Average annual hours worked per country - <AUTHOR> https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS# <comment><USER2> Keep in mind that this is showing the "reported" hours, which can be misleading. For example it shows that people in US works more than Japan but I know for a fact that people in Japan works A LOT more. However, since it is a cultural thing and they expect you to work long hours, no one reports overtime. I even heard that you can get fired if you report it.

<comment><USER3> Also keep in mind that the numbers are not corrected for part-time vs full- time figures.

e.g. my country (the Netherlands) is listed as 1439 hours vs Mexico 2257 hours annually per worker. You might come to the conclusion that people in Mexico work must longer than in the Netherlands. However, only 17% of people in Mexico work part-time, vs 37% in the Netherlands. Countries with low participation of part-time workers therefore will look as if they are working much longer hours.

<comment><USER4> Would you attribute this higher rate of part time work to a strong social welfare system in the Netherlands or to some other factor?

<comment><USER5> Here are some "anecdata" from my 6 years working in the Netherlands:

* 4 day weeks are very common: I worked for a Dutch Bank for 3 years. Virtually all the Dutch "full time" staff worked 4 day weeks. The deal was work 10% less (36 instead of 40 hours), extend the working day a notional one hour on Monday to Thursday, and take every Friday off. Not bad for a 10% reduction in salary. And since everyone does it - even senior managers - there is no loss in promotion prospects.

* High levels of self-employment as independent contractors - "ZZP-ers" \- zelfstandig zonder personeel (self-supporting without employees), often from mid-career professionals taking redundancy packages and setting up for themselves with greater flexibility for work-life balance at often slightly lower take home pay.

* Strong social net, health system, pension provision, social housing, etc, mean most Dutch people have very little to worry about. They can afford to prioritise enjoying life over being a slave to their employer.

One final anecdote concerns my local cafe in Amsterdam... In Melbourne, the equivalent cafe opened at 6:30am and was busy by 7am. The one near me in Amsterdam opened at 8:29am (yes, not 8:30...). When I asked why they didn't open earlier, the owner said the staff didn't want to start that early, and neither did he.

<comment><USER6> The ZZP idea is particularly intriguing to me. Do you think this is a direct result of the strong social net, or a sense of independence that existed in Dutch culture before benefits?

<comment><USER7> What 'strong social net' are people referring to in this thread? As an independent contractor ('zzp'), you don't get unemployment benefits, no insurance against not being able to work and you have to get your own health insurance like everyone else. 'Bijstand'? I mean, that's food stamp level, and you can't have any assets to be eligible in the first place.

<comment><USER8> HN has a core belief that many EU countries have an immensely more generous social safety net than the US despite the US having welfare, social security, Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, etc.

Having lives in Canada for many years, I didn't find it that different than the US with the exception of healthcare.

<comment><USER9> > HN has a core belief that many EU countries have an immensely more generous > social safety net than the US despite the US having welfare, social > security, Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, etc.

It is an simple fact that a number of EU countries have an immensely more generous social safety net than the US, even with the US having some basic support for families with dependent children in poverty, a minimal safety net pension, some minimal provision for the medically indigent, some basic provision for health care for aged ex-workers, and a system of food support for the poor.

> Having lives in Canada for many years, I didn't find it that different than > the US with the exception of healthcare.

Even assuming that the claim made here based on the flimsiest of claims of authority was correct, it is irrelevant, Canada is not even an EU member, much less a country they supports any generalization about the EU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It absolutely is NOT. it explicitly states these numbers are only useful for comparing hours worked by year in a given country, not for comparing between countries.

"The concept used is the total number of hours worked over the year divided by the average number of people in employment. The data are intended for comparisons of trends over time; they are unsuitable for comparisons of the level of average annual hours of work for a given year, because of differences in their sources."

</comment><comment><USER11> Funny.. in Europe, Germans are considered hard-working and Greeks typically "lazy". According to these stats, the truth is completely the opposite!

<comment><USER12> I live and work in Germany but I am not German. I believe the work culture here is: if you are having to work outside core hours, you are ineffective and should have managed your workload better.

Consequently I believe there is greater focus on continuously doing the most important task during work rather than occupying oneself with 'busy work' that is prevalent in many other work cultures.

<comment><USER13> I live in Germany as well (I'm Swiss), and people usually get free time in exchange for overtime and not money around here. I think that explains it better, because overtime is pretty prevalent - at least in some jobs. Others not so much. You usually don't have to work more than your usual 8 hours/day in a super market. As a software engineer however...

<comment><USER14> I really wish flexitime was a thing in more countries. I'd happily work 45 hours a week in exchange for an extra couple of weeks of annual leave. 4 weeks (Australian standard leave) just isn't long enough for a good trip anywhere, especially since you usually end up burning a week of leave through the year for random things.

<comment><USER15> Most Asian countries only have 15 days annual leaves...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The good news: number of working hours decreased from 2000 to 2017 for pretty much all the countries in this report. A sign of overall development in my opinion.

<comment><USER17> Or job market regression. Combined with wage stagnation in the US over the past few decades, a decrease in working hours (depending on where the hours are dropping) would have to map to an increase in poverty and/or homelessness unless paired with a decrease in cost of living (which isn't happening here)

<comment><USER18> There has not been compensation stagnation in the US. When you include everything, total compensation has continued to climb.

Health benefits are expensive, have ballooned massively in cost, and are disregarded in the fake wage stagnation premise that gets thrown around.

The US has gone from 6% of GDP going to healthcare, to around 18-20%. That's where a lot of compensation growth has gone, paying that rising bill. It doesn't mean that compensation does not exist however, it's being spent on a service (that obviously should cost a lot less).

401k and similar compensation is disregarded by the wage stagnation premise.

The dramatic improvement in the US welfare state in the last 20 years is entirely disregarded. That costs a lot of money, heavily paid for by the top 1/3 who pay most of the taxes in the very progressive US taxation system. The share of US GDP going to the welfare state is now higher than other comparable countries like Canada and Australia, and it's climbing faster than both (ie accelerating away from them). That's an entirely disregarded factor in the quality of life for the bottom 1/3 who may find themselves needing to lean on the welfare state at some point, and or routinely draw benefits from it (that are not added into the income picture). When you look at the wage growth figures over the last 20 years, they do not show the large increase in welfare benefits being consumed. The point being, the picture is not nearly so dire as is often claimed.

<comment><USER17> Increased health care costs doesn't mean that compensation has gone up, many workers don't have health coverage provided by their employer. For people without employer-provided health care there are huge gaps in government- provided health care (often gaps created on purpose). Combine that with the minimum wage literally being unchanged in many states for decades... Not to mention employer plans' deductibles, coverage and copays can change as costs go up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Doesn't annual hours worked suffer from "measure as a target" issue among other things?

There frequently are incentives to misreport it based on company culture or perception among coworkers. Nor does it actually correspond to 'productive' hours.

I can tell you for a fact that while my coworker is physically present for about 40 hours a week, they realistically perform job duties for maybe about 15-20 hours out of that, and that's being generous.

</comment><comment><USER20> There's only 38 countries on here, a large majority of which would be considered "Western." The only thing this is really useful for having first worlders lust after other first world countries with single digit percent differences in work hours

Also don't forget a standard 40 work week over a year is 2080 hours, significantly higher than the average.

<comment><USER21> Most countries have at least 4 weeks holiday, so that would be 1920 hours. In the UK the standard week varies between 35 and 40 hours (9-5 with hour lunch, 9-5.30 with hour lunch, 9-5:30 with half hour lunch), and the 4 weeks is in addition to the 9ish bank holidays, so that's about 1700 hours, and sure enough 1681 is the magic number.

Greece surprised me. They have 20% unemployment, meaning that if they spread the work evenly, rather than having 80 people working 2010 hours, they could have 95 working 1692 hours, same as Canada and Spain. The work is there in Greece, so why isn't it being shared more equally?

<comment><USER22> Maybe a lot of agriculture and small business?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Working less hours is better. Then you can spend more time with people that matter family and friends.

There is no point in working much just for the sake of it.

Also working hours vs gdp should show that you can work less hours and still have a high gdp.

<comment><USER24> Nah I think what you'd really want to look at is something like YOY GDP growth vs hours worked, or something like that. If a country is experiencing large gains in output, working more hours is paying great dividends and raising everyone's standard of living, etc. You're not working just for the sake of working.

On the other hand if output is stable, that's a time to start spending more time with family.

<comment><USER25> Increase working hours in the US by 10% across the board and the GDP will likely not increase at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Unsurprisingly, USA near the top with 1780 hrs worked annually by the average worker, contrast that with the most hours mexico (2257 hrs) and with the least hours Germany (1356) or the Scandanavians like Denmark and Norway (both around ~1400 hours). This is a poor look for the corporate-centric politics of the USA, which has extremely rich citizens and corporations yet which forces very long hours onto its laborers. One might expect that from a Mexico or Costa Rica due to their differences in riches and demographics.

Yet another example of the surprisingly poor living quality in the USA in aggregate terms relative to GDP. The USA is great if you're rich and is mediocre if you're everyone else.

<comment><USER27> >> Unsurprisingly, USA near the top with 1780 hrs worked annually by the average worker

According to the chart, US workers work < 1% more than the average for OECD countries. There are only two countries that are closer to the average. "Near the top" is not even a close description of this data. Given that your premise is false, how do the rest of your claims follow?

<comment><USER28> That only shows that you should not give averages, but means. What we can extrapolate from this is that there is some very big factor pushing this up as it occurs with average household income.

<comment><USER29> > That only shows that you should not give averages, but means.

Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but an average can be a mean, median, or some other summary statistic. Did you mean ( _wink_ ) median* instead?

<comment><USER28> Hahaha yes, sorry about that I always mix both concepts in english... In spanish there is no way to mix them as the wording is completely different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> U.S.A. 1780 / 52 = 34.23

Are there people that only work 34ish hours a week?

I'm working way more than that.

<comment><USER31> 1) You are not factoring any holidays by dividing by 52

2) People also work part time

<comment><USER30> Ah thanks. But still seems like a smaller number than I was expecting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> interesting that there is a decreasing trend in almost all countries in the table. I wonder how much of the trend can be attributed to automation and if it will only accelerate.

</comment><comment><USER33> Knowing a few colleagues who work in some of the listed countries, I'd say this chart is about right. /* As he groans slightly from his years working hard in the U.S., and settling back in his comfortable armchair quarterback chair. */

<comment><USER34> Just sit back in your armchair and take some well deserved rest</comment></comment>


Expose any Ruby object over the web. An interesting little snippet... - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/675667

<comment><USER2> Do not try this but off the top of my head, I think this vector could be slightly unnice: _/send/exec/rm%20-rf%20%2F_ .. Will give it a go when I'm off the iPad :-)

 _Update: I forgot exec wants its input in a different format. /send/exec/date prints the date and stops the server so this vector is certainly potent. /send/exec/ls/-l/%2f does NOT do what I expect though as Rack seems to turn / back into %2f server side but /send/exec/ls/-l/. does what I'd expect._

 _Update 2: James Golick notes that calling ` works through send too and suggests using /`/. This has the benefit of returning the output of what was run like cat /etc/passwd, for example ;-)_

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think it'd actually work, since it sends all of the calls to an Array. Array doesn't respond_to exec.

<comment><USER2>
      [18:54:40 ~]$ irb
      >> [].send('exec', 'date')
      Tue Nov 16 18:54:48 GMT 2010

You can call Kernel's methods on any object (usually - there are some cases where not) through _send_ , e.g. _[].send(:puts, 10)_ .. I was working with Sven Fuchs on some "sandboxing" stuff a couple of years ago and we discovered this little doozy! (Though it's possible to figure out by noting that _[].puts_ tells you _private method `puts' called_ and _send_ gets you around that problem.)

Typically you pass a symbol as the first argument but a string works too which, I believe, would make my attack vector work. Going to try it now.

 _Update: /send/exec/date works as expected (and stops the server)._

<comment><AUTHOR> Weird...

        ruby-1.8.7-p302 > [].respond_to? :exec
         => false

Guess I shouldn't trust it. (Also, I originally ran Array.respond_to?...)

<comment><USER2> Try:

      [].respond_to?(:exec, true)  # => true

_respond_to?_ doesn't include private methods by default but can be made to do so with the second argument. I didn't know this either till I just looked it up.

This made sense to me since I'd assume _respond_to?_ would only yield true if it were possible to make the call without error. Yet, this logic does not hold true:

      class X; def y; respond_to? :exec; end; end
      X.new.y  # => FALSE

So it seems it doesn't matter if the private method is callable or not, _respond_to?_ won't give you a true for _any_ private method, accessible in the current scope or not, unless you pass the extra flag.

(I'm not really writing all of this to give you an education, more to give me one. I was totally unaware of all this and found it interesting :-))

<comment><AUTHOR> No, don't feel bad. That's awesome. I knew that thing about adding true, I just didn't realize that exec was private.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Depending on your point of view, this is a perfect example of either what makes ruby so amazing or so awful. I don't know of another language that gives you the power to so concisely potentially screw yourself in such a creative way.

<comment><USER4> Let's not be too eager to accept the "tradeoff metaphor".

Just because something is powerful doesn't mean it can't be safe. I just got a handheld vacuum that has no safety mechanisms: no latches to disable the power button when it's folded shut, no kill switches when I take it apart. I can fold over the nozzle, take off the dust holder, and turn it on. I would never need to operate it in that way (unless I was using it as an air pump, which I could, now that I think of it), but it doesn't need any complexity to be safe, because safety is part of its design.

Similarly, a VM could expose a REST-ful API to its objects without needing to have any of the things which people find "unsafe" about Ruby (regardless of how valid those complaints are).

<comment><USER3> Don't get me wrong, I fall squarely on the side that Ruby's power is well worth it's danger. But let's not kid ourselves, monkey-patching Object is dangerous. In this example, exposing all of an object's methods to the web means that anyone could further modify whatever object you stuck up there, adding whatever methods they wanted. Yes, you could expose it to the web in a safe manner, but that would be a lot more work. Ruby holds out that simple, easy, even elegant monkey-patching solution to tempt you in ways that you have to be really careful about.

<comment><USER4> _Don't get me wrong, I fall squarely on the side that Ruby's power is well worth it's danger._

Would you hold the same view if you were tech lead of a team of a dozen engineers who've never worked together and loved monkey patching? You can agree to not monkey patch simply by saying "don't monkey patch" and hope everyone follows it, but then you'd probably need to and putting social processes in place to make sure people don't do it (e.g. code review), you can pick a platform that doesn't allow it, or you can recompile the Ruby runtime you use to disallow allow monkey patching.

Another option would be to automate some kind of monkey-patch detection in a staging VM that keeps a list of monkey patches in your code and publishes it to an architecture doc page. Then you can either call that list "tech debt" and strive to constantly refactor the code to get rid of monkey patches, or you can make it part of whatever communication the team does to discuss/agree on what monkey patches are acceptable to use globally in the system. In that case, you also have to make sure that whatever process is in place for deciding yay/nay on keeping a monkey patch treats everyone's contributions fairly. Etc, etc.

All in all, monkey patching is just one example of changes that affect the VM globally. Personally, I prefer that whatever complexity comes with global changes be dealt with by the programming team, not the VM designers (which is what the JVM often does), but I can certainly imagine a team where everyone is making global changes and nobody is aware of the complexity such changes bring to a project. Then everything simply stalls while people bitch at each other about X's code breaking Y's code because of dependency Z, the business guys start yelling because deadlines are missed, and the entire project goes to hell in a handbasket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A Python version for the kids at home: <https://gist.github.com/702001>

<comment><USER6> I don't know much about python and webapps but what would you serve this with? I'm just curious as I don't see the equivalent serving in this as the node.js and ruby snippets.

<comment><USER7> A WSGI server (like paste, tornado, etc...) - you just wrap it in an app() function or object. It's very similar to Ruby's rack...</comment></comment></comment>


Error in JQuery.js? - <AUTHOR>

Hi All,
Wondering if any of you have found an error in JQuery.js?
I was writing a script using JQuery today and firebug complains about an error in line 1772. The statement in this line is:
return fn(elem, i, m, r);
The error message I get is: fn is not a function.
Wondering if this is a known issue? Or if there is something else thats wrong with the script I have written?
Thanks <comment><USER2> ask in jquery's site</comment>


Can you commit 10 min/day to being a better ally to the Black community? - <AUTHOR> https://newdaynew.me/june <comment><AUTHOR> Hello, Evan here, creator of newDay, but NOT the creator of the "Justice in June" 30 day course for becoming a better ally. I want to be clear about that. That was created by some awesome people and can be found directly here: [https://cutt.ly/ayNiPTK](https://cutt.ly/ayNiPTK)

What I did do though, was spend the past week building a feature into my app that let's you quickly and easily schedule these 10min/day sessions and even if you aren't a newDay user, you can export to GCal!

It's an important time particular for those of us who are not Black to stand with the Black community and use whatever platforms we have to amplify the message.</comment>


The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/ <comment><USER2> I noticed something similar. In that there is a lot conspiracy theory being thrown at Trump. In the past the establishment would've kept quiet even if they knew something. This sort of politics is dangerous and polarizing. But it seems as if the elite don't know what else to do. Maybe they are hoping they can impeach him.

<comment><USER3> Tump's refusal to do things such as releasing tax returns to prove no conflicts of interests exists fuels the conspiracies, not some political elite plot to undermine him.

And the conspircy theories are not unique to Trump: Obama had calls of being a Muslim, born outside of the US and worse. The current alt-right partially believe in a child trafficking pizza parlor.

<comment><USER2> It was not the political elite calling Obama a Muslim, it was the fringe. This is different. You could argue that Obama not releasing his Birth Certificate until 2011 only fueled the fringe, but it was the fringe. In this case the official opposition is making claims and not backed up by any real evidence. Just claims made by anonymous sources. I meant I could concoct a document like that in a few months. Without any real evidence it's really a conspiracy theory, nothing more. Just because it comes from a former official, does not mean shit. There have been officials that have mouthed off about conspiracies before, they are completely ignored.

Anyone has a good reason not to release private documents like your tax returns if you are doing business. It could be used by numerous sources to attack you. You don't want to open yourself up to that kind of liability, ever... just to please some people who don't like you and never will like you.

<comment><USER3> > It was not the political elite calling Obama a Muslim, it was the fringe.

It included Trump. For years.

> In this case the official opposition is making claims and not backed up by > any real evidence. Just claims made by anonymous sources.

The document you're referring was compiled during the Republican primary and election. It wasn't compiled after he was elected. It being finally leaked because it's circulated for months with no one willing to print it is evidence against an elite conspiracy against Trump, not for.

> Without any real evidence it's really a conspiracy theory, nothing more.

No one is arguing otherwise.

> Anyone has a good reason not to release private documents like your tax > returns if you are doing business. It could be used by numerous sources to > attack you. You don't want to open yourself up to that kind of liability, > ever.

Though I appreciate you not using Trump's official line of being audited by the IRS prohibiting him from releasing his tax returns, this claim is curious because other nominees running for president have all released their tax returns, many of them also businessmen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> this piece seems to be conflating the more measured reporting from the mainstream press with the careless (and criticized) dump by BuzzFeed (and throwing in some cheering liberals for good measure). Trump did the same thing at the news conference. In his case it was a tactic to hand-waive away the entire news industry as fake.

i get the article's point, but i think we need to be very precise lest we stumble right into Trump's narrative (he and his team are clearly very good at this)

<comment><AUTHOR> A UK view here. The Guardian newspaper had this [0] on their front page yesterday [1]. I would not call it measured reporting.

In contrast the FT and Economist were much more measured - they presumably still care about their reputation for sober reporting. It's a poor state when the financial/business press is what I must read to find the truth on this topic.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief- gi...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given- dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts) [1] [https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2017/jan/11](https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2017/jan/11)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a seriously terrible headline. 1. "Deep State" Is this a vague meme he's forcing? 2. "goes to war" is this what war looks like, or even considerable effort?

How is this headline not clickbait? Analogy "Evil thing which doesn't really exist does extreme crazy thing to President-Elect"

<comment><AUTHOR> What did you think of the article?

About the headline - it does summarise what the article is about. I doubt anyone clicked through expecting tank battles between Trump and the CIA.

'deep state' seems to be a variant on 'state within a state' or maybe 'military-industrial complex' the latter a meme 'forced' on us by Eisenhower.

<comment><USER5> This is the kind of damaging presupposition that is the definition of Russian information warfare (disinformation)...

What's the deep state? Does it include a deep judicial branch? Is there a deep military? Where's the deep congress? To assume a cabal of mutinous member of an organization that are hard to find (deep, not surface), is inflammatory and should be have a higher bar.

If the CIA and the democrats colluded here, how is that either deep, or wide enough to be warrant be called the "state" ? We have specific names for these specific branches for a reason. The military is not the CIA, and is not the Democrats.

Who is more a member of the military industrial complex? A. Donald trump that wants to increase military spending. B. Everyone else.

If Russia didn't hack the DNC, and Rex Tillerson wasn't their pick, and Trump wasn't on Howard Stern getting called out on his Russian Hooker usage in 2001, and he had a blind trust, and he released his tax returns, and wasn't a birther, and didn't have trump steaks, airline, university, the art of the deal he didn't write, and like to invite your wife furniture shopping with tictacs in hand, then people wouldn't care about anonymously sourced reports.

Listen to president himself speaking about taking a guys girlfriend from him, like a piece of property, while getting called out on his Russian ties in 2001: [http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/314891/trump-russia-girls- ho...](http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/314891/trump-russia-girls-howard- stern-2001-aj-benza/)

p.s. Panama Leaks reveals Rex Tillerson was director of Bahamas-based US- Russian oil firm, and didn't the FBI help him get elected via Comey? Are we in upside down world?

<comment><AUTHOR> "This is the kind of damaging presupposition that is the definition of Russian information warfare (disinformation)"

Apparently I have just defined Russian information warfare? (Will you inform the Russians, or should I?)

I'm afraid you have lost me, was that a reply or should it be a new comment?

<comment><USER5> The presupposition that I'm referring to is that there is a "deep state." It is similar to a lawyer asking if you've stopped beating your wife. If you say no, you lose. If you say yes, you lose. Because you accepted the frame, or premise of the question.

Thus frame control and accepting presuppositions is a dangerous game. It is also how you win the war of disinformation. Nearly any event, honest or not, can be spun through framing to appear crappy. Example. "Hey honey, I love that dress you're wearing." "What, you didn't like my last dress? Why don't you always complement me like that? I bet you'd like this dress better on my sister. You're only saying that because you didn't take out the garbage."

So a simple complement can be converted by framing, into an act of confession. If you've never studied forum sliding or all the other tricks the Russians use every day with 100's of paid internet propagandists spreading their message, it's harder to see.

Why Glen Greenwald would be using such tactics is quite beyond me. You would think that an honest journalist would put front and center who the likely humans are in this deep cabal of evil doers, or at least get us as close as he could. But he doesn't. So this piece must have some other goal, if not to expose the cabal. What it is, I am not sure.

So as much as I'd love to ignore the headline, and tell you what I thought of the article separate from it, there's not much else interesting there. Except for the doublespeak.

Sorry if it sounded like I was calling your post disinformation. Was only addressing the article.

disinformation guide: [https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum- spies.htm](https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm)

<comment><USER5> Accepting the frame that there is a "deep state" without requisite evidence is harmful to critical thinking. Thinking that Trump is being screwed by the Industrial military complex, instead of being their man, is reversed. Thinking the CIA screwed Trump somehow here, while the FBI hooked him up, is also cloudy. I thought leaks could happen by single people, why is it an entire "deep state" organization?

I would say that the accusation of a "deep state" is more inflammatory than Trump having hookers pee on each other or him. I'd prefer a world of watersports to shadow governments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Right. Orange is the new black. Liberals are a threat to democracy. Putin's the good guy. Trump's a victim.

<comment><USER7> The Democrats are a threat to our democracy. Less so than Republicans, but still. One only need to see the deregulation under Bill Clinton, the war machines of Clinton and Obama, the explosive growth of the surveillance state, the war on whistleblowers, and hell - even how Democrats manage their own primaries by rigging townhalls, the party itself treating it's own candidates unfairly, and having a system of super-delegates in place just in case all else fails. So quit acting like they are somehow sacrosanct.

The article never stated Trump is a victim - in fact, it advocates opposing him.

The article never claimed Putin was a good guy.</comment></comment>


Kyocera to Roll Out New Li-Ion Battery in 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://tech.nikkeibp.co.jp/dm/atclen/news_en/15mk/070502951/ <comment><USER2> This isn't really Kyocera at all.

It is a Startup called [1] 24-m. I cant even find a PR from Kyocera mentioning this breakthrough / achievement. And like all startup battery headlines and PR, I read it with lots of skepticism.

[http://24-m.com/pressrelease/](http://24-m.com/pressrelease/)</comment>


Stress impairs cognitive functions - The loss of those functions can explain why programming is hard - <AUTHOR> http://the-programmers-stone.com/about/ <comment><USER3> That series of articles may be the most significant thing I read this year.

I have a comment on one bit:

        In his article The Perils of JavaSchools, Joel Spolsky
        refers to "programmers without the part of the brain
        that does pointers or recursion". In this "ha ha only
        serious" comment Spolsky displays a profound intuition.
        He's obviously observed his teams very carefully. My
        only disagreement with him is that I know from
        experience that everyone has the necessary bit of the
        brain. It's just that understanding pointers and
        recursion requires juxtaposition, and in most people
        that mode is not accessible.

_The pointer problem_

I am a programmer who tried and failed to get pointers many times over the course of some seven years, and then consciously tried a new way of thinking about it that flicked a switch in my mind nearly instantly. I was aware of the widespread belief that you either did or didn't get pointers, and immediately wrote down everything I could about the situation in order to capture it. I'll describe my findings and the situation here.

Pointers are easy when you think about the program in terms of memory and what's actually going on: casting of ints. The problem for me was that my brain was filtering out the correct scenario because due to a contradition in the syntax. Let me present a simple example to use for discussion.

        #include <stdio.h>
        #include <stdlib.h>

        void fn(char *c) {
            printf("[%c]\n", *c);
        }

        int main() {
            char *c = malloc( sizeof(char) );
            *c = 'a';

            printf("start\n");

            fn(c);

            return 0;
        }

One of the things that kept screwing me up with pointers in C was the contradiction in the situation where you pass a pointer to a function, yet the function receiving it has a different symbol for it. Look at the example above - where we declare 'c' in the parameter list for the function 'fn' it has a star next to it. Yet when we call fn it doesn't. But ... those are the same thing. How can that be?

I found that the more I thought about the problem the less I'd understand it. I tried to get several friends to step me through it and couldn't get there. I'd actually get it for a while, and then I'd lose it. In desperation - <USER2> I'm not making this up - I worked out a series of base examples that I knew to work even though I couldn't see why, printed them and pasted the sheets into the back of a copy of _Systems Programming for SVR4_. Horrifically embarassing - a professional unix-based programmer, who hangs around real geeks, who has designed and implemented several successful applications on a variety of platforms - reduced to this. I rapidly reached the point where I could write _and debug_ C code without my colleagues detecting the weakness through my system. A key part of it was knowing the exact point at which I had to actively stop thinking about the syntax and trust what was written on my base examples.

OK - step back a bit. There's something else that's important. I'm told that I spoke early when I was a child, and rapidly got to the point where I could hold court in a room full of adults, and talking at their level. English was my strongest subject throughout high school. Throughout my life people around me seemed to think I was very smart but I felt like a fraud because although I was qite quick in language stuff, there were some problems that kids who struggled in general got quickly and that I didn't.

Early last year I was struggling through what felt like just such a problem and noticed myself feeling at a loss without an example to leverage. I wondered why it was that I needed to learn from example, and thought it interesting that some people are able to work through things without examples, yet I seemed incapable of it. This caused me to create a theory that I had a strong skill at certain sorts of learning based on pattern matching, and that overuse of this skill had stunted other learning skills. I told myself that I'd look out for opportunities to solve problems without using this kind of approach.

The first decent example that came up over the next few days was - conveniently - the pointer problem. A friend called me up to say she had an exam the next day and needed help with C - could I help? Readers will already recognise that are few times in any lifetime when good looking, charismatic, single girls (this one is a superb singer as well) will seek you out on the strength of your reputation for coding and I replied in a steady voice and pace, "Sure - why don't you come over now?" As I hung up I thought - oh oh - back to that old pointer problem that has been haunting me since the beginning of time. But then I realised that this was the opportunity I'd been looking for to overcome a problem with non-example based learning.

I had the whole problem solved less than five minutes from putting down the phone. I dug up my copy of _The C Programming Language_ and read the section on pointers to refamiliarise myself with the problem space. As you would know - the problem in a world without pointers is that you can't change non-global variables within a function so that the change persists past the end of the function (I had always been fine with this - nothing new so far). So I moved to the next step and decided to ask myself, "how would I solve this?" Easy - pass in the memory address. Have a mechanism for referring to memory addresses in memory instead of the variables they contain. Oh, and there needs to be some syntax to be able to dereference a variable.

That was the lightening bolt moment. The problem with pointers in C is that the [star][varname] syntax means two different things, and they are actually contradictory from a certain perspective. In one context it means "declare a variable that is a pointer" and in the other it means "deference". Whenever my languages-brain bit looked at this it couldn't deal with it, recognised it as a contradictory positions and basically shut me down, but not in a way that let me work out what was going on. Have a look at it yourself from that perspective - hopefully you'll see what I always did. _Now_ whenever I look at C code I instead just think "everything is an int and pointers are all about casting ints, and a star when you declare something is your way of telling the compiler that the type of this thing is int-pointer instead of just int". Thus I now have no difficulties at all.

When I was at uni I heard the whole thing about people not knowing C would never be Real Programmers. And I'm glad I stayed insecure about it, or I may never have conquered what is clearly a huge deficiency in my learning patterns. OK - that's enough about me. Let's instead look at the big picture. The assumption behind the claim that groking pointers is a good guide as to whether someone has what it takes is that in order to get C you need to be able to think like the computer. But could it in fact be the case that the emphasis on C in computer science has been driving people with a strength in the humanities _away_ from programming (in preference of people who do not have a language dominance) for the last few decades, and causing bias towards people who lack whatever it was that was sitting in my brain filtering out the correct case?

Oh - the short conclusion of my story is that - girl came over, we spent all night pretending to be a C interpreter by drawing memory diagrams on my whiteboard, she moved from likely failure to a reasonable mark in the space of four hours, was thrilled after the exam the next day, and now we both live on different continents.

I think there are leaps in what I've written here. But I'm confident I'm on to something about the relationship between people who use a certain type of thinking and have trouble with pointers. It probably doesn't apply to people with a strong background in low-level programming.

<comment><USER4> And if you change your example only slightly, you can break again most- people's mental-model of pointers:

        #include <stdio.h>

        void fn(char *s) {
            printf("[%s]\n", s);
        }

        int main() {
            char *s;
            s = "hello world";

            fn(s);

            return 0;
        }

And yet again:

        #include <stdio.h>

        void fn(int s) {
            printf("[%s]\n", (char *)s);
        }

        int main() {
            char *s;
            s = "hello world";

            fn((int)s);

            return 0;
        }

And back to a single char:

        #include <stdio.h>

        void fn(char *c) {
            printf("[%c]\n", *c);
        }

        int main() {
            char c = 'a';

            fn(&c);

            return 0;
        }

The ugly and evil way:

        #include <stdio.h>

        void fn(char *c) {
            printf("[%c]\n", c);
        }

        int main() {
            int c = 'a';

            fn((char *)c);

            return 0;
        }

And the obvious way:

        #include <stdio.h>

        void fn(char c) {
            printf("[%c]\n", c);
        }

        int main() {
            char c = 'a';

            fn(c);

            return 0;
        }

It is not difficult to see why most people find pointers in C confusing.

<comment><USER5> _This_ will blow people's mental models of _C_ (genuine example):

        #include <stdio.h>

        int main()
        {
           char const* c = "hello";

           // this is the interesting bit - n[c] == c[n] (n = number literal) !!! I swear, try it.

           printf("This program compiles and prints:'%c %c %c %c %c'\n",
              0[c], 1[c], 2[c], 3[c], 4[c]);
           return 0;
        }

        // See? I read that both forms are translated to *(c + n),
        // which explains the equivalence. Weird, no?

<comment><USER4> _See? I read that both forms are translated to_ * _(c + n), which explains the equivalence. Weird, no?_

Well, that surely is evil, yet perfectly valid C code. But personally, I don't find it surprising. Of course, you need to grok what A[n] really is -- i.e., syntactic sugar for *(A + n), as you just explained.

<comment><USER6> which is the same as *(n + A)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't buy it. Stress has nothing to do with getting kicked out of hack mode. Even the least stressful of interruptions, assuming it uses the local state registers that are used in hacking, can completely scramble your brain. The friendliest of comments from co-workers, assuming they're about hacking (but not your project) and require hacking thinking, can ruin it, if the comment turns into a conversation that lasts more than 60 seconds.

It's not about stress. It's about juggling a bunch of delicate state, and the state is being held in short-term memory registers that are easily clobbered.

<comment><USER8> And now - please repeat the same with functional programming metaphors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> So maybe there's some truth to this: <http://xkcd.com/323/> ;-)

<comment><USER10> Now I have to stop reading Hacker News and clean up the soda I just spewed all over my keyboard. Thanks alot, jey.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Bravo! Bravo! Tour de force! Should be read at least once a month as an antidote to creeping groupthink.

</comment><comment><USER11> If you learn hardware first, pointers are pretty easy. However, learning hardware inevitably slants your thinking towards solving ALL problems in those terms, which is bad for higher level architecture and design thought processes. When all you have is a hammer...</comment>


Agile Open Space Conference in Silicon Valley priced for Startups - <AUTHOR> http://agileopencalifornia.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> As conference prices head toward the $1,500 to $2,000 range it's good to see a two day conference for $250 on a development methodology that especially useful for startups. Some folks who attend the Bootstrapper Breakfast are signed up to attend Oct 6-7 and I thought I would pass it along, I am not affiliated with the conference.</comment>


No more "J": Microsoft is finally fixing the Outlook emoji problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/microsoft-outlook-fixes-j-smiley-emoticon-emoji-bug-2017-5/ <comment><USER2> I'm all for utilizing standards and whatnot, but I can honestly say I have never emailed an emoji. I generally use email for school or business (or newsletters) and any sort of personal emoji-ridden conversations happen on various IM platforms. Am I alone on this one? Do millennials really use email differently than everyone else?</comment>


China, Huawei propose internet protocol with a built-in killswitch - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2020-03-30-china-huawei-new-ip-proposal.html <comment><USER2> The original goal of the Internet's design was a network that can survive even the nuclear war, and that is why TCP/IP has multiple routing and redundancy. Why is the modern Internet so easy for authoritarian governments to control and partition? Knowing China's main motivation, I don't trust any of their so called innovation.

</comment><comment><USER3> Up next: ISIS proposes new protocols for airport security.

</comment><comment><USER4> Never forget. Never again.</comment>


A keyboard case that makes your iPad look a lot like the MacBook Air. - <AUTHOR> http://www.thebrydge.com/ <comment><USER2> This is just further proof that people don't really want an iPad, they want a laptop with a better designed and easier OS. Computers run our lives, yet there's only 2 major operating systems for consumers to choose from. Making them duopolies of the most important technological advancement in history. Mac and PC (and a bit of linux but we're talking consumers here, not sysadmins). And this lack of competition, I think, has really stagnated the OS user's experience.

Can you believe it's 2012 and operating systems still don't come with an manual or a guide?! So of course people are flocking to iPads. They're powerful yet brain dead simple. Which empowers people rather than making them feel incompetent or stressing them out.

I think Steve Jobs made a mistake. Maybe the iPad should have come with a keyboard and competed with the laptops.

<comment><USER3> What? No, we don't need operating systems that come with manuals. The last manual I got with a software package ended up a doorstop pretty quickly. What we need is an operating system that _doesn't need_ a manual because it's so intuitive and well-designed.

<comment><USER4> Which is what the Mac once claimed to be, but Apple relies on unmarked, multi- fingered "gestures" and two-handed hotkeys. Yeah, it's a clinic of hypocrisy from the company that claimed two-button mice were "too complicated." Then it comes out with one inept, piece-of-shit mouse after another, culminating in a "multi-touch" mouse that you're somehow supposed to hold in place while swiping horizontally with multiple fingers.

<comment><USER5> _what the Mac once claimed to be_

You mean what the Mac still is.

 _Apple relies on unmarked, multi-fingered "gestures"_

Actually, they are marked quite clearly, and only some of them are multi- fingered, and they are remarkably easy to use.

 _and two-handed hotkeys_

Actually, Mac OS hotkeys are quite consistent and intuitive, and have survived the test of time. command-c, command-v, command-x, command-z, command-s, command-p all do what they did in 1984. It's simply not true that Mac hotkeys are less intuitive than the alternatives; indeed, Windows copied the most- common Mac hotkeys verbatim.

 _Yeah, it's a clinic of hypocrisy_

This is where you really start to run off the rails.

 _Then it comes out with one inept, piece-of-shit mouse after another_

You can argue with their ergonomics, but they certainly weren't pieces of shit. I found at least some of those mice quite usable.

 _culminating in a "multi-touch" mouse_

The real culmination of Apple's input-device path is the Magic Trackpad, which is the best trackpad I've ever used, and it's not even a close comparison. I prefer it to any mouse, and I've used 28 years' worth of mice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That neon bright light that shines when it's on is about the only thing that seems distracting from the design.

Would be curious to see real world photos of it, because that light has the potential to cheapen the rest of the design (i'm thinking of lights like this: [http://www.chelseadeals.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=27&...](http://www.chelseadeals.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=233))

<comment><USER7> Hmm, very good point.

It can be startling how incredbly annoying such bright (almost always blue) LEDs can be. Especially being charged nearby while you sleep or if you are watching a movie/screen from a distance.

<comment><USER8> Here is a very related article about the amount of thought and detail that apple puts into their system lighting.

[http://floodmagazine.com/2010/10/14/apples-attention-to- deta...](http://floodmagazine.com/2010/10/14/apples-attention-to-detail/)

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1634471>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I guess I'll ask the obvious [to me] question. Why not just buy an Air?

<comment><USER10> Having seen people use the Asus Transformer, they really like the fact that they can have both a tablet and small laptop in the same device. Of course the OS limitations of a tablet usually mean you can't use it for some serious work like typing (although that isn't too much of an issue with some web apps these days).

<comment><USER11> I've got a Transformer at work, and it's a really nice device in a lot of ways. The UI is much snappier than standard desktop operating systems, and the build quality is head and shoulders above the netbooks you can buy at, say, Best Buy that seem to already be crumbling when you get them home. But it's worth noting that it's suprisingly heavy and the weight is poorly balanced, because they need all that super thick glass over the screen. Furthermore, after you use it for awhile, you don't ever really want to _touch_ the screen, because it's faster to type or use the trackpad.

Hopefully there is some third way where we can get a snappy OS, vague nods towards physical quality, and a netbook that doesn't feel like an accident waiting to happen every time you pick it up.

<comment><USER12> How does the transformer work as a power tool? Can you open up a simple development environment easily and actually get work done or is it more of a media consumption device? I've been using a cheap netbook running arch(with just a wm, it's snappy enough) as my primary device, but I really want a practical reason to get a more portable transformer.

<comment><USER13> I have tried to do that, but I have ended up with just connecting to server and running vim (with some hacks like nerdtree that make life easier)

I can imagine having that as primary device, but only with some other computer to connect to via SSH (and constant internet connection).

oh, connectbot probably had some problem with Transformer's keyboard AND it doesn't have "esc" button (which is kind of useful in vim), so I used some custom-build version that maps the search key to "esc" (since you don't need the search key anyway). But they maybe fixed it since then and I am still using some ancient version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> You could also already buy a full case that transform your iPad 2 into a MacBook Pro for $88 :

<http://www.thefancy.com/sales/2273/ipad-notebookcase>

</comment><comment><USER15> Since I got my Macbook Air 11", I have regularly called it an iPad Pro. "Why not just get an iPad," people ask. Well, this is my travel system for hacking.

</comment><comment><USER16> Aren't all major manufacturers except Apple struggling to get access to a aluminium lathes.

<http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110803PD222.html>

</comment><comment><USER17> a little like a macbook air, and a lot like an asus transformer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Without the extra battery, places to plug things in, and _with_ a battery sucking bluetooth connection.

Still, it looks well designed and Apple-y in form and function.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I feel like the iPad is right near the border of an unstable equilibrium between simple and useful. And this things just bumps it to the other side.

</comment><comment><USER19> serious question, do people not realize you can use the wireless apple keyboard with the ipad? it pairs with bluetooth and it's fairly small of it's own accord. it's also much cheaper than most of these 'laptop' accessories

<comment><USER20> This. The Apple wireless keyboard solution adds no baggage to the iPad itself, is very portable, and the compact height of the keyboard allows stacking the keyboard and iPad vertically on your lap or flat surface (meaning touch gestures don't require holding your arm up).

Personally, I use the virtual keyboard exclusively. I find it a nice change of pace. Somewhat similar to how the thought process seems to change when writing with paper and pencil, compared to hammering away at a physical keyboard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Tablets are read-only. People are buying this because they love consuming info on their tablet, but they can't create it. I'm typing this on my transformer prime right now and I'd be done already if i just booted up my laptop.

Still, this is just a gimmick for early adopters. I bought my mother-in-law a bluetooth keyboard for her iPad. She doesn't use it. Not because she doesnt want to or has no reason to, but because she can't get through the bluetooth sync process.

To know if there should be a keyboard for the iPad, just ask one question: Does Apple make a keyboard for the iPad?

The first time these early adopters sit down with their new monstrosity and have to reach out across the keyboard to use their fingers to select text or copy paste or browse to a different app or website, they're going to realize why this is a bad idea.

Now if Apple wanted to include a pointer in iOS that could be used with a mouse (or trackpad built into this keyboard), then this starts to make sense. Until then, ppl buying this are just trying to fit a square peg into a round hole using money as lube.

</comment><comment><USER22> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#Gorilla_arm>

<comment><USER23> That sort of formalises something I have wondered about for a while. With a normal PC, both screen and keyboard are where they need to be for comfortable use of both. Putting both together in a touch screen is, IMHO, often too uncomfortable for prolonged use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The "no cables" claim seemed a little far fetched and after digging through all the pages you'll find that the keyboard has an integrated battery which has to be charged via a micro usb cable.

So you'll need one cable to charge the iPad and another different one for this device. In their shoes I'd try to make it possible to also have the iPad in portrait orientation so that the keyboard can access the dock connector and then have a dock connector on the keyboard for charging and passthrough charging/data.

</comment><comment><USER25> Now all I need is a jump to conclusions mat and my setup is perfect.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think Apple is still wiser than this project for advertising their keyboard in portrait mode. The camera is less weird to use, you can have a slightly less insane posture and the things that need a keyboard (Pages, some Safari stuff) usually benefit from portrait orientation. I would much rather have an MBA with a square screen. :(

</comment><comment><USER27> If XCode ran on an iPad, then I'd be sold. As it is, it's the _only_ reason I need to carry around my MacBook Air.

<comment><USER28> iSSH + a bluetooth keyboard + your linux server of choice (I use EC2) makes backend coding on the iPad feasible, and quite comfortably so.

<comment><USER29> Also, VIM is almost the perfect editor on the iPad with an external keyboard because one never needs the mouse and everything can be done with keystrokes. There's even native vim on for iPad on the App store (though iSSH has much better keyboard meta keys support)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This idea is rather trivial and there are a few of these announced already for years. What annoys me is that you cannot buy them; they are just ideas. At least de Prime actually is in the shops so I'll stick with that.

<comment><USER14> Apparently you can buy at least one model now: <http://www.thefancy.com/sales/2273/ipad-notebookcase>

The prime is something much different from an ipad with a semipermantely attached keyboard. It's more of a slow laptop with a detachable screen that can be used as an ok tablet, as opposed to a nice tablet with a heavy bluetooth keyboard case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> That looks pretty neat! I'm always a little wary about the keyboard scratching the screen but overall it's nifty.

I just hope it becomes a real product after the kickstarter stuff is over.

</comment><comment><USER32> iOS bluetooth keyboard API support is purely crap. No ESC/CTRL/Function Keys. Otherwise this could be a good idea.

Another thing is the file system is locked up so completely, that is not in any way could be used for professional purpose, for example, writing code. It is still a casual device.

All these limitations are imposed by Apple themselves. Too bad, they really had the potential to rule the world.

</comment><comment><USER33> Looks more like the Macbook Pro. Black screen bevel and thick keyboard body.

</comment><comment><USER34> a quick comparison of the iPad and a apple wireless keyboard shows that the brydge is squashed closer together, which won't be very good for blind typing.

</comment><comment><USER35> Gosh darnit, only works with iPad 2 and iPad 3.

</comment><comment><USER36> Doesn't this look more like a Pro than an Air?

</comment><comment><USER37> Apple suing in 3, 2, 1...

</comment><comment><USER4> Yes, and after you cobble this asinine frankendevice together, you have something with no proper I/O. Crippled Bluetooth. No user-accessible file system. No way for third-party apps to sync data with companion apps on the computer (without some hokey wireless or Internet-based workaround).

It's incredible how this ridiculous gimmickry is playing out in 2012. Downright juvenile.

<comment><USER38> Um, a lot of that stuff most people don't use? Juvenile?

Why get angry about people liking their iPad but wanting a keyboard? Looks pretty cool to me. Like a laptop with a detachable keyboard.

<comment><USER4> No, that's the point: That's what it is NOT. No straightforward way to get files or information on or off the device. That's not a suitable computer.

It's a design dictated by Apple's fear and refusal to learn from the failure of DRM. More hypocrisy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The hardware is good, but the software will be limiting since it can't run OS X apps. Such a case would be good for the upcoming Windows 8 x86 tablets, which would allow you to run Eclipse or VS or any IDE that runs on Windows.</comment>


Shouldiwearafacemask.com - <AUTHOR> https://shouldiwearafacemask.com/ <comment><USER2> I'm wearing a mask the few times I leave home (walk the dog or buy groceries). It amazes me how many people did not grow concerned enough about this issue or even look at you as an alien for wearing it. After all, stats about people not washing hands after going to the toilet are frustrating, why should this be any different?</comment>


(Scams Subreddit): [Money for your] GitHub PGP keys – is this a scam? - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/Scams/comments/f7gwln/github_pgp_keys_is_this_a_scam/ <comment><AUTHOR> Several apparent reports of someone trying to buy old de-activated github pgp keys.

This is probably a social engineering attack - presumably the attacker is gonna want the key pair in the hope the private key will unlock... something else.

What is the default linux ssh key used for that would make a good target? Personal sever instances would be hard to locate, so it is probably something central like cloud provider authentication?

EDIT: Disappointingly, it's this [https://github.com/handshake-org/hs- airdrop](https://github.com/handshake-org/hs-airdrop)

</comment><comment><USER2> previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22393687](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22393687)

</comment><comment><USER3> They are after your Handshake.org airdrop

It was worth $2k last I heard</comment>


Facebook says Apple's new iPhone update will disrupt online advertising - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-says-apples-new-iphone-update-will-disrupt-online-advertising-11598458715 <comment><USER2> Initially, I was skeptical of the "good!" reactions. It's worrying/annoying when one company alone has the clout to massively impede a potential competitor (or legitimate service they simply dislike) in arbitrary ways.

And then I read the subheadline of the article: > The social-media company says Apple's privacy changes will affect its Audience Network business, which connects users' Facebook identities with their off-platform activities

Holy sh*t - GOOD! Go Apple

<comment><USER3> I hope you realize what this means is that ads as a monetization model for apps is getting decimated. These apps will now have to explore alternate monetization models such as either making themselves paid or subscriptions. And guess what, Apple takes a 30% cut of it. If you are thinking Apple is a benevolent savior of privacy, you are absolutely wrong. All they are doing here is to hurt advertising so that more apps move to other models which lets Apple extract more value.

Get ready, as a user, to pay for these apps which were once free.

<comment><USER4> Don't be silly this doesn't take away advertising-supported apps whatsoever. They're just taking away the ability to target users based on activity outside of the app, perhaps reducing the effectiveness of the targeting.

Plenty of industries survived for centuries without these kinds of ads.

<comment><USER3> Facebook is literally saying that their Audience Network product will see 50% reduction in revenue. That means apps will see less revenue from using AN. This is likely a pattern across apps.

<comment><USER5> That reduction is based entirely on their prediction of how many users will not give consent to be tracked.

FB is going to use less accurate forms of tracking, so they simply won't be able to charge as much. I'm not going to feel bad for a company that has to work harder to circumvent the users wishes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Everyone hates when their stable business model is disrupted.

But in general, I don't think it should be the role of regulation (or lawsuits, or retaliatory business strategies) to protect people's business models -- unless there are compelling public interest/national security/etc reasons to do so.

 _Someone_ will figure out how to thrive when conditions change. You're just mad because it's not you any more.

<comment><USER7> It doesn't help that adtech have been pretty consistent about being as abusive as they can until they get pushed back.

This is the industry that invented the popup/pop-under, until browsers were forced to adopt technological solutions to prevent them. And third-party toolbars - good lord. The over-reach of tracking is just the same thing all over again.

Perhaps if they weren't actively attacking us, we wouldn't be so eager to defend ourselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> My speculation here is Facebook made this announcement very strategically. Now that Apple under pressure for it's handling of app store reviews, this would be the perfect time to criticize Apple in other areas.

Facebook is hoping people read the headline, don't read too much into it, and that would fuel anti-Apple sentiment that they are acting as a monopoly.

Because if you read just below the surface on this topic, you'll quickly realize this is a huge win for consumers and privacy advocates.

</comment><comment><USER9> That's why I'm on an iPhone. Unlike google they don't have a powerful incentive to make the devices leaky like a sieve due to ad biz side. FB can say it but I'm sure google is thinking the same thing

Besides - it's not like ads are going to go away. It'll just be less focused

</comment><comment><USER10> I see nothing wrong with returning to older models of advertising: you buy simple ads (like pictures or text on web sites, or audio during podcasts), with zero scripting attached, and no video. And you track them in obvious ways (e.g. special codes at checkout, or you simply ask "how did you find out about us?"), which still gives a clue which ads were effective.

The entitlement of these ad companies to their obscene revenues and invasive methods is insane. Facebook's "disruption" is hardly a problem I care about. Maybe the Internet will finally be usable again if we have a little more disruption.

<comment><USER11> Audio in podcasts could be and are targeted now. Scared the shit out of me, so I did some digging and arrived at [https://www.acast.com/en](https://www.acast.com/en)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> While Apple is trying to double down on privacy improvements, Google's aiming to build a bigger moat for their ad business with Android OS (>80% mobile OS marketshare) and Chrome (>70% browser marketshare) changes.

Google deserves the same amount of criticism, but the addiction to their free services keep users silent.

</comment><comment><USER13> Good. Let's burn Facebook to the ground.

</comment><comment><USER14> This change seems like it will have the unintended consequence of transferring more power into the hands of large advertisers.

For one, this breaks company's (advertiser's and 3rd party data aggregator's) ability to link customers to campaigns, which effectively pushes measurement back to the advertising platform who have an inherent conflict of interest. They are selling the ads, and telling you how efficient the ads are.

Additionally, the only companies that can do battle with Apple to find loopholes/engineering solutions to this change are the companies that are (a) very large, (b) have the resources and talent to throw at the problem. There are several third party data providers that are basically toast now.

Edit: I don't work for FB, but I do build ML lifetime values models, which will get much harder after this change is made.

<comment> spaced-out It seems like that logic could apply to any change that would improve the users' privacy. The best thing for small ad companies would probably be if everyone's data was completely public, that would surely minimize the barrier to entry!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Good.

<comment><USER16> Finally!

<comment><USER17> You won't get less ads, they just won't be targeted.

<comment><USER18> That's perfectly fine by me.

<comment><USER19> Same! Yay Apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Only hatred of Facebooks appalling business model could bring such unanimous approval of a move by Apple!

<comment><USER21> The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> After being an Android fanboy since the G1 was announced, then all through the nexus line of phones which turned into the pixel line, I say without hesitation that my next phone is going to be iphone.

I'm sick of the tracking and lack of fine grained control to limit app permissions and background data.

Goodbye Google, thanks but no thanks. I can't trust your subsidized spyware tracking tech in my pocket anymore.

</comment><comment><USER23> So you are upset that now other people can stop you from exploiting me when I am not using your service? Hmmmmmmmm

</comment><comment><USER24> Looks like they're going to refuse to comply with it, in fact: [https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848](https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848)

<comment><USER25> Can someone more familiar with what's going on here explain that statement? It's not at all clear to me what they're saying.

<comment><USER26> If I'm reading both the Apple prompt details and the Twitter statement correctly, what that tweet is saying is that Facebook will not request access to the IDFA at all, and will also not allow developers using Facebook's SDK to request it. This means they won't trigger ("adopt" per the tweet) the prompt notifying the user of tracking, since they aren't using the IDFA to track anymore.

The rest of the tweet goes on to describe how to comply with that policy from Facebook, and to suggest alternate methods for developers to track users on iOS, including Facebook Login or Advanced Matching.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've been fairly critical of many things Apple does and stands for but in this case I can but give them a pat on the back and say "good Apple". I still won't buy in to their walled world since I consider my freedom to valuable but if this can help put a dent in the scourge called ad tech I'm all for it. It won't affect me personally since I use free software on a Google-free AOSP- derived Android distribution and as such am already immune to the ad tech monster but that doesn't diminish the value of cracking down on the aberration, the pustule, the diseased malignancy called ad tech. Be gone, foul creature, your days are done.

</comment><comment><USER28> I highly doubt that facebook ads could become "less relevant". I mostly get ads from Wish for weird contraptions that I can't even tell what they're for, and some very specific heavy machinery for thousands of dollars that i also have no idea what it's for. Pneumatic drills? Miniature combine harvesters? Lately it's been supplemented with ads for romantic Indian movies and wedding dresses. And I'm a married Scandinavian male.

</comment><comment><USER29> [https://archive.is/jzFJu](https://archive.is/jzFJu)

</comment><comment><USER30> So maybe we will stop being put into echo chambers and radicalized to hate our neighbors?

Maybe we will stop having so many clickbait articles written by journalists?

Other business models for the win!

<comment><USER31> People like echo chambers, they go out of their way to self select into them.

<comment><USER32> Indeed.

We have had message boards, subreddits, newspapers, TV news shows, radio shows, etc. dedicated to (or at least slanted towards) specific policial views for quite some time.

Possibly centuries in the case of pamphlets and newspapers, often printed with an explicitly partisan point of view in ye olde times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Can somebody tell what changes are they talking specifically?

<comment><USER34> Based on [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/26/facebook-apple- ios-14-could-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/26/facebook-apple-ios-14-could- cut-audience-network-revenue-in-half.html)

It seems to be the unique ID used for targeted advertising. iOS 14 requires user opt-in before the IDFA can be used by third-party apps for advertising. This, I believe, is what Facebook is crying foul about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> [https://archive.is/jzFJu](https://archive.is/jzFJu)

</comment><comment><USER36> I upvoted an article first time on hackernews. Well done Apple

</comment><comment><USER37> I might get myself an iPhone then...

</comment><comment><USER38> Wonderful news!!

</comment><comment><USER39> Good.

I'm so tired of ads.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is why it'll be both correct and just when Apple wins their antitrust cases.

</comment><comment><USER41> Good. There is no product-market fit with 99% of online ads.</comment>


Hulu on the iPad? Not as Easy as It Sounds - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/03/10/10readwriteweb-hulu-on-the-ipad-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds-84239.html

<comment><USER2> I was going to copy and paste some choice dumb quotes from this, but apparently I'm not allowed to select text or something on NYT, since they use JS to remove my selection as soon as I make it. I added nytimes.com to my HN filter. Sorry if this comment is kind of useless for actual discussion of the article, but I had thought NYT didn't put out crap like this or (once you got in, anyway) do shady stuff on their site.

edit: I guess it's one of those insert-shit-into-your-clipboard-when-you-try- to-copy-text things, except it's breaking in Chromium in Linux for me.

<comment><USER3> The only way I could replicate this is through selecting some text, then clicking until the ? appears (which lets you search their site for the selected text) and then clicking somewhere else. The ? goes away and takes the selected text. But I think it's unintentional and do no believe they are intentionally trying to keep you from selecting text. I was able to keep the selection there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"Hulu app could launch a player on the iPhone or iPad, if, of course, Apple allowed them to do so. If not, then a mobile site would have to be built in HTML5, video controls, overall UI, advertisements and all. That's no simple process."_

I'm not really sure that writing a new Objective-C player is tremendously easier than writing an HTML 5 one. If it were, wouldn't they have already done this for the iPhone?

At least everyone would benefit from the option of getting rid of flash if they did write a seamless HTML 5 rendition.

</comment><comment><USER5> Title is Bullllllllllllllllllllshit.

They could have an app up in a couple weeks that streamed select shows. They could have their entire library up as soon as they got their entire library up (which is basically a process of running 2 programs on each show, a possibly scriptable task, which likely should be quality checked by a human). The protocol and video player are extremely advertising friendly on the iPhone.

Apple might not approve them, but it's not exactly a huge expense to find out.

If they're changing business model and chose to not find out is one thing. But this is NOT a hard _technical_ problem.

Disclosure: I do custom 3rd party iphone apps for a living, including streaming video.

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting. Let me ask the HN community this: I am exploring a niche web video startup that targets a demographic that would lend itself to having an iPad/iPhone app.

Here's the question though: should I plan to actually code an app, or should I just go for HTML5? What would you do?

<comment><USER5> You can do an app pretty quickly actually.

The livestreaming tech isn't hard. (If you check out my profile, there is an email there which will forward to my work account, we do that sort of work there, so my advice is not completely unselfishly motivated) and it does adjust pretty well between different network conditions.

I'm not an HTML5 expert though, so can't really offer you a contrast.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> DRM.</comment>