Meta unveils next version of augmented reality glasses for $3k  - <AUTHOR> https://www.spaceglasses.com/ <comment><USER2> I'm writing a middlebrow (lowbrow, really) dismissal because this actually deserves it. This is... shamelessly phony. "Your laptop is now a hologram"?[1] Do I have to 3D scan my laptop in? Are they going to mind-upload my Intel CPU to the cloud while they're at it?

Your use-case for AR is a ghostly 5FPS replica of my laptop or phone that I can vaguely gesture at? Tracing in the air to lathe a rocket hull will bring me closer to the world? Meta has access to non-rendered pages of app icons inside the iOS sandbox? "ROCKET COMPLETED"? "500+ Meta Applications in development"?

They say this is real footage, and have a big red "BUY NOW" button. What target audience is this supposed to convince?

[1] [http://i.imgur.com/unxD96I.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/unxD96I.jpg)

<comment><USER3> Is that pocket computer required? If so, seems strange to access your virtual phone through a phone-sized pocket computer. I can appreciate that virtual screens will eventually be a selling point, but not maintaining the idea of a virtual phone and laptop.

I found this early demo based on the Oculus Rift to be a bit more promising, even though it's currently far, far rougher: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc_TCLoH2CA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc_TCLoH2CA)

<comment><USER4> do you suppose your proprioception might get out of whack if it's even slightly miscalibrated?

<comment><USER2> I believe proprioception is resilient to minor offsets or miscalibration, as I've seen such illusions at science exhibits--false hands that you're tricked into thinking is your own. And the STEM system (absolute body position tracking) apparently is high-precision.

It's more likely that immersion will be broken by perceptible latency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> AR stereoscopic see-through displays are complex, difficult tech. This has nothing to do with Google Glass which is closer to being an aside information display. Sony has the most IPR and expertise in the field when it comes to displays that create a 3D augmented experience for both eyes. They have examined this field for ages and had a hard time to discover application fields. Meta hopefully cracks this nut and delivers a development program that brings stereoscopic AR to the next level. But as someone who managed an AR portable display team in this field for VF, I see it as a steep challenge.

<comment><USER6> Curious to know more about what Sony's doing.

If the price drops enough: Dennō Coil.

<comment><USER7> Glad to see someone else here has seen Dennou Coil - IMO it should be required viewing for anyone interested in AR! It's not perfect, but has some fascinating ideas about where AR could go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm sorry to have to say it here on HN, but this wannabe apple.com spin-shit- in-3d-when-you-scroll crap is completely unusable.

I'm on a Retina 15" MBP – a laptop that their target demographic will be using – and I can barely make it through the site to try to piece together information about their product.

Am I supposed to scrounge up an external mouse with a scroll wheel and be impressed by the CSS3 transitions? I'm seeing this more and more and I'm really confused how something like this makes it through QA.

<comment><USER9> The site is remarkable, but undoes so much of its developers' hard work through its sluggishness. My maxed-out Haswell 15" hit 9fps during rapid scrolling in Chrome (FPS counted by dev tools).

Hopefully they're less tolerant of poor framerates in their actual product, which sounds very exciting.

<comment><USER10> I fear for the people who use these devices in production. IIRC, over-eye VR displays cause nausea even with a relatively low latency (~20 ms[citation needed]), which was one of the reasons why Glass went for the "above the field of view and on one eye" approach. I'm not even sure if it's possible for consumer hardware available today to process/draw fast enough to make users not nauseous, wearable form factor or otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't usually get angry just from seeing a product promo. But, this has done it. Note that the glasses are stationary for all but one shot where the movement is slow and linear and it still shows tracking error. If it's not ready, it's not ready. They should have kept their reputation in tact and tried again in a few years rather than trying to sell a bad prototype under a false banner.

My attention is directed toward the Oculus Rift. I own the dev kit and have been following Oculus VR closely. Save your VR/AR gadget money for their consumer release if you want something that lives up to the hype and delivers on its promises.

</comment><comment><USER12> Didn't their website used to say shipping November 2013? What happened to the people who ordered with that promise?

Anyways, that was a crazy ship date they were never going to meet, even if their CAD had been completely 100% finalized and locked, it would have taken them that long just to make the tooling, let alone manufacture a run of parts. Maybe next time they hire 25 people at least one of them should know manufacturing.

</comment><comment><USER13> Pre-order now, aka fund us, because all we have is an idea and some Tony Stark marketing videos.

<comment><USER14> META is a Y-combinator backed company and they have a team of 25 people working on this and have already shown prototypes to many major tech sites.

<comment><USER13> So that makes it okay to show a product so-far-bluffed that it will never exist? Get real. The video is the antithesis of honest marketing, it's pure hype.

<comment><USER14> No it means they probably aren't looking for crowd-funding via pre-orders as you suggested and they do have more an idea, a working prototype regardless of how bad it may be is more than an idea.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, what happened to the units that were supposed to ship in November 2013? If you are shipping something almost a year late, you've borrowed those persons' money incredulously. It's in their right to file a class action lawsuit for that kind of false marketing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This pitch struggles more than usual communicating "why" I need this product.

Apple's genius in their early iphone commercials was showing the product as it was seamlessly integrated into our daily lives.(1)

Email, video, maps, real internet on the go. As soon as you saw the commercial you knew you were going to buy one because you knew how it would benefit you.

I have yet to have that sort of connection with any sort of wearable AR device.

(1) [http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4acWkNihaxc](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4acWkNihaxc)

<comment><USER16> How about: your studio apartment feels like a mansion, your hellion offspring seem like perfect angels, and your car always looks (to you) as if it's just been detailed?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice to see that they've got Steve Mann onboard. That inspires a lot more confidence than flashy marketing videos.

<comment><USER18> Agreed, it would have been better to have the chief scientist discuss the core technologies, design and potential applications than watch an Elon Musk/Tony Stark ripoff drive his Tesla-S home to his sweet pad and knob around with a CAD model of a rocket via a seemingly non-intuitive interface.

If the device was only a few hundred dollars to purchase then the marketing video might have had some merit. But at 3k, you're selling to people who want to know how it really performs, and what technical trickery Mann might have introduced to make it an exciting human-machine interface.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Maybe someone here can answer this. Do founders of important technologies generally have a good idea of the primary use case(s) for their product? Seems silly to ask, but I posed this very question to Meta, and their answer was essentially that they are going to "let their users decide that." Three use cases were listed off, but I didn't find them particularly impressive. What should be made of this?

I ask because it seems contrary to the importance of solving a problem. With SpaceGlasses, the users run around deciding how the product can enrich their lives. Seems pretty odd.

I've found that with lots of successful tech products, I've been able to pretty quickly see the how I could use it in my everyday life. The iPhone is the classic example, but even search, email, Facebook. I don't really see that here. I'm pretty young though, so my experience is really limited. Also, I realize my personal experience doesn't make for a very strong argument. Still, it's a pretty terrible pitch.

</comment><comment><USER20> Are there videos of actual first-person (recorded by camera) demos? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the video was all graphic editing and thus not representative of the device itself. If I were to shell out $3K I'd want to see actual product demonstrations, which I can't seem to find.

<comment><USER21> It says right before the demo part that those views were filmed through the glasses using this [http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcin...](http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera) and not cgi.

<comment><USER22> May I interest you in some swampland in Florida?

<comment><USER21> If you were going to fake it you'd have less fuzzy washed out images and you'd probably lower the lag quite a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > 1280x720 pixels for both displays

Does this mean 1280x720 for _each_ display, or combined? That's a bit vague. Still, this is quite neat; the resolution was what made me not back their first Kickstarter. Maybe this is worth throwing a couple grand into, to see what comes out.

<comment><USER24> And at what pixel density? I'd like to know what happens if I take the entire contents of my 1920x1080 desktop and project it say...4 feet away. Does it look like crap or not? For some reason in all of their promo material I can't see a normal looking desktop projected.

They're going to have to show much less marketing hype and much more practical use. Especially for a $3000 pre-order.

<comment><USER25> Well, if it's 1280x720 for your whole field of view, so any reasonable size rectangle 4 feet away will be a fraction of that resolution - so, forget about readable text or such.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Only demo I could find...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rj9nMJq1Vk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rj9nMJq1Vk)

</comment><comment><USER27> "Mirror All Your Devices" is just plain stupid. Skeuomorphism in the next generation.

</comment><comment><USER28> I do not believe that people in general will be interested in having permanent digital displays attached directly over their field of vision. Maybe specialists. Doctors. Mechanics. People who have their hands full but still need to access informational resources. But for general use, they're just too distancing. And intimidating, frankly.

(Don't get me wrong -- they look cool and I'd love to try it out. And there might be a business, here. But it reminds me of the Segway: Touted as the revolutionizer of cities, but in the end something with limited utility once the hype-wave settled.)

<comment><USER3> Given high enough resolution and light enough hardware, I can see it happening. Many already drive or walk outside wearing sunglasses, or wear glasses for reading. A pair of very light-weight goggles that could switch quickly from fully opaque display to translucent overlay to what appeared to be standard vision (but was replicated by cameras) could be useful.

Add in ear buds that can open a valve (rather than be removed) and you could do all sorts of things. Virtually furnished rooms, watching virtual displays in any position, any angle, etc. TVs and monitors could well become obsolete if the resolution is enough to simulate them.

I wonder if it would even be possible to set your goggles to show other wearers in your home and office as though they weren't wearing theirs, even if they were. Some sort of internal eye-tracking could potentially simulate their eyes realistically enough if the uncanny valley could be surpassed.

<comment><USER29> I don't doubt the hardware can exist and work well. The question is what is it for?

Okay, I have a display on my head that is aware of the world around me, with perfect latency and extreme accuracy (still two of the biggest unsolved problems, but let's assume).

I'm walking around on the street. What would this thing be doing? I'm cooking dinner. What would it be showing me? I'm hanging out with my friends. What would...?

There are certainly a lot of niche, professional uses: technicians and engineers can get information hands-free while on all fours or strung up on a high pole. Realtors can use it to show prospective tenants virtual layouts (as you brought up). Professional drivers can use it to get dispatches without taking their eyes off the road.

None of this particularly compels the everyman to wear one regularly. What does it do for the average joe, in their average joe lives?

<comment><USER3> I don't know that people would wear them all the time, but in a kitchen you could have a recipe HUD or a virtual screen somewhere within glancing distance for watching news/TV/doco without needing to have a physical screen taking up space in your kitchen.

Watching TV while lying in bed or anywhere.

When driving, traffic alerts or directions overlaid on the road in a way that wasn't too distracting. Shop numbers superimposed on the road so you needn't study signs for inconsistent numbering.

Gaming applications are obvious and will be an early driver.

Until they're available as contact lenses, I don't think people would wear them all day, but certainly multiple times per day once they're streamlined and improved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The price is steep but Steve Mann ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann)) is there chief scientist. I think if anyone we can trust about AR, Steve Mann is the guy. He's wearing those glasses before it was cool. He got a lot of experience, and troubles with those glasses (see "steve mann mcdonalds"). He really know what he's doing.

</comment><comment><USER31> I dont think they are doing themselves a favor with a bullshit marketing video like this. They seem to have a great team but all we have seen from Meta other than pre-rendered marketing videos has been a bit rough, to put mildly. Example [1]

Id love my virtual AR 70 inch high res computer display though, so i hope they succeed ;)

[1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWPdAhhUWD0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWPdAhhUWD0)

</comment><comment><USER32> sweet. i can't wait to use these things in my $20M mansion in the hollywood hills to design rocket engines

<comment><USER3> It's funny you should say that because very, very advanced AR goggles could probably furnish a stark house in a virtual way to be as luxurious as you wanted. You could put virtual objet d'art on real or virtual shelves. You could admire a virtual view that simulated the vista from the Hollywood Hills, etc.

(I otherwise share your disdain for the rocket engine ra-ra on their sales site.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This seems cool if you want to hold your hands in front of you and spin things around in virtual 3D.

Personally I could do without all that - I just want a really nice looking virtual 2D screen projected in front of me so I can finally ditch my fixed-in- place monitor.

</comment><comment><USER33> Visionary, but seemingly impractical. Any way of seeing videos of real use that isn't spinning rockets around? Not trying to be condescending, but that seems more marketing than reflective of what people can/will use Meta for.

</comment><comment><USER34> Impressively flashy, and nice that it comes with a very flat pocketable computer, but that aside I'm much more excited about CastAR ([http://technicalillusions.com/](http://technicalillusions.com/) , [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/technicalillusions/casta...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/technicalillusions/castar- the-most-versatile-ar-and-vr-system) ). HDMI input, camera, sensors, and a nice RFID system for taggable physical objects and mats.

</comment><comment><USER35> Is this tech for tech sake that just drains the pockets of early adopters... Not being snarky, just trying to understand what it solves, ultimately who is the customer of these types of device?

</comment><comment><USER36> As an aerospace engineer I laughed so hard at Rocket Completed. What exactly is your market? I am confused on why I would use your system to combined two parts to create my rocket assembly.

</comment><comment><USER37> The chat box is incredibly obnoxious, as is the big red "BUY NOW" button right on top of the video I am trying to watch in order to _learn about your product_.

The site feels desperate for sales. Preventing the chat box from continuously popping up and killing the "BUY NOW" video overlays would be a big help.

</comment><comment><USER38> That chat pop up on the site is super weird. I mean I knew those things existed, but still.

</comment><comment><USER39> Easily 5x as useful as Google Glass. Though, still not that useful.

</comment><comment><USER40> Anyone else bothered by calling stereography "a hologram" or is it just me?

</comment><comment><USER41> This technology will change the world.

But not at that price point.

And not with that pitch.

</comment><comment><USER42> How programmable is this?

</comment><comment><USER43> this is so retro</comment>


YC B1 visa letter for participation - <AUTHOR> I read that YC writes a B1 visa letter for participation in YC. What does the letter say? <comment><USER2> We needed this letter for a founder who didn't have a VISA before we're invited...

It's very simple and brief, one page, just says my co-founder was invited to an interview for funding, says when the interview will take place, says the request is urgent and explains what YC does and has the partner contact info for questions.

Hope you are not trying to forge one! They will be really quick to issue one if you need it (for legit reasons).

</comment><comment><USER3> Hi. I can't speak to the specifics of the YC letter, but in general, a B1 visa letter should contain the following 3 elements. The letter should emphasize throughout, that the applicant won't receive any payment from a US source (except expenses), and won't perform any work in the US.

1\. A STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE OF THE VISIT, WITH A DETAILED US ITINERARY. The B1 rules contain a list of acceptable B1 visitor activities. These include the following: "Participation in professional conferences" and "Observing the conduct of US business or professional activity." The letter should be framed to fit the "purpose of your visit" into one or both of these categories.

This part should also include the following: Specific, definite, and realistic plans for the entire period of the visit. A US travel itinerary listing dates, locations, and where you will stay.

2\. PROOF OF YOUR INTENTION TO DEPART THE US, PLUS EVIDENCE OF TIES ABROAD. This section explains your specific plan for departure from the United States. Examples: I have a round-trip ticket for departure from the US on X date. I am required to speak at a conference in home country on Y date.

This part also lists your personal and business ties to your home country, as proof of your intention to depart the US. Examples include: Family home with spouse and children; spouse's employment and children's school enrollment. Deeds or titles to real property, vehicles, other valuable assets. Leases. Meaningful business or financial connections. Permanent employment or career. Job offer. Extended family ties. Community, social, or cultural associations.

3\. FINANCIAL RESOURCES. A detailed explanation of why you won't need to work, or seek public assistance, during your visit to the United States, with a specific list of assets. Examples might include: A statement from the accelerator of what travel and lodging expenses they are paying. Your bank statements showing personal assets. A relative's letter stating that all financial support will be provided.

The B1 letter should have all the listed evidentiary items attached to it, such as invitation and schedule for accelerator program, travel and lodging itinerary, round-trip ticket, future commitments abroad, ties to home country such as deeds / assets / family connections, and proof of financial resources.

IAAL but this isn't legal advice. HTH</comment>


using nick names on NYC (news.ycombinator.com) ?  - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> We were having an interesting discussion some time back. Whether one should be using nick that involves his/her product name while posting on nyc?

Initially it occured that - using nicks is a good way to associate identity, but later on realized that it might actually be counter productive. Because to anyone it smells of "stealth marketting". Though that was not the original intention of using the nick, its just to o obvious to be believed otherwise.

We thought it'd be a good idea what others think of it?</comment>


Commuting by bike – tips and tricks - <AUTHOR> https://www.kensodev.com/posts/2018/11/13/bike-commuting-in-the-bay-area---tips/tricks-and-more/?new <comment><USER3> Very key piece of meta-advice:

 _The secret to persist with commuting on the bike is to remove friction as much as possible._

Lots of greats suggestions here. I would add a few more points. For me the biggest thing making me pick my car in the morning was thinking "But what if I want to...." Over time I chipped away at the "what ifs" by figuring out how to secure my bike, where I could get coffee before work and a beer after, where to pick up groceries on the way home, and how I could freshen up at work if I needed to. So:

\- Keep a stash of wet wipes (the big ones made for camping), deodorant, and a fresh shirt at work in case you have an unexpectedly hot day or an unexpected 9am meeting with a client. \- Learn how to secure your bike, and always carry your lock(s). Then you'll always be able to grab some groceries or have a drink with someone after work. \- Get familiar with the amenities that matter to you on or close to your route. If you're a coffee fiend and run out of coffee in the morning, you'll want to make a detour. \- Buy a bigger bag than you strictly need. Riding with a half-empty bag in the morning is the only way you have the freedom to buy groceries or dinner on the way home.

<comment><USER4> I find it strange to give this advice, then provide 3 alternate example routes that add a mile or more of climb to the ride. Gravity isn't friction, per se, but it does pack a wallop all the same, especially if sweat or fatigue (or injury) is a concern.

Are these roads safer or prettier or something that I'm missing from the map?

<comment><USER5> Note the author isn't just a commuter, but a somewhat serious competitive cyclist. For cyclists, fighting against gravity is fun, or at least feels rewarding; fighting against friction or wind is not. I don't know exactly why - both simply require more effort - but everyone would agree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A couple things to add about lights at night:

1\. Don't use a blinking light (front or rear) as your sole light. A blinking light is bad for driver depth perception, they'll be able to see that you're there somewhere, but it will be hard for them to localize exactly where you are and how far away you are - use at least one steady light.

2\. At night, more lumens is not always better. You may think that when it comes to lights, brighter is better, but you really don't need that 1000+ lumen light in the front or that "Can be seen for 5 miles" eye searing taillight for most road riding.

Most bike lights have terrible beam patterns -- sending as much light above the road and into driver's eyes as they do down at the road where you need it. So while _you_ may be able to see, you're blinding everyone else. And because this pattern lights up the road just in front of you more than farther away, you're making it harder to see people and objects farther away.

I _highly_ recommend an StVZO approved (German bike regulation) head light -- it will have a beam pattern with a sharp cutoff so you can illuminate the road without blinding other riders and drivers. Busch and Muller makes some great lights with this beam pattern.

In the daytime, however, feel free to go with bright and flashing.

<comment><USER7> > I highly recommend an StVZO approved (German bike regulation) head light

While I find the idea behind StVZO sound, if you only shop StVZO approved lights you are at a stroke eliminating a lot of extremely good quality lights at pretty much all price points. Even among really high-end bike light brands (Exposure etc), often only a limited subset of their range has received this certification.

Much of the issues with blinding other riders and drivers can be mitigated almost entirely by setting the light at a sensible angle on your handlebars, if it even is an issue for the light you have.

> Most bike lights have terrible beam patterns

This really isn't true of good lights from reputable companies, and hasn't been for a while. A no-name bikelight from Amazon for 5 bucks might differ.

> but you really don't need that 1000+ lumen light in the front or that "Can > be seen for 5 miles" eye searing taillight for most road riding.

This entirely depends on one's needs, but if you cycle anywhere that has zero street lighting, such as backroads at night, 800-1000 lumen lights are the _dimmest_ I would consider. Especially on a roadbike at ~20MPH, you absolutely need that level of brightness in pitch black to ride with similar confidence to daytime. For in city use, I absolutely agree though. There is a difference between lights for being seen by others, and lights that allow you to see in pitch black environments.

If you are struggling to pick a light, I really like the road.cc light comparison tool, which allows you to compare the actual beams.

[https://lights.road.cc/](https://lights.road.cc/)

<comment><USER6> That comparison tool illustrates the problem.

Look at the beam from the ~150UKP Cateye or Niterider (not cheap lights), see how the man standing ~10m away is perfectly lit up, bright as day? That means he's got the full beam in his eyes. As would an incoming cyclist or motorist

Compare to the B&M IXON series beam, see how even 45 meters away, the beam cutoff is so sharp that someone standing down there would have their head above the beam cutoff.

[https://www.bumm.de/en/products/dynamo- scheinwerfer/produkt/...](https://www.bumm.de/en/products/dynamo- scheinwerfer/produkt/1752qtsndi.html)

The main LED points backwards on those lights so not only do they have better control over beam pattern, but there's no incidental light coming direct from the LED -- the entire beam leaving the light is shaped by the reflector.

<comment><USER7> The man In question is wearing a high visibility reflective jacket almost directly in front of the bike, it's little surprise the vast majority of bike lights will cause this to illuminate.

I still think this is a much more effective tool to pick a bike light than a still relatively niche German regulation. It's not perfect either, but it's the least worst approach I've seen.

<comment><USER6> His face is fully illuminated:

[https://lights.road.cc/beams/201817.jpg](https://lights.road.cc/beams/201817.jpg)

Which means the main beam is shining in his eyes.

The point of buying a StVZO light is not that it meets some arbitrary regulation, it's that such lights are certified to have a sharp beam cutoff that can be aimed to avoid unnecessary glare in oncoming cyclist eyes.

[https://pwoptics.weebly.com/model-2025.html](https://pwoptics.weebly.com/model-2025.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Mostly good tips for someone considering cycle commuting, but I'm disappointed in the "Dress for the Occasion" section. It's easy to ride in jeans and a t-shirt, there is no _need_ for special bike clothes. I've seen this as a barrier to entry so many times in the U.S. Just check out a city like Copenhagen and count how many cyclist are wearing full kit (almost none).

There is some extra comfort in wearing bike specific clothing on longer rides, but don't let that prevent you from getting started.

<comment><USER9> Totally agree, as an avid cyclist and commuter in SF. Check his commute, 60mi/6,000ft days are fun, and a hell of a workout! ;) Definitely he's wearing a kit for a reason!

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you seen this: [http://www.sf2g.com/](http://www.sf2g.com/)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The whole no shower aspect isn't practical if you're riding for an hour plus and climbing like OP does. There's no way to avoid showing up a sweaty mess and baby wipes just won't cut it.

Does anyone have recommendations for bike pants that aren't cycling pants? I only have a ~25 minute ride to work that's pretty simple and urban, but I've ruined several pairs of pants with even mundane, simple cycling. I don't want to buy a bike jersey and spandex... so pants that I could also wear at work would be a welcome recommendation!

<comment><USER6> In the bay area, it's still possible to ride to work for a significant distance without a shower.

I used to have a 12 mile commute that took nearly an hour - It's almost always cool in the morning, and I'd ride slow for the last mile or so to minimize sweating, then change into my regular clothes at the office. No shower or wipedown required. On the way home I'd typically just wear my regular clothes.

I don't know how you're ruining your pants, but if it's bike grease or getting your pant legs sucked into the chain, a simple ankle strap will let you avoid that. By using a drive wax lube (I use White Lightning, but there are others), that also minimizes the dirt transfer if your pant leg does brush against the chain or chainring.

<comment><USER10> It's mostly holes in the inseams, nothing to do with chain issues since I roll up my pant legs as necessary.

Sure, it's possible, but highly dependent on your route and time in the saddle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wear fully covering gloves no matter what. Even in summer.

Because if you have a bad accident they can keep your hands safe.

I was knocked off my bike a few years back. Car pulled out at a junction in front of me.

I went head first into the car but put my hands out to cushion the blow.

Anyway, after the impact, i took my gloves off and the tip of one finger was hanging off. The impact had opened my fingertip and cracked the bone.

The paramedics who came to treated me told me the gloves had probably saved my hand and finger. They'd lessened the severity of the impact of my hand into the car.

The paramedics also told me the gloves had stopped the open wound getting filled the dirt and debris.

I had to have an operation to clean the wound and re-attach my fingertip. The surgeon said the process was much simpler because the wound was fairly clean due to me wearing gloves. And the risk of infection and complication should be less too due to the wound being cleaner. The finger healed without any problems (although I do have some scarring on it to this day).

If you're unlucky enough to have a biking accident you will instinctively put your hands out to shield your head and body. Make sure your hand are covered fully as it might save them.

I'll never ever ride a bike without them no matter what. Even if my hands are sweating buckets due to the summer heat. It's not worth the risk.

<comment><USER12> Any recommendations on gloves for summer use? It gets up to 110F/43C in the summer where I live.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've bike-commuted in LA and London, various Chinese cities, and Sydney and cycle toured in many more countries. I would say skip the bike computer - <USER2> just adds theft interest and provides little info a cellphone can't give you ahead of time or after, which is safer than reducing focus on the road. Also I would say figure out what you enjoy and get it in to your routine, for me it is uphill. Right now I don't have to commute because I put my family home and our new office in the same development, but I cycle up the nearby mountain most mornings anyway! This feeds in to the major selling point not mentioned: if you exercise, your brain is super awake and you are more effective at work! Another point I would make is that cycling is very time efficient and does not require synchronization with others, two very strong points for busy entrepreneurs. Finally, be the envy of your buddies and stay late at the bar to get all the girls: just chuck your bike in the back of a cab and you are suddenly not only the healthy work-hard-party-hard but also the sensitive responsible new age guy. Note: does not work for people who are worried about paint chips and scratches. Worked for me, YMMV :)

</comment><comment><USER14> I biked for many years in Boston, MA, and the advice to assume that everyone is out to kill you rings true. I've ridden along and between cars, trucks and buses always assuming they can't see me, and never had any accidents. However, what got me multiple times over time is doors opening suddenly on stopped cars (the last time on a car in a traffic lane idling at a red light, opened by an exiting passenger). So if you're riding in those conditions I think you should assume they are out to get you by suddenly opening doors :-)

It puts a big damper on bike commuting because it means you need to move very slowly along rows of parked cars, as well as stopped traffic.

<comment><USER15> Indeed I've been doored and have had numerous close calls. What got me the first time was a false sense of security from the bike lane painted right alongside street-side parking spaces. With roads that narrow, people may actually be safer without bike lanes, so that they could occupy the entire traffic lane instead.

<comment><AUTHOR> THE most dangerous places are driveways, exits, acceleration lanes. This is where you should assume the person in the car next to you is actively trying to kill you.

When I ride (and it doesn't happen a lot) in a street that has a row of parked cars, I take the full lane and I will never ever put myself in the range or a door. I know too many people that have been doored and crashed really hard.

People reversing (to me) basically go "Here I go, I don't care who's behind me".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Daily Manhattan bike commuter here. You can commute on any bike that rides, but what I find helpful are: Gears, disc brakes, fenders, a rack, pannier, lights, and suitable clothing for cold or rainy weather. My bike came with gears and disc brakes; everything else I've added.

Despite my commute being mostly flat, gears are still quite useful in getting started from the frequent stops on my commute. Disc brakes work better than older alternatives and are especially better in rain. Being able to stop quickly when you need to is very important. Everything else should be explanatory.

I personally wouldn't get any use out of a bike computer or phone handlebar mount. Seems like an unnecessary complication and annoyance.

<comment><USER17> Do you have any recommendations for breathable rain gear? I basically can't use my rain gear unless its below 40 degrees, because I'll be drenched in sweat. I'd rather just change into dry clothes when I get there.

I also second the fenders, if you live somewhere that isn't California, you need fenders if you're going to ride. A seatpost mounted fender is better than nothing, but full coverage fenders with a mudflap will keep your shoes and face dry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As a regular commuter and recreational cyclist in the South Bay, I have to say how impressed I am that he occasionally cycles to work going up route 9. That's a serious climb that takes you up a couple thousand feet over 6ish miles.

One of the reasons I love commuting by bike in this part of the country is how flat my route is. I ride in normal gym shorts during the week, but I always break out my bike shorts for a climb like that. I don't think they're necessary in the majority of bike commuting circumstances.

<comment><AUTHOR> HWY9, Montebello, PageMill, OLH are all valid :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Bicycle commuting is awesome; just remember that vehicle drivers do insane things. Do not assume that a green light by itself means it's safe to cross. Drivers do insane things. After a while, you get a sixth sense of who is going to do what. You go over things in your head a thousand times that will one day save your life. Like, if that truck pulls out in front of you, do you bounce off his broadside and try to roll out of oncoming traffic, or do you cut right and try to get behind his rear wheel instead of underneath it. A few days ago I was waiting to cross a street and two cars blew through a red light at the same time, one of them turned left, and the other car smashed them head on and sent the car spinning right over to where I had been standing. I got out of the way, ditched the bike, and started pulling people out of the cars, fully expecting an explosion or something gruesome inside. Nothing left of the front end of either car, but airbags are a darn miracle. The worst either of them will have to deal with is a few dollars higher premiums. Moral hazard. Watch out.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm a year-round bike commuter in Montreal, which many assume is impossible. There's a great community of cyclists here [1] who post info about ice/snow conditions, road closures, etc. Some tips I'll add for the winter commuters:

1\. Get a face mask/balaclava - ideally one you can raise and lower as your face gets hot and then cold again

2\. Get really good gloves. Your bike will be COLD to grip.

3\. Wear leggings under your clothes. I commute all winter in just jeans/leggings, but my roommate adds a splash guard too. My jeans aren't as clean as his

4\. Layers that you can zip/button. You'd be surprised how hot and sweaty you can get while riding in the winter

5\. Grease any parts on your bike that you don't want to seize -- this includes all nuts/bolts on the brakes and derailleurs, the cables where they enter the housing, the brake/shift levers themselves...

6\. Ideally you have at least somewhere indoors that you can clean your bike well every so often (a location where it's ok to track tons of grimy snow). If not, still clean it/re-lube pretty much weekly

7\. Practice slipping/drifting -- this advice follows for anyone who drives in the winter too. you should know how to handle a vehicle when you lose traction

8\. Learn to plan your routes. Some streets will be more clear of snow than others. Some bike paths close in the winter. You need to know all of this

9\. Know when to walk your bike. I still bring my bike most days, even snowy days! I just walk the bits that I can't ride

[1] [https://www.facebook.com/groups/velodhiver/](https://www.facebook.com/groups/velodhiver/)

</comment><comment><USER21> My tip: check all routes options from the standpoint of a _pedestrian_ rather than a vehicle.

I used to bike from Sunnyvale to Menlo once or twice a week. My boss at the time tipped me off to some pedestrian-bike bridges that made for great off- peak, quiet routes through neighborhoods.

Specific local tips:

There are bike bridges over creeks and major roads alike (e.g. over 280 in Cupertino, over 237 near the Shoreline trail, and from San Antonio Road into Palo Alto (behind Sprouts)).

A long stretch of Bryant Street in Palo Alto is a dedicated bike route, blocked off from auto through-traffic every few blocks.

The only major hassle to cross at street level was Embarcadero.

I always brought extra work clothes the day before and always showered upon arrival at work.

</comment><comment><USER22> Regarding being seen - even if you are lit up like a christmas tree, you should assume no-one can see you, and have an escape plan.

Also, a major gripe I've got in the past couple of years is cyclist with super-bright, epilepsy-inducing flashing lights (which are great for on-road use) who ride with said lights at full-blast on off-road shared (pedestrian+bicycle) paths, thus blinding any oncoming cyclists or pedestrians. Car headlines have regulations to prevent them blinding oncoming traffic, but bicycles do not, and the lights have gotten _much_ cheaper and brighter in the past few years. Pity that consideration of other people isn't such a thing...

<comment><AUTHOR> oh man, I am sorry of behalf of all cyclists.

I always make sure it's on the least brightness for the occasion. Keeping it blinking during the day and constant during the night.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Any tips/sites for biking in certain areas/cities? I just bought a bike to commute in Boston, but part of me is terrified (I got hit by a car in the suburbs a good 10 years ago). For example, my route is from South Boston to Charlestown and there are definitely some hefty roads to cross to get from point A to point B...and it would be great to know if other people ride a route like that and what roads they take/recommend.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. You have two good options

Google maps has a bike option. It gives the safest route it can find

Strava route planning uses other people rides as a source of information. You can also explore activities in your area and see what people are doing.

Good luck and stay safe!

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's nice to see advice for longer commutes, but I am a firm believer that using a consistent route is safer for regular commutes.

Familiarity with the route is essential to understanding how to behave (e.g. when to take a lane or when to switch lanes).

Since motorists typically take the same route while commuting, you know to watch for them and they know to watch for you.

Some routes are also intrinsically safer.

</comment><comment><USER25> I bike-commute year-round in Oregon, which isn't as bad as it sounds. I used to ride a road bike with thin (25) tires but I wiped out (at low speed) early last year and broke my hip!

Now I have a touring bike with disc brakes and wider tires, definitely a good investment. Road bike stays in the garage for weekend rides when it's dry.

</comment><comment><USER26> I love doing the same route every time. You just get into that zone, and then all of a sudden you're home or at work. Been doing it for 7 years straight, and though I've moved homes and work a few times, necessitating a route change, I've never been bored.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sometimes bored between two traffic lights :)

Doing the same route every day didn't work for me, that "automatic" riding is not appealing at all.

If I feel I need to "wash off" a hard day, there's nothing like a hard ride through the mountains to get you home calm and ready to spend time with your family

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > No bag on your back

Just want to reiterate this: a small backpack doesn't seems like it would be problematic, but being free of it really feels like being free. Also, you don't need expensive saddlebags, a bike rack and basket is fine.

The car is the natural predator of the bike.

</comment><comment><USER28> A pretty decent, lowkey set of practical advice. I would only add to it: enjoy yourself!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> OP here. This blew up without me realizing. Sorry. I will go over the comments and answer them

</comment><comment><USER29> Nice commute! (I used to ride almost the exact same path about 20 years ago)

<comment><AUTHOR> I would love to experience HWY9, Skyline, OLH, and others from 20 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> >Enjoy the extra vitamin D, put sunscreen on

Sunscreen prevents vitamin D synthesis</comment>


iPhoney : Looking for a way to see how your web creations will look on iPhone? - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketcircle.com/iphoney/ <comment><USER2> Oh man, that name is a legal nightmare. Why would they paint a giant red target on themselves like that?

<comment><AUTHOR> So they can be famous :-)</comment></comment>


Four Hours of Concentration - <AUTHOR> http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/02/04/four-hours-of-concentration/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheEndeavour+%28The+Endeavour%29 <comment><USER2> Unbelievable, 40+ comments and not one contrary opinion.

Alright, I'll be that guy. I have no trouble doing more than 4 hours worth of mentally strenuous work in a day, and neither do most of the people I work with. Frequently enough I've put in sustained 12-16 hour days for weeks on end to meet a tough deadline.

You'll generally find that the most successful people who are best at what they do have no trouble with this either. I'll go further and say that a large number of the people who complain about having to work more than a few hours a day are doing nothing more than rationalizing their lazy HN and/or reddit habits.

<comment><USER3> I think you define "strenuous" quite weakly. The overwhelming majority of jobs don't require very much cognitive effort, even in software. Most developers hardly ever actually do anything legitimately hard in their day-to-day work.

Proving theorems is a completely different class of work to chipping away at your failed unit tests or knocking together a CRUD app in your favourite language. Maybe a tenth of one percent of software developers routinely do work that is intellectually on a par with mathematical research; The rest are for the most part skilled tradesmen, doing work they understand relatively well.

It is universally accepted that all but the most prodigious musicians do not benefit from more than 4 or 5 hours of practice a day. They can often easily _do_ twelve or sixteen hours a day, but the extra time is simply wasted. Once your reserves of concentration are spent, you're just going through the motions without learning anything. Most conservatories go to great lengths to persuade their students to practice less, because young musicians are often convinced that they can attain mastery through sheer force of effort.

I can sit and transcribe or arrange parts all day long. I can play from sheet music until my hands give out, all the while daydreaming about what I'm having for tea or what chores need doing. I can't usefully improvise or compose for more than about two hours at a time, or more than four hours in a day. I can feel the point at which I start playing familiar riffs rather than truly improvising; When I've run out of ideas and I'm just writing pastiche. There are composers who claim to do regular eight-hour days, but when you look deeper they invariably spend most of that day arranging or transcribing or recording into the computer, stuff that's essentially just admin.

<comment><USER4> >Most developers hardly ever actually do anything legitimately hard in their day-to-day work.

I might agree with that in an absolute sense. But if we're going to talk about percentiles, and relative to the human population, very few people (percentage-wise) can even do the "easy, boring" part of programming you're referring to.

<comment><USER5> It is hard to learn. But once you learn it, not that hard to do CRUD day to day. When you have to learn some new framework/library it gets harder again.

<comment><USER6> Well, as a mathematician, I can say the same is true of mathematical research. Climbing Mount Bourbaki is a difficult endeavour, but from the top the pastures are relatively peaceful to explore. Most papers are not groundbreaking theoretical sledgehammers, but minor updates on footnotes of a vaster theory.

<comment><USER4> This matches my experience about technical, "it's complicated" knowledge in general: the hard part is catching up to what everyone knows, but once there, contributing and improving are surprisingly easy and obvious.

Just recently I was given a task of debugging a major problem with our website that was causing frequent emergencies -- and apparently, was mystifying the developers.

My lead realized I'd need to understand the website's infrastructure first, so he took about 45 minutes explaining how it all fit together and where the problem occurred. But once I got to that point, my reaction was, "Wait -- wouldn't the problem go away if you just ... _didn't_ do $STEP at that point?"

Turned out to be the entire solution to the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't intentionally try to structure when/where/how I think about things, but after 23 years, I've gotten pretty in tune with knowing how things 'feel' inside.

I know if I'm going to have a shitty day or a great day the moment I wake up, the first interaction I have with a person (knowing this may make it more likely to happen, but short of that...).

I know when my brain is running on all cylinders, and when it's choking for more air. Tuning into these signals (I have no idea what they are, only 'feelings'), I can lay out the things I want to do in the next few days, and roll with the punches. It'd be interesting to see the amount of time idlers and time progressors (I'm at my computer most of the day, looking at my google search history would give a good indication - I generally don't google that much when I read articles on HN or Reddit, but when I'm doing something I'm googling up a storm).

No sense fitting a square key into a round hole when tomorrow the round key will be sitting in my hand.

<comment><USER8> You have to be careful not to give too much weight to something that can have self fulfilling prophecy effects- i.e. "I'm going to have a shitty day" sets you up to have a shitty day. I'm not saying its bad to listen to your internal compass, but you have to make sure that you aren't just giving yourself excuses. In my experience, I found that sometimes I have done exactly that, like I have something difficult to do and all of a sudden "my mind is tired, now isn't a good time."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> In my experience this is what happens with programmers in corporate environments and produces excessive hours - 2 hours concentrating in the morning, 2 hours concentrating in the evening, and 8 hours of bullshit in between.

<comment><USER10> Incidentally, would the 2 hours of concentration take place at home? See: [http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1995-09-15/?CmtOrder=Rating&...](http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1995-09-15/?CmtOrder=Rating&CmtDir=DESC)

<comment><USER11> No joke. Sometime the only time I get un-interrupted stretch of 2-3 hours is at home, at night.

<comment><USER12> Same for me, once my wife and kid are asleep

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Back in the old days when I was in school, I didn't do well with more than 3 classes in a row in college. Not just me though, nearly everyone started with 2 Tu-Th 1.5 hr classes and 2 M-W-F 1 hr classes. That was a full time 12 unit load, but I always took at least 16 units, and sometimes as many as 24, which was up to 3 more classes a week. 16 units was a full time job, the semesters I took 20 and 24 were very special cases where some of the classes were subjects I already knew well or were research project based classes. I think 16 is a good solid load for the typical college student.

When I'm really refreshed and interested and doing well and eating right I can pull all nighters and maintain work quality. I can't maintain this for extended stretches at all though.

For a sustained pace though, I agree completely with Mr. Cook and his sources that 4 solid hours a day is about right.

There are many people who put in substantially more hours and brag about it. A close look though nearly always reveals lots of meetings, busy work, and - these days - surfing the net, playing games, and flirting or shooting the breeze with coworkers. Remove all that and you seldom see more than 4 hours, and almost never 4 hours of solid work sustained for months at a time.

We should also consider whether this discussion is relevant to calls to extend school hours to 7 or 8 or more hours a day in the primary school classroom, as many are calling for. Does Finland, which has fewer school hours than the US, have better results because of it?

<comment><USER14> Most of that work isn't that cognitively demanding though. If you're reading research papers or textbooks most of the time the really hard parts have been done for you. You just need to follow along.

Also, with most work there's lots of things that need to do that require relatively little concentration once you've made the cognitive shift.

I think the four hour limit applies to design/creative work or work that requires immense attention to detail.

I'd say most people have little in a day that actively drains this reserve in more than a trickle.

<comment><USER15> If reading research papers is not cognitively demanding, that just means that you're not reading fast enough, or you're not truly absorbing the content. Or are you saying that the speed at which you read research papers is limited by the speed at which your eyes can move?

<comment><USER14> I meant it relative to writing them.

<comment><USER16> Reading can be harder than writing, especially if the writing is very bad and you must understand!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm a proponent of this theory, and it worked for me in Law School. I would only study for two two hour sessions each day, after which I was free to do whatever I wanted. This worked quite well for me, and I always felt fresh and sharp, especially when finals came around.

I also did the same study plan for the bar exam and feel like it worked well there too, i.e. passed it on the first try with a minimum of drama, the whole thing was actually quite pleasant.

In contrast, many of my peers would study basically around the clock, pull all nighters, made their lives miserable and didn't do any better, and more often than not quite worse.

<comment><USER18> I tend to agree, although I think you can concentrate longer for short, unsustainable durations. My standard schedule in law school was a few hours during the semester, then a few weeks of 8-10 hour days around finals.

My take away from the experience was that 8 hours of real work is really a lot of work. And distractions are absolute poison: internet, cell phone, etc. Nothing quite like locking yourself in a room with just a book and highlighter --no computer, no cell phone, no people. You add those things to the mix and it can easily take a 16 hour day to get 8 hours of real work done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Are there any peer-reviewed studies on this? This looks like purely anecdotal evidence. It makes sense on the surface, but I don't think I can trust that four hours of intense concentration per day is some sort of "cognitive limit" without an actual scientific study.

<comment><USER20> I don't know about writers and the morning, but there is plenty of evidence that the ideal block of learning or studying is pretty small. For example, you have spaced repetition ( <http://www.gwern.net/Spaced%20repetition> ), where a few short minutes of studying spread out over time is vastly more efficient than a few big blocks of studying with no subsequent review sessions. And I believe there's a bunch of research on lectures becoming a waste of time after around 15-20 minutes (IIRC, FAA-sponsored).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think another item to add to this is that some days that 4 hour day is going to be your ceiling and anything which creates yet more cognitive exhaustion is going to erode that further. For example, serious stress from having to hit a deadline or being overloaded could bust that 4 hours worth of reserves down to 2 or 3. If you try to force it, you might just end up sitting at your workstation all day idling at brainless tasks such as browsing the internet or half attempting to create some sort of structure out of the mess of the task list your clients have sent you.

It's interesting that we see so many articles posted on hacker news on how to be more productive, beat procrastination and be more motivated when really this article the OP posted explains it all. In most cases you probably don't have a problem with procrastination and motivation, it's simply that you are over-extending yourself. Cut back your commitments and you fix your problem.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have been freelancing for most of my time as a developer, and I have worked remotely for all of it.

The one actual job I had as a web developer set the work week as 40 hours a week (8 hours a day.) This left me wondering if any developers actually work this long of a day and how they could possibly do it.

When I'm doing client work, I'm ON, all the circuit boards are lit up. I can't keep this going for more than 4 - 6 hours per day. If I work a long day, then the next day I'm drained and I have to pay off that debt.

It actually took me years to really figure this out after a life of being trained to the 40 hour work week (parents, my early work life.) The 40 hour model for work is broken.

</comment><comment><USER22> If you practice something 4 hours per day, 365 days per year, you'll hit the legendary 10,000 hour mark in about 6 years and 10 months.

\---

Does this mean that each of us has a reservoir of about 4 hours of intense concentration per day? When we perform a less-intense task, like driving or facebooking, are we using those 4 hours at a reduced rate?

This sounds like it could feed into another idea - that each human has a limited number of actions per day. Performing actions costs concentration, and so we pay for each action from our concentration reservoir?

<comment><USER23> Sounds quite similar to the concept of ego depletion : <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion>

<comment><USER24> Agree - Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast & Slow is a good book that addresses the topic. Understanding how the brain works a bit really helped me to get "in the zone" a lot more often and I have certainly seen gains in focus/concentration (which translates into learning/ability) because of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> That's what I have always said about law. I can do about 4 hours of legal work a day. Then I am absolutely done. I have no idea how my colleagues can clock in 8 hours.

Yes - there are days I can do more. But there are also days I do less than 4 hours. In the long run I do about 4 hours a day. That's it.

<comment><USER22> Your colleagues likely work 4 like you, then bill for 8. Scott Adams (maker of Dilbert) once said this is extremely common in the corporate world, and my experience largely agrees. Much of the other 4 hours may be spent in meetings, lunches, relocating, gossiping, or internet browsing. You're largely paid to be on-site and aware for 40 hours a week, not to necessarily produce anything.

One of Adams' books has a story about someone who took 2 simultaneous jobs at one company. He would show up early on one floor, then take an early lunch and head upstairs to his other job, where they thought he was just arriving late. The employer did eventually catch on, but until then he was paid 16 hours of work for 8 hours of his time.

<comment><USER26> > You're largely paid to be on-site and aware for 40 hours a week, not to > necessarily produce anything

This really bugged me early on in my career before I understood this. When I started work I would feel disappointed that I couldn't be productive for 8 hours per day. Then I realised that no one else around me was getting probably more than 3 hours of work done in a day so I set my aim for each day at 4 hours of productivity and used a timer to track my concentration time.

I still feel conflicted by it though. When I was freelancing, I tried doubling my rate with the expectation that I would only work 20 hours per week. I think most people thought I was lazy and wouldn't go for it. Hopefully in the future we'll be able to move away from the idea that a 40+ hour work week is ideal.

<comment><USER27> You have to frame your rate in terms that demonstrate the value you'll be providing.

Eg you could say you'll only be working 20 _billable_ hours per week and suddenly it sounds like they will be getting some of your time for free.

The rest of the time is actually taken up with marketing, administration, training etc.

<comment><USER22> Don't forget that some clients value face time. Sometimes I wonder if a client is just paying me to be around him...

<comment><USER28> I did contracting for some short stints when I was younger, and quickly realised that this was it.

I could quote a fixed price for some work, and they'd readily accept my rates. But if I then would try to leave after the amount of time the work actually took me, they'd question whether or not I was actually doing the job properly.

So I quoted even higher on the expectation that 1) I'd have to sit in a chair in their office 8 hours a day and so couldn't do other work elsewhere and needed to be compensated extra for that inconvenience, 2) I'd be bored out of my mind trying to fill the rest of the time I was there.

Never a question raised.

It was frustrating. Especially one job where I as stuck for 3 weeks on a machine with no internet connection doing a job I could easily finish with 2 hours every day. Whenever possible I'd work remotely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Do we have any idea what it actually _is_ what is getting depleted when we start to run out of energy or concentration? It's something I've wondered about already a few times - I mean I can pretty much feel running out of steam myself. Which means there is some way in which my mind is able to measure whatever it is that it causing this.

<comment><USER30> Coffee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> By and large I agree with this, but I think there is another element to consider, which is your overall energy levels. If you exercise, eat right, laugh, spend time with family and friends, then you're more likely to be able to consistently put in this kind of effort. I don't think you can or should aim to do much more than 4, but I think a very large proportion of the world isn't capable of even coming close to 4, because they don't or can't manage their energy effectively.

I also agree it is possible to do longer bursts, but that is pretty rare in my experience.

<comment><USER26> I've read a couple of Tony Schwartz's books which go into this topic more and helped me to rethink my working habits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> ...of course, most people (including myself) may be incapable of the intense concentration that a genius like Poincaré could muster. Therefore, it's hard to know how useful this fact is to a typical person.

</comment><comment><USER24> Implications: People are not going to be great at their second job or at night school. It's probably better to quit a tiring job and find a quiet one where you can study something you want to do with your life.

</comment><comment><USER33> I've have great success with something similar to The Pomodoro Technique. Alternating activities every few segments helps me go a lot longer than I would trying to plow through on one subject.

1: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique>

</comment><comment><USER34> Relevant read: <http://www.your-brain-at-work.com/>

"Your Brain At Work" points out, among other things, that the brain is capable of doing much less intensive work (as in, concentration) than most people believe it is.

</comment><comment><USER35> Oh, it can be done. Just not every day. I once went on a hacking run in grad school that was over 24 hours sustained. I was a gibbering mess for the next couple days, but I think it was worth it.

I wouldn't do it for a job, though. I think that can only be done for love.

</comment><comment><USER36> I first read about the ~4 hour limit from D.E. Littlewood's book, Littlewood's Miscellany. He recommends "four hours a day or at most five, with breaks about every hour (for walks perhaps)."

Since then I've read of luminaries mentioning this in passing, but I haven't really tried to employ it. (I'm also pretty sure I've seen pg say this is empirically false with YC founders, and perhaps he and axiom are correct)

I'd like to know if there's evidence of this for _learning_ , however, even if it is mathematics.

<comment><USER37> Littlewood was a talented mathematician; pg is an employer of computer programmers. Unless you are doing original research, which, AFAIK, most YC companies aren't, I see no reason why you should limit yourself to 4 hours a day. (Apart from having a life, but that's a separate debate.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Another good argument for working from home as opposed to a corporate environment.

</comment><comment><USER39> Even though a lot of smart people agree that we can only get a few hours of real concentration a day, not many of them link to scientific papers that support this claim. I would agree that the claim "feels right". But in absence of a real experiment, how valuable is this insight really? Maybe useful to keep the idea in the back of one's head, but seems far from a definitive answer.

<comment><USER40> I imagine that any feasible scientific experiment would measure only a crude approximation to reality. How can you randomize someone to a job and a way of working? Most people are not capable of concentrating for four hours a day, or have jobs that don't permit it.

At best you might recruit some undergraduates -- nearly all psychology subjects are college students -- and have them do some artificial task one way or another for a couple weeks. I find anecdotes from successful musicians, scientists, and authors more persuasive than data from an contrived scientific study.

<comment><USER39> Those are good points and I agree with everything you said. And even though anecdotes are informative, they may not be enough to make big important claims about how people should manage their mental energy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I have worked with some extremely successful and famous artists and musicians, some follow the pattern outlined here, some do not. I know one musician who would work for 36 or 48 hours or more without a break of any kind including sleep, so as to complete an idea without losing the thread. The proof is in the pudding and there are many many recipes.

</comment><comment><USER26> This echoes my experience as well, however I prefer to break it into 3 x 80 minute blocks. The times when I've tried to push myself beyond that for a short period of time (a few weeks) I have ended up sick, ill or entirely unproductive to make up for it.

</comment><comment><USER42> This is reassuring for me. On a normal day, I only really do so much actual coding and intense thinking, and I usually wrongfully compare it to the crazy energy drink fueled all-nighters (which makes me feel like I'm not getting enough done).

</comment><comment><USER43> There's a difference between being maximally productive at any given time and coming out cumulatively ahead. The strong claim is to state that one is always net less productive when working sub-optimally at any given time. I doubt that this is true but i suppose it depends on how quickly productivity falls off with strain. I suspect that it's probably ok to work long hours to get through repetitive learning but its best to reserve a fresh focus for your more creative moments.

</comment><comment><USER44> I spent ~7 hours a day when I was learning C++. I basically had to do this in order to be able to take my course the next semester in college. I went from knowing absolutely nothing about programming, to having a very firm grasp on the subject, and actually being one of the best in my class.

I would have learned a lot with 4 hours a day, but I think the extra 90 hours I put in that month really helped me out.

</comment><comment><USER45> Malcolm Gladwell said in an on-stage interview I witnessed that he can only write for two to three hours a day. The rest of his time he spends doing less demanding work like research and setting up interviews with people.

From what I've seen, most employed programmers only spend about this much time (maybe a bit more) actually programming.

<comment><USER46> Gladwell is a poor example.

<comment><USER45> Why, because he bullshits? I'm not citing him as a scientific authority but he certainly is a prolific author.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Pure curiosity from the perspective of life hacking: Does this mean we can have e.g. 3 tasks parallel in a day where 3x4hours = 12 hours? Say you want to write high quality code, mastering piano and write symphony at the same day, until you reach 10k hour each (=mastery).

<comment><USER48> No. But it does mean you can do two tasks in a day if one of them doesn't require a lot of concentration or mental effort, e.g. four hours programming and four hours gardening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Pointless to quantify the amount of time until "Concentration" can be quantified.

</comment><comment><USER50> I believe that the 37signals guys have a very similar opinion.</comment>


An Adobe Flash developer on why the iPad can't use Flash - <AUTHOR> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/20/an-adobe-flash-developer-on-why-the-ipad-cant-use-flash/ <comment><USER2> Are people here really suggesting we replace a mouse driven hover state on traditional computers with a touch driven tap and hold on touch screen devices? How does that make one lick of sense? What do you do while you're tapping and holding? Use another finger to navigate around your hover based controls? This is so counter intuitive I'm a bit baffled people are even suggesting it.

Half of the brilliance of computing moving in the way of touch is that you start to interact with digital things the way you would handle actual physical objects. People have been training themselves to use a mouse to move a cursor around a screen for the past 25 years, which is really awkward when you think about it.

With touch things work exactly how you expect them to. There have been dozens of studies with very young children who have had 0 experience with traditional computers who simply "get" touch devices, because its human nature.

I believe Apple understands this and they are not going to spend significant time solving problems that do not need to be solved, especially when said problems really just need to be unsolved and forgotten.

<comment><USER3> I agree, there is a huge difference in a touch interface and a mouse/keyboard interface. I don't think that the answer is simply to simulate one with the other.

 _There have been dozens of studies with very young children who have had 0 experience with traditional computers who simply "get" touch devices, because its human nature._

Case in point: my 2 year old. He can use my iPhone with no problems. He can swipe the main screen left and right to find the icon he's looking for. Start the program, and be on his way. He can also start up iTunes on it, and play his music videos that I've loaded onto it. He also completely "gets" how to use the picture viewer. Now, if iTunes is playing my music and doesn't come up with the video screen, he's lost, but for the most part, it works well. The touch interface makes so much sense that he figured out how to get around in 2 minutes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is what I always wondered about. I mean, flash is designed to operate in a keyboard/mouse environment. How would it's event model map to a multitouch model? I suspect that it could be done, but it would be awkward at best. Also, the biggest argument for flash on the iPhone/ipad has been the large amount of games already available. Well, most (if not all) expect a keyboard and mouse. There is no way they would be able to work unaltered.

<comment><USER4> Isn't most frameworks that deals with GUI designed for keyboard/mouse?

Just because a platform allows for multi touch does not mean that the underlying functionality changes.

Multi Touch primarily gives you an ability to interact with the platform differently but the functionality it gives you access to is by and large the same.

Zoom, rotate etc.

Or what am I missing?

<comment><USER5> You're missing that in order to use touch, just about every Flash game out there would have to be rewritten.

Flash and its event model are quite flexible, and there's no reason why you shouldn't be able write games for a touch based system in Flash. But you'd have to write them first, and ideally there'd be an event interface specifically for touch, or it would be overly complex.

<comment><USER4> I am aware of that.

But that applies to everything out there that relies on mouseover.

When the iPad comes along and people will be using it for more complex webbrowsing a lot of web applications/services will have to be rewritten because they rely on mouseover states.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _"on a touchscreen, pointing at something without clicking isn't a mouseover: it's just holding your finger vaguely in the air"_

Good point. Funny too.

</comment><comment><USER7> I strongly disagree with the developers article. He fails to explain the simplest solution (holding the finger). This is indeed the same as moving the mouse cursor on a touchpad, so wtf..

But what i really dislike is the notion of "it is not possible, never ever, it just won't work" without objective proof why something wouldn't work.. just stating that a problem is there and based on that "fact" he goes on and on.. How many websites would be unusable with a touchpad like interace? None.

It makes me sad that this guy obviously tries to make sense of steve jobs most stupid decission of the last years, because it is clear that Apple doesn't want flash/air on the iphone not because of the interface (clearly apple would be probably the best company to resolve this issue!) but because of the threat of mobile apps and games to the appstore. First it will be games, but if i can develop my apps for adobe air for all major operating systems and smartphones.. this is bigger than most people think.

I still hope that the apple community will eventually start to revolt when flash and air applications are available for all other platforms instead of just following apples stupid business decisions with such excuses.

<comment><USER8> "First it will be games, but if i can develop my apps for adobe air for all major operating systems and smartphones.. this is bigger than most people think."

Right, that worked great for Java.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really think it comes down to video. Video being the one thing that is easiest to replace. Many sites already do and it works like a charm. It's a problem and it sure would be nice to watch The Daily Show but it's down to inconvenience, not deal breaker.

If you want to make pretty much anything else work you will have to put serious work in. Just making an iPhone run Flash won't it a pleasant experience. Some people might prefer that but there is probably nothing Apple hates more than those kinds of trade offs.

<comment><USER10> Almost nothing on the internet is "designed" for iPhones, yet nobody's complaining that Safari exists .... just like with Safari the onus is in part on the vendor to make their version suit the platform, and in part on developers and companies to fully tailor their offerings to that platform if they want.

<comment><USER9> But there is a difference between "not a nice experience but works" and "doesn't work at all". And it's an important one.

<comment><USER10> The _only_ difference is you're allowed to see for yourself and decide for yourself if it works well enough - if it's not in Flash anyway. Simply dismissing everything on the grounds that some things won't work is silly.

<comment><USER9> Look: Safari optimization is optional. All unoptimized webpages work. You might have to scroll a bit more than is comfortable, but in general everything works just fine.

Comparing that situation to Flash seems odd.

(If you prefer features to execution as your comment seems to suggest don't ever – ever – buy any Apple products. Apple doesn't think like you do.)

<comment><USER10> The only thing that seems odd is you justify a browser for the same reason you dismiss a plugin - there will be cases where Flash works fine or well enough so by your logic there should be a FlashPlayer, but there will be cases where it won't so then there shouldn't be a browser. Adobe themselves could largely ensure most Flash works just by catering specifically to the iPhone environment and automatically bridging the interface differences, as Apple did with Safari.

And it doesn't necessarily have to be a browser. There are apps that sell well and there are apps that don't, so should they just close the app store? Of course not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> On a related note, has anyone been able to get any interactive canvas demos to work on Mobile Safari? I've tried a few, and it seems like there are some related input issues there as well.

e.g. Sketchpad: <http://mugtug.com/sketchpad/>

</comment><comment><USER12> There aren't a lot of details, but Adobe sounds confident that they've made Flash pretty usable for touchscreen Android devices.

From the second video here: [http://androidandme.com/2010/02/news/adobe- teases-us-with-fl...](http://androidandme.com/2010/02/news/adobe-teases-us- with-flash-and-air-demos-on-android/)

"From a developer perspective, there's nothing that I needed to do to ensure that my game is functioning on this [touchscreen] tablet device. It operates the same as it does on the desktop or on this tablet device. _Obviously the inputs are mapped, and that's taken care of automatically by Flash player_. So Flash Player is able to bring hundreds and thousands of casual games that [are] online from day one." (Emphasis mine.)

<comment><USER13> That's just marketing speak, "functioning" is a weasel word trying to suggest, "fun to play," without actually making that claim.

He can get away with saying "inputs are mapped" because the only inputs that can be made - touch ones - are mapped, x,y co-ordinates from screen to player. Inputs which don't exist at all - hover, keyboard - don't exist, so don't need mapped.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Forget about performance, but look at how this guy struggles to pop balloons in this vid

[http://gizmodo.com/5476500/htc-desire-rom-puts-flash-on- your...](http://gizmodo.com/5476500/htc-desire-rom-puts-flash-on-your-nexus- one)

<comment><USER8> Yep. And that's a really simple game. Good luck to folks trying to play more complicated stuff.

The model just doesn't make sense unless Flash developers program most games' input in two completely different ways. I can't imagine that'll ever happen, but even if it did, it'd be years until then. In the meantime, every alternate-universe, Flash-having iPad user who could see an app but inexplicably could only partially operate it would blame Apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think a lot of these comments are missing the point. There is a huge difference between a mouse and a finger and you cannot just abstract this difference away by pretending that hover is only used for tooltips. Flash programmers from the very beginning embraced the platform because it allowed dynamic and flowing interaction with the movement of the mouse pointer. I can think of dozens of very common Flash techniques that will never work with a finger without being re-writen.

* Combo boxes that only expose the drop handle of hover. * Controls (video) that only appear when you move the pointer * Camera controls where the mouse motion is used to anchor view. * Animated buttons, flyouts etc.

As an example I did a google search for "flash examples" which led me to <http://ziggystudio.com/v1/main.html>

This app has an "AUDIO" link in the upper right that scrolls out on mouse over to expose the actual controls. This app simply will not work in a finger environment and would have to be re-written. I would argue virtually 100% of the flash applications written will have broken functionality in a click+drag only environment.

Most of these apps will "work" but in a massively degraded state. Many of them will simply be incapable of being used.

You cannot gracefully degrade to a click/drag system from a hover/click/drag system. They are too different. Flash was developed to maximize the mouse paradigm. It will never work well with a finger interface.

</comment><comment><USER4> "That's not because of slow mobile performance, battery drain or crashes. It's because of the hover or mouseover problem."

That is a problem with mouseover NOT with Flash.

The same thing can then be said about any website out there running on jQuery or Ruby that uses the mouse over for tooltip or menu pulldowns.

Just because the input is different does by no means suggest that flash couldn't be used.

The argument of performance is the only one I can see right now that have any merit.

</comment><comment><USER16> I work for a company whose main site is a flash RIA. It's true that our site doesn't work out of the box on mobile flash enabled phones, although in our case it's mostly due to memory constraints. However we've created a new interface reusing most of the code we had already written for the main site, but optimized for mobile devices and without all the embedded images and memory intensive features included on the main site.

Doing that took about 2 weeks of serious dev time. Meanwhile, the native apps we're writing for each platform have taken 6 months each and still need a fair amount of work. HTML 5 is out of the question because it is missing some critical features (mainly content protection of any kind), so mobile flash is great for us.

Having had the chance to use flash enabled mobile devices on various websites, the complaints listed in this article are valid; I wouldn't use it to play flash games, but it is usable for media consumption, even YouTube's. Normal, non-mobile YouTube videos play just fine in mobile flash, for example.

</comment><comment><USER17> I find this argument uncompelling. Nearly all actions are committed on mouse- up. This is how the default "click" events work in every environment. Click and hold becomes mouse down and hover, dragging remains hover, release can fire a mouse up, the framework can then inject an extra mouse down as part of the click if necessary. Apps that need more sophisticated behavior can ignore click/tap events and handle mouse up/down on their own.

<comment><USER11> The problem seems to be that the only event that can be passed to the page is a click, and it's sent on touch-up. Touch-down does nothing (since it could be a click or a drag), and a drag scrolls the page. The only thing they currently send through is a mouse-up, which seems to be sent through as a click.

In pseudocode:

      on touch:
        # do nothing yet

        if drag:
          scroll page
        else: # was just a tap
          send click to page

Granted, this is just how Mobile Safari is handling things, but how else could Mobile Safari handle things?

<comment><USER18> MobileSafari provides the entire touch sequence to javascript, which means that same sequence can easily be passed to flash.

It isn't that difficult to do a reasonable mapping from touch sequences to mouse sequences.

<comment><USER19> I thought that the problem wasn't so much detecting mouse taps, but detecting mouse _hoverings_. Say you hover over an item and then click on it to select. How do you emulate that click, when your finger is already pressed to the screen to drag the "mouse" around?

<comment><USER18> Sure, but who cares? There are a billion websites which use hover events, and the hover just doesn't do anything on the iPhone. The author acts like this is some kind of NP complete problem or something. It's at most minor revisions.

<comment><USER19> I care. Personally, I would rather that something not work right off the bat, then _think_ it will work, only to find out that it _won't_ actually work, that _by design_ , that if it was to be released right now, it would be impossible for it to work on the device that I'm on a decent portion of the time.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that the problem can't be solved. I'm just questioning the wisdom of solving it, in the first place. Or maybe how well the solution will work. But, not the solvability of the problem itself - especially if a few smart people are thrown at the problem.

This might be the part of me that likes my nice and pretty Mac-specific software, but, I don't see anything wrong with software that targets one specific platform. And for Adobe, with Flash, that platform looks like it should be the desktop, not the mobile web.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Maybe I'm not reading the posting right, but I really don't see a problem. Why can't the screen detect a slide over as a mouseover, but consider a tap as a click. Current trackpads already do this on laptops. I can drag my finger around to move the cursor and trigger a click by tapping on the pad.

If my laptop's trackpad can do it, I see no reason why a touchscreen can't do it.

<comment><USER3> Because a phone has no concept of a cursor. When you lift your finger off of the phone, it is gone. Motion on a trackpad is saved by the computer as a change to the cursor position. This can be simulated by saving state in the touchDown/touchUp events, but it isn't like polling for the current mouse position.

The other thing to think about is that if you do have a mouseover event, you are likely going to try and display something (like a tooltip). On a phone, this would be covered by your finger.

<comment><USER20> I don't understand why it doesn't have a concept of a cursor? Windows Mobile phones have the concept of cursor and I can have a mouseover by holding the cursor over something whether it's with a finger or stylus, and then click by tapping either with my finger or stylus.

What's the disadvantage to having an invisible cursor so that mouseovers work? Couldn't the cursor "appear" to the system when your finger is on the screen, similar to how the cursor shows for restaurant POS terminals when your finger is on the screen and then disappears when your finger is off it. Clearly I'm missing something.

<comment><USER13> Windows Mobile Classic only, they've thankfully gotten rid of this with Windows Mobile Series 7.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't think the author is aware of Adobe's Slider framework which addresses the most basic needs (mobile device gestures). Beyond that, many of us are fully aware of the challenges of multitouch & gesture and are experimenting with variable-input interfaces (mouse, gesture, multitouch, and button/arrow based remotes).

<comment><USER22> The impression I got from (briefly) reading the Adobe Labs page on slider is that it still would require all existing content to be re-written for it... which really negates the main reason for Flash on the Ipad: the dearth of existing Flash content on the web.

<comment><USER21> Slider will require a different front end, but you don't need to toss the entire code base.

As for existing code, yes that will be a problem. But most Flash developers think of projects as evolving and/or disposable. Most of us aren't locked into stuff we did 3, 5, or even 10 years ago. We move forward and enjoy finding solutions to new challenges.

<comment><USER22> Maybe for your own site, yeah. But for sites that you've built and handed off? Are you going to update them for free? Are the clients going to pay you (again) to rework the interface (non-trivial) for a small minority of users?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> You can simulate a mouse with existing hardware by decoupling the moving of the pointer and tapping (=clicking).

Therefore, moving your finger around the screen or tapping in a new position would only move the "mouse" pointer and not generate mouse clicks.

The mouse buttons could be mapped to some physical buttons on the device or to virtual buttons on the bottom or corners of the screen (think of your typical laptop touchpad layout).

Even better, the software could support a touchpad mode where the finger coordinates on the screen aren't mapped 1:1 to where the "mouse" pointer moves but as deltas similarly to how a touchpad works. This would allow for a fine- grained mouse movement even with the touchscreen and this would naturally limit the mouse clicking to specific locations / buttons only.

<comment><USER8> This _could_ be done and applications wouldn't have to be rewritten. Likewise, you can just run a desktop OS and desktop apps on a tablet and nothing would have to be rewritten. Everybody thinks that sounds great; once they use it, nobody thinks so anymore. Because it's awful. That's the whole point of iPad using an OS and a collection of apps that from day 1 has been intended for touch.

<comment><USER23> Since you can do that selectively in software there's no reason Flash shouldn't do it while the tablet OS and other applications should.

Touchscreen UI is all good but there will always be a class of applications that want both more precision and mousemove events.

As a personal note, touchscreens are painful to use unless you only have functionality behind big baby-size buttons. I wish I could always switch to such a touchpad mode if I wanted to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Please note this is an article by a "developer who uses Flash", not a "developer working on Flash".

It seems to me that most of the 'mouseover' problems described can be handled with click-and-hold.

<comment><USER19> _It seems to me that most of the 'mouseover' problems described can be handled with click-and-hold._

Nope; the "Tap and hold" gesture is used by the Safari (and the iPhone OS, for that matter) for other tasks already, namely to bring up the cut/copy/paste element.

<comment><USER24> There is no reason that I can think of that just because Mobile Safari uses tap and hold for some functions, that it couldn't pass it along to Flash when performed on a Flash element.

<comment><USER11> Well, then you'd have to expect the user to know what is a Flash element and what isn't.

<comment><USER18> any element can prevent the default action at any time. flash, or not flash, it's like two lines of javascript.

<comment><USER8> What do you mean? I don't recall ever using Safari on iPhone and having tap- and-hold not do the Safari default thing (pop up contextually-dependent menus giving choices like "Copy" and "Open in New Window" for links, "Save" and "Copy" for images, etc) and don't think that JavaScript has access to that.

<comment><USER19> The closest thing that I can think of is -webkit-user-select, although I'm not sure if thats available on the iPhone. Nor would it let you change UIMenuController behavior. I suspect that if it is possible, it would be under an NDA. That is, after all, how these things seem to work. Would love to be wrong though.

Alternate, Occams Razor take: Apple just hardcodes the options, based on the type of object that is selected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It would be cool if a touchscreen device could fire a mouseover event when a finger was NEAR the screen, and only fire a mousedown event when the finger TOUCHES the screen.

</comment><comment><USER26> If this is true of flash, why is it not the same for Javascript. If suckerfish style menus can work on iphone, why would hover and clicks be handled differently?

<comment><USER27> Is that JavaScript or is it just CSS? If a HTML element has a CSS hover property, the first tap will activate that instead of the anchor. But, in any case, if it works for CSS it should play well with others, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> "Current Flash sites could never be made work well on any touchscreen device, and this cannot be solved by Apple, Adobe, or magical new hardware."

I can think of a few easy fixes. A toggle button that makes touches count as hovers rather than clicks (easy). Hardware that detects a finger hovered near the screen (probably hard). Nobody caring because most things that occur on hover you can do without, and websurfing on even the best phone is so fraught with compromises and frustrating relative to a desktop that you really don't care (free).

<comment><USER8> "Nobody caring because most things that occur on hover you can do without,"

I don't think that's at all true. Yes, the concept of mouseovers could be done without (if it had been done without from the very beginning), but since so many Flash apps rely on it now, you can't have a decent Flash experience on a device that doesn't have it. Try using many Flash video sites without an ability to mouseover: the controls hide until their moused-over. A click on anything but the controls means "pause".

"and websurfing on even the best phone is so fraught with compromises and frustrating relative to a desktop that you really don't care (free)."

I strongly disagree. The web on phones before iPhone was indeed compromised and frustrating. But iPhone and some other recent phones have such good browsers that one often hears of people saying they reach for their phone more often than their laptop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is such a non-problem, a case of over thinking on author's part.

<comment><USER9> In what way? How would you solve the problems?

<comment><USER30> You can tell from this article that the programmer thinks universally and in so doing, excludes a vast area of potential, especially in the future and more specifically in what he notes as "B) Gestures, finger gymnastics". You can stick your one finger up your nose but with more than one finger, you can do a lot more. I for one am ready for more complex interface functionality. I thought this was more obvious though perhaps it should be clearly stated: Get used to the growth in complex multi-touch gestures. More to come soon.

My guess (just a wild one for not being a thinker of touch interface design), would be to solve the solution by first detecting what kind of flash app it is and how much area it takes up, then anytime the finger scrolls over that particular area, there would be a cursor (the user could turn this off, but this is what would happen by default). As the cursor is led by your one finger which never lets up, meanwhile 1,2, 3 or 4 taps with another finger along with other more complex combinations eventually could perform various flash actions. Contrary to Dilger's primary thesis, I believe it's pretty straight forward that Apple is not as limited in thinking to make it happen if they want to, and that even the general audience is ready to take another small step in the gestures department.

<comment><USER9> I think my brain just exploded from all that complexity :)

Why should Apple think hard and work hard in order to solve a really hard problem they have no particular interest in solving?

Maybe there is an elegant solution out there to make all or nearly all existing Flash apps work, but it won't be easy and I don't see Apple investing much in technology they clearly think is dying. They normally never do.

<comment><USER30> I agree, Apple is prob not going to do it, but the problem is not "absurd" or "impossible". That's my main point. The author of this article gives up and says it can't be done. I disagree with that. I gave one of many possibilities. I prefaced it by saying it was wild guess, but again, I don't think it's impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This seems ridiculous to me, it's almost as if the thought of using say... some sort of User-Agent to identify and differentiate the experience of the software is just well too simple to consider?

<comment><USER22> uhh... actually that is covered:

"A) The best case: every Flash app on every site is re-thought by its designers and re-coded by its programmers (if they're even still available), just for touchscreens. They wouldn't use mouseovers any more—or else they'd have dual versions of all Flash content, so that mouse users could still benefit from the mouseovers they are used to. That's a ton of work across the Web, for thousands of parties, and just isn't going to happen. Plus, with many sites, mouseovers are so fundamental that the very concept of the site would be altered, creating a whole different experience that would annoy and confuse the site's existing users. (And would this be any easier than simply re- designing without Flash at all? Not always.)"

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I hate the idea of Flash on an HTML5 appliance, but the article and (as of 10 AM ET) the other posts in this thread miss one obvious way of supporting this with no extra buttons/toggles and no double clicks, click-hold-clicks, or other unusual behaviors.

If a user touches a Flash zone, show a cursor, and have the cursor moved by the iPhone's accelerometer. Tap to click.

For elements such as the video player example, the cursor (just as on PC) can fade after time, and a tap or shake would re-show it.

For most of the scenarios he mentions, using accelerometer to drive a hovered cursor would be a particularly intuitive solution.

</comment><comment><USER33> Don't have any special insight into flash but I do know that there certainly seem to be issues with playing flash on my mac (with any browser) vs PC. I'm guessing it has to do with GPU vs CPU issues but whenever I play a video (via flash) my laptop fans go on full blast (probably because the CPU is in overdrive). Quicktime video never seems to have this problem.

Flash also tends to have playback and interaction issues.</comment>