Wood Joint Strength Testing - <AUTHOR> https://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/ <comment><USER2> There is another important factor. Wood expands and contracts according to the moisture content of its environment and screws expand and contract according to temperature. The combination of these means that screws work themselves loose over time, often wearing the threads out of the wood.

In the UK, stair handrails (for instance) used to be mortice and tennoned with a drawbored peg. This is where an offset holde is drilled through the tennon and a peg driven in to pull it tight. A fashion for cheap construction has seen this replaced by screws in many cases. The problem is that uk houses tend to have wet plaster (or at least a skim on drywall) and high moisture levels at the time of installation. This means that the wood will shrink once installed... and your handrails come loose, the screws are hidden by this time!

In a very damp situation, say a wooden gate, this gets a cyclical drying and wetting, yet properly made oak gates can last many years due to their pegged tennon joints. Edit: clarity

<comment><USER3> In addition to wood movement, there's another important factor when it comes to hobbyist woodworkers: accuracy.

With modern adhesives and precision machining like Mathias' work will make mighty strong joints even out of the simplest joinery method. A precision made box joint glued with wood glue is stronger than a finely made dovetail joint.

But when it comes to me bodging away in my garage with hand tools, that kind of precision is not going to happen. But historical "strong" joints like dovetails and mortises and tenons with wedges and drawbores are very forgiving joints and are quite strong even when they're not made to sub-millimeter accuracy. I can join a decent box with dovetails in about 30 minutes, put it together with a few drops hide glue and fill the gaps with sawdust and it'll work great.

But someone with a table saw and a simple box joint jig could join 10 boxes in the same 30 minutes it took me to make one.

<comment><USER4> Modern hand tool woodworking can match or exceed the accuracy of machine woodworking, albeit with a higher skill threshold. You can achieve very fine results with very basic tools. Machine woodworking is undoubtedly faster, however.

Tight tolerances are often completely counterproductive because of wood movement. Even with an impermeable polyurethane finish, you'll get significant seasonal movement. Effective fine woodworking is about designing to account for that movement - building drawer runners slightly undersized so they don't bind up, allowing door panels to float in the groove so they don't bow or split etc. One of the key skills of cabinet-making is developing an intuition for wood movement.

[https://www.canadianwoodworking.com/tipstechniques/dealing-w...](https://www.canadianwoodworking.com/tipstechniques/dealing- wood-movement)

<comment><USER5> What about torrefying the wood first? Wouldn't this reduce the amount of movement in the wood?

<comment><USER3> You can't really stop wood movement or even reduce the amount it moves. It can be slowed down a little with some finishes (then you have a "wood-plastic composite"). Kiln drying (do you mean this by "torrefying"?) will make the wood dry for a while, but when the temperature and (absolute) humidity will rise on the summer, the wood will absorb moisture from the air and expand and shrink again next winter.

<comment><USER4> Torrefaction (more properly, thermal modification) involves higher temperatures than kiln drying, causing chemical changes to the wood that result in permanently lower equilibrium moisture content and hygroscopicity. It improves the stability of wood and drastically improves the resistance of softwoods to decay, but it isn't a complete solution to wood movement. There is a significant tradeoff between stability and strength.

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

<comment><USER6> It also changes the color, which in many cases is inappropriate for the project. However, if it were being painted I would definitely consider it. I bought some Torrefied ash recently - it's weird stuff. Kind of like working with toast instead of bread. the sawdust smells odd, too.

<comment><USER5> In the acoustic guitar world, torrefication has become popular for some guitars. The main idea is that the end result of the spruce (commonly used for top wood on an acoustic guitar) is closer to a piece of spruce that is many years old which affects the tone and "improves" it to some ears. The other benefit is the wood is less likely to crack which is an issue with acoustic guitars, especially in dry climates where humidification is an issue. Some say the wood is more resistant to cracking but more brittle in other ways which aren't too important to how an acoustic guitar applies tension. the main idea is the wood won't change with respect to humidity as much as untreated wood.

But yes, especially when luthiers started using this technique there were all sorts of issues with the end result in terms of superficial results/coloring. However, they've gotten better at this and now we see the wood being a bit darker but without all the other cosmetic issues from past years.

<comment><USER4> _> The main idea is that the end result of the spruce (commonly used for top wood on an acoustic guitar) is closer to a piece of spruce that is many years old which affects the tone and "improves" it to some ears._

Torrefied tops can definitely make an instrument sound better. With the right thermal treatment, you get a slight increase in stiffness and a fairly significant reduction in damping due to the lower equilibrium moisture content and the depolymerisation of hemicelluloses. If the top is properly braced to account for the different properties, you get a more open-sounding instrument with more volume and/or sustain. Torrefied necks are substantially more stable, particularly for the flatsawn maple necks on most Fender-style electric guitars. The durability of tops is very much swings and roundabouts - you gain a fair bit of stability with respect to atmospheric changes, but the top becomes weaker and more brittle, so more prone to impact cracking.

 _> But yes, especially when luthiers started using this technique there were all sorts of issues with the end result in terms of superficial results/coloring. However, they've gotten better at this and now we see the wood being a bit darker but without all the other cosmetic issues from past years._

If anything, the caramel colour of torrefied maple or spruce has become a status symbol. We're starting to see a lot of roasted ash bodies on electric guitars and basses, which doesn't really do anything tonally but looks cool.

<comment><USER5> I agree, the slightly darker top is nice to my eye and gives it a fine head- start to the natural aging process of yellowing the guitar.

I think some of the issues that were out there with regards to coloring were things like "racing stripes" where there would be significantly darker stripes of darkened color an inch or more wide that would run up the tops, which many people disliked. It never really bothered me too much, personally.

I agree on the improved tonal characteristics - the reason I say "improves" in quotes is that this is entirely subjective. Some people are very sensitive about these types of proclamations for some reason. I believe it does make for better tone, which is why I have a guitar with torrification (red spruce top) being built currently. To my ear it is louder and more articulate than the same species of spruce that hasn't been torrified. As you've said, it's opened up right from the start rather than waiting years for the wood to change enough to create that open sound.

Of course when it comes to the tone of the top wood, besides the bracing (which is obviously unbelievable important), I believe that the finish matters a lot and as thin a nitro finish as possible is ideal. I've drank the kool-aid with regards to hide glue as well. At the very least, it makes a neck reset (dove tail, glued joint neck) or any other type of surgery easier in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd recommend NOT starting to watch Matthias Wandel's videos. I must have lost years of my life watching woodworking videos on youtube after he got me hooked. It also cost me several thousand pounds in tools and culminated in me buying a home requiring complete refurbishment (not quite finished).

Save yourself! (mostly in jest).

<comment><USER4> At the very least, watch some Paul Sellers videos to inoculate yourself against the belief that you absolutely _must_ give all your disposable income to Festool and Lie Nielsen.

[https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulSellersWoodwork](https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulSellersWoodwork)

<comment><USER8> Honestly, if you're interested in woodworking, Paul Seller's original 'workbench' video set is how to get started.

Cheap materials, can be done with cheap tools, and he's pretty straight forward about what's important to worry about and what isn't.

You'll learn whether or not woodworking is for you, and you'll have a handy workbench.

<comment><USER9> His workbench tutorial is excellent, but for me, an absolute noob, it was still daunting to build a workbench as the very first project. What I ended up is building the Paul seller's Trestle [1] as my Hello World project, and it has been super handy. Even after that, I still think his workbench is too much work for me, and I eventually decided to build Christopher Schwarz's knockdown workbench [2].

[1] [https://paulsellers.com/trestles-drawings-and-cutting- list-d...](https://paulsellers.com/trestles-drawings-and-cutting-list- download/) [2] [https://blog.lostartpress.com/2014/09/18/materials-tools- for...](https://blog.lostartpress.com/2014/09/18/materials-tools-for-the- knockdown-nicholson-workbench/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As someone who dabbles in woodwork, I can highly recommend it as a hobby.

Exercising the brain in any new problem domain can often be rewarding in itself, but it's a nice opportunity to blend engineering, practicality, creativity, usefulness.

From TFA, I'm (also) surprised that end-grain screws worked at all well. I appreciate the author was trying to minimise variation between the components, but for end-grain I'd use a much deeper thread, as screwing into end grain is often compared to joining into the end of a bunch of drinking straws. Not that I'd ever screw into end-grain. ;)

Similarly, the makeshift pocket hole jointer isn't clear from the pictures how they got a recessed hole (commercial pocket hole devices use a t-shaped drill bit, and do not drill all the way through the piece). The recommended bits for pocket holes also have a threadless shaft near the head, so the two pieces pull tightly together.

Which leads to the lack of glue in many of those photos. I grew up hearing (but not really believing) phrases like 'the nails are only there to hold it until the glue dries'. Wood glue technology is amazing -- when they say on the bottle 'stronger than wood' they aren't joking. I'd expect to use a _lot_ more glue than shown, and have it significantly affect the results.

<comment><USER11> > the nails are only there to hold it until the glue dries

This is a phrase my brother, a cabinet maker/ jointer, uses... And tests occasionally: Glue 2 pieces of timber together at 90 degrees and clamp it normally. When dry, break the join (by bashing it with a hammer is his general way) to see if it's the glue or the timber. Nearly all of the glue he tests are stronger than the timber (Oz, US and Asian hardwoods), as it's the timber that is ripped apart, and not the glue join.

A bottle of standard PVA-B (/ exterior grade) from the local hardware store is pretty excellent.

When you think about glue, it's _everywhere_ these days. All timber laminates (eg kitchen bench tops, plywood, particle board, MDF, and finger jointed/laminated timber) are just 'glued'. A lot of this is structural timber (ie designed to last decades).

From the article:

> This joint failed by the wood in the post shearing along the growth rings

This is the most common place of failure when witnessing my brother's "tests", and makes a lot of sense it happens that way too. The glue should have been the strongest part of ALL of his tests. It looks like he 'over clamped' the timber (ie squeezed out all the glue) in few of his photos [0]: which is something my brother has warned me about, as it makes the join weak.

[0] [https://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/failures.html](https://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/failures.html)

Edit: clarification

<comment><USER12> Indeed. Glue-laminate beams are a wonderful building material: cheap, strong as hell, and friendly to forests since they are made from wood scraps.

<comment><USER13> The timber extraction industry cares not which tree the fiber comes from and sells it to the highest bidder.

(Actually, they discard pieces that are too small to handle profitably, so they do care a little bit)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hey, cool to see my article on the front page of hacker news. Never expected THAT article to hit hacker news. Got a question, I could answer.

<comment><USER15> Hey there! Big fan of your articles and videos. I've been building box joints recently and even though the forces they're subjected to are not nearly as pathological as what you tested, I enjoyed your box joints and dovetails strength testing article: [https://woodgears.ca/dovetail/strength.html](https://woodgears.ca/dovetail/strength.html)

Quick question: do you recall what wood you used for the box/dovetail article? It looks similar to the spruce from the earlier joint strength article. I suppose using a stronger wood would just get you closer to where the glue is failing more than the wood, but I'm just curious.

Less-quick question, feel free to punt/ignore: any thoughts on deliberately building in a very, very slight gap between box joint fingers? I would expect this to reduce joint strength (thanks to reduced force between fingers and surface area in contact) but potentially also mitigate wood stress from movement in service due to humidity. Though I imagine if a work piece is big enough for me to be concerned about movement in service, I probably shouldn't be using box joints!

<comment><USER14> I'm pretty sure that wood was birch.

As for gaps in joints, if its a small gap, it doesn't hurt. I actually did some tests in that regard, linked from the article. [http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/glue_methods.html](http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/glue_methods.html)

A small gap actually helped. Probably because the glue soaks into the wood, so a joint without any gap sort of runs out of glue too quick (my theory). But it suggests that putting glue on and leaving the joint open for a minute may be beneficial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A problem is that "strength" isn't a scientific term. You have tensile strength, shear strength, torsion strength, and compression strength.

Screws have incredible tensile strength, which this article was testing. Shear strength? Not so much. Hit the joint with a hammer from above, and most screws will just snap. Nails are the opposite -- great shear strength, and no tensile.

Glue is stronger than wood, as several comments indicated, but for how long? I've had many glued pieces of furniture fail after a decade of use.

In a lot of woodworking, I use multiple types of fasteners. It's overengineering, but it doesn't fail.

<comment><USER17> Most of the glued pieces I'll see fail after a decade were using your standard yellow carpenter's glue. It's fine, strong stuff that lasts a while, but it will still soften if it absorbs some water. Some older glues will also brittle over time. There's been a big push recently to waterproof glues that fully cure and can't be re-wet. While it's disheartening to throw out a bottle of clumpy glue (when I've had bottles of the yellow stuff sit around for over a decade and are still good), glues like titebond 2 or 3 should last as long as the wood itself.

I'll still use the yellow glue for anything that doesn't hold a load, like thin panelling. These days my yellow glue mostly gets used to repair pop up books my toddler tore apart.

<comment><USER3> On the other hand, if you build heirloom pieces with nice joinery, you want the glue to fail before the wood does. When that happens, it's an easy repair. If there's damage to the wood, it's a much more complex affair.

I use hide glue liquid, which is not very strong and not moisture resistant at all. But it's a pleasure to work with and I know that if it fails, I can put it back together again (doesn't even need the old glue to be cleaned up).

If anyone wants to geek out about historical adhesives for woodworking and other craft, I'll gladly share my experiences about DIY glue cooking at home.

<comment><USER18> Hide glue is also stronger than the wood joint.

<comment><USER3> It usually is, but that depends on the additives used and the gram strength of the flakes used to cook the glue and the quality of the glue job.

E.g. I cooked a batch of 192 gram strength glue with 50% table salt additive to keep it liquid at room temperature, and I had half of the failures at glue seams in destructive testing. Made an excellent glue for cold winter days, though.

In glue strength tests (like James Wright on YouTube and FWW magazine both), hide glue compares favorably to modern glues.

But all it takes is a few drops of additives to drastically change the qualities of the glue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It is amazing to find woodworking is such well received topic on HN. I don't remember how I stumbled on a woodworking video on YouTube about a year ago, and last week I just finished building the Christopher Schwarz knockdown workbench. This hobby is truly addictive, to me, it resembles a lot aspects of software engineering, but in a more vivid and interactive fashion.

<comment><USER19> I think this is particularly true in the sense that woodworkers (like software people) can make much of their own tooling in their native media. Nothing I've seen on youtube is a better example of that than Matthias Wandel. Need to make a bandsaw out of wood? Here, hold my beer. The Pantorouter... really? Even dust collection! This makes wooden stuff out of wooden stuff out of wooden stuff. Three levels deep, inception style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why didn't he join the screwed pieces with glue? I was always under the impression the whole point point of screwed joints is to stress the glue, not to actually bear load (Because of the small surface area and hardness difference of the materials)

<comment><USER21> I've never used both screws and glue on a joint.

It's either a quick and lame job and I'll use screws, or I'm making something nice and I'll go to the trouble of cutting and gluing joints.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Cool article! I've made a few very simple pieces of furniture and have always used screws, so I was surprised to see they were the weakest joint. Guess I'll need to learn how to mortise and tenon!

<comment><USER23> Screws can be fine if used appropriately. If they're loaded in shear rather than tension, there's no issue of the head pulling through for instance.

<comment><USER14> Yes, screws are fine for most applications, but at a right angle, if strength is critical, not the best option.

<comment><USER23> Your failures mostly amounted to the joint pulling apart along the glue interface rather than breaking, I suspect adding a transverse retaining pin will make the failures more interesting with significantly higher loads.

Did you consider doing any tests with a retaining dowel or some nails/screws through the mortice and tenon joint?

<comment><USER14> The transverse pin weakens the tenon and the piece of wood it goes into. If the joint is well designed (so that the glue strength and wood strength are balanced), the tranverse pin only weakens the joint.

<comment><USER23> Does that hold true for all thicknesses?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Can anyone recommend any good woodworking book _s_ , preferably one that is friendly to beginners.

<comment><USER25> Check out Lost Art Press ([https://lostartpress.com/](https://lostartpress.com/)) They focus mostly on traditional hand tool wood working. The Anarchist's Tool Chest ([https://lostartpress.com/collections/getting- started/product...](https://lostartpress.com/collections/getting- started/products/the-anarchists-tool-chest)) is a great book to help you get started with what makes a good hand tool and what you need to start doing small projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Yeah, I really need to move away from screws.

I recently made a Dialup line if anyone wants to talk about their projects: [https://dialup.com/woodworking](https://dialup.com/woodworking)

</comment><comment><USER27> Results are not at all surprising, but it's really great to see it done in a formal way.

</comment><comment><USER28> Matthias Wandel is just the coolest. Highly highly recommend watching all of his videos

<comment><USER14> That's right :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> woodgears.ca is one of my favorite sites on the internet. really inspiring, although it's unlikely I'll ever build a pantograph router.

</comment><comment><USER30> woo hoo! science!</comment>


The Rumble 2012 Refresher - <AUTHOR> http://jsfiddle.net/Zhv7k/2/

<comment><AUTHOR> This refreshes that page that says "Stay tuned. The archive of the debate will be posted shortly." that some of ya'all are refreshing anyways right now.

Note: Must be logged in to see status.

<comment><AUTHOR> And nevermind, it's live.</comment></comment>


Head of Time Warner Cable Unfamiliar With Apple's AirPlay - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/time-warner-apple-tv-airplay/ <comment><USER2> _Today we want to be on every screen. Today it's a little bit clunky to get programming from the Internet onto the TV — not so hard to get it on your iPad_

This is horrifying. Outside of Airplay virtually every HDTV you buy these days is going to have an internet app platform built in. Something like a Roku is dead simple and both Verizon and Comcast/Xfinity stream IP based content via the Xbox. Getting Internet onto the big screen is painfully easy. Not understanding the threat posed by these devices isn't acceptable for the head of a major cable operator.

<comment><USER3> But it is clunky. It's a threat, but it's clunky.

Roku - weird platform, but improving. BrightScript has its issues, but it does support HLS and VAST for ads.

Boxee - buggy.

SamsungTV - horrible platform, horrible (borderline abusive) approval process. Already fragmented between 2010 and 2011 models, poor and/or outright wrong documentation.

GoogleTV - possibly one of the best of the bunch, since Android is a worthwhile base, but still has a few screws loose.

Others - often too small/difficult to invest heavily in making something truly good.

<comment><USER4> What about Apple TV? I agree, the TV based systems are "clunky", but Apple TV works perfectly, and Roku only seems to have hickups with slower internet connections.

I have an answer for Time Warner's CEO -- "there was no simple way to get Internet-based video onto the television screen" -- Apple TV is easy. There is nothing about modern cable that is that easy. Last time I moved I did not reconnect my cable. I never plan on intentionally becoming a cable customer again in my life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I thought this was an Onion headline at first. Though if it were, it would probably read: "Company CEO Unaware of Technology Sure to Make His Company Obsolete".

Alas, it seems like Time Warner won't be obsolete very soon. We can only hope.

</comment><comment><USER6> While it's easy to make fun of the guy for this, it's also a good indicator of how much work remains for products like AirPlay and Roku. The average consumer just isn't aware of the technology, and it's still relatively difficult to research and setup (compared to just calling your cable company). There's still big opportunity in this space.

<comment><USER7> Granted I'm on HN so I'm probably not an "average consumer" in this regard. However new computers have HDMI outs and new TVs have HDMI ins. What exactly is the technical problem with getting internet content on a TV? It is absolutely no different than plugging in an Xbox or other console, and actually simpler than setting up a TiVo or a cable box!

NOTE: I don't actually know how common HDMI outs are on store bought PCs (since I build my own) but surely it is becoming standard?

<comment><USER8> Hooking a PC with HDMI-out to a TV isn't that hard, but now what do you do? How do you control it remotely, are you going to get up and walk over to the PC hooked up to the TV every time you want to change the "channel"? And what exactly are the "channels"? A web browser open to YouTube?

Before anyone answers these rhetorical questions -- I know full well that things like USB-irda devices, XBMC with plugins to automatically torrent your favorite shows or more-likely-used-legally options like Windows Media Center exist, but there is actually quite a lot of software complexity that you are handwaving over here and you'd be surprised how close to technobabble gibberish this currently existing stuff sounds to an "average consumer".

Internet as the primary means to deliver tv content is absolutely inevitable and if I were a shareholder of a cable company and the CEO of that company was completely oblivious to the move to this future, I would be concerned. OTOH we are still at least a few years off from this being a really viable option for the masses. The current solutions all have pretty serious gaps. This is a big part of the reason the idea of a true Apple iTV is continually churned on the rumor mill. For whatever you think about Apple (I'm not a huge fan), one would expect them to deliver a true end-to-end solution, which hasn't really been done yet.

<comment><USER7> Apparently I wasn't fully appreciating what "internet content" is. I was assuming this referred to content that is already accessible through a browser - so yes my daughter wants to show us all something funny she saw on YouTube - we put it up on our TV rather than hunch around a monitor. I was also assuming the discussion was about only accessing that content, not completely replacing the current cable TV model. I agree it is inevitable but we aren't actually there yet. I'm not a big consumer of TV content but I had thought services like netflix and hulu were already taking huge steps in this arena. One (two) of the only shows I do take any interest has been available online for a long time already - Comedy Central's Daily Show and Colbert Report.

I think this situation is going to resolve itself when the generation shifts - I don't think the next generation will ever subscribe to cable the way their parents have, and the perceived tech barrier will be less with the next generation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What's immensely frustrating about this, is that they actively block internet content on the TV via Google TV, and yet they claim it's difficult to deliver content to the TV. I call this hypocritical.

</comment><comment><USER10> "I hate set-top boxes"

I hated his company's crappy set-top box, the lack of TWC support for 3rd party boxes, and the efforts TWC made to kill the cablecard.

</comment><comment> brown9-2 I connect an HDMI cable from my laptop to my HDTV. Would the average consumer consider that "clunky"?

<comment><USER11> Yes.

First, despite the simplification of the cables, physically connecting it can still be a challenge, for example if there's no convenient place to put a laptop within 6' of the TV. And power for the laptop there too.

Second, once its connected, it's no certainty that the external display will be correctly detected or set to the correct resolution. Is the picture streched? When you hit full-screen, does it only show on the laptop? Is sound going over HDMI too? Tinkering with settings and troubleshooting a multi- monitor setup can be intimidating for the "average consumer".

Even if you get everything setup, many laptops do no come with remote controls, and long HDMI cables are uncommon.

I've owned or own a Roku, a TV which had USB and could play anything FFMPEG could read, a PS3 with netflix and recently an AppleTV+iPad.

I'd consider myself reasonably technically inclined and have had an HDMI cable which comfortably reached my couch for quite awhile but I still use that as a last resort for content I can't play some other way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hopefully this means that all cable companies will die soon... Ok maybe that is a bit too hopeful. But I've been looking for ways to drop my TV bill recently (directv) I pay $90 a month to watch maybe 3 channels once or twice a week. I can't think of any other consumer service I pay that much for. Unfortunately new episodes of Dexter and BreakingBad aren't easily available online yet. The Cable/Satellite TV industry is just so broken.

</comment><comment><USER13> "AirPlay also makes it easy to push pirated video available on the Web onto the television, which could lead some people to drop their cable subscriptions."

Really? AirPlay only works with Apple-approved apps. E.g., it doesn't work with HBO Go. Pirated videos, there's no app for that.

<comment><USER14> > Pirated videos, there's no app for that.

Torrent -> HandBrake -> iTunes -> Apple TV

<comment><USER13> The subject was AirPlay, which is a specific technology that allows users to play video on their iPhone/iPad on their TV through AppleTV. Can you rip off a video into iTunes and make AppleTV play it over wi-fi, but it's not AirPlay.

<comment><USER14> Sorry, you're just wrong. The feature in iTunes that lets you stream your videos to an Apple TV is called AirPlay and uses the same protocol as iOS devices.

AirPlay actually has its origins in AirTunes, which was originally _only_ accessible through iTunes. These days there are even third party senders and receivers for AirPlay, so in principal you can use AirPlay without actually using any first-party Apple software or hardware.

<comment><USER13> Well, darn, I guess I am. Sometimes I think I know something I don't. Thanks for the clarification, all of the commenters. Sorry for the noise.

As i386 said, I don't think Torrent -> HandBrake -> iTunes -> Apple TV is a path many Apple users will take. But I guess it's AirPlay. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Glenn A. Britt, the company's chief executive, said in a group interview on Friday that the challenge for digital video was that there was no simple way to get Internet-based video onto the television screen."

The CEO has never heard of HDMI or VGA cables??

</comment><comment><USER16> There is a fine line between visionary and dunce. If he only had this insight about 5 years ago...

</comment><comment><USER17> Head of Time Warner unfamiliar with arse location process involving the use of both hands.

</comment><comment><USER18> Meh this is not news. Unless you actively look for this you would not know it was there. Who cares.</comment>


Jony Ive to form independent design company with Apple as client - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/06/jony-ive-to-form-independent-design-company-with-apple-as-client/?1561668811 <comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20298653](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20298653).

</comment><comment><USER3> Hopefully this signals the end of the designers tyranny at Apple.

While physical design has been of paramount importance in Apple's rise to the top, it has been more and more detrimental as Jony and his group wandered into worshipping at the altar of luxury and Platonic idealism.

When combined not ignoring other than luxury market segments and _usability_ that was fine. But when Jony's star was completely ascendant everything else was sacrificed at that altar (see butterfly keyboard, single port MacBook, escape key-less touch bars, no 32 GB MacBook Pros since that would require non-power-sipping RAM.)

I could have lived with this if the design of the _software_ hadn't also suffered in conjunction with the hardware. Jony was given responsibility for UX and it also started prioritizing abstract design principles over actual usability with extremely low contrast UI elements and other poor choices.

As we saw those points being walked back and Apple being responsive to the complaints, I've been wondering if Craig Federighi's star was rising and if Jony's was dimming, since I doubt he was a willing participant in the diminution of his artistic choices. Seeing the extreme effort he was putting into charity[0] and the spaceship campus, instead of his actual responsibilities, it all combined to me that he needed to either get re- focused by the CEO or get a new job.

[0] [https://www.dezeen.com/2018/11/16/jony-ive-diamond-ring- marc...](https://www.dezeen.com/2018/11/16/jony-ive-diamond-ring-marc-newson- red-auction/) [https://petapixel.com/2013/11/24/one-kind-jony-ive-red- leica...](https://petapixel.com/2013/11/24/one-kind-jony-ive-red-leica-m- sells-whopping-1-8m-charity-auction/) [https://www.businessinsider.com/jony- ive-bono-sothebys-chari...](https://www.businessinsider.com/jony-ive-bono- sothebys-charity-auction-2013-9) [https://www.fastcompany.com/3019896/designed-by- friendship-j...](https://www.fastcompany.com/3019896/designed-by-friendship- jony-ive-and-marc-newsons-15-ton-desk)

<comment><USER4> I agree with most of the stuff you said, but where did you get the "no 32GB Macbook Pros" from? I haven't been following MBP that closely, but last year's MBPs had a 32GB option, and so do the newer 2019 models.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> *Jony

<comment><USER6> *Sir Jony

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The only thing worse than being the 6th submit on this subject in the past 10 minutes is _spelling his name wrong._

<comment><USER8> I wonder, did the submitter retype the title character by character except for his name? Or copy/paste it and then inject the typo afterward?</comment></comment>


What makes maths beautiful? - <AUTHOR> https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5208/what-makes-maths-beautiful <comment><USER2> I had a run-in with this issue once. Many years ago, when working on a program verification system, I had to show that two theorem provers (Boyer-Moore and Nelson-Oppen) were working on compatible theories. If that was botched, the system could prove false statements. So I undertook to prove, in Boyer-Moore theory, the "axioms" of arrays used in the Nelson-Oppen prover. McCarthy defined four classic axioms for arrays, and here are the first two.

        p=r ⇒ read(write(a, p, v), r) = v

        ¬(p=r) ⇒ read(write(a, p, v), r) = read(a, r)

This just says that if you store v at a[p], and then read it back, you get what you put there, and you don't change any other elements.

So I set this up in Boyer-Moore notation.

        (PROVE-LEMMA SELECT-OF-STORE-1 (REWRITE)
            (IMPLIES (AND (arrayp A) (NUMBERP I))
                     (EQUAL (selecta (storea A I V) I) V)))

        (PROVE-LEMMA SELECT-OF-STORE-2 (REWRITE)
            (IMPLIES (AND (arrayp A) (NUMBERP I) (NUMBERP J) (NOT (EQUAL I J)))
                     (EQUAL (selecta (storea A I V) J) (selecta A J))))

But Boyer-Moore theory is constructive; everything must have a definition that can be evaluated as a function. So I had to define arrays and the "selecta" and "storea" functions so that this would work. I could do this by defining an array as a list of (subscript, value) tuples.

        (ADD-SHELL UNDEFINED-OBJECT UNDEFINED UNDEFINEDP ())

        (ADD-SHELL array-shell
            empty-array
            array-recognizer
            ((array-elt-value (NONE-OF) UNDEFINED)
             (array-elt-subscript (ONE-OF NUMBERP) ZERO)
             (array-prev (ONE-OF array-recognizer) empty-array)))

This is simply a structure definition for a list. An array-shell has an array- elt-value, an array-elt-subscript, and array-prev, which is the rest of the elements. "array-shell" is the constructor, "empty-array" is essentially "nil" for this type, and "array-recognizer" is a predicate which is true for objects of type array-shell.

For array equality to work, the list of tuples had to be ordered by subscript, so that two arrays with the same values would always have the same representation. So selecta and storea are complicated. selecta is a recursive lookup in a list:

        (DEFN selecta (A I)
            (IF (EQUAL (array-elt-subscript A) I)
                       (array-elt-value A)
                       (IF (EQUAL (array-prev A) (empty-array))
                           (UNDEFINED)
                           (selecta (array-prev A) I))))

Store into array is ugly, because it's an update of an ordered list.

        (DEFN storea (A I V)
            (IF (NOT (arrayp A))
                (empty-array)
                (IF (NOT (NUMBERP I))
                    A
                    (IF (EQUAL A (empty-array))
                        (IF (EQUAL V (UNDEFINED))
                            (empty-array)
                            (array-shell V I (empty-array)))
                        (IF (EQUAL (array-elt-subscript A) I)
                            (IF (EQUAL V (UNDEFINED))
                                (array-prev A)
                                (array-shell V I (array-prev A)))
                            (IF (LESSP (array-elt-subscript A) I)
                                (IF (EQUAL V (UNDEFINED))
                                    A
                                    (array-shell V I A))
                                (array-shell
                                    (array-elt-value A)
                                    (array-elt-subscript A)
                                    (storea (array-prev A) I V))))))))

This recursive function is complicated enough that it needs a lemma to help with proof of termination.

        (PROVE-LEMMA storea-is-sound (REWRITE)
            (implies (and (arrayp a)
                (not (equal a (empty-array))))
                (lessp (count (array-prev a)) (count a))))

This says that the array-prev list component of a is always shorter than a. The Boyer-Moore prover must prove termination for all defined functions, which it does by examining any recursive call and proving that there is a measure defined on the arguments which is a smaller nonnegative integer. For the easy cases, the prover can do this automatically, but sometimes you have to define a lemma to help it. The lemma, of course, also has to be proved.

So, given all that, the Boyer-Moore theorem prover could be turned loose to grind out proofs of the rules for arrays. It took about 45 minutes of grinding in 1982 on a 1 MIPS VAX 11/780\. You can rerun it now. Here's the prover, which requires clisp.[1]. Here's the entire set of definitions and theorems we used for program verification.[2]. Read the instructions at [1], and get the system up to where it's done "boot-strap". Then load the file at [2]. Long, detailed, human-readable explanations of the proof steps are displayed. The entire proof run for all those basic theorems takes about a second, and that's probably mostly scrolling.

So, having rigorously proved the "axioms" for arrays from first principles, I submitted a paper to JACM. The reviewer comments I got back were mainly about the uglyness of the approach. All that case analysis! One comment was that the reviewer was upset about having a proof that ugly at the foundations of computer science. The paper was rejected.

The reason it's ugly is that it doesn't get to use set theory. Informally, a set is a collection whose order does not matter. "Order does not matter" is not a meaningful concept in strict Boyer-Moore theory. If order matters, there are many cases to prove, stemming from all those IF statements in the definitions.

A generation later, fewer mathematicians would be bothered by this form of "uglyness". But back then, machine proofs were so rare that this was considered awful. Also, now that computers can do this in a second, complaining that it's too complicated seems whiny.

[1] [https://github.com/John-Nagle/nqthm](https://github.com/John-Nagle/nqthm) [2] [https://github.com/John- Nagle/pasv/blob/master/src/work/temp...](https://github.com/John- Nagle/pasv/blob/master/src/work/temporaryrulebase.lisp)

<comment><USER3> I love these anecdotes.

Just an aside, but I was under the impression that Set Theory (these days) is regarded as not-necessarily-all-that-well-founded or, perhaps, not ideal for "foundations"? Is that hopelessly misguided?

If it isn't already apparent, I'm pretty much a noob in formal verification, but I've read enough to hopefully have a very shallow understanding...?!?

EDIT: I just thought I'd add what "makes math beautiful" for me: The mere difficulty of defining equality of 'things' and deciding what it _should_ mean.

<comment><USER2> Equality should at least have the property that

        ∀ f, x = y ⇒ f(x) = f(y)

In a constructive theory like Boyer-Moore, all variables have a concrete representation, and functions can look into that representation. Thus, for EQUAL to have the property above, the representation must be the same.

In Boyer-Moore theory, there's no "hiding", in the sense of an object with private members. One could define a "weak equality" for sets which were lists of values, true if the same values were in both lists. Weak equality would not require that the lists have the same order. But you couldn't hide the representation. Functions could peek into the list representation, and the property above would not hold. So "weak equality" would not be very useful in proofs.

I once proposed a sort of "object oriented" extension to Boyer-Moore theory. The idea is that you create something like a set represented by lists, prove some theorems about such objects, and then "hide" the private functions that can look into the interior of the representation. Then you can define a weak equality function p. If you can prove ∀ f, p(x,y) ⇒ f(x) = f(y) for every non- hidden function, you have proven that p(x,y) ⇒ x = y. Then, p can be treated as equality. Proving this requires proving it for every function already defined. Any newly defined functions are composed from existing functions, so the equality still holds. There's trouble with newly defined types, though, because they come with some built-in functions such as the type predicate.

If you pursue this, you probably get to some theory of types, but I didn't want to go there, so I gave this up.

<comment><USER3> > Equality should at least have the property that ∀ f, x = y ⇒ f(x) = f(y)

My impression was that even that might be a bit contentious[1]. Well, maybe not contentious, but maybe... disputable? It also requires a theory of functions, or at least a syntax to derivation rules.

That was just to be absurdly nitpicky, I _think_ I understand what you're saying here, and it's much appreciated.

[1] [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/806a/92153c4b8d344edec45eec...](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/806a/92153c4b8d344edec45eece4ba105afd3dda.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm having trouble finding the source of this quote, but here:

>Many mathematicians have the opposite opinion; they do not or cannot distinguish the beauty or importance of a theorem from its proof. A theorem that is first published with a long and difficult proof is highly regarded. Someone who, preferably many years later, finds a short proof is "brilliant." But if the short proof had been obtained in the beginning, the theorem might have been disparaged as an "easy result." Erdős was a genius at finding brilliantly simple proofs of deep results, but, until recently, much of his work was ignored by the mathematical establishment.

And here is an interesting study on what mathematicians consider beautiful: [https://www.gwern.net/docs/math/1990-wells.pdf](https://www.gwern.net/docs/math/1990-wells.pdf) They found that mathematicians varied a great deal in what they considered beautiful. And that there isn't any consensus on what is considered beautiful. It also changes over time:

>There was a notable number of low scores for the high rank theorems 9 Le Lionnais has one explanation [7]: "Euler's formula e^pi*i = - 1 establishes what appeared in its time to be a fantastic connection between the most important numbers in mathematics... It was generally considered 'the most beautiful formula of mathematics' . . . Today the intrinsic reason for this compatibility has become so obvious that the same formula now seems, if not insipid, at least entirely natural."

I think the interestingness or surprisingness of a mathematical idea is a temporary thing. Once you really deeply understand something, it's no longer surprising or interesting. It should just feel obvious and simple.

This goes along with Jurgen Schmidhuber's theory of art ([http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/creativity.html](http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/creativity.html)). That humans crave novelty and unexpectedness in all areas, and that is what we consider beautiful. But once you get very familiar with something, it loses it's novelty.

<comment><USER5> Euler's formula says (in one interpretation) that a half-turn rotation in the plane is the same as a reflection through a point, a statement which is obvious to children who think about it for a bit. It's phrased in a cute way, but "most beautiful formula of all time" etc. is really a stretch.

The tricky part is thinking of rotations as a type of "number" with a multiplicative structure, in which case the [additive] angle measure becomes the logarithm of the rotation, letting us write our half-turn rotation using the fancy-looking exp( _πi_ ) instead of ½⥀ or rot(180°) or whatever.

If you asked someone whether ⤺² = ⥀ (or similar) was the most beautiful formula in mathematics they would probably laugh or look at you funny.

<comment><USER6> is there anything interesting to you in the notion that cos(x)+isin(x) is the unique analytic continuation of e^x in the complex plane?

It's not just a rotation by definition, I don't think.

<comment><USER5> If you think about it for a bit, it's clear that this must be so.

A circle's circumference is proportional to its radius, so if you want to have a conformal map between a rectangular grid in one space and a polar-coordinate grid in another space, the spacing of the polar-coordinate grid lines in the radial direction must necessarily be proportional to the radius so that they can match the radius-dependent spacing in the tangential direction.

Anyhow, there are many interesting features of the structures here. Both rotation and logarithms are very interesting and important both in mathematics and in science/engineering. I just don't think Euler's identity in particular is worthy of so much attention.

<comment><USER6> Sure, but I think most people believe that cos(x)+isin(x)=e^ix because that's how it is defined, in which case e^(i\pi)=-1 isn't even a result. It is at least the tiniest bit more interesting than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a mathematician, and never quite got the emphasis on "beauty" that some obsess over. Maybe I'm just too deep into the applied side. But mathematical beauty to me is unexpected terseness or conciseness in a result. Which is similar to how I would define beautiful source code I think.

<comment><USER8> I got pretty far in math (ms in cs with half of the classes being legit math classes) I never got the obsession either. in general it always felt to me like a bunch of awkward people trying to ascribe aesthetic value to something that had none. it also always felt self-aggrandizing: here look at how beautiful is this game I play where I made up the rules.

edit: down votes on hn without comments? boo

<comment><USER9> Well, most of your post involves insulting a fairly broad group of people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "What makes math beautiful?" Having it rendered correctly would be a good start.

Maybe it doesn't work just for me, but displaying "a2 + b2 = h2" in article about math is really ungraceful degradation.

</comment><comment><USER11> Much of complex analysis and linear algebra I think is beautiful and can be easily made accessible to the general layman.

<comment><USER12> I think you overestimate "the general layman". For example, complex analysis requires one to accept the existence of the square root of minus one and that multiplying by it is equivalent to a rotation.

In my experience, "the general layman" simply doesn't possess enough suspension of disbelief to get past such hurdles.

<comment><USER6> linear algebra, though, I feel is an excellent example.

Everyone has solved a system of linear equations in school. The concept is pretty accessible.

<comment><USER12> In 2D, I'll give you that, but in general, I would say "has struggled solving", rather than "has solved", and not even 'everyone'.

Few can, for example, reliably compute the intersection point of a line l' parallel to l through a point p with a plane P, and many would panic when given a problem in N>3-dimensional space.

I know people who _memorized_ formulas for solving linear systems as used in macro-economics (on the order of 10 dimensions, but lots of zeroes in their matrix), and, because of that, couldn't work when given a slightly different model to solve (for example, if taxation became be a constant plus a fraction of income instead of just a fraction of income, or if capital gains tax were introduced).

<comment><USER6> What on earth are you talking about?

The first step in a linear algebra course is to codify the method that you use in middle/high school to solve systems of equations of the form a00x0+a01x1+...=b0....

That algorithm sets the stage for everything. The pace is natural, the math is accessible, no geometric interpretation is ever required, and it's built for problems that people of even average intelligence can understand. Frankly, it's astonishing we don't teach it in high school.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is a beautiful poem still beautiful if it is written in a language that you don't understand?

I conjecture that the inherent beauty of mathematics is overstated. The beauty of Euler's identity is like the sublime beauty of a Himalayan peak shrouded in thick fog. A lot of the pleasure and reward stems as much from the effort to climb above the fog to view the peak in all its majesty as from any structural formal beauty. There are only so many ways formal structures can relate to each other aesthetically.

At least that's what I think today.

<comment><USER14> > There are only so many ways formal structures can relate to each other > aesthetically.

I think that a lot of the inherent beauty of mathematics (there is also the beauty of the climb, as you very nicely described it) comes precisely from the realisation that, sensible as this claim is, it doesn't seem to be true: there seem always to be more relationships out there to discover, and their hidden and surprising natures can make them all the more beautiful once uncovered.

<comment><USER15> Yes, this ^^

There is even a _mathematical_ case to be made that there are always "more relationships out there to discover." One of the more plausible, sober interpretations of the various limitative phenomena in the foundations of mathematics discovered throughout the 20th century is that mathematics is not reducible to fintary symbol manipulation. Perhaps this is a bit loose and controversial, but the point is just that we don't necessarily need to solely lean on the observed fact that there have always been "more relationships out there to discover."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> parsimoniousness and specificity. Each number and symbol serves a specific function/role that if rearranged or changed, the whole system/equation would cease to work, but also that the symbols themselves encode so much information and meaning within them..

</comment><comment><USER17> Not all math is beautiful IMHO.

The proof of the 4 color theorem "reduced the infinitude of possible maps to 1,936 reducible configurations (later reduced to 1,476) which had to be checked one by one by computer and took over a thousand hours."

Of course beauty is subjective and not well defined. Some might consider that proof beautiful.

<comment><USER14> > Not all math is beautiful IMHO.

Surely no-one claims that it is? Speaking of 'beautiful code' does not invite the rebuttal that there is also ugly code, just encourages the appreciation that ugly code isn't all there is, and that formal systems can be æsthetically pleasing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> In code I define beauty as the ability to do a lot with just a little. Simplicity while at the same time providing robustness is what gives me this feeling.

E=mc^2 is considered the greatest equation in history because of this reason. It makes it simple to explain to someone not well-versed in math what is actually behind the symbology.

<comment><USER19> >E=mc^2 is considered the greatest equation in history because of this reason.

Only people with a "pop-culture" idea of math&physics think that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> \- wholemeal view

\- knowing out of ignorance (probabilities)

\- compression of knowledge

</comment><comment><USER21> Math isn't beautiful, beauty is mathematical.

<comment><USER22> formula, please.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is it a UK thing to add the "s" to math? I see it pretty often but it never seems right. I've always used the word as an unchanging irregular plural similar to "sheep".

<comment><USER24> I may be biased since I'm american but I always felt "maths" to be silly. The argument for "maths" is that mathematics is plural. But it is plural in the sense it is a "mass noun" like software or equipment. You wouldn't shorten software to "softe" or equipment to "equipe". Also, maths sound awkward and silly and went spoken pretty much similar to math.

<comment><USER25> > Also, maths sound awkward and silly

Which, when in the UK, becomes: "Also, 'math' sounds awkward and silly"

<comment><USER24> > Which, when in the UK, becomes: "Also, 'math' sounds awkward and silly"

But math came from england via the oxford dictionary.

[https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50](https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50)

Try this. Do you say "maths are fun" or "maths is fun"? What about physics. Do you say physics is difficult? Or physics are difficult.

Is it singular or plural?

<comment><USER26> It is uncountable. Nobody serious justifies 'maths' based on it being plural, it is just a different contraction of the word 'mathematics' than what you are used to.

<comment><USER24> > Nobody serious justifies 'maths' based on it being plural

That's the only justification. What other justification is there?

> it is just a different contraction of the word 'mathematics' than what you > are used to.

Yes. Because the british mistakenly assumed mathematics was a "regular plural". For what reason would you keep the s at the end?

Do you shorten economics to econS or to econ? Do you takes ECONS 101?

The explanation was given here.

[https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50](https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50)

Why are you so resistant to FACTS and HISTORY? I don't get people who argue even after given evidence.

<comment><USER27> >That's the only justification. What other justification is there?

That those who hear it can understand what the speaker is talking about -- I would say _that_ is the only justification necessary (indeed, for any word), and is more than justified for the term "maths".

<comment><USER24> That is a justification to continue using it. Sure. But that isn't the justification for shortening mathematics to maths.

All I'm saying is that it was shortened to maths due to a misunderstanding of what mathematics is. And all I'm saying is that when british people saying the "correct" way to shorten mathematics is to shorten it to "maths", I'm saying their JUSTIFICATION is wrong. Because mathematics is not a regular plural.

Okay? I'm explaining it as simply as possible. Use maths if you want. If that is what is used in britain, fine. I'm just saying the JUSTIFICATION for why british people say it is "correct" is wrong. Okay?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple patents MacBook with key switches under a flexible touchscreen keyboard - <AUTHOR> https://www.techspot.com/news/78549-apple-patents-macbook-key-switches-underneath-flexible-touchscreen.html <comment><USER3> Is this punishment for all the complaints about the current keyboard?

<comment><USER4> Apple just wants us to get used to a shitty key feel to open the door to even worse.

<comment><USER5> You're not entirely wrong here.

Companies have no obligation to give the consumer the biggest and best, if they know the consumer will be satisfied with par. For instance, if a business has no/weak competition, then even if the company has a next-level product ready for distribution, it would make more sense to keep the lesser product on the shelf and only increment features when competition arrives.

For Apple, they know their customers are loyal and getting them riled up about some things here and there will only heighten the excitement when the truly epic product is released. I'm not sure if that's what's happening here, but I don't see Apple struggling.

<comment><USER4> I was half joking.

In my personal case I have grown more and more frustrated with Apple's products.

It boggles my mind that my 5 years old MBP is more pleasant to use than the one I got at work 1 year ago

(to be 100% fair, the new model has one nicety : the fingerprint reader, even though I am not 100% satisfied/convinced, it is nicer than entering a password).

I am more than ready to jump ship to any other product at this point. Even an OS that I feel is inferior for my personal needs won't be too much of an issue if it does everything else better than my current laptop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The strategy reveals itself: make a keyboard so shitty that a single breadcumb kills it. Then "upgrade" the users to something they wouldn't want if they had a proper, "old macbook pro" style keyboard.

Reminds me of an old Soviet joke. A guy comes to his doctor and starts complaining: "Doctor, it's intolerable, 10 of us live in tiny room in a communal apartment, I can't live like that anymore." The doctor suggests: "Get a pet goat and come back for a checkup in a month." So the guy comes back in a month, totally livid: "It's even worse, the goat takes up a lot of space, shits everywhere and starts baa-hing at 4AM in the morning. Everyone is suicidal." The wise doctor: "Now get rid of the goat".

</comment><comment><USER7> Perhaps eventually they'll invent and patent their way back to a usable laptop keyboard :)

IMO, declaring bankruptcy on the current design and reverting to the previous chiclet keys would be welcomed by most users, but it seems unlikely that Apple will actually admit a mistake for a few more years (e.g. what happened with the Mac Pro).

<comment><USER8> The 2015 MacBook Pro was the last piece of great hardware from Apple, in terms of their laptops. The newer MacBooks with their gimmicky touchbar and useless keyboards, for the sake of being thin, just show Tim Cook and his advisors have no ideas other than taking advantage of Facebooks privacy disasters and trying to get consumers to keep buying Apple products because Apple is supposedly on a higher moral pedestal.

<comment><USER9> 2015 MBP was great, but I also immensely enjoyed my 2013 MacBook Air. The Air's battery life, form factor and performance made it hands down the best laptop for its time.

I'm actually in the process of wiping it to give to a friend and feeling a bit of sadness. I use a 2017 MBP now - the screen is what finally got me - <USER2> you're right, todays hardware just doesn't compare to how it felt back then.

<comment><USER10> The Macbook Air form factor was, in my opinion, ideal. I have a 2011 MBA I keep around the house because it's still great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hm. At some level, this would be great, particularly for fluidly switching among keyboards across many languages, or even for particular games or applications (remapping the keys to functions which are nicely labeled). But it would need to get the haptic cues right, such that touch-typing remains possible and enjoyable.

One side bonus is that presumably, your keyboard would now be covered in a continuous non-permeable sheet. Combined with haptic touchpads, we're edging closer and closer to a more water-resistant laptop.

<comment><USER12> Let's give them the benefit of the doubt for a moment: the faux button on the trackpad is absolutely magical, superior in every way to a physical button.

So imagine that the "glass" of the new keyboard had physical ridges for the gutters between the keys, and then adjustable sensitivity for the force "clicks"… I could get into this. The lack of moving parts would provvide greater long-time durability, and make water damage a distant memory.

btw, see that double-vv above? Guess who's keyboard is failing for a second time? Yes, I, like many others, wouldn't mind a return to the older keyboard, but I'm also not afraid of the future. If that trackpad button is possible, I am confident that we'll see a faux keyboard of this quality at some point in my lifetime.

<comment><USER8> I don't see how a glass screen, no matter how amazing it feels, would be better than a keyboard. Of course, any judgement I pass is far too premature and a tad unfair since it's just a patent and I haven't tried out the product that uses the patent.

I do think that Apple is seemingly out of ideas. I'd be happy to buy a MacBook if they fixed the problems since 2016.

<comment><USER13> > _I don't see how a glass screen, no matter how amazing it feels, would be > better than a keyboard._

2007 called, it wants its arguments back -- for those were the same arguments made in favor of Blackberry and other crappy experiences compared to today's touch smartphones.

<comment> frosted-flakes Except modern BlackBerrys provide a far more enjoyable and accurate experience than typing on glass. It's not necessarily _faster_ , but nicer. And you even get gesture support for stuff like adding suggestions and moving the cursors around. Modern BlackBerrys run Android.

<comment><USER13> And all 10 people prefer that "more enjoyable experience", so it makes one wonder, more enjoyable to whom?

<comment> frosted-flakes I've never understood this attitude toward BlackBerry. Not that I really care, but you'd think more people would rather have more choice, than less.

It's true that BlackBerry the company was unsuccessful at selling phones since its heyday many years ago, but they're not in that business anymore, and haven't been for years. These days, they license the BlackBerry brand and patents to companies like TCL, who've been relatively successful with phones like the KeyOne and Key2. Just because BlackBerrys (BlackBerries?) form an almost insignificant share of Android devices doesn't mean they're not good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Suddenly the current MBP keyboard doesn't seem that bad.

<comment><USER15> Beautiful damage control on Apple's part, now people will stop posting their complaints on the forums

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This will be awesome for vim-ers. Imagine the keyboard symbols change to display the actions you can do in command mode. When you press "d" in command mode, the relevant keys light up to indicate the type of object you can delete.

Also in emacs, you hit ctrl-x and then the keyboard lights up to indicate any following actions you can take. It can have small text annotations with the actions, too.

Extrapolate further to power tools like Apple Logic, or Final Cut Pro, where the keyboard becomes labeled with sound and film editing actions. The keyboard can go levels deep, where you enter one mode and the keyboard reconfigures itself with actions in that mode. Not just with key symbols, but colored/delineated control areas with arbitrary graphical and animation capability.

This would basically finally take the keyboard to the next level; it has been roughly the same since the 60s. It widens the range of sensible input you can do with a keyboard by making it super intuitive to switch beteen and use arbitrary control modes.

The power is undeniable, but the true test is feel.

<comment><USER17> For emacs this is already done by which-key, which tells you about all following actions and their description.

Also, this seems only useful if you don't touch type, which seems like the opposite demographic of emacs and vim users.

<comment><USER16> First, yes emacs has this functionality. But a visual keyboard interface would make it super intuitive and direct.

Second, I disagree with the touch typing argument. Touch typing is a learned skill on an interface like the qwerty or the dvorak button layout, and has its roots in typewriting.

There are innumerable other button layouts you could "touch type" on. On a visual keyboard of course you can still touch type in the classic style in the qwerty layout. But then there are many other possible layouts allowing varying types of control, not just a layout for typing letters and numbers.

Also when you really think about it, it's pretty arbitrary that control commands in pro software and games involve letters and numbers. It's an awkward consequence of the ingrained limited keyboard layout. You should be pressing the "fire!" button not the key for typing the letter "f" (if indeed letter "f" is not occupied by some other command whose name starts with "f").

<comment><USER17> > You should be pressing the "fire!" button not the key for typing the letter > "f"

Sure, keyboard layouts are arbitrary, as are keycaps (you can also buy blank keycaps if you like). There are some fun interfaces you can make if you have the flexibility as can be seen in games for the Nintendo DS or switch or some tablet apps that can be used with external screens or people using multiple keyboards, music controllers etc.. However, just like with gamepads, joysticks etc. they are controls for something else. So once the controls feel natural you stop looking at your fingers and instead look at what you are controlling. I would argue that playing a game with a gamepad or joystick or touch typing or playing an instrument are all very similar. So just like putting stickers on the fretboard of a guitar this might make things "intuitive" at first, but is rather the opposite of direct and not something you keep using.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Reminds me a lot of the ill-fated optimus keyboard.

[https://www.artlebedev.com/optimus/](https://www.artlebedev.com/optimus/)

<comment><USER19> Hopefully it doesn't cost $1000 like that did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "it's more of a way to enhance interaction by creating dynamic buttons that are application dependent." But this is fundamentally touch-typist unfriendly. And most serious professionals, most people who actually try to maximize their productivity, will be at some level of touch typing - not having to look at the keyboard while they type. So this makes much more sense for non- professional use cases - where the iPad might already be a winner anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was just a defensive patent that never makes it into a product.

<comment><USER21> They might be assuming that most computer users nowadays never learned to touch type. Maybe they're right. Anybody know the current statistics on this?

<comment><USER5> I would bet you're right. As soon as an option was presented for using computer functions away from the PC (i.e. smartphones), people ditched the keyboard and desk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There's a lot of lamenting about this keyboard concept, but to play devils advocate, it could also be presented as the entire keyboard for the patent but actually be meant for the Touch Bar. That way they can give the F keys some tactile feedback. The escape and F "keys" lack of feedback does not inspire confidence when typing. Having some force feedback at the very least would be an improvement. Having an actual key press would be great.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've been hoping for something like this for some time (and have thought Apple might be moving in that direction with the Touch Bar etc). It may just be the way I type, and I may well be in a minority, but I'd much prefer a configuration with the keyboard closer to me and the trackpad elsewhere, since I actually don't use the trackpad as much as the keyboard. It'd be nice to be able to reconfigure the input surface on the fly.

<comment><USER24> I found that the ipad pro keyboard is surprisingly ergonomic, exactly because of this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This should come as no surprise. Apple has been on a crusade against buttons for years. Trackpads are now haptic, the iphones have cast aside the home button years ago.

Ive, and Apple by extension, view buttons as the waste of screen space. Replacing the bottom laptop panel with a touchscreen does present some interesting usability options. It also worries me that we are moving ever closer to OS X being replaced with some version of iOS instead of the other way around.

</comment><comment><USER26> This sounds an awful lot like the notoriously awful membrane keyboard on the Sinclair ZX81.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX81#/media/File:Sinclair- ZX81...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX81#/media/File:Sinclair-ZX81.png)

</comment><comment><USER27> So the current MacBook is going to seem like a good deal over at the Apple office, where most developers dread to have one of the new ones assigned to them and hope for an older one without the touchpad.

Did you ever try to use Idea or IntelliJ with the new one? Fuck those function keys! ..

<comment><USER28> What is the latest MacBook to not have a touchpad?

<comment><USER29> I think he meant Touch Bar

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is it just me or does it look like the top touchscreen layer would wear out fast, constantly being "inverted"/bent for every keystroke.

</comment><comment><USER31> Yet another way to increase failure rates and repair costs, just what the MBP needs.

To be fair, I'd think it more likely Apple would just remove the keyboard and sell you a dongle to plug an external one in than this. Although right now I wouldn't put it past them.

<comment><USER32> That's what they sell iPad for

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This opens up possibility for keyboard that acts as touchpad if you press and slide finger. Like on the iPhone. And that, by removing touchpad opens possibility of smaller MacBook.

</comment><comment><USER34> Few years ago they patented some tactile LCD matrix

</comment><comment><USER35> I look forward to Apple releasing a small, light laptop with a keyboard as reliable as my 2011 MacBook Air.

</comment><comment> amiga-workbench I'd rather daily driver a ZX80.

</comment><comment><USER36> I bet they also get rid of all the ports, including the charger.</comment>


Patagonia Triggers a Market Panic over New Rules on Its Power Vests - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/patagonia-triggers-a-market-panic-over-new-rules-on-its-power-vests-11554736920 <comment><USER2> Reminds me a little of Cartman's "you can't come" technique in Southpark's Cartmanland episode.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you need to shout anonymously? - <AUTHOR> http://www.shoutey.com/ I was thinking about using FreeBase (www.freebase.com) in a project and come up with a small website where you can write (shout) to some public figure anonymously. Do you think you want to use something like that? <comment><AUTHOR> I was thinking about using FreeBase (www.freebase.com) in a project and come up with a small website where you can write (shout) to some public figure anonymously. Do you think you want to use something like that?

</comment><comment><USER2> very interesting. Bill O'Reilly wouldn't like that.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very cool idea. Would love to use this for customer support for my business to have users yell their complaints to us.</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone ever had a business coach? - <AUTHOR>

Anyone ever had a business coach?<p>Interested to hear the context and how you found the overall experience. <comment><USER2> Biased response - I am a business coach, and have used one as well. Happy to answer any questions if anyone has any.

Warning: a LOT of a business coaches are a waste of money. I've been coaching around the world for 8 years, so must be doing something right, and even I would consider myself a poor investment for a non-funded startup.

For larger, faster growing businesses, the problem with most business coaches is, well, 'coaching'. Pure coaching works from the assumption that the client knows everything, they just need the right questions to draw it out of them. In small business, that's complete BS. Most businesses are run by people who are good at what they do, not because they did an MBA and decide to go code / learn plumbing / become an architect. They need some direct business consulting expertise, and a coaching methodology to embed the key points so you're not constantly paying a consultant to come in and do the work for you.

Some good articles:

[1] [http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/managing/are- business-c...](http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/managing/are-business- coaches-a-waste-of-time-20140422-371gx.html)

[2] [http://jacobaldridge.com/business/4-characteristics-of- great...](http://jacobaldridge.com/business/4-characteristics-of-great- business-coaches/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. I'll have a look at these links.

Same as anything I suppose - fossicking through the supply to weed out the charlatans for the people with substance and authenticity.

I guess my questions are around extracting goals and milestones from people. I, probably like many you coach, have that problem of not being able to crystalise exactly what it is that I want. So would you say that helping someone find what they want is a big part of it?

<comment><USER2> _would you say that helping someone find what they want is a big part of it?_

Absolutely - in fact, that's one of the few topics where pure coaching really can help, and it can usually be reached in 1-2 meetings (rather than signing up for a long course - see that first article for some lock-in rip offs).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yes, I had a professional coach and I find professional coaching process very useful, because it helps you to verify your own beliefs and actions, in a way you won't be able to do it yourself, neither with your friends or business partners. At the same time, I am aware that there are plenty of people that call themselves 'business/life/name-it coaches' having no idea what professional coaching is.

If you are looking for an experienced and professional coach, first of all you should look for a person with accreditation of any big international coach organisation, e.g. ICF [1] is one of the biggest organisation that sets professional coaching standards.

You should also understand how professional coaching differs from pseudo- coaching, so if a 'business coach' offers you to share their knowledge or give you an advice, they are NOT really a professional coach [2].

And this is the moment when you realize, that there is a profession called "professional coaching" and a life coaching, business coaching, executive coaching, etc. are only branding/marketing titles, and if a coach is certified/accredited by a large coaching organisation, they should use exactly the same tools to help their clients achieve their goals (regardless of their 'marketing title').

[1] [http://www.coachfederation.org](http://www.coachfederation.org) [2] [http://www.coachfederation.org/need/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=9...](http://www.coachfederation.org/need/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=978&navItemNumber=567)</comment>


CraftBukkit Taken Down from GitHub Using DMCA - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Bukkit/CraftBukkit

<comment><AUTHOR> The takedown notice is here: [https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-09-05-CraftB...](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-09-05-CraftBukkit.md)

Did Notch do this?

EDIT: Apparently Wesley Wolfe did [http://games.slashdot.org/story/14/09/06/1323225/dmca- claim-...](http://games.slashdot.org/story/14/09/06/1323225/dmca-claim-over- gpl-non-compliance-shuts-off-minecraft-plug-ins)

</comment><comment><USER2> This is three or four days old mate. Already was submitted.</comment>


Australia's indigenous solution for bushfires. It's been around for 50k years - <AUTHOR> https://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_eb6d503971d91f763feffa09db6c7a5e <comment><USER2> As the article itself says (contradicting the implications of the headline), fire management practices based upon those of aboriginals have indeed been adopted.

The problems are that (1) Aboriginal practitioners of these techniques did not have to take into account the risk and impact upon houses, farms, towns and interruptions to peoples lives; and (2) with the effects of climate change, there is now almost never a good time to perform hazard reduction burn operations, and certainly not long enough periods to cover the huge areas at risk. I would agree that increasing the applicable manpower and budget (as noted in the article) would certainly help, and should be given a higher priority.

<comment><USER3> 1) their burns are smaller, cooler and intensively managed.

2) The people who do it would disagree.

People have been employing consultants to use traditional techniques around their properties, and they've been working, and haven't seen them blamed for any out of control fires.</comment></comment>


Full-time minimum wage workers cannot afford a one-bedroom rental in 95% of US - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/minimum-wage-workers-cannot-afford-rent-in-any-us-state.html <comment><USER2> As a preface, I'm a white millennial who grew up in a southeast US middle class family. I'm completely aware my upbringing and experiences do not only not align with a large percentage of those in the US but probably even less than say 20% or so.

In saying that, I've always understood and expected minimum wage jobs to be one of a couple things:

1\. A first job for young people who live with their parents, or at least aren't depended on to pay the bills, who want to cut their teeth with what it looks like to have a job and/or have some extra spending money

2\. A non bread winning family member looking to contribute a little towards day to day bills

Is there documentation or something from the government that outlines expectations for exactly what the minimum wage is supposed to accomplish for a person? Is it intended to be a "living wage" or arbitrarily set to something that folks in charge deem appropriate for some reason unbeknownst to me?

If it's supposed to be a living wage it should be data driven based on cost of living and evaluated on a relatively high frequency (at least once per year). I know this is a hot political topic, but it just seems like another issue that we could use actual data to solve based on intent of what minimum wage should be instead of poking the right or left bears and polarizing the world more than it already is.

<comment><USER3> > I know this is a hot political topic, but it just seems like another issue > that we could use hard numbers to solve

While factual disagreements are generated over the issue, in part deliberately to obscure the real issues, the disagreement here is more about objectives than whether the policy meets agreed-on objectives.

You can't settle a conflict of values with facts and data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What percentage of the full time work-force in the US earns mimimum wage? And for how long do they earn this minimum wage before going on to earn more?</comment>


Brain Hack: Stop Procrastinating with "Push Motivation" - <AUTHOR> http://www.petermichaud.com/essays/5-steps-to-overcome-procrastination-forever-with-push-motivation/

<comment><USER2> I'll be sure to try this technique... tomorrow. ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't this pretty much NLP?

</comment><comment><USER4> I would like to know if this actually works at anything more than a placebo level.

<comment><USER5> Well, since it's an entirely mental process, I don't see how it could. Unless you mean actually altering your emotions on a chemical level, which the placebo effect actually does too.

<comment><USER4> I was imprecise (maybe incorrect) in my wonderings. What I meant to say was, "Given the array of mental exercises that might or might not cause you to change your behavior, is this one more effective than no additional effort at a statistically significantly level."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Too much work.</comment>


How to Access Website Database - <AUTHOR> Recently, I took an ethical hacking course. It taught me everything you can do with a database. But it never showed me how to access it. I want to access the passwords and usernames and stuff. I am using it on my own website. The website allows you to create a account or log in. <comment><USER2> Probably need to take another ethical hacking course!</comment>


Why Erlang - <AUTHOR> http://adam.blog.heroku.com/past/2008/9/27/erlang/ <comment><USER2> Statelessness: Erlang is _not_ side-effect free. Sending a message is a side- effect. You depend on receives of messages from other processes as well. Truth is that you can write side-effect-free code in any language and those functions are easier to debug. The functional semantics of erlang makes this easier, but beware that you can't cheat and get a variable.

Tail recursion: Even better. Erlang has Tail-call-optimization. _Any_ tail- call reuses the stack-frame.

Lightweight processes: Large chunks of (immutable) binary data is shared among processes. This is crucial for keeping memory usage down. Also, there are ETS- tables which can be seen as a shared in-memory datastore among processes.

Messaging: Sending a message is _fast_. But remember you are doing a copy of the data into the other process memory space (unless you are sending a binary, see above). For small messages, this doesn't matter, but you shouldn't be tempted to send that one million node binary tree ;)

Hotpatching: The hotpatching is mostly centered around the ability to runtime- upgrade between versions of phone-exchange software. People tend to think of Common Lisp style hotpatching where you can dynamically build up your application from scratch without restarting the CL environment. Erlang doesn't really support that, but you can hack it to give you somewhat of the same.

Fast: Erlang uses a threaded-code bytecode interpreter called BEAM (by default, there is the HiPE project). Now, the rule of the thumb is that interpretation is a factor of 10 slower than compilation. The claim of a factor 3 is wildly exaggerated. Floating points are _all_ boxed so it is easy to get a factor 30 in difference there. The persistent memory model also costs compared to C. Some data structures are impossible to get directly. A string of 100 bytes takes up 1600 bytes on a 64-bit machine.

And my own add:

Parallelism: The language semantics maps really nice onto a parallel world where we explicitly control the parallel processes. But the SMP-interpreter in the Erlang kernel is still pretty young. Note that the language was originally built for concurrency rather than parallel computation.

Conclusion: Erlang is a really cool language, but it is not built for everything. If people think they have solved the multi-core problem by using Erlang, the world of parallel computation is just dawning on them. Remember, there is no silver bullet.

<comment><USER3> Just a few clarifications (upon reading, it doesn't look like hn supports html markup; I'm leaving the tags so that quotes are at least visible...):

Messaging: Sending a message is fast. But remember you are doing a copy of the data into the other process memory space (unless you are sending a binary, see above). For small messages, this doesn't matter, but you shouldn't be tempted to send that one million node binary tree ;)

Two points here: as you stated in the point above this one, large binaries are shared, so sending a large binary as a message isn't terribly expensive. For everything else, copying messages is an implementation detail, not a specified behaviour. If you run erl -hybrid, then all processes do share a single heap and messages are not copied (unless sent between nodes, of course). Hybrid mode is still very unstable and you don't want to use it unless it really does happen to work for you, but it's proof that the copying of message data isn't a requirement of erlang, but instead is just a current implementation detail.

A string of 100 bytes takes up 1600 bytes on a 64-bit machine.

Erlang strings (i.e. any string literal, such as "hi there") are implemented as linked lists of integers. If you're doing string processing on large strings, you probably want to use binaries, which are 8 bits per character (plus the binary head, which is a varint, IIRC). These can be stated as <<"Hi there">> and are much more memory-efficient, although not as convenient to work with as linked lists.

<comment><USER4> If you want italics, put whatever you're italicizing in asterisks. _This is italics_ , and I typed that by writing "(asterisk) This is italics (asterisk)"

<comment><USER3> Cool, _thanks_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Despite this being largely common knowledge to those who have researched or used Erlang, he gives a really solid overview of the perks of the language. Great summary read for the uninformed about Erlang.

</comment><comment><USER6> Is there a good online introduction to Erlang, like Dive into Python or _why's poignant guide to ruby?

<comment><USER3> I think the best intro is <http://www.pragprog.com/titles/jaerlang/programming-erlang>, which comes in PDF form but also costs $22.00. As far as free resources, there's <http://erlang.org/doc/getting_started/part_frame.html> , which isn't nearly as fun as _why's guide, but is informative. I personally just bought the book; it's really well written and actually got me interested in using the language.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Funny name?

Cheap & Easy? Woo! (thread creation that is)

I think it will not really take off until the general infrastructure (millions and millions of cores) is more generally pervasive.

<comment><USER8> The name is in honor of a Danish mathematician that invented Queue theory. A key component earlier in the life of telephony. How to man switchboards and the like.

The telecom connection is via Erickson that invented the language.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Erlang>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> He lost me when he said erlang is less than 3x slower than c

<comment><USER10> 3x Is an exaggeration, but it compares pretty well with very fast languages like Java and C#.

[http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=al...](http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=hipe&lang2=gcc)

[http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=al...](http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=hipe&lang2=java)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Answer: Who gives a crap? Since when did a variation of an answer matter more than the problem?

If a new computer language solved a problem otherwise unsolvabe, then it would raise eyebrows. If Erlang had a chance, Scheme and all those stack-based languages would be popular. Anyway...

<comment><USER12> Erlang solves a problem that's currently very difficult, namely massively concurrent, distributed, fault-tolerant systems.

<comment><USER13> Well, that's not strictly true. What Erlang does is make the knowledge of a niche that does know how to do that - telco switch engineers - available to the masses. I think even Erlang advocates sometimes for get that it's not new - it's been a serious production language for years now.</comment></comment></comment>


The Constrained Directional Enhancement Filter in AV1 - <AUTHOR> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/06/av1-next-generation-video-the-constrained-directional-enhancement-filter/ <comment><USER2> The author, monty, is an inspiration for his ability to patiently break down and explain deep topics. It's a rule that every time something of his hits HN someone must post a link to the following video of his, as a benchmark of quality for other technical presentations: [https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml](https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml)

<comment><USER3> I saw the title and thought "I hope it's by monty", then I saw the domain and was a bit sad, then I clicked and it was a miracle!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is that directional effect used on the Sydney harbor available as a Photoshop plugin? I like the affect it produces.

<comment><USER5> Ha, many people have asked for that :-) I jokingly suggested we should go get some VC and launch a plugin company...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Some sample videos would be nice, preferably 4K (both Firefox and Chrome support it via flags)

Update: I have found some YouTube videos serve AV1 when using Chrome Canary with AV1 flag set. To check, right click video > Stats for nerds

Haven't found 4K one yet...

<comment><USER7> AV1 encode times are, compared with h264, very slow. Encoding 4k video on a dual socket Xeon server of 30min in length took almost four days last time I tried. That's probably why you can't find much yet.

<comment><USER8> Yes, now with the bitstream finally frozen I'm hoping we'll see a flurry of effort in optimizing aomenc.

I'm also hoping there will be a future xAV1 encoder from the x265 developers, a while back a spokesperson for them over at the Doom9 forum said that they will go where the market goes, and from the looks of it, AV1 will eventually become the new de facto video codec on the internet (which is currently h264).

<comment><USER7> > AV1 will eventually become the new de facto video codec on the internet > (which is currently h264)

As much as I would like to agree with this, I think we should expect H.264 to be the de facto codec for quite a while longer. Consider the following:

* An industry research group's 2017 survey [0] showed us that most users still only stream at 720p and that will probably not change in the immediate term. When 4K is the norm, we'll have a glaring need for AV1.

* That same Harmonic 2017 survey also showed that most distributors don't plan to leave H.264 because it is serving their needs just fine.

* x264 only got to where it is today after nearly 10 years of active development. I remember how painful it was to encode H.264 with open source tools in the beginning. Most distributors will not want to take the plunge immediately into AV1 until x264-style stability and acceptance are imminent.

[0] [http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured- Ar...](http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured- Articles/Survey-The-Impact-of-Apples-HEVC-Adoption-122654.aspx)

<comment> TD-Linux AV1 isn't just for 4K, though. Netflix recently showed a demo of 720p AV1 at only 200kbps. It should massively improve the low end - in fact, maybe the low end first because lower resolution streams are the fastest to encode.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: Tone down praising of the RSS-aggregators - <AUTHOR> Last few months I've used Feedly almost daily as the experience has been generally good, but this morning I decided to try other RSS-aggregators like Google Currents, News360, Flipboard, News Republic etc. (on my Android tablet). I felt that I was missing something and I realized that it was the mood that gets generated, while you browse the actual websites or when you are using an official -- well made -- mobile application for some website (like USA Today).
I'm quite sure that I can separate, if I'm reading Ars Technica or ReadWrite, even when not explicitely being told so, but while reading textual content of an article (with a possibility of seeing a photo, if it was included in the RSS-feed) different sources don't _feel_ different.
When I see the name of a source like "TechCrunch" I become aware of the attributes I've attached to it in my mind and thus I partially know what to expect from it. However, that is not enough to separate jokes made by Business Insider's article writers from TechCrunch's article writers. My mind wants more hints about the context (sensory cues, usually visual).
I'm not very keen to install tens and tens of different applications just to "be more in it", but I don't like vanilla RSS-feeds either (even with special effects).
It is virtually impossible to not ruin the experience of using a RSS-aggregator, if the subscribed feed doesn't contain any photos. I just subscribed to Phys.Org's RSS-feed through Google Currents and it was horribly boring to read the text snippets (full articles available on the actual website only). <comment><AUTHOR> It'd be better, if there were enough differentiating contextual cues (like on light mobile versions of websites), while reading an article in a news aggregator. It's a matter of layout and UI design skills (from both parties).

Yes, it is probable that when multiple parties (anyone with a website) do their own graphics design without consulting and coordinating with others, it can not be expected that the results fit nicely together. But the issue still stands.. there isn't enough mood to perceive, while using a RSS-aggregator.

</comment><comment><USER2> Try <http://rssident.com>

It does none of the things you mention but you might like it anyway.</comment>