How to be a genius - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19125691.300

<comment><USER2> One thing that's missing from the article is that there isn't just one kind of hard work. Some people work very hard and very inefficiently. They never analyse how they do things and how they could do them better.

<comment><USER3> I too would have liked the article to mention that, it would be useful. But it's probably out of it's scope, though.

<comment><USER4> Old one, but pretty good about hard work's criterias:

[http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/...](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You tend to find that 'hard work == discipline == genius' is the illusory conclusion made by those on the outside looking in. When we are truly inspired, in the 'flow' if you like, doesn't that feel like the easiest, most natural state you have ever experienced?

Ptn nails it in his comment - "they left out the inner spark". Absolutely. Genius is simply the release of the inner spark and that process is not something that could be characterised by effort.

Here's an alternative perspective - <http://www.life2point0.com/2007/02/learning_to_fly.html> and <http://www.life2point0.com/2006/06/the_little_book.html>

<comment><USER6> "Genius is simply the release of the inner spark."

Good remark. I think you still need effort, but that's the kind of removing obstacles between the spark and the outcome, rather than the kind of blindly digging here and there hoping you'll find a gem. I guess that's the reason of the importance of the mentor mentioned in the article.

And yes, it's simple, yet so difficult to achieve for even a slight bit of ego, lazyness or even over-eagerness get in the way... (from my experience of >20yrs of practicing instruments and acting; yet there's long way to go).

<comment><USER5> You are quite right Shiro.. it does take effort, but only as long as we believe that it takes effort ;-)

The central thesis of 'The little book of Flow' I linked to above is that those sublime moments when we get in touch with our inner spark, where inspiration gushes, answers flow from us before the questions, and we have all-on just keeping up... are simply the moments we, per chance, relax into our true nature, our natural (though perhaps forgotten) state. Notice that these moments invariably occur when we are happy and relaxed and the mind lets slip it's incessant control over of our life.,, and we suddenly feel more alive and connected to everything. If this is true (and it's not difficult to test this for ourselves) then what preparation or effort or understanding could be needed to know our own nature?

Of course, the ego doesn't want us to hear this - as our 'self-concept' it's under threat as once our mind expands to a greater awareness of reality it's impossible to shrink back again. So it's the nature of the ego (the human condition if you like) to believe that we must strive, practice, seek answers. But that doesn't make it either necessary or true.

At end of the day it can, if we wish, come down to a simple choice: - Shall I be true the truth as I find it - 'the spark', or true to the latest idea about what is still needed?

What I am long-windedly trying to say here Shiro, is that from my experience the problem is not the 'obstacles between the spark and the outcome' but the belief that there are obstacles between the spark and the outcome that need to be overcome. Does that make sense?

<comment><USER6> Yeah that makes sense. Whether the obstacles are there or just a phamtom created by our ego, my point is that the "effort" here is more like a round- trip journey, which can be quite enjoyable even if you'll eventually come back to the same place. Do we need that? I don't know, maybe not. Is it fun? I bet it is.

<comment><USER5> And if it's fun then where's the effort?

I'm with you Shiro... I'll take fun any day.

<comment><USER6> My wife once asked me how I could practice the same piano piece over and over and over, for hours, without being bored. It seemed to her that I was making a great effort. To me, every time I play, I discover something new, about music, about myself, about the instrument.... Even the least interesting basic exercise piece like Hanon (which roughly corresponds to the sit-up or squatting to build your body), if I concentrate on how every parts of my body works to interact with the piano, it's an unlimited source of discovery. I wish I'd known that when I was younger and taking lessons---I discover how to enjoy practicing long after I stop taking lessons.

<comment><USER5> Shiro, you are definitely one of the lucky ones. Very few know what it is to do something solely for the joy of doing the thing itself... and the great paradox is that when that is our only motivation, the 'success' that we would have wanted had we been goal (instead of process) orientated comes easy and naturally.

This is how to let the inner spark shine -- allow whatever we choose to do to be it's own reward with no preconditions or ulterior motives. What flows from that is always perfect. And what's more, somehow serendipity starts kicking in.

All great works are created from a sense of joy, not pain. If there is a 'secret' to genius, then surely this is it. Does this help answer your question tyn?

<comment><USER7> Well, it's certainly inspiring, just a little remark to add: some things are entertaining by nature (e.g. playing soccer) while for other things you need to make an effort (oops, here it is again) to discover the joy in them (e.g. for the procedure of building the right body to play better soccer). Most people will certainly devote more time to the first category of activities (what I've called entertaining by nature).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ericsson's research is very informative, but it is fallacious to use it to discount the role of genetics.

To illustrate, basic perception of quantity is an innate skill that develops as the brain matures; it generally solidifies when a child reaches something like 5-7 years of age (don't quote me; I'll dig sources if need be). Now when a kid learns calculus at age 10, it is impossible to explain it simply by hard work. And unlike the article, I would put Mozart into this category.

What is deducible from the research is simply that P( successful | no hard work) = 0, but P( successful | work hard) > 0.

<comment><USER9> Not to discount the role of genetics, but how many parents ever prepare their children to learn Calculus at age 10 in the first place? If it were tried with all children and only a few succeeded, the genetic argument would be stronger; as it is, it is rarely tried but anecdotally it seems like when it IS tried, it is successful. This may have more to do with children's incredible mental elasticity than anything else.

And IMO calculus isn't really "hard"; e.g. the concept of infinity is no more difficult to teach a child than an adult. Actually I'd say it's a lot _easier_ to learn it at 10 than at 18 anyway, just like a foreign language or musical instrument or computer programming.

The limiting factor with children in my experience is adults. Adults abrogate children's learning opportunities with regimented lessons that are merely someone's mistaken concept of what is "appropriate" for an "average" child of that "grade level", i.e. age.

"Readers"? Why not keep the shelf stocked with the best sci-fi, fantasy, and non-fiction and let them read what they want? Math in particular is going to undergo major changes because kids are going to grow up now with 3D worlds and coordinate systems that they _play_ with. Kids are generally under-stimulated intellectually with what they're interested in, and over-worked on things they _don't_ have interest in. Our potential is so much more than what we are permitted to grow into in these restrictive environments.

<comment><USER8> You points are valid, and I don't take a hard stance on this debate, but I highly disagree with how it's called the "nature vs nuture debate," as if it's one or the other.

Learning calculus at age 10 is no small feat; it's one of many examples there are, but you are right, I can't say it can't be taught. However, research evidence will say it's very difficult.

I don't remember the name of the experiment, but this is fairly well-tested, as follows. Take n beads and lay them in a line in front of a 5-year-old. Take the same number of beads and make another line, but space them apart wider. Ask which line has more beads. Usually the kid will say the more widely-spaced line has more. This is caused by an immature perception of quantity. After a few years, this error "magically" disappears. Logically, if you don't understand descrete quantities you won't be handling high-level math.

The other example is reading. Most kids begin recalling episodic memories from age 3; reading starts later than that. Sho Yano was reading the New York Times at age 2. He played Chopin from memory at 3, with no training at all (the story goes, as his mother says, that she was in the kicthen and he just climbed up on the chair and started playing). There is simply no case to be made about it being a taught skill.

Again I'm not discounting the importance of rearing, but there are cases where innate genius is the primary factor in skill development, and again, I believe Mozart falls into the genius category. Beethoven, maybe the hard work category.

<comment><USER10> I suspect that the researchers cited in the article might point out people who demonstrated aptitude like Yano's and yet did not achieve as much as someone who had less aptitude but worked harder. There is some baseline of innate aptitude required for excellence, but among people surpassing that baseline hard work is what distinguishes them; that is the hypothesis proffered in the article.

As for Mozart, the point was that even he had to put in over 10 years of work before producing his best work. But, because he started at 3 he got there at a really early age.

<comment><USER8> That hypothesis is clear, and I agree with it. I am a fan of Ericcson's work, but I disagree with certain examples that are often cited in articles like these. There are many reasons, the first of which I mentioned above.

The rules of aptitude assessment are much different for children and adults; the returns per year is not simply accumulative. First, the curve isn't linear. Second, the curve looks different during different ages. Forgive me if this is obvious, but the reporters never seem like they know. The ten years from age 3 to 13 is a different ten years from age 23 to 33. If you learned a language in the former interval, you'd be a native speaker; in the latter, no matter how hard you work, you won't be. The "early" brain is a completely different creature from the "late" brain (which is why I think youth education is far more important than teen+ education). It is also early in life when particular natural affinities develop. If there were two TigerWoods, let one start golf at 2, trains until 18, and deprive them for 8 years. The other starts at 10, trains until 26, and bring them together to compete after a refresher for the early start, I would bet on the early starter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't like the way the article presents hard work: "the very best rise because they take great _pains_ to maximise that gift". Pain? That way, no one's going to try. The part in which they say "that's a task not everyone's up to" is particularly discouraging. So, informative as an article, lame as an advice.

Also, I think that they left out the inner spark (curiosity in the case of smart guys). What drives you to practise? It ain't discipline, or at least you don't consider it like that. You are not forcing yourself to pratise/read/study/train, you truly want to do it. Granted, you sometimes trick yourself into doing it, that could be considered discipline, but not the bulk of it.

<comment><USER11> I had read it somewhere before: it's known that genius is in the hard discipline, but it's not known where the genius takes such a great motivation to involve in that kind of discipline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is an interesting topic and yet the author does it a disservice by simplifying it. Mozart was prolific, it's true, but he could write a symphony in one go. Literally, he would just sit down and write out a symphony. That's not the hard work the author hints at. Then there are others, such as Beethoven, who was great despite not producing many works. Melville wrote few novels, but one was "Moby Dick". Even the work that was done was most likely a labor of love, so that 99% perspiration most likely wasn't noticed by the one sweating.

Further, I'm dismayed that the author attempts to dilute the intellectual capacity as an ingredient in formulating "genius". Name a true genius and I will name you someone who knew their field intimately. It's simply not the only ingredient.

Instead, I would credit perspective. Alan Kay's "point of view". A genius has a way of going down a path where no one else has ventured before, and does so for personal motives. Most geniuses don't try to be geniuses, as much as chase a star only seen by them.

When Beethoven found he was losing his hearing, he wrote a letter to his brothers called the Heiligenstadt Testament, and said, "... but little more and I would have put an end to my life - only art it was that withheld me, ah it seemed impossible to leave the world until I had produced all that I felt called upon me to produce"

<comment><USER13> I think the article is pretty accurate though. Mozart could create a symphony in one go but the author does say that he started at age 3. His father encouraged him and then Haydn was also his tutor.

The way I read the article is that intelligence is necessary but is not sufficient in of itself.

<comment><USER12> I think the article is silly. One, there's nothing close to a scientific method used -- and this from NewScientist (how embarrassing). He should try to correlate "work" with "results". I'm assuming he started to, realized there was no correlation, and wrote the article anyway. Eating food and breathing are also necessary but not sufficient. Actually those at least correlate. All geniuses did do those two things. I'm not sure all of them worked that hard.

About Mozart, I only used him to try to show that "work" sometimes isn't work. Rimbaud is yet another contradictory example. He started writing in his late teens and finished abruptly at 20. In those few years he produced works of genius.

No, I think another commenter was right. The author is clearly someone on the outside looking in and who is making attempts -- in vain -- to understand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To tell you the truth..isn't it unfair? some kidz are already expose to an musical background so they turn out to be awesome and great when they become older..like some musical legends..they started at 10 then being taught by guitar teachers..so, they became guitar legends..how about us? people who are passionate learning the guitar. who are in love with music and play it like an art...we practice almost 7 hours a day. we are good because we are PERSEVERE...we are not guitar genius or born to play guitar...we are just passionate to play it...So, a passionate guitarist can beat a guitar genius..so play with passion and love for music!! "MUSIC IS FROM THE HEART, DON"T JUST PLAY IT.....LOVE IT!!" (:

</comment><comment><USER15> "Work hard".

Okay, thanks. Actually, we already knew that--you know, the purpose of research is to discover how to _reduce_ the amount of effort required for a given result. That is, "How do you move a boulder?" can be answered with "Work hard" or "Invent a bulldozer." ONE of those answers didn't require much hard work to conceive.

<comment><USER16> The problem is that the result that we're talking about -- becoming recognized as the top person in your field -- is a moving target. It's relative.

In an absolute sense, research has very much reduced the amount of effort required to listen to world-class classical music in your home -- you used to have to practice until you could play like Mozart, but now you just buy an iPod and download high-quality recordings of the world's best musicians for a couple bucks.

Researchers can also help you effortlessly beat the world chess champion -- they invented Deep Blue. (Soon to be available in laptop size at your local Best Buy.)

We've even built decent simulations of the experience of playing a world-class rock guitar solo in front of thousands of fans (Guitar Hero II), coordinating an attack on a medieval fortress (World of Warcraft) and, yes, beating Tiger Woods at golf ("EA Sports Tiger Woods PGA Tour '07").

But, of course, it's hard to be _proud_ of these things. Our society still finds ways to respect the people who put in the hard work to actually _be_ Tiger Woods, and who resist the temptation to just play golf on the Playstation like the rest of us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It seems to me that if you can get 5x more work done than someone who's a competent professional in an area, that's genius-like in of itself.

I'm sure reading news.ycombinator.com on Saturday afternoons will make me 5-15x more productive.

</comment><comment><USER18> Here's something similar I wrote a while ago based on my experience:

[http://extantproject.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/being-smart- is...](http://extantproject.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/being-smart-is-hard- work/)

</comment><comment><USER19> >or, to be truer to the data, perhaps 1 per cent inspiration, 29 per cent good instruction and encouragement, and 70 per cent perspiration.

Wow, these are all in the same unit?

</comment><comment><USER20> "Potential" is just a term created by lazy parents as a justification for doing a half-ass job at raising their kids.

</comment><comment><USER21> 90.20.8041 4:00 16.13apple T.H.B

</comment><comment><USER22> they're talking about passion

</comment><comment><USER23> Work is overrated.</comment>


The Tale of Creating a Distributed Web Crawler - <AUTHOR> https://benbernardblog.com/the-tale-of-creating-a-distributed-web-crawler/ <comment><USER2> Yes, how a software monster is really born! Those of us who solve non-trivial tasks on the Web or in other large distributed systems will feel this in our bones.</comment>


Ask HN: How to find users of specific online services or products? - <AUTHOR>

For example I want to talk to people that use Jira and Trello (both) because that intersection is the target audience for the product I'm building and I'd like to conduct customer development with their help. How do I find them? How do I find their contact details? How do I reach out to them without coming across as spammy? Are there any more or less well-known online services that facilitate that? <comment><USER2> Stack Overflow. And don't worry about coming across as spammy. Rather, just don't BE spammy.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some underrated skills that a programmer should have? - <AUTHOR> I've seen that a lot of people recommend knowledge of git and regular expressions as must have underrated skills.<p>what are some others that one should have as a developer? <comment><USER2> I think "natural languages" are a skill, programmers should have. The more, the better.

In my opinion this is really important for documentation, comments, API design, variable/function/classnames, communication with other developers and so on.

</comment><comment><USER3> Time management. Not only can it help you when dealing with deadlines, it can also help you manage multiple projects at once. Knowing how many hours to put into project A or B each day to still meet goals is pretty important. It can also bleed into your out-of-work life as well. Blocking off time to relax/learn/workout is important to get the most out of your day. It is definitely something I have struggled with but have seen results when actively trying to manage my time.

</comment><comment><USER4> Operating system packaging; UNIX system administration; database administration; network administration.

</comment><comment><USER5> Some basic knowledge about the platform, OS and infrastructure their code is running on.

</comment><comment><USER6> Writing clear and effective prose.</comment>


Halik, next-generation time traveling debugger for Java [video] - <AUTHOR> http://meet.halik.io <comment><USER2> for Java.

</comment><comment><USER3> is this just 'showing' a sign up page?

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought a video demoing the features of the product was sufficient. And I just noticed this is not in line with "Show HN guidelines". I should've checked them beforehand.

Sorry.

<comment><USER4> It's ok, we'll just take 'Show HN' out of the title.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best practices / tools / masks / etc. to stay safe in a Covid world? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> >COVID-19: Straight Answers from Top Epidemiologist Who Predicted the Pandemic

[https://www.bluezones.com/2020/06/covid-19-straight- answers-...](https://www.bluezones.com/2020/06/covid-19-straight-answers-from- top-epidemiologist-who-predicted-the-pandemic/)

"DB: I have a final personal question. My 60th birthday is coming up. I live on Lake of the Isles and I was thinking of putting an open-air dining room up for a dinner party of 10 people or so outside. Is that a bad idea?

MO: If you're outside, the aerosols dissipate much, much faster. So any air movement at all will help move those. Again, I can't say that it's perfectly safe. Remember the choir participant who sang for two hours and transmitted the virus to 42 out of 60 people.

But exposure as a dose is a combination of time and amount. So, if you're in a situation where you are basically spending an hour or two in an outdoor area, it's likely that even if somebody was infected there, you wouldn't have the same dose at all. As I pointed out before, virtually all the outbreaks we've seen have occurred indoors.

DB: Okay, so I can go ahead or are you advising against it?

MO: [laughing] Well I can't say yes or no, I'm giving you the best advice I have. We're all looking for the Holy Grail right now. "

>When 511 Epidemiologists Expect to Fly, Hug and Do 18 Other Everyday Activities Again

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/08/upshot/when-e...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/08/upshot/when- epidemiologists-will-do-everyday-things-coronavirus.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Avoid people[1]. Wash hands. Don't touch your face.

"The important things are always simple; the simple are always hard."

data on [https://www.lemonde.fr/les- decodeurs/article/2020/03/27/coro...](https://www.lemonde.fr/les- decodeurs/article/2020/03/27/coronavirus-visualisez-les-pays-qui-ont-aplati- la-courbe-de-l-infection-et-ceux-qui-n-y-sont-pas-encore- parvenus_6034627_4355770.html) . We're currently paying the price for opening too quickly: 300 people had to go into quarantine due to nightclub exposure a day or two ago. In retrospect [https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/das- bag/aktuell/medienm...](https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/das- bag/aktuell/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-79522.html) was too optimistic.

[1] and if you don't, wear a mask to keep _them_ safe.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's really difficult to agree on the right approaches, practices, tools, masks, etc, that can keep us the most safe in a world where Covid is present.

Any of you has strong recommendations to offer? Possibly backed by data, experts, papers, etc?</comment>


We are leaving the Apple App Store and all its problems - <AUTHOR> https://exactscan.com/MAS/ <comment><USER3> Actually; now that I think about it, from a user perspective I also really dislike the App Store.

I used to _love_ it, I would check weekly for new things, maybe there was some new shiny (often beautiful) program to do something really well. The experience was on the 'better than passable' side, nobodies favourite interface maybe, but certainly not terrible.

But I actually avoid the App Store these days, both on MacOS and my iPhone. I never really noticed but I just slowly stopped installing new applications from there (unless sent there by a company website in the case of iOS); this was around the time that Apple Music was being foisted down my throat. I'm not sure if there's a correlation there.

I always suspected there were dark patterns at play in the App Store though. Although every program is reviewed, probably only 2% or less of them become popular, and if you are popular, boy, are you popular. the design paradigm is self-fulfilling. ("most popular"/"highest grossing").

<comment><USER4> I've also stopped "check[ing] weekly for new things", but that's because I don't need any new things! Do you?

I don't have Instagram but I imagine it's a bit like the App Store. I'm waiting somewhere. I'm bored. I know, I'll check for a shiny thing. Oh, no shiny thing. That was disappointing.

To compare, do you go to the internet regularly and check for new things? I don't think this is the App Store's fault. It's not on Apple to constantly put new shiny useful software in the App Store — it's on developers. And I'm not blaming developers. Making new shiny software is hard. There's already a whole bunch of software. If you have a problem, chances are it's already been addressed.

Constantly shiny + new ~== a good App Store.

(~== Not necessarily equal to. Did I just invent that?)

<comment><USER5> > (~== Not necessarily equal to. Did I just invent that?)

Instead of inventing new operators in your sentences, you can also just stick with plain English

<comment><USER6> On HN I occasionally see programming conventions used in otherwise normal writing. E.g. "at $big_corp we like to use $process".

I can't stand it. It's the linguistic equivalent to wearing a bowtie and pocket protector.

<comment><USER7> Almost as bad as people on HN who start each comment with "I mean" or end each question with "no?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They kind of bury the lead here. They can't have their app on the appstore because:

" While we still updated our applications in time, Apple did not review them for the AppStore, and instead rejected them first for a crash (sigh!), and later for requiring UI changes, including showing a Save As panel for each generated file. Now this may not sound like much, this is a serious issue for a document scan application which easily generates hundreds of files in an hour, and thousands of files a day, with file names automatically generated, either thru counters, or advanced auto-id features, such as barcodes."

Even if Apple later took back the rejection I bet this was the last straw.

<comment><USER9> > _instead rejected them first for a crash (sigh!)_

As a user, I'm glad Apple did that.

As a developer, the one thing that I do dislike about Apple, is the dismal state of their documentation on how to actually take advantage of all their platforms' features. I have to begrudgingly admit that their nemesis Microsoft has always been way ahead in that department.

<comment><USER10> In context though it is still Apple's issue:

> After releasing the Catalina Golden Master build to developers on October > the 3rd, we immediately finished fixing any new crash and issue we could > find over the weekend. In our opinion, leaving developer just four (4!) days > over a weekend with a public release on October the 7th is not very > professional. While we still updated our applications in time, Apple did not > review them for the AppStore, and instead rejected them first for a crash > (sigh!), [...]

<comment><USER11> Catalina had been available to the public for testing since like WWDC; unless these were late breaks only found in GM, it's a tough pill to swallow that these urgent bugs couldn't have been addressed before GM shipped.

<comment><USER12> Maybe, but prior to the "Golden Master" release are you really testing your stuff, or Apple's?

Leaving such a small window between Apple getting its act together with the GM, and a hard deadline for third parties to get their act together, is rough.

<comment><USER13> Yes it would be the responsible thing to do as a developer to test your stuff on the OS before it comes out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As a user, I am pretty happy about most of the negative points listed in this article. Yes, manual reviews are my firewall against too much scamming. I dont want app providers to notify me about their upcoming company party. It is already fishy enough that some app providers use their own notification system to push ads. And dont get me started on paying for updates! What comes next, paying for firmware updates for devices I already own? I think the guys behind this article really have to rethink their attitude.

<comment><USER15> Paying for updates has been the standard software model for ages, and with good reason. It still takes money to update and add new features. It still takes time. To some extent new users can pay for this, but then developers have to severely limit the time spent on updates in order to nod spend too much, or they risk not even making a profit on the first version.

That is why most "big" software packages these days are either subscription based, or pay-per-update. We've all come to expect apps to get free updates, but it's not a sustainable business model.

<comment><USER16> And Apple taking 30% of that... for what? Payment processing is a 4% thing. It's in the app developers interest to make it not have errors. It's just for access to the market. That is the only value Apple truly brings, outside of the brand and a privacy commitment

<comment><USER3> People get hung up on apple having a 30% entrance fee, but that didn't come out of nowhere.

I work in the video games industry and access to steam or other first parties (Sony/Microsoft) is 30%, no negotiations.

You could argue that first parties such as sony/microsoft have subtle costs involved such as printing of disks, but that's paid for before market by the publisher.

The thing you pay for is: content distribution (in the case of digital downloads such as steam), 'signing' and access to market.

<comment><USER17> The amount of value steam provides on top of payment processing and distribution is immense. Valve basically single handedly created Linux gaming. Their client is so many years ahead of everything else with the forums, workshop, broadcast streaming, streaming to your tv, gamepad support and gamepad virtualisation as well as a mountain of developer side APIs for things like inviting friends to games.

Apples 30% would seem a lot more fair if it was possible to side load and install alternative app stores

In comparison apples offering is little more than "we have a huge captive audience on a proprietary system. Pay us or miss out on half of the market"

<comment><USER18> Apple meanwhile created the entire OS and all of the developer APIs that your apps rely on, including things like Metal that games rely on. And Apple gives this all away for free.

<comment><USER17> That should be included in device cost. It is unacceptable that they prevent users who paid for the device from installing programs outside of apples walled garden

<comment><USER19> If we find Apple extracting rent from apps unacceptable, we look no further than a mirror for the cause. We the public don't want to pay full freight for hardware.

Microsoft used to boast that they made more money from Apple systems than Apple did. Google does that to Android device makers today.

If platform makers don't extract rent, or compete with the developers they court, they will look for other sources of revenue to stay profitable. I would be aghast if Apple hardware came loaded with the kind of Junkware I recall from the years I bought Windows hardware.

<comment><USER20> Are you arguing Apple needs to juice their hardware profit margins? Because my understanding is they're very healthy and the envy of the computing and mobile phone industries.

The neglect of the mac app store feels of a piece with their utter neglect of the mac platform. They seem to be treating it as a runout.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm sorry but as a user, I trust my relationship with Apple more than I trust random third party devs.

As a user, I _want_ Apple to lock down the system and make things hard for developers.

As a developer, I empathize with my perspective as a user and build products that take this into account.

<comment><USER22> As a user, I want my system to use containerization for me to not worry about where I get my apps from. You know, like Flatpak does it. This isn't really an argument for modern OSes such as desktop Linux anymore.

<comment><USER23> apt-get and yum and pacman and the rest do not enforce containerization.

<comment><USER24> No, but they get their software from a trusted central authority (unless you choose to trust a third party repo and add it manually).

<comment><USER25> Just like Apple Store ? (except the part where you can add 3rd party stores)

<comment><USER24> The apps there can't be vetted by others who want to (like they can for apt etc.). The incentives are totally different: Apple Store is commercial, and Apple takes 30%, hence the part about taking your choices away.

<comment><USER26> Apple takes 30%, so it's in their best interest to push as many apps through as possible, yet the process is notoriously difficult. This shows you their motivation is in the right place. A third party can be bought (see Amazon paid reviews) to push something through. We've also seen cases in these public, but "vetted", repos where bad code was pushed without being caught until after the fact (see NPM leftpad)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If you run your company smart, then publish your software in both places, your own website and AppStore.

Users who trust direct relationship with you, will download directly, enjoy better prices (30% commission omitted) and rapid updates.

At the same time you will not lose a whole marketshare of users for which AppStore is the "go-to" address for buying software.

You can then skill up your SEO capabilities and optimize inbound traffic to your preferred platform whatsoever.

If AppStore policy forbid having a parallel distribution platform, then publish the same app with two different names.

<comment><USER28> I think this is explicitly forbidden by app store rules.

It is definitely the case for the iOS app store anyway.

<comment><USER29> You could create two versions, one crippled for the app store and another that you actively market. There is no point giving Apple 30% if you are finding the customers yourself.

<comment><USER30> You're not allowed to create a crippled or discounted version per the App Store rules.

You are allowed to make the same version available elsewhere and pocket the margins.

This is what BBEdit has been doing for many years for example.

<comment><USER31> I know a number of apps that sell both on and off the App Store and cripple the latter. Where does it say this is against the rules?

<comment><USER32> What apps do this? How do they distribute on iOS without the App Store?

<comment><USER33> I think they're referring to MacOS app store here. Certain applications might need access outside of the sandbox for certain features to work so a non-app store version would have more functionality than the app store version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Firstly I want to say that as a user I hate using the Mac App Store - <USER2> for all the reasons posted there.

There is one large benefit which is often forgotten. When I use the App Store I don't need to worry about your website/database getting hacked or leaking my personal data/credit card information. This is mostly avoided by indie developers using Stripe or some other popular payment gateway, but it is still a concern and annoyance that is removed by something like the App Store.

<comment><USER35> This could be fixed by your Bank or VISA with e.g. virtual credit cards.

<comment><USER34> That is true, but nothing I have access to right now (with one of the big 4 aussie banks)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I completely understand why developers would find the restrictions of the App Store ridiculous, time consuming, expensive, and frustrating.

But as a user, whenever I need an application, I always check to see if it's available on the App Store first.

Because I can trust the App Store.

<comment><USER37> I first check brew...

<comment><USER38> Yeah, this. MacOS is unusable without home-brew, especially cask. There is no greater feeling than knowing you can blow away your system disk, come back and re-install it, then add a "brew cask install .." stage to get all your apps installed automatically.

If I had brew on iOS, I'd be more than happy. Alas, I don't want to jailbreak though ..

<comment><USER39> Maybe unusable for those that think macOS is GNU/Linux with a pretty UI.

I never installed any of those alternative UNIX toolchains. Apple SDK + native macOS tooling are more than enough.

<comment><USER40> >Maybe unusable for those that think macOS is GNU/Linux with a pretty UI.

This was the target of the WSL that Microsoft added to Windows. They won me. GNU/Linux with good UI, good software support and that doesn't break every month. It's like we're living in the future.

<comment><USER39> Yep, that is the main reason why WSL exists.

And as gateway drug into Azure as well, most likely.

I never had any use for SUA during all these years doing Windows development.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I like the App Store because it handles automatic updates pretty well. Then again these days with sparkle, the apps I use do update, so it's not a big advantage for Apple.

And how do I know sparkle works so well? Well whenever a dev has an app both in the store and directly downloadable from their site I choose the latter. The price is the same, the functionality is the same (or sometimes more) but the dev gets 30% more. I've never heard one suggest that I download instead of using the store so I assume Apple somehow contractually bars that.

I never use the store for discovery; duckduckgo works perfectly well.

All in all I thought the App Store would be a good idea for me as a user but in the end it didn't add much. At least I think it got rid of some of those crufty download sites.

<comment><USER42> The sandboxing of apps is a nice benefit, though. I can be reasonably confident apps won't conflict with each other and that they're interfacing cleanly and minimally with the host OS.

Perhaps not the best example, but I set up Wireguard recently. On Linux, this involves building and installing a kernel module, and directly modifying the host's networking configuration. On Mac, I can install it from the App Store, and I know any networking configuration is handled through Apple's high level APIs (I've built a VPN-based Mac App Store app before).

Alternatively, you might install Tunnelblick, a Mac app that wraps OpenVPN and is distributed outside the App Store. It'll end up running scripts like these, as necessary to configure networking on the host: * [https://github.com/Tunnelblick/Tunnelblick/blob/master/tunne...](https://github.com/Tunnelblick/Tunnelblick/blob/master/tunnelblick/client.4.up.tunnelblick.sh)

Nothing in that script is crazy--it's all necessary stuff if you're not limiting yourself to the higher level APIs. But it doesn't take many apps doing things of that complexity for totally justifiable reasons before you start having issues.

<comment><USER43> Isn't the wireguard implementation on MacOS a userland implementation? Seems like a poor example to compare with the Linux version, which is technically superior specifically because it requires a kernel module.

<comment><USER42> The MacOS one must be a userland implementation because if it required kernel modules, it wouldn't be able to be in the App Store. The only way to implement a VPN on the App Store is to use the higher level APIs, as far as I know.

The Linux one may be "superior" in that it's able to process packets faster, but the resulting user experience is quite different. If you have multiple VPN apps, even including userspace ones like OpenVPN, the likelihood of all of them reliably handling host OS interactions cleanly with regular usage over time drops. They have to do the same kinds of things in that Tunnelblick script I linked.

<comment><USER43> > _" The Linux one may be "superior" in that it's able to process packets > faster, but the resulting user experience is quite different."_

"Process packets faster" is one way of looking at it. Better battery life is another way of framing it less dismissively.

(OpenVPN sucks and I don't really see how it's relevant to the discussion.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> A rebranded version of Steam would be interesting here.

They support

      - automatic updates
      - build branches, included versions locked behind a code
      - DLC / Upgrades
      - coupons and bundling
      - cross platform publishing
      - selling of applications through third party channels

Doesn't solve the 30% issue though. Also don't believe they support any recurring payment options.

<comment><USER45> Especially that they keep the 30% if someone refunds your app. If it would be 15% or less okay, but 30% and keep the proceeds? Seems to be sort of straddling the legality line.

<comment><USER46> Apple Does not refund the fee? That's insane! On top of that I need to pay apple $100 per year to keep my app in the store. Even PayPal has been refunding the transaction fees (at least until recently).

<comment><USER3> Not sure about the App Store, but I think the parent was talking about steam.

Steam does not refund the 30%.

<comment><USER47> This must be very damaging to companies, especially with the PC gamer culture of abusing things like refund systems as some forms of protest.

<comment><USER48> On the contary, gamers are relentlessly abused by shitty marketplaces who proactively defraud their users.

Steam's history = sued by consumer watchdogs in Australia for denying ~20,000 lawful refunds. This went on worldwide for 10+ years of blatent theft and shutting down user accounts for chargebacks, and they got away with it everywhere except Australia - maybe 5% of their users and victims. This is the only reason they offer refunds today, using dark patterns like "refunds are outside of the steam client" to keep the fraudy little flame alive.

[https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/valve-australia- fine-12...](https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/valve-australia- fine-1202772984/)

GOG's refund policy is you must install additional software on your computer so they can prove the game will open so they can deny a refund. This is an illegitimate reason to deny refunds to consumers in many countries. It's a fake refund policy that is "designed to not give refunds" which is exactly the fraud that got Valve in trouble but continuing for years later.

[https://support.gog.com/hc/en- us/articles/115000487189-GOG-C...](https://support.gog.com/hc/en- us/articles/115000487189-GOG-COM-Money-Back-Guarantee-Policy)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I feel your pain, but I do worry that the end goal of OSX is to lock down the system in the same way as iOS m, even if they say they're developer (machine) friendly. This could all come full circle for OP requiring read mission to the App Store.

</comment><comment><USER50> >disconnect from the users, which often simply post bad app reviews, or return the app instead of reaching out to developer for actually support and fixes This is so true. I am a dev and this is the most frustrating thing ever if you do freemium model. Yesterday I got reply from customer on the app store: "I DON'T have HOURS to look for free apps. You lie that you are FREE" PS: New Mac App Store has a label "Offers In-Apps" under button GET

</comment><comment><USER51> We left the App Store behind years ago after just getting sick of Apple's bs and other issues. Could not be happier. Web apps are far easier to deal with, we have full control and for our purposes it ends up being a better multi- platform experience for our users.

Not for everyone, of course.

<comment><USER3> Quite ironic, given that Jobs' original intention was just that[0]

[0]: [https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for- the-...](https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-iphone- no-third-party-native-apps/)

<comment><USER51> That's interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> The fact that we have to have humans look at our software before we can go to market in 2019 is absurd. I had high hopes for the future as a teen growing up with Napster, Bittorrent, IRC, Trillian/Pidgin, and an explosive WWW. Look at what a pinheaded mess everything has become.

Greed destroyed the open and experimental Internet.

<comment><USER18> Painting this as "greed" is really quite ridiculous. Apple's 30% cut is completely orthogonal to their human review. The human review is to try and protect users and keep the app store a safe and trustworthy place to buy software. As with all human curation, there are problems, but on the whole it does keep the app store a remarkably safe place to acquire software.

> _I had high hopes for the future as a teen growing up with Napster, > Bittorrent_

In light of the above, this is pretty funny, because Napster and Bittorrent were great way to get viruses.

<comment><USER53> If the human review is the reason for the 30% cut why not charge a flat fee per review? I doubt that's the reason for their cut.

<comment><USER54> The reason Apple charges the 30% is probably partly because of the whole infrastructure and services needed for the app-store, and mostly Apple's desire to profit.

The reason developers pay the 30% is probably because there's no other channel that offers access to such a huge market for free, and mostly because they still profit.

Every app could be cheaper from the buyer's perspective. Maybe even yours. Should or will they be cheaper? Probably not. The best price is the one everyone complains about but are still willing to pay.

<comment><USER55> > The reason developers pay the 30% is probably because there's no other > channel that offers access to such a huge market for free, and mostly > because they still profit.

Because there's no choice you mean? When the developers have choice, on the Mac or on Windows, they generally avoid the store. The AppStore still works on mobile because they force it.

<comment><USER54> > on the Mac or on Windows

Let's look at something closer to this situation rather than general purpose computers. Mobiles work with different paradigms all around, especially when compared to Windows (or Linux).

There are free alternatives to Google's Play Store and yet developers still choose to pay Google's cut to have access to it. This tells me whatever benefits the "official" app store provides on each platform outweigh the disadvantages (costs) even when free alternatives are available.

> The AppStore still works on mobile because they force it.

Is there any solid reason to believe the AppStore only works because they force it, while seeing the Play Store work just fine even with free alternatives around? And users even go out of their way to get access to it.

<comment><USER55> > There are free alternatives to Google's Play Store and yet developers still > choose to pay Google's cut to have access to it. This tells me whatever > benefits the "official" app store provides on each platform outweigh the > disadvantages (costs) even when free alternatives are available.

That's only because it's pretty hard for the casual user to install third- party apps on Android and even with those artificial barriers, some popular apps are available outside of it, I could mention Fortnite.

<comment><USER54> It's not that hard to install an app from outside of the Play Store. It's just that people are perfectly comfortable using the most easily accessible option. In the HN bubble it's easy to overestimate how much people care about using some other app store. Developers do because it impacts the bottom line but for users to care it would have to be a pretty massive cost saving or some other obvious drawback of the official store to care about alternatives.

How often did you wonder where your car parts come from? How easy is it to mod your ECU? If there are "open source" parts for your fridge? Etc. - insert any topic that's mostly transparent only for the people who actually care about it and dive deeper into the technicalities. Chances are you care less about that but a car tinkerer feels the same way you do about your app store and wonders why you aren't protesting more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I really wonder where Apple and specifically Tim Cook is in all this. I feel like I see posts on HN almost daily that would warrant one of Jeff Bezos's famous 'question mark emails'[1] from Tim Cook to someone within Apple. But I see no evidence of this. I see no evidence of panic within apple that they have lost the ability to delight customers and anticipate their needs effectively.

How often do I see a similar level customer or developer pain (anguish really, from supportive customers) regarding Amazon? How often do I see it regarding Google? All these companies have so many resources, but Apple is the only one that doesn't seem to be able to convert those resources into customer focus. It's painful to watch. Where is Apple's board? It's really discouraging!

[1] [https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/5-years-later-jeff- bezos-...](https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/5-years-later-jeff-bezos-just- confirmed-jeff-bezos-question-mark-method-that-scares-heck-out-of-everyone-at- amazon-heres-how-it-works.html)

<comment><USER57> When you have billions in cash in the bank, and your future revenue is tied to subscriptions Tim Cook simply doesn't care about this, its minutiae to your bottom line. They can screw up for YEARS and still be a largely profitable company.

<comment><USER56> Agreed, but are Tim Cook and the board really satisfied with that? If so, it's a tragedy that so many resources are controlled by leaders who don't really care that much.

<comment><USER58> Every dollar is a vote..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> > Apple takes 30% and that is not sustainable to run a company and pay > salleries

Yet plenty of other companies do business on this model.

And where are they going to go? GNU/Linux? Good luck making a sustainable business selling desktop software there.

<comment><USER59> Leaving the AppStore doesn't mean they can't create MacOS applications. Most MacOS applications aren't even installed via the AppStore.

<comment><USER39> If they want to sell them on Catalina and newer devices they surely need to follow similar steps anyway, while paying for infrastructure themselves.

[https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=09032019a](https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=09032019a)

<comment><USER60> You don't have to have a paid developer account for app signing, your app is never reviewed by a human, and Apple doesn't get a cut of your app sales.

So how is it "similar"?

<comment><USER39> > Please note that you must be the Account Holder of your development team in > the Apple Developer Program.

[https://developer.apple.com/developer- id/](https://developer.apple.com/developer-id/)

> You can only notarize apps that you sign with a Developer ID certificate. If > you use any other certificate—like a Mac App Distribution certificate, or a > self-signed certificate—notarization fails

[https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_your_app_before_distribution/resolving_common_notarization_issues)

That similar.

<comment><USER61> You can have an Apple developer account without paying for it, there's a free tier, and I think that is allowed for what your parent is referring to.

<comment><USER39> I have an Apple developer account...

<comment><USER61> So do I and I don't pay for it, and I can sign my apps. What's different in your case?

<comment><USER39> So now developer certificates are available on the free tier?

<comment><USER61> For at least a few years, they have been. You can set a team and a signing certificate in Xcode with a normal developer account, which does not require any payment. To publish on the App Store, however, requires a paid account.

Sounds like you don't use that dev account much :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Besides some Apple applications, I don't think I've ever used the AppStore to install an application.

</comment><comment> john-radio This press release contains a lot of trivial errors.

> Compatible Scanner (in the _header menu_ )

should be "Compatibility"

> not sustainable to run a company and pay salleries

"salaries"

> it is not provide to provide

not "viable"?

> we think a paid upgrade is fair for continuously developing, improvements, > and support

"for continuous development, improvements, and support"

> support a product indefinetly for free

"indefinitely"

> It creates an artificial frontier between users and developers.

"frontier" \- word choice. "barrier"?

> Developer can not inform users

"The developer" (or "A")

I'm not going to keep doing this because I'm sure that this comment would grow too long.

It doesn't hurt to run a spell checker over your public facing material, you know. I'm open to hearing this developer's criticism of Apple, but given the lack of effort in publishing this simple press release, I'm not exactly opposed to this additional "frontier" standing between their software and my less-tech-savvy friends' and colleagues' Mac computers.

<comment><USER62> The company is from Germany, possibly a single-person company.

He/she's not a native speaker, might not have access to a native speaker for proofreading and a spell checker wouldn't pick up frontier vs barrier.

<comment><USER63> Ignore the misspellings like "salleries",

"it is not provide to provide free updates forever" doesn't make sense in any language.

The TL;DR is the first thing you see on the page. They author didn't proofread the first paragraph.

 __* TL;DR

each manual update review by Apple causes delay and drama

AppStore does not support paid upgrades, only new App, in-App purchase or subscriptions

Apple takes 30% and that is not sustainable to run a company and pay salleries

it is not provide to provide free updates forever

if you purchased our application this year we provide a direct license, if you had it

significantly longer, we think a paid upgrade is fair for continuously developing, improvements, and support __

 __ _

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To the owner of this website: for the love of god, please get someone to proofread your work.

<comment><USER64> And also... light grey text on a white background? Are they trying to get us to use their product just to read their website? I got the urge to scan it to improve the contrast.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> As a long Time multi platform user I have to say sometimes Apple's approach on centralized provisioning im thankful for the effort never to have to deal with buggy/suspicious apps.

On the other hand, no competition lead to a point where the Appstore became an authoritarian system where apple is free to play by the rules, or change them as it sees fit for it's bottom line.

Only judging Tho, never helped. What would be the consequences of an app store where - # alternative stores would be allowed like android # Apple would lover prices # regional pricing options # free updates for paid content # subscription for updates, distributed among apps user paid for already

Other ideas, comments are welcome.

</comment><comment><USER66> Another problem for the user of all Apple stores (iOS, macOS, books, iTunes) are refunds.

In Android you get an automatic refund when you uninstall a recently purchased app. No questions asked.

In Steam you can ask for a refund if you have played less than 2 hours and you bought the game less than 2 weeks ago. I've done this dozens of times and in fact being able to refund a game that I don't like gives me confidence in trying new games. Again, no questions asked.

Epic also has a similar refund policy as Steam. I only used it once though.

With Apple you might or not get a refund and much like App Store reviews there is nothing you can do about it.

<comment><USER67> I've experienced this several times, and it's very frustrating. I know you _really_ can't do anything about it when you purchase with App Store credit, but I'm curious... does anybody have experience with doing a credit card chargeback in such a situation. It would be good to know if that can be a successful means to resolving an issue where Apple puts up unjustified roadblocks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> > not user or developer friendly

Well, with text contrast like that, neither is your website to be brutally honest

</comment><comment><USER69> In my experience the app store (Mac iOS) has been terrible also for another reason. Due to brexit we relocated from UK to another EU country. There was no way to easily change the country associated with our account, we had to request it and the first meaningful reply arrived 1 year later. This is incredibly problematic from any business perspective (accounting, legal, etc.).

</comment><comment><USER70> I'm curious what's the eventual revenue balance will look like few years after they get off App Store. It can seem evil and 30% is a steep fee, but it is also a very good distribution channel.

Hope they can find alternative ways to market and it beats those 30% and related hassle.

</comment><comment><USER66> I recently uploaded an update of a macOS app to the MAS. Apple rejected it saying that I needed to remove some entitlements that were not used. Of course I needed those entitlements but Apple didn't test the app properly.

Anyway I answered their rejection with the reasons why I needed those entitlements. Silence for 2 days. I finally asked for an appeal to the review board and in 1 hour the update was accepted and available in the MAS.

We lost 3 days because either Apple's automatic reviewing system failed, or their human reviewers failed.

</comment><comment><USER71> I always go out of my way to buy outside of the App Store. Sometimes the app store version is crippled due to constraints from the app store so it just makes sense. Other times, I still do that because I want more of my money to go to the developer.

Oh, and for the few app I installed from the app store (usually because I had no choice), I loathe getting a message saying "Blahblah couldn't be updated because it was open"... It's the worst app updating scheme I've seen.

</comment><comment><USER72> > Not user nor developer friendly

Used to be that macOS had really decent experiences to offer for both users and developers. Not any more. Now both are being tortured, just as with Microsoft. I really don't see a big difference any more. When my computer destroys my data and pumps off my money, I really don't give a shit whether it's Apple or Microsoft doing the abuse.

</comment><comment><USER73> Apple is just milking their over priced pile of garbage as long as they can.

This kind of reminds me of the situation long ago with Windows and how they did not want to allow any other browsers expect IE on their OS. It took a long time to give developers freedom and access to API's to develop application on the OS. This feel like it's pivoted similarly to the App Stores now a days (even you Google).

</comment><comment><USER74> We left the app store because it was making it hard for us to do anything innovative. The mac appstore is litterally hindering innovative apps from existing, and for no good reason that couldnt be solved other ways.

I completely understand security concerns but the way apple solves theM is by limiting the free choice of the user.

So now we are using the google "appstore"

</comment><comment><USER75> Leaving aside the App Store issues, ExactScan Pro is a great app and an essential part of my paperless workflow. I purchased it from them in 2015, then purchased an update from the App Store this summer. It's worth a look whether you want to support an exodus from the MAS or if you just want an awesome scanner program.

</comment><comment><USER76> Biggest pet peeve:

Why the hell hasn't the iOS App Store password prompt been updated to allow me to use my password manager?

<comment><USER77> This one drives me crazy! My fingerprint never scans properly, so for any app download I have to manually open my password manager to copy/paste the password in.

It actually discourages me from downloading apps. If the fingerprint doesn't scan on the first try I usually give up and just live without the app. It's usually not worth the hassle of copy/pasting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Now wouldn't it be great if it was viable to make the same decision about distributing your iOS app.

</comment><comment><USER79> I have never used the app store except to install macOS from time to time. Everything I need I can buy or download through the web. I also use Windows and Linux depending on my use case, and so I buy multi platform licences where it makes sense and is possible.

</comment><comment><USER80> Side note to this; what's the best way to deploy a custom iphone app these days? We were using a PWA to avoid a fullblown app and all the bullshit with not being able to sideload an app easily like on android.

Is there a simple way to get an app out to 5-10 people on ios?

</comment><comment><USER81> Article has some weird writing/typos, "updates, bu" and "we where actually". Some of it might be because the company is in Germany, but still... the company doesn't seem particularly professional or well-managed. It's hard to tell from the website but it looks like it's run by one person with occasional help from others.

And the software is kind of weird, scanners always come Windows drivers/software so there's no issue using it there. Linux support is less guaranteed but you can check the compatibility lists ([http://www.sane- project.org/sane-mfgs.html](http://www.sane-project.org/sane-mfgs.html)). So it's exploiting a niche in driver support between Apple and the manufacturers.

I'm not saying the author is a nutcase, but this seems like one rare data point and I'd prefer to see more companies pulling their stuff off the app store before drawing any real conclusions.

</comment><comment><USER82> I gave up on App Store as a user. I only use it for system updates an Apple software (eg. Pages)

I just use Homebrew.

\- It has all the software I use not just 50%

\- If not I can easy ad it.

\- With bundler, I can set up my new computer super easy

\- If somebody dislikes the CLI there is Cakebrew

<comment><USER83> homebrew trashes /usr/local/lib permissions if you have multiple users on the same machine. It's extremely annoying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> The guys latest video shows his frustration [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxwhb_ukmgY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxwhb_ukmgY)

</comment><comment><USER84> If the appstore isn't providing the massive increase in revenue that it should, then you should definitely leave.

It will be interesting to see in a year or 2 if they regret their decision or not.

</comment><comment><USER85> You still need to pay the $99 a year though, since you need an Apple Developer account to submit binaries to Apple for notarization (which is required to run them on Catalina.)

<comment><USER86> A paid Apple Developer account is not required to have binaries notarized.

<comment><USER50> Sadly you have to accept PAID agreement to get notarization to work. [https://mjtsai.com/blog/2019/10/17/catalina- notarization/](https://mjtsai.com/blog/2019/10/17/catalina-notarization/)

<comment><USER60> Can you quote the relevant paragraph that you have to pay to get an app notarized?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> Allowing any company to decide what you are allowed to use and run on your device is always a bad idea. It is unfortunate that these devs took so long to realize this.

</comment><comment><USER88> For me the optimal experience was Ubuntu software installer. It's like Homebrew or APM with visuals, search, everything. App Store is just a walled garden.

<comment><USER82> Try [https://www.cakebrew.com/](https://www.cakebrew.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> I install far more programs/apps using Homebrew than AppStore or direct links for most things, wish more paid apps where that way.

</comment><comment><USER90> So after reading this, my question is why the heck have they not diversified their product line to make more money? From what I'm seeing, this company is a one-trick pony.

I mean, I hate Apple practices as much as the next rational freedom-loving person, but I'm kinda having a hard time feeling sorry for companies that don't know to diversify to hedge against single-point failures (which they ironically complain about while self-building their own SPoF.)

</comment><comment><USER91> The Mac App Store is now so crap infested and buggy that, if at all possible, I always buy directly from the vendors.

</comment><comment><USER92> I agree with all these points. However, you can't leave behind the AppStore that matters most: for iPhone and iPad.

</comment><comment><USER93> genuine question:

How is a developer, complaining about "The Catalina Disaster", not an attempt to distract attention, along with other developers, from years-long procrastination?

</comment><comment><USER94> MacOS people problems

</comment><comment><USER95> User friendliness aside, the 30% that Apple keeps is just plain & simple monopoly abuse, especially on the iOS App Store where Apple does control a majority of the market in US. That they haven't been held up for anti-trust shows that capitalism is not all well. Apple provides no value in exchange for that 30% except charging gatekeepers fee for the entry ticket to their platform. And as this article states, they in fact stand up more hurdles by shoving their limited payments system down the developer's throat. The companies worst affected by this are digital content providers like news/mags which are already struggling.

</comment><comment><USER96> Have you considered Setapp? They offer an App-store equivalent but all apps are included for a monthly fee.

<comment><USER50> With a price tag of 79.99 or 99.99 I wouldn't change to Setapp. EDIT: The guy reverse engineered scanners and he is using this knowledge to support non compatible 32-bit scanners. Very unique on the business market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> With typos all over the page i am starting to doubt that the actual problem was with Apple.

</comment><comment><USER98> > salleries

Ooph. We're not off to a very good start here.

</comment><comment> Account123481-x boo hoo

</comment><comment><USER99> macOS 10.15 Vista

</comment><comment><USER100> > Apple takes 30% and that is not sustainable to run a company and pay > salleries

Oh, guess what? Apple also has to run a company and pay salaries. Who would've thought?

<comment><USER101> 30% is egregious. It's what I hate about Google/Apple/Amazon and why I've always refused to buy music from their services. Bandcamp charges 10~15%. Buy a CD directly from a band at a show and they pocket most of that money.

Apple is one of the largest companies in the world. They've done so with bullshit like this and I wish people would stop supporting this broken business model.

[https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/how- much-d...](https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/how-much-do- music-artists-earn-online-2015-remix/)</comment></comment>


Americans can opt out of airport facial recognition - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/americans-opt-out-facial-recognition-airport/ <comment><USER2> also worth noting: as a US citizen re-entering the country you do not have to present anything more to a customs agent than your passport.

You are not required to answer any questions at all. Where youre from, where you were, what you did, nothing, however it may result in an inspection of your bags, so it depends on whether your interpretation of liberty is based on personal convenience.

Disclosure: ive done this opt-out twice. The first time I got to sit in a room with a few other folks who had been randomly selected based on their winning complexion, and was let go after 20 minutes and a bag search. The second time the screening room was busy so i was let go immediately. at no point did i answer a single question.

<comment><USER3> The searches that even a U.S. Citizen could be subject to (without a warrant) are extremely broad[1].

 _> Legal precedents grant federal officers at ports of entry the power, without warrants, to require people to strip for a "visual inspection" of genitals and rectums, and to submit to a "monitored bowel movement" to check for secreted drugs.[1]_

We did a deep-dive on court settlements by CBP for invasive searches and found quite a few extremely disturbing cases.[1]

 _> Some women were also handcuffed and transported to hospitals where, against their will, they underwent pelvic exams, X-rays and in one case, drugging via IV, according to suits. Invasive medical procedures require a detainee's consent or a warrant. In two cases, women were billed for procedures _

[1] "'Shocked & Humiliated': Lawsuits accuse Customs, Border Officers of invasive searches of minors, women." ( [https://publicintegrity.org/immigration/shocked-and- humiliat...](https://publicintegrity.org/immigration/shocked-and-humiliated- lawsuits-accuse-customs-border-officers-of-invasive-searches-of-minors-women/) )

<comment><USER3> One of the more extreme cases we found:

A woman was detained at Philadelphia International Airport on her return from Punta Cana. After a few hours (~7hrs) of questioning she is pressured to sign a consent form, denied a consultation with an attorney and forcefully shackled and transferred to a hospital for a "monitored bowel movement" (This involves defecating in the presence of a CBP officer; No warrant needed).

She was then involuntarily committed to the hospital for "elevated heart rate" where she was forcefully stripped, underwent a "close visual inspection", administered lorazepam and olanzapine through IV, underwent an X-Ray, CT Scan along with a urine and blood workup - all of which came back negative for drugs or other contraband.

This entire ordeal lasted nearly 24 hours. After which, she was taken back to the airport and released to drive home. During her drive from the airport, she crashes into a highway median. She alleges that the she wasn't advised about the adverse effects of the medications being used to sedate her and that the medication was responsible for the accident.

All of this happened to a U.S. Citizen; without a warrant and without permission to call a lawyer.

This incident is discussed in further detail in the 4th section of the story mentioned earlier [1] "Invasive Searches: A woman's 24-hour ordeal"

[1] [https://publicintegrity.org/immigration/shocked-and- humiliat...](https://publicintegrity.org/immigration/shocked-and-humiliated- lawsuits-accuse-customs-border-officers-of-invasive-searches-of-minors- women/#part-4)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Am I the only one spooked by the fact that to opt out, you now need to have your passport with you? (and for _domestic travel_ no less)

Given that the facial databases contain your data regardless, and the amount of in-airport surveillance (in that you're not gonna avoid being observed and logged), It's more of a, "we're gonna make you present your papers regardless, pick your poison"

<comment><USER5> Isn't a passport just a basic photo ID? Seems reasonable to ask for on to check people are who they say they are. Everyone already has a passport.

<comment><USER6> I don't know about _everyone_ but I just looked and was shocked to learn 42% of Americans have passports, 10X the level 25 years ago.

Personally I rarely carry any ID at all, and when I do it's a non-"real ID" driver's license, which I have though I don't own a car. Almost anywhere where ID is "required" (including air travel) it turns out that if you don't have any you can still do what you want (note I'm old enough that I don't get carded for alcohol). I generally have ID with me only if I know in advance I'm going somewhere where I cannot do without it, a couple of times a month. I fly more than that!

(It's absurd that a driving licenses are also IDs, but that's another discussion).

<comment><USER7> I would guesstimate that 90% of international travel done by Americans is to either Mexico or Canada, which didn't require a passport 25 years ago.

<comment><USER8> It's actually about 55%.

[https://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2018-O-001/index.html](https://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2018-O-001/index.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone remember when we liked to proclaim how we had freedom in this country by using the example that we didn't require "travel papers" for internal travel?

<comment><USER10> Papers, please, comrade.

That proclamation was forgotten as soon as the Cold War ended.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Fun fact: the passport gates at UK airports appear to be biometric, but aren't. You step into a little gate, place your passport photo page down onto a scanner, and look into a camera for a photograph.

The thing which slows folks down at passport gates (and the reason the best passport control agents don't have a jocular welcoming patter) is the hello/goodbye/talking around the manual "look at your face, look at your passport".

When the gates open at Heathrow and you're allowed through, you'll immediately see a raised bank of desks behind which sit a bunch of officer who are simply manually verifying that the person in the photo appears to be the person on the passport.

I did some digging to make sure that isn't what's happening here (all the articles seem to be very vague about the "biometric" and "facial recognition" part). Here's where I got to:

> Using facial recognition, TVS enables biometric identity verification by > transmitting automated queries to locate photos in DHS and U.S. Department > of State databases for matching against the unique characteristics of a > traveler's facial features. As designed, this updated capability operates in > a virtual, cloud-based infrastructure that can store images temporarily and > operate using a wireless network, thereby eliminating the need for the > tablets previously used in 2016.[1]

[1] [https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-09/O...](https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-09/OIG-18-80-Sep18.pdf)

<comment><USER12> Interesting, I just went through Heathrow, both inbound (US to UK connection to Glasgow, then UK to US connection back). At the in-bound border control, there was a passport scan and photo, then at the gate, that photo was displayed and a second photo was taken. In my case it also was flagged and delayed my boarding while the gate agent manually told the system "he's ok". The agent repeatedly had me move around so the system could retake the gate photo, trying to get the gate photo to register as a match to the border control photo. Or, so I believed. Based on your comment, this was all pure theater?

<comment><USER11> I can only comment on inbound for UK passport holders on the way back into the country. There is no matching to a previous photo: you are scanning your passport and having a photo taken of your face simultaneously, whereupon the box fires up on the screen of a guy behind the desk. (You can actually see their screens as you walk past, with all the photos flashing up for them to approve.)

<comment><USER12> So, you haven't encountered the photo at the gate? Just at security or border? Weird. Pretty sure the flow for me was... De-plane in Terminal 5, follow signs to Connections, through border control (non-EU), immediately enter automated passport scan/photo machine, re-enter gate-side Terminal 5. Then, at boarding gate, there was another photo machine which appeared to matching that photo with the one taken back at the border check.

And Inverness had none of the above. Just a normal manual check of passport in the security line. Not surprising, given the size of the airport.

<comment><USER11> I haven't at gate, no. At Newark a couple months ago they had an automated TSA-type check at security which was capturing fingerprints, but I can't quite remember the specifics (feels like the last few months have been either a state of experiencing, or recovering from, jetlag).

Inverness is great btw!

<comment><USER12> I just need to remember that the check-in agents at small Scottish airports don't arrive until 90 min before the first flight of the day. Even if the first flight is 11am. It was pretty weird getting there at 9 and the BA desk was empty with no lights on. I ran into the same thing at Edinburgh a few years ago, but my habit is 2 hours before flights because I've been screwed by long security lines at IAD in the past.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looks like a shortened version of [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/skip- surveillance-opti...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/skip-surveillance- opting-out-face-recognition-airports)

</comment><comment><USER14> They delete the photo after 12 hours, but probably not the measurements for recognition.

<comment><USER15> I'm always wary about this; when companies say they delete the bio-metric photos. They may delete the photos (even if they actually shred the photos), but they are still training a bio-metric model to better identify you before the photos are deleted.

> Biometric Templates: CBP creates biometric templates of historical photos > and new photos for matching and storage. Biometric templates are strings of > multiple numbers representing images that can be matched against other > templates that represent facial images. These templates are irreversible and > cannot be reverse-engineered by anyone outside of CBP to reconstruct the > photo, meaning that these photographs are not recognizable outside of the > TVS system.

So even if no single photo of you is on their severs, they still have a fingerprint of your face that can positively identify you.

[https://www.cbp.gov/travel/biometrics/biometric-exit- faqs](https://www.cbp.gov/travel/biometrics/biometric-exit-faqs)

<comment><USER16> > cannot be reverse-engineered by anyone outside of CBP to reconstruct the > photo

Is this really true with GANs these days? Not that this was meant to be a technical statement of course... but I'd imagine you could train a network to create a photo that activates a given template?

<comment><USER15> I would assume it is using some sort of public-private key encryption to generate the fingerprints. I say this because they say "anyone outside of CBP." So with the proper key, and fingerprint, you can probably reconstruct a photo, or some sort of deepmind type image.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It seems like the only effect of the opt-out option is to smooth over controversy. I wonder who went through the charade of pushing for the opt-out and treating it as a victory.

<comment><USER18> Ikr, "opt out" for the government means, put on theatre to act like people can opt out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> By the way the whole idea of passports is barely a century old and was a temporary measure for WWI.

Beware scope creep.

<comment><USER19> Didn't it just replace a patchwork mess of systems used by countries beforehand?

<comment><USER6> Prior to WWI, European border controls had pretty much dissolved (Prisoner of Zenda notwithstanding). The history section of the Wikipedia page on passports is pretty good though mostly Europe-oriented.

I was actually specifically taking about US passports (sorry I wasn't explicit) which were introduced during and until the end of the Wilson administration and then were revived in WWII (for travel to Europe before the US entered the war). Again, the history part of the US passport Wikipedia page is not a bad overview.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Having just gone through Heather, where facial ID is used at security and gates, I hate that the US is rolling it out. Not because I care about the photos - I'm in public, snap away - but because it doesn't fucking work. Neither my wife nor I were recognized by the system that snapped our photo 60 minutes earlier, which caused delayed boarding, confusion with the gate agents, stress for me, and aggravated other passengers (who were stuck behind me as the agent tried to decide why the system didn't want me to board). It was a ducking mess.

</comment><comment><USER20> Sure, be prepared for a cavity search and your name on a "he thinks he's a smart ass" list.

<comment><USER21> I'm sure that most of us that will opt-out of this type of thing are already on that particular list.

<comment><USER22> I opt for a pat-down every time. I doubt this will put me on any worse of a list.

Thanks for sharing OP!

<comment><USER23> I stopped opting out because I didn't see the point to continue. The opt-out moment is over. One could argue it contributed to getting rid of the more dangerous backscatter devices, but the millimeter waves remain. If it comes back for another reason I will rejoin for the duration. But I personally am not so shy that I care about a body scan. It seemed upon reflection that it was just vanity or resentment on my point to continue, and I was just inconveniencing myself.

If you have a counter-argument I'm all ears, but I just don't see the point for myself, here and now, to opt-out.

<comment><USER24> > I was just inconveniencing myself.

Oh, you put up the scanners, hired folks to do pat downs, are requiring me to take off my shoes, remove my laptop, etc?

I thought that was the TSA. Would you please stop?

The current approach is making us less safe, and we'd all be better off with the pre-9/11 security framework.

Edit: By "we" I mean Americans. America's enemies would be SOL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> How is this worse, privacy-wise, than taking naked images of you with mm-waves when you try and get on a plane? Its just improving the efficiency of the existing system. If we're going to have border controls, why not make them work as well as we can?

<comment><USER26> > _How is this worse, privacy-wise, than taking naked images of you with mm- > waves when you try and get on a plane?_

We don't have mm-wave scanners scattered across the country. We do, however, have cameras. Everywhere. CBP is under the Department of Homeland Security [1]. It's not a stretch to take the models, hardware, experience and scans CBP builds and use them in the interior.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protection)

<comment><USER25> I guess it just seems odd that we'd support actively limiting technological capability, rather than focusing on laws and policies that law enforcement should obey. It reminds me of the law in California that prevents police from using automated speed traps, so officers need to spend all this time and expense pulling people over for speeding, which leads to subjectivity, and ends up just being a waste of everyones time. If people really don't want speed limits, they should be raised or abolished.

<comment><USER27> > rather than focusing on laws and policies that law enforcement should obey.

There is a very long history in the US demonstrating that such laws aren't terribly effective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > You'll need your U.S. passport with you — even if you're flying > domestically.

So the majority of US citizens who don't have a passport can't opt out? I've already reduced the number of times that I fly to the absolute minimum. It sounds like I'll need to find a way to reduce that to zero.

</comment><comment><USER28> Can you, really? How do you opt out of the government giving the original data to airlines in the first place?

[https://twitter.com/jetblue/status/1118607244290084864](https://twitter.com/jetblue/status/1118607244290084864)

</comment><comment><USER29> > 75 years for non-citizens

WTF?! _Years_? Seriously? I hope to hell that is a typo.

</comment><comment><USER30> If you are Nexus/Global Entry and use Clear they already have your finger print, biometrics and retina scan. Might as well add facials to that... no wait that sounds wrong. LOL

<comment><USER31> Convenience or privacy, it's a tough choice to make. I'm thankful for Global Entry / Clear having to travel most weeks for work

<comment><USER32> Same, worth the tradeoff when you get to zip right past huge lines, and with the added pre-check, makes going in and out of MCO a hell of a lot easier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Anyone ever seen Face Off (1997) with good ole Nick Cage?! Here we go...

</comment><comment><USER34> The pieces of the puzzle that all go together:

REAL ID, federalizes drivers licenses for creating a database of photos for facial recognition and metadata.

Enhanced Passport--the requirements for getting the photo include not wearing glasses and not smiling, ostensibly so that their algorithm works better.

Facial scanning at airports, so they can build up as big a database as possible.

I'm surprised they didn't require full fingerprints for REAL ID.

How much further do we go before the tyranny becomes in your face enough?

<comment><USER35> That seems like hyperbole to me. Remember, we live in a republican democracy. Yes, it works slowly (by design). But, it works. At least we don't have a totalitarian state to deal with.

I used to be skeptical of this stuff, too. Then, we had 18 years of no major terrorist attacks.

<comment><USER36> How do we not have a totalitarian state?

You can't publish evidence of state war crimes without the CIA doing a character assassination job on you (pending a real assassination).

You can't travel anonymously.

You can't publish anonymously.

You can't make bank transfers out of the country for arbitrary purposes.

You can't deposit or withdraw cash above a trivial amount without significant scrutiny which is reported to the government. Financial companies failing to report can be criminally liable; it is illegal for them to protect your privacy.

It's illegal to not let the state know where you habitually sleep (state ID/driver's license requirements).

You can't drive from place to place without being subject to arbitrary "I smelled marijuana" search.

Every single phone call, SMS, and email is logged by the government.

Every single train and airplane ride is logged by the government in realtime, and government ID is required to board planes (and some trains).

Every single payment card swipe is logged by the government in realtime, and has been since 2008.

The government can, at any time, with zero burden of proof, freeze any/all of your payment cards and deposit accounts.

The government can, at any time, with zero burden of proof, freeze your ability to send/receive electronic payments.

You can't make private transactions (e.g. at a casino) over a trivial amount in cash without having to submit identity documents.

Our government runs a global network of extrajudicial torture prisons.

Our government regularly uses illegal and inhumane conditions against _children_ to dissuade people from seeking human rights (specifically to asylum).

Our government runs an extrajudicial network of assassination robots that target citizens and foreigners alike, with basically zero oversight about who they kill or why.

Our government has been known to retaliate with bogus charges against anyone who stands publicly against their illegal activities, e.g. Joseph Nacchio.

I'm really confused as to what would have to happen for you to think that we _do_ live in a totalitarian state.

<comment><USER37> What you're describing is authoritarian, not totalitarian. A totalitarian state has only one political party with all others being banned.

<comment><USER36> Does an impenetrable and indiscernible duopoly count? I'm pretty sure the US only has two flavors of one "continuous war" party that serves the military/corporate interests that conduct 24/7 electronic surveillance of everyone in power.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Taking on the Freight Industry with Freightify - <AUTHOR> http://www.freightify.com/

<comment><USER2> I am the founder of freightify, if you have any questions feel free to ask me here or send me an email.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> every time he says "load" I snicker like a middle schooler</comment>


Ask HN: Meteor vs. Express+React? - <AUTHOR> Over the past year I have been learning Node/Mongo/Express/React/Redux stack, and I'm pretty happy with it.
Is it worth investing my time in learning Meteor?
Does it have any advantages over the stack I have? <comment><USER2> I think its well worth the investment IF you already have worked with and understand Node/Mongo/Express/React.

Meteor for me atleast increased my productivity by large magnitude. The framework itself is a much different beast than what it was several years ago and it continues to grow. I've built several large scale products with the framework and its an absolute pleasure working with it. Getting ramped up is straight forward and offers a lot of shortcuts you normally wouldn't have right off the bat.

With all great things however there are downsides. Scaling can be tricky if you dont understand the internals of the framework. The atmosphere package ecosystem isn't as strong as it use to be.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Is it worth investing my time in learning Meteor?

No, it is not. Most of the initial bigger enthusiasts already left the boat. Not a good time to join.

<comment><USER2> I wouldn't say thats accurate at all. If anything a lot of new key members of the community of stepped up. With all the new additions to Meteor you can essentially depend on the NPM ecosystem for any 3rd party packages.

<comment><USER3> Meteor doesn't bring anything to the table plus add a lot of constraints. I'd not develop any freelance with meteor again.</comment></comment></comment>


eBPF Can't Count? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/ebpf-cant-count/ <comment><USER2> The reason why volatile variables aren't extended to 64 bit is because in embedded and systems programming, it is often used to access memory mapped IO registers - so any sign extension or truncation might lead to a wrong value being sent over the bus. GCC also has a keyword (register) to make sure that the variable is sized exactly right and fits in a register (iirc, there was a way to even ask the compiler for a specific register to be used for the variable in case of inline assembly being used).

<comment><USER3> The MMIO restrictions make sense. Thanks for the explanation!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a part which seems strange, where clang is used with "-O2" to generate code:

      $ clang -O2 -target bpf -Xclang -target-feature -Xclang +alu32 -c sub64.c -o - | llvm-objdump -S -

> Apparently the compiler decided it was better to operate on 64-bit registers > and discard the upper 32 bits.

The workaround was to use the `volatile` keyword.

The problem kind of sounds like one of the LLVM optimisation passes made the change.

[http://releases.llvm.org/8.0.0/docs/Passes.html#transform- pa...](http://releases.llvm.org/8.0.0/docs/Passes.html#transform-passes)

Wonder if disabling optimisations ("-O0") would have also worked?

<comment><USER5> Compiling to eBPF is hard! The compiler must: \- avoid loops (backwards jumps) - unroll everything \- inline everything - no function calls

Basically, it's impossible to use clang to generate eBPF without -O2. Sorry.

<comment><USER6> I'm new to this area of work, but has anyone stepped back and thought: "this is not the right way to build eBPF programs"? Would it be better to create a new high-level language and toolset? All this voodoo hackery to try to trick a C compiler into making eBPF-compatible code feels unsustainable.

<comment><USER7> bcc [https://github.com/iovisor/bcc](https://github.com/iovisor/bcc) if you need low-level abstractions or bpftrace [https://github.com/iovisor/bpftrace](https://github.com/iovisor/bpftrace) if you need something simpler (similar to dtrace)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great post. Detailed enough to keep it informative but light enough to read along.

I've been doing some eBPF work at the moment but the CloudFlare guys are at another level.

I'd love to take it up a notch like them. eBPF is very exciting and I'm hoping to remain in the space.

</comment><comment><USER9> I love stories like this, thx for posting!

</comment><comment><USER10> If you made it works, does it mean the Spectre mitigation is basically useless, as it can be bypassed ?

<comment><USER11> The verifier rewrites pointer arithmetic to be safe. There's a bug where it misclassifies 64-bit integer arithmetic to be pointer arithmetic, AIUI the bug doesn't affect 32-bit arithmetic (i.e. it should still detect and rewrite 32-bit pointer arithmetic, so the Spectre mitigation isn't being bypassed)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Looks like there are no unit tests in place? Sad.

<comment><USER13> Depending on the numbers in the test case it wouldn't have triggered. Depending on the user, it wouldn't have triggered.

The other problem is that eBPF is a far way from KISS. But then that's what's needed for power and performance.

EDIT after RTFA: and security against spectre and friends.

<comment><USER12> I am pretty sure that if you rewrite code, you should test rewritten version for equivalence. GCC has about 300K tests for a reason. I would not say kernel is less important.

<comment><USER13> Testing for equivalence? Don't you need to solve the halting problem for that?

EDIT: I'm curious if a down voter can provide a piece of code that tests whether two compilates are equivalent.

The root cause of the bug in the article was introduced by a patch to automatically modify an arbitrary program to harden against spectre.

<comment><USER12> Also, I'm not talking about theoretical proof of equivalence, I'm talking about simple test like

        assert func(params) == rewrite(func)(params)

for some reasonable set of func and params. Totally enough to catch problems like this. I'd say [unit-]testing that subtraction operator works is not that hard.

<comment><USER13> Except, that in this case params is a string containing an arbitrary program.

It would help the discussion if you read the TFA (edit: more carefully).

Rewrite() in this case modified the params program to harden it against Spectre.

<comment><USER14> That argument applies to pretty much every single unit test ever written. A function running on a single long can take 2^64 possible values. Impossible to test by your logic. Yet they're tested without issues constantly.

What you do is put together a long list of sample functions and sample arguments that covers the expected edge cases and then test those for equivalence. Hardly impossible. Just takes time. Not bulletproof but better than nothing.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How To Make Native Advertisements Native - <AUTHOR> http://codybrown.name/native-advertising/

<comment><USER2> He nails what others have missed on the discussion about native ads, despite -- somewhat ironically -- his sales pitch at the end.

<comment><USER3> What's wrong with having a sales pitch at the end?</comment></comment>


I Watched All of the Chrome Dev Summit 2017 Videos So You Don't Have To - <AUTHOR> https://redfin.engineering/i-watched-all-of-the-chrome-dev-summit-2017-videos-so-you-dont-have-to-9b62a593c3cb <comment><USER2> Thank you, great summary!</comment>


Donald J. Sobol, Creator of Encyclopedia Brown, Dies at 87 - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/books/donald-j-sobol-creator-of-encyclopedia-brown-dies-at-87.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Brings back memories for me. With all this information and technology at their fingertips, I hope that kids today have the the same sense of wonder and mystery that we had growing up.</comment>


Software can be unsafe at any speed - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.computerworld.com/15547/toyotas_lesson_software_can_be_unsafe_at_any_speed

<comment><USER2> Real "fly by wire" software as is used by Airbus is presumably subject to very stringent testing and review. I wonder what the standard, if any, is for "drive by wire" systems?

</comment><comment><USER3> Toyota can save its face and gain back trust. They need to fix the software issue at hand and then open source the code.</comment>


Build a JavaScript Promise from Scratch - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/gitconnected/understand-javascript-promises-by-building-a-promise-from-scratch-84c0fd855720 <comment><AUTHOR> A simple and educational promise implementation to give insight into what is actually happening when we use a Promise.</comment>


The Infinite Jukebox - <AUTHOR> http://labs.echonest.com/Uploader/index.html

<comment><USER2> It's a bit entertaining to listen to a song backwards beat-wise. (Click play, hit the left arrow key twice, click at the end of the song.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Small UX nitpick: The fact that the 'recent uploads' had a regular text mouseover image led to me wondering for a couple of seconds whether something should happen if I click. Did it anyway, I've been jamming for a while. It wonder if how the HN demographic maps to genre popularity.

</comment><comment><USER4> Its a little shaky, and takes a bit to load, but this is truly incredible.

</comment><comment><USER5> On Chromium 25, it wouldn't load, so I checked the console and saw "Uncaught Error: SYNTAX_ERR: DOM Exception 12 jremix.js:28".

</comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone know of a downloadable program that can do this?</comment>