Fermat's factorization method with GMP - <AUTHOR> https://wiremask.eu/articles/fermats-prime-numbers-factorization/ <comment><USER2> Hart's OLF:

[http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/54707/1/WRAP_Hart_S144678871200014...](http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/54707/1/WRAP_Hart_S1446788712000146a.pdf)

is an interesting variant. Like Caroline mentioned, you won't have any success with this on properly formed RSA keys, but Hart's OLF will very quickly factor some poorly made ones, and works quite a bit better in that respect than standard Fermat. It not only quickly finds N=P _Q where P=Q+x for a small x, but also where P=k_ Q+x for some integer k and small x. Again not something any proper RSA key generation method will produce, but the ways people can screw things up is pretty high, and it might be worth giving it a few seconds just in case.

For small values, unlike Hart I find SQUFOF to be faster, but this is implementation specific. HOLF is also, like Fermat's method, extremely simple to implement.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice article, although brief and short on some details. More something to get you started than to actually explain anything in real detail.

It always annoys me, though, when articles like this say:

      > This code has great performances
      > and can factorize prime numbers
      > in a very short amount of time.

Sloppy. Unnecessarily sloppy. One is not factoring primes. Yes, I know what is meant, but in subjects like programming, maths, and cryptography, surely one should be more precise.

Oh, and I'm sure every reader knows that in real life you'd _never_ use this method to factor. _Way_ too slow, and there are _many_ ways to speed it up. Nice naive introduction, though.</comment>


Natural Language Processing (2018) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jacobeisenstein/gt-nlp-class/blob/master/notes/eisenstein-nlp-notes.pdf <comment><USER2> You can also buy a printed copy if you like that kind of thing: [https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Language-Processing- Adap...](https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Language-Processing-Adaptive- Computation/dp/0262042843)

</comment><comment><USER3> This a great resource, I use it regularly as a reference and it would work well as a textbook too.

It's also comprehensive, from traditional statistical methods, linear models & context-free parsing right through to modern neural network-based approaches.

There's been a lot of progress in the past 18 months (mainly the transformer/self-attention model) that I don't think is reflected, but that's probably because it's so recent. I assume this will warrant a mention in future editions.

<comment><USER2> Good to hear! Yes at some point I'd like to update it. The current version went to reviewers in summer 2018, so it wasn't possible to add much that came out after that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is there a place where one can test their NLP understanding online?

<comment><USER5> You mean... like reading and commenting on HN? :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wish Jacob didn't run away to Google and instead made an online NLP class @ Udacity/edX.

</comment><comment><USER7> Someone who read it, is is suitable for a complete beginner with some math background?

</comment><comment><USER8> How do I download it on Linux? Following the link hangs my PC, wget just downloads 66.03 kb of HTML code with no meaningful content but "Sorry, something went wrong", "Sorry, we cannot display this file" and "Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed" down within it.

<comment><USER9> The raw PDF is available at [https://github.com/jacobeisenstein/gt-nlp- class/raw/master/n...](https://github.com/jacobeisenstein/gt-nlp- class/raw/master/notes/eisenstein-nlp-notes.pdf)

<comment><USER8> Thanks. Perhaps the link should point to it in the first place. This is the second time I click a link to a pdf hosted on GitHub and everything hangs. Other people confirmed and pointed out Android is vulnerable as well the previous time this happened.

<comment><USER10> Happens to me as well on Chrome/Mac. Not Safari though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is python powerful enough to automate events in web browser? - <AUTHOR>

Let's say i need to choose an option using radio button in web page and then click a button which would download a particular file. Is it possible to automate this process using python?<p>Are there some solution available in any other platform? <comment><USER2> If I understand you correctly, I think that you are looking for something like "mechanize": [http://stockrt.github.io/p/emulating-a-browser-in-python- wit...](http://stockrt.github.io/p/emulating-a-browser-in-python-with- mechanize/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, I have used mechanize earlier. But my requirement is a tool which can behave as if a real user is using keyboard and mouse on web browser pages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Perhaps Selenuim? [http://docs.seleniumhq.org/](http://docs.seleniumhq.org/) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_%28software%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_%28software%29) .</comment>


Ripple cryptocurrency surges as Japanese groups agree to use it - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/2f595696-ecb4-11e7-bd17-521324c81e23 <comment><USER2> My theory to explain the price surge is that cryptotraders are looking for non-correlation against Bitcoin which is currently trading at such a high value that it is making a lot of people nervous. Ripple is the largest coin that didn't participate in the rapid marketcap gains that the BTC bullmarket pulled ethereum, litecoin, etc into. A lot of traders hear 'centralized blockchain' and think that makes it a good hedge against bitcoin's distributed nature - doesn't seem to be a lot of understanding about how these bank partnerships work or what an investment in an XRP token actually gets you.

<comment><USER3> XRP was 100% premined. How many percentage are still held be owners?

My bet would be that the tiny float is multiplying the value. Because of that market cap of XRP is artificially inflated.

XRP network is not really a cryptocurrency, if you ask me. It is not trustless, has counterparty risk, is censorable, not designed to be a commodity in itself, etc.

I was actually playing with Ripple before Bitcoin existed, and it was centralized website. I could see it having some application, but it is just no the same game as Bitcoin and other altcoins.

<comment><USER4> Jed McCaleb has been selling tens of thousands of ripples a day for years. Anyone investing in buying is just making Jed richer.

<comment><USER5> Bingo. I think the delusion will persist if Coinbase lists it which is and has been the current rumor in the trader circles I frequent. I'd lose a bit of respect for CB if they did but it will certainly make them a lot of money because $2.00 is so cheap!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "2017 has been the year of the digital asset, and XRP has clearly outperformed every other digital asset," Brad Garlinghouse, Ripple's chief executive, told the Financial Times. "The reason for that is that the market has realised that XRP is a highly efficient payments mechanism that is solving real world problems for real world customers with real money." "people are increasingly realising that bitcoin is not going to be a panacea for all these payments problems that people imagined it would solve".

 _He added: "Payments with XRP settle in a few seconds, but if you buy a cup of coffee with bitcoin it will be cold by the time the payment has been settled." '_

great quote

</comment><comment><USER6> Are banks actually using the XRP token, or just a private version of ripple technology? I can't get a clear answer on that.

Also is it possible for me to use ripple to pay for things today?

</comment><comment><USER7> Hard paywall.

What I do not understand is why doesn't Wall Street create their own "coin/currency" versus use someone else's since they are the largest users of currency currently?</comment>


Ask HN: What is causing the recent sudden uproars against Google? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> It's been happening for years. A few last straws lately?

Google did a lot to gain the trust of it's users over a decade ago. What it did and said as an organization was that they were the good guys and could be trusted, and that everyone else was evil. Google were the stewards of the internet.

Maybe it was after they took the company public but it slowly started to ratchet in the other direction. Products became increasingly and heavily monetized or shut down entirely. More and more attempts at lock-in and data control. That's fine for a business but in the case of Google, because of their earlier approach and saying the exact opposite, it was a total bait-and- switch.

<comment> open-source-ux _"...they were the good guys and could be trusted_"

I've said this before but Google is neither the 'good guy' or the 'bad guy'. They aren't there to look out for your best interests and we'd all be much better if we stop ascribing human qualities to gigantic corporations. And they have never been 'stewards of the internet'.

As for the recent uproar, well better late than never. The attitude of the tech community is incredibly hypocritical on matters of privacy.

Google has always tracked users on an industrial scale. That tracking now extends to schools where ChromeOS is in widespread use. Tracking school kids online behaviour even if that data is detached from individual accounts and aggregated in some way is simply indefensible in my view. The amount of pupil data stored on Google's servers must be simply staggering. But barely a peep from developers on this issue.

Next time developers rush to Google's defence, they should ask themselves: does a gigantic multi-billion corporation that tracks people on an industrial scale need to be defended?

<comment><USER3> Why is it indefensible?

Surely what matters is what they do with the data - if it's being used to improve their products and services then why is it bad?

Are there concrete examples of where they have abused this data?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Google Chrome change was serious for Chrome users (and really even non- Chrome users because it affects most of the people you probably know and hang out with since many of them use Chrome).

The issue could have more easily been resolved with a dialogue if you log into a new Google account while Chrome is logged into a separate account saying, "Your browsers is logged in as x. Would you like to add y to your x account? (Say no on a public or shared computer)."

Honestly I had trouble with Google starting in 2012 with the PRISM revelations (which either aren't true or everyone has collectively dismissed).

Google is today what Microsoft was in the 90s. I'd be happier if we just had more options of search. I hate that we went from Lycos, Hotbot, Yahoo, Dogpile, Excite and others to just Google, DDG and Bing.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's Facebook. Facebook is the reason for the uproar. Facebook has drawn a lot of attention to ad-based revenue companies like Google. Facebook is the modern day version of Geocities, except, now it employs modern advertising technology to harvest information and engage users.

Facebook has apparently grossly mishandled how it engages users; providing a platform for the proliferation of false information (like idiots on Geocities) but now in the form of "news". Facebook has also grossly mishandled it's users information; providing dubious 3rd parties with information that's been used to, among other things, target specific demographics to influence ELECTIONS.

Because of the ire Facebook is drawing from the entire world, Google is being group with them because of their business model. Google's big fault here is in it's likely emulation of Facebook's engagement model (likely same tech, same time) in steering users towards more extreme content in an effort to maintain engagement- mostly on YouTube.

I think the average HN user can understand how and why this happens. It's 1.0 of the engagement game. Ad-tech that analyze the content of a video and attempts to match it with similar content. Only apparent problem is, it's not that smart and it tends to direct towards the extreme - or likely the easiest content match- more extreme content likely repeats similar phrases more often, idk, someone with more insight can jump in here.

<comment><USER6> I think Google's behaviour probably has something to do with it too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The Chrome 69 changes probably were the straw that broke the camels back.

Enabling inherent behavior without really doing a good job at all of notifying or even letting the user know what's up is pretty scummy behavior to me.

</comment><comment><USER8> I have noticed this too. There's been a Google-negative article of some sort or another near the top of the front page for days now.

Is this an external news cycle, a feedback loop where people saw "Chrome doesn't delete Google cookies" yesterday and upvote "Maps stores your home address" today, or a conspiracy intentionally submitting this series of articles?

<comment><USER9> Or maybe it's just Google making a lot of misguided decisions for their anniversary release.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are so many companies track their users, small, medium to huge enterprise. Why just focus on google? Do you think microsoft don't track users? Linked-in has no tracking? facebook, apple and those small and medium size company?

I should change my question to what company has zero tracking or spying on their users? Do you guys know how many tracking and analytic companies out there help businesses to gather user data and do analytics, ai analytics and so on? Last month I just met a friend who worked in speedtest.net, visit my country and sell their user data to one of the largest ISP here.(kudos to who have account at their service).

Seriously, i am just wondering why just google? I ask so because I saw many title about the same topic just focus on two companies, google and facebook. Just wondering...By the way, kudos for duckduckgo, i really like that search engine. !g, !gh,...its so versatile.

<comment><USER11> Well IMO Google has an unprecidented ubiquity and scale that out-performs all of the companies you listed (Search, Chrome, Android, Youtube). Even Facebook.

For Apple I'd like to see a source that backs up that claim because they're obviously not in the business of selling personal data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's easy. In their hubris, Google pissed on some of the most intelligent and spiritually powerful people on the planet.

Now they get their comeuppance. It's that simple.

<comment><USER13> Who are these people you speak of?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's not easy to change so quickly. I'm dissatisfied with Google since years, but changing away from GMail requires me to change dozens of registrations. Oh and GDoc, I have tons of documents there, both and shared and private, not an easy task to migrate that away.

Same with Facebook, it takes ages. I don't care so much about them but others do. With time people changed real names to Pseudonyms, deinstalled the App etc.

</comment><comment><USER15> It must be fashionable now to hate on Google, but they are still miles ahead of other guys. They may no longer "not be evil" but to me they're still the least evil option compared to other companies. Besides, Google has done many wonderful things for our generation. We've been taking things for granted, imagine a world without Google search. Remember Yahoo!?

<comment><USER16> I don't think anybody here is denying that Google has done a lot of great things, and on the whole they still have a great reputation as a company to work for.

However, past good deeds don't excuse current bad deeds. Even if they are the "least evil option", that doesn't mean they shouldn't be criticised.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Because now it's not only affecting their users but their competitors too.

Alphabet is too big now, it needs to be broken. Gmail, YouTube, ChromeOS, Google Chrome, Google Pixel, Android, Google Play, Google Search, Google Maps,Google Ads. They all need to be individual competing companies.

</comment><comment><USER18> The stars somehow aligned (or misaligned) and Google pulled a whole lot of bad decisions at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER19> More MBAs in management maybe.

</comment><comment><USER20> Karma.

Google has always been super ruthless in their data gathering practices. I think the recent uproar is just the tip of the iceberg. Shit's happening for real this time.

<comment><USER21> Being cynical here. From fines GDPR & friends incoming and maximise profits before they forced to pay to market already saturated and without pissing user base there will be no double digit 'adaptation' rate

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Recent? There have been spurts of uproars about google ( and tech/social media ) for a while now, nationally and internationally.

After obama won in 2008 and 2012, there was conservative/republican backlash against tech/social media amd it's "negative" impact on election. There were people saying that the saudis, chinese and even the russians were exploiting social media to help obama win the election and divide/destroy the nation. Sound familiar? The democrats and the establishment media laughed at these claims and called them conspiracies, delusions and republican being sore losers. Funny how an election changes everything.

The recent uproar is directly tied to Trump's election. Now it's the democrats and establishment media attacking tech/social media because their candidate lost. So the democrats and the media are complaining the same thing the the republicans did after their candidates lost in 2008/2012.

When obama won, it's was how great social media is. The NYTimes was praising social media for helping obama topple the "clinton machine" and john mccain in 2008.

"fight smear campaigns and get out the vote that helped them topple the Clinton machine and then John McCain and the Republicans."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.htm...](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.html)

Even in 2016, people were praising social media and obama.

[https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/12/president-obama- social-n...](https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/12/president-obama-social- networking-the-white-house/)

The hypocrisy in the political and media landscape is quite something huh?

As for the international scene, from china to egypt and beyond, governments have been upset about google trying to manipulate their people and cause disruption. With the recent revelations of how political google truly is, I guess they were right and foreign governments are going to demand lot more control over google in their countries. You reap what you sow.

</comment><comment><USER23> People finally waking up to the what Google really is, perhaps?

<comment><USER24> A never dreamer here. Google is what we wanted since the beginning. Someone else to balance the market. And yes, they collect what I see. And yes I use them for free since the day 1.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> From 2012 to 2014, Microsoft (under Ballmer) had launched a program called "Scroogled" \- an attempt to in effect destroy the google brand.

The budget? 1 billion dollars. It was run like a presidential election campaign, with Mark Penn hired to run it.

It feels very similar to this. I am guessing that the goal is to trigger anti- trust action against Google, by creating this buzz around it.

<comment><USER26> The Scroogled campaign was simply about the cost differences for businesses to advertise on Bing vs. Google. So, in other words, just like any other ad campaign you see between competitors...

<comment><USER25> You may want to check this list and decide for yourself what it was about : [https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/22/5135626/scroogled- micros...](https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/22/5135626/scroogled-microsoft- ads-attack-google)

I should add that i have not seen Google itself run such attack ads.

What I have always found strange is that the companies that seem to attack google on privacy are not so hot themselves. Microsoft's rifling through hotmail emails to catch a leaker, and Apple's handing over of iCloud data for Chinese users are examples of things Google has never done.

Microsoft : [https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/28/microsof...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/28/microsoft- decides-its-actually-a-bad-idea-to-snoop-through-users-emails/#ac3b0325a97d)

Apple : [https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17587304/apple-icloud- chi...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17587304/apple-icloud-china-user- data-state-run-telecom-privacy-security)

<comment><USER26> Those are 6 year old editorials, in other words, opinion articles. Microsoft has every right to run ad campaigns however they like. Apple attacked PC with it's "I'm a Mac, I'm hip and cool and PCs are bloated, etc." ads in the 00s. They were effective, I'm not convinced the Scroogled campaign was effective at all. Ad campaigns resemble political ads because political ads are ad campaigns. They're all different flavors of the same damn trade.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Man Behind The Bayesian Theorem - <AUTHOR> http://thinking.netezza.com/video/man-behind-bayesian-theorem

<comment><USER2> The full lecture with transcript is here:

[http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/royal- society-a...](http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/royal-society- anniversary-lecture-an-even-shorter-history-of-nearly-everything)</comment>


Co-founders of conversation-commerce chatbot Kip, on future of AI assistants - <AUTHOR> http://www.psfk.com/2016/02/artificial-intelligence-ai-assistants-kip-chatbot.html#541 <comment><USER2> Reminds me of Dennis Mortensen's (founder of x.ai) recent article on the rise of Vertical AIs: [http://thesbjournal.com/1165-2/](http://thesbjournal.com/1165-2/)</comment>


Why release Alpha (or Beta) software? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.gridjit.com/2008/07/13/why-do-alpha-or-beta-software/

<comment><USER2> I think the idea of a "minimum valid test" is really what you should be aiming for.

There should be a private phase for usability and to see whether that question can accurately be tested. Your goal is to make sure that your terrible site design or code or whatever does not get in the way of the test.

Then there should be a scaling phase, some call beta. You can create scarcity by doing beta password signups to make sure that your servers aren't causing users to not enjoy the site (why is it so slow?!).

Then, I think it's the public phase, where you let anyone come to your site.

Really, if you have courage and trust in your abilities. going straight to public is the best option because it causes you to iterate quickly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Minimum valid test is a good way to put it.

Not sure I agree with the last statement. I can only speak for myself but I'm reasonably confident in my abilities and courage has never been an issue.

The constraints I mention in my blog post are important factors for someone in my position (bootstrapping, another business to manage). Doing a private Alpha lets me roll out an application in a way that keeps users happier.</comment></comment>


A $999 monitor stand is everything wrong with Apple today - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/04/apple-pro-display-xdr-stand/ <comment><USER2> This is a dumb article.

The only reason they even broke out the pricing like this is because the target audience is media production houses in Hollywood and other high budget environments where they already have their own rigs and mounts. It's just a line item on an invoice. This monitor is competing against $25k+ reference displays. And the price is _very competitive_.

The only difference here is that no other company does large scale press events for products meant for such a niche professional audience.

MKBHD said it best in his video. If Apple had said "This is a $6k monitor" and then during configuration time provided a stand-less option for $1k less, then we wouldn't see any of these dumb articles.

This is everything that is wrong with journalism today.

<comment><USER3> People keep saying this: Is this monitor actually competitive with $25k+ reference monitors? Because the specs seem to indicate "no" to me, but I'm not a professional user so can't judge what's important.

Also, to be able to use your own mount you still need the $200 VESA mount.

<comment><USER4> So you're not a professional user and you can't judge what's important. But your gut feeling is telling you that it isn't a good deal ?

I wonder what someone from Apple Product Marketing would think about comments like this when they would've spent the best part of 5 years working closely with potential customers in the product design and specifications.

<comment><USER5> Come on, it's a fair question, this person said "the specs" seem to indicate, not their gut feeling. As they read the specs it can't literally replace a $25K+ reference display.

Can it, yes or no?

<comment><USER4> If you are not a professional user how can you interpret the "specs".

You're not seriously saying that you can compare two products that you have no clue about simply by comparing random numbers and picking which is the highest.

It's the equivalent of picking a camera based purely off megapixels whilst ignoring dynamic range, sensor size, lens quality, in camera processing etc.

<comment><USER5> if Tesla said about a car "this one can compete straight in a nascar race, stock" and really seemed to mean it and kept repeating it, then absolutely it would be a fair question whether it is literally true. Because it's such an unusual claim.

It's yes/no: can it literally go where only a $25k can? Or not literally, no.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The rise of Apple computers latest era started with the ad campaign "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" which made computing choices a cultural signal, mocking PC users as stodgy and out of touch corporate types. It worked.

The timing is right where a computer manufacturer with a solid build at a reasonable price could play this same strategy against Apple. I'm thinking an ad campaign which pokes fun at Apple at being over priced and pretentious, with out of touch super fans paying thousands for a basic laptop and accessories.

The cornerstone of the campaign could be this image:

[https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5cf8133011e2051fb46d5...](https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5cf8133011e2051fb46d510d-1334-1000.jpg)

Disclaimer: Writing this comment from a Macbook Pro.

<comment><USER7> MSI is on it.

[https://twitter.com/AustraliaMSI/status/1136188253785034752](https://twitter.com/AustraliaMSI/status/1136188253785034752)

<comment><USER8> I get their point, but to be fair the pixel density of the MSI model isn't comparable at all. I'd take that 5k display in a 27" format though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So much noise about the stand. This is the stand of a $5000 monitor, not just any stand.

Any random piece of plastic on a Porsche is more expensive than on a Ford. That shouldn't be the case in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world.

People have complained for years that Apple is no pro enough. The Mac Pro and XDR display are so pro-level that the vast majority of the WWDC public was not the target demographic either.

Is it too expensive? Yes. Does that matter? No, it's only because it has an Apple badge that we hear about this at all, and people entitlement with Apple is just off the charts.

<comment><USER10> I'm happy that Apple is aiming at the pro market again. I wish their next step was to release more products for programmers, not just designers.

For example, big 2k 16:10 monitors have been wiped out from the market as manufacturers can't be bothered to produce panels in that aspect ratio, instead of 16:9. More vertical space makes such a difference.

I only know of two old 30 inch models from Dell and NEC that will be soon not possible to purchase. Apple, with their scale, could get custom orders.

<comment><USER11> I am not sure that 2K 16:10 30" is the sweet spot for users. Five years ago before 4K worked properly then yes, but not now.

4K on 31" works great, plenty of vertical resolution for code plus the pixels are not too small. Anything larger and you will be getting neck ache peering up/down the screen. Or you would have to push the monitor further away than what a regular desk affords, adjusting font sizes accordingly, going into painful letter box territory.

I promise you won't look back if you go 4K on 31", there is no need for a dual monitor setup unless you are editing movies!

<comment><USER10> But with scaling, are you not simply getting effectively a 16:9 2k but a bit crisper with 4k?

I have tried one of those old 30 inch Dells with 16:10 2560x1600, and it's amazing how much nicer it feels than having just 1440 vertical pixels. The aspect ratio is closer to sqrt(2). I guess that's the difference.

<comment><USER11> I don't have scaling and all application font sizes are stock. 31" is goldilocks for me, it is about having 2160 pixels good for programming, not smoothed out 'retina', but native pixels!

I have a failed product according to the marketplace - cinema 4096 x 2160 resolution @ 24Hz with extraordinary colour accuracy. Perfect for code, useless for gaming and 60+ Hz video.

I am not sure I would want a 27" 5K monitor, even if it did work properly (mine has an early DisplayPort interface, pre-dating useful standards). If you get a chance to look at a 34" 5K monitor then I reckon that could be what you are looking for. Any bigger and you have to crane your neck or push the monitor further away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yes, the people who sit in $1,000 Aeron chairs with $10,000 workstations hooked up to $42,000 monitors and $5,000 speakers (each) in $100,000 - $1,000,000 studios working on movies and songs that make $100,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 each are going to be so pissed off about this atrocious pricing.

<comment><USER13> But how many people are those? 1,000 worldwide? 10,000? I am sure it is a tiny fraction of the entire audience of maybe a fifty million people who hear about it. So they should do it in a separate event or direct market it to those studios, but the news didn't fit the audience.

<comment><USER14> Because WWDC is a conduit for Apple to flex while the whole world is watching. WWDC is a major event, yes for developers but also for Apple in general to release new products and services.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is the monitor actually in the same category as existing "reference" monitors that cost 5 figures?

If the answer to that is yes, then the fundamental mistake is presenting the monitor at a show watched by consumers. Because that's just a recipe for bafflement and mismatched expectations.

<comment><USER16> > Is the monitor actually in the same category as existing "reference" > monitors that cost 5 figures?

Does the back of that Apple thing look anything like this?

[https://assets.fatllama.com/images/large/sony- oled-17-trimas...](https://assets.fatllama.com/images/large/sony- oled-17-trimaster-monitor-76348033.jpg)

No? Then it's not in the same category.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It is very expensive. But it's based on the tried-and-tested Apple pricing approach: as high as the target customer will jump. I assume Apple is trying to milk large business customers for all they're worth, it is the "pro" market after all. The $800 saving by going for the VESA mount is peanuts compared to the overall cost of a fully-configured Mac Pro setup.

<comment><USER18> The end-benefit aspect of consumer price sensitivity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think it's a misrepresented discount. Like, most pros have VESA mounts already. So they discount the monitor... So you don't have to pay for it if you don't need it.

But the message about that reason is not there and therefore it _sounds_ like nickel and diming.

Instead we should consider it as:

$6000 for the monitor with stand OR $5200 for the monitor with VESA mount

<comment><USER14> Yep, this was poor marketing. Plain and simple.

<comment><USER20> Perhaps poor but also perhaps deliberate to give an unrealistically (because most customers will buy the stand or the vesa mount) low price point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The truth is... anyone who's complaining about the cost of the optional stand, can't afford to buy the monitor anyway.

I somehow don't think this monitor was designed for viewing and editing iMovie videos. Completely different market.

</comment><comment><USER22> Yeah decorate it with $29 iPod socks then call us back.

The critique of Apple's "design over usefulness" is older than the Internet. I read this exact same article after the iMac dropped the floppy drive.

</comment><comment><USER23> i own a dell monitor. it comes with the same type of stand, having the same functionalities. and it came with the monitor.

what is so different about apple's monitor stand that warrants $1k?

<comment><USER24> Can you link to this "same type of stand", please? It needs to have:

\- floating counterbalanced vertical positioning for a screen of this weight.

\- 90 degree rotation

Apple first released this kind of mechanism with the Pixar lamp iMac, to float its screen above the hemisphere base; I haven't seen it for any consumer or prosumer monitor since.

<comment><USER23> maybe i'm misunderstanding something, but the following stand [0] appears to be identical to the apple one:

\- Tilt and lift

\- Switch from portrait to landscape with bi-directional pivoting

\- 45-degree swivel

(Bi-directional pivoting, tilt adjustment +30° to -5°, swivel adjustment ±45°, 100 mm vertical lift range)

[0] [https://www.dell.com/en-uk/shop/dell-optiplex-7760-all-in- on...](https://www.dell.com/en-uk/shop/dell-optiplex-7760-all-in-one-height- adjustable-stand/apd/452-bdfq/monitors-monitor-accessories#polaris-pd)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> As Linus from LinusTechTips pointed out, if they had just bundled the whole thing for 6k with an option to buy the monitor alone for 5k (thus "saving" 1k) people would probably be less angry.

I don't really see the point of getting angry however: for once Apple is trying to charge 1k$ extra for a thing that you don't really need and that you can easily and happily live without.

Just use a compatible one that you can get for like $100 or less off Amazon.

<comment><USER3> If anything, the $200 VESA mount you absolutely need is more egregious.

<comment><USER18> but having a non standardized mount is so revolutionary.

<comment><USER26> Why do you make such a snide remark on a reasonable statement? $200 for a metal cross with 4 screw holes _is_ egregious no matter whether it has a picture of a partly eaten apple on it or not. This is unrelated to any other qualities the monitor might have, it is still nothing but a VESA mount which could be included in the box or sold for a token price. They'd make a profit if they sold it at $20.

<comment><USER27> > Why do you make such a snide remark on a reasonable statement?

Because the snide remark was _agreeing with_ the reasonable statement, and mocking Apple.

<comment><USER18> Yes. It's odd that they wouldn't use a vesa mount if they are targeting this market that often uses custom display mount grids. Or at at least include the bracket in the packaging. You can use a vesa mount and still support custom mounting brackets. Like my Dell 4ks all support vesa but use an alternative hook to actually connect and remove the monitor from the base.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> yoz-y There are tripods that cost way more than this, professional equipment has a markup, justified or not.

It's funny how so many people are complaining about something they were never going to buy anyways.

At some level it is Apple's fault, they were marketing the "Pro" line to general public for so long that somehow they have set an expectation which makes no sense.

</comment><comment><USER28> I have a question.

Is the $999 stand a media deflection strategy for a rather mundane WWDC or something else? [https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/06/highlights-from- wwdc-...](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/06/highlights-from-wwdc-2019/)

<comment><USER4> You can't possibly be serious. It is WWDC i.e. a developer's conference after all. And amongst developers and power users it was by far the best ever.

Project Catalyst allows you to build Mac apps from your iOS code base with a checkbox and some minimal code. SwiftUI is a true game changer for app developers bringing Flutter style development. iPad OS with long overdue features like desktop Safari with download manager, USB drive support, 9ms pencil latency. iOS with Dark Mode, 2x app launch time, clever use of ML in Photos. Sign in with Apple is an extremely clever way to combat privacy. Apple Maps looked really strong.

I could keep going but mundane is not the way I would describe it.

<comment><USER14> I also agree. This was one of the best WWDC's in recent history. No matter what Apple does, it's a lose-lose situation. HN was complaining for ages about how the 2014 Mac Pro sucked. Now that Apple has hit it out of the park, HN is still complaining about pricing. We've seen this since the introduction of iPhone. People said it sucked and it went ahead and changed the world. $499 for a phone!!!!! Are you kidding me?

It's disappointing that HN continues to complain, often without basis. It's a ritual. A positive comment has to, _has to_ be combated with an opposing view even if it isn't justified.

This Mac Pro is amazing in my view. Design, aesthetics, features, thermal design, engineering, EVERYTHING.

But, fuck Apple. The monitor didn't have a 120hz refresh rate. I'm disappointed. Everyone is doing it, even Asus. How can Apple ignore our needs! For $5000!!!? Are you kidding me?

Sigh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I don't think I'm going to buy one but here is a thing: Is it made of Aluminum or other expansive metal?

I bought a desk with Aluminum legs. The legs were empty from the inside. The desk was already expensive comparing to the standard model (It was custom made, I asked for the Alu legs). I asked the manufacturing guy why the legs were not full and he laughed. He said the price will be astronomical if they were full and that the metal is very expensive.

I forgot the price but it was definitively over $1,000. The non-Alu version was less than half.

So depending on the metal and heaviness of the stand, Apple might not be overcharging on this one.

<comment><USER30> > Is it made of Aluminum or other expansive metal?

There are few metals as cheap as aluminium, actually I cannot think of any except iron.

Bulk aluminium costs less than $1/pound.

Of course if the legs were not hollow, they might be rather heavy (even though aluminium is quite a light metal)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Ironically on an Oath website demanding privacy opt outs to continue.

Could HN alert people to these sites, change T&C to remove them?

<comment><USER32> FWIW the engadget article is accessible here: [https://outline.com/qAas5k](https://outline.com/qAas5k)

<comment><USER31> That wouldn't be ironic then would it?

Are you Alainis Morrisette perchance?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If it seems expensive, it's not for you.

Although I am disappointed that Apple hasn't made a display for "the rest of us". I'd love an Apple monitor instead of the LG ones but without all the stuff only high end video pros need. Maybe they'll do one after everyone buys the 6k version already.

</comment><comment><USER34> On the actual monitor side you don't seem to have much competition on this category. If you want large screen with high DPI, the only "massmarket" option seems to be the couple of years old Dell 32" 8K display which sells for like $4k.

Seems to be all the 5k displays have been discontinued.

<comment><USER35> Maybe it's also more to be seen as a reference, the LG models were also quite top notch. Probably better than making/advertising low end reference models.

For example it's great that they advertise USB-C so much. This will finally end the mass of mutually incompatible docking station solutions and create less electronics trash. By the way, there is are Dell display stands with USB-C charging, integrated Ethernet, USB-A ports etc and VESA mount. So the stand I got (DS1000) was 200 $ and the screen I got for 75 $...

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's funny how monitor stands can cost more then the monitor itself, but it's relatively cheap if it can prevent back/neck pain.

</comment><comment><USER37> Let's wait and see their sales reports and then we'll see who's wrong.

</comment><comment><USER38> I wonder how many people complaining about the price of the stand, is even considering buying the monitor. My point is, why to complain about something I'm not going to buy anyway.

</comment><comment><USER39> Wait, I thought people on Reddit were joking about the 1k price tag

<comment><USER40> The 1k stand is a real thing. The audiences in the keynote booed when they showed the price tag.

<comment><USER41> The booing was especially funny because a large part of audience are Apple employees, put there to clap after every word.

<comment><USER42> Are they "put there" or are they just passionate about the company they work for and haven't seen these products as they're in different departments?

(Disclaimer: I don't own any Apple hardware)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I was very tempted to buy a MacBook Pro last year. If the keyboards would actually work, it would have been pretty much perfect except for the price. I have no experience with the touch bar, but it didn't look so bad in the store.

I hope they can fix the keyboard issues...

(Just to make a counterpoint to the "everything Apple does sucks" tone of the article)</comment>


How to Hack the Psychology of Student Motivation - <AUTHOR> http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/12/13/learning-to-love-your-ap-history-assignments-how-to-hack-the-psychology-of-student-motivation

<comment><USER2> Dup: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2002359>

Many comments there.</comment>


Ford invests 500M in electric pickup truck company - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/investing/ford-rivian/index.html <comment><USER2> Cool to see Ford's Children make investments into the future.</comment>


Human Capital Pops the Money Capital Bubble  - <AUTHOR> http://measuringmeasures.com/blog/2010/11/22/human-capital-pops-the-money-capital-bubble.html <comment><USER2> This article just makes me want to start a discussion about how equity offers are even more worthless to me than the rapidly declining dollar. Do people still think that they'll make it big off of equity when they aren't the founders of a company?

Also, this year's biggest IPO was <sarcasm> GM </sarcasm>. Nobody is getting rich off of stock options in this market.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with you that the amount of equity given to employees should increase. When previously equity was taken up by early rounds of funding needed for startup costs that is no longer necessary. The early costs now are people and they should be rewarded with ample equity.

But people still very much do get rich off of options. GreenDot, OpenTable, Qlik Technologies, Facebook and more companies will make employees very wealthy via options.

It's not employees at those companies I worry about though.

More companies are exiting after a few years for 50-100M and their employees get a few hundred thousand while founders walk with tens of million.

Perhaps it's not so bad as being a founder is extremely difficult but its seems disproportionate when early employees join within the first few months.</comment></comment>


A Mechanist's Guide to the Coronavirus Genome - <AUTHOR> https://csvoss.com/a-mechanists-guide-to-the-coronavirus-genome <comment><USER2> This is a gem of an article.

The PDF full text for Velkov et al. 2014 "The RNA-Dependent-RNA Polymerase, an Emerging Antiviral Drug Target for the Hendra Virus" is directly downloadable from: [https://www.eurekaselect.com/118581/article](https://www.eurekaselect.com/118581/article)</comment>


Why I created MBAHacks.com, or Why I am learning to program - <AUTHOR> http://www.mbahacks.com/why-i-created-mbahackscom-or-why-i-am-learnin

<comment><USER2> All great reasons, but there's one I would add as an MBA: Learning to program makes you a better business person.

How?

Made to Stick has a great story about a math teacher who struggled to convince his students of math's importance in life. As he put it, math is like weight lifting. You don't work out to prepare for the day a rogue barbell comes and traps you on the ground, you work out so you can run faster, tackle harder, and jump higher. Math is weight lifting for your analytic mind - it helps you rationally think through problems and establish logical steps to the solution.

Learning to program, and to take it further, learning computer science, is not about making the best app ever created. CS is mental weight lifting on the _process_ of tackling business problems. Dissecting an app into its MVC components will help you understand the business you plan to create, what is core, and what is fluff. In other words, learning to program will make you a better business person, even if you suck.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely Ryan. Thanks for your sharing your thoughts with me.

I also see other parallels between building great software and building a great business. For one, focus is important for scaling both. You don't want to be all things to all people.

In addition, whether you're bug tracking or solving business problems, it's important to get to the root cause. Full disclosure: I used to be a management consultant.

Finally, it takes a great team to build great software and a great company.

I'm sure there are many others. Would love to hear what others here come up with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think the world would be a better place if everyone, especially MBA's had at least some knowledge of programming. With the state of the job market in the US, wouldn't it be wise to require even two years of programming in high school?

<comment><USER5> I used to work with at least a couple dozen MBA's from 1 school, they gave me this advice for bus school:

1) don't lose your coding skills (I was good at perl/awk, APL, C and Fortran). This I did

2) concentrate on linear algebra, stats/prob, calculus (this i didn't)

3) take law school classes (this i did, they were gnarly)

tl;dr your 2nd year you can do pretty much whatever you want. You can make it a profoundly intellectual experience, or start your business, or whatever

<comment><USER6> This is exactly what I did. I treat the MBA as just another tool. Started a business sadly it failed after a couple years, but I just moved out to SF last week and loving it. As an engineer with an MBA that can code well, does stats, and took a handful of law classes it's a seller's market.

<comment><USER7> i dont get it, whats so special about stats ? dont al engineers take a stats class and then end up not using most of the concepts ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That's a good idea. My advice: forget the MBA. Just learn to code and start making contacts in the field you want to go into. Why pay grad schools? YC is the new grad school, and they pay you.

<comment><USER9> lol...yes! out of all the degrees out there...I don't understand the MBA. Want to start a business? Start it! If you get the MBA you'll be stuck paying off a $100k debt.

<comment><USER10> Starting a business is only half the battle (at best). The biggest value of the MBA is the networking that happens. You're meeting people who will go on to work in a diverse set of industries. It's not uncommon for an entrepreneur with an MBA to go a year or two in business only calling on people they met in school, or fellow alumni. That networking isn't impossible to replicate, but an entrepreneur who forgoes the MBA route needs to make a concerted effort to make up for that.

<comment><USER11> To follow up to the parent, there is a lot more to B-school then just to network. From common MBA-bashing that takes places on HN it seems that that many people fail to grasp the difference between building a product and building a company. If you want to build a product - MBA may not be necessary, but if you want to build a good company, an MBA will be a great help along the way. With all aspects of running a business covered in one class or another, you at least have an understanding of the issues you'll run into.

An MBA doesn't provide you a road map, it gives you a framework of how to approach business questions and an understanding how simple decisions cascade down to all aspects of a company (hr, accounting, operations).

<comment><USER3> Nice point. You can build a great ruby site without Rails, but Rails gives you a nice framework to make the process easier. Similarly, you can build a business without an MBA, but an MBA gives you a convenient framework to help with important decisions.

<comment><USER8> True. Good point. So it comes down to - which type of person are you? I stick by my original point - YC is the new grad school. MBA's learn all the theory of business, and YC throws you right into it. There's no better way to learn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Edward is a savvy guy not above getting his hands dirty with code.

</comment><comment><USER12> Coming from a similar perspective as the OP, but so far I always failed to go through with actually mastering a language. Over the years I attempted to learn so many different ones, from Action Script to Assembler, from Delphi to C++, but always became either bored of it after a few hours or got frustrated because the ideas I had in mind turned out to be far more complicated to realise than I had hoped for.

<comment><USER13> That's why great programmers are boundless optimist and masochists.

<comment><USER3> Great point. I've been accused to being dogged in the past. Truth be told, it helps to be both focused and determined.

@stfu There are two ways you could try to go about it:

1) Try sticking to one technology and working on a project you're really passionate about.

2) Work on a tutorial from start to finish.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for trying to help! 1) This is really difficult. Like I tried getting started with PHP but as soon as potential project ideas became "interesting" I needed to go at least into JavaScript or Databases/MySql. Like for a seemingly simple project that I had in mind (e.g. that took data from a form and generate a pdf file based on that) I needed at least JavaScript to make it a smooth process. 2) I seem to suck there in the "transferring the knowledge" part. One of my most recent ventures is into RapidMiner, an (open source) data mining/text mining software. While I went through each and every tutorial available I am still unable to understand basic issues like when to use certain algorithms or how to adopt the knowledge towards a concrete research idea/problem that I have in mind. But if you have any suggestions for great tutorials feel free to share. I won't stop trying :)

<comment><USER14> Some web frameworks build wrappers for MySQL. That being said... SQL isn't too hard either! Google is your co-pilot, always.

This summer I was thrown onto an android project with no experience, no in- company mentors, and I barely remembered how to write java. The first two weeks I just did tutorials. I didn't even try to patch them together to actually make a product-- I just did a dozen tutorials which covered different aspects and left them all in my code folder. When it came to actually building my app, I now had a personalized pool of code to grab from! It really helped to be able to go back and reference it.

Also, I think you are not going to be well helped by tutorials. You need a freaking textbook. <http://greenteapress.com/thinkpython/html/index.html> You are required to do at least 50% of the exercises for each chapter.

Furthermore, it is important that you master a single language rather than dabble. Once you understand a single language in&out, it will make it much easier to pick up other ones. (My 'mastery' is in python, and I've picked up java, C#, SQL, javascript.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why don't more men go into teaching? Fear of "The Accusation" - <AUTHOR> http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/why-dont-more-men-go-into-teaching-fear-of-the-accusation/ <comment><USER2> That and less pay and less respect, and well after them.</comment>


How we got Fast Company to publish our launch story - <AUTHOR> http://attentiv.com/attentiv-launch-story/

<comment><USER2> I worked for a very early stage startup that ended up getting press from WSJ, TechCrunch, etc but I had no visibility into the process. Can someone who has received similar press comment on how they managed it? Is it similar to OP's article or did you have connections?

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone suggest the best place to find a comprehensive list of online publications with both traffic numbers, demographic info, and general subject matter covered?

<comment><USER4> Cision is the gold standard for this...it's the leading PR/communications media database that lets you search by contact name, location, beat, publication title, etc. Alternatives include Vocus and Meltwater

<comment><USER5> Vocus appears to be a subsidiary of Cision.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Christina Farr (KQED, former VentureBeat journalist) gave a talk on how to get good press coverage.

The main takeaway is to find someone at Venture Beat (or Fast Company, WSJ etc.) who is interested in the that industry. Her main focus is Health, and she would be significantly more likely to respond to a personally written email on a Health startup. Also, don't send out mass email blasts to journalists.

<comment><USER5> Do you have a link to said talk?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here are some of our coverage number (aggregate)

TechCrunch (Mentioned in title): 425 TechCrunch (Contributor Piece): 442 CNBC (Quoted/Interviewed): 65 Matter Mark: 35 Entrepreneur (Mentioned): 130 Forbes (Featured): 160

</comment><comment><USER8> I figured the company would get more traffic by someone as large as Fast Company. Looking at the metrics included from OP it looks like it was less than the front page of Hacker News.</comment>


Ask HN: What cheap and light laptop to buy for ssh? - <AUTHOR> I'm constantly travelling and there are some times when I need to ssh into a vps and make some modifications.
So I'm looking for a light and cheap notebook I can carry around like a textbook and use it with my mobile internet connection to access a vps. I'd like to have Ubuntu or some similar Linux distro and great battery capacity.
I'd like to keep my budget under u$s200.
It seems that this Samsung Chromebook 3, 11.6", 4GB RAM[0] laptop could work. What would you recommend?
[0]https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N5P6TJW/ref=psdc_13896615011_t2_B00N5593TG <comment><USER2> With the budget restrictions, you're not going to have much other choices aside from the Chromebook.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do think so, but which one of them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> thinkpad x200</comment>


IOS app store has created unrealistic pricing expectations - <AUTHOR> http://appcubby.com/blog/5-is-the-new-10/

<comment><USER2> I think I prefer an open market with prices that have naturally fallen to this point than something with artificially inflated prices. There are two things at play here.

One, the competition in the app store right now is so voluminous and so fierce that it's driving prices down. It's a natural phenomenon that will happen in nearly any "free" market. To complain about it is to complain about the essence of free market pricing.

Second, these lower prices allow for higher volume of sales. The prices have settled here because this is what users see as the value of these apps. No offense to these guys/gals, but I wouldn't pay $10 for something to track my gas mileage. I'd find a free web app (if they exist) or just keep it in a note. I get the value-add of IRS compliant reporting and such, but that's a niche problem to solve. Charging $10 for that is fine, but don't expect mass market appeal or uptake.

I think the biggest problem is that people who write niche apps like these apps expect to see numbers like "Fart-O-Matic 9000" or "Angry Birds." You won't. Accept that and then figure out what's going to make you the most money. The trick is figuring out if pricing at $10 and making (x) sales is more profitable than pricing at $1 and making (y) sales. For some developers, pricing higher with lower volume is much, much better, and these developers are typically niche applications (take a look at some of the "pro" audio apps on iPad especially) that can handle the price difference because the people seeking them REALLY need the value that they're offering.

An MPG tracking app that gives me nice Excel sheets might not be enough to warrant $10 in the eyes of users, and I don't think that's necessarily Apple's fault or the market's fault. Maybe it's just that the niche you're targeting won't sustain the price you want, and unfortunately, that's the way the cookie crumbles when selling software like this.

<comment><USER3> As an author of one semi-pro audio app, I can tell you that even the "pro" apps are selling for as little as 1/10th of the price of a similar app on a Mac. I really doubt the sales volumes compensate for that.

The big problem with the app store is that the people on the very high end of the power distribution dictate a pricing structure for everyone that only really works for those moving huge volumes. People now have a preconceived idea of what an app should cost that often has nothing to do with how much it must actually sell for in order to turn a profit.

<comment><USER4> I'm assuming that you mean prosumer apps. I haven't seen these on iOS. The only app that I've seen that is better on iOS is the official Twitter app.

Then again, I haven't seen traditionally big devs on the Mac release Acorn, Flare, and Pixelmator on iOS.

<comment><USER3> For example, an excellent synth app like this would probably sell for at _least_ $99 as a plugin for Mac/PC: <http://beepstreet.com/horizon>

I don't know for sure but I'd be very surprised if it's moving 20x the units it would as a plugin. But if you price something like this above $10 you'll get all kinds of user outrage because that's not what an "app" should cost.

<comment><USER4> I'm listening to the link of the app and it is good but people have to be aware of it. This is the third synth app I've seen. I've also seen Animoog that was posted on The Verge.

The fault is that these apps need more advertisements. I'm willing to bet that most don't know that they can create music with a low-priced app. Consumers need to be made aware of this. There are YouTube videos destined to be made with these kind of apps.

For example, I saw an Sprint iPhone ad yesterday (maybe you've seen it?) where a guy is talking to his girlfriend while watching a game. All I gathered from the commercial was that the iPhone was on Sprint. They didn't give me the app or whether the game was live. The commercial became immediately insignificant.

<comment><USER3> I don't think marketing is the answer here. Every musician I know with an iOS device knows about this app. The problem is that the potential audience for something like this is never going to be big enough to make the Angry Birds pricing model work.

<comment><USER4> I've seen some that hate movies or TV but I've never seen anyone who doesn't like music or wants ti create it, even on a superficial level.

Angry Birds is an outlier. Their success had as much to do with quiet advertising than any blog could do.

At the end of the day, everyone wants to create – even it is something different with an usual set of apps.

Some believe that iOS is only meant to consume. I don't believe that. Apple has essentially released iWork and GarageBand in subsequent iPad releases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The kick the tires problem is a big one for me. I've downloaded enough free apps that are junk. Downloading a paid app that has all sorts of problems is very annoying, so I usually wait quite a while before buying something for review to come in.

This makes me a little hesitant to try $ and $2 apps, even though realistically that's a trivial amount of money. But if an app is $5 or $10, then I really want a chance to try it first. Many apps don't have 'lite' versions (since, IIRC, demos are forbidden).

Just having some kind of 2 hour return/refund policy would really help.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think a lot of people may have a "mental budget" for apps -- e.g. spending $5/mo. on apps seems reasonable to me, while spending $50/mo. is not.

So if apps were $10, I would buy 1 every couple months, instead of 2-3/mo like I do now.

For example, I'll buy a $0.99 remote desktop connection app to connect to my server from anywhere, that I will use maybe 3 times ever. But I will not buy it for $10.

So I'm not convinced that higher app prices would necessarily translate into higher revenue.

Also, remember that we can't compare piracy-free iPhone app pricing (ignoring jailbreakers) with normal software pricing. Every purchased copy of Photoshop "subsidizes" n other people who use it for free. So on any piracy-free platform, you might expect prices to be lower.

</comment><comment><USER7> This will fix itself -- _if_ he is correct that people _want_ iOS apps (read: games) that reach parity with other handheld devices.

1\. Developers will start making simpler games to maintain profitability at the $5 price point.

2\. Once the vast majority of iOS games are $5 and relatively shallow in comparison with other devices, deeper more complex games will once again contrast in value to the $5 games, allowing them to charge more money.

3\. Because of the "monthly budget" effect, I'm guessing the way this will work is in-app purchases. X-Box has been very successful with this model. Sell a full (but somewhat short) game for $5. Then allow the users to buy more "content" for $2 per unit.

a $5 game That allows you to buy multiplayer content, additional story, or other mods for a dollar or 2 at at time could easily get their average lifetime sales per game up to 7 or 8 dollars. (and the big name games could start at $10 and total 12 to 15)

 __One more thing __

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>--

I think it's worth pointing out that price decreases in the longer term don't prove anything. This happens everywhere. Even on game consoles (Xbox, PS3, wii, etc) where the games start out costing upwards to $40.

You can always to to a game store and find older games on sale for $15.

</comment><comment><USER8> This article was written over 2 years ago, before Apple introduced in-app purchasing. Downward price pressure is a lot worse now than then. It's more accurate to say Freemium is the new $5. But bundling, and try and buy is now available.

</comment><comment><USER4> From the post:

>Because of this, most developers I spoke with at WWDC (even the VERY successful ones) were looking to spread risk among several small apps rather than creating one amazing app.

This is their loss. This garbage of having 15 different apps to accomplish a job that can be done with one will eventually be finished whether it is on the iPhone or iPad.

Much of the App Store is about word of mouth and less about price. If you give a comprehensive app that is worth the price and has proper dev support, the payers will be there.

Today, I need an incredible amount of apps just to do what would take 5 minutes on Photoshop. An opening is left on iOS by Adobe to fill the solution. Virtually no one is doing this.

Jobs' intention was not to hurt devs, but to kill piracy, reduce software pricing and make it safe for people to get apps without worrying about malware. Some devs may no longer exist because they can't adapt but that is not his fault.

The main mistake Apple has made so far is not allowing a trial period for apps or offering refunds within a certain window.

<comment><USER9> I thought those "lite" versions are essentially the "trial period" apps. Refund window is problematic as Google witnessed (and thus stopped it); but then again, if your app cannot provide me long term value then may be you deserve a refund.

<comment><USER7> What they really need is a way to link the demo and full version together in the app store.

Apps with a "demo" version should have a seamless upgrade-to-paid-version experience.

Some apps have done this with via in-app purchases (check out living language for example [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/living-language-spanish- for/i...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/living-language-spanish- for/id453341418?mt=8)) which does a great job of this and manages to get $15 out of you by demonstrating the value the app provides very effectively before asking for money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Firstly, as someone else pointed out, this was written over 2 years ago.

Pricing must also take into account the distribution power of the app store and the actual usage medium.

iPad app prices are higher is a good example but then again this was written pre-iPad.

</comment><comment><USER11> Bah. There are so many apps that I purchased that are complete junk, that, IMO, paying a $0.99 for an app that I do use seems to even itself out. And what about completely fraudulent apps (e.g. search for "blacklist" in the App Store). How are they even getting in?

Given the huge amount of crap in the App store, the only real way of finding things that are decent is to go to specialized aggregators. I go to BoardGameGeek in order to find reviews of games. The detailed reviews there mean more to me than the huge stinking pile of games in the App Store. There needs to be a better way of sifting through the stuff in the App Store than using the App Store Application itself.

<comment><USER12> Don't you see the problem there. The developers who build crap apps end up being rewarded the same as those who build great apps. Essentially, you're saying that you do pay $5 for a great app because you buy 5 and keep 1, but the developer who built the app you like gets just $1. That sucks.

<comment><USER13> That's the situation with "entertainment" content generally., e.g. all movies at the theater cost the same.

And just like with movies, review sites, massive advertising to move units and create awareness, and a general distrust of new things is where I'd expect the App Store model to continue to go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Also, I'd love to have a way to pay for apps _after_ I've been using them for a while. For example, I would never have bought Instapaper in the first place for $10, but now that I use it every day, I would be very happy to contribute even $20.

It would be fascinating from a psychology standpoint to see what kinds of results this might have.

<comment><USER14> At a large scale, it approaches $0/user.

<comment><USER6> Citation?

For example, the business model of Evernote would seem to suggest otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's one thing that everyone has missed so far, and I've said it to anyone who will listen: free apps are undermining both the app store(s) and the developer. Before you brush me off as crazy, please think it through...

<comment><USER12> I started to reply to your comment and ended up writing a whole blog post in agreement: <http://appcubby.com/blog/free-and-low-cost-apps/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> App programmers are turning into like recording artists, where tunes are at 99cents a pop. The only way to survive then is to have hit app, like in hit songs. Maybe there will be a billboard type of chart for apps soon.

<comment><USER9> If you wanna stick to that analogy, what would be the equivalent of a "live concert" in the app world?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It has nothing to do with pricing in itself and all with competition. Look at the gps navigation software. They cost more than the average app. Obviously because there is no real or very little competition in that area.

<comment><USER18> Map databases are very expensive. You can't just use Google Maps for navigation, because of the licensing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I just finished a followup post, since the one originally linked is over 2 years old.

<http://appcubby.com/blog/free-and-low-cost-apps/>

</comment><comment><USER19> Everyone realizes this article is from 2009, right?

</comment><comment><USER20> That's a very well designed blog if you don't mind me saying.

<comment><USER12> I don't mind. Thanks! Since the site is mostly an ad for my apps, I thought I'd have some fun with a graphics heavy approach.</comment></comment>


PHP REST SQL: A HTTP REST interface to MySQL - <AUTHOR> http://phprestsql.sourceforge.net/download.html <comment><USER2> It's also worth looking at the DBSlayer rest-ish interface to MySQL. It was written by and is being used by NYTimes engineers: <http://code.nytimes.com/projects/dbslayer>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> What are peoples thoughts over having a http restful interface to the database instead of a traditional ORM?

I'm considering this approach in a future project, returning data as json/serialized php

</comment><comment><USER3> This is pretty cool. It's actually a lot closer to being really RESTful than I thought.

This is definitely not just putting and getting serialized SQL.</comment>


Show HN: DOM99 Simple HTML manipulation for the modern web - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/GrosSacASac/DOM99 <comment><USER2> Some questions:

\- Why ES6/ES2015?

\- What are the advantages over Knockout?

\- Why does it weigh so much if its only ability is two-way data binding?

And probably the most interesting question:

\- Why the heck do I need to use Browserify for something that will NEVER EVER run on a server side?!

P.S. Nice monologue though. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> -Why ES6/ES2015? Because I got used to it before. You can use Babel to transpile to ES5.

\- What are the advantages over Knockout? I didn't use Knockout since a long time, it was a source of inspiration, so I can't fully answer this question. DOM99 doesn't tell you to use the Model-View-View Model pattern, but lets you organize your application as you want. This can also be a disadvantage if you are doing it wrong for example.

\- Why does it weigh so much if its only ability is two-way data binding? Because you looked at source files that are not minified.

\- Why the heck do I need to use Browserify for something that will NEVER EVER run on a server side?! You don't need browserify at all. I wrote the readme a bit too fast and forgot to mention other methods. You can also load it like any normal js file.

Hope I helped, I will update the readme in a few minutes to show how to use it without browserify. If you have other questions just ask.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's what is coming in the next few days:

\- More examples that you can look at

\- Templates with data population mechanism

\- Better Readme file (how to use babel etc.)

\- Other system improvements

<comment><USER2> Understood everything about it, except this:

Could you please calculate what does it weigh minified in ready-to use ES5 state? I'd like to compare it to some other ready libraries and my own solution.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will make some system improvement before I calculate those kind of things, but I guess it will be less than 2 KB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> new demo page for DOM99 [http://rawgit.com/GrosSacASac/DOM99/master/index.html](http://rawgit.com/GrosSacASac/DOM99/master/index.html) (Works with Firefox)

Proper template engine API and more system improvement coming next.

</comment><comment><USER3> Your example is not working (for me) on Chrome.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will update the readme to show how to transpile DOM99 to ES5

<comment><AUTHOR> Done</comment></comment></comment>


A novel brewing process via controlled hydrodynamic cavitation - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.06629 <comment><USER2> Some points that are interesting to me, and warrant further investigation:

1) Milling of malts is no longer required. As a microbrewery operator, now I don't need to come in the day before to run the mill for a planned brew. Massive win on scheduling and convenience.

2) "Concerning mashing and sparging, the new equipment allows to eliminate sparging altogether since the pulverization of cavitating malts ... prevents practically any starch to remain trapped into the grains". Again, from a microbrewery operator's perspective, another few hours of labour saved per brew, since I don't have to run a few sparges over my grain.

3) Since cavitation apparently sanitizes the wort, we don't need to do a boil. This saves another 1.5 hours on a brew, removes the need for a boil vessel, and some other equipment in my brewery (steam boiler to heat the boil vessel, a bunch of plumbing for said steam).

4) related to 3, the hops can be isomerized without boiling. I've had great success with low-boil techniques like the hop stand, so I'd assume that CHC beer would capture a lot more of the volatile aromatics from hops. This could lead to some great IPAs.

I'd love to figure out what the MVP is for this rig, and whether it could be replicated at homebrew scale, as it seems to simplify the process massively.

<comment><USER3> Plus just general water savings. Between sparging, boil off and cleanup I've felt pretty bad about brewing in drought-stricken California in the last few years. Also, I'm strictly an amateur brewer, but I thought that the boil had other useful features? (For example, eliminating chlorine.) Do you filter the water ahead of time?

<comment><USER2> Where I am the water is very soft, and only lightly chlorinated, so I do not filter. (I do add minerals to improve the mash efficiency and yeast health though). If your water has lots of Chlorine (not Chloramine) then the boil will drive this off, but you might be better off starting with Reverse Osmosis water to get a clean slate, and then adding all the minerals you need.

Another important reason for the boil is driving off DMS (which causes a cooked corn off-flavour).

The paper covers both of these, I think:

"Due to the strong liquid degassing properties as a result of hydrodynamic cavitation processes (Clark, Dewhurst, Payne, & Ellwood, 2001; Gogate & Pandit, 2011; Iben, Wolf, Freudigmann, Fröhlich, & Heller, 2015; Senthil Kumar, Siva Kumar, & Pandit, 2000), undesired volatile aromatic compounds are safely expelled after few minutes of cavitation"

Sounds like this would apply to the volatile chlorine as well, but I'm not certain about that.

Also sounds like this should be more rigorously tested, as I don't see anything by way of data to back up this claim; perhaps the cited papers explain more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ok, so there has to be a comedy plot in there where two guys trying to make beer with hydrodynamic cavitation end up discovering a viable cold fusion reaction but keep drinking the experiment results :-)

That said, I found their off hand mention of using it as an alternate to high temperature pasteurization as much more intriguing. Mostly because I detest the "cooked" taste of ultra-pasteurized cream but have been finding it harder and harder to find cream that hasn't been over pasteurized in this way. Find me some cream that is "cold pasteurized" and tastes like cream, I'll be really happy.

<comment><USER5> You have accidentally recreated the plot to Young Einstein.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm highly skeptical of the claim that such a system can plausibly "preserv[e] beer's organoleptic qualities". The claim is repeated in the conclusion in a Trumpian fashion: "We anticipate that the new CHC brewing process affords beer of taste, flavor, body and color comparable with state-of-the-art craft beers, while offering further advantages, beyond the discussed ones, that will be the subject of a forthcoming study."

Somehow, though, that's the only mention of the flavor profile of the beer produced. They do describe measuring some key properties with a BeerLab, but those numbers hardly tell a complete story.

Given the horrid state the mash ends up in, and the fact that it isn't removed until the water has reached 78C, I'd expect plenty of tannins to be swept along in the race to efficiency.

I'd also briefly like to complain about the sad charts in this paper. What order are those bars in? Where are they drawing the conclusions in the text from? Why are the data points collected so inconsistent?

<comment><USER7> Wait, are we now using Trump's name to make an adjective in the same way we've used Orwell's and Kafka's?

<comment><USER8> trump (2) verb

attempt to convince an audience by repeating an assertion many times

<comment><USER9> I'll add: "bombastic, unsupported claims"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> An MITech-review article:

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602464/this-technology- is...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602464/this-technology-is-about-to- revolutionize-beer- making/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post)

<comment><USER10> >amber nectar

Yeah, they don't know shit about beer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> My main concern is, like others below, the opaque beer. I've always known that to be the undesirable effect of "pulverizing" I think of it as maybe twice ground beef can be cooked more evenly than a steak, but the crust and raw elements are what make a steak better. That's an unscientific way to say it, but as a homebrewer I know that efficiency is NOT quality. "Cold brewing" or brewing with CHC may have advantages in releasing/ preserving flavor in hops, but the study doesn't support this claim. I don't care if I get 30% efficiency based on original alphas to extracted alphas if something else is lost. (Like taste, sensory effect or mouth feel) I'm thinking this may be more comparable to "dry hopping", which can be used to give hop forward bitterness instead of the dregs that hops boiled for an hour provide. (Like the difference between the aromatic taste of fresh salsa versus the nearly coppery taste of cooked all day tomato sauce. I love fresh salsa, but you can't replace that "dregs" almost umami flavor brought out in Marinara. Compare Bell's Two Hearted to 3F Zombie Dust. IBU's don't tell the whole story. I'm not discounting these methods, but I don't think that the research is comprehensive enough or takes into account taste enough to talk about completely converting a brewery to these methods.

</comment><comment><USER12> Reminds me of "Extracts from the club diary".[1]

[1] [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/fiction/coffee.html](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/fiction/coffee.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> They talk about the use of ultrasonic vibrations in the use of creating cavitation in fluid. Why would that not work in this case? Why did they opt for a centrifugal pump?

</comment><comment><USER14> Good to see this.. how much it cost to implement?

</comment><comment><USER15> I really only skimmed this very quickly, but it seems as though they are using a RIMS system for their cavitation based approach and an infusion mash (or maybe step controlled??? I'm not familiar with the Braumeister setup and their website is ridiculously slow) for their traditional approach. RIMS is already known by homebrewers to be dramatically more efficient than most other approaches. As interesting as it looks, I'm taking this with a huge grain of malt.

<comment><USER15> Sorry to reply to my own post, but since I finished reading the paper I can answer most of my implied questions :-)

The main difference between this setup and a RIMS is that they _don 't_ mill the malt when they allow the grain to be circulated. The cavitation pulverises the malt. This is actually a massive benefit because dry milling malt is a major cause of infection in a brewery.

The other benefit is that they are able to mash at a much lower temperature and still get decent extraction. Even down to 48C (118F) allows them to get 91% efficiency in one case. This is on par with RIMS (most reports I've heard is that people can manage mid 90s efficiency), but of course rims has to maintain a temperature of about 65C (150F).

Side note: Their reported temperatures for mashing without recirculating the grains is a bit crazy -- in the mid 70's C -- all much over 160F. They are going to be deactivating enzymes at those temps and that probably accounts for their decreased efficiency. I really can't understand what they were thinking.

There is _some_ mention of protein make up, but my main worry about mashing at such a low temperature is the break down of larger proteins. They have a picture of frothy beer with a caption about foam stability, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Also, that picture shows a _very_ hazy beer.

The other thing they talk about is isomerising the hops _without_ boiling. That's pretty cool and would definitely reduce power usage. But again... that picture of nearly opaque beer haunts me.

Finally they talk about cavitating the fermenting beer in order to remove CO2. That seems reasonable, but I would worry somewhat about how the yeast drops in that condition.

To be honest, I wish they had stuck to mashing in this paper. It's strange to see a paper cram as much as this one does in one place. Normally you want to stretch it out over as many publications as possible ;-)

The last thing I'm curious about is how they produce the cavitation. I really couldn't understand their description at all. Is it just a matter of the design of chamber in which they pump the wort? That would be extremely cool, but I'd like to see a better description. A mash system that depends only on pumps would be ridiculously nice to have.

<comment><USER16> Is this something a layman hobbyist can get into or try?

<comment><USER17> I'll just google the "Braumeister model 50 L brewer" mentioned in the paper and here you go [http://shop.speidels-braumeister.de/en](http://shop.speidels- braumeister.de/en)

<comment><USER18> They use it only for comparing their method to the traditional brewing process.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Commentary: Mideast Violence Tightly Linked to Demographics - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123171179743471961.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

<comment><AUTHOR> I re-titled the article for HN readers because "Ending the West's Proxy War Against Israel" did not seem descriptive enough to me of the interesting issue involved for HN readers (demographics as a reason for conflict as opposed to ideology)</comment>


Facebook's next billion users: convince them internet and Facebook are the same - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/

<comment><USER2> or what might keep that from happening...

[http://blog.chaoscollective.org/post/32205575097/where- the-i...](http://blog.chaoscollective.org/post/32205575097/where-the-internet- went-wrong-and-how-we-can-fix-it)

fingers-crossed :)

</comment><comment><USER3> worked for AOL (for a time, anyway)</comment>


Prime Numbers for the Win (2009) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2009/06/prime-numbers-for-win.html <comment><USER2> Solving a bug using a cicada heuristic. Clever!

For anyone unfamiliar, cicadas spawn in years of 17 or 19 to avoid overlap with predator cycles which tend to occur in years of 2 or 3.

</comment><comment><USER3> Another way of spreading the load is to sleep(random(sensible_delay)) before executing a scheduled task.

<comment> mark-r With random numbers there's still a non-zero chance of everything happening at the same time. Prime numbers make things more predictable and consistent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This problem would be better and more consistently solved by just offsetting some of the scripts in time. Who says the 10 second script needs to run on even seconds or even multiples of 5?</comment>


The illiquidity premium? - <AUTHOR> http://www.aaronkharris.com/post/1126412662/the-illiquidity-premium

<comment><USER2> Interesting article. The title is misleading, though. The author talks about why the liquidity premium may go down, but it won't become negative.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for pointing that out. My point is not that the liquidity premium will go negative, but that there could be just as much (or as little) premium for illiquid assets as for liquid assets when SWFs are driving force in the market.

<comment><USER2> Are we using the same definitions? I thought the liquidity premium is the differential in return people are willing to incur for the convenience of liquid over illiquid assets?

What meaning of premium are you using? I want to make sense of "[...] just as much (or as little) premium for illiquid assets as for liquid assets [...]". Thanks.

<comment><USER3> Same definition. Right now markets pay a premium for the convenience of liquid assets as you say. What I'm saying is that the investment profiles of the SWFs may lower that premium/raise the price of illiquid assets such that the two are effectively the same price. Feels like two sides of the same coin.

I could probably have been clearer, but I kindof liked the way the title sounded. Appreciate the feedback.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps a better way of stating it would be:

Illiquid investments currently need to pay a premium over their more liquid counterparts. However, an increase in long term investors may reduce this requirement over time.

<comment><USER2> Yes, that's clear. The clever title "Illiquidity premium" is OK.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If I understand this blog post correctly, it seems to be suggesting that sovereign wealth funds would be potential investors for startups and that they would be ideal investors because they would not be seeking a short-term exit/liquidity event.

That seems unlikely to me, given the risks inherent in startups, and the fact that the VCs drive for rapid ROI is arguably an important source of focus for proving/disproving a business model before you burn through too much capital.

<comment><USER6> I think that the characteristics described in the article would make this funds very good VC. They could divert some money to invest in specific domains funds.

They would probably get some good return in money but also achieve some strategic goals and some middle-term economic growth.

<comment><USER7> Too much cash infused into a new or developing start-up can actually destroy the incentives needed for the start-up to be successful. Not needing to budget well and prioritize features (because we have cash to do them all) fights against the do the first things first, and do them well mentality needed to move a budding idea into an actual revenue stream.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> SWF seeking long term relationship.</comment>


German chemicals giant Bayer victim of year long cyber attack - <AUTHOR> https://techerati.com/news-hub/bayer-cyber-attack-malware-china/ <comment><USER2> I don't think many would consider Bayer to ever be a "victim".

Interesting that on Bayer's wikipedia page [2] there is no link to the Contaminated haemophilia scandal [1]. In fact Bayer's wikipedia page seems to have been "cleaned". The "Controversies" section is gone.

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

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

<comment><USER3> Wikipedia page cleaning seems to be the norm these days. There are some very peculiar Wikipedia editors who engage in a mix of seemingly-pertinent, well- sourced information removal and spurious mud-slinging.

There was the whole "Philip Cross" affair which seemed to be backed up by prominent figures in the Wikipedia community.[0]

Unfortunately, even the talk pages seem to be being sanitized now.

[0] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs- trending-44495696](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-44495696)

<comment><USER4> It's naive to pretend it's not a battlefield.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Geeh, I wonder why the Chinese hacked one of the biggest companies in the world.

Maybe for ... let's take a guess... trade secrets and IP?

<comment><USER6> At this point, considering China's all but official policy of stealing IP by any means possible, any large company _not_ being hacked by the Chinese should be asking: 'what are we doing wrong that the Chinese hackers are ignoring us?'.

<comment><USER7> Or "Why hasn't our IT/infosec department detecting the hacking that has presumably already happened?"

<comment><USER6> Yes, there is that too...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm sure we can expect this as a darknet diaries episode soon

</comment><comment><USER9> wow this blog just got everything from the reuters article [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-cyber/bayer-says- ha...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-cyber/bayer-says-has-detected- contained-cyber-attack-idUSKCN1RG0NN)

</comment><comment><USER10> Fun fact, Bayer bought Monsanto last year.

<comment><USER11> Next fun fact: Bayer and Monsanto together are now worth less than Monsanto alone at the time of the acquisition.

<comment><USER12> What happened?

<comment><USER13> US juries, after years of reluctance, spontaneously decide that Glyphosat is a killer and worth heavy punitive damages.

As soon as a foreign company bought Monsanto, that is.

I don't really mind the verdict itself, but the timing is more than a bit suspicious.

<comment><USER14> > I don't really mind the verdict itself, but the timing is more than a bit > suspicious.

Yeah, that's definitely a bit weird. It's similar to when a government entity in the USA suddenly discovered the Diesel cheating just when big foreign car manufacturers had large successes in the US market. Even though it was made to look like it in the news, Volkswagen wasn't the biggest perpetrator [0]. And currently the US government puts major pressure onto the DTAG-Sprint merger and constantly comes up with new requirements, e.g. now they want DTAG to stop buying Huawei products world wide [1].

[0]: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Nitrogen...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Nitrogen_oxide_on- road_emissions_by_manufacturer_and_capacity.svg)

[1]: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sprint-corp-m-a-t- mobile-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sprint-corp-m-a-t-mobile- huawei-exclu/exclusive-t-mobile-sprint-consider-dropping-huawei-see-u-s- security-clearance-for-deal-sources-idUSKBN1OD2HO)

<comment><USER15> It wasn't like foreign autos weren't successful in the us until 5-10 years ago. BMW, Audi, VAG were not just suddenly crushing us companies.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>