Apple watch starts making a health play, I don't see why it would be any different.

<comment><USER13> (I'm a study author and worked on HealthCare.gov rescue team)

The good news is you're protected by the law. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers can only vary your rate based on your age, location, and whether you smoke. They can't take into account prior health conditions or biomarkers, including novel biomarkers measured on wearables.

Every major Republican "repeal & replace" bill has preserved this part of the law, called "rating factor limitations", although sometimes they vary the constants. For example, the Paul Ryan plan let insurers charge the elderly 5x more than the young, compared to the current law of 3x, but otherwise preserved the rule that insurers can only vary rate based on age, location, and whether you smoke.

What insurers can do is offer you a 30% (maximum) premium rebate for taking healthy actions, like going for a run, enrolling in a diabetes prevention program, or getting your blood pressure checked. But they can't tie the rebate to the outcome of the test (health status), only your participation.

This is a good point, though, and shows a case where regulation helps technology have a positive impact. If people fear their insurance premiums will go up, they'll avoid all forms of diagnosis, not just Apple Watch.

<comment><USER14> _They can 't take into account prior health conditions or biomarkers, including novel biomarkers measured on wearables._

Yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm one of the co-founders of Cardiogram and involved in this study -- happy to answer questions if folks have them!

(EDIT: heading to bed, but will answer questions in the morning!)

<comment><USER15> I didn't see a reference in the TechCrunch article -- is there a technical paper out?

Edit: A presentation is linked, as "study":

Link to presentation: [http://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/4412/presentation/4522...](http://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/4412/presentation/45220)

A followup: Does the neural network provide some extra insight into what part of the waveform/time-series of pulses is able to provide predictive information?

<comment><USER13> Correct -- the abstract will be included in a special issue of Circulation: [http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/136/Suppl_1/A21042](http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/136/Suppl_1/A21042)

The study was presented at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions earlier today. We included some details beyond what appears in the TechCrunch article in a blog post here: [https://blog.cardiogr.am/screening- for-hypertension-and-slee...](https://blog.cardiogr.am/screening-for- hypertension-and-sleep-apnea-with-deepheart-416c9bc03efc)

I'd expect a more mature version of this work to appear in a medical journal, but that often takes 6-12 extra months.

<comment><USER16> Couldn't find the measurement process.

What is the common root cause of error? Inaccuracies in measurement or the model classifying data incorrectly?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As someone with diagnosed apnea I have so many doubts about this.

Machines to diagnose apnea have lots of sensors including electrodes, "chest- band" pulsometers, and "saturationmeters". I have asked doctors about capabilities of smart devices for apnea control or detection, all I got was laughs.

Sorry but I think this is not true. Go and see your doctor.

<comment><USER18> > Machines to diagnose apnea have lots of sensors including electrodes, > "chest-band" pulsometers, and "saturationmeters".

It seems like a fallacy to claim that since diagnosis required complicated equipment in the past, that it will be necessary going forward. Machine learning is going to make tons of current diagnostic equipment look archaic in comparison.

> I have asked doctors about capabilities of smart devices for apnea control > or detection, all I got was laughs.

Medical doctors are rarely up to date on the latest technology. I wouldn't be surprised if my doctor has never heard the term machine learning before in his life.

Also, their livelihood kind of depends on this technology not being available. Just food for thought.

<comment><USER17> > It seems like a fallacy to claim that since diagnosis required complicated > equipment in the past, that it will be necessary going forward. Machine > learning is going to make tons of current diagnostic equipment look archaic > in comparison.

As someone sais below "ML is not going to replace raw input from sensors."

> Medical doctors are rarely up to date on the latest technology. I wouldn't > be surprised if my doctor has never heard the term machine learning before > in his life.

Current dignose equipament is big, invasive and unconfortable; often they require you to stay one night at the hospital.

There are tests programs about using those devices to replace current tech (obvious reasons: less costs, less invasive tests, subject owns the hardware…)

This kind of procedures are not used because "doctors are old and non-tech people", it's because it's not working.

Sure, apps and smart devices could replace some day those devices but they need more and accurate sensors. Extrapolation of data from a good-enough pulse rate sensor it's not a replacement.

<comment><USER10> While I understand and mostly agree with your general sentiment, I think you're downplaying the extent of how valuable the machine learning is in this process. The reason why we need all these sensors and machines currently is because we need a reasonable picture of how all that data works together so that a _human being_ can look at that picture as a whole and make some deductions.

This isn't the first time or the last time that computers have been able to find patterns in much simpler measurements simply because they're not human. A similar example, although not quite as advanced, is the ability for a computer to extract sound information from a black and white video. Computers have been able to recreate sounds from behind double-paned glass by analyzing vibrations captured through videos. Humans have had to rely on various arrays of lasers, sonar, and other directional instruments to get 1/10th of the accuracy that a computer algorithm has been able to achieve from a simple, low-quality video camera. The point is that more machines and sensors doesn't always equal a better diagnosis. Better analysis of existing sensors and tech, even if it seems to be lower fidelity, _can_ actually yield more accurate results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I went to sleep wearing my Apple Watch one night and awoke to a few hundred irregular heartbeat notifications.

They weren't legit. The watch just can't get a good heart rate reading if it's not situated perfectly on your wrist, and while sleeping it was pushed one way or another often enough to be useless.

<comment><USER20> That's probably the case with all HR monitors, no? If it's not securely in place, any HR monitor will have the same problem. I bought a knock-off velcro wrist strap for my watch and it keeps it in place. I have mixed success with traditional watch straps as my wrist size always seems to be in-between notches.

<comment><USER19> All the optical wrist-based ones, probably.

I imagine if I wore my chest strap monitor I'd have better results as long as I put some kind of jelly on the electrodes to make up for the lack of sweat through the night.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting, but are people really sleeping with their Apple Watch on? I don't you need to charge it every night?

<comment><USER22> You are overestimating how long it takes to charge an Apple Watch and underestimating the battery. 30-45 minutes while you're showering and having breakfast is enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does anyone know how we can use this today?

<comment><USER13> Good question—this clinical validation study is a first, necessary step to prove that this technology is accurate enough to be used in a real-world setting, but the research study alone is a milestone rather than the end goal.

We're now working on implementing care pathways within the Cardiogram app. If all goes well, you should hear something from us in the next few months.

(In general, a digital health startup requires more patience than most other types of startups: you need to run rigorous, IRB-approved clinical studies to prove the technology really works; work with health systems and insurers rigorously show health economics; and comply with applicable regulations like HIPAA and FDA. There are just a lot of details to think through.)

<comment><USER23> Okay. Any way for me to get updates on when it's available for use?

<comment><USER13> It'll appear directly in the Cardiogram app. (Would you personally find it helpful to have another mechanism, like a mailing list?)

<comment><USER23> Yeah. Don't have an Apple watch but if it can detect sleep apnea or other issues, I'd consider buying one for my partner. Mailing list would be ideal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's quite interesting - the way we have evolved as a society has completely broken the link between "us and our body". We have stopped listening to it a long time ago. If we really listened to our bodies, we wouldn't eat/drink/consume stuff we don't need, we wouldn't be overweight, and we'd rapidly be aware of any health-related imbalance which needs restoring.

But no, we forget our original (and free-of-charge) way of functioning and desperately turn to commercial and unnatural solutions.

As a start, I recommend looking into the mindful meditation technique, championed by pioneers like John Kabat-Zinn.

<comment> ryan-allen Hypertension presents no symptoms and left undiagnosed can lead to kidney failure. It's often referred to by doctors as 'the silent killer', and you don't need to eat like shit and be fat to have it.

Going to your GP 2-3 times a year and getting your blood pressure checked (and your blood tested for the 'regular stuff') solves the problem. 'Listening to your body' pseudoscience doesn't really solve the problem.

<comment><USER25> When I had a medical test for my Australian permanent residency - full thorax x-ray, HIV test, the works - I asked the doctor doing the final once-over if "a routine checkup" is something I should be doing.

He asked me how old I was. 30-ish, at the time. He asked me if I felt healthy. Yep.

He said no, don't bother.

<comment> ryan-allen It goes against typical advice, then.

Or don't do it, maybe you'll develop cancer and not find out until it's too late!

EDIT: It's also free to go to the doctors in Australia so at least go once a year and do your routine bloods. Abnormalities can catch things before they progress too far that you have worse outcomes. You're paying for Medicare, use it! :)

<comment><USER26> The "annual physical" is not evidence based. It might seem to "make sense," however, that's not how science works.

Not only that but there's no such thing as "routine bloods." The reason I say that is because 1) to my knowledge there's no evidence based group that recommends any sort of blood test annually and 2)I have been to many GPs over my lifetime (~10?) and I was well into my 30s until I saw one that ordered routine bloodwork as a matter or course. All the ones before that just listened to my heart, took vitals, felt organs, etc. Then that doctor retired and I her replacement also ordered routine bloodwork. The two doctors differed greatly on which test they considered routine.

[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/re-thinking-the-annual- phys...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/re-thinking-the-annual-physical/)

>Not too long ago, the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mindset changed. It became customary for everyone to have a yearly checkup with a doctor even if they were feeling perfectly well. The doctor would look in your eyes, ears and mouth, listen to your heart and lungs with a stethoscope and poke and prod other parts of your anatomy. He would do several routine tests, perhaps a blood count, urinalysis, EKG, chest-x-ray and TB tine test. There was even an "executive physical" based on the concept that more is better if you can afford it. Perhaps the need for maintenance of cars had an influence: the annual physical was analogous to the 30,000 mile checkup on your vehicle. The assumption was that this process would find and fix any problems and insure that any disease process would be detected at an early stage where earlier treatment would improve final outcomes. It would keep your body running like a well-tuned engine and possibly save your life.

>We have gradually come to realize that the routine physical did little or nothing to improve health outcomes and was largely a waste of time and money. Today the emphasis is on identifying factors that can be altered to improve outcomes. We are even seeing articles in the popular press telling the public that no medical group advises annual checkups for healthy adults. If patients see their doctor only when they have symptoms, the doctor can take advantage of those visits to update vaccinations and any indicated screening tests.

>The physical exam of a healthy, asymptomatic adult is unlikely to reveal any significant abnormality (1) that would not have been detected eventually when symptoms developed and (2) whose earlier detection and treatment would reduce morbidity and mortality in the long run.

>A directed physical exam is sometimes indicated in patients with risk factors for specific conditions. A Pap smear is indicated in most women, but not every year, and the accompanying pelvic exam is likely a waste of time.

>For healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 65, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommends only these components of the traditional physical exam:

>For men, a blood pressure measurement. >For women, a blood pressure measurement and a periodic Pap smear.

>They have other recommendations including vaccinations, counseling, and screening tests; but none of those require a physical exam.

>There is a general perception, among the public and among doctors, that there's no such thing as a bad screening test, that early detection is important, that knowing is always better than not knowing. If something is wrong with you, you need to know because, if you find a problem in time, it can be treated effectively to prevent morbidity and mortality. If you get a checkup and everything looks OK, you can breathe a sigh of relief and relax. Unfortunately this is all wrong.

>A recent book explains why: Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health, by Drs. H. Gilbert Welch, Lisa M. Schwartz, and Steven Woloshin. It's a comprehensive explanation of how test results make people sick and why visiting a doctor can be hazardous to your health.

>For a healthy, asymptomatic patient, the physical exam with the laying on of hands and stethoscope and other rituals is pretty much meaningless. If nothing is found, it can produce false reassurance. If something is found, it is not likely to prolong the patient's life and it has a significant likelihood of leading to harm from unnecessary treatment or from a diagnostic cascade of tests, unnecessary surgeries, unnecessary expense, and unnecessary worry.

[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at- screeni...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-screening- tests/)

[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/overdiagnosis/](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/overdiagnosis/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 97% accuracy seems high, but with an approximate sales number of 10 million Apple watches, it will give 300 thousand users an incorrect diagnosis.

<comment><USER28> Which is not so bad. They can follow up and figure it out.

Some people will go for decades before getting a proper diagnostic - or even die before they get one.

<comment><USER27> Unfortunately, most arrhythmias are benign and do not lead to further treatment from a physician. So you are taking 300,000 worried people wrongly to a general practitioner, who in fact can do nothing but write down the event and perhaps correlate it with other data.

<comment><USER29> It's worth always keeping this in mind, and not just taking extra worried people to the gp, but also giving unwarranted peace of mind to those who have a problem.

Even just having them get in a car and go to their GP, or increase their stress levels, have the potential to cause harm. It may be an exceedingly low risk, but applied to a large enough number of people and it starts adding up. When applied to conditions that not everyone has, this can easily tilt the balance.

Consider a hypothetical condition and a population of 1000000. If 1% has the condition at any one time, and the accuracy of the test is 97%, then 10,000 should have the condition. Of those we'd expect 9,700 to get the correct diagnosis; 300 would remain undiagnosed; But 3% of those who don't have the condition - an additional 29,700 - will be wrongly diagnosed.

Let's say this is a condition where 10% would die untreated without this new intervention, it'd be tempting to suggest we've saved 970 people. But early detection might not make that much of a difference - for many things the most severe cases will be noticed anyway and/or late detection is still sufficient to save the patient.

Let's assume for this hypothetical condition, earlier detection will save 10% more of those. In the above that'd save 97 people. Awesome. But lets say it causes 10% more of the undiagnosed ones to die because they wait longer. That's 3 more dead. So net 94?

But if only 0.33% of those wrongfully diagnosed end up dying as the result of the misdiagnosis, be it car crashes on the way to the GP, or the visit leading to a follow up error leading to an intervention that is generally but not always safe, then the wrongful diagnosis would kill 98 people.

I'm not saying that would be the case here. But it's an illustration of why it is important to consider not how many problems are detected, but what benefits early detection gives vs. the cost of wrongly diagnosing people, even when it seems benign enough (just another test, and they'll confirm it was a mistake?)

E.g. there's been pushback against large scale breast cancer screening for this very reason: They're very successful at finding cancer early, but most gets found eventually anyway, and the improvement in long term survival rates from the earlier detection is reasonably small.

Couple this with low overall rates of occurrence across the total population at any given point in time (cancer rates look high when considering "will X get cancer _at some point_ in their life?", but most people will be free of cancer at any given single point in their life; even most people who have had cancer), and the impact of false positives and potential health implications of a (very small but still existent) risk involved in even something "simple" like a biopsy, and it's unclear if large scale screening is ethical (over general populations; screening of groups with sufficiently high risk factors is another matter entirely).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I love my Apple Watch series 1.

The one thing that's frustrating is installing any apps on it takes a really long time.

</comment><comment><USER31> In the Future Everyone will Wear a Smartwatch

[https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/in-the-future- everyo...](https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/in-the-future-everyone- will-wear-a-smartwatch/)

</comment><comment><USER32> Unless you have a heart murmur like I do.

Then: it just lies.

<comment><USER33> I suspect that the technology (and data) from cases like yours will make building either dedicated software or hardware for your case cheaper.

<comment><USER32> My snarky reply: "It's too bad I have to pay for the priviledge of being included in a data set used for product refinement."

Also: no. When I was working as an intern at St. Jude Medical we were training neural networks to recognize heart conditions and adjust other measurements. It was 2002. That work was later published and widely adopted. Modern medical hardware can account for it (inexpensive or older hardware often asks the technician to diagnose and calibrate the machine).

It's very frustrating that Apple continues to pretend economy of scale is breaking into new territory.

<comment><USER33> Adapting your model from 2002 is not a trivial operation. Apple and others are building Machine learning platforms that make that work easier but saying that you worked on it, therefore it should be done by others comes off as a little naive about software integration. Going through other people's code is not instant or trivial.

<comment><USER32> I'm saying Apple's system fails to catch edge cases that prior ML systems, system using a tiny fraction of the computing power and ultimately based off animal data, achieved.

I think the job they're doing is unimpressive. I think it's doubly impressive to imply I have to buy a watch to help them. I don't see why they wouldn't pay me for my unique data. I don't need or want to help them build a shoddy diagnosis product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think this is a great feature provided Apple won't collect the data.

[edit] Btw, I really don't mind getting down voted, but would appreciate to see your opinion on why you think Apple collecting that data is a good idea.</comment>


How to make a startup whiteboard? - <AUTHOR> http://sportlyzer.com/2010/08/19/how-to-make-a-startup-whiteboard/

<comment><USER2> As I posted on the OP blog, for $13, we got a 4' x 8' sheet of Melamine board at Home Depot. They even cut it for us, into three smaller (4' x 32") sheets for us for free. We got 3 dry-erase markers at the Dollar Store.</comment>


Ask HN: Suggestions for an exemplar Java project to showcase in class - <AUTHOR> Turbo Pascal included the source code of a working spreadsheet written in Pascal. Reading it was a revelation for me: I quickly understood how to structure code in small procedures and functions.
I see that my students have trouble structuring their code in classes and methods, and I think that going through an exemplar project in classroom would help them a lot. Which projects would you recommend?
Ideally, I'd want something:
 non-trivial in size (tens of classes) and structure (use of composition, inheritance, dynamic dispatch, containers, enumerations, maybe interfaces, threads, generics, streams);
 useful in everyday situations that the students can readily appreciate; easy to build;
 written with impeccable style in terms of structure, naming, commenting, and formatting;
 accompanied with unit tests;
 not dauntingly complex (this made me rule out the JDK libraries);
 of manageable size (< 100k LoC, ideally < 10k LoC). <comment><USER2> If your stundents have trouble with the most basic part of programmging I would suggest that they should do more exercice to gain experience. Just by seeing "good code" doesn't teach them anything.

A couple of years ago I had a lot of fun solving problems (e.g. [https://projecteuler.net/](https://projecteuler.net/)) with friends and to compare and discuss the solutions we've chosen.

<comment><AUTHOR> The students can by now program OK in the small, but I feel they will benefit from some good examples regarding programming in the large.

<comment><USER2> Then log4j might be an option since people will probably use it someday anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm going through the source code. It looks indeed well-written and structured. Its function is a bit difficult to catch the students' imagination, but I think I can make a good case for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not strictly adhering to you ideal needs, check out: \- Apache Commons lib \- OpenJDK \- JabRef</comment>