Calculator Construction Set (1982) - <AUTHOR> http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Calculator_Construction_Set.txt&sortOrder=Sort+by+Date <comment><USER2> Some of you will present this tale as proof of Job's restless devotion to perfecting the Macintosh down to the last detail. I see it as an anal retentive bully having his way. For all we know, the original calculator app might have looked great. It just wasn't how Steve would have done it. So instead he wastes his programmer's time with tedious changes. (The fact that he wasn't finished with just one round of revisions tells me either Steve couldn't communicate what he wanted, or wasn't sure what he wanted.) Was the calculator app really that much better in the end? And were the improvements worth all that effort? Only the original mac team would know. Who knows--The original calculator could have looked better.

<comment><AUTHOR> I, too, am skeptical of the Jobs design hagiographies...but this was one of the more palatable examples. In a bigger company, this should've gone to a design team...did Apple pre-Macintosh have a design chief? If not, then the calculator UI is one of those things that could've easily slipped into the low-priority queue, and there's only a limited amount of "oh-fuck-it- it's-good-enough-for-me,-the-developer" features that a consumer-facing operating system can tolerate before it begins to looks like amateur hour.

To be fair to Jobs, it can be profoundly difficult to communicate visual design principles. At least when given the opportunity, Jobs sat down and actually put his hand to the design work. It's debatable whether Espinosa spending his time building a parameterized-calculator-constructor was worth the opportunity cost, but at least Jobs made use of it, which is more than you can say for a lot of executives.

On the other hand, this seems like something that could've been hashed out on a whiteboard or napkin...

Anyway, I think the real hero here is Espinosa, a programmer who took charge of documentation and the user manual, and went about his work by dogfooding his product (Quickdraw in this case).

<comment><USER3> Think how much harder it was to communicate visual design principles when this story occurred. 1982! The most sophisticated graphical interface at that point might have been The Print Shop for Apple II....except now I see it wasn't released until 1984.

<comment><USER4> > Think how much harder it was to communicate visual design principles when > this story occurred.

How so? Pencil and paper were readily available in '82, what else would you need?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> FYI, they finally had to change the order of the buttons again in System 3.2 in 1986 I think. This has a picture of what the System 1.0 one actually looked like: [http://lowendmac.com/2005/innovative-macintosh- system-1-0/](http://lowendmac.com/2005/innovative-macintosh-system-1-0/)

</comment><comment><USER6> The first and last time a manager edited GUI parameters themselves instead of telling a programmer what to do.

I'm exaggerating, but it seems that every system designed to make GUIs simple enough for non-developers has failed. Example: CSS. sounds great until you want something centered. XAML is even worse - it's really powerful, so you try to fly too close to the sun.

I honestly think that doing UI layout in the same programming language as UI logic, and manually choosing a set of "manager tunable" parameters to put in a dead-simple config file, is the way to go. Which is more or less exactly what is described here.

If the UI logic language is expressive enough, you can still make a nice declarative DSL for GUIs. Then, when you _inevitably_ need some complex UI behavior that can't be expressed declaratively, you don't have to deal with a language boundary.

</comment><comment><USER7> Not to be confused with [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinball_Construction_Set](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinball_Construction_Set)

And as long as I'm on a tanget, TIL that Will Harvey was 15 when he designed and wrote [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Construction_Set](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Construction_Set)

</comment><comment><USER3> Every time I see this story pop up I'm reminded of Dubl-Click's calculator construction set from the late 80s: [http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/calculator-construction- set](http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/calculator-construction-set)

Was so in love with that. Hard to remember how hard it was to discover software in that era.</comment>


Nawa's carbon nanotube ultra-capacitors are going into mass production - <AUTHOR> https://newatlas.com/nawa-nanotube-ultracapacitor-production/59684/ <comment><USER2> 2.7V still seems to be a challenge for larger applications, and I probably shouldn't be surprised that carbon nanotube ultracaps are the same potential (voltage) as the older charcoal based ultracaps.

You run enough capacitors in series to get to even 48 volts and you've lost a lot of the capacitance. And with automotive applications at >200V...</comment>


Ask HN: From contractor to permanent - <AUTHOR>

I currently work at a Fortune 500 software company in the UK doing a lot of greenfield software development.
Lately I have been considering leaving my permanent role and moving into contracting, mainly due to substantially higher net salaries.
My concern however is; should I do this for a few years, and then wish to move back into a permanent role at companies such as MS/GOOGL/FB - would it be frown upon? In other words, do companies prefer to hire people that have been working steadily in a code base for prolonged periods of time?
Thanks! <comment><USER3> I've been back and forth as an FTE and contractor for the past five years, and it's been nothing but beneficial. I use the contracting to gain a variety of experiences with different companies and screen them over time to evaluate whether I want to work with them full time.

The variety of experience is key as you'll hone your problem solving skills in a more valuable way than in your F500 gig. You're forced to get scrappier and deliver consistently in a tighter timelines. It just forces you to be better.

And as a programmer the world is your oyster these days. Do the work to zero in on your specific skillset and language/product focus so you can better target you outreach.

Starting with an agency can be easy, but they'll take 20-30% and limit your opportunity for a direct relationship with that client. You could ease into this with a few months of side work while you keep the safe F500 job. Build a couple clients in your portfolio and break out when your personal pipeline equals, or beats your current salary.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think you'll find your instincts on this one are a bit off. These days, companies seem to value some variety over stagnating at one company or on one project. Hiring managers like to see people with a variety of accomplishments, and that can be pretty easy to demonstrate if your contracting projects are interesting and give you the ability to see the task all the way through.

When you are comparing money from contract to permanent, keep in mind there may be lots of hidden costs. I can't speak for the UK, but in the US contractors need to be thoughtful of taxes (and the cost of having your returns done if you can't do them yourself), health insurance, PTO (contractors are only paid for the hours they work), insurance, retirement/401k, etc.

Be sure to do the math.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that makes perfect sense. I guess my worries came from the fact that in my current company I don't know of any of the 100s permanent devs that came from a contracting background, so I sort of raised flags for me. That could possibly be because contractors dont often go back to permanent roles, rather than them being undesirable for a permanent position.

Really good point on the Math's side of the business. I am based in the UK, hence things like Health and Dental and very good and free, therefore no need for costly private insurance. Pensions, the same, although I would make arrangements myself to contribute to it privately also. Taxes and other deductions, I plan to hire a good accountant that can both ensure I have all my affairs in order as well as look after my financial interests. PTO/Instability is the only true financial downside I can see, however, for the latter (at least in UK) even if you are a contractor they need to give you 1-2weeks pay should they wish to terminate the contract early - which should keep me afloat while finding new work.

All that being said, I think the main difference between US and UK when it comes to permanent salaries is that the US has much higher base in average rates than when compared to the UK. Not to mention the buying power of that salary is order of magnitudes higher than over here. Therefore in a way, it seems more unlikely (if I were to be over there) to do contracting when balancing the pro's and con's of both options.

Thanks again for your words, and advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The reality is that it depends on the narrative, teh story that you have. It's very easy to explain why you chose consulting (other than money), and have a narrative that resonates. I've found that consulting actually results in exposure to more varied problems, technologies, and solutions - so I'm not nearly as pigeonholed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks that's good validation.

I assume from your comment you must be a Contractor, can I ask how do you find it?

<comment><USER5> You're welcome to - I love it. I've never been happier. Like everything else there are pluses and minus, but I've found that professionally, I've been able to meet my goals in a way I never could as part of an organization. In fact, clients find me more valuable, because they know that I'm in to get things done, done solidly, and done forever.

Interestingly enough, I also feel as if I'm a key member of every team I join. I don't do the loan gun in the basement thing, which is probably a key part of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's so encouraging thanks man!

If I could abuse your kindness, I hope you dont mind - could I ask what you average contract length are? What is the average period it takes you between finishing a contract and finding a new role?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When you say a substantial increase, how much of an increase is that?. And also, are you considering other expenses/losses such as accountants, pensions, etc, etc

<comment><AUTHOR> My current package is along the following; 45k, 2k bonus, pension, private health, private dental, some training, and perks (gym, subsidised food, etc).

Regarding the pro's and con's in terms of benefits yes, I am considering them, and still a substantial net salary increase (2x)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> No.

There is a world-wide shortage of competent programmers, and companies are starting to realize that irrelevant biases are hurting them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair point

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> what matters is interest, passion, maturity and experience, not length of time in one place.

<comment><AUTHOR> >> experience

Good point! And that's my concern (eg. Broad = Contracting Vs. Depth = Permanent)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What is your background?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm 25, strong academic background (BSc + MSc).

4 years professional experience at the same company, currently a Senior Dev.

In my current role I do a lot of greenfield development, machine learning, big data stuff and working with Open Source technologies.

<comment><USER10> I was in your position back in 1997 and I went into contracting in the UK. It worked out great for me, and I would definitely recommend it. I found it very easy to get work through jobserve.com. In fact once I'd done a few contracts, I built up networks of other contractors and recruitment agencies who gave me tips about upcoming contracts.

You just need to set up a ltd company and manage your own payroll/accounts/pension and then find an accountant to do your end of year accounts. Or you can pay an accountant to do it all for you (but it will cost more). I found it difficult getting a reliable accountant in the UK - <USER2> single one of them were late preparing my accounts.

As long as you don't mind moving to a new company every 6-12 months and working on potentially boring projects, it is a great experience. The money is great in the UK, and the work is generally relatively easy. I eventually got fed up with mind-numbingly boring projects and sitting with nothing to do most of the time (I think I work too fast), and eventually ditched it and worked full-time on my own startups.

I would recommend waiting until you get your first contract before quitting your job (that's what I did). Some want you to start immediately, while others will let you wait a month to give your notice.

<comment><USER9> What would you say a realistic rate is for a contractor?

Also, would you suggest charging per hour or day?

<comment><USER10> These kind of long-term contracts pay the 'market rate'. Back around 2000 the market rate was about 30-40GBP/hr or about 300GBP/day, or higher in the city. Although I haven't done any contracting in the UK for quite a while, I do occasionally look at the contracts out there and the rates seem to be about the same these days. Just go to jobserve.com and you'll see.

Right now I live in Canada and charge US$100/hr for short term contracts (up to a few days), although normally I quote fixed-price and it works out roughly $100/hr or a bit higher. This is mostly for customizing my own product to a customer's requirements.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Jobless and Staying That Way - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/weekinreview/08schwartz.html?_r=1

<comment><USER2> The article briefly touches on the fact that this is a Depression and not a recession. More should be said about this obvious fact as awareness of this should drive decisions made.

The article says that the solution is "more training" in institutions (and thus more debt for the unemployed) because "their jobs are not coming back".

More training in WHAT? The lost jobs were not making buggy whips, a pointless task for which there is simply no demand any longer because horse drawn carriages are obsolete.

The lost jobs have been in manufacturing which has been shipped overseas to countries with no enforced labor wage or environmental laws with which we, a country with enforced labor, wage, and environmental laws, can not possibly compete. The jobs did not become obsolete, they were shipped to a location where they can be done cheaper because they can be done without regard to human rights or the cost to the environment of dumping toxins straight into rivers and oceans.

These jobs are not gone because they are not needed. They are gone because they are being done by slave labor. Paid labor with benefits and a living wage costs more than slave labor and will always cost more, no matter how much "training" is done. Slave labor being cheaper is not a problem that putting people further into debt through "training" will solve. But it does have the effect of wasting time and effort, enslaving our own population through further debt, increasing government power as they get to control, regulate, tax and fund it all, and increase the income and power of bankers benefiting from no risk guaranteed student loans.

<comment><USER3> It's not just manufacturing jobs. I know people that have lost service sector jobs, including teachers, law enforcement, and firefighters. The hardest hit though have been construction-related. Those jobs aren't going overseas.

<comment><USER2> Sure, but manufacturing and farming, making things, is the actual financial foundation of an economy. Service sector depends on the existence of sound economical functioning of the jobs that produce things in order to function. If no one is making anything, real income is not being produced, and it is inevitable that the service sector must then collapse as it depends on the former for its health.

<comment><USER4> True ... but why draw lines at the semi-artificial boundaries of countries? Can you properly refer to e.g. the US as "an economy" or "part of the world's economy"?

You're also, I think, focusing too much on the labor input into manufacturing and farming. We're doing _very_ well in those sectors, but not with a whole lot of labor.

In fact, fantastically decreasing the labor in farming was thought to be a _good_ thing, and from the viewpoints of my parents, who were born in the early to mid '30s and who grew up on farms, I can assure that's largely true on the micro scale....

<comment><USER2> Sure we're doing well using imported oil to run equipment, using natural gas to manufacture fertilizer (this runs out in less than 10 years according to reserve divided by newly built 'clean gas plant' consumption), and latin slave labor to do what remains of the stoop labor.

It's not the existence of backbreaking labor that makes creating things valuable, it's the fact that things are being created which have value and which can be sold. Ultimately sold to people with oil and gas perhaps. There's only so many banking services they need for their petrodollars.

Involving ordinary people in manufacturing endeavors keeps them from committing crimes during the hours they are awake, and provides them with an income which supports industries such as services which are greatly dependent on volume of services provided. Services mentioned like firefighting and police and teachers depend on taxes which depend on income of the general populace, only a few of which are CEOs who live in ivory towers with gilded gates; or depend on volume such as tax preparation and retail sales. In either case you need the general population to be employed doing something. That something can be productive or not. If not productive, the economy collapses on itself as it finds itself unable to import things it needs because it has nothing of value to trade.

The gentleman made a comment that services jobs are being lost as well. Yes, but that is a direct consequence of the loss of manufacturing jobs which create actual goods of value using many people, who then are able to direct some of the income generated from goods creation to support these other secondary dependent industries.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon for first time lets people give Kindle e-books as gifts - <AUTHOR> http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/11/amazon-to-let-people-give-kindle.html

<comment><USER2> I wonder if they'll offer virtual gift-wrapping for $1 extra? I bet they'd make money off it.</comment>


Captain Grace M. Hopper: The Mother of COBOL (1981) - <AUTHOR> https://books.google.nl/books?id=JT0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA33&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false <comment><USER2> It's hard to appreciate today what powerful magic FORTRAN and COBOL were in the 60's and 70's. To learn COBOL was entering a world where you were in control, where you could cast spells that really worked, and get paid for it.

It's like humour: Charlie Chaplin, Laurel & Hardy, Lewis & Martin never made me laugh, but I have no doubt they were fresh, innovative and irresistible in their day.

When I saw my first computer graphics animation in 1966, a crude wireframe of an aircraft, my mind was blown. I was feverish with excitement. It's a shame we can never recapture that zeitgeist.

<comment><USER3> I felt the same way when I first played pong on a TV set in 1972 or 1973. It was shocking that it was interactive and I wasn't just a passive receiver.

I'm not a gamer but understand the technology well. It is funny I can look at these technically amazing FPS games and yawn, but pong was riveting just because of the context of the times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> She appeared on Late Night with David Letterman shortly after her retirement. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N_ywhx6_K0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N_ywhx6_K0) (interview start at 0:30)

<comment><USER5> Oh, wow, guys, absolutely watch this. She was so great.

Hopper's is the only grave I have ever visited at Arlington.

As they said of Wren,

LECTOR SI MONUMENTUM REQUIRIS CIRCUMSPICE

<comment><USER6> That's a tempting (secular) pilgrimage!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Captain at the time. I believe Commodore was the title at retirement, which would now be called Rear Admiral.

I realize this is fussy. It's fair to say Captain in an old, old article. I think the site requires no editorialization of headlines.

But much like the title President, is retained for life. I've got no problems referring to Admiral Hopper. I was very small when she passed, so all of my information is second hand at best. By all accounts she was an unstoppable force of nature. Purely out of respect for her drive and ability, the title really should be Rear Admiral Grace M. Hopper: The Mother of COBOL.

The nanosecond wire alone should be a compelling argument. Truly a hacker.

(also, the whole magazine is a strange window into the past. the cartoon on the page above is hilarious. providing a reading time for a resume is unthinkable today)

<comment><USER8> Commodore still exists. Rear Admiral is one rank below, and that's indeed what Grace Hopper was.

<comment><USER9> Commodore is (now) a title, not a rank. It was not always that way.

Commodore can refer to a Rear Admiral (Lower Half), which was Grace Hopper's rank (IIRC it was awarded long after her retirement). Commodore can also refer to a group commander -- for instance our Destroyer Squadrons are commanded by a Commodore, who is an O-6. Same with Naval Special Warfare Groups.

Commodore as a title and a rank has a long and storied history all the way back to the days of sail in the British Navy.

<comment><USER10> She kept getting called back to active duty, but to do that they had to promote her, otherwise she would have exceeded the time-in-grade requirements.

My one big regret in coming to work for what was then the Defense Communications Agency in September of 1989 was that I had missed meeting her wandering the halls of the basement of the Pentagon by just a few months. But I did work with some people who had known her personally.

I really wish I could have met her in person.

<comment><USER9> I wish I could have as well. Unfortunately she died a couple of years before I joined the Navy. My rate (DS) was heavily influenced by the things she did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> COBOL. Tsk. Grace Hopper invented the first compiler for the language A-0 in 1952.

</comment><comment><USER12> Captain Grace M. Hopper: the Mother of COBOL

By Vicki Porter Adams

When Captain Grace M. Hopper put her pack of Lucky Strikes (they still make them) on the table as she prepared for an interview, the assembled journalists felt that this would be a different type of question-and-answer session. It was.

Captain Hopper, 74, inventor, mathematician, teacher and computer expert, is on active duty with the United States Navy. She is called "The Mother of COBOL."

After talking to Hopper, you understand why she contributed so much to the computer industry. She is never satisfied with the way things are; she is eternally curious — an American pioneer.

In 1943, armed with a PhD from Yale, teaching experience and work at the Applied Physics Lab at Harvard, she joined the Navy. She was appointed to the pilot group assigned to analyze the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Calculator (ENIAC), the machine that was modified to become the first North American Air Defense computer.

\- "" "By not adopting—or following—standards, the Federal government spends $450 million a year converting computer programs."

Hopper was then assigned to work on the Univac Mark I, to help "tame the monster" as she puts it. Recognizing that progress was slow because operating instructions had to be repeated for each run, Hopper used her abundant common sense to devise a solution to the problem. She prestored the steps most prone to human error in the computer. This was the birth of compilers.

Hopper, after working with computers for 40 years, thinks, "The computer industry today is about where the Model-T was when it was developed. When I was a child, Henry Ford came along and invented a car everyone could have—as long as they wanted it black. That's where we are today. The very beginning of mass use of the computer. We haven't even begun to exploit its potential."

Captain Hopper is one of the first members of the U.S. data-processing community to recognize the value of using computers in the areas of predicting weather patterns, managing energy resources, increasing agricultural output and generally contributing solutions to the many long-range problems Americans must solve.

Largest Industry

"Computers will be, if they aren't already, the largest industry in the country," declares Captain Hopper. The data-processing industry will replace automobiles and construction as the mainstay of the American economy."

\- "" "The computer industry today is about where the Model-T was when it was developed."

When asked how expanding Japanese semiconductor production and Japanese activities in programming may affect American industry, she replied, "The American people have imagination and creativity. Nobody else possesses these traits as we do. I think it has something to do with the fact that we all came here from somewhere else. Many of our families were down and out. The American people have always had to think a little harder and do a little better to prove themselves. That's why we don't really have to worry about anyone else. Whatever we want to do, we can do.

"But let's not mismanage it," she continued. "Right now we're in the business of collecting information. No one has really analyzed the total flow of information. What is most important? Is it Joe's two hours of overtime, or is it a nuclear power plant that might blow up if we don't change a valve setting? We have not correctly addressed that.

"We haven't researched the value of information or the cost of incorrect information—or even which information gets priority. It is my experience that the senior squeaking wheel gets the top priority."

She offered an anecdote about the origin of the term "debug." "In 1945, while working in a World War I vintage non-air-conditioned building on a hot, humid summer day, the computer stopped. We searched for the problem and found a failing relay—one of the big signal relays. Inside, we found a moth that had been beaten to death. We pulled it out with tweezers and taped it to the log book. From then on, when the officer came in to ask if we were accomplishing anything, we told him we were 'debugging the computer."

Captain Hopper thinks standards have been neglected. "By not adopting — or following — standards, the Federal government spends $450 million a year converting computer programs. A real waste of money," she pointed out. "Of course, data-processing people won't obey formulas or follow standards anyway," she added.

Computer Future

Captain Hopper's strongest conviction about the future growth of the computer industry is her faith in the curiosity and imagination of the young and their acceptance of computers.

She admits that she may not consider age a factor in anything. When she was 40 and women were allowed to enlist in the regular Navy, they told her she was "too old." She says, "When someone tells you you're too old at 40, you get over the trauma. You never have to worry about age again." (Incidentally, the Navy called her back after she retired from Univac when she was over 60.)

She contends, "Kids know what's happening. They're up on the technology. Lots of bright youngsters aren't hampered by 'we've always done it this way; 'it won't work' or 'I've never heard of it."

She thinks the media contribute to the fears of people outside the industry. "What do we see in the newspapers?" she asks. "Computers will eliminate jobs. Computers will take over the world.

"Computers can't take over," she asserts. "We can always pull the plug!"

Finally, addressing the matter of the shortage of programmers and other computer people, Captain Hopper said, "Yes, there is a tremendous shortage, particularly in the area of system design. The schools and colleges aren't meeting the needs of the industry. The kids need hands-on time, and the teachers have to know how to operate and efficiently use computers. Apple is doing a good job of training teachers. Others must take up the effort "

Image: Grace M. Hopper: computer pioneer (Photo courtesy U.S. Navy)

October 5, 1981 - Infoworld, pg. 33

(OCR-ed for accessibility purposes)

</comment><comment><USER13> I thought she was a Rear Admiral?

<comment><USER13> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper)</comment></comment>


Rigging Time's Person of the Year poll? All in a day's twerk - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailydot.com/news/time-person-of-the-year-miley-cyrus-rigged/

<comment><USER2> I have actually voted, and found this... you know that feeling.</comment>


Mobeegal - mobile search. redefined. for Android G1 from Google ADC Winners. - <AUTHOR> http://mobeegal.in Mobeegal v1.0.1 released for G1. We have also submitted Mobeegal for YC 2009 program. Mobeegal lets G1 mobile users to search on a wide variety of topics like Dating, Travel, Local products etc., to find relevant information quickly and easily.<p>G1 users pls download and let us know the feedback. Thanks. <comment><AUTHOR> Mobeegal v1.0.1 released for G1. We have also submitted Mobeegal for YC 2009 program. Mobeegal lets G1 mobile users to search on a wide variety of topics like Dating, Travel, Local products etc., to find relevant information quickly and easily.

G1 users pls download and let us know the feedback. Thanks.</comment>


Ask HN: How can get a software job without a degree while being a foreigner? - <AUTHOR>

There's a lot of talk about how, particularly/only in software, degrees are obsolete and you could join a company or successfully make your own without one.<p>Unfortunately (for my case) these seem (obviously with good reason) focused on people with US residence or citizenship. Are there any post/guide/tips/something for a foreigner? <comment><USER2> There's a lot of risk involved for a company when hiring any employee. Not having a CS degree and having to jump through added hoops to sponsor a visa (which is a longterm process, and the company likely has a short term need) makes this a challenge. My suggestion would be to start by trying to find remote only/contract positions with a company and build a relationship over time that gives them confidence you will be a productive asset for their team.</comment>


OpenStack Corporate Member Bullies Board Nominee - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/3194232

<comment><USER2> The Gist this submission links to has been taken down.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nothing of value was lost.

<comment><AUTHOR> Irrespective of whether that was the case, it's abhorrent behaviour. OpenStack needs to sort this out, openly.</comment></comment>


Apple's Products Are Getting Harder to Use - <AUTHOR> http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/apples_products_are.html <comment><USER2> Look, it's not without its faults, but iOS makes for a _much_ more approachable device than a 1993-era Mac. My young son cannot read, write, or speak, and I'm amazing at how productive he is on the iPad. For example, without instruction, he's organized his programs into folders, a task that I know he still can't perform on a Mac, complete with all its menus.

Probably the most compelling advancement of iOS is that it has a "home" state. No matter how far you go or how lost you get, you can always press one physical button to get back to a familiar starting point. I didn't realize how big that would be, and how much it would do to make users feel grounded and encourage exploration. For all types of users, I think that's a great advancement.

As for the gestures, there really are some confusing advanced ones, and I'd bet they have very little real-world traction. Happily, tap, swipe, and pinch are pretty much the only ones you need, and most users can pick those up in the first few minutes.

<comment><USER3> That insight about the home button is brilliant! I never realized how important it is to have that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The trend of choosing minimalist styling over usability has been obvious for some time. Apple is one of the worst offenders - particularly in light of their previous commitment to usability - but sadly not the only one.

My personal pet peeve is when both Apple and Google started removing colour and textual labels from the icons in their interfaces. Fortunately textual button labels are back in Gmail, but Google Docs and Aperture are still hampered by black-and-white-only icons. Surely it is obvious that it's going to be harder to quickly locate the desired icon if they are all black-and- white silhouettes instead of coloured illustrations?

(I can appreciate in the case of Aperture that there might, very occasionally, be cases where the coloured icons could affect the user's perception of the colour of the photographs they are editing. A global UI-desaturate switch would be more useful than enforced B&W icons, however, since colour is still used in other parts of the UI.)

<comment><USER5> This was also one of my biggest issues with Windows 8 (became slightly better in 8.1 and so far seems much better in 10).

There were so many things that were hidden behind what I would call "right- click in the middle of nowhere" and had no other way to access them (I assume that's supposed to be equivalent to the long press in a touch UI) that I never figured out until I gave up and went to youtube to figure out how the hell things work. Apparently you were intended to just go around right clicking on anything until something happened? I don't necessarily mind that they changed the UI, but I shouldn't have to go wade through a morass of bloated youtube videos just to figure out how to do anything. Even the Microsoft website never had instructions. And of course using builtin search (which used to be great on Windows) never explained shit about the modern UI.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> They are also getting more broken imho.

Case point, multiple Apple TVs on the same network, quite often broken. iTunes WiFi sync often breaks without a plug in and fiddle session, I guess they really want you to use iCloud.

App crashes on iOS are quite significant now where they used to be very rare imo.

<comment><USER7> OS X is even worse. Up until Mountain Lion I could easily left my Mac on for weeks without needing to reboot (except for crucial updates). Since Mavericks and even more so Yosemite it has gotten out of hand. I need to reboot _at least_ once a week, WiFi is broken and Finder regularly hangs up on me.

<comment><USER8> I'm playing with the El Capitan beta right now on a ~4 year old MBP and I will say that it seems very snappy and I haven't needed to reboot except for updates, and I haven't had any wifi issues (had a lot on Mavericks). That said, it's a clean install and I've been pretty gentle with it. I'm cautiously optimistic that they're improving these matters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with the observations. On a more technical level:

I find it astonishing how bad AirDrop is. I am typing this on a brand new MacBook Pro, and I can't send files to my equally brand new iPhone 6. I tried, multiple times, it simply doesn't work. Googling the issues tells me I'm not alone.

Not a huge issue, but there was a time when this would have been unthinkable. Also, iTunes. Just give it the bullet. Please. Oh, and Finder - kill it with fire will ya? Windows Explorer is still better, which is embarrassing.

<comment><USER10> > I can't send files to my equally brand new iPhone 6

I think the main issue is that Apple wants to abstract the idea of files and a filesystem away... at least on iOS devices.

While Apple does not say it in as many words, here is a quote straight from the horse's mouth:

> The iOS file system is geared toward apps running on their own. To keep the > system simple, users of iOS devices do not have direct access to the file > system and apps are expected to follow this convention.

[https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/FileMa...](https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/FileManagement/Conceptual/FileSystemProgrammingGuide/FileSystemOverview/FileSystemOverview.html)

<comment><USER11> Air Drop not working is a technical bug. It should work (but often randomly doesn't for no discernible reason).

<comment><USER12> Agreed, but I think quite of these bugs are very much the result of Apple not really caring enough. They have their focus, and sadly for many of us, it appears to be iOS over mac, and the iOS approach to files over a filesystem.

I don't think this is a new thing. The Finder is terrible, and has been for a long time. iPhoto hasn't been great for me either, nor iTunes.

But if I look at how most of the less-geeky users (and I suppose the majority of Apple users) around me use their macs, I kind of get it. They don't use iPhoto, iTunes and Finder the way I do, so they don't generally have issues or miss features that I do miss.

For the most part I can live with this situation, because the upside is that Apple's focus (and resulting neglect of other things) can lead to really great things. I love iOS and even though I have and would happily use an Android device, I am still willing to pay a premium for an Apple device. A lot of the most common use-cases, for me at least, are still superior within the Apple ecosystem. I'm enough of a 'common user' most of the time to accept the horrible experience whenever I step out of this role.

For now, Apple feels a bit like those (new?) companies/startups that send you packages of ingredients with recipes once a week so you can cook a few quite good (but relatively pricy) meals throughout the week with little fuss. The experience is good, the result is healthy and fresh even though it feels a bit... extravagant/excessive sometimes. But for people like me who don't want prepackaged meals, but who also don't like cooking from scratch all the time (especially not just for myself), it's a good solution.

The problem Apple is facing right now is that for whatever reason too much of the stuff they _do_ focus on, and too much of their essential functionality, has been slipping, and if the continue on this track, they'll turn into McDonalds. And I don't go to McDonalds, because it's both unhealthy _and_ strangely expensive. I'd just go back to cooking from scratch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think Apple still is "The Best", but like many others, I feel it's fast becoming "The Best" of a bad bunch, which isn't good enough for me, and hopefully isn't good enough for Apple.

I blame UXers.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's probably worth pointing out that the author is Don Norman - one of the pioneering thinkers in user-centered design and Human-Computer Interaction in general. He wrote _The Design of Everyday Things_ , which I would argue is required reading for anyone interested in HCI (admittedly a bold claim, considering how broad the field is).

I'm tempted to agree, but I'm not sure whether this is entirely Apple's fault (some of it is, certainly), or whether this is partly the fault of developers (or maybe shifting the blame back to Apple, Apple's fault for not imposing even stricter interface guidelines). Some apps in iOS have this affordance where you can go back if you swipe from the left edge of the screen inward, but frustratingly _some don 't_. Is this what Norman is talking about? It's not clear because he avoids giving specific case studies, which isn't his style ( _DOET_ is a veritable plethora of strong examples to illustrate his points), making me think he's saving them for his later critique.

Norman mentions research that users can't remember more than a small number of icons, and I'd like to know what research in particular he's referencing, but coming from a cultural anthro background and with some very superficial knowledge of semiotics, that seems inaccurate, or at least incomplete; maybe he's talking about people learning icons in a very constrained timeframe? People learn to identify countless icons throughout their lives and (within a given culture) you can reliably show people hundreds of iconic symbols and images that they would recognize immediately.

I agree with the general argument that Apple (and others) are overloading us with iconography that we need to internalize (iOS emoji in particular seems like too much too quickly, but maybe that's just me), but I think the answer to this is that it takes time for cultures to adopt icons into their lexicon.

I would argue that helping the user form a consistent and "accurate" mental model for how things work is the most important thing a designer can do. He points to this in some examples (swipe gestures in particular, which evidently are inconsistent between iPhone, iPad, Trackpad, and Magic Mouse), but he doesn't name the overarching point as such (or if he ties it all together, I missed it).

At the end, Norman previews that he and Bruce Tognazzini are writing a critique on "How Apple ruined design", giving me the sense that this post was about drumming up interest for that. If that's the case, mission accomplished.

<comment><USER15>
      > Some apps in iOS have this affordance where you can go back if you swipe
      > from the left edge of the screen inward, but frustratingly some don't.

Interesting example. If the phone is set to a RTL language, do you swipe from the right to go back? Or is the answer _some do, some don 't_?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is this really an issue? We're now living in a society saturated with smartphones, tablets and PCs. Kids today are born with iPhones and iPads. Older populations don't seem to be having problems using these devices, heck my 80 year old grandmother can use her iPhone, Mac, and iPad perfectly.

As our society adopts basic principles of computer interaction we can make them more advanced while keeping the same relative level of simplicity.

<comment><USER17> That's what I wonder as well. We've been inundated with mobile interaction for the last 7 sevens that maybe it's ok to start peeling off some of the layers.

If you started with the flat iOS UI from the beginning it would have been very difficult to get accustomed to. Nowadays, we don't rely on those skeuomorphic affordances because we assume touch interfaces are the defacto.

That said though, I do agree that we should think critically about seasoned vs beginner interfaces. We should strive to accommodate both without causing detriment to one group or another.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The Apple Watch has been getting a bad rap for complexity, even though it is simpler than the iPhone.

What are the main gestures, today, for the iPhone? Home-button-press(once twice long-siri thrice), home-button-double-tap, home-screen-swipe(left right middle-down mid), bottom-up, top-down (Today Notifications), three-finger- swipe, pinch, shake. What did I miss?

Compare that with the original iPhone. We started simple, and then year-by- year, a new gesture is added, which seems natural because it's only a small change from what was done before. The UX has been boiling the frog.

So, then the Apple Watch comes along. It is less complex than the iPhone 6, but more complex than the original iPhone. Because it is starting from scratch. It highlights how complex iOS has become.

Would love to see a UX reboot. But, who at Apple has power to do so? Would it turn out like Window's tiles?

<comment><USER19> I had a colleague recently who handed me his iPhone ( a 5, I think. Tall and skinny. ) and asked me to look-up some astronomical data while he was busy.

Not having used one before, I can say the the interface is far from intuitive. I couldn't find the way to switch between running apps, I kept having to go back to the home screen and hit the app's icon.

I've just searched now out of interest and apparently I should have swiped four-fingers to the left. How is that in any way discoverable? Or even easy to do when walking.

<comment><USER20> FYI, double-tapping the Home button shows you a list of recent applications.

That would be the most commonly used way of switching apps, and it's one of the first tips that is shown to a user on a "new" phone by the OS.

Four finger swiping is an optional feature that power users can turn on.

Discoverability is still a valid issue, of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Author seems to me to mainly focus on the gestures of an interface. I'm not a big fan of greasy fingered swiping on a tablet or phone. I'll use it if I have to, but won't prefer it.

Three fingers swipe up is back and two fingers in a circle is save?! Not literally, but there's usually a dozen different gestures all with ambiguous meaning. At least ambiguous to me. But I don't have an immediate fix for the tablet interface.

I guess I'm an old fogy and prefer typing on a keyboard with my withered vestigial arms.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think any observation that imagines that old-school dropdown-menu-based applications are easier to use than iOS/Android applications is empirically off-base. More people use, more fluently, phone apps than ever used those desktop ones.

That's not to say that iOS-style interfaces are perfect -- obviously there are flaws there -- but if your starting premise is that MacOS was easier to use than iOS, you're just fundamentally at odds with reality, and need to figure out which of your premises are wrong.

<comment><USER23> Compare the usability of newer versions of iOS with older versions, then. In my opinion, there's been a lot of regression.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It could be just because we're coming from Android, but my friend and I experienced an approachability problem with the iPad about a month ago.

I was using an iPad on a flight (the in-flight entertainment was broken) and it took us, both computer engineers, a good ten minutes to figure out how to turn down the brightness. It was a painful experience trying to find the settings - swipe down? No.. swipe other directions, nope.

It took us forever to discover that 'settings' is just an app on the tablet.

Maybe it was just because we are part of the Android ecosystem, but using one didn't seem very logical.

Note: Neither of us specifically avoid Apple products, but just found them way too expensive with university for purchase.

<comment><USER25> As an iOS guy, I've had an exactly reciprocal experience struggling to navigate Android to change seemingly basic settings. I think our mutual difficulties make more sense if we assume "intuitive" is secretly a synonym for "familiar." We've quietly absorbed our preferred platforms preferred metaphors and idioms over time, and they're intricate and (hopefully) self- consistent.

Without intending to sound too flowery, what I find most interesting though is that the competition between the platforms seems to simultaneously drive both convergence and differentiation that's almost — musical. If you step back and watch the entwined evolutions you can see a lot of mutual love and hate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> It would probably be fairer not to compare Apple's products today with Apple's products from yesterday, but its products today with other companies' products today. As technology and tech culture and users evolve, so too do the interfaces. Now I have not used a Windows computer in a couple of years, but when I made the switch to OSX, I found it _much_ easier and more instinctive to use. I'd probably say the same about a Windows computer from 2 years ago vs. an Apple computer from 15 years ago, which like in this article, is an unfair comparison.

<comment><USER27> When I switched from Windows to OSX, I was constantly frustrated by the way Apple chose to organize things. I hated having the menu bar be on the top of the screen and not part of the window for example. Trying to take a screen shot was impossible without google. It was just as least as difficult learning to be productive on a mac as it was when I transitioned to Ubuntu.

I've come to believe that there is no such thing as a universally intuitive interface - consistency is achievable, but everyone comes to your interface with a different background and therefore a different sense of what is intuitive.

<comment><USER26> I find Apple's use of the trackpad for swiping between desktops or between full-screen apps to be much quicker for navigating an environment than the alt-tab or mouse use on Windows. Perhaps Windows has improved to offer similar Apple navigation techniques, but I really like that when I switched to OSX. I also think Time Machine is one of best native OS tools I've ever seen, painless incremental backups with no effort by the user.

<comment><USER27> I came to like things about OSX also. In particular I liked the Ubuntu-style Spaces. That doesn't mean they were intuitive; it took effort to learn the Mac milieu.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This article is a bit weak on detail, leaving us to fill in with our own anecdotes. I have one, last night my partner couldn't figure out how to add a new item in the "Reminder" application. Looking over their shoulder, it wasn't obvious to me either. The answer: click on the blank line. Kind of elegant and at the same time, confusing. After years of pressing the "plus" icon, Apple has switched gears and left us behind.

In my opinion, the problem is Apple's departure from the hints they've been training people on since the first iPhone.

</comment><comment> dont-say-that I guess this isn't up for discussion on HN.

Blasted from the top page straight out of the top 1000!

</comment><comment><USER29> You could not be more wrong. They're still very easy to use, and way easier and less confusing than Android. The gestures for swiping between full screen apps are the same on the mac and iPad. They're both 4 fingers. And if you can fit 4 fingers on a magic mouse, I commend you because it's so small!

I really don't see how they're getting harder to use. And I help people with it all the time, and what I hear all the time is, "wow that actually makes sense." It's the logical way.

So, I completely disagree and I'd be willing to say the majority would also agree.

<comment><USER30> _> The gestures for swiping between full screen apps are the same on the mac and iPad. They're both 4 fingers._

Not sure about iPad, but on OSX, it's three fingers for the track pad and two for the magic mouse: [https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT204895](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204895)

<comment><USER11> One finger more than the scroll gesture … I'm not sure how you could do it differently. Requiring three fingers on the mouse would just be weird (I'm all for allowing three fingers additionally to two fingers, though!) and requiring just two on the trackpad is kinda not possible (scrolling is obviously more important and scrolling with two fingers is obviously superior to every other implementation of that on a trackpad).

And it's literally only the number of fingers that's different. And the only non-obvious gesture is probably to swipe up to invoke Mission Control.

Also, the way OS X is set up, those gestures serve as shortcuts (like hot corners used to, in the olden days). Nearly every single functionality can be reached via just clicking (Notification Center, switching from desktop to desktop or fullscreen app to fullscreen app) or buttons on the keyboard (Mission Control, Launch Pad).

Just relatively less important and central functionality is relegated to either the context menu (the ability to look up words in a pop-over can be activated via the context menu or three finger tap) or keyboard shortcut and gesture (swiping down for App Exposé).

Accepting an arbitrary number of fingers … sure I'm all for it. But those gestures aren't really anything worth criticising. They are shortcuts that have to be explicitly learned. That's why there _are_ videos in the control pane. Apple knows that those have to be actually taught. That's why the UI has non-gesture alternatives that are obvious and in your face.

This is not to defend Apple – I just want to point out that little personal pet peeves like these aren't necessarily indicative of actual problems actual users have, especially if they come from an expert. (I also think you can always improve things and that's certainly also true of how OS X implements gestures. But that's just a truism that will never be wrong. As someone working in the field: Luckily. There are probably juicier targets than gestures in OS X, though.)</comment></comment></comment>


AlphaGo beats Ke Jie again to wrap up three-part match - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/25/15689462/alphago-ke-jie-game-2-result-google-deepmind-china <comment><USER2> Not surprising.

However, I am not buying the claim that the algorithm is going to transform many other domains:

" The system could help optimize power grids, he says, or streamline shipping routes, or refine scientific research."

by Wired [https://www.wired.com/2017/05/googles-alphago-levels- board-g...](https://www.wired.com/2017/05/googles-alphago-levels-board-games- power-grids/)

The main concern is data efficiency. AlphaGo essentially baked good movies into value and policy network by playing millions of times. In reality, unless you have a really good simulator, deep reinforcement learning is almost never applicable.

<comment><USER3> > AlphaGo essentially baked good movies into value and policy network by > playing millions of times.

I don't think that's a very good description of how AlphaGo was trained at all; you're essentially saying it merely overfits the training set, yet it clearly generalizes rather well to unseen board situations and still evaluates them sucessfully. No machine learning system would be found usefull if all it could do is merely memorize the training data.

Re the use of deep reinforcement learning, well for one the role of reinforcement learning in the first version of AlphaGo, the one described in the Nature paper was rather limited, and a small part of its training; it just made a ~3d KGS policy network into a ~5d KGS bot, and used to generate a training sample for the value net. If we had enough recorded human games to train the value net directly, that'd be an unnecessary step anyhow. And you could create such a training set w/o reinforcement learning since there are pure monte carlo bots stronger than 5d KGS - but that'd be far more computationally expensive.

But its still not really true that there aren't obvious applications of deep reinforcement learning - indeed robotics is one promising application, and that seems rather relevant. this paper initially demonstrated an impressive improvement in manipulative tasks, and you can prob follow its numerous citations for newer stuff: [http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.00702](http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.00702)

I do agree that this exact architecture in AlphaGo prob doesn't have applications beyond just teaching us how to play go better; it seems too specialized. I believe they mean it in just the vaguest possible sense; that the kind of deep algorithms demonstrating incredible performance in AlphaGo have diverse applications; but this should not come as a surprise to anyone even loosely following what people have done with deep learning in the past couple of years anyhow.

<comment><USER4> Go works precisely because it is a small closed system. An interesting match (from an AI perspective) would be a pro playing alphago on an unusual board (eg, one in the shape of a cat). The pro would take everything he knows about the game and apply it to the odd situation. Alphago is so specifically tuned that it cannot even handle any case except 19x19 (and maybe 9x9). Another interesting question would be small rules changes like "you may not play on any star points or any point directly touching them until turn 30".

Go has deep strategy, but it is very well defined in terms of what can and cannot be done and those rules are not particularly complex. Power grids in contrast are far more complex. There are thousands of rules, but also many more thousands of unwritten assumptions and case-by-case analysis. A final issue is that there exist unsolved and unrecognized problems.

The last AI winter (deep learning is just the latest rebrand) came from researchers overstating their accomplishments and making promises about general intelligence that could not be kept. Any claim about anything that requires general intelligence in the near future is undoubtedly overpromising.

<comment><USER5> > Alphago is so specifically tuned that it cannot even handle any case except > 19x19 (and maybe 9x9).

Do you have any sources to back this assertion? It sounds unintuitive as I know object recognition sytema are usually trained on small images but they generalize well to arbitrary image sizes. What you are describing sounds like overfitting.

<comment><USER4> The paper itself repeatedly says that all 48 layers of the policy network are 19x19 matrices. To make the point though, they initially train alphago using actual games. After a hundred thousand or so training games, it's finally ready to start playing and learning. There are less than a couple dozen recorded games on larger boards.

If you haven't played go very much, you may thing that "it's just a bigger board". 19x19 is commonly used because it has an even balance of edge and center influence (in reality, edge influence seems to be slightly higher). With the 13x13, corner plays have overwhelming influence in the center. At 9x9, there is basically no center strategy at all. Normal strategies starting in the corners and expanding influence toward the center don't work as effectively with larger boards (the larger the board, the more this becomes true).

This is a much different issue than image recognition in that strategy doesn't scale in the same way that images do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I did not see Alpha Go's invasion of the top left corner coming.

The black group consisting of 3 stones (B13, C12, E12) did not seem alive at first, but it turned out to not only live but completely reduce white's corner.

<comment><USER6> Deepmind published a summary video for the game here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fOmbqjH7zI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fOmbqjH7zI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder what would be the result if the rules of the game were tweaked slightly (in an arbitrary fashion) just before a game, then the match went ahead as before. My guess would be Ke Jie would be fine and would adapt fairly quickly and AlphaGo would look pretty bad.

I think the AI/human crossover boundaries are at meta boundaries. As we get more meta, humans do better over AI. AI has been eating up the lower meta levels for some time now. It has been a very long time since a human could do division faster than a computer.

The question is how far does this meta staircase ascend, and if/when will AI climb all the way to the top?

<comment><USER8> What sorts of modifications could even be made to Go that it doesn't turn into an imbalanced mess?

<comment><USER9> Every move, you flip 6 coins. If all 6 come up as heads, you swap seats and colors with your opponent.

This means that an advantageous board position is much less important, and it will be in both players favour to keep the board position very near evenly matched.

<comment><USER10> Not always. A player that thinks he will lose a game that's tied in the last 8-ish moves will have an incentive to create a highly unbalanced game. That way, that player gets a 50% chance of winning.

<comment><USER11> Given that there's only one flip left and you need 6 heads, he has a 1/2^6 or 1/64 chance to win.

In go the last 8 moves is almost never going to make the difference (the last 20-40 moves in a game that doesn't end in resignation there are almost no mistakes in pro games).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Naive question: is something like AlphaGo also better at chess compared to previous approaches to chess? Can someone elaborate?

<comment><USER13> Two approaches used by the previous version of AlphaGo (MCTS and a NN for position evaluation) have been tried in the past in computer chess with relatively poor results, while in the past few years they were already giving good results for Go.

The current version might be using some different techniques that could be more useful, though. They should release some details in the next few weeks.

<comment><USER11> Can't they effectively "solve" chess with the power of AlphaGo? Someone posted on the last thread that the AI plays one game of go every 2 seconds against itself to train (that's ~150 moves/second). Wouldn't chess be solved for all combinations in a matter of days?

<comment><USER14> Short answer is no. One estimate says there are 10^120th possible chess games. I'm not doing the math now, but I believe that falls into the not-physically possible within our lifetime using known physics. An "If you had started calculating at the beginning of the universe, you wouldn't have even tackled a sliver of the work by now" type of problems.

[http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/fyi-how- many-d...](http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/fyi-how-many- different-ways-can-chess-game-unfold)

<comment><USER11> What I mean by solving "every" move is that the AI would be able to determine which trees are a "losing" state and not continue, removing well over 99% (or 99.999% I don't know) of the possible games. I guess maybe solve is not the correct answer but something like 99% presumption on the best or best 3 moves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The official tournament page says it was only the second game. Why does the article suggest it was the third?

[https://events.google.com/alphago2017/](https://events.google.com/alphago2017/)

<comment><USER16> If you win two games of a three game match, the last game doesn't matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If AlphaGo has a dan rating, it would have been rated at 100 dan by now.

<comment><USER6> The problem with professional dan ranks is that they're capped at 9p, and each association has different rules for awarding that rank. Because of this there is a lot of variance among 9p.

For instance, Fernando Aguilar 6d (aguilar1 and aguilar on KGS), an amateur dan from Argentina, has defeated Hasegawa Sunao 9p as well as Yo Kagen 9p. In theory this should not have happened.

If the cap didn't exist, I think Alpha Go may be around 13p, based on the fact that Lee Sedol and Ke Jie may be able to give reverse komi to many top 9p players, and that Alpha Go may be about 3 stones stronger than both. Park Yeong-hun is less often mentioned but he may be playing at a higher level to that of Lee Sedol.

<comment><USER11> I don't know Fernando Aguilar but is the reason he's 6D not that he's capped at it before becoming professional? IIRC when I played in SF bay area (probably all of USA in the AGA), you couldn't get higher than 6D(7D?) without becoming a pro. I think in tournament lineup you would see something like Mr. A 6D (7.2) where the 7.2 was his estimated rating but it was a long time ago.

<comment><USER6> Not entirely sure about caps at the amateur level. At least go servers don't have such cap, and there's certain mapping between KGS ranks to offline amateur ranks. The highest attainable rank at Go servers is 9d, aguilar is 6d there.

[https://www.gokgs.com/graphPage.jsp?user=aguilar1](https://www.gokgs.com/graphPage.jsp?user=aguilar1)

An informal mapping among ranking systems can be seen here:

[http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison](http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison)

Servers usually manually override ranks for professional players...

But going back to my point, a 9p should be consistently stronger than a 6 dan amateur, but these counterexamples challenge that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> When Ke Jie says : "I also thought I was very close to winning the game in the middle but maybe that's not what AlphaGo was thinking". Do we know what AlphaGo was thinking ?

<comment><USER19> From what I've heard AlphaGo does maintain an estimate of what its odds of winning are at any given point in the game. Not sure if anyone from DeepMind has released any of that data from game 2 though.

<comment><USER20> Pretty early on Denis tweeted that AlphaGo believed his opponent had been playing a perfect game, up to that point:

[https://twitter.com/demishassabis/status/867584056095002624](https://twitter.com/demishassabis/status/867584056095002624)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Well, we are all fucked aren't we?

<comment><USER22> As in AI taking over the world? No, since AlphaGo is optimized to do just one thing.

<comment><USER23> The underlying technology is far more general than than you think. In addition to playing Go, it has already been used to play video games[1], diagnose diseases[2], and make Google's datacenters more efficient.[3]

1\. [https://deepmind.com/blog/enabling-continual-learning-in- neu...](https://deepmind.com/blog/enabling-continual-learning-in-neural- networks/)

2\. [https://deepmind.com/applied/deepmind- health/](https://deepmind.com/applied/deepmind-health/)

3\. [https://deepmind.com/blog/deepmind-ai-reduces-google-data- ce...](https://deepmind.com/blog/deepmind-ai-reduces-google-data-centre- cooling-bill-40/)

<comment><USER24> In each case with lots of manual tweaking to get the best performance. Deep learning is not magic; you need to find the right kind of architecture for your problem, and that requires prior knowledge. Humans will still be in the loop for at least the next decade or so.

<comment><USER25> > Humans will still be in the loop for at least the next decade or so.

Reassuring. Really.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I was impressed when this happened last year. Funny how all the AI fear mongering was the same back then. But a year later the result is just driving a car poorly around a GTA map. Oh and AlphaGo still winning Go matches. Scary indeed.</comment>


Canoo plans to offer electric vehicles by subscription - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-26/california-startup-plans-to-offer-electric-vehicles-by-subscription <comment><USER2> I am not sure how consumers would react to a service like this. The real question to me is how much people value a brand. If Porsche and Cadillac weren't successful in this, why would Canoo be? Because they have an electric van? What if Tesla tried the same thing? I can't help but feel that without a major brand behind it any project like this is doomed to fail.

There is also something to be said with the fragmentation of costs with car ownership and the effect it has on the mind. It doesn't seem so bad when your insurance and gas are divided into 2 bills, but when you get the same cost in one bill it seems worse. Not sure if that's just me though.

If I had more time I would look into car ownership studies. It would not be good if human ego was opposed to your business model. A service as an inferior good ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferior_good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferior_good)) could mean that your company would be incentivised to lower economic prosperity.

tl;dr - Canoo has no big brand behind it. Is cost bundling or fragmentation better? Do people want to own cars? If people who can't afford cars are the only ones using Canoo are they incentivized to prevent them from affording cars in the future?</comment>


The 7 Categories of Website Optimization - <AUTHOR> http://jeffwhelpley.com/2012/03/25/7-categories-website-optimization/ <comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing, it's a great article</comment>


Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain-Based Startups Are Disrupting the VC Model - <AUTHOR> http://startupmanagement.org/2016/10/06/how-cryptocurrencies-and-blockchain-based-startups-are-turning-the-traditional-venture-capital-model-on-its-head/ <comment><USER2> This appears entirely speculative. In practice, anything blockchain-related has been a huge black hole for VC money. Is there a cryptocurrency or blockchain endeavour that has actually worked out well for the investors?</comment>


Designing Gmail's new left navigation - <AUTHOR> http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/designing-gmails-new-left-navigation.html

<comment><USER2> "The end result is a system that is more flexible, more responsive, and always keeps your chat contacts and unread count visible"

I have to disagree. The new design hides the unread count of labels you have that didn't make the cut to be always visible. I now have to hover over the label sections in gmail to keep tabs on my labels. Thus I really dislike this new design. What used to be accomplished at a glance now requires conscious mouse movement.

EDIT: As I discovered below in this thread, you can drag the divider and make it so all labels are on screen at once. So my comment is now irrelevant.

<comment><USER3> You can drag the label above the "cut" to make it always visible.

<comment><USER4> No, you can drag the cut divider past the label you want to expose, which then leaves all the other (unwanted) ones exposed as well. The new functionality is OK, but that's all - hardly worth a self-congratulatory press release on how it was designed. And I'm mystified about why the left column is so narrow; I don't use a widescreen monitor, but even at a 4:3 screen ratio and with a relatively low resolution of 1280:1024, the left-hand column feels cramped and inefficient, with everything organized vertically into lists and dropdowns.

You know what I'd like? Being able to net my labels without the nesting being in the label title. I have a _Family_ label, with sub-labels like _House_ , _Medical_ , and so on. These show up in the list of emails as _Family/Medical_ which is a waste of space. true, I might have other medical categories, but if I did I could use color to differentiate them.

<comment><USER3> _No, you can drag the cut divider past the label you want to expose, which then leaves all the other (unwanted) ones exposed as well._

You can drag the divider up and down to change the number of labels that are shown. You can also drag-and-drop individual labels across the divider to show or hide them. I just tested on FF, Chrome, and IE and it works.

<comment><USER4> I can do the former, but the latter seems to be broken at present. Might be because I'm in using a dev build with multiple flags enabled ATM though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's sad that so much thought and energy went into designing something so mind-blowingly awful.

I'm with city41, I'm constantly chasing my labels now.

I don't WANT gmail to act more like a native app and less like a webpage.

If I did - I'd use a native app, not a web app.

<comment><USER6> I agree. I hate this concept of making it feel like an app... if I wanted an app, I would use the (awful) tablet interface.

To me, the innovation of gmail was that it made a usable webpage, that worked the way a website should, and yet was still efficient and user-friendly. Part of this was done by copying the better aspects of the app world (keyboard shortcuts, eager fetching of messages, fast performance, etc). But it still fundamentally felt like an efficient, intuitive, information-delivery system (the web).

Copying the worst aspects of the app world (multiple scrollbars per page/screen, massively higher cognitive load due to all the scrolling, etc) is not an improvement.

<comment><USER5> Yes, exactly.

I hate that they are hijacking the browser's behaviour and replacing the normal scrollbars with those silly little things for example.

Trying to make this act like it's not a webpage is awful. Make it work like a better webpage, not less of one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Suppose someone launched a competitor to Gmail today. What would be some killer features from Gmail that should be emulated? What are some anti- features from Gmail that should NOT be cloned? And what are some brand new features that should be introduced?

I know it's a bit nuts to try and go up against Google, but what the heck, allow me to speculate and daydream for a bit :)

<comment><USER8> Single most important Gmail feature that every single email client (web, desktop, mobile) should have adopted since April 2001 but didn't: conversations.

Also, if you're thinking of designing an email client, you should take some inspiration here <http://smcllns.com/a-better-email-client> that will of course make it a very targeted email client, but I think that's the only way to make a dent in that space. Also look at Facebook Messenger.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, that is a bit strange.

Sure, it's not entirely straightforward to figure out an algorithm for sorting emails into conversations. But it's not rocket science either.

<comment><USER9> The algorithm doesn't seem to be the problem. The UI for displaying conversations however, has been done very poorly by some competitors.

<comment><USER7> I'm getting a bit tempted to start coding :)

Do you think there is any room in this field (ie web mail), though?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was using the new theme in beta for months just fine without issue until they recently launched the new design. IMO, the left navigation is the worst part of the new design, which was _not_ present in the old beta theme. Everyone says it's possible, but I still can't figure out how to show all my labels. I also have Google Docs in my left menu, but that is now hidden in a secondary menu (the ellipsis). This means that I can't simultaneously access my gtalk and gdocs list. I have the screen real estate for it—why is it modal?!

</comment><comment><USER11> I feel I just read a bunch of words that stand in stark contrast to reality, with me finding the new design confusing, badly laid out, hiding important parts of the UI without any scrollbar indication and even more damningly I find it looks amateurish in 'compact' mode, the only practical configuration for seriously using it as a mail client.

I also can't understand how it can feel so awful when using it, they claim to have tweaked timings but this is exactly one of the parts of it that drives me crazy prompting me to keep switching back, UI elements suddenly spring to life unexpectedly. They seem to have got them all totally wrong.

I've been trying my best to like it but I've had enough now. The massive gulf between this botched redesign and something like the iPhone where every action 'feels' natural just shows how hard good design is. There are even UI inconsistencies like the reply/reply all/forward mock 'text' box keeps the mouse as an arrow instead of a pointer or text cursor, I still hesitate for a few seconds over it as my brain hasn't learnt to just go ahead and click it.

It just doesn't feel finished. The whole thing just feels half baked.

On the other hand I have been impressed with the new GMail client in a mobile browser. Apart from a minor quibble that you have to scroll to the bottom to reply, it's really good.

Edit: It's also called GMail, not GChat, why keep pushing the chat functionality, grr.

</comment><comment><USER12> If GMail decided to keep the inbox unread count visible at all times, then why didn't Google Reader keep the unread items counter visible at all times?

</comment><comment><USER8> Wait, Google was not happy enough breaking scrolling in iOS so they decided to break it on Lion too?

I'm gonna try hard not to think they are doing it on purpose.</comment>


Blackberry captures 10.6% of US cell phone market - <AUTHOR> http://www.rcrnews.com/article/20080811/WIRELESS/799815845/-1/rss01

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought this was notable for several reasons.

-This figure is for the entire cell phone market, not just the smartphone market.

-There has been a lot of hype around the iPhone around the blogosphere (HN being no exception), yet the real-world figures are more telling. Despite what many may think, the iPhone isn't and won't be a BB killer (and vice versa).

\- The Blackberry is probably getting ignored by the HN/startup in favour of iPhone apps. If you're doing something with mobile development, you probably shouldn't ignore a platform with a bigger market share and a far more capable API.

<comment><USER2> A bigger market share and more capable API doesn't matter if you don't have the capital to make a business out of it. Sure, you can build a Blackberry app, but how would you sell it and get it in front of people without a lot of money spent on marketing and promotion? Blackberry apps don't usually make the front page of TechCrunch.

The capital requirements for making an iPhone app are lower. $99 to be exact, at the lowest. And you get your app in front of millions of people while not having to worry about building out a website, getting users to that website, and accepting credit cards.

If you're a established mobile company, sure, ignoring the Blackberry would be a bad move. But if you're a small shop or a programmer working in your spare time, the advantages of the iPhone platform are hard to ignore.

I'm not saying there isn't too much hype, but I think a lot of the hype is because developers sitting at home are saying to themselves "I can do that" when it comes to iPhone apps, but not when it comes to Blackberry apps.

<comment><USER3> Just how hard would it be for BlackBerry to duplicate the important parts of the AppStore? How about do that and lose the the obnoxious part, like setting up a standardized framework that's easy for developers to opt-in to, and not required?

<comment><USER4> The real coup with the the iPhone is Apple's handling of the user's experience in the iPhone App store.

BB certainly has the least retarded relationship with US carriers (especially now that they're so big), but their old-world mindset of small crappy web portals reflects more on their history with the carriers and their tendency to "eat their seed corn" and over-monetize channels (pay to get your app listed and pay to download it? no thanks)

Otherwise BB has the iPhone beat for indie developers -- the SDK is free to download and use, and you can transfer apps straight from your website to a telephone. BB doesn't force themselves into the center of your transactions, which means as a developer you're free to do things like charge per month or per message, or distribute your app for free and allow people to buy it inside the application itself.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: HackerNews web push for stories with 100+ upvotes by Roost (YC S14) - <AUTHOR> https://goroost.com/hackernews

<comment><USER2> Minor complaint about the website, don't mandate clicking on the "Learn more ∨" link, let me scroll down instead

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I just enabled Roost for a political site I run with 750k uniques because of this clever little Show HN. Thanks, guys.

The site's users (who are in the 45-65 age bracket, and so are not exactly at the vanguard) are 33% Safari over the last 30 days. Surprisingly good.

<comment><USER4> Hey, would you mind sharing the site? I've thought about doing something like this but always assumed getting traction would be painfull

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like the shattered wall graphic at the bottom of the page. Any plans for Chrome users?

<comment><AUTHOR> Chrome is definitely coming soon... _maybe_ have something to announce mid- August-ish to coincide with some important YC events ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cool! Curious why this is safari only... does it use a special api?

<comment><USER6> "push notifications for websites" is a OS X thing, it does't actually require your browser to be open I believe.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, Safari doesn't even need to be open. I use Chrome as my main browser but subscribe to interesting things with Safari.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very smart PR! Love it.</comment>