Pre-orders start today for Flame, the Firefox OS developer phone - <AUTHOR> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/flame-firefox-os-developer-phone/ <comment><USER2> A lot of the misgivings most developers seem to have in this thread have to do with the physical hardware specs. Which I hate to use this term but this is a side effect of "1st world privilege". FireFoxOS/Phones were designed for emerging markets [1]. In the West dropping $500+ USD on a smartphone is not uncommon (Or to sell retail phones for this price). While in 'emerging markets' like China/India/Brazil/etc. 500 dollars can be 4-6 months worth of rent [2].

[1] FireFoxOS presentation at mobile conference circa 2013

[2] numbeo.com

<comment><USER3> What really "grinds my gears" is that when you want to use a particular mobile OS, you have to go out and buy a specific piece of hardware. I want to be able to choose from a range of phones, and then select the OS for them. Even if that means the OS is installed on a micro SD card, or even a variant of the SIM card.

<comment><USER4> You can install FOS on a lot of devices, been available for a while now, same as Android itself and Ubuntu Phone or Sailfish.

What you are saying only applies to iOS really.

<comment><USER5> Forgetting WP? And even Android? Can you go out, buy a Lumia, and install a working copy of Android?

You can install Android on devices that are already running some version of Android. And some fringe cases like the HTC HD2 and HP Touchpad (I had both, the Touchpad didn't work too great). But that's far from what the OP was asking for.

<comment><USER6> That's a lot of work for a feature that probably wouldn't excite most consumers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> guys, this is not aimed at the general public. These are unlocked phones for developers. They have features to make it easier to simulate different memory constraints and run different versions of Firefox OS.

This is not a plan or a move or an intention of Mozilla to get into hardware making. This is just a program to empower developers to have the tools to better develop and test their apps.

<comment><USER8> I disagree a little bit -- why not for the general public? reference implementation phones aren't necessarily just-for-developers -- i.e. nexus line...

<comment><USER9> extra costs incurred to the consumer for features that they're unwilling to pay for normally. (software ram limiting, dual sim, OS revisioning/partitioning, etc)

<comment><USER6> Dual SIM is hugely popular in non western countries and I would expect any phone to be able to wipe and restore it's OS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There seems to be a fair amount of comments comparing the specs of this phone to other phones etc.

To clarify, this is a reference device. Meaning that having all of the functionality, like a front facing and rear facing camera, is the primary goal. They cannot make comprises by removing features of the phone, like many lower end phones do, because the point of the phone is to test how these things work in your application. A faster phone or higher screen resolution is much less important for this device than including all of the hardware functionality a developer would be targeting with their application.

</comment><comment><USER11> The purchasing flow is confusing as shit. I paid with PayPal and entered all my info, now I'm going through again and adding the same info again, and it's asking me for payment info? Arggggggh.

And the only reason I went with Paypal was so I wouldn't have to create an account with whatever the hell "EverBuying.com" is. Argghghghgh.

Edit: I gave up. So probably, I will be charged for this phone because I completed the PayPal payment but didn't complete the crazy-ass purchasing flow. I'm kind of blown away by how shitty this is.

<comment><USER12> loL. try to buy one of the commercially "available" phones then. first they are not sold thru the operator normal channels. they have a firefox phone "hotsite"... which is common in 3rd world countries.

but usually that hot site wont even work on mobile browsers for some reason. when it works, you get a message that they are out of stock.

saying people from any country buy those phones is a lie. i know because i tried. both mexico and brazil.

in mx i did get one after 30days trying, and via channels no regular consumer would go thru. and all 3 employees in the store were very curious as to why i was buying that phone, which nobody wanted, that they didn't even remember they had one in stock... and if you ever worked in retail, you would know that it has to be really odd for a salespeople to question a sale....

<comment><USER11> It seems they don't really care about people being able to actually purchase their devices. Bizarre, and frustrating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The phone cost is $145 plus S&H which is $25.

This phone has the precise set of hardware specs that Mozilla is developing Firefox OS against this year. It's more phone than some need (not everyone needs dual SIM, but it's in there) and less than others need but that's what you get with a reference device.

</comment><comment><USER8> Software-configurable RAM? Hopefully the device comes with 1GB and you can just limit your RAM to 256MB if you wanted to?

<comment><USER14> Yes, that's correct. The goal is to allow developers to see how their app works on a memory-constrained device during testing, while also using the full 1GB during regular use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What is a good cross platform development framework and stack that works well on Flame, Android, and iOS?

Does this list work ok?

\- PhoneGap/Cordova for native access \- jQuery Mobile for UI widget \- Bootstrap3 for responsive layout \- jQuery for DOM access \- Knockout for dynamic update \- Toastr for non-blocking alerts \- Amplify for data/storage/messaging \- Underscore for general

Is html template system needed? Given that jQuery Mobile widgets are already used to build the UI.

<comment><USER16> jQuery Mobile is mostly for low spec phones or very broad compatibility. If the target can be narrowed to decently speced Webkit engines and firefox, there is no need for an extra abstraction layer.

Also PhoneGap should allow the data storage, so amplify might nit be needed , except for cache management perhaps ?

<comment><USER15> What's a good alternative for targeting mobile only (no need for website)? Sencha? Intel App Framework?

<comment><USER16> I don't know much about the intel framework, they seem to be really all over the place. Sench seems tried and true, I don't have enough experience with it to say much, except that it's a lot more flexible than building the UI in PhoneGap/Cordova in terms of widgets and controls.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> An unlocked phone with an open OS, tailored for development. Good.

<comment><USER12> unlocked... but you still need binary blobs for anything to even work.

why do they litter the earth with that garbage? a low tier phone with no requirement for binary blob drivers would make more impact than that mid tier phone. since that is exactly the same phone i can get if i buy a 2~4 yr old android phone on craigslist. 100% identical outcome.

<comment><USER18> Who cares about binary firmware blobs? How is that any different than device firmware burned into an EEPROM, written to flash, etched into ROM, etc?

Hardware is _full_ of software. The line you create in the sand is arbitrary.

<comment><USER12> You have no idea what you're talking.

for example, google nexus devices. They are "open" but the drivers for audio, radio, video, digitizer, etc are not. The chip providers give source to Google but only allow compiled distribution.

So Google makes two versions of Android before ignoring the device. If you want to continue using device with a third version, you either hope that loading same binary drivers work or you reverse engineer them.

As you can imagine, nobody is able to do that for every version, so even though the nexus is open, you will ever only have two versions on Android on each.

Same happens with Firefox phone i had, and will probably happen here because it's a midtier phone. If it was a low tier there were changes they could find some components the manufacturers didn't care about sharing source for drivers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> firefox phones for devs are a scam.

i have several in the drawer. all beyond useless.

i use the emulator mostly. when i have to test multitouch or perf, i use an old-top-of-the-line-android that cost me $50ish on craigslist. why? because all the official firefox phones are useless. crappy touch screen. etc.

yeah, they say we should use the device people are using, but the point is, nobody uses them if not for firefox devs! also no hardware drivers when you want to flash some other kernel. just like with a android phone repurposed. so, why???

and if anyone thinks real people buy those, i challenge you. take a plane to mexico where the alcatel one is even advertised on billboards... and buy one. i tried. if you manage to find one at any store, i will reimburse your trip. they dont even sell it! nobody buys it.

in the end, those phones only secure a tiny margin for a manufacturer that would otherwise fail on the android ecosystem. a small royalty fee/donation for mozilla. and lots and lots of wasted time for the dev comunity having to document how to work around the annoyances and binary blob crap of yet another cheap phone.

not to mention the environmental impact of producing yet more phones that will not be used for a few years and then be disposed.

<comment><USER19> right... We are doing the Flame to address these issues: better hardware, better update story so they are durable for developers. These are very decent devices, fast enough, front and back camera that will let you do video calls with webrtc, etc.

Oh, and you're flat wrong about the "no one buys them" and that could cost you a lot ;)

<comment><USER12> ah, you mean app devs. so it is even worse, i dont think app devs should buy the phone just for development. that is what the emulator is for. dont be like apple.

my complain is for gaia devs, etc. i dont think this phone will allow kernel hacking any easier than repurposing an android phone. or the awful current firefox phones, that still cant be easily bought...

it is 100% the same outcome as the current phones when they launched. why insist on a mistake? either go low tier with fully open specs and drivers, or go top tier to get US adoption, which then leads to mid tier adoption. starting wit mid tier, failing, and insisting on it a 4th time... this is just wrong any way you see it. that is way i assume it is a scam. someone is profiting from that. there is no other rational explanation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Any idea what the state of accessibility would be at the welcome screen if I ordered this phone? The last update I saw is several months old. [http://www.marcozehe.de/2014/02/23/accessibility-in- firefox-...](http://www.marcozehe.de/2014/02/23/accessibility-in-firefox-os- an-update/)

<comment><USER12> when you develop for the countries those phones aim to be sold, you probably shouldnt even care about wasting time on the welcome screen.

in all those coutries, when you buy a phone, even a no contract one, the sales person will take the phone out of the box, fly trhu the welcome screen, activate the phone with the SIM or a test SIM card with a sms to some random number. go back to the home screen, and hand the client the phone.

<comment><USER20> Since I'm totally blind and will be setting up the phone on my own if I buy one the welcome screen matters. I'm able to set up a Nexus 4 and an iPhone with out any sited help, being able to do the same with the Firefox OS reference device is going to make me more likely to spend $170 on a device that I may never pick up again after a week.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Does anyone know why this "ships free to anywhere in the world except for Japan"? The Japanese landing page seems to only state that it'll be available soon, though I might've missed something on there as my Japanese isn't that strong yet.

<comment><USER22> When reading Japanese above your level, always pay attention to the words written in roman letters. They are a dead give away. They are awaiting certification from JATE and TELEC.

[http://www.jate.or.jp/english/](http://www.jate.or.jp/english/) [http://www.telec.or.jp/ENG/index.html](http://www.telec.or.jp/ENG/index.html)

<comment><USER21> I didn't realize they were certification places. My bad and thanks.

<comment><USER22> My comment wasn't meant as "pay more attention", but as a genuine tip.

From the text that linked to the Japanese article, there were mentions about certificate, and then a quick googling of the roman words would actually be enough for almost anybody to get the gist of the text.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does anyone know what ARM core is in the Snapdragon MSM8210? Is it the Cortex-A5 or the Cortex-A7? A7 would be interesting because it supports virtualization (although memory is a little tight for that).

<comment><USER13> [http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/processors/200](http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/processors/200)

It's a Snapdragon 200 which is built on Coretex-A7.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Dual-sim is awesome. Is there a way to have 1 SIM be soley used for data? The reason is that here you can buy a SIM package that's only data for a lot cheaper than a voice/data combined SIM. It would be awesome for me to buy pre- paid voice for when I call people (very seldom) and use the data SIM for anything data (which I use 99% of the time). Would save me a lot of money on cellphone fees.

<comment><USER19> Yes that's supported. You can set up one sim for voice/sms and the other one for data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Looks like the frequencies correspond with AT&T 3G service but not T-Mobile. Can anyone with experience with US-based GSM carries confirm?

<comment><USER26> If you are in a T-Mobile "refarmed area" they have 3G on 1900MHz. But "refarmed area" are very limited.

Otherwise, Flame doesn't support the AWS band (1700MHz).

<comment><USER27> Here's a list of "refarmed" markets: [http://support.t-mobile.com/community/coverage/blog/2013/12/...](http://support.t-mobile.com/community/coverage/blog/2013/12/17/network- modernization-update)

In my experience, anywhere you could get LTE on T-Mo has 3G on 1900.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I cant find information on whether the price includes all taxes and customs if ordering to Europe. I really dont want to log into everbuying.com to ask that question though. Can one order it with a VAT-EU invoice?

A thought on the specs, it's a pity it doesn't support Bluetooth LE. Getting Flame to work with beacons would put it on the forefront of mobile development.

</comment><comment><USER29> Are any of you currently or planning on developing for Firefox OS?

</comment><comment><USER30> Hope the touch works better than the GeeksPhone I have.

</comment><comment><USER31> Will this phone be available through other channels? I feel very reluctant to buy it through everbuying, which looks very shady.

</comment><comment><USER4> Knowing the emerging marketa this OS is too little too late. 3 or 2 years ago maybe, but now you got android phones with better specs going for that price, and now that the big ones like motorola are jumping in its only going to get even cheaper.

Then there's the popularity factor and the consequential app availability that makes customers go for the market leader because all their friends use that one and they are afraid of possible compatibility issues.

</comment><comment><USER32> As a bonus, the website accepting pre-orders (everbuying.com) emails you your password in cleartext after registering!

</comment><comment><USER33> I guess we should take it for granted that all new phones have a 0.99 probability of looking exactly like the iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER34> I care more about battery time than battery size.

How often do I need to plug it in to the wall.

Btw it looks cool.

<comment><USER35> Important to bear in mind that this is a developer phone. I doubt any battery specs will be mind blowing.

<comment><USER26> We actually expect to be able to improve situation. A few tweak have been made to the hardware/firmware to allow us to better test power consumption. This will make software change happen to improve the overall battery life on this and probably other phones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> How can I tell if it will work with my network?

Does it support 4G / LTE?

<comment><USER37> > Frequency: GSM 850/900/1800/1900MHz UMTS 850/900/1900/2100MHz

If your network supports one of these frequency bands, it will work. That should cover most, if not all GSM networks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> bluetooth 3? Is that a typo?

<comment><USER39> It _is_ a mid-range phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> It's a shame that Firefox OS is still pretty much unusable.

<comment><USER41> But it's also a shame that Google's thoroughly undermined the open source Linux underpinnings of Android, by making less and less of it available once Android reached a decent market share. There's still a need for an open phone platform.

<comment><USER42> Can you substantiate this claim with numbers e.g. the number of lines of open source code in Android gradually decreasing, the percentage of lines of open source code in Android gradually decreasing, or similar?

<comment><USER43> This article on ArsTechnica covers in great detail the issue of "openness" in Android:

[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip- on-...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android- controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/)

<comment><USER42> Yes, an article with "Controlling open source by any means necessary" in the very title (subtitle "Android is open—except for all the good parts.") sounds like a very detailed, factual analysis of the situation.

I asked my question because I believed that the original poster had been misled by that very article which has had it's already overstretched claims amplified in repitition.

<comment><USER43> You're welcome to post your own analysis of the situation, supported by verifiable facts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> With Firefox's new support for DRM this will be a killer piece of hardware!

Said no-one ever.

</comment><comment><USER45> Even though it's intended to be 'mid-tier' hardware, that screen is super disappointing in 2014 and, because of that, I'm out.

<comment><USER46> It's a developer phone, and at $170, virtually free.

<comment><USER47> The Moto E has an unlocked bootloader as well, and a 4.3-inch 960 x 540 IPS screen, for $130. The Moto G is $179 and has 720p. It seems like the only reason you'd buy one would be to develop.

<comment><USER13> The only reason you'd buy one is to have the Firefox OS reference device precisely so you can develop for or on Firefox OS. Yes. That is right.

The Moto E makes compromises we couldn't because the Flame is a reference device and needs more complete hardware specs. The Moto E doesn't come with a front facing camera or auto-focus or flash on the rear camera, or NFC.

Like any reference device, this is a compromise with the primary focus on completeness and appropriateness of the hardware platform, not top of the line specs.

<comment><USER48> This defensive it's-just-a-developer-phone angle seems to take it for granted that there are other FirefoxOS phones more suitable for "high-end" users who aren't looking for a developer device. Are there?

(For my part I think this spec looks good, except that like most current smartphones it's physically rather big. I have a Keon, and I would have loved a device in the same enclosure but with better quality components. I found the OS itself very comfortable to use, it's "just" the hardware I've found problematic.)

<comment><USER13> It's not an angle. It's the explicit purpose of the phone. We designed it, every component, to be our reference phone.

If you need something for some other purpose, if you've got some other angle, you could buy a Nexus 5 and put Firefox OS on there. That's a decent high end phone that I know several Firefox OS developers are using.

<comment><USER48> Thanks for the reply and yes, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that there was some kind of marketing trick going on.

I just think the response here (treating this device as if it were a high-end consumer device) is somewhat understandable as well. For instance there was a thread here recently, "Best Firefox phone to get?" in which the top comment suggests waiting for the Flame:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7655450](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7655450)

So there seems to be an unfulfilled want, even though I totally understand that fulfilling it is not what this device is supposed to be for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Firefox OS will be dead on arrival. No apps, no OEMs on board, no innovation, HTML platform which is highly questionable and a typical developer-oriented ecosphere instead of beung user-centric.

It's nice they are trying but it's a desperate attempt to grow Mozilla beyond a company which is known for its browser. With Google Chrome becoming the de- facto web browser, Firefox hastily attempting to mirror it yet loosing market share by the day, Mozilla its future doesn't look bright. At all.

<comment><USER19> So you want more than downvotes. 1) No apps: there are a few millions websites that you can use on this OS. The truth is that we still need better discovery, but there's a lot of content out there. 2) No OEMs. Sure... zte, tcl, LG, geeksphone, spreadtrum odms for now. 3) No innovation. What do you call innovation? We'll have webrtc based video calls in 2.0, and we've been pushing a lot of new apis in the web platform. What is windows phone innovation? 4) Developer ecosphere? Well, we have to get them onboard right? We are also doing a lot of reach out to users through community efforts and more classic marketing including some with partners.

Sure it's a bet, and a hard one given how the mobile ecosystem works. But we are doing well so far (I'm waiting for your comments on ubuntu / tizen / jolla that are competing with us).

I remember that when we started 2 years ago, people were just ignoring us ("no way they can make it"). Then they started to laugh at us ("their stuff is not good"). I'm happy to see some fighting us now (and not just ignoring us) because it means that we'll reach the 4th stage, where we win. Yay!

It's always amazing how people can be critical of _anything_ Mozilla does, or doesn't.

<comment><USER40> > there are a few millions websites that you can use on this OS

Which will not work if your internet connection is slow or offline. I tried Firefox OS and it is horrible. The web apps are a joke.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazingly insane spam email I just received - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/andreis/8638117/raw/bbb1b86432694e89b3c923101dc2b729be5fbf08/%3COperatorsOperatingOperations%40spamgoes.in%3E <comment> vezzy-fnord _Committing suicide is not The Way and is against God 's Law, for which you will find no rest, only punishment from God._

I know these are the ravings of a lunatic (who in reality isn't that far from your average conservative Christian, just saying), but I'd just like to intervene.

The Bible has no single conclusive view on suicide. Obviously, suicide is discouraged by the clergy, since offing yourself and/or not reproducing is antithetical to the propagation of a religion (a notable exception in encouraging procreation amongst Christians, are the Shakers).

Seven people killed themselves in the Bible: Abimelech, Samson, Judas, King Saul and his servant, Ahithophel and Zimri. There is no conclusive verse that condemns suicide as an unforgivable sin, or leading to damnation.

In fact, the Bible's attitudes on life... are less than stellar.

<comment><USER2> You've missed the truly important Gospel:

Those who are in despair are most beloved by God. Those who so abused by their own minds, or by others, that kill themselves would be the first to be shown mercy.

Willfully destroying God's creation is indeed sin, contrary to your hermeneutics, but please understand - God knows the troubled heart and has promised His infinite mercy to His people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The list is of the members of the United States Congress, in case anyone didn't realize that right away.

</comment><comment><USER4> I also received this email, and there have been a number of similar emails in the past that seem to be from the same person/group that advocate various conspiracy theories. You can probably find copies of those emails on forums or other places on the web.

</comment><comment><USER5> Careful, your account can be made hidden for pasting spam emails to github.

<comment><USER6> Also, a possible visit from the FBI for incitement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> And not a word about FEMA death camps. Why have all the crazies forgotten about the FEMA death camps?

</comment><comment><USER8> That guy needs to do some pushups.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow, that is insane. Think the police or FBI should try to track down whoever sent that?

<comment><USER10> Why, so they can give him his own radio talk show?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can reset my career while still providing for my family? - <AUTHOR> I am a 49   years old software developer,  working for an online gambling operator.  The job pays well and it is not far from my home.  Other than that it is simply the worse job I've ever had.  I had to take this position due to financial pressure after moving to a new country.  Given an alternative, I would have preferred an industry other than gambling. To make matters even worse,  the work is boring and repetitive.  Most of the "development" I do now days is filling up C++ structures and sending them off as messages to other components via an antiquated communication layer developed in-house 15 years ago.  The primary reason the company needs experienced developers is to keep at bay the multi-headed spaghetti monster which is their code-base.
The common perception among my colleagues is that this is a good as it can get at our age: yes it's a life-sucking, mind-numbing job but it pays the bills and leaves you some time to watch television at the evenings.  I simply can't accept that this is not the kind of career I've signed up for.
I have been spending a significant portion of my free time keeping in pace with the latest developments machine learning and image processing which I find fascinating. It something would have loved doing as my day job.  Which brings me to my question:
what should be my escape plan?  If I didn't have my family depending on me to put food on the table I could have just find another job,  compromise on my salary and rework my way up. However, It's not something I can easily do with mortgage payments and getting a child through college.
What are my options? <comment><USER2> Are you saying you want to switch into Machine Learning, but you're assuming you'll have to take a significant pay cut? I'm not sure that assumption pans out. If I were you I would start testing that assumption and find out what kind of a salary you can demand as a ML programmer.

</comment><comment><USER3> You only have two options: 1) find a niche with your current employer that you can exploit to fulfill your interests; or 2) find a job that will do the same.

The first involves less risk and if your employer is enlightened will most likely welcome it because they will be able to leverage your experience and enthusiasm in ways that an outside hire will not.

I've never had an official "machine learning" or "ai" title but I have done 5 machine learning projects for current and past employers by simply demonstrating skills.

</comment><comment><USER4> > machine learning and image processing which I find fascinating.

Start attending meet-ups and conferences in this space.

Connect with other attendees (network).

Find out what other people are working on.

Above all, look for the guy in this space who you can best help.

</comment><comment><USER5> Maybe you can find an application for ML at your current employer. Gain some experience without starting from the bottom.</comment>


MacBook Pro (Late 2016) review - <AUTHOR> https://thewebb.blog/thoughts/2017/macbook-pro-review/ <comment><USER2> I'd agree with author. I have noticed better battery life than the author, usually in the 9-11 hour range.

I tend to aggressively close tabs by habit so that likely helps. Rest of setup is running Atom, Mail, Outlook, and OneNote. Sprinkle compiling in there.

When I'm working on Windows stuff Via Parallels, I get around 5 hours of battery life which is waaaay better than I expected.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh wow, that's impressive! I really should stop having so many tabs open though, good grief.</comment></comment>


Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder - <AUTHOR> http://blog.runwayfinder.com/ <comment><USER2> Oh, good Lord, when the patent was filed, RunwayFinder was _already online_. Talk about prior art! This kind of abuse just boils my blood, especially when it involves this kind of penny-ante bullshit, the whole rent-seeking mentality of identifying a niche market that could really benefit from more open information and then trying to dominate it for chump change.

<comment><USER3> _when the patent was filed, RunwayFinder was already online_

Doesn't matter. Patents are awarded by first to _invent_ not first to _file_.

<comment><USER4> Depends on where you are in the world. The European Patent Office explains:

 _Virtually every patent office in the world (including the EPO and the JPO) is based on a first-to-file system. ... The USPTO, however, is the only office to be based on a first-to-invent system, meaning that a patent is granted to the person who first conceived and practiced the invention, rather than to the person who first filed the invention with authorities._

[http://www.epo.org/topics/patent-system/patents-around- the-w...](http://www.epo.org/topics/patent-system/patents-around-the- world.html)

<comment><USER5> I know that they want to change that, too, but I really hope they don't. Otherwise, the people who didn't think a thing was even worth patenting (or who couldn't afford to patent it) will have their inventions stolen from them.

I will justify the use of "stolen" here by saying it's because they're no longer legally able to use their own idea. Restricting an idea via IP laws is one of the few ways an idea can actually be stolen.

<comment><USER6> i'm not sure that's true, necessarily. IANAL (yet), but unless I'm mistaken, a patent still has to be novel. So if they had publicly disclosed what they thought had no value... they could invalidate any later patent that tried to make it illegal for them to use their idea.

As for the obvious comeback - no, you shouldn't _not_ make public something which you think has no value. Either patent it or stick it out there to inspire someone with a different vision to your own. Don't hoard without knowing how to execute, especially without believing it's worth executing. As far as I'm concerned if you're doing that you deserve no rights to your 'invention' even if someone then comes along and patents it.

<comment><USER5> Well, what I've seen has been different: in the JMRI case, they patented the guy's idea and then sued him to stop using it (while infringing upon their copyrights, if memory serves).

Frankly, I wish that independent reinvention were at least weighed against novelty, but I haven't seen that work out in practice very often. Instead, they race to connect the dots once someone makes a new kind of dot available, even though everyone skilled in the art could probably could snap things together like Lego (TM) brand building blocks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This story is big news in the little world of general aviation. RunwayFinder was an excellent free product, well loved, and a lot of pilots are angry about it being bullied offline. RunwayFinder says they don't infringe. It seems likely to me, between the prior art, the obviousness of the patent, and the specificity of the patent claims (including language about using "housekeeping frames"). But they lack the means to defend themselves. I blogged some more analysis at [http://www.somebits.com/weblog/aviation/flightprep- patent-76...](http://www.somebits.com/weblog/aviation/flightprep- patent-7640098.html)

FlightPrep tried to go after the deep pockets in the industry, too, Jeppesen. Jepp's apparently blown them off: [http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/articles/2010/101214AOPA_...](http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/articles/2010/101214AOPA_Flight_Planner_does_not_infringe_on_patent.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> RunwayFinder says:

 _They won't talk to me. Instead I'm stuck dealing with their lawyers who twice said that if RunwayFinder pays a license fee (would you like 10% or 20% of zero?) or removes the website that they will drop the lawsuit. Unfortunately, they are now reneging on that and posturing for more. They are claiming damages of $3.2M per month._

FlightPrep responds: [http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/regarding- runwayfinder-sh...](http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/regarding-runwayfinder- shutting-down.html)

 _FlightPrep stands by its offer to grant a free-license to RunwayFinder to operate its website during this negotiation phase of our legal dispute. We are not asking RunwayFinder to shut down and in-fact are offering them a temporary free-pass at our technology in hopes that this gesture of goodwill will better enable both RunwayFinder and FlightPrep to constructively work toward a mutually beneficial long-term solution._

Doesn't absolve them of hefting lawsuits around, but there seems to be some sort of communication gap here...

<comment><USER9> What's the betting that the terms of that "free" licence involve some sort of admission of RunwayFinder's guilt, or of the validity of FlightPrep's patent?

<comment><USER10> Doesn't the simple act of accepting a (free or otherwise) license from someone imply that that you accept their right to grant said license?

Both parties I'm sure are aware of this; it's simply posturing on FlightPrep's part with the hope that RunwayFinder will be dumb enough to accept it and thereby lose in the long run.

<comment><USER11> No.

The classic case of a license in common law is permission to enter someone's property. Consider this case:

Me, opening the door to my apartment: Oh shit! There's a burglar in my living room!

Burglar: I'm not a burglar! This is my apartment! I've owned it for ten years.

Me: This isn't your apartment! It's my apartment! I bought it from Hugo López last year!

Burglar: Hold on a second. As long as you don't lay your hands on me, I'll allow you to remain in this living room to discuss this with me, but López never actually owned this apartment. He rented it from me for a while, but I evicted him five years ago for not paying rent. It was a fraudulent sale.

Me: Really? Shit. Listen, are you armed?

Burglar: No. Does this catsuit look like it has space for a gun? [Holds up hands, turns 360°]

Me: I guess not. I'm still calling the police.

Burglar: Go ahead.

Me: [pulls out cellphone and starts dialing]

Now, the burglar has granted me a license to remain on what he claims is his property. He could still be a burglar hoping to fool me long enough to get away, or he could be telling the truth and be the legal owner of the place, or in fact he could be telling the truth but López might have become the legal owner of the place through adverse possession, but in none of these cases am I accepting his claim and ceding the property to him simply by remaining in my own living room, or by not bodily throwing him out.

<comment><USER10> But if RunwayFinder intends to attack the validity of the patent by claiming obviousness or something similar, I see the analogy as more like:

me: This was no-one's apartment when I got here. There are thousands like it, in fact an infinite supply. Get your own.

burglar: Well, we'll work that out in court. In fact I own all of them.

me: No, it was public land and I just built my apartment here.

burglar: Well, how about you sign this lease. Just put your John Hancock here, and I won't give you any trouble about staying here. I won't even charge you any rent this month.

With the above dialog, doesn't the signing of the lease imply an acceptance of the burglars ownership of not only this apartment but all of these apartments?

I am not a lawyer, obviously, just someone who likes analogies.

<comment><USER11> If you have to sign something, it's probably a contract, not a license. It might turn out to be an invalid contract if you're already entitled to what the burglar offers you.

Analogies to real property are problematic because of the excludable and rival nature of real property.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Software patents are so infuriating! It's amazing how something that was designed to encourage creativity and innovation is effectively stopping innovation.

</comment><comment><USER13> Invoking the "every visitor/download/viewer represents a lost sale" argument? Seriously? Isn't that like Godwinning a legal exchange these days?

<comment><USER14> Suing someone is expensive and risky. If the "victim" can just be bossed around with scary numbers like "33 million dollars per month", then that's excellent; they get what they want without even having to work for it.

(Personally, that amount would be more than I could ever pay off in a lifetime, so I wouldn't worry about it. I would just join some teach-kids-to- read-in-Africa chairty, leave the world of material wealth behind forever, and never pay a dime of the settlement. Just to spite them.)

<comment><USER15> > leave the world of material wealth behind forever

I would devote my life to finding a way to countersue them into non-existence as well as a way to disbar every lawyer involved in their offensive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The patent in question is <http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7640098.html> (source: [http://news.priorsmart.com/stenbock-everson-v- runwayfinder-l...](http://news.priorsmart.com/stenbock-everson-v- runwayfinder-l3tD/))

<comment><USER17> To summarize: it's a patent on the idea of overlaying a flight plan on a map using a website. The general case of this is drawing line-segments on a background, something every trivial paint program can do. This patent clearly fails the obviousness test.

<comment><USER18> It doesn't fail the obviousness test at the USPTO, because they seem not to employ people with ordinary skill in the art of anything related to software. At least, that's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.

<comment><USER19> There is a list of valid degrees that qualify a person to join the patent bar or work as an examiner. A law degree is required and also an engineering degree but software engineers are specifically excluded.

Civil, mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineers and possibly others are included and software is excluded. And this is the agency that evaluates and issues patents to strangle our field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So there are patent defense companies like Allied Security Trust, RPX and the Open Invention Network but it seems like these are for major players and/or have very limited scopes.

Is there anything similar out there for smaller businesses, particularly for those in the software industry?

Wouldn't it be nice to have an Open Invention Network type entity that can build up an arsenal to defend against these types of existential threats?

I could see paying a monthly 'licensing and services' premium that would go toward maintaining a patent portfolio, retaining defensive legal services and maintaining a database of prior art and other useful information that can be brought to bear in these kinds of situations.

I know there is regular patent insurance (I have never used it) but it seems more offensive rather than defensive in nature and is expensive.

</comment><comment><USER21> Premise: a) Many (most?) small software outfits, and software developers don't agree that software should be patentable.

b) Some of us would be willing to pay an insurance premium against patent trolls

Proposal: Form an organization (or convince an existing one like the EFF) funded (donations, I'd presume) by all of us to:

a) Lobby for changes to to the patent process and law.

b) Aggressively challenge obvious software patents as being obvious, or using prior art.

c) Serve as a communal defense fund/legal help for small businesses against patent trolls.

d) Maintain a community database of bad patents and potential prior art (to be used in defensive or offensive legal actions)

<comment><USER6> you can presumably purchase before-the-event insurance anyhow. There just isn't a big market. But can you seriously EFF/etc to be that insurance, and have any money left over to lobby government (have you any idea what financial scale we are talking about? in the UK, the pro-patent lobby just got our government to reduce corporation tax on patent-derived income from 37.5% to 10% ! that takes some serious lobby clout) ?

<comment><USER20> There are over a million software engineers and computer programmers in the U.S. Say, 15% were convinced to give $30 a month (or their employers). That would be over 50 million a year for operations. That is not including other donations that would be solicited, or fees payed by other interested parties such as hardware manufacturers, venture capitalists and the like.

Now will $50 mil. be the death knell for the pro software patent lobby? No, there are big companies with very deep pockets that would fund the other side well, but it is a fine start.

Of course, my hope would be that the $50 mil. would mostly go to crushing trolls in court, sucking up tasty patents, building and maintaining a solid resource of precedent and prior art in this area and setting good precedent and leave the bulk of the lobbying to donations above and beyond the collected fees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> FlightPrep, the patent owner, posted this response to the issue:

[http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/regarding-runwayfinder- sh...](http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/regarding-runwayfinder-shutting- down.html)

<comment><USER23> Definitely good to see the other side's response, but the post immediately prompts the question: what does Parsons stand to gain if he is shutting down RunwayFinder in order to "try this case in the court of public opinion" as FlightPrep claims (rather than simply to avoid getting sued over his hobby)?

<comment><USER24> _Definitely good to see the other side's response_ and see what forked tongued baloney it is...

"... our good faith offer to provide RunwayFinder a free license during negotiation for a constructive resolution to our dispute and absent any demands by FlightPrep"

IANAL but, as others have said, "absent any demands" could be interpreted as "if you're willing to roll over and accept our utterly bogus patent.

"constructive" just as much meaning "profitable to our rent-seeking schemes"...

And somehow the pilots community is against software patents? I wouldn't imagine this an militant group of hacker. But after this experience, it seems they've learned a little bit...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Not only is the software patent outrageous but the lawyer math is totally baloney every visitor represents a lost sale of 149. ridiculous.

<comment><USER26> To be fair, it says "potential lost sale" :

Each visit represents a potential lost sale of our client's patented invention at $149 per sale

<comment><USER27> Then it should at least be scaled by the probability of actually converting to a sale...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> From the patent, in the "Background of Invention" section:

 _However, as will become obvious later, additional applications of this invention may also include the field of cartography, route planning for motor vehicles, marine vehicles and similar utilization._

So does this mean they could potentially go after MapQuest or Google Maps for providing route planning for motor vehicles as well?

<comment><USER29> Standard rules for patent trolls: that'll happen later. They're going after little guys now so they can go into a case like that and claim that their patent must be good - just look at how many other companies paid up!

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is it possible for RunwayFinder to be hosted outside of the US? For example, if RunwayFinder is not premium (and not _sold_ to the US), why can't the service be hosted in the UK or Europe where the patent is not valid?

<comment><USER31> You would hope so, in fact I have a business that I'm working on that has dumb obvious patents filed in the US but I'm a UK citizen.

I still reckon they'll come after me though, they love to waste time and think because they 'had an idea' that they own the rights.

<comment><USER30> Good for you. I would suggest that Runway Finder moves to Europe and let's the lawyers chase them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I supposed it could be a big boost for FOSS if the remedy for IP infringement wasn't damages calculated on expected (lost) sales, but an account for profits; so you'd hand over the profit you made from infringing this patent (rather than - hand over what we can convince a judge we would have made if we didn't have to compete with a cheaper product)

<comment><USER11> It would probably hurt FOSS in the short term, because it would essentially legalize not-for-profit copying — unlicensed copies of any proprietary software would be legal, and so we'd have well-curated and reputable repositories of AutoCAD, Microsoft Windows, OrCAD, Cisco IOS, and so on, perhaps even with enhancements and ports to new platforms. I imagine this is already the case in China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is RunwayFinder the open-source flight planner? If so, it seems anyone can just run it by itself? Is the source out there? I bet they wouldn't send lawsuits to all their potential customers.

<comment><USER33> If it is open source, does the community provide any support to developers that find themselves in this situation? Perhaps the EFF or the legal team of an open source friendly company?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> apparently the infamous flightprep team <http://i.imgur.com/v30tP.jpg>

</comment><comment><USER35> This is very sad. I would be glad if we can have site to expose those patent trolls. Browser plugin which automatically displays "Those are patent abusers, don't visit!" when you try to visit given url's would be even better. Maybe that would build some pressure to not use abusive claims.

</comment><comment><USER36> knowing nothing about the company or history the line about lost revenue just made my blood boil. 22k unique visitors = 3.2 million in lost sales. 100% conversation. There is so much fail going on here and that before you include the insanity of the 'patent'.

<comment><USER37> The line in question is a good example of law-fi literature:

 _"...that your website had 22,256 unique visitors in July 2010. Each visit represents a potential lost sale of our client's patented invention at $149 per sale. This damage calculation exceeds $3.2 million per month in lost revenue."_

<comment><USER32> Interesting how the "potential" got lost between lost sale and lost revenue...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> For those (like me) who didn't know about RunwayFinder: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3fTLYwM1d0>

<comment><USER39> For those who hate video or have youtube.com blocked, see CrunchBase at <http://www.crunchbase.com/company/runwayfinder>:

RunwayFinder is a flight planning resource for U.S. pilots, showing current weather conditions for airports in an area at a glance displayed on seamless sectional and terminal charts. In addition, routes, range circles, and temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) can be plotted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> When a patent establishes a claim, and then says something like "Claim 19: The process of claim 18 further comprising overlaying a route line", does that mean the patent is narrowed to only things that include route lines, or does it still apply to systems with/without route lines? If it's not narrowed by the additional claims, what purpose do the additional claims serve?

<comment><USER41> The benefit of multiple claims is separability. In your example, claim 18 might be found invalid, but claim 19, since it requires an additional element, might still be valid. On the other hand, claim 18 might not be invalidated, in which case the patent is broader (and therefore more valuable) than if it had included only claim 19.

<comment><USER40> Interesting, so the most broad claim that gets the most press might not end up being the one that "counts", but on the other hand when someone says you have to read the whole patent to know how narrow it is that's not necessarily true either, since the most broad claim could be ruled valid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> There was an article on here recently about how in general the more agressive the lawyer is, the less case they have. Potentially the lawyer is bluffing. It a tragedy, that you have to shut down. This sort of thing makes me wonder if there is a market for a decentralized webserver. Sort of a bittorrent but for web pages that would allow you to get around some of the patent claims--in a way. The profit value of this would be that as traffic increased on site the added users would handle some of the load. Essentially auto scaling without the added hardware costs. Potential issues to get over is how to get the browsers to support such a thing. Could websockets or even existing JSONP work through it?

</comment><comment><USER43> How did FlightPrep come up with such an exact number for visitors to RunwayFinder (22,256)?

<comment><USER34> probably based on <http://www.quantcast.com/runwayfinder.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> AvWeb interviewed Ross Neher from FlightPrep. At 5:02 they discuss the RunwayFinder suit:

[http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/AudioPodcast_FlightPrep...](http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/AudioPodcast_FlightPrep_InternetFlightPlanningPatent_RossNeher_203795-1.html)

As a student pilot, I hope this gets sorted out soon. RunwayFinder has the best VFR-sectional-over-Google-Maps interface of the available online tools. Skyvector.com is a close second, but they don't seamlessly stitch together charts (you must manually switch between them).

<comment><USER45> From the interview:

 _\- How can you patent something like online flight planning? [--] Were you just first ones to think of patenting it?

\- According to the Patent Office, that is correct._

The interviewer tries to squeeze information out from the man, but he just talks his way around the actual question, saying things like IANAL, It's in the Patent, the Patent is very specific, that's what the Patent Office says.

I wish the interviewer wasn't so soft with him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Reading through the timeline it seems like the chose to enforce their (in my opinion, bogus) patent in a very agressive way. Don't like this company at all.

</comment><comment><USER47> Somebody get fuckpatenttrolls.com (or something like that) and create a site for us to be informed of such evildoers.

Boycott is the only weapon we have to fight them.

</comment><comment><USER48> Well you could try the advice posted yesterday and tell them to eat shit and fuck off. Maybe they are bluffing.

</comment><comment><USER49> I believe that FlightPrep has a valid business plan. They have patent in order to prevent commoditization (i.e., giving away things for free) of their market. So they sue all free providers and if there is somebody with real money (like Jeppesen) they understand they cannot go after them.

I think this something each copmany should do when entering a niche market which can be easily commoditized.

<comment><USER50> If you are in a market that can easily be commoditized, you need to innovate and provide extra value, not use legal loopholes to stifle innovation and competition.

The World would be a far worse place if [insert any commodity here] was patented and the owner of the patent could sell at a price of their choosing (and licence at a price of their choosing)</comment></comment>


The puzzling Obamacare replacement plan, explained with a cartoon - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2017/3/7/14841682/republican-replacement-individual-mandate-cartoon <comment><AUTHOR> Reading this, it makes me wonder - it seems like the Obamacare style solution (everyone is in the pool) incentivizes the insurance companies to make the entire pool healthier. This seems like a good thing, but I imagine there are many confounding factors to this, even if it seems a reasonable prediction by itself...?</comment>


Corel Announces Professional Photoediting Suite for Windows, Mac and Linux - <AUTHOR> http://www.corel.com/corel/pages/index.jsp?pgid=800281&item=pressRelease&listid=11000001

<comment><USER2> Granted it's a press release and at this point it's all described as the greatest thing since sliced-bread and I have no idea whether any of that is true, but what _is_ interesting is that they felt that there was enough of a Linux market to release for all three major OS players at the same time.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can actually buy it right now, or download the trial. I haven't had a chance to see how well it works yet but I'm going to give it a look tonight after work.

<http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod4670071>

<comment><USER2> Please report back because I'd love for some competition for the Gimp. The Gimp is great, but image editing editing software is an area that Linux is far too low on. And the $99 tag is low enough that I would be willing to pay for it.

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems to be decently made. Haven't been able to crash it but it seems more to be a competitor for something like UFRAW and Adobe Lightroom. It focuses more on correcting things from the camera than being an image editor like the gimp. It does look interesting it appears to support 16bit images and a few other things like that that the gimp doesn't currently.

<comment><USER2> Thanks. I'll try to grab a copy and see if it works for me.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Email Integration Done Right - <AUTHOR> http://blog.close.io/post/53528630349/email-integration-done-right

<comment><USER2> This is an advertisement.

<comment><USER3> This is a comment.

Any company blog is boiled down to an advertisement at some level. If your interested in learning about how we _technically_ do a lot of these things scroll to the bottom of the article and checkout the technical companion post. This post is merely gives context of what/why. [http://hack.close.io/posts/building_better_email_integration...](http://hack.close.io/posts/building_better_email_integrations_pt_1) gives you the how.

EDIT: I don't know where I got my internet license. Wrong link now fixed.</comment></comment>


Gravity chopticks - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/innovativedesigns/the-newest-generation-of-chopsticks-gravity-chopst <comment><AUTHOR> Choptix without the need for choptix rest. My friend have been using this choptix for a litter over a year and decided to make it available for anyone else who want it.</comment>


Jslinux (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://bellard.org/jslinux/ <comment><USER2> Related from 2017: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274423](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274423)

2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10494831](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10494831)

2013: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5400185](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5400185)

2011: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2572915](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2572915)

Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2555349](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2555349)

(Edit: these links are just for curious readers, who often like to look at past discussions. As HN's FAQ says, reposts are fine after a year or so: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html))

</comment><comment><USER3> I did something similar back when NaCl wasn't dead, by running the full qemu (bellards other project) in Chrome. Here's a Screencast (8MB) of it booting Kolibri OS. Needless to say it was slow, but that's mainly down to not having done any optimizations.

[https://vod-edge.turbo.run/Halite%20Origins.mp4](https://vod- edge.turbo.run/Halite%20Origins.mp4)

</comment><comment><USER4> Fabrice Bellard continues to astound. What an absolute legend. If I were 1/100th as productive as him, I'd die happy.

<comment><USER5> He isn't active on HN :)

<comment><USER6> Possibly a contribution as to why he's so productive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Now run it in [https://bellard.org/quickjs](https://bellard.org/quickjs)

<comment><USER8> And run it in a VM in [https://bellard.org/qemu](https://bellard.org/qemu)

<comment><USER9> And load it over the cell network with [https://bellard.org/lte/](https://bellard.org/lte/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Fabrice Bellard is one of very few pure geniuses that represent the best in software development. Hats off everyone.

</comment><comment><USER11> Gary Bernhardt prophecy from his The Birth and Death of JavaScript[0] is coming true.

[0] [https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and- death...](https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of- javascript)

<comment><USER12> JSLinux predates that talk by 3 years. Also the "prophecy" is a special case of Atwood's law from 2007, where the "anything" is an operating system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wish I could download or at least install stuff from my computer on the JS version of windows 2000. I have a Visual Source Safe archive to open and I guess I'll have to open a VM but that would have been nice to be able to do it in browser.

<comment><USER3> Depending on the version, source safe should work in wine. I'm able to run the version included in VS6.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I loaded Windows 2000 in my phone's browser and watched the battery percent remaining drop one percent every 15 seconds. That said, I'm running Windows 2000 on a phone browser, which is madness.

</comment><comment><USER15> Anyone have tips on getting this working with custom images? I tried making my own with TinyEMU and this JsOnline script, but it would never load. Or any suggestions for another project that fits my use case? That is, presenting a very minimal, in browser only, FULL Linux command line, for training purpose. The image can't be client side, and it has to have all 'expected' functionality; IE, not just a simulator for certain commands/paths.

</comment><comment><USER16> Alas, this is just a virtual machine, when the name would make me think this is the Linux kernel itself translated to JS for some exotic experiments.

<comment><USER17> LKL.js: [https://retrage.github.io/lkl-js/](https://retrage.github.io/lkl-js/)

<comment><USER16> Thank you! Now, only how to apply it is left...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Finally a Linux that doesn't come with vim!

<comment><USER19> I'm pretty sure this is an attempt at humour. But minimal installations of the major distros do not have vim, in face I think Ubuntu makes nano the default $EDITOR (but I am not 100% on that)

But nothing I've seen makes me believe that vim isn't available for this "platform", nor do I think it's inherently harmful to have a 500KiB program unused on a drive. (As this statement implies).

<comment><USER20> Most (if not all) Linux distros come with a "vi" (mandated by Posix) which is a plain, basic, feature-starved build of vim. I believe Posix having included vi as a requirement contributed to the status of vi as the omnipresent text editor.

<comment><USER18> You're right, it does in fact come with 'vi' :-).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sprig Company News - <AUTHOR> https://blog.sprig.com/blog/sprig-company-news <comment><AUTHOR> Pour one out. They really changed their model a few times and that last configuration was pretty great. Food showed up faster than any of the regular restaurant delivery services and the menu was fairly diverse and tasty.

<comment><USER2> They were probably losing tons of money on all that great food and service though. I am going to miss all the great money losing services when this bubble is finally over.</comment></comment>


How Many Tesla Model 3 Cars Have Been Made? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/ <comment><USER2> Automobile final assembly lines produce about one car per minute. About 2400 per week for one shift. Some are slightly slower or faster, but not by a lot.

It's common to run two production shifts, but not three; one shift is needed for line maintenance. 1,000 per week indicates the production line is running, but having problems. This is much better than the few hundred per week from December, which meant hand assembly.

One line should top out at 2 shifts, about 5000 vehicles per day, or about 100,000 per year. Then add a second production line.

If you really want to find out what's going on in Tesla's plant, find a United Auto Workers organizer in a bar in Fremont and buy him a few beers.

<comment><USER3> If you ever want to get a feel for designing a plant that produces a car every minute, I highly suggest taking a look at Factorio.

It's a little abstracted and a little gamey, but the core feel is there, and I very much enjoy the logistics of it.

[https://www.factorio.com](https://www.factorio.com)

<comment><USER4> I'm an industrial engineer who also plays factorio. It does a _really_ good job of teaching some of the core parts of running a factory.

* what happens when there are supply chain hiccups?

* how much inventory do I want? Converting too much iron to steel will waste resources. What is the right mix?

* where is my bottleneck? Making anything else faster doesn't matter for overall production.

* every process has different time, space, and energy requirements. Running off of entirely electricity or fossil fuels both have pros and cons.

I've thought a bit about how it could be used to teach students in the classroom. It would be nice to have UI counters on the machines and setup a small factory. The concept of quality would also be a cool extension.

It's also just fun to look at the resources required to build a product from raw source. In real life the concept still applies - 10 lbs of ore will be a fraction of that once refined and a small fraction of that once formed and milled into a desk widget.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Estimating production volume from serial numbers? Looks like a job for a German tank problem: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/20/german_tank_problem...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/20/german_tank_problem_and_leaky_data/)

<comment><USER6> What do you do if Tesla is using a Linear Congruential Generator[1] to generate their serial numbers? Then the highest number found gives no information, even probabilistically. I don't know what the laws are on VINs though, so maybe it's forced to be sequential.

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

<comment><USER7> Here's the VIN decoder, valid since 1981.

[https://static.ogstatic.com/images/articles/2017/11/02232742...](https://static.ogstatic.com/images/articles/2017/11/02232742/vin_branded_2.png)

<comment><USER8> And more details here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_identification_number#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_identification_number#Components)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Maybe I missed it in the article but how many does Tesla need to make per day to meet it's goals?

They are making 1,000 per week now (52k in a year at current rate) and have 500k reservations in line with $1,000 deposits?

So they need an order of magnitude increase in rate to fulfill the reservations in a year?

I didn't know much about car numbers and it seems about 387k Toyota Camrys were sold in 2017 for reference.

<comment><USER10> The graphs show a clearly exponential grow rate. No idea how long it will keep growing and when it'll start to plateau, but it does _not_ seem to be going to suddenly, exactly this month stop growing. If they keep it like this apparent 10-20% increased production/week in 12 months they will be producing 3000-9000 cars/week.

So yeah, _IF_ (big if) they can keep it growing at the same exponential rate it'd take around 65-34 weeks [0][1] to deliver 500k cars from now with 10% and 20% growth rates respectively:

[0] [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1+%2B+1.2+%5E+x)+*+10...](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=\(1+%2B+1.2+%5E+x\)+*+1000++%3D+492000+from+0+to+80)

[1] [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1+%2B+1.2+%5E+x)+*+10...](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=\(1+%2B+1.2+%5E+x\)+*+1000++%3D+492000+from+0+to+80)

<comment><USER11> exponential growth rates in industrial production are HIGHLY unlikely.

At best you will have a step function as additional assembly lines come on.

OR you will have a max production ability, with various factors inhibiting that production ability such as part issues, failures, faults and so on.

So either the plant is not at full capacity, and there are production issues.

OR the plants are at full capacity and more lines are being added.

(and you can have the worst of both)

<comment><USER12> It'll be an S-shape. Musk had images of it in his Model 3 presentation when he first mentioned 'production hell'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nissan claim to have sold over 250,000 Leafs so far, and the new model has range similar to the Model 3.

The race is definitely on, which is great news for those of us who just want the best electric car :)

[https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/nissan/leaf/first- drive...](https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/nissan/leaf/first- drives/nissan-leaf-2018-review)

<comment><USER14> I was excited by your comment, so I looked up the 2018 Leaf's range: 151mi in the US vs 310mi for the Model 3.

Is there a different model in Leaf the UK? The article you link to says "235 miles (NEDC)/177 miles (WLTP combined)" for the Leaf. Or is the way EV's are rated for range in the UK just different than is the US?

<comment><USER15> That's interesting, this[1] press release says:

        400 km  (248 miles) using a Japaneses standard JC08.
        241 km  (150 miles) with EPA
        380 km  (236 miles) with NEDC

That's quite a range.

[http://www.nissan.com.au/Discover/News/2017/September/06/The...](http://www.nissan.com.au/Discover/News/2017/September/06/The- new-Nissan-LEAF-raising-the-bar-for-electric-vehicles)

<comment><USER16> I'm pretty sure you can't buy that version in the US.

<comment><USER17> I think those are for the same car, just using different standards for measuring range. Depends on which is most accurate. If the US measure for Tesla 3 is 300+ then it's probably apples to apples. But it would be interesting to see the same standard measurements for the model 3.

<comment><USER18> Correct. And the EPA tends to be most accurate. I've never hit NEDC numbers in any EV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Despite the delays, the shape of the estimated production curve is pretty encouraging.

<comment><USER20> They claimed to approaching 1,000 cars a week around the end of the year. I put the numbers from Bloomberg on my blog on Thursday to track the accuracy:

[http://h4labs.org/tesla-is-approaching-1000-model-3s-a- week/](http://h4labs.org/tesla-is-approaching-1000-model-3s-a-week/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Anybody else worried/cautious about giving a company even more data about one's location, driving habits, etc. (also, without that company sharing that data with the user whose data it is) - also, knowing that the company is truly in control of the vehicle? I'm all for renewable energy and electric vehicles, but it could be done without selling the user.

<comment><USER22> From [https://www.tesla.com/about/legal](https://www.tesla.com/about/legal):

"""If you no longer wish us to collect Telematics Log Data or any other data from your Tesla vehicle, please contact us as indicated in the "How to Contact Us" section below. Please note that, if you opt out from the collection of Telematics Log Data or any other data from your Tesla vehicle (with the exception of the Data Sharing setting detailed above), we will not be able to notify you of issues applicable to your vehicle in real time, and this may result in your vehicle suffering from reduced functionality, serious damage, or inoperability, and it may also disable many features of your vehicle including periodic software and firmware updates, remote services, and interactivity with mobile applications and in-car features such as location search, Internet radio, voice commands, and web browser functionality."""

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Saved you a click: 8357 (estimated)

<comment><USER24> If that's all you want out of the article, might as well not even click on the comments section.

<comment><USER23> I always click on the HN comments first, whenever an article title has even a hint of clickbait to it, and I am nearly always well rewarded for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Really curious about what the production bottlenecks are for the Model 3. Is it batteries? Would be thankful to anyone able to point me to further info on this =)

<comment><USER26> The bottleneck is automation.

Tesla is still producing cars completely manually.

This is why Musk bought the automation company Grohmann. But after he demanded they work 100h weeks (instead of their previous 35h weeks), and said unions would be unnecessary, almost the entire company quit and left.

That's the current bottleneck, automation of assembly.

<comment><USER27> Grohmann is a German company. Having employees work more than 40 or 50 hours a week on a regular basis is hard to defend legally. Employee protection is pretty strict about that. Heck, even working more than 10 hours straight is borderline illegal and puts the boss (not the employee) in very hot water.

So I can hardly believe that 100h per week were actually demanded.

<comment><USER26> Not just work, but unpaid overtime, as Musk demands from most employees.

This story of the 80-100h demands was actually in German news at the time, plus of course the complaints of making Grohmann dependent on a single car company.

<comment><USER27> I missed that, but I am curious. Do you have references for that?

<comment><USER11> Found these -

[https://www.businessinsider.in/Tesla-is-having-some- predicta...](https://www.businessinsider.in/Tesla-is-having-some-predictable- union-problems/articleshow/58302515.cms)

and then this

[https://qz.com/1107802/tesla-raises-wages-30-in-germany- soon...](https://qz.com/1107802/tesla-raises-wages-30-in-germany-soon-after- firing-its-us-workers/)

<comment><USER28> None of those even vaguely hint at 100hr work weeks or anything even remotely like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is for once a great article about Tesla that is neither too critical, nor too rosy. They actually do some intelligent estimations instead of just going with whatever anonymous "analysts" or "experts" in the financial markets say.

It's a real issue for Tesla if they don't figure out how to build 500,000 cars per year within the next 2-3 years because then they open up a flank for the traditional car manufacturers who probably need 3-4 years before they can market EVs that can compare in specs with model 3, most notably on range.

At around 200 miles/320 km, an EV has a range that makes it suitable as a second car for the masses (as opposed to the passionate enthusiasts that might buy in already at 100 miles or less). 200 miles is enough for driving around the city. Currently, the Tesla models, Chevrolet Bolt, Renault Zoe, the new Nissan Leafs, and Opel Ampera, have such ranges. This is the range segment that the traditional car manufacturers are likely to open their first real bids for competitive EVs in from this year and through the next 3-4 years. Tesla can live with that since the segment is insufficient for the masses. Average Joe will not buy an electric car with a 200 mile range. Ever.

At around 300 miles/480 km, an EV could be a real primary car if you live in regions with sufficient charging stations. Currently, only the larger Teslas and Model 3 are there. This is where Average Joe starts to buy. But the larger Teslas are too expensive for Average Joe. As for model 3, it can hardly be called a car for the masses until it is produced for the masses. And therein lies the problem. If Tesla doesn't nail this range segment for higher end of the medium priced cars produced at scale in the next 2-3 years, some of the traditional car manufacturers may catch up. Don't forget that even if Tesla reaches 350,000 cars in 2019, which is still a big if, they still leave most of the chips at the table. They will have to go way beyond 1M cars yearly to really close the upper medium price range for the traditional manufacturers. Even 500,000 cars would leave most of the market for a handful of it's competitors. And it would require one or two more Giga Factories to reach a million, which they haven't started to build yet. As for the lower priced cars, Tesla is not there yet, and the traditional car manufacturers may well get there before Tesla if they get to experiment for 4-5 years with the medium priced cars without loosing too much money. So Tesla really needs to hurry.

Around 400 miles/640 km, range is no longer an issue for almost any buyer. The few exceptions are buyers in rural areas or buyers that need to commute very far to and from work every day in cold weather or in mountain regions. A 100 mile commute to work in subzero temperatures, and/or in mountain regions would mean that you would have to be very sure that your car is fully charged every day, which would be too much of a hassle. But apart from such edge cases, most people could skip charging for a full working week and still use a car with 400 miles range for commutes. And on road trips, they could drive as far as is comfortable anyways, and if once every few years they needed to drive further than 400 miles, they would likely have passed several charging stations on the way. Currently, no cars are there, but Tesla will likely be first in this segment with the larger models S and X, quite possibly within 1-2 years. Those cars are not for the masses. It's not unreasonable to believe though, that model 3 will have such range in 3-4 years.

At 500 miles/800 km, the range issue is solved for 99 percent of potential buyers in the modern world. Tesla claims its new Roadster will have such range. It is still to be seen whether that is true, but anyways, that car is not for the masses. But maybe in 7-10 years, this will be standard in the smaller Teslas...

<comment><USER30> I believe a 100 mile range is enough for a city car or secondary car. I have an older Leaf and it's fine for that. We'll get a plug in hybrid soon to replace the primary car (minivan).

Even at 300 mikes range, my wife would not drive an EV, due to range anxiety. She won't even drive my Leaf (she calls it a golf cart). This range anxiety is all psychological, and it's the main thing hindering EV adoption.

<comment><USER31> Many cars don't even get 300 miles, although it's true you can "recharge" them much quicker. One thing I'm not sure about: how long lasting are typical EV batteries? Because I can see not wanting to buy a car that will have half its range a few years down the road.

<comment><USER32> This article has an up-to-date chart with owner-reported data:

[https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110149_tesla-model- s-b...](https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110149_tesla-model-s-battery- life-what-the-data-show-so-far)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Why not just put a camera or other sensing system outside their one plant? (People already do this using satellite photos of walmart parking lots, etc. to get advance information about holiday sales.)

<comment><USER34> Who does this and do you have a source? It would be interesting to learn more

<comment><USER33> [https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/4/12369494/descartes- artific...](https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/4/12369494/descartes-artificial- intelligence-crop-predictions-usda)

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/startups-mine-market-moving- dat...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/startups-mine-market-moving-data-from- fields-parking-lotseven-shadows-1416502993)

[https://www.cnbc.com/id/38722872](https://www.cnbc.com/id/38722872)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Is that right they are encouraging people to record VINs and post them to a website? Creepy.

<comment><USER36> The potential creepiness is worse than that. VINs follow a specific algorithmic format, so it's actually possible to make a website with _all_ VINs!

<comment><USER35> Same with credit card numbers, doesn't mean you'd want it tracked on a third- party website.</comment></comment></comment>