iOS 14 is available today - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/09/ios-14-is-available-today/ <comment><USER2> I've just tried out the spatial audio on my iPad with AirPods Pro, with one of the (many) free first episodes on Apple TV+...

...and it's _stunning_. Seriously. It's actually three separate features in one. First, all the audio is outside of you rather than stuck between your ears. Second, it's surround sound so that dialog actually comes from your iPad, while music comes from all around. And third, it tracks, so if you look left the dialog all comes from your right AirPod -- and it's _positively disconcerting_ it's so real. I thought for a second all the sound was _actually coming out of my iPad_ and, oh crap, I have to turn it down not to bother the neighbors! Before realizing... oh my god it's actually that realistic.

So not only does it blow me away technologically, but also that I got it as a free upgrade almost a year after buying the headphones! People love to criticize Apple, but man do they do some _wonderful_ things for their customers.

Now I'm just so disappointed the feature is iOS-only, and not for Macs. I watch all my TV on a projector hooked up to my Mac, and man... if I had spatial audio while viewing _that_... I can't even imagine. It would beat any movie theater I've ever been to. (And sadly, iPad HDMI output is low-quality, as it heavily compresses the output.)

My understanding is they don't support Macs because they don't have accelerometers/gyroscopes so the AirPods wouldn't know what they were relative to spatially. But man, I'd be happy just for a button I could click that says "my head is looking directly at the screen now". Wouldn't that be enough? But there's no mention of it being in Big Sur, so oh well...

<comment><USER3> > People love to criticize Apple, but man do they do some wonderful things for > their customers.

People rarely criticize Apple for the products themselves. Apple gets criticism because of the "weird" (for lack of a better word) restrictions on the products. I've stopped using a Mac for quite a while now - but I recall examples - when the first Macbooks came without a optical drive you could buy an external one. But it will only work with _that particular Macbook model_ (after googling around I found that you could send a magic SCSI string to make it work). There is no iPhone with a SD card slot - my dad _LOVED_ iOS and his iPhone 6S but he had to switch to an Android phone so that he can use a 500GB SD card to store all his photos (he wants _ALL_ his photos available locally on the phone, so cloud sync is not an option).

I could go on. Apple makes some amazing products, but then adds quirks that makes the amaze short lived.

<comment><USER4> I hear you.

The headphone jack on the phone, I can actually see it. Not a lot of real estate inside a phone, and they wanted people to try AirPods (which I love, and might not have tried if it weren't for the missing jack).

But... no headphone jack on a 13" tablet? I edit movies on there sometimes and I grumble every time I dust off the dongle to plug in a mic for voiceovers.

But, no, people criticize Apple for everything they can think of. It's one of those companies where there's a set of people who, for whatever weird reason, have decided it's the enemy. They're against Apple and everything it stands for.

It's strange, I think the only company I feel that way about is Facebook. Maybe because phones are the most intimate things we own, they become part of our identities?

<comment><USER5> >But... no headphone jack on a 13" tablet? I edit movies on there sometimes and I grumble every time I dust off the dongle to plug in a mic for voiceovers.

This is especially dumb from Apple considering the number of pro audio apps marketed for the iPad that require the use of a wired connection for latency reasons. (no, Bluetooth audio will never have low enough latency for music production)

<comment><USER6> these same pro users are likely going to need more than a single USB port and will likely have dongles with them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One of my favorite new features in iOS 14 is an accessibility setting that allows a double tap or triple tap on the back of the phone to trigger an action. You can set this up in _Settings- >Accessibility->Touch->Back Tap_ .

In general, I love how accessibility features on iOS are so useful even for the average person who wouldn't be considered or classified as disabled.

<comment><USER8> iOS lets you turn on a red filter that disables the green and blue channels. you can set it to turn on by triple tapping the home button (or I'm guessing the back for new phones). This is the one thing I really miss after switching to Android. The red screen is fantastic for reading at night, really easy on the eyes.

<comment><USER9> That the night-shift mode right? I've been using it for almost 2 years I think. I have the same settings on my iPhone and macbook pro

<comment><USER10> No, it's a different thing.

Accessibility > Display & Text Size > Color Filters

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In 10 years, this is the first time I installed a beta version. It suffered a couple of issues, but they've been ironed out in my case.

I really love the new app drawer. My hundred barely-used apps are now neatly stowed there while I keep a single (Yes, one) Home Screen.

Widgets are nice but from what I understand they're updated only once every 5 minutes, which makes them a lot less useful.

<comment><USER12> I've always arranged my homescreen to be a single screen with folders for each category of app. makes it much easier to find things. I'm always befuddled when I see ppl with 30 pages of apps.

<comment><USER13> I just swipe down for Spotlight and use that as an app launcher, so I'll probably love the app drawer. I'm equally baffled by people doing it any other way :-) Do you organise your applications on your computer by category as well?

<comment><USER14> You can also do it by voice. Tell Siri to "open AppName" and it opens the app named AppName.

It does have trouble with some apps, though. Authy does not work at all when pronounced the way I expect it to be pronounced ("auth" as in "authorize"). Siri just says that there is no app named "Offie". And no, I do not pronounce "th" anything at all like "ff".

If I try pronouncing Authy as "oathy" is works maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the time.

For nearly everything else I've tried, though, it is fine.

<comment><USER15> Did you try training Siri? (Enable siri text) and then tap it when it says this app not found, and change "offy" to "Authie". After a few times, it should recognize your prompt

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure what setting that is. I've tried hitting the "tap to edit" thingy to edit the command it head from "open Offie" to "open Authy" several times, and it doesn't seem to really help much.

It's not that much of a problem on my phone or iPad, because I can just ask it to open Authenticator (Microsoft's authentication app). When I set up TOTP for a site, I scan the QR code in both.

It's on my Apple Watch that it is annoying. Microsoft Authenticator on the watch doesn't do TOTP. It's just for authenticating with Microsoft sites. So on the watch I need to use Authy if I need a TOTP code for a site.

On the watch, I don't see any option to edit a command that Siri gets wrong.

<comment><USER15> Yea "tap to edit" is what I meant. But who knows how many past (mis)recognitions vs manual edits it takes to reform Siri.

I'd try to do it each time, hopefully won't take too long to get it.

(On iOS 14, enable Siri - Siri Responses - Always show speech. On previous iOS, Siri is full screen and I think tap to edit is always available.)

Not sure about watch. However, I assume it should sync if you enable Siri to sync in iCloud. Settings - your name icon - iCloud - toggle Siri.

<comment><USER16> Do we actually know for a fact this helps? I had always assumed that correcting voice dictation helps on android and iOS, but over the past couple years I've been coming to the conclusion it doesn't actually do anything and we are just assuming these devices are smarter than they really are

<comment><USER15> My personal anecdata is that yes, it does help

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> No sign of it here yet.

I'm curious if it fixed some of the unpleasant behaviour and bugs that were never fixed in iOS 13.

Things like Mail not displaying new emails properly unless your went out and back into the mailbox. The keyboard autocorrecting to random names aggressively and inserting capital letters if you dare move the cursor. All new behaviours introduced with iOS 13 that adversely affect the user experience.

<comment><USER18> That mail bug is annoying. I don't get why Apple can't push their apps out to their app store and update them separately so it doesn't take an iOS update. The only reason I can think of is to force people to always stay on the latest iOS version, but that's anti-user, so surely that's not the reason. ;)

<comment><USER19> They technically are on the App Store, just not updated through that channel.

<comment> m-p-3 Seems odd they're not taking advantage of their own app store to update these apps without requiring an OS update. Even Google does it on Android.

<comment><USER20> Google does that because they aren't able to make sure that every android device gets an update. Since Apple can make sure of this there is no reason to have a second way to update their apps. App store updates won't magically make the mail app devs work faster or produce more.

<comment> m-p-3 > Google does that because they aren't able to make sure that every android > device gets an update.

Hopefully they'll be able to remediate that in the future and separate the core OS deployment from the vendor-specific files. Let Google pushes the OS, and the vendor could update their own stuff separately / through the Play Store. At least there is "Project Mainline" that helps keeping those devices secure.

> App store updates won't magically make the mail app devs work faster or > produce more.

Definitely, but it would make it easier to deploy a patch without having to wait for the next iOS update.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I hope they start offering something similar to the Android call screening feature [https://www.androidcentral.com/how-use-call-screen- feature-p...](https://www.androidcentral.com/how-use-call-screen-feature- pixel-3) That has been such a huge quality of life upgrade.

<comment><USER22> Not _quite_ , but they are _finally_ making the Phone notification a standard notification, and not a giant screaming blocking full-screen YOU WILL PAY ATTENTION NOW modal view.

[https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/22/ios-14-incoming-call- ui/](https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/22/ios-14-incoming-call-ui/)

I always hated that. I hate phone calls, period, and I certainly don't want that phone call to take over my entire phone.

<comment><USER21> I guess that's something :/ A friend of mine went through a horrible support experience with her Pixel 3 and that was enough for me to not want another Android phone after mine dies.

> I hate phone calls, period

We're kindred spirits. That's the only reason why I can't give up call screening.

<comment><USER22> Phone calls are rude. They are a Priority 0 interrupt that you must immediately deal with. Which has become extremely frustrating with the volume of spam calls on my 437 area code—to the extent I had to install a phone spam blocker app.

I have no idea why anyone thought it would be a good user experience to be typINCOMING CALL

<comment><USER23> Because going back not that long (non-SPAM) incoming voice calls _were_ a priority interrupt. And they still sort of are for the relatively few people who call me in a regular basis.

Phone calls are not rude as a general statement. When my dad calls me it is not rude.

<comment><USER22> If someone is calling me, without texting first, I assume that either (a) my boss wants me immediately, or (b) someone is in the hospital.

<comment><USER24> Probably a generational thing. I get far more phone calls than texts. I'd think it was super weird if a friend texted me before calling me.

<comment><USER23> Furthermore, a lot of people still have landlines and that's the number that they give out to service people, etc. That was the case with me until very recently.

There are very few people I'd expect to give me a call out of the blue these days rather than texting or emailing. But for that circle, I'm in the same boat as you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Faithful iPhone SE (1st gen) user checking in. Thankful to still be in the club. This will likely our last.

<comment><USER26> If you're hanging onto it, like me, because it's small and not because it's cheap, there are rumours that the launch of the iPhone 12 in October will include a 5.4" model. It would be the smallest they've released since the original SE, and will have flat edges too.

<comment><USER27> I'm holding onto mine because it still meets my needs, very well I would say. Why upgrade when I really don't need to? Second, I've grown to know Apple and am sure they will add improvements to the new model, probably fantastic improvements but but they will probably take something away as well, something that I am using now and don't want to be forced to change. I don't know what, maybe the phones jack or something. I am not buying a phone without the jack (no dumb dongles please). However, if all is good after the 12 is released and nothing is taken away I'll consider upgrading when my current SE no longer works.

I'm actually planning to use my phone less and less because I am trapped bad habits and that results in unnecessarily wasted time.

<comment><USER28> I love my original SE. upgraded to latest SE because i needed the LTE bands my carrier, T-Mobile, is broadcasting on more rural sites.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm not touching that update with a 10 foot pole. Not until it's been live for at least a week, and developers have had a chance to actually update their apps for it!

Honestly, that's just good policy on all Apple updates lately. It seems that more and more of them have been plagued with issues and are trailed by hotfixes. I've learned to just wait a while. Other people can be the test guinea pigs!

<comment><USER30> From a user perspective, this release is super solid. I'm not going to be updating to Big Sur any time soon, but I'm running iOS 14 everywhere now and haven't had any trouble

<comment><USER31> It has some big issues (first hand). Avoid for a while if you do mission/life critical work on your phone. As for some of the devs saying it is great, many of them have crappy apps. The top devs like Rambo are tweeting to avoid.

<comment><USER6> > The top devs like Rambo are tweeting to avoid.

Who or what sanctioning body determines who is a "top dev".

I'm using it on my phone, have been for a bit, and have had no issues. Zero. I must be reachable at all times. So whoever Rambo is, is wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm surprised that AirPods didn't support automatic device switching until now.

I assumed a lot of people with AirPods would want to switch the audio seamlessly between their iPhone and an iPad or Mac.

Any idea why it took so long to ship this feature?

<comment><USER33> Because ever since the first Airpods I was able to jump on any of my devices and change it from Speaker to Airpods and it would instantly switch. I didn't need to unpair or disconnect from one device before it was usable by another like I do with my Sony 1000MX3.

<comment><USER34> Yep. I had this experience. It was for some reason, REALLY good when AirPods just came out, and seemed to degrade with subsequent macOS updates (In particular, I had more trouble switching between phone and laptop later, but not much trouble between phone and iPad).

I recently got some bone conducting headphones which have the dual bluetooth built in, and that is even more seamless - literally just plays the audio from the active device, though it's not perfectly accurate, and gets really confused by Spotify doing off-device play, but it's clearly nicer than even having to choose the output channel.

Looking forward to trying this out w/ my AirPods though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> From the update: "Option to set your default email and web browser".

Finally!

<comment><USER36> It's a step in the right direction, but honestly, what's really the point when all browsers are just wrappers around Safari anyway.

<comment><USER37> That's a tech-centric view. For most people a browser is defined by its features like tab handling, account syncing, preferences, extensions, etc. Nobody cares about the HTML engine, only developers. The fact that it's possible to change the default browser is an important user-level feature.

<comment><USER38> It's true, but I think that's not the point. It's not because people don't care that it won't impact them.

Many people don't care about Privacy, Ecology, etc... yet it will have catastrophic consequences down the line.

Similarly here, yes it's true people don't care about the web engine, yet given Mozilla situation and Microsoft who switched to chromium, the web is seriously not in a good shape and it will have consequences on the long term.

<comment><USER39> I mean the most likely effect of iOS allowing alternative browsers is even more Chrome dominance than already currently exists. The fact that a major platform forces developers to not just stop once it works in Chrome is probably a net benefit at this point.

<comment><USER40> Not really... for me, iOS is a hard target, because all the non-default browsers (Chrome, Brave, Firefox) interact in different ways with the underlying engine that Safari provides.

Bugs present in iOS browsers, won't be present in Android browsers even if the browser version is the same which makes debugging harder.

For example, it turns having 3 targets (Chrome, Firefox, Safari...) into 5 targets (Chrome Android, Chrome ioS, Firefox Android, Firefox iOS, Safari iOS).

Differences between mobile/desktop browser are relatively minor in comparison.

On the Chrome side, there's fragmentation from all the browser that just wrap Chrome like Samsung Internet and QQ, but those are greatly mitigated by having up to date apps or are region specific so won't apply if your business doesn't do business in China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> One iOS 14 feature I'm really looking forward to is the use of banners instead of full screen notifications for incoming phone calls.

<comment><USER42> Unbelievable that they stuck with that design for this long. It was even worse before unknown caller filtering was introduced: I would literally be DDoS'd from my phone multiple times a day from random numbers, iirc with no option to decline if your phone was already unlocked (i.e. using it when it a call came through)!!!

<comment><USER43> Took them a pandemic worth of phone usage to realize how irritating this was. When lockdown/WFH started, my company was using Google Meet, and everytime there is an incoming call it used to go full screen completely blocking for whatever purpose I was using the phone (or what ever I was hearing or saying). Though Zoom integrates with Call feature (not sure what's the technical term for it), whenever there is an incoming call between a zoom call it used to go in waiting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Any Android users have insight into the uptake on Instant Apps [1] over the past three years? I'll be curious how they and the new App Clips [2] in iOS 14 will evolve versus web apps.

[1]: [https://developer.android.com/topic/google-play- instant](https://developer.android.com/topic/google-play-instant)

[2]: [https://developer.apple.com/app-clips/](https://developer.apple.com/app- clips/)

<comment><USER44> minimal to no usage, i expect to see `app-clips` deprecated by iOS 15

<comment><USER45> Totally disagree, I think app clips are huge and will get tons of traction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> The "jiggle mode" for editing icons has always been a bit of a mess but it is _definitely_ broken right now and I hope a fix is on deck for 14.0.1.

Try moving — well — _anything_ between home-screen pages that have widgets: there is a good chance that _many_ icons will be shuffled in an indecipherable order. And worse, it's so _easy_ to get too close to the edge of the screen and accidentally switch pages, which means when you try to move one little icon you might shatter the entire icon layout of two adjacent pages!!

(Also, I really loved being able to edit screens sanely in iTunes and I miss that. It was just easier to set up a few screens of phone icons using a mouse.)

<comment><USER47> Try using two fingers (or both hands). It works really well when you use one hand to swipe and the other to move.

<comment><USER48> _Holy [expletive]_ I had no idea you could do that, thank you for the tip!

 _Sent from my iPad_

<comment><USER49> You can also move multiple app icons at once with this method.

Just tap additional icons with your secondary finger while moving an app, and the additional apps will be added to the main finger's "stack".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Push notifications on PWAs? ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

<comment><USER51> As a user, please no.

<comment><USER52> As long as you could approve or reject push notifications on a site by site basis, what is the problem here?

<comment><USER53> 1) I don't want to see the prompts to allow push notifications from a webapp, nor to have to go disable them. I just never want them.

2) Generally I'd rather none of the software I use be webtech, so anything that makes it easier to deliver webtech to my phone/tablet is a step the wrong direction. Yes I'm willing to have less total software in exchange. The point is that I don't want apps that are or will be native, to be webtech instead, which may happen as more features are added to webapps. IMO allowing stuff like React Native and Phonegap is something I'd even rather they didn't do (and I've been paid to develop both native and React Native apps, plus worked on a very early and somewhat successful Phonegap-but-more-native solution that ultimately fizzled out). My ideal situation is that if anyone tells me to try out some app or to use some app to communicate or share something with them or whatever, personal or business, it's a webapp 0% of the time. It's either native or it doesn't exist, so no-one can bug me about it or cajole me into using it.

In short, my UX on iOS is better without them even being possible, so why would I prefer they be allowed?

<comment><USER54> > I don't want to see the prompts to allow push notifications from a webapp, > nor to have to go disable them. I just never want them.

Surely Apple could implement a setting to disable all requests for push notifications?

> In short, my UX on iOS is better without them even being possible, so why > would I prefer they be allowed?

Because not everyone agrees with you and web apps have many advantages over native.

<comment><USER53> > Because not everyone agrees with you and web apps have many advantages over > native.

But I don't care about those advantages (to the extent that they exist for users they're secondary effects of webapps being very cheap to make as cross- platform apps, so more likely to be made in the first place if cross-platform is a requirement) and like being able to choose a platform where it's hard to deploy a webapp instead of a native app, forcing the choice of "native app" or "no app at all" on the part of the developer, because I think it leads to fewer total apps but way more native apps than there'd otherwise be.

So why would _I_ prefer PWAs become more capable on the platform? I see why PWA developers and maybe some users would.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> XCode 12 is also out, taking up over 30GB of space apparently. For reference, XCode 11 was about 10.

<comment><USER56> What's the reason for the size increase? ARM support?

<comment><USER57> Finder says it's 28 GB but du says 15 GB. The compressed size went from 8 GB to 11 GB, so I suspect Finder's number is just wrong for some reason?

The overwhelming bulk of Xcode's footprint is the simulators. Xcode 12 went from two iOS simulator architectures to three (previously i386 and x86_64, arm64 added), one watchOS architecture to three (previously i386, x86_64 and arm64 added), and one tvOS architecture to two (previously x86_64, arm64 added), which naturally increases the size quite a bit.

<comment><USER58> Dont they support app thinning on macOS?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Apple seems to be at least 3 hours behind schedule as there's no sign of it here on the East Coast, yet.

<comment><USER60> Also nothing in Croatia (Europe) so far.

Edit: it just appeared 3 min after I posted this. Downloading.

<comment><USER61> Update available now for me (Sweden)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Looks slick but I'm going to wait for the early adopters to weed out the first wave of problems.

<comment><USER63> I've been using the beta for a few weeks with virtually zero issues. One or two quirks with the brand-new features; zero regressions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I just tapped the "Download and Install" button. Now the settings app freezes when I try to tap on "Software updates" and iOS 14 even downloaded yet. getting nervous...

</comment><comment><USER65> Been using since the first developer beta. Alas, still a few bugs and half- baked features, like the inability to re-add apps back to the Home Screen from the pull-down search.

If you have a ton of Home Screen pages like I do, you have to tap/drag a long way to the App Library to be able to restore the "hidden" apps.

Translation is still wonky for EN↔JP: "Test" gets translated into Japanese as "Testament", okay...

</comment><comment><USER66> One thing similar to Catalina with iOS 14 is the "over" security. It does nice to have scoped location permission or scoped photos access. But sometimes those permissions just pops up at a time when you'd click on them by mistake. For less techie people it would be impossible to go to settings and change it.

</comment><comment><USER67> It's actually not available on device as of this writing...

<comment><USER68> Got it here on my phone 10 minutes ago. In Denmark.

<comment><USER69> Currently not available in Germany. I wonder how their rollout mechanism works like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> The translation feature sounds amazing. Any ideas how it works?

<comment><USER11> It'a much more usable than Google's but limited in number of languages.

Also Safari's ability to translate websites seems to be geolocked to the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Is it?

I'm seeing iOS devs on twitter complain about multiple builds and redundant versions. I'm waiting for Xcode 12.1 the launch seems to be a mess.

</comment><comment><USER72> Not yet available in SF Bay Area and looks like others not seeing in Pacific time zone.

 _Edit_ : iOS 14 and iPadOS 14 are available now as of 1:08PM.

</comment><comment><USER73> iPadOS doesn't have the app drawer :-(

</comment><comment><USER74> In Ontario Canada. It's available.

<comment><USER75> Thanks for letting us know. I'm in Toronto, so I appreciate it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> So, you still can't disable the pointless and annoying "message sent" tone in iMessage.

<comment><USER77> Settings > Sounds & Haptics > Sent Mail > None

<comment><USER76> I said "iMessage".

<comment><USER78> Have you tried it? I honestly wouldn't put it past apple for that one setting to control both things even though you can't tell by the name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Seems to be available now, you might need to kill the Settings.app to make it show up immediately.

</comment><comment><USER80> Looks like Windows Phone tiles )

</comment><comment><USER81> Is there any mechanism to rollback to older versions if newer ones break ?

PS. non iOS user here

<comment><USER82> No, once you upgrade with iOS, you're stuck on it as an user

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Now run and update your app... we're caught by surprise on this release

<comment><USER84> I've seen this a lot lately. I'm not an app developer, so forgive the ignorance. What was the surprise? The actual release date? Does Apple normally send out an email to devs saying you have 1 week until it drops? From my experience with Apple, the GM was always a closely held secret and divulging knowledge was grounds for loss of Apple privileges. Just curious what is so different this time.

<comment><USER85> apple never gives us the release day, so we are always biting nails

when fatal bugs, or issues are reported, there is little communication from apple... alot people/companies depend on what apple is doing here

hisotrically, they announce new stuff, then ios is released about 1 week later (conveyed at the annnouncement)

this time, it was one day.

alot of us had apps already in testing and preparation, but depending on what features you might have used, some bugs occur that have either no workaround of nasty workarounds, and we need the GM release to confirm certain things and how to proceed

i cant talk about the issues i have faced in my job, but this 1 day notice has not gone off well

\-- as an aside --

personally, my feelings towards apple has soured very much, and anecdotally, many friends who work in industry who have to deal with apple (apps, app store, safari etc) have soured on them too

when people say "apple doesnt care about developers" i can understand thier feelings somewhat...

<comment><USER84> I guess my response would be should Apple hold off releasing a major OS update until it has received thumbs up from every single developer? Of course not. The betas for iOS 14 have been out for a long time now (not sure of specific dates). If your app wasn't ready for GM today, then was it really ever going to be? I would assume Apple expects that after each beta version is released, developers update their code for that version with the hope that it is promoted to GM.

<comment><USER86> Even if zero app changes are required, you must still:

1\. Download, extract, and run the new version of Xcode.

Note: you cannot upload builds for production App Store with pre-GM builds. You _must_ use the GM or production Xcode.

It's a 12 GB download, and extracting takes 20 minutes. Factor in about an hour here. Especially around when it's posted you can expect a very slow download.

2\. Build, execute and validate the app at least _launches_.

Maybe another 30 minutes.

3\. Create and upload an archived build to Apple.

Maybe another 30 minutes.

4\. Wait for the uploaded build to finish processing.

This takes somewhere between 1-3 hours.

5\. Submit the finished-processing build.

Manual inspection of metadata, screenshot uploading, etc. Let's call it 20 minutes.

6\. Wait for approval from Apple.

Who knows how long.

7\. Release.

So this is somewhere around 4-5 hours at _minimum_ of work to get the build uploaded.

When you're told at 11am that users will have it in their hands the next day, even if you are incredibly prepared, there's simply very little time to actually do the above in a safe way. And if you're not on Pacific Time, you're going to miss this window entirely.

Not to mention Apple uploaded a GM build of Xcode around noon, and then silently replaced it with an updated version sometime later without explaining what the difference was. Fun stuff.

Also: the GM build has regressions.

<comment><USER84> Thanks for that walk through. Again since I'm not an app dev, I have no insight into this process.

Do certain vendors get pre-release access that smaller vendors do not? Does Twitter/Facebook/etc have to do the same thing you just described? If it was truly as bad as you are making it out to be, how in the world does the eco- system survive? There's no way Apple could expect to be able to handle reviewing every single app in this manner. Surely something is missing?

<comment><USER86> I do not believe they distributed the GM build of Xcode to anybody early. This is the first time they've ever pulled "also tomorrow it's out" \-- they usually give 1 week to get app submissions in.

I also believe that, right now, they're just rubber stamping all app reviews. They cannot handle this volume.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> Still no way to make Maps put north at the top while you're driving.

Grumble, grumble.

<comment><USER88> You can with CarPlay

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> Do we have to fear that some of our apps might not work on iOS 14?

<comment><USER90> It's always possible, but people (including me) have been running beta versions since June or July and have already reported any issues with third- party apps. Even my bank app worked the very first time on iOS 14, even though it didn't on the iOS 13 betas.

<comment><USER89> Oh, shoot, didn't think about my banking and authenticator app. Mission critical software.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> Excited for the widgets

</comment><comment><USER92> Oh hello there, Windows Phone tiles!

<comment><USER93> I miss these days...

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> Installing for me right now

<comment><USER60> Where are you located?

<comment><USER94> SF Bay

<comment><USER95> I just got mine started a minute ago, in SF Bay area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> Any news on PWA support front?

</comment><comment><USER89> Not available in Germany.

<comment><USER79> It is, installing it right now.

<comment><USER89> Yep, now available. Just started downloading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> Software engineers don't let others install major releases. They make them wait till at least x.1.

</comment><comment><USER12> As usual you're probably better off waiting for iOS 14.1 that will be out next week to clear up whatever UX breaking bugs they didn't catch during beta in this version.

<comment><USER98> This is the first iOS release where I decided I wasn't going to update immediately. I'm really looking forward to some of the new features but I'm tired of dealing with Apple's day-one bugs.

<comment><USER90> And this is the first iOS release where I decided to get the beta on my primary device—I haven't noticed any significant bugs or regressions. While it's a perfectly reasonable decision to wait a bit, this has been the most stable beta I've used in years.

<comment><USER56> Have they fixed the regression with background apps being aggressively killed introduced in iOS 13.2? I still run into it daily even on iOS 13.7 with e.g. Yelp and Google Maps.

<comment><USER99> Which device are you on? This basically never happens to me on XS but does quite a lot on iPad Pro 9.6. I'm almost certain it's just a result of how much memory your device has.

<comment><USER56> Latest iPhone SE

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER100> "Powerful Updates to Messages", lol. Apple hasn't put an ounce of power into messaging. It's been 10 years, and they haven't innovated at all in the message space in any meaningful way (no, Memoji is not a meaningful extension of the messaging space). It's sad to see the lack of energy to actually create powerful and useful software, rather than to doing the bare minimum to compete in the smartphone market.

<comment><USER101> What's something you wish existed/suggest?

<comment><USER102> A couple things I would love to see in iMessage having used WhatsApp as my primary messaging app for the past several years: (1) Direct replying/quoting to a specific message. (2) More granular group chat controls (eg ability to add/remove/leave group message threads. (3) Ability to rename group chats so that I don't have 3 chat threads that contain the same first two people plus someone else

<comment><USER103> re 3: Renaming group chats has been a feature for a few years now

<comment><USER104> Not for SMS (presumably because it can't be shared to the other participants, but I'd still like a way to apply an alias to these four or five person deep threads for my own devices).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> munk-a Oh how exciting - now if they only removed their restriction of OS installations on old devices then maybe I could make use of it. As it is it's just another nail in the coffin for me ever being able to download an app ever again because their app store doesn't do backwards compatibility well and everything needs to go through the app store.

<comment><USER105> The App Store will indeed let you install previous versions of an app if you have an older device.

<comment><USER106> This needs an asterisks, unless something has changed recently, the steps needed to get an app on an old device are annoying.

If I want to install an app on my 3rd gen iPad, I try to install it directly in the app store, it tells me it requires an updated version of iOS.

I then have to install the app on my iPhone that's running the latest iOS version, then switch back to the iPad, change the app store account from my partner's to my account, and only then am I allowed to install the previous version of the app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> [https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-13/features/](https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-13/features/) new redirects to [https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-14/features/](https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-14/features/), which seems like an unnecessary hacky way to get your SEO up.

Separately: is it just me or has Apple lost its innovative edge? Widgets and app drawer, that's the huge new update? Android has had these for, like, 5+ years.

Not that android has had anything super exciting lately, either. Maybe phone OSes have kind of implemented most of the obvious great features, I guess.

<comment><USER108> Apple continues to invest in the user experience and potential privacy. Unlike Android, the features that require data processing and ML are not offset into the cloud. This means that if Apple finally moves to encrypting the iCloud storage, users won't loose semantic search over their photo library, health data, and other similar features.

(I particularly like the new option to pre-select the photos that you want an app to see, rather than giving complete access to my photo library)

<comment><USER109> This is not factual, this is Apple marketing.

There's no indication Apple is doing anything noteworthy regarding privacy.

<comment><USER108> Apple specifically declares that they do these things on device. If they don't, this is an opportunity for a class action.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


University of California tells students not to use WeChat, WhatsApp in China - <AUTHOR> https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/01/11/asia/university-california-china-wechat-intl/index.html <comment><USER2> WhatsApp is currently blocked in China. You can't use it there, anyway.

WeChat uses Chinese infrastructure no matter where in the world you are. Not using it in China is the most stupid thing you can do.

Do international tensions actually reach down to students, if they obey the law and manner of respect?

<comment><USER3> > Do international tensions actually reach down to students, if they obey the > law and manner of respect?

Yes, international tensions are often about things that aren't illegal, and even where they concern things which one state views as illegal, they often target people suspected who may not always be guilty. And even if they target only the actually guilty, when it relates to communication systems, that can have impacts on people several hops removed from an actual target.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a Chinese and I prefer using telegram via proxy to break GFW. But most friends or relationship using wechat, so it is helpless to keep using wechat.

</comment><comment><USER5> Aren't both of those E2EE? And even if they weren't, wouldn't TLS be sufficient for China to not have the capability to do anything?

<comment><USER6> WhatsApp sure, WeChat no way no how. Its' routinely and openly used to spy on citizens.

<comment><USER7> You can concievably MITM WhatsApp too, at least if your target isn't that observant. The only indication that your connection has been rekeyed is a message in your chat which could be easily missed.

<comment><USER2> Is there any PoC, or end-to-end description supporting your claim that this is possible?

I'm quite sure WhatsApp uses transport security, too. You can't just MitM then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does whatsapp work in China? I had to switch to telegram to talk to a friend that lives over there because it stopped working a few months ago.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it does, though intermittently, so it's incredibly suspicious to me.</comment></comment>


What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde	(2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/06/what-everybody-gets-wrong-about-jekyll-and-hyde <comment><USER2> This is all absolutely correct, but what I feel it misses is that the mythic power of the story lies in our enjoying it, reading it naively. In other words we deliberately read it ourselves in repressed mode. If we read it the first time with the kind of clarity suggested here then we don't actually feel its power: we are merely interested - rather than complicit.

<comment><USER3> Astute observation, succinctly put. I would additionally add that it also works the other way; if a story's themes and metaphors are too clear before the story is over, it can damage suspension of disbelief and hurt enjoyment.

This is one reason why the typical teaching methodology of a US high school English class typically has the effect of blunting the enjoyment of classic literature - students are not usually given the chance to read the story in its entirety before it is dissected to death, chapter by chapter.

<comment><USER4> Why would you not read the book in it entirety first as home work or in the holiday before you are due to cover the book in class?

I certainly read all of my assigned texts an din the case of classical studies several other books and plays in the cannon.

<comment><USER5> _Why would you not read the book in it entirety first as home work or in the holiday before you are due to cover the book in class?_

Because they're teenagers with better things to do with their time than reading old 'boring' books by a bunch of pointless dead people.

<comment><USER6> Well, the irony is they really don't have better things to do and someday they'll regret not putting the time into such things when it was available to them. But you know the old saw -- youth is wasted on the young.

<comment><USER7> There were some required reading books that I enjoyed and learned from, and some that I _still_ don't see the point of. On the other hand, some things that I did in my own time in high school laid the foundations for my career and current interests. I can't see that as completely wasted time.

<comment><USER6> Well, I had more free time than I'll probably ever have again and I frittered away a lot of it on bad TV, lame forums, etc.

<comment><USER8> This may sound strange, but I'm sometimes grateful that, when I was a wee lad, Internet wasn't invented and computers took up whole rooms. I think I'd have wasted even more time than I did.

It means I read a lot of great books, for example. I used to read them and then write about them. I'd spend almost as much time writing and thinking as I did reading the books. I'd make notes, quotes, and tie things in with other literary works.

If I'd had computers and the Internet, I'd have spent that time watching porn and posting fart jokes.

<comment><USER6> It doesn't sound strange. Even as an adult I feel like it's a mixed bag sometimes.

<comment><USER8> Some of the comments from people whom I infer are significantly younger than I, seem aghast at the idea of having enjoyed the non-connected life as a youth. They are similarly quizzical when they learn that I seldom carry a cell phone and still maintain a landline.

That was the reasoning for my pointing out that it may sound strange.

Even as a well-grown adult, I still go outside and play, sans any compute devices at all. I often hike, snowmobile, ski, snowshoe, ride an ATV, etc and don't even bother with a GPS unit or bring a cell phone. Mentioning this sometimes nets some responses expressing everything from curiosity to suggesting that I'm recklessly endangering myself and others.

Yes, yes I have had (online) people tell me that my doing so is actively endangering others who may need to come rescue me. I'm never quite sure how to respond _politely_ to those types of comments. I guess it is difficult for some people to understand that life existed before the ubiquity of communication devices and always-on networks. They sometimes express more dismay when I point out that, in some locations, not even cellular service is available.

Ah well... But, yeah, it sounds strange to some folks - given the responses I've had to similar commentary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've never even read that book, but I probably should.

As it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says, we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be.

But ultimately it's still the same person making those decisions, typing those words and decepting those other people, who may not be all that honest themselves.

Not to be compared with murder, obviously, but I feel like the same principle applies.

<comment><USER4> Arguably its about the hypocrisy of Victorian England

<comment><USER10> Yeah, same as the Picture of Dorian Gray, which has similar themes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is dead on target.

It's also why I found the TV series _Angel_ (the _Buffy_ spin-off) so unsatisfying. There is a truly fascinating story to be told about a vampire whose soul has been restored to him, and who is always at war with his own evil nature. But _Angel_ is not it. Instead, the eponymous character is essentially entirely good except when some supernatural agency transforms him back into Angelus, his evil form. All the conflict is externalised.

That's a particularly surprising and disappointing mis-step given _Angel_'s provenance. Joss Whedon is exactly the kind of person who I'd have expected to be interested in exploring the _inherent_ contradictions within the Angel character, and showing how they are analogous to the questions that we all face.

<comment><USER12> I think a modern fictional character that would come closer to the Jekyll-and- Hyde relationship as espoused in the parent article is the CW show _Arrow_. Oliver Queen is a harmless playboy in the public view (and in the last season, the mayor of his city), but he puts on the hood and does things, sometimes unspeakable things like torture and murder, in order to achieve his greater goal of "saving his city" from crime while leaving his public persona untarnished. He struggles with the notion that perhaps the Green Arrow persona is his true nature rather than the one he presents to the public.

Of course, that character assessment essentially apes Batman/Bruce Wayne as well; Batman is Hyde, Bruce is Jekyll, but Hyde and Jekyll are the same person with the same drives and impulses.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the tip -- I'll try _Arrow_.

<comment><USER13> Dunno why watching one or two episodes of Arrow almost killed me with boredom?

<comment><USER12> It's a struggle sometimes, and I wonder if it's down to who is writing and/or directing a specific episode. There was an episode last season that dealt with gun control in a 80s style "very special episode" way. It was clumsy, awkward, and did very little for the overall story arc.

Overall though, it's a good show with a darker theme than most current superhero fare. Though, I may be biased as the Green Arrow was my favorite comic book character as a kid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Seems the only plausible explanation of the recent "Las Vegas massacre": described by friends & family as a perfect nice guy (rich even), the few records revealed so far indicate he led a possibly violent double life - culminating a self-destructive slaughter. Doctor Jekyll kept up the pure front to indulge his Hyde desires with no further ulterior motive; likewise perhaps Stephen Paddock, in an unsatisfying truth, committed horrors simply because he wanted to.

</comment><comment><USER15> It is worth pointing out that, in one sense, the "misreading" and the "proper reading" are the same. One is just metaphorical and the other is literal.

To state it more clearly, even if you believe that Hyde is the evil in Jekyll's soul, and not just Jekyll acting out his fantasy, the former is a metaphor for the latter.

I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil. (Hyde is the unadulterated evil, in other words).

<comment><USER16> > I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is > smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil.

Given it is Jekyll himself that makes that observation, it may not be all that "clear". Jekyll is a very unreliable narrator in the book, and "I only have a little bit of evil inside, it's small really" is probably one of his lesser delusions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Are we good because we want to be good, or are we good because we just don't want to be punished?"

It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's the right thing you're crazy." When I heard this I was just hoping he wasn't applying it to things other than the speed limit. Sometimes I feel you have to do the right thing, because it is the right thing.

Another similar case was when I was reading my economics book which said altruism only exists due to incentives, and it wouldn't exist otherwise; I personally believe there are people who act altruistically despite incentive going either way. Although, I also find personally if I do the right thing despite incentives for me to lie or do otherwise people will often make up the difference.

<comment><USER18> There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully."

It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered.

A good example might be: "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because I'm forced to." vs. "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it's the right thing to do." There is yet another option of "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it has economic benefits and because I don't want to personally deal with the homeless everywhere I go." The last one might sound heartless, but I think that it might appeal to more conservative members of society, and it also turns out to be true.

<comment><USER17> Good argument. To me the reason for not speeding due to it being a net benefit to society is just a specific case of speeding due to it being the right thing to do. One point I got from your argument (though not directly stated) is that it's often important to clarify why the thing you are saying is the right thing to do is in fact right.

I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism standpoint of it is the right thing if it creates the greatest sum total happiness for society. I feel Utilitarianism is close to defining what is right, but if you have ever studied it Utilitarianism has some flaws (when I say this I don't mean to attack your personal standpoint on altruism/right only Utilitarianism in general.) Often these flaws can be fixed with a more rule based approach to Utilitarianism. I personally like Utilitarianism's approach, but probably take a more Aeristotelian approach which is more along the lines of it is the right thing if it makes me act in a more virtuous manner. Aeristotle believes those of truly virtuous characters wouldn't desire to do wrong things in the first place.

<comment><USER19> If you taboo the words "virtue" and "virtuous", what are you left with? Seems like it can be reduced to utilitarianism. If utilitarianism is "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function", this idea of virtue maximizing can be restated as "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function, which states its highest utility is that which makes me act more virtuously, with these comparison heuristics to determine 'more' or 'less' virtuous". My own criticism of utilitarianism is that utility functions aren't always objective, and for different people or different contexts can output different values. If you can agree on a function it can be a useful tool in moral reasoning (and especially uncovering inconsistencies if you've agreed to a few functions then find a contradiction with intuition and what the calculations say) but typically we want to know how we should agree on a function in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I mean I'm guessing one crucial reason is that far more people are familiar with the story than have ever actually read it.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash As always, there's a relevant XKCD (alt text for relevance).

[https://xkcd.com/1687/](https://xkcd.com/1687/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I expected this to be about the static site generators :D

<comment><USER21> Me too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Well of course in Stevenson's time many more readers would have reached the same understanding of the text, because the Christian faith acknowledges just that: we all have a "sin nature" (Mr Hyde) in us, tempted towards selfish and evil behaviour, at least sometimes longing to act out without consequences. Unfortunately so many Christian teachers have failed to pass on the rest of the message - that this does not make any one of us more inherently "evil" than any other, and that there is a clear and effective path to liberation from these desires - that the faith itself is just as universally musunderstood as this marvellous book.

</comment><comment><USER23> I thought that it was about a doctor with a drinking problem

</comment><comment><USER24> Somewhat similar points were made, decades ago, by Nabokov in his essay on this story in his _Lectures on Literature_. Of course Nabokov goes, as well, in much deeper and subtler directions.

</comment><comment><USER25> I have at times wondered if age do not bring better behavior, just an improved ability to hide the bad behavior.

<comment><USER2> Being good is 99% not being bad. I've definitely just ironed out my evil behaviours. So I can be your sample of 1.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Isn't Hyde actually Shadow archetype from Jungian psychology?

<comment> adam-a Carl Jung was 11 when the book was published, so perhaps it's the other way around?

<comment><USER26> I didn't say that book is based on Jung, just that Hyde is maybe personification of Shadow archetype. What's your opinion, could that be true?

<comment><USER27> I would think so. A direct comparison has been written about in literature long after both the story/concept were introduced [1]:

'A man who is possessed by his shadow is always standing in his own light and falling into his own traps ... living below his own level': hence, in terms of the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 'it must be Jekyll, the conscious personality, who integrates the shadow ... and not vice versa. Otherwise the conscious becomes the slave of the autonomous shadow'.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_\(psychology\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Mr. Robot comes to mind when thinking about this. I don't know that Elliot wants Mr. Robot, but maybe in the beginning he did. He certainly needed him.

<comment><USER29> I'd argue this is exactly what the author is saying jeckyll and Hyde _isnt_.

 _> Jekyll is not unaware or out of control when he's Hyde. He does not wake up with no memory of what happened the night before. He remembers perfectly everything he does as Hyde, because he was in control the whole time._

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's a good two decades since last I read the book but... I always read it as an allegory for repression and a potion which let Hyde live out his own desires and drives without the mores of society or upbringing holding sway, without guilt etc. etc.

However I suppose I did think the potion did something to release him from this, rather than being merely an excuse.

</comment><comment> d--b I always thought that the story was pretty much about getting drunk. It's basically "what if people could not recognize my face while I'm plastered?"

</comment><comment><USER31> and then the plot twist - Jekyll never existed in the first place. reminds me of Primal Fear movie.</comment>


An Unusual Language That Linguists Thought Couldn't Exist - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/the-unusual-language-that-linguists-thought-couldnt-exist

<comment><USER2> Sandler et al.'s paper [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250231/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250231/) referenced in the article clears things up. The title: "The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language". The abstract: The division of linguistic structure into a meaningless (phonological) level and a meaningful level of morphemes and words is considered a basic design feature of human language. Although established sign languages, like spoken languages, have been shown to be characterized by this bifurcation, no information has been available about the way in which such structure arises. We report here on a newly emerging sign language, Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language, which functions as a full language but in which a phonological level of structure has not yet emerged. Early indications of formal regularities provide clues to the way in which phonological structure may develop over time.

<comment><USER3> This clears up a lot. The whole article felt dubious from the start since it was lacking any examples of the language or an explanation of how functional the language is. The paper makes it clear: the language is young and regularities already emerge and it is interesting because the phenomena has not been studied "live" yet.

<comment><USER4> It parallels the emergence of verbal pidgins -> creoles very well. "Recently born" languages frequently lack the grammatical structure that "mature" languages do. Sometimes levels of phonotactic structure are absent as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've learned sign-language for 4 years (Not deaf), I'm not a linguistic expert, but I don't really get this…

Most sign languages (which emerge naturally just like spoken languages, some even think that they might have been there before) have simple, atomic signs for concepts/things. There are combinations of course, like pointing to your earlobe to add "female" to the sign before. So the specialty is that this language has no such combinations at all?

There are also parts of sign languages which aren't categorized clearly, especially when explaining visual/spatial circumstances. When signing "I bought a table, it's wooden and has a fine white line engraved along the edge." you probably won't use signs for "fine", "line", "along" or "edge". You would just describe it visually. There is probably not even a sign for "edge" which applies to this context. Again, I'm not a linguistic expert, but I think that some of these characteristics might be hard to squeeze in "It's a word or not".

<comment><USER4> The classification of the less-divisible "free-form" signs (especially those seen in narrative and spatial arrangements) is definitely a challenge to linguists, but that doesn't mean that they don't consider them to be constructed out of semantic or phonetic units at all. For example, different objects and methods of description are frequently represented using the same classifier handshapes, despite how varied their placement and combination can be.

On a similar note, the linguistic meaning of "word" is much, much fuzzier than native English speakers expect (letters surrounded by spaces). Trying to pin a particular level of structures across language categories becomes very difficult due to morphemic, phonetic, and syntactic processes that can break down word boundaries. (Even consider contractions in English for that matter. What makes _don 't_ one word when _do not_ is two?) So the issue is, frankly, a mess, and many linguists tend to avoid using the term "word" cross- linguistically.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Can a linguist explain? I don't know much about sign languages. Is there a corresponding concept of "phonemes" into which words in other sign languages can be decomposed into? And is ABSL already "mature" i.e. native language of some babies, or is it still in some sort of "pidgin" stage? Maybe it will become more "normalised" as time goes by.

By the way, I wonder why sign languages are the ones whose birth we can easily witness. Nicaraguan Sign Language is the textbook example of this.

<comment><USER7> Sign languages emerge when deaf kids (who aren't receiving other signed input) are together. To get the equivalent with spoken language, you'd have to put a bunch of (hearing) kids together on a desert island with no adult supervision. Deeply unethical, but that hasn't prevented people from proposing it.

<comment><USER8> I'd wager it's happened before in cities with a high initial immigrant population. Several families who don't speak a common language move into an area, and while the kids speak their native tongues at home, they might develop a private neighborhood pidgin to understand each other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's the key bit: "Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL) is a new sign language emerging in a village with high rates of inherited deafness."

It sounds like this language hasn't existed long enough to evolve some of the characteristics of typical languages.

About a similar recently invented sign language, I recommend this RadioLab bit: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/91730-new-words-new- world/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/91730-new-words-new-world/) [http://www.radiolab.org/audio/m3u/91730/](http://www.radiolab.org/audio/m3u/91730/)

</comment><comment><USER10> Yep, this just sounds like the language is at an early stage of development, still a "pidgin" and on its way to developing into a "creole" and eventually on its way to developing into a fully versatile language, by which time it will be much like any other sign language. The terminology I am putting in quotation marks here comes from studies of the origin of new spoken languages in communities that mix together people who don't have a common spoken language.[1]

[1] [http://mufwene.uchicago.edu/pidginCreoleLanguage.html](http://mufwene.uchicago.edu/pidginCreoleLanguage.html)

[http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/sum07/myths/cr...](http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/sum07/myths/creoles.pdf)

[https://www.uni-due.de/SVE/VARS_PidginsAndCreoles.htm](https://www.uni- due.de/SVE/VARS_PidginsAndCreoles.htm)

<comment><USER11> I'd argue that this isn't a pidgin or creole. Unless the language has had changes due to contact with other sign languages, it stands as its own language.

<comment><USER12> Many sign languages take form as a pidgin created through contact between many different forms of "kitchen signing" \-- that is, idiosyncratic systems of signing created by deaf individuals and their families. While the languages involved aren't "normal" languages in the sense that the ones involved in typical pidgins/creoles are, the process is believed to be similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can understand everything the mute people say without reading the subtitles, is it the same thing for everyone here or is it because of having lived for a long time in Italy?

I'd say the Arab ruling in southern Italy helped having a commong language to those peoples living in northern Africa, but maybe it's common knowledge.

Check this for comparision: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZwYObN264](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZwYObN264)

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm still not sure why APL and Kanji are not examples of the same thing. They are not spoken languages, but neither is sign language.

<comment><USER10> See

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8353518](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8353518)

my reply to another participant in this thread. Chinese characters (called "Kanji" in Japanese) are very much writing out of spoken words, and not at all what was described in the article kindly submitted to open this thread. Another participant provided the definitive answer about what is going on in the report submitted here. In all human communication systems, there is recombination of basic symbols, because there has to be.

<comment><USER15> They love to play games where multiple words have the same sound, though, in writing, to intentionally give things multiple interpretations.

At least in Japanese.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> FTA: for example, the sign for "lemon" resembles the motion of squeezing a lemon.

I wonder what the symbol for actually squeezing a lemon is?

<comment><USER8> I'd bet that it's just highly contextual. If you point to a bowl of lemons next to a pitcher, and sign "lemons", it would probably signify that the speaker wants you to squeeze those lemons into the pitcher.

I wonder what the sign for lemon juice is.

<comment><USER17> That's kinda close. In sign languages, individual signs can be decomposed into different elements: Hand shape, motion, position, et al. Related terms or ideas will use some of the same elements.

I'll use a couple of examples from American Sign Language:

1\. The gender of a subject in a phrase is sometimes communicated by performing the corresponding motion with the specific hand shape in front of your forehead (for male) or in front of your chin (female).

2\. A signer could communicate "a chair", "then he sat down", and "so help you god, jimmy, you better go sit down right now or i'm going to make you wish that you were never born" with what is basically the same sign (first two fingers on right hand tapping top of first two fingers on left hand), just by repeating it more times and with more emphasis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If it is easier to learn an atomic language, wouldn't that then count as a genetic disposition towards atomic languages?

</comment><comment><USER19> Nautilus is taking over the HN frontpage. I love it – their content is very high quality and thought-provoking, and often interesting to a large subset of HN readers

<comment><USER3> Compare the article with any of the papers it references. This is pure fiction. All papers clearly state the sign language in question shows emergent regularities which clearly means that it is on its way towards duality of patterning. It is special since it is a great opportunity to study the phenomenon as it happens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> when the gene pool is a jacuzzi

</comment><comment><USER21> not COBOL?</comment>


Holy crap, is creating A/B tests this easy? - <AUTHOR> http://www.visualwebsiteoptimizer.com/split-testing-blog/ab-tests-easy/?utm_source=hn

<comment><USER2> I think the only viable alternative to VWO is Optimizely [<http://www.optimizely.com/>], which is a YC company. Most of the other options I've researched look like they are too much work, which defeats the point of buying a product instead of doing it in-house. Note: I haven't used either product, only viewed their marketing materials.

<comment><USER3> Unbounce is another reasonable alternative. It is not specifically made for A/B testing but it has great functionality for doing so.

Link: <http://www.unbounce.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Holy crap, is spamming Hacker News to get some cheap traffic this easy?

<comment><USER5> This is not spamming but announcement of new features. Many companies (including many YC ones) launch new features on HN. Why do you consider it spam?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> VWO is awesome, really quick and easy to set up tests. And the support is incredible. The few times I've emailed the support address I've had a reply from Paras in less than an hour, I'm beginning to wonder if he ever sleeps :)

The only complaint I did have about VWO is that there was no way to make a variation that touched multiple parts of a page. But apparently you now can! (last item on the list in the article)

<comment><USER5> I find support work very satisfying. Even though we are a small team now, I find it tempting to beat my other colleagues at answering a support question :)

<comment><AUTHOR> and he often beat me :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really like how easy and effective the A/B test creation looks from the demo video. I would definitely sign up if they had a permanent cheap 1000 visitor per month plan. I don't need a ten thousand visitor a month plan, and my startup can't afford a $49/month recurring fee. (Yet.)

Then again, if I really want A/B testing I should just code it myself. The advantage to using this system would be its ease of use.

<comment><USER8> Ya I feel like this is catered more to the bizdev startups. Isn't it not that hard to code A/B tests? Also, don't these kind of programs break HTML/CSS validation and cause cross-browser issues?

<comment><USER5> Yes, VWO is targeted at marketers and non-technical folks at companies where a change in site code can take weeks and months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Was that music part of the demo video, or do I get that every time I use the VMO website?

<comment><USER5> That was just part of demo video</comment></comment>


You don't see Google on first page of search results by googling "search engine" - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/search?q=search+engine <comment><USER2> Speculation only, but this might be as much to prevent user confusion as for any other reason. Lots of people, especially lots of people who need to research the term "search engine", don't understand the difference between Google and an empty address bar. (That is, they haven't learned about addresses.) If they click a link and just go back to the same page, they'll be confused and frustrated.

<comment><USER3> Your suggestion implies that Google manually modifies the results it gives to some search queries.

<comment><USER4> They do. [https://www.google.com/search?q=recursion](https://www.google.com/search?q=recursion) Plenty of other examples.

<comment><USER3> Adding a "Did you mean..." is not modifying search results.

<comment><USER5> Could it be argued that spelling suggestions are still a search result in and of themselves?

<comment><USER3> No.

<comment><USER6> And even if it is, doesn't qualify for "manually modifies the result."

<comment><USER5> It's specific to that search term, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Google's general functionality. How is it not "manual"?

They clearly are able to create result sets crafted by their employees for specific search terms.

<comment><USER7> Google's general functionality includes suggestions. Spellcheck, even of more obscure search terms, doesn't require _manual_ intervention. The system could easily determine that people who search for "pancales" follow up that search immediately with "pancakes".

<comment><USER5> Did you miss OP's example? Why would spellcheck give you the same word you just typed in? It's manual intervention.

They are clearly able to modify search results based on a rule system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The other comments claim it's deliberate. I'm not sure. Google are pretty adamant that they don't manually edit results. And it's at least possible that most references to search engines in news articles and the like reference alternatives to Google. Google is the kleenex of search engines - it's so synonymous that people forget that kleenex is a kind of tissue.

<comment><USER9> But they can control the content of the page. I looked at the source page and there is 0 mention of "search engine" on Google.com source page.

I'm pretty sure Google works contextually to know "search engine" means searching the web. Gogoduck does have the reference 5 times in the source code but Bing doesn't. Gogoduck can take the chance with their content to be the first, but if the leading search engines were to sue or act against Gogoduck, then it would be in Gogoduck's favor to get the spotlight.

If you go to Google to find Gogoduck then Google is of course the more valuable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Query "search engine set default". It figures that you mean business, drops the cool guy act, and is quick to point out ways to come home from IE.

</comment><comment><USER11> That's got to be intentional, either as an amusing Easter egg, or to try and provide an example of their unbiased approach.

It certainly doesn't jive with the page rank approach.

<comment><USER12> I thnk it makes sense - probably not many people are linking to Google wth the anchor text "search engine". Or rather, they would be more likely to do so with ant other search engine.

<comment><USER11> Supposedly, Google got smarter some time back and relied more on contextual meaning of the linking page, as a whole, vs literal anchor text.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anti-trust probably...Google doesn't want to be seen as a monopoly even though it has a monopoly on search. One less lawsuit. No ads at the top also. Since the user is looking for a search engine on Google, it could mean they're looking for an alternative to Google.

<comment><USER13> if i was google's lawyers i'd argue search isn't an industry. they make money via ads so its in the ad industry. itsmy chief problem with thiels 0 to 1.

<comment><USER3> If you were Google's lawyer, then you would be a lawyer. From the content of your post, it seems clear you aren't one.

<comment><USER13> google, facebook, twitter all eating from the same pie: ad dollars.

<comment><USER14> Actually, this comment reminded me of the following:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-03/advertisi...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-03/advertisings- century-of-flat-line-growth)

TLDR;: _But in one sense, the advertising business is about as static and boring as they come. The industry has never grown in scale. Looking at data since the 1920s, the U.S. advertising industry has always been about 1 percent of U.S. GDP. It's surprisingly consistent, mostly tracking between 1 percent and 1.4 percent—and averaging 1.29 percent._

So when you said, "...eating from the same pie", according to the linked article, they actually are.

<comment><USER13> tangentially related: thats why i love amazon's upside. retail means theyre swimming in way bigger pond than facebook/google (at least with their core products)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't know about the specifics of how this is related to their algorithm, but it makes perfect sense from a philosophical standpoint.

You are using Google (the world's most well-known search engine) to search for other search engines. So either you are clueless about what a search engine is (in which case they win, since you're using them without knowing the term), or you're explicitly looking for alternatives (in which case, according to their philosophy, the way to serve you best is to give you a great list of all the other search engines out there).

</comment><comment><USER16> Interestingly, you do see it on the first page in Bing and DuckDuckGo.

And while I did initially think that might be deliberate (because hey, why bother showing a link to your search engine on the first page of results in your search engine?), Bing and DuckDuckGo are listed when you search 'search engine' in those search engines.

Makes me wonder why Google doesn't list themself here.

<comment><USER17> I would assume results rankings are based on how many people click the link after searching the given terms. Probably no one searches "search engine" on Google then clicks on a link to google.com .

<comment><USER18> You're right: they all search "Google" and click Google.

Source: my mom.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Heh, the first result is DDG, the second is the wikipedia page on search engines, and the third is this:

[https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/02/25/say-goodbye-to- goog...](https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/02/25/say-goodbye-to- google-14-alternative-search-engines/)

"Say goodbye to Google: 14 alternative search engines"

</comment><comment><USER20> Surprised to see Dogpile still around (and near the top of results). I remember using it as my main search engine in the early 2000s.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think it's very good relevancy-wise. If you look on google for search engine, it's more likely that link to google.com is not helpful, since you already know of google.com, supposedly. How that is achieved though might be an interesting question.

OTOH, DDG is the second result for "search engine" on DDG :)

</comment><comment><USER22> Why would you? You're already there. It's effectively a synonym for "different search engine".

</comment><comment><USER23> Because google isn't really a search engine anymore.

Search engines just do dumb scraping of web pages. Google _understands_ the webpage, so that when I look up "pancake recipe" it will just show me the steps to making pancakes rather than pointing me to websites with pancake recipes.

It's more like an "internet integrator".

<comment><USER11> Google says it is: [https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/464?hl=en](https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/464?hl=en)

<comment><USER23> Because that's how they're known, search engine is the colloquial term for them. It just seems disingenuous to call them that when their version of "search engine" is space-age while everyone else is palaeolithic era.

I thought it would spark an interesting discussion...

<comment><USER11> I'll vote for "contextual ad engine". I suspect the r&d dollars are mostly spent there now that there's little incentive to improve the organic results.

My definition of ad is broader than Google's though. I would include all their various widgets that are displacing organic search.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _Say goodbye to Google: 14 alternative search engines_ is 3rd :)

</comment><comment><USER25> Duck duck go appears first.</comment>


Greater Cholesterol lowering increases the risk of death - <AUTHOR> https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2016/04/13/greater-cholesterol-lowering-increases-the-risk-of-death/ <comment><USER2> I give up. I was already in a sort of analysis paralysis based on food, but it seriously _feels_ like every year or two some aspect of our understanding of our health is not just shown to be possibly wrong, but _reversed_ from what was previously thought.

Is that just me?</comment>


Ask HN: Has San Francisco become a toxic place to work? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I'd say San Francisco is in, at least, their 3rd decade of being a toxic career home. Moved there in '93 and left within 9 months, as every tech company was abusive and managed by alpha personality, politically motivated yet drifting nincompoops. I was an OS developer for the unreleased 3DO, in the midst of high competition for developers like myself. The atmosphere in SF was so out of control, I went to Japan and Sony for some order.</comment>


Nginx-1.10.0 - <AUTHOR> http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-announce/2016/000175.html <comment><USER2> Seems like just 1.9.15 renamed for the branch?

[http://nginx.org/en/CHANGES-1.10](http://nginx.org/en/CHANGES-1.10)

<comment><USER3> 1.9.x was the development (aka "mainline") branch and 1.8.x was "stable". Odd- numbered releases directly become the next stable. See the graphic here:

[https://www.nginx.com/blog/nginx-1-10-1-11-released/](https://www.nginx.com/blog/nginx-1-10-1-11-released/)</comment></comment>


375 Million pageviews for $15 a month - <AUTHOR> http://hubcitylabs.org/375-million-pageviews-for-15-a-month/

<comment><USER2> Alternate title: Varnish can serve 375m pageviews/mo on a mostly-static site on an EC2 micro instance.

It's true, but I guess most people here know that.

<comment><USER3> Also worth mentioning that there should be another $40 worth of data fees from amazon.

375000000.0 / 1024. / 1024. * $0.12 = $42.91

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In short, if your site is mostly or entirely static after the initial creation of a page, setup Varnish (or similar reverse proxy / web accelerator) to cache and serve your pages at a timeout rate you find acceptable.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a more in-depth article with almost the exact same information that was previously on HN a few months ago.

[http://www.ewanleith.com/blog/900/10-million-hits-a-day- with...](http://www.ewanleith.com/blog/900/10-million-hits-a-day-with- wordpress-using-a-15-server)

</comment><comment><USER6> Of course the bandwidth bill will be a bit more than $15 for 375MM pageviews.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a _pretty_ fluffy article, and a pretty linkbaity title.

500,000 pageviews/hr does NOT equal 375 Million pageviews/month. Traffic comes in bursts, and has peaks and valleys.

<comment><USER8> Exactly. I am guessing you would need at least 4 - 5 times the pageview/hr to handle a website with 375 Million PV/M load.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> People forget how much we did with servers that had less horsepower than that ten years ago. Computers these days are really powerful.

<comment><USER10> I agree. I think there's a balance between just throwing hardware at a problem versus trying to squeeze every bit of juice out of every box. I'm cheap as hell and actually like a bit of ops, so I'm more towards the squeezing side.

I've seen people install 4-6 webservers where 2 would have easily handled the load because they didn't want to optimize. I realize it's a viable strategy, but it makes me cringe...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Honest questions: Don't Micro instances get throttled under sustained demand? And aren't they lowest priority on the host?

<comment><USER12> I think what gets throttled is the CPU, so if your instance isn't consuming too much CPU then you're fine. I believe that because he's using Varnish and a cache plugin he's not hitting the DB often, thus serving static content most of the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's funny that I'm seeing this today, since just yesterday I was reading about varnish. I've been given the task of scaling up my first big Wordpress site for a client, which has been running pretty slowly -- it's been getting about 3 million uniques per month. I'm thinking the nginx-varnish setup described in the article that appeared on HN a few months ago (linked to elsewhere in this thread) may be the best way to go, along with throwing some more hardware at it. Does anybody have any additional thoughts about this process for a noob like me?

</comment><comment><USER14> Seeing this (supporting over 10 million hits a day on an Amazon EC2 micro instance), it makes less and less sense to host a site entirely on Amazon S3.

<comment><USER15> It depends heavily on your needs. Some top-of-my-head pros/cons:

EC2 Pros:

* Cheaper

* Easier to handle infrequently-updated content

* (Possibly) a simpler application pipeline

EC2 Cons:

* Have to administer a server

* Not durable, have to handle backups

* Worse availability (S3 goes down _far_ less frequently than servers)

That said, if I'm reading it right 10M hits/day on S3 will cost you $100/day ( _edit_ : as aidos noted, I'm high by a factor of 10 here) in _hits alone_ , so the price difference here obviously is not small.

<comment><USER16> I think you're a multiple out - it'll cost you $10 / day; still not to be sniffed at if you're trying to keep costs down. You pay the same for bandwidth with either solution.

We used s3 for a flash sale that even big boxes (with varnish) couldn't cope with. In our testing s3 didn't even blink (35,000 req/second). Real severs can't come close to that for the same price.

<comment><USER15> Indeed I am, that's what I get for envelope math.

I think there's a price/performance sweet spot where a small server with something like varnish makes a lot of sense. Move outside of it in terms of hits/day or acceptable cost/hit and S3 gets a lot more attractive, especially when you can slap CloudFront in front of it so easily.

Actually, looking at the CloudFront pricing, unless you plan on doing a _lot_ of cache invalidations it comes out much cheaper than S3.

<comment><USER16> Cloudfront in front of ec2 would be cheaper (you'd potentially pay a lot to have it in front of s3). Also, we discovered the hard way that cloudfront is nowhere near as resilient as s3 under load (and if you need to do a cache invalidation you are pretty much screwed).

<comment><USER15> Can you expand on the resiliency of cloudfront? We've had great success after switching to it for hosting of map tiles, but possibly haven't pushed it hard enough yet. (I pushed it hard, but defining "enough" is very, very tricky)

Cloudfront in front of S3 isn't particularly expensive. Invalidations aside they're billed the same way and you're paying less per bit|request.

Invalidations, however, _are_ a bitch. We've had a couple of times that we put up a map, found a problem with it, then decided to wait out the CF cache rather than pay for a bajillion invalidations.

<comment><USER16> I have to be honest, I can't remember how much load we tried putting on cloudfront during our testing. We may have just assumed that as cf is a regular cdn and s3 is a big one of a kind data store, s3 was going to be more resilient. We did load test s3 and it scaled linearly (with some caveats).

For our use case (a single huge burst of requests) we were willing to drop all caching and pay the additional money. It was absolutely worth it (and under non-sustained load it didn't cost much).

We actually used s3 as a sort of cache in front of realtime data. So the client js was accessing objects on s3 that were being refreshed every second. It worked incredibly well where other things (like gae, who disabled our account under load) had failed us in the past.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> We should sell this bumper sticker: DISQUS, doing the hard work so you can scale your static site.</comment>


CS graduate, no knowledge, 50K in debt.  Any advice is appreciated. - <AUTHOR> Hello everyone, I apologize ahead of time to the community, but this is a throw away account, maybe.  And I promise you that this is not a joke.
I'm a college graduate with a BS in computer science from a decent university.  I'm 50K in debt, and have almost no experience/knowledge.  I have some working experience and am currently working a very basic job.  Not much to it, though it is related to programming, and definitely has potential.
Long story short I just had an epiphany/life crisis.  I realized that I didn't really do anything with my life thus far, and I would like to change that starting right now.  I'm a farley sharp person.  I'm not saying that I'm at the level of a genius, but I can assure you I have more capabilities than I currently present to anyone, including my employer.
I have made it a point to try and make myself the best I can be, starting right now.  Not 'the best', but the best I can possibly be.  Already admitting to not knowing much, I'm here to request some guidance.  If you are here to only remind me of how big of a failure I am, please keep your peace.  Thank you.
I'm here to ask you, because I know that most of you here are very sharp and amazingly accomplished, so please treat me like a college freshman and advise me. I would like for you to show me a few routes that would potentially spark an interest in me.  I find programming very amazing, but due to procrastination and basically wasting my life, I really don't know much at all.  Treat me like a 60 year old who just heard about computers (though I pray to God that I know at least a bit more than that). I am definitely interested in programming, but I have not found something to be passionate about.  And we all know passion can move mountains.
Please advise me on where to begin, what to read, and how to learn.  I believe that to be a programmer one must think in a certain way and I'm hoping that I can work and build myself to think that way.  Maybe this piece of information would help; I'm a visual learner. Also, please advise me on how I can begin to impress my employer and prove to them that I am a capable employee.  Any advice is greatly appreciate.  I appologize for making this a long post, but I've for once been sincere about this, I would appreciate it if you would do the same.
Thank you,
EDIT: Thanks to gsivil! I really just did enough to pass classes.  So most of my college is just a blur, but I do recall finding Operating Systems very interesting. Looking at my bookshelf nothing makes me want to run to it, but I've always been fond of C++, Java, and Python.  Not because I've worked with them a lot, but because I've seen them do amazing things. Please ask me for any kind of information, I will continue to add them here or below your post.
Thank you for being so kind. <comment><USER2> Pick something small and write it. A firefox extension? An iphone app? A website that randomly picks toppings for nachos? Some task with an Arduino, since you are interested in hardware?

Just work on it until you're satisfied with it, or come up with a better idea to hack on.

<comment><USER3> This is a good advice but I would have said:

Just work on it until it's finish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "I can assure you I have more capabilities than I currently present to anyone, including my employer"

"please advise me on how I can begin to impress my employer and prove to them that I am a capable employee".....

You have the answer right within your text.... present more to your employer (more of the stuff you have that he/she cant see now..) Go the extra mile in all tasks.

</comment><comment><USER5> What's your MBTI (Myers-Briggs) type? It can be of help in finding the kind of work that's suitable for you.

Something else, don't rely on a job for experience. Most programming jobs (specially if they're boring) sap away your experience instead of enriching it; they make you a worse programmer than what you already are or what you could've been.

</comment><comment><USER6> I wish you the best. Since you already have a degree in CS and you like computing you could be a little bit more specific on the topics and courses that you relatively enjoyed. This could possibly help the HNers to give you solid and useful advice.

</comment><comment><USER7> I hope it was sex, drugs and rock-n-roll that had you so detached from your classes. I'm finding it difficult to reconcile your claim of being rather sharp and then having such a foggy notion of what your classes were about.

Couple of questions: How do you learn best? Reading, tinkering and learning, being shown how to? What are you passionate about? - I mean outside of programming, perhaps connected to the opening comment. Have you become self- motivated? or still need a mentor to guide you?

I think if answer the above questions you might discover a path forwards. If you share the answers with us on HN, then people might be able to chip in with suggestions.

<comment><AUTHOR> it was mostly trying to manage paying for as much as i could on my own. My parents made enough for me not to be eligible for FA, but not enough to pay my tuition.

I pick up the fastest when I'm shown, but that doesn't really teach me much, it only shows me how to do that one specific thing, so I usually learn by practicing over and over, until I'm comfortable it.

I'd like to be successful, not sure if I'm passionate about it, or just afraid of ending up a middle-aged guy with no future. I have become motivated to do something, but unfortunately I still don't what direction to point this energy towards. I hope that made sense. Please feel free to ask as much as you'd like, after all, you guys are the ones offering to guide me.

<comment><USER7> Most people will tell you that you can't be passionate about being successful (whatever that means) nor about being happy. Passions are like: real-estate (Donald Trump), sports and media (Ted Turner), human rights (Nelson Mandela), the ecology (David Suzuki). I'm passionate about finding ways of using IT more effectively and in ways to reduce our impact on our environment. Some people are into flying, teaching, healing, etc, etc.

Now, it's our turn: What are you passionate - or at least very interested in?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The most important thing is to put yourself in a context that stimulates your growth. Some examples: [1] start hanging out at a hacker space, [2] find a friendly university research lab (this is what I do), [3] find a company that is willing to train you, [4] dive into Ruby/Python/Lisp/... and start hanging out with the club in your area.

Just being in the presence of other people who are working in your field will inspire you, show you how to act and what to do, and lead to opportunities that you can't imagine in advance.

You need to learn how to learn how to be a programmer (or whatever else you want to be).

</comment><comment><USER9> Most open source projects are always short on contributors. Pick a project thats of interest to you and start contributing documentation, patches, tests etc. Be open to review feedback for existing project devs. You will lean a lot and have fun in the process.

What to read would be related to what project interests you. If the project needs C, read up on that. If it needs Python/Perl/Ruby read up on that. Something like 'The Art of Unix Programming' (<http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/>) is always useful.

Good luck :-)

</comment><comment><USER10> I would say: before forcing yourself into a profession or into activities that you _think_ are good for you, try to find out what you actually _like_ doing.

Nothing is as devastating as having a job that you're not enthusiastic about and, vice versa, it seems that people are usually more motivated to achieve success when they're doing something they like.

You've graduated in CS, but perhaps you should look beyond the computer related stuff?

</comment><comment><USER11> Have you tried applying to tech consultancies ? - they often hire non-CS graduates and teach them programming from the ground up.

<comment><USER12> Can you name some companies that I can look into for more info in NYC area?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Tell us about a couple of projects you did that meant something to you.

<comment><AUTHOR> I enjoyed my OS class working with semaphores, shared memory, and some process scheduling was fun.

I wish I had a chance to take a class that took me deep into computer hardware, but unfortunately my curriculum didn't have any hardware focus at all...</comment></comment>


What's in a name? The need to nip NIPS - <AUTHOR> https://www.dropbox.com/s/sv9qcfnv42zbmib/CRACT_2018_paper_35.pdf?dl=0 <comment><USER2> Thanks for posting. Looks like hysteria to me, but I'm glad to know what happened.</comment>