Apple's Answer on Upgrade Pricing - <AUTHOR> http://david-smith.org/blog/2013/07/16/apples-answer-on-upgrade-pricing/

<comment><USER2> As annoying as this is - and I agree that they should provide an option to charge for upgrades - the problem can be alleviated to a large extent by in- app purchases.

Suppose for example you have FooApp 1.x, and you later want to release a major update, FooApp 2. You release FooApp 2 as a separate app for new customers, and provide an update to FooApp 1.x which lets existing customers update.

This is admittedly awkward, and can only really work for upgrades where the main new things in the new version are additional features. For apps which have major architectural changes it would be problematic. To the best of my knowledge though this is the best we can do in the context of the current policies.

<comment><USER3> I have not personally tried this out, so I can't verify if the necessary info is accessible or not.

Could you extract the purchase date from the receipt and use that as a basis to determine which features to enable, providing IAPs to unlock the rest? At a certain level it may be too cumbersome under the hood, especially when compared to the traditional update method of providing an entirely separate binary, but it could work by also providing a means for bug fixes on "older" versions without additional labor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One issue: how to move data from old app to new - and separate - app? On a Mac it's easy, because everything has access to the full file system. On iOS, apps are blocked from anything outside their "sandbox". I gave up on one desirable iOS app because I'd entered a pile of data in the free version, and couldn't move any of it to the new/paid version.

<comment><USER5> I presume Apple would say "Your app should already be storing all it's data in iCloud"

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Btw, I've now dropped over $1,700+tax on Logic. From my original purchase of 4.0 from EMagic that I ran on Windows, Logic 6 post Apple acquisition, Logic Studio 9, and now Logic Pro X.

I am totally fine with the $200 pricing which is less than the cost of the previous upgrades. Everyone seems to be forgetting that there was a point when Logic cost $999.

<comment><USER7> Yes, this is a head-scratcher for those that complain there is no 'upgrade' pricing when the cost of the full app is what the upgrade price /used/ to be.

Same could be said for FCP X _: Used to sell for $1600 and new price is $300, and then complaining that there 's no upgrade price.

_ Used for example only, I realize that it wasn't so much an upgrade as a step backwards for functionality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _I'd say that this is the best indication of Apple's intentions and expectations for the App Stores going forward._

a lot of assumptions made for this one niche product, only on the mac app store, for a product that is receiving an update 4 years after the last version was released.

maybe, it's just the fair market value price for a new version of an application?

<comment><USER2> Another possible factor is that Apple is made up of lots of different teams. It's possible that the Logic Pro X team wanted to provide upgrade pricing, but the app store team (or higher-ups) did not want to permit this.

Without any further information (which we're almost certainly not going to get) it's difficult to tell if this is the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> We did the same a few months ago with one of our products. No one complained yet so I guess people seem to accept it.

Though we left the old version in the app store (with a warning in the description for new would-be customers) so people can re-download their old version.

<comment><USER10> I think you can just delete the old version from App Store. People who brought your App could still find the old App in their Purchased List.

<comment><USER11> I think it would be better to move your older version to free or very discounted, and put up some alerts when they start the app (and before they purchase) telling them about the new version. Tell them how to migrate their data, if they have any. And be on your way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Upgrades are confusing for novice users. Version numbers aren't. While upgrade pricing has been nice in the past, I fully understand wanting to get more revenue from existing users, it just means that the price per version should drop. If customers are truly "loyal" they should have no problems paying full price for an app.

<comment><USER13> Being loyal is a two way street to me. If you are going to support a product over an extended period of time then I believe there should be some sort of incentive to continue buying the new version - especially when the new version only has X new features added to it. Those new features are really the only thing existing users are paying for, while new users are paying for every feature.

It doesn't have to be approached in the typical upgrade fashion either, the companies can treat the program as a completely new one but I would like to see some form of promo codes that only existing users can take advantage of in order to show appreciation for their support of your product.

<comment><USER14> In this new model of app upgrades, where they offer new versions of the app as a separate download, you pretty much have to buy all of the features again. This is not unlike buying hardware -- and I think this new model is bringing software more in line with hardware.

Suppose I bought a lawnmower from Honda in 2000. After 13 years, I move to a home with a bigger yard, and I decide that I'd like a bigger mower. Should I reasonably expect to get a discount from Honda on my next mower just because I bought one of their products before?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wait. So if I'm reading this correctly, Apple's answer is being silent? There are much better alternatives here

1\. Point the old app to the new app, so people know there is an upgrade. Also address the concern of moving data to the newer upgraded app. 2\. Provide an subscription model

<comment><USER16> No, Apple's answer is no upgrade pricing, just releasing it as a new app is good enough.</comment></comment>


When Citi Bikes Are Faster Than Taxis in New York City - <AUTHOR> http://toddwschneider.com/posts/taxi-vs-citi-bike-nyc/ <comment><USER2> Not much love for biking here; You'd almost think that most of the people on Hacker News are from Californian suburbs...

Seriously though, biking in cities is great. It's one of those critical mass problems where the more people that do it the better the infrastructure gets, the more aware drivers become and there is a herd mentality where bikers tend to flow together making them more predictable and therefore safer to be around.

I bike and drive in Toronto [i probably drive more than bike, depends on the weather and somewhat the mood i'm in], both have big up and downsides, just be considerate to everyone which ever you're taking part in!

Edit: I forgot to say, those Citi bikes in NYC [Bikeshare in Toronto, Santander in London] have a special cohort of people riding them. The bikes are so slow [heavy!!!], and the riders are casual riders. I love that it gets people moving, and I use them from time to time, but damn the whole experience of riding next to one is scary even as another biker.

<comment><USER3> What I have found is there is a tiny minority of people who _hate_ bikers. They tend to pop up and make wild claims about how dangerous bikers are, or how much they dislike how bikers use the streets since streets are for cars, and bikes are for children. What I have found in actually talking to people is most people support and encourage bikes, and would love to bike, but don't feel safe. Bikes make everything about traffic better, and most bikers observe the traffic laws. The best response to people who protest is to continue biking just like you would normally. As bike use grows everyone is safer, and more people feel safe biking. That grows the bike community and helps make a safer place for biking for everyone

<comment><USER4> _What I have found is there is a tiny minority of people who _hate_ bikers._

I walk 4 miles a day on city sidewalks. The number of times I have to yield to bikers on the sidewalk is disgusting[0]. And some of these bikers are going _fast_. I once saved a child that was about to run out of a store. I could see, from my vantage point, the biker and the child set for a collision course. I stepped in front of the biker, doing about 20 mph on the sidewalk, to stop them. I got an earful of 4-letter words not a thank you.

Of course, there was the 20-something woman killed in a crosswalk by a biker running a light in SF a few years ago.

As a pedestrian, I have no love for many drivers or bikers, since they are a constant source of danger.

EDIT:

[0] I had an argument with a young woman at a light once, where I told her politely that she wasn't supposed to be on the sidewalk. He response? To tell me I was a selfish person not wanting to share the sidewalk.

<comment><USER5> Better bike infrastructure keeps bikes off the sidewalk.

As a biker you can't win. Drivers try to run you off the road, pedestrians don't want you on the sidewalk. Bike lanes are a solution, but the political will needs to be there.

That being said, in places where bikers feel they have to use the sidewalk, they should absolutely yield to pedestrians.

<comment><USER6> In places where bikers feel they have to use the sidewalk, they should absolutely walk their bikes. It's what the law says and its very sensible all around. If you have to go the wrong way up a one-way street or if the road is blocked, you can just get off your bike and walk it for a block. It's not the end of the world to have to walk for a minute.

As both a biker and a pedestrian in NYC, this seems so glaringly obvious that it never fails to make me angry when I see a biker blithely biking down the sidewalk. In a city of impatient people riding your bike on the sidewalk is taking things to an anti-social extreme.

That said, I do find it frustrating (as both a biker and a pedestrian) when pedestrians fail to yield to bikers when the biker has the light -- New York pedestrians are opportunistic jaywalkers by nature, but so many people fail to look for bikes or yield to them, even when they have the light, if the street is clear of car traffic.

<comment><USER7> > they should absolutely walk their bikes.

In many places of the US you have sidewalks built because they were mandated by law but are rarely used.

A typical example will have a 4-lane 45+mph road next to big box retail stores. This type of road is unpleasant to bike on but the adjoining sidewalk is empty and, assuming it has sufficient visibility to allow the cyclist to avoid left and right hooks, is much safer than the road.

NYC is a fascinating and important place but for better or worse is very different from the typical US city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a pedestrian crossing the straw in NYC, you will typically wait for cars to stop, then walk about 2/3 of the way into the street, then peer into the bike lane to make sure no bikes are coming, then complete your crossing. Most of the bikers, from my experience, do not follow rules such as stopping at a Stop sign or for pedestrians or at their own bike designated stop lights.

It may be nice to bike in the cities parks or on its outskirts, but it's a dangerous proposition in the city itself. NYC is an urban jungle with a web of cars pedestrians, delivery trucks, garbage trucks and construction zones all over. As a biker, if you are not going to follow the rules, you are going to find yourself in trouble at some point.

<comment><USER9> A million times this! I live in Chicago and am an avid biker (been doored by a cab, right of passage i guess?) I am one of the few who stops at stop signs and slows down or stops at cross walks to watch for pedestrians. I attend my local alderman's meetings to push for more protected bike lanes which we are now getting, but my fellow bikers are making us all look bad wrt following the rules of the road. I can't tell you how many times I've almost gotten hit crossing a cross walk by a biker flying down the street without looking or stopping for pedestrians. We are now at the point where bikes are truly getting to share the road, but we are forgetting that we don't just share with cars, but with pedestrians as well. That fact seems to elude most bikers and they are operating like they have total impunity when riding. I'd love to see cops out ticketing bikers for blowing through cross walks with pedestrians present, I'd love to see big fines for running red lights; lord knows our city needs the revenue.

<comment><USER10> As a cyclist yourself, I'm sure you're familiar with intersections where the sensors controlling the lights do not sense bikes. I think the best way forward is for more states to adopt Idaho's policy: cyclists can treat stop signs like yield signs, and treat red lights like stop signs. [1]

If I'm riding toward a stop sign at a clearly deserted intersection, I would very much like to roll through at 10~15 MPH without risking a ticket. If I'm stopped at a red light and there are no cars making use of the green, I'd rather not dismount, walk over to press a pedestrian crossing button, walk back into the road, and wait. Or stay in the road, wait, and hope that I'll get a green light from a timer instead of a sensor.

It's possible to implement these changes and still be safe on a bike (it has worked for nearly 30 years in Idaho). I think we agree that flagrant violations, especially those that put pedestrians at risk, deserve fines.

[1] [https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title49/T...](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title49/T49CH7/SECT49-720/)

<comment><USER11> > If I'm riding toward a stop sign at a clearly deserted intersection, I would > very much like to roll through at 10~15 MPH without risking a ticket

Surely that should apply for cars then int his case. If the intersection is clearly deserted, cars should be able to clear the junction too.

<comment><USER10> I agree, and judging from the many rolling stops they undertake, so do drivers. When any vehicle has to come to a complete stop for absolutely nothing, they're just putting wear on their brakes and wasting energy. I'm happy to see 4-way stops (which people are terrible at) being replaced by more roundabouts. A roundabout features the desired intersection rules without having to wait for the state to enact Idaho-style bike laws.

As a cyclist, I'm in a very good position to assess how empty an intersection is: no windows isolating me in a sound bubble; low speed, so not much wind noise in my ears or tire noise on the ground; no A pillars obscuring my vision ahead; and my eyes are usually about as high off the ground as those of an SUV driver.

Motorists will tend to be in a worse position for assessing the emptiness of an intersection, and their vehicle is much more dangerous, so the onus to slow down is greater, but coming to a complete stop is often unnecessary. Slowing down to make sure there really is nothing there is sensible.

If I were on a recumbent bicycle, or in a little sports car, I'd have to be more cautious when approaching an intersection because my eyes are lower, and farther back from the front of the vehicle. (I hate riding recumbents in the city, but they're pretty awesome on long distance rides).

<comment><USER12> > _As a cyclist, I 'm in a very good position to assess how empty an > intersection is: no windows isolating me in a sound bubble; low speed_

Also: your head is closer to the front of your vehicle and thus to the intersection.

You can assess the situation long before any part of you or your bicycle enters the intersection.

<comment><USER13> You can also hear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Being from the Netherlands I am not at all surprised by this. It is very well known here that bikes get you places quicker than cars do. Especially within cities you can go to the city center without having to worry about finding a parking spot and paying a huge amount of money when you do.

I have lived in New York and have driven a car there and based on that experience I wouldn't really find driving a bike there problematic. I have also lived in Brussels (Belgium) and used citi bikes there and was generally happy about the experience, even though the Belgian roads are a lot more dangerous due to the fact that Belgians don't have the slightest clue about anything that has to do with driving or traffic: they can't drive cars, they can't plan roads properly, they can't maintain them, etc. New York is grid based so traffic situations are easier to oversee.

</comment><comment><USER15> I am a zealous citibike convert here in NYC and I'll take one over a taxi any day but I think there's a systematic error in these numbers.

I assume the taxi times are pickup to drop-off (ie encompasses the entire trip) while bike are station to station so there is walking time that's not accounted for on either end of the bike trip. There are times where the nearest station doesn't have bikes or free docks so the walk may be non trivia and add up to more than the 5 minutes median difference for cross town.

On the other hand sometimes it takes a while to catch a cab and that's not included in the data either so perhaps it averages out.

The author is right, bikes are great for reducing variability (on the bike you can get around most obstruction, even if it means walking the bike on a sidewalk for a quarter of a block while the taxi gets stuck)

The one advice I disagree with is taking the bike when the President is in town. Trump was here last week for the UN and with all the street closures, detours and crazed drivers, biking was much more dangerous than usual.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm from Sweden and have been biking in NYC as a tourist. I must say, it is one of the most scariest places I have biked in my life.

Huge cars, almost no biking lanes, a lot of people and other traffic. I admit I was also a bit drunk but still, in Stockholm we have biking lanes almost everywhere and you feel a lot safer. Also there is a lot more people that use the bike when you give them a lane to bike on.

Please, create more biking lanes. It's better for the cars, it is better for pedestrians, it's better for the environment and public health.

<comment><USER17> > Huge cars, almost no biking lanes, a lot of people and other traffic.

When were you in NYC? We have more bike lanes than Stockholm these days. :)

Proof:

[http://www.amny.com/transit/new-york-city-to- reach-1-000-mil...](http://www.amny.com/transit/new-york-city-to- reach-1-000-miles-of-bike-lanes-on-tuesday-1.10873995) vs [http://www.fourteenislands.com/bicycle- paths/](http://www.fourteenislands.com/bicycle-paths/)

<comment><USER18> Looking just at the installed capacity isn't a great way, if you do not control for overall area. Better to compare the relative space dedicated to cars, trains and bikes.

Couldn't find data for Stockholm, but here is a NY-Copenhagen comparison: black lines are the relative NYC allocation spaces, orange bars is Copenhagen. Relatively speaking, Copenhagen has much more biking space: [https://whatthestreet.moovellab.com/newyork/results?bike=0.1...](https://whatthestreet.moovellab.com/newyork/results?bike=0.16&rail=0.12&car=0.72)

<comment><USER17> Copenhagen is #1 on the list of bike-friendly cities. Of course it's going to outpace NYC.

<comment><USER18> Sure, but you're making my point against your original one. Copenhagen has a bit more than 400km of bike lanes [0], which is less than a fourth of what you reported NYC has. Which was my point: NYC should have much much more than 1,000 miles of bike lanes to be even comparable to Stockholm or Copenhagen.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen#Infrastr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen#Infrastructure)

<comment><USER17> I don't know about that. NYC has Staten Island and huge parts of Queens which are effectively a rural village, whereas Copenhagen as well as most of Europe is highly urban. If you mapped population density to bike lane coverage, NYC would come out pretty favorably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I would love to bike, but the major issue is that every single person I know who's biked for more than 1 year has gotten into some type of accident (around 10 people), whether car, car door, or poorly maintained road. These are all 30s and work-at-the-office types so maybe they're not the most coordinated, but they are also not doing stupid shit.

<comment> T-hawk Counter-anecdote here. I've biked to work on and off for a total of about 5 years worth over my career, at distances of about two miles each way, in a dense city. I've never had any accident with a car. My one collision ever was with a pedestrian who started into his crosswalk against his light (I had green), thinking he could cross ahead of me but I was already leaning to go ahead of him; we both fell over but no injuries or damage.

It's really not that hard to bike safely. Most accidents involve the cyclist putting themselves in a vulnerable position somehow. You can't get right- hooked by a car if you don't put yourself on its right side. Keep alert with your head up, not looking down at your phone or cycling computer or pedaling cadence. Watch all the traffic around you. You read drivers' minds when they're going to turn without signaling. Look an entire block ahead of you for any parked car showing signs of activity and potential dooring. Forget about trying to assert your right-of-way and ignore trying to make speed and time records; those don't matter; slow down and look everywhere at every questionable intersection or turn or when in a dooring zone. Keep alert and read your entire environment, and you can go years without any cycling accident. I've done it.

<comment><USER20> > It's really not that hard to bike safely.

I have to disagree. Depending on the infrastructure and drivers you face, staying uninjured as a city cyclist is as much luck as skill.

In many places, you can do everything mentioned and still get in accidents, or the things you mention are impossible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I cannot help but witness the effects of traffic calming:

> a taxi trip in 2017 took 17% longer than the same trip in 2009.

> The same regression applied to Citi Bikes shows no such slowdown over time, > in fact Citi Bikes got slightly faster.

Obviously when you dedicate more street space from cars towards bikes, bikes get faster and cars get slower. The article goes to mention this, but also downplays it.

What the article seems to ignore on a major scale is the effect of traffic calming, or traffic impeding. By civilizing traffic to the appropriate rules and procedures via hardscapes, you make vehicle travel more unbearable and a test of patience. If the intentions behind doing this weren't derived from anti-car sentiments, I could respect this move. But Janet Sadik-Khan is a bicycling enthusiast and after her appointment, car travel became really bad.

<comment><USER22> _If the intentions behind doing this weren 't derived from anti-car sentiments_

New York City isn't nearly anti-car enough! It's the only place in the U.S. that has any chance of reclaiming its streets for pedestrians and it should absolutely do so. Those who like to drive can choose _literally any other U.S. city_ and, without exception, it'll cater to that preference.

But New York City should be implementing all kinds of car-hostile policies, including an all-out ban on private vehicles in some parts of Manhattan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I have been comparing biking and driving to work in Derby (UK) for my 7 mile commute. Biking can be quicker for me depending on traffic. I have just ordered an ebike that should shift the odds more in favour of this bike.

I always feel better having commuted on bike though

<comment><USER2> I wish you luck with the ebike, but personally i feel like they're problematic.

It could just be our roads here though; the issue I find is that they're too fast for bike lanes [risk to cyclists], but too slow for the road [cars frequently pass them at higher speeds and very close-by]. It seems like everyone is frustrated and the ebikers are just being pushed around by everyone.

<comment><USER24> What kind of e-bikes do people have in Canada? Electric-assist types, or ones with a throttle?

In Europe the assist-type is way more common, limited to 25 km/h and at least in Germany the stereotypical user is an elder person that now suddenly can go a bit faster and go comfortably up hills.

<comment><USER2> I've seen both, the Electric-assist seem less common [or maybe just harder to identify?]. The ones that I see as not really fitting in are the larger ones that look kind of like an electric Vespa.

<comment><USER25> That's not a bike but an electric scooter. They shouldn't be on bike paths nor pedestrian sidewalks. They have more in common with a motor bike or dirt bike than they do with a bicycle.

EA bikes just can really only be identified by their battery packs. The motor can be embedded in the wheel hub or in the pedal crank.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Or... walk? For a lot of trips in central Manhattan, walking ten or twenty uptown blocks or cross-town for a few blocks is often the easiest way to get from point A to B. Personally, I don't really bike but I'm not sure the last time I felt I needed to take a cab in NYC.

</comment><comment><USER27> As a daily commuter in NYC, often on Citibike, one of the most concerning discoveries has been the ability (if you are willing to pedal hard) to consistently beat out ambulances over stretches of 15 blocks -- specifically without running red lights on the bike whereas the ambulance is going through them -- due to the slow speed in which traffic clears a path for them. I really wish the streets were not so congested with vehicular traffic to prevent emergency vehicles from getting to their destinations.

</comment><comment><USER28> Do people use bikes to get anywhere faster? I would use one to save on emissions and/or get some much needed exercis

edit: so many replies!

I guess I stand corrected, although the more I think about it, the less I'm surprised. I live in Japan, obviously known for its public transport. Interesting to note though once I travel abroad, thanks for the replies everyone :-)

<comment><USER29> In Seattle, many trips of 3-6 miles are fastest by bike. Faster than transit or car even without including parking time. There are quite a few dedicated bike paths that make it smooth sailing for most of the trip.

<comment><USER30> Unfortunately Seattle is also not an especially flat city. It makes it hard to get started.

<comment><USER31> If it helps as motivation, it is quite common to cycle on Swiss cities, and the Alps aren't properly flat.

A light bike with a good set of gears helps a lot.

<comment><USER32> Novice American cyclist here: what makes a set of gears "good" for usage in Swiss cities?

<comment><USER31> For example 3 gears on front and 6 behind, allowing for a relatively good combination of cycling effort (18 levels), which permits not being wasting too much energy when going upwards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> IMHO, for the most ideal city experience, transit options should be prioritized in this order: 1) pedestrians, 2) buses, 3) bikes, 4) cars. Biking being faster than motoring is excellent news towards this ideal.

<comment><USER34> You got 2 and 3 switched up. It's very simple:

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5j6rPlU4AEizP6.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5j6rPlU4AEizP6.jpg:large)

<comment><USER33> My reasoning was a bus can transport many more people than one bike, but sure, I am agreeable to switching 2 and 3.

<comment> T-hawk It's not just the quantity; it's the overall efficiency, of quantity compared to the cost of infrastructure and operations. Buses hold more but cost a lot more to build and drive, including stations and maintenance facilities, and externalities like emissions and gridlock. Bike infrastructure is cheap and operations are free to a city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Are electric scooters and other small electric vehicles such as balancing boards or the Qingbu pocket scooter (a ripoff of the Walkcar?) legal in the US? They seem to be getting cheap now (saw the Xiaomi M365 for less than $330). Unfortunately in Germany you may not yet use them on public roads and sidewalks.

I can see them having an advantage over bikes (and cars) because you can just fold them up and carry them with you into a cab, the subway, your office or your home.

</comment><comment><USER36> Rally nice analysis. It is a pity that open access to data like this is still exception, not a rule. I wish to have such data for my city.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm in Shanghai at the moment and it's definitely the same here, especially during peak hours. Lots of bikes for rent here too, you can see them on many sidewalks, not unusual to see a few hundred in a row. Students and office workers alike are using them. Ofo and Mobike are the big players here, they are also expanding to other continents now :)

</comment><comment><USER38> NYC is not a bike friendly city at all (some parts of certain boroughs might be). Biking in NYC is also a quick ticket to ER room. I have already eye witnessed multiple altercations and accidents of bicyclists in this city. Scary.

</comment><comment><USER39> From the article:

> The same regression applied to Citi Bikes shows no such slowdown over time, > in fact Citi Bikes got slightly faster.

I suspect this is mainly due to better bikes. I've been a yearly subscriber to Citibike since the very beginning - and I can attest that the quality of the system and the bikes has improved tremendously since inception. Quality of the bikes is judged in part by their durability and sturdiness of individual items - but also the gearing. The newest bikes have the NuVinci continuous variable gear system - which is amazing to use but also allows you to get into a lot higher gear than the original bikes.

</comment><comment><USER40> What is the life expectancy of getting in a taxi and getting to your destination vs getting on a bike? Probability of surviving if you get hit by a car: being in both? The other thing this article failed to mention is that NYC implemented slower speeds for cars. Overall this is true, but safety should be a factor and bikers nor drivers obey laws. Make the fines super expensive and use that money to educate people about the rules of the road. Drives me bonkers that they collect so much money in tickets from drivers but do not educate the people about it because they want the revenue haha. So stupid.

</comment><comment><USER41> When you're trying to get to the morgue? I'm sympathetic to cyclists - I am one myself - but the average CitiBike rider rides like an 8 year old who just got their first bike.

<comment><USER42> Many people predicted citibikes would be dangerous, but they were surprisingly accident-free for quite some time. You might have the impression that they're badly ridden, but the data suggests they're actually safe.

There might be a bit of memory tricks going on -- you remember the things that stand out, but not the boring riders stopping at the light.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> In virtually every crosstown route during working hours in lower Manhattan. It's not even close, Citi Bikes are 1.5x - 2.5x faster than a cab.

</comment><comment><USER44> If you are commuting on Caltrain in SF, it is way easier to take the citibikes. Only a relatively short distance in SOMA and way faster. When I went south to the tech campuses, I brought my own bike on the train.

There are a few bikers that cause problems. I was driving in Palo Alto yesterday and a cyclist insisted on using the car lane instead of a perfectly good bike lane.

</comment><comment><USER45> Been biking in both Los Angeles & New York as my commute. In LA driving took 1-2h while biking took 1h. In my experience it's been faster for my commute, however there's still many days where there are no bikes where I live (UWS).

I can highly recommend trying out the Citi bike if you live in New York, it's so cheap and many of the companies pays for it.

</comment><comment><USER46> As a NYer it's pretty clear that going cross town on a bike or skate board will be faster than a car, especially during rush hour. Moving through tight areas like Soho and Greenwich village, I would say that a skateboard is probably the fastest. I still can't tell if a skate board is safer than a bike. Absolutely more fun though

</comment><comment><USER47> It might work in NY, worked well for me in central London, but I'd like to see how the people will prefer that in cities that are built on the hills, like San Francisco or Seattle.

</comment><comment><USER48> what citi bikes need is a reward system to get riders to transfer bikes from plenty to empty areas.

[edit] i meant to use Citi bike as a generic term.

<comment><USER49> They do have this. It's called "bike angels", and it lets you earn points based on how empty or full a station is. They also have bonuses on special holidays or rainy days.

<comment><USER50> Sounded interesting, so I looked it up - [https://bikeangels.citibikenyc.com/](https://bikeangels.citibikenyc.com/) \- seems like a well designed incentive system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> What they didn't take into account is that riding a bike in a crowded city is a task for suicidal people only!

</comment><comment><USER52> I live in the East Village and am convinced that cyclists in New York City have no regard for human life. The NYPD seems to be cracking down on their lawless behavior, but I think a push away from cycling and towards ride- sharing (a la Via) is the solution for our transit issue.

With our broken subway system and high volume of cabs, ubers, etc; it is clear that New York is a driving city - but not a parking city.

<comment><USER53> Most NYC residents don't own cars. I'm not sure I'm buying your "New York is a driving city" assessment.

New York is a dense city. Bicycles: 1\. Don't pollute the air the that 8 million people breathe. 2\. Take up a fraction of the space of a car. 3\. Are faster than cars for most trips people make.

Don't toss out the entire idea of a bicycle because a few cyclist ride like idiots. Drivers sometimes behave this way, too. And when they do, lives often end.

<comment><USER16> NYC don't even have a train from the airport to the city. Of course it is a driving city.

<comment><USER53> Two of the three major airports in the metropolitan area (EWR and JFK) have trains to the city. And LGA has buses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I ride a bike in NYC. If you accept being sweaty in the summer and risk getting hit in certain areas, then you'll have a blast riding. Otherwise it's a burden. In my opinion, biking is one of the fastest forms of transportation when traveling <40 blocks. Also, Citi Bikes are lunky. I hate riding them.</comment>


Yelp iPhone V.3 Hits The AppStore - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/12/yelp-iphone-v3-hits-the-appstore-find-local-deals/

<comment><USER2> Still can't get it. What's the lag time normally from an app update being submitted/approved/reviewed by TechCrunch and actually being able to be downloaded?</comment>


Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory - <AUTHOR> https://snowbrains.com/everest-visible-kathmandu-nepal-first-time/ <comment><USER2> Hm, is this actually true? According to this travel site, it was already possible before Corona? [https://www.nestadventure.com/blog/mount-everest- from-kathma...](https://www.nestadventure.com/blog/mount-everest-from- kathmandu/)

"Contrary to everyone's belief, Mount Everest can actually be seen from Kathmandu. The Chandragiri hills in Kathmandu offer a panoramic view of the Himalayan ranges and Mount Everest on a clear day. There are also viewpoints and hill stations just outside Kathmandu – Daman, Nagarjun and Nagarkot where the mountains are visible."

<comment><USER3> The 'living memory' claim seems a bit far fetched, too. Let's pretend living memory means the last 100 years, that'd mean air pollution levels in 1920 wee so poor you couldn't see Everest from Kathmandu. I'm no expert, but I don't think Nepal and the surrounding area of China were industrialised at that time, and there definitely weren't many vehicles on the road at the time, so where would the air pollution have come from?

<comment><USER4> Been to Kathmandu several times and I wouldn't say Nepal is industrialised in general, but not even remotely at the level of China. What makes the air really bad in Kathmandu is the amount of old trucks and buses on the very dusty streets of the city. It's a different kind of air pollution to what you might experience in an industrialised nation. When I'm there I always wear a mask, otherwise a cough will develop almost for sure in a few hours. If you go a little bit outside of the city the air is very clean and the views are amazing.

<comment><USER5> Were there many of these old trucks and buses around in Kathmandu in the 1920s?

<comment><USER6> no, but it was still a sprawling metropolis, one assumes there was a lot of wood and coal burning going on.

Here's a picture from Kathmandu in 1920. It appears to have poor visibility, but it's unclear from the picture whether or not that is pollution or weather.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kathmandu_Basantapur_Du...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kathmandu_Basantapur_Durbar_Square_in_1920.jpg)

here's another near the same period that shows similar levels of visibility:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Kathmand...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Kathmandu_and_tundikhel_ca_1920.jpg)

<comment><USER7> "Here's a picture from Kathmandu in 1920. It appears to have poor visibility, but it's unclear from the picture whether or not that is pollution or weather."

You don't think it's the quality of a 1920 photograph?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Many of our COPD patients who need regular follow-up haven't shown up > because their symptoms have eased. Some have called to say they don't > require oxygen therapy anymore."

If this is at all similar to the experience in the US, while some people may have seen their symptoms improve, a lot of people are avoiding doctors and hospitals out of fear of getting COVID, and are skipping out on routine checkups and care.

<comment><USER9> COPD + COVID sounds like a death sentence, so if I suffered from it, I too would avoid hospitals (and anyone else) like the literal plague.

<comment><USER10> I can't speak for COPD but I'm very familiar with a different chronic pulmonary disease (Cystic Fibrosis), and it seems to _strangely_ not be a huge risk factor for poor COVID outcomes.

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156919932...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569199320301259)

No one really has a good story for why (and it may not hold) but it seems to be consistent with the idea that the most important variable is truly just age.

<comment><USER11> Last study I read put a 99% correlation on vitamin d deficiency and getting a severe case of covid19. Which was significantly more than age correlated on the same dataset.

<comment><USER12> Interesting, however I wonder how they accounted for the fact that most everyone is deficient in vitamin d.

<comment><USER13> So you made me curious and I googled. Not quite most everyone, it rather seems to be regional: under 20% in Northern Europe, 30-60% in rest of Europe, up to 80% in Middle East.

Source: [https://eje.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/eje/180/4/EJE-1...](https://eje.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/eje/180/4/EJE-18-0736.xml)

<comment><USER14> Huh, weird. I would have assumed deficiency would be inversely proportional to amount of sunshine. Do people in northern europe really experience so much more "sun on skin" time or is it wholly diet driven?

<comment><USER15> From that link:

> The generally adequate vitamin D status in the Nordic countries is due to > the use of cod liver oil and supplements (46) and vitamin D fortification, > leading to a great improvement in Finland during the last decade (47).

Doesn't surprise me; here in the South we don't get deficient enough to cause obvious issues, so we don't pay attention to it.

<comment><USER16> Are you African-American? (Assuming you mean Southern US)

<comment><USER15> Southern Europe :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Lads, this happened for a single day, it was lovely but is not a regular event. The city still has pollution issues however many now agree that it's caused from burnings that occur in northern India.

I've lived here since the earthquake, have only seen Everest from my rooftop in the capital one single time.

There are about 99% fewer vehicles on the road as we are in complete lockdown however the brick kilns that are located in the valley are probably the bigger polluters. Local neighbourhood garbage pickup guys regularly burn plastic.

<comment><USER18> I've been to mexico city a lot of times. One day I had to take a taxi at 6 am sunday morning after a hard rain the night before.

The air have been cleaned by the rain and the sky was clear. And I noticed that the city was surrounded by these picturesqe mountain peaks (that I had never seen before, or since)

I imagine you seeing the same thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's amazing and wonderful how much environmental damage seems to be recovering. Air pollution is down, carbon emissions are down as much as 17%, fish and sharks are repopulating shorelines and beaches - and to think, all it took was the most severe public health crisis in 100 years, a catastrophic global recession, and an overpowering wave of human misery and death

<comment><USER19> Imagine - what will happen when next big virus/bacteria pandemic hits the earth...Other species will stand a chance when human population makes some room ...it probably sounds bad but unfortunately the humans are the problem - not the CO2 or something else (they are just consequence) - proof is how nature thrives around Chernobyl

<comment><USER20> Yep. It is a shame that "intelligent" species need a virus or some other disastra and are unable to keep their population within the limits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Longer term Covid19 is very bad for public transport. People are gravitating back to owning their own germ free vehicles

Time to buy a car? Industry hopes for coronavirus silver lining | Free to read [https://www.ft.com/content/488d5886-c6af-4e80-a479-36aca26ed...](https://www.ft.com/content/488d5886-c6af-4e80-a479-36aca26edd1d)

<comment><USER22> Though hopefully using them less, at least?

If you're sufficiently worried about COVID to switch from public transport to a car, why would you use it to travel into an office every day?

<comment><USER23> Because, for most employees, this decision is not theirs, and they need their salary to survive?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In my early childhood, I remember Mt. Everest was visible from our hotel suite when we visited Kathmandu. It was 1998.

<comment><USER25> Snowbrains.com was registered on 2012-06-19, it has a very short living memory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Fairly certain the "visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory" is false. Nagarkot village has been a well known tourist attraction for viewing the Everest clearly forever.

> It is known for a sunrise view of the Himalayas including Mount Everest as > well as other peaks of the Himalayan range of eastern Nepal. Nagarkot also > offers a panoramic view of the Kathmandu Valley.

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

<comment><USER27> Or perhaps the definition of Kathmandu being used was the one where it is 32 km west of Nagarkot?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Any chance to see a "before" picture? I searched without success. Or is that kind of the point?

<comment><USER29> I think that's the point! I found some possible candidates on Google Street View (which only has isolated spots):

From Chobhar in March 2019, facing Everest: [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,85.2796492,3a,75y,78...](https://email@example.com,85.2796492,3a,75y,78.31h,101.37t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipP6gyL_odLZG2K89Er6AtpuxJwaT300-z8WkTKv!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipP6gyL_odLZG2K89Er6AtpuxJwaT300-z8WkTKv%3Dw203-h100-k-no- pi-20-ya68-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352)

Elsewhere in Kathmandu in April 2020, facing Everest: [https://email@example.com,85.3249687,3a,75y,59...](https://email@example.com,85.3249687,3a,75y,59.36h,92.03t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNk_FgppdLN2WTnmLj0-xGO4IwFI6UYFx5jqlBD!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNk_FgppdLN2WTnmLj0-xGO4IwFI6UYFx5jqlBD%3Dw203-h100-k-no- pi0-ya306.86493-ro-0-fo100!7i9000!8i4500)

There's no hope of seeing that far through the haze.

<comment><USER30> It looks like if you get out of the valley itself, you can see Everest from a nearby hill on which there's a viewing platform of some sort.

[http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1016837.shtml](http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1016837.shtml)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Over here (Belgium) in the second and third week of the (light) lockdown the color of the sky was a kind of warm blue I only remembered from childhood. I think it was due to the absence of daytime flights.

</comment><comment><USER32> Well take a good hard look, because as economies are slowly re-opening, everybody is going back to their old habits, even worse like people wanting to stay away from public transport as pointed out in this thread (1). I see it locally, but it also has been measured in post-lock down China (2).

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23255270](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23255270)

[2]: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus- china-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china- pollution/china-sees-post-lockdown-rise-in-air-pollution-study-idUSKBN22U09F)

</comment><comment><USER33> I saw that photo a few days ago. It's honestly one of the most beautiful images I've ever seen in many years. That contrast between the city at the front and natural elements at the back, with that lighting (the Everest is at the north of Kathmandu, so it looks like a sunset), creates an incredible scene.

</comment><comment><USER34> Within a few days of the lockdown I noticed how clear the air was (south coast UK). There's a hill 5 miles or so away with houses on the top that I can now make out individually, which wasn't the case before. Where are our (environmentally friendly) atmosphere processors? Even if we all switched to EVs, we'd still have tyre and brake dust being generated.

</comment><comment><USER35> There were a lot of humor pictures on reddit about this. Things like "you can see X for the first time since Y".

I'm suspecting it could be an astroturfing effort by the fossil fuels lobby, to try to discredit the real pictures. I guess I'm paranoid, but at least it shows I have little faith in the internet.

<comment><USER36> Honestly, the amount that public discourse can be swayed by "meme makers" and other such things has left me very disillusioned.

No doubt there are people who either have a marginal vested interest in denying this ("I love my truck/status quo/flights") and also normal people who are typically contrarian. -- these people can be easily swayed by people who have a financial investment in keeping things fossil friendly.

I saw a video from Vox recently[0] where they have some people from 'knowyourmeme' making memes for the US democratic representative debates, it was eye opening.

When you think of Memes you think of grassroots folks, people who just sit in their living room and think of something funny, make a low effort pop culture reference and then continue living their lives. You _don't_ imagine people sitting in boardrooms thinking up the best comedic caption that simultaneously promotes brands or ideas.. the concept feels absurd, yet, it happens.

Now I'm completely jaded; I am immediately distrustful of comments or memes containing even subjects I agree with, I still have some form of trust in ordinary media because at least it's not as anonymous.

[0]: [https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942599/glad-you-asked- episod...](https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942599/glad-you-asked- episode-4-memes)

<comment><USER37> Vox is hardly a reliable source. It's as trustworthy as the memes that you fear.

<comment><USER36> Citation please.

Vox media has a left bias but is mostly factual[0].

And, like I said, at least their identity is tied to their statements, so if something is false it has the possibility of being called out, and you notice when they spew a lot of content with the same idea.

You can't do a media bias fact check with memes.

[0]: [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/)

<comment><USER37> > Citation please.

"Vox media has a left bias...".

> And, like I said, at least their identity is tied to their statements

Right. So you know that they are not reliable and untrustworthy.

> You can't do a media bias fact check with memes.

Sure you can. Just like you can for any media.

> [0]: > [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/)

Mediabiasfactcheck, snope, etc are even more untrustworthy than vox. This is the circular joke that the media is. Since nobody trusts them, they create "fact checkers" to create an illusion of objectivity. They'd be better off creating another award named after a fake news king like Pulitzer.

Let me guess you think foxnews is the bastion of truth?

<comment><USER36> I think you're proving my point here a little bit.

Fox News have an identity tied to their media output, therefore if they consistently put out bad faith or incorrect representations of information then they will be identified and mentally blacklisted.

Fox News in particular has a wikipedia page dedicated to it[0]

The idea that "Snopes and media fact check are biased and inaccurate" is bordering on the insane.

If you can't trust the media _and_ you can't trust the people who keep an eye on the media, who can you trust?

Deplatforming all media sources and those that seek to keep them in check just leaves you vulnerable to people who do not identify themselves feeding you biased information.

I don't trust myself, I can apply some amount of critical thinking to new information as it is presented but I can't be everywhere at once nor can I be an expert on all things. If you depose all your information sources you will be left with information coming from unofficial sources, and that is not better because "unofficial" generally just means "unaccountable".

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

<comment><USER37> > Fox News have an identity tied to their media output, therefore if they > consistently put out bad faith or incorrect representations of information > then they will be identified and mentally blacklisted.

Just like vox.

> Fox News in particular has a wikipedia page dedicated to it[0]

Right and you can write a wiki article for vox and every other media outlet as well.

> The idea that "Snopes and media fact check are biased and inaccurate" is > bordering on the insane.

No. You are right. They are unbiased. There are also, right-leaning fact checkers as well. Are they unbiased?

> If you can't trust the media _and_ you can't trust the people who keep an > eye on the media, who can you trust?

Yourself. That's it and your ability to reason. Your ability to see vox, foxnews, nytimes, wapo, cnn, etc as propaganda sites and decipher the propaganda as best as you can.

> Deplatforming all media sources and those that seek to keep them in check > just leaves you vulnerable to people who do not identify themselves feeding > you biased information.

Your vox mentality is showing. Who is talking about deplatforming anyone? I'm pro-free speech and pro-free press. I don't want anyone deplatformed or censored. Oddly, the biggest champions of deplatforming are vox, cnn and most likely your favorite "news" sources.

> I don't trust myself, I can apply some amount of critical thinking to new > information as it is presented but I can't be everywhere at once nor can I > be an expert on all things.

Nobody at vox is an expert at anything. That much you can be absolutely sure about.

> If you depose all your information sources you will be left with information > coming from unofficial sources, and that is not better because "unofficial" > generally just means "unaccountable".

Actually, the authoritative/official sources are unaccountable as they have all the power. The "official" sources have started wars with their lies and led to millions of innocent people's deaths. Do they get held accountable? No, they get shifted to other "authoritative/official" sources like pedophiles priests get shifted to other diocese.

It's amazing how oblivious you are. You do realize that fox news is an "authoritative/official" source.

<comment><USER36> I listen to a lot of news sources.

I can't even respond to this, I can't get a beat on any critical argument of any kind. Other than " You are lefty", which, depending on who you ask I seem to flip between right and left. Someone once called me a dirty centrist fence sitter. So, I don't understand this weird political divide everyone seems to identify themselves with.

I don't know what to tell you, this comment makes me genuinely concerned for your mental wellbeing.

<comment><USER37> > I listen to a lot of news sources.

I'm sure you do. Vox, buzzfeed, cnn, msnbc, nytimes, etc? Tell me I'm wrong.

> Other than " You are lefty"

You got that from my criticism of fox news?

> Someone once called me a dirty centrist fence sitter.

Yes, I found that's what extremist leftists call less extremist leftists. It's a terrible form of bullying bent on enforcing conformity.

> I don't know what to tell you, this comment makes me genuinely concerned for > your mental wellbeing.

People like you are so obvious. You try to hide and conceal yourself but you just can't help yourself. Surprised you didn't start your reply with "I'm not a ..., but ... ". Oh wait but you did, sneakily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Either living memory is very short or there is something else going on. That region of the world did not industrialize until mid 20th century. The levels of pollution would be significantly lower than today even in the memories of older living people there.

<comment><USER39> Or was it because you had more time to slow down and look at the sky??

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm from Kathmandu and I can verify that getting to see Mount Everest from the city is a very very rare occasion. However, one can always see Everest on most days with clear skies from nearby hill stations, around 20km drive from the city center.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm hoping this is a significantly sized piece of the puzzle in the proof against the 'us puny humans can't affect something as large as the earth's atmosphere' climate denial argument.

Since the lockdowns the horizon where I live has no brown haze smeared over, and it's not even a significantly sized city (population ~1.5 million), but the lack of haze is noticeable. The presence of the brown smear haze was actually one of the things that made real scale of the effect humanity has on the quality and content of the air that enters our lungs.

<comment><USER42> The lack of rubbish on the streets, quiet nights, quiet streets, families out walking/biking and increased bird numbers nearby have been great. Being a lockdown enthusiast is probably a bit much, but I'll miss aspects of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I wonder whether the reduction in air pollution will save more lives than the virus itself costs.

The answer will never be known, of course, both because the time horizon of pollution-related death is so different from that of the virus, and because the at-risk populations overlap so substantially. People with pollution- damaged lungs are much more likely to die from the virus, if they catch it.

</comment><comment><USER44> Birds are singing, dolphins are swimming into river deltas, the spring is cold and rainy, the sky is blue, the Earth is clear from them miserable humanoids - all for the first time in living memory. Even in the whole history! Hail Morona!

</comment><comment><USER45> Why bitching people pollute so more than before? They entirely forget the whole point, for what? appear more clever, smarter. We all know the good and the bad of these times. Please focus on the good and if you can ignore the bad.

</comment><comment><USER46> I wonder how far back (if any) the lockdown pushed the doom clock around global climate change?

<comment><USER47> Here's an article that's a bit more in-depth on the effects [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> deleted

<comment><USER49> Wrong thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23246672](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23246672)

<comment><USER48> Haha! What I get for too many tabs open.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.

<comment><USER51> So you're taking steps and not having children then?

<comment><USER50> Correct. I'm 46 years old, healthy, fertile, heterosexual and I don't have any kids. How about you?

<comment><USER50> And there it is. A sudden torrent of downvotes. Dropped from 4 to zero in seconds. Like is said, having kids is considered a basic human right. We're so arrogant, yet so basic as a species.

<comment><USER52> Yeah. Some folks need to grow another mouth to tell themselves what they wanna hear.

Not being status quo is probably a bit too much for them.

The exchange of opinions concept does work well for most though.

<comment><USER53> isn't this is a very simplistic view on having children? There are much more obvious reasons to have some. also, .. most of use have enough mouths to tell them what they wanna hear, including you and me and our supposed echo chambers all over the internet (yes, having children is egoistical and naive! you're right aSplash0fDerp man! .. yes, we will overcome those problems, children are our duty, you're right alehander42 ! )

<comment><USER52> Why some people want a trophy for ejaculating in a vagina, I will never know.

With the popularity of brainwashing and groupthink, talking out of someone elses butt should be considered an evolution of ventriloquism.

Its a neat trick if you don`t get out much.

<comment><USER53> having a child might be more meaningful than the whole world, I love you, mate!

<comment><USER52> I'm in the states, but using your "mate" reference as a cue... I'm currently looking at Austrailia to settle down and raise a family.

I think the opportunity to find a young lady with natural resilience is much higher in AU. Using Mick Jagger as an example, we can populate the planet well into our 70's, so unless you age like a fried turd, there is no hurry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> This proves Earth is flat!

<comment><USER55> so why am I only able to see the tip and not the whole mountain?

<comment><USER56> A flat earther will probably argue that it must mean that the height of Mount Everest is a conspiracy since it's clearly the same height as a regular mountain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Perhaps I am being very skeptical, but I am failing to understand how three months of lockdown all the sudden eliminates decades of pollution. Something does not add uphere.

<comment><USER58> Mostly a severe reduction in air travel (airplane fuel is really really really bad for the environment)

<comment><USER59> Unlikely. Usually mostly due to agricultural burning and motor vehicles.

<comment><USER60> Road vehicles and agricultural vehicles have both been using ULSD for the past 10 or so years in America, and it's my impression that this is common elsewhere in the developed world too. ULSD has two orders of magnitude less sulfur than common jet fuel.

<comment><USER61> Kathmandu is far from this, by the way. IIRC a major component of the smog was from smugglers adulterating the fuel, e.g. adding kerosene to gasoline.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Monads for Go programmers - <AUTHOR> https://awalterschulze.github.io/blog/post/monads-for-goprogrammers/ <comment><USER2> > type Node<T> struct { Value T; Children: []Node<T> }

What's this? Do Go get generics?

<comment><USER3> I suspect that's meant to be interpreted by his code generator.

[https://github.com/awalterschulze/goderive](https://github.com/awalterschulze/goderive)</comment></comment>


Startup Codex: Startup Resource Directory for Founders with Deadlines - <AUTHOR> https://getstartupcodex.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN, I am a 15 year old programmer from the United States. I built StartupCodex mainly so I don't have to waste time on the internet looking for startup resources. Figured that it would be valuable and helpful for the community. Thanks, and I hope this helps! All that really matters out of this project is if you can share it with others. I don't care about monetization, just exposure. Thanks. -F</comment>


Negative Cashback from Microsoft's Bing Cashback - <AUTHOR> http://bountii.com/blog/2009/11/23/negative-cashback-from-bing-cashback/

<comment><USER2> But this could just be the vendor (not that I'm defending MS). It could easily be a different price for Google, and another for Yahoo, etc. It doesn't mean MS has any knowledge of this, although they could probably police it if it's affecting their reputation.

<comment><USER3> Your exactly right. Search for the same product using google shopping and it shows the higher price.

<comment><USER4> Ouch. This is why I usually buy everything from Amazon, instead of some random place that shows up in Google Shopping results.

<comment><USER5> I read a while back that Amazon does something very similar. They give new visitors a larger discount on certain items compared to regular visitors. Of course googling it now only returns [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/09/06/amazon_makes_regular...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/09/06/amazon_makes_regular_customers_pay/) so it may be bunk.

<comment><USER6> This is pretty old news. Amazon experimented with this briefly, caught alot of flak, and stopped.

I recently had an experience where I thought amazon was doing this - I'd get one price when signed in to prime and another cheaper price when not signed in. I called up amazon and the rep was astonished as she could see the exact same thing. A few minutes of digging and she figured out what happened. Amazon was showing me signed in the item shipped from amazon (candidate for prime) and showing me not signed in the item shipped from someone else. When shipping was added in, Amazon was always showing me the lowest price available. In both cases, I was presented an option to choose a different supplier, but it wasn't very prominent on the page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's not that difficult. Turn off your cookies. Manually allow them for the rare cases where they're actually necessary. If that's too much work for you, clear cookies or turn on your browser's "privacy" mode before you buy anything.

This sort of thing has gone on for years. You used to be able to find a good deal on a flight at orbitz.com, leave to go comparison shopping, come back, and see a higher price. Clear the cookies, the original price was back.

<comment><USER8> I wonder if a Firefox plugin could have a list of shopping aggregator sites (like Bing and google shopping) and automatically block referrers when using outgoing links from them, and maybe specially treat cookies being set by the sites those links land on?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're clever, you find the merchants affiliate scheme, sign up, check it's ok to place orders through your own affiliate links, and place an order.

Then there's no middle man and you get all the discount. Hassle for cheaper items, but worth it for bigger stuff.

I once signed up to get a 0% rate credit card (first 6 months) that gave cash back on purchases. I signed up through my affiliate link that paid out something like £40, had a few K of credit for 6 months, and got cashback on everything I bought using it. Then I cancelled it. I expect they hate customers like that.

<comment><USER10> I doubt they're giving you more in cashback than they make from transaction fees.

<comment><USER4> They might be. For every person that implements this trick, there are 100 more that are making only the minimum payment every month and paying thousands of dollars in interest (free money).

<comment><USER11> I thought that most credit card companies sold off this debt for Wall Street to repackage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Don't blame Bing. It is the store that is deciding to charge you a higher price.

I have seen this several times, on both newegg and Buy.com. Normally the "add to cart to see price" type items are cheaper if you don't do the bing cash back

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I also think this is the merchant's fault. (full disclosure, my wife works for a competitor of Bing Cashback)

My wife's company runs into this issue, and they try to stop the merchants from raising prices, but sometimes a few companies slip through the cracks.

However, maybe Bing doesn't make this against their ToS. In which case, that's bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> On a side note, anybody interests in doing a startup related to affiliate and/or rebates? I have an idea and I want to talk to somebody about it and hopefully the idea is good enough to create a startup.

terencekwan at gmail dot com

</comment><comment><USER14> I've always wondered what I might be revealing (demographics-wise) through my cookies while browsing, but I never though I might be getting shafted by them!

Wonder if Bing is revenue-sharing w/ their vendors this way somehow.

<comment><USER15> It appears on Microsoft's quarterly financials as "income from overcharging partner customers"...? Unlikely.</comment></comment>


Porting from Windows to Mac isn't easy - <AUTHOR> http://imvox.com/blog/2010/05/pc-to-mac-ports-not-an-easy-process/

<comment><USER2> Quote from the posting: "But if you make a totally native UI you now have a lack of consistency between products. For games, this is less of an issue, but for a piece of desktop software your users notice either way."

Why do you need cross-platform consistency? Most users use either Mac or Windows port, not both. Instead, focus on consistency _inside_ the platform: give the Mac port "macish" look, because that's what typical Mac user wants – elegant, clutter-free UI.

For example, Skype for Mac is pretty nice, while Skype for Windows is ugly as hell (from Mac user's point of view, Windows user may disagree).

<comment><USER3> As someone who works with Linux, Mac and Windows on a daily basis (Work is most Linux with some Windows, Mac for home) I have a very strong preference for native UIs.

My brain seems to have no problem at all switching between the 3 OSs, and remembering all the conventions, shortcuts etc, but I find it's the cross- platform apps that trip me up and cause the most frustration. Why? Because they _look_ sort of native, but they don't _work_ native. Shortcuts are different, menus are different, buttons use different conventions (OK/Cancel in the wrong order), OS specific features don't work (like Cmd Ctrl D) etc.

For me, the idea "But if you make a totally native UI you now have a lack of consistency between products." is a trap, and that the opposite holds true; lack of consistency is _good_ as it tells your brain how that app should behave, but cross-platform consistency is bad as it sends wrong or confusing messages about what to expect re app behaviour.

<comment><USER2> So true. That's why use Safari & Mail.app on OS X and before that, Konqueror & KMail on KDE. (They are great apps, too.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well, it can be easy if you use the right tools and frameworks right from the beginning. When you are only using Microsoft specific tools, of course it will take a lot of work.

Using Visual Source Safe? Using .Net? Using .Net forms? Using MSVC? (And even now when developing for MacOSX??)

<comment><USER5> What is the right tool for cross platform work? Do any of the frameworks really generate a proper native-feeling OS X application? Or are they just "good enough"?

<comment><USER6> There aren't great cross-platform tools that provide good native-feeling results, mostly.

There are a number of cross-platform toolkits. GTK+, Qt and wxWindows all come to mind as possibilities. But in general, you're going to need to rewrite a lot of the front end as native code if you want it to feel like native code.

However, if you know you may be porting, you can separate a lot of the _back_ end out of your UI code and make it a separate library in separate files. That makes it much, much easier to write several different front ends and still share most of your code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This appears to be a bit slow:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://imvox.com/blog/2010/05/pc- to-mac-ports-not-an-easy-process/&hl=en&strip=1)

Summary: Using platform specific tools and languages results in lock in. Unsurprisingly. (See also: iPhone OS)

<comment><AUTHOR> OUCH. I just checked my processor loads. Load average: 19.24 15.41 17.06 (single CPU on Amazon)

Something is wrong. Or HN is a ton more traffic than I expected. Normally sits fairly low. Figuring this out now. Thanks for the heads up.

update 1: The problem seems to be our git server (which of course we have running on this EC2 instance as well) is doing a git-pack way too often. Trying to kill or back this off. Tomorrow I'm moving it to another server.

update 2: Console-kit-daemon was eating a ton of memory. Git was playing its part, but not the real problem. I also took the time to tune mysql and apache a bit more as to more properly use the CPU/memory. We haven't had a traffic rush like that before. Thank god it wasn't Digg or something like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cross platform development is difficult. No way around that.

<comment><USER9> Use Squeak Smalltalk. Your program runs bit-identically across over 40 platforms. Done.

Cross platform is easy. Cross-platform with native look & feel - that's hard.

<comment><USER10> Or Java. Or QT. Either way, you end up with something that works terribly on all platforms.

<comment><USER9> Nope. Squeak Smalltalk works great across just about everything. (I assume you can work out the implications of "bit identical.") The UI is quite distinctly non-native on all of them though. Java can't hold a candle to Smalltalk for cross-platform.

<comment><USER11> > _The UI is quite distinctly non-native on all of them though._

... which is what really matters to the end user.

<comment><USER9> You get no argument from me there. What about browser based apps? Those have a different set of user expectations. XUL desktop apps, anyone?

<comment><USER11> I'm not bashing Squeak here. I know it's a nice development environment. Problem is, people usually judge applications by their UIs. Look at it this way: a desktop application is supposed to complement the features your OS already ships with. An application that doesn't feel like it's a part of the OS confuses people. Heck, I'd say any app that doesn't follow native UI conventions is _disrespecting_ the user, especially if it's a paid app.

On non-Windows platforms, XUL apps suck. Period. As for webapps, I don't think anyone expects them to look native. The rules don't apply inside that browser window :p

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's nice to see the occasional reminder of this, among all the Web 2.0-ness around here :-)

A lot of apps still _need_ to run in the Dark Ages that are desktop development, Balkanization and all.

<comment><AUTHOR> This was also a major learning experience for me. I've mainly worked in Web 2.0-only companies that wouldn't dream of writing a desktop application. Everything is incredibly different from my PoV and many staples of modern web writing (functional tests, agile methodology, etc) can't be assumed in a desktop environment.

I also had to get used to having less data about how our consumers use our product. I'm used to being able to ninja through apache logs and Google Analytics to figure stuff out, but our data is much more limited from our analytics package.

Finally, finding killer developers to do desktop stuff is much harder than finding a Ruby or Python programmer. You're looking for people with specific expertise with somewhat strange problems that your average web programmer just isn't suited to handle such as memory leaks (I say this as someone who can hack in Ruby but I fail miserably at any desktop programming).

<comment><USER12> > _(functional tests, agile methodology, etc) can't be assumed in a desktop > environment._

Why not?

> _You're looking for people with specific expertise with somewhat strange > problems that your average web programmer just isn't suited to handle such > as memory leaks_

There are many apps out there that are suitable to be desktop programs. That specific expertise you're talking about is probably being unafraid to do stuff people want, instead of just another Twitter clone.

> _I say this as someone who can hack in Ruby_

The term "hack" is certainly overused recently. It used to mean something on the borderline of being illegal, or some artful workaround that's done in the interest of cutting corners, or some mindbogglingly experiment (like the Tesla Coil).

Not it's just related to meaning plain-old (and boring) programming. I blame the popularity of PG's essays for that ... yeah, we all want to be "hackers".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is why I write web apps.</comment>


Advanced Erlang Initiative - <AUTHOR> http://erlangcentral.org/advanced-erlang-initiative/ <comment><USER3> I agree with the earlier comment that it sounds interesting. I'd be more excited if there was a clear means for smaller companies to join the initiative. Is this intended as a commercial joint venture by ProcessOne and Quvik, or as an open alliance to advance and advocate Erlang (and Elixir)?

<comment><USER4> It is not a join venture between ProcessOne and Quviq, but a broader initiative. However, we need to ensure quality also, so we need a bit of check, but this is taking shape. We will have more to announce very soon it is getting fast :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sounds interesting, but given that it's founding members are only two companies, it sounds like it doesn't really represent the larger erlang community?

<comment><USER6> The 'About Us' page says "As of today, the following companies have joined Advanced Erlang Initiative" under the "Founding Companies" header - <USER2> suggests more are able to join. Would be better if it were more explicit though I guess.

I'm really looking forward to seeing it grow, I've already found the videos very useful and the workshops look like a great idea. The more companies supporting Elixir and Erlang the better :)

<comment><USER4> Please, see my other comment, to avoid lengthy repeat, but in short, yes, the goal of the initiative is to grow and yes to be open to other companies that are developing Erlang products at the core of their business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The link is dead but it was a copy of the original post which is here: [https://blog.process-one.net/advanced-erlang/](https://blog.process- one.net/advanced-erlang/)</comment>


PDFY - Source Code . Syntaxhighlighter . PDF - <AUTHOR> http://deshili.net/pdfy/

<comment><USER2> I personally prefer the output style from enscript [2 column].

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Let me know what you guys think...</comment>


Slacker is Hiring an Android Developer Want to Join our Team? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.slacker.com/slacker-is-hiring-android-developer-want-to-join-our-team/

<comment><USER2> You should probably get a new web developer while you're at it.

\- signed, everyone outside of the US</comment>


Q&A with SV Angel's David Lee, on the controversial Start Fund - <AUTHOR> http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/01/qa-with-sv-angels-david-lee-on-the-controversial-start-fund/

<comment><USER2> _After that we'll go through our normal process of evaluating each company and deciding if we want to invest. We do not have any information advantage. We may say no to a company not because it's a bad company, but just because it's product doesn't fit our strategy._

If I understand this correctly, they may turn down eligible companies that want in on this? Of course I know they always have a _right_ to, but I was under the impression that "blind investment" means they would not do any judging as long as you are an eligible YC company.

There is a chance he may have been talking about future rounds after their 150K conv deb. Unclear.

<comment><USER3> He was talking about the future rounds after the 150k.</comment></comment>


We Talked to People in the 11 Percent of Millennials Who 'Always' Feel Lonely - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb5g99/we-talked-to-people-in-the-11-percent-of-millennials-who-always-feel-lonely <comment><USER2> A lot of this effect must be the total annihilation of boredom by smartphones. There is little pressure to interact with others for the purpose of entertainment which therefore breeds loneliness.</comment>


Show HN: Lightweight Flexbox responsive grid framework - <AUTHOR> http://www.meetsally.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi all, the developer here. If you have any questions or comments or would like to help in any way, I'm all ears.

<comment><USER2> I am not too familiar with flexbox and I should learn more. But how does it impact the components or css inside of it though?</comment></comment>


How to get idea for productive app? - <AUTHOR> I tried to build some software but it didnt work. So can you please suggest how can I do research for  idea. <comment><USER2> You might wanna try Google first because this thread is gonna get nuked without a title change.

Then, I'd read up on stack overflow guidelines for question asking, to improve your question.

I don't know how to help you because I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish, what you're trying to build, why you failed before, etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are a lot of ways of researching ideas, what works for me: \- setup a Trello board, post there each idea in a card, then you can arrange, demote, etc them. Your brain will know you are "hunting" for ideas, and will be working in "background". Hopefully a few times randomly but steadily, you will be writing those down in the board. \- ask people about problems they have. \- subscribe to services like Opportunity Overload, they share problems everyday \- Look around you, trying to reinvent or improve things \- take a walk, don't think, the ideas will come

</comment><comment><USER4> Solve your own problem.

Chances are - thousands of others will say "thank you" down the road.</comment>


Introducing GPG Sync, an Open Source Tool for Organizations That Encrypt Email - <AUTHOR> https://firstlook.org/code/2016/10/12/introducing-gpg-sync-an-open-source-tool-for-organizations-that-encrypt-email/ <comment><USER2> From the GitHub wiki, an org specifies a key that is used to sign a list of all other keys, which is then distributed over HTTP. Quite similar to a private key server, but doesn't require running special server software I guess?</comment>


Manage your Ruby on Rails models, relations, and migrations from a simple UI - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/damln/localtower <comment><USER2> This looks really neat - can't wait to try it.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's about time.</comment>