India gets ready to roll out cyber snooping agency - <AUTHOR> http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-gets-ready-to-roll-out-cyber-snooping-agency/article4798049.ece

<comment><USER2> Except I wouldn't call it copying. The government here has never really cared about privacy and abuse. India has been strong-arming Blackberry for a long time now. When the government wants information from ISPs, ISPs give it away readily.

Things won't change. The people and the media seem to prefer the latest cricket scores and Bollywood scandals (or the other way around).

</comment><comment><USER3> Indian Government is not known for strong IT security on it's servers. I have a strong suspicion, this data would be brought out very easily.

<comment><USER4> I'll just leave this here :/

[http://blog.y3xz.com/blog/2011/07/20/data-mining-the- israeli...](http://blog.y3xz.com/blog/2011/07/20/data-mining-the-israeli- population-census/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Get the right priorities

[https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/prime-minister-of- ind...](https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/prime-minister-of-india-each- state-in-india-should-have-different-currency)

</comment><comment><USER6> Out of a sort of morbid curiosity...

...whom would the presumed civilian contractors on this outsource to?

</comment><comment><USER7> Well isnt USA the "beacon of democracy on earth"? so let's make sure every nation takes exemple on USA,in every way.

</comment><comment><USER8> Improve our economy first. Then we can spy</comment>


Ask HN: You want Atom invites/you have invites to give? - <AUTHOR>

When you get a beta invite for the Atom editor, you get three more to give away.  We should have a thread to match people with invites with those that want them.
Post a comment with the number of invites N you have left to give. If you want one, post a reply asking for it.  If there are already N replies, then assume that they are all gone.
You need an email address to send the invite.  So please make sure your email is visible in your profile. (If you're new to HN you may not know that the email field in your profile is not publicly visible.  You need to also put it in the about section if you want other HN people to see it.)
I messed around with Atom last night, and found it to be a good replacement for TextMate or Sublime.
I'll go first.... <comment><USER2> What I expected to see were huge branching trees, where those who received the invite in turn offered theirs, but it seemed to not be the case :(

P.s. I would love one and promise to pay it forward... electriched[at]gmail

<comment><AUTHOR> I was hoping for that effect as well - since you get three this should have been quite self sustaining. I did my bit, I guess. Sorry it ended up unbalanced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I could be too late... but I'd love an invite too. I'm excited to experiment with extending Atom using Javascript, since I'm a web developer. email@example.com.

</comment><comment><USER4> I would really appreciate an invite if anyone can spare one. Looking forward to begin extending atom with my own package ideas.

Email: lyaunzon.b [at] gmail.com

</comment><comment><USER5> Again, if there's enough to go around, I'd love to have one. I'm javiergomezacebo[at]gmail. Thanks in advance!!

</comment><comment><USER6> Would really like to have one and I spend quite a lot of time playing with sublime text plugins :) andy [at] fine.io

<comment><USER7> sent

<comment><USER6> Awesome, much appreciated!

<comment><USER8> Mind sending one? linrunix [at] gmail.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If anyone has a spare, I would very much like one. I'm centigonal at google's mail site.

<comment><USER10> Same here please. SyncTheory13 at the above domain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wouldn't mind checking checking it out also if anybody has one available. jdrozd [at] gmail

</comment><comment><USER12> If anyone has a spare invite, please send one to pankaj.ghosh[at]gmail[.]com. Thanks in advance.

</comment><comment><USER13> I would love an invite! Been refreshing my inbox all day :-)

qubitcoder [at] gmail.com

</comment><comment><USER14> Looking for an invite, plz send to philipp.bisson[at]gmail. Thanks in advance. :)

</comment><comment><USER15> If anyone can spare one, I would love to have an invite. alex[at]alexgaribay.com

</comment><comment><USER16> If anyone still has an invite, please invite me at email@example.com.

</comment><comment><USER17> Any extra invite to aascensao AT gmail ?

Thanks in advance :)

</comment><comment><USER18> I would like one, if anyone has a spare firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I have 2 invites to give away. Please reply if you want them.

<comment><USER19> Please send one my way. Edit: Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> Done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If anyone can spare one, I'd love to have one, thanks.

</comment><comment><USER21> Can I have an invite please? joshux321 [at] gmail.com

<comment><USER22> send

<comment><USER21> Thank you

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'd quite like one me at ryanmcdonough .co.uk

</comment><comment><USER24> I would love an invite! zthorntoncs{at}gmail.com

</comment><comment><USER25> I'd like one too, cannonstar at gmail.com

</comment><comment><USER26> Would love an invite! - kmadura AT googlemail

</comment><comment><USER8> Would love an invite: linrunix at gmail .com

</comment><comment><USER27> Can I get an invite? email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER28> Looking for an invite, email in profile.

</comment><comment><USER29> Me too, please. raistant [at] gmail.com

</comment><comment><USER6> I now have two left if anyone wants one

<comment><USER30> I would love one, jason [at] theograys.com

<comment><USER6> Sent it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment> arvind-naidu An invite please. email@example.com

<comment><USER31> sent

<comment> arvind-naidu Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> One for email@example.com please

</comment><comment><USER33> Invite email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER34> i'd love to get an invite :) email@example.com

<comment><USER6> Sent

<comment><USER34> thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> nick [at] brightjourney [.] com

Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER7> send me one please: hn [at] kurai.in

<comment><USER31> Sent

<comment><USER7> thank you :)</comment></comment></comment>


Our Chrome Extension Is Safe - <AUTHOR> https://blog.pushbullet.com/2020/05/15/our-extension-is-safe/ <comment><USER4> Previous discussion where Pushbullet was worried about being killed off the chrome store: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23168874](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23168874)

</comment><comment><USER5> You know this wouldn't be so much of an issue if Chrome didn't disable the ability to install extensions outside of the web store.

As an extension developer its absolutely infuriating to realize that:

1\. There is no way to install extensions outside the web store

2\. Google won't approve anything to the web store.

3\. The vast majority of people use Chrome vs other browsers.

\</comment><comment>

I get it, Chrome is Google's browser and they can do what they please with it. However Chromium is open source and it's still impossible to do so.

Like thanks Google. I spent months developing an extension only to realize that as it stands today for the majority of developers, the chrome web store is closed for new submissions.

And Google didn't even have the courtesy of telling us it's essentially closed, they just string us along with "pending reviews" (for context I've been trying to get my extension approved since February).

<comment><USER6> It's worth noting that the Chrome Web Store is currently full of malware and most malware I see on PCs was installed via the Chrome Web Store. By design, HTTPS does not protect your privacy at all if you have extensions that violate it, since they see what you see after TLS termination.

So this is a huge deal, Google is already bad at it, but I can't fault them for heavily restricting extension install: Currently they are way too lax.

<comment><USER7> This is still something of a problem of Chrome's own creation though.

The reason Chrome can't be much, much more restrictive about what extensions get placed in the store is because there is no alternative. The less important your store is, the more exclusive (and safer) it can be.

Look at Linux with package managers like AUR. If a package isn't included in the official Arch repos, I generally don't mind. I can go install it if I've vetted it myself. What that means is that Arch can be a lot more restrictive about what they include. They don't really need to provide a bunch of justifications, they can just say they had a bad feeling or haven't gotten around to looking at it.

If the goal is to have safe spaces where users can be certain that they won't ever run into malware, the space maintainers need the freedom to be very restrictive. Google doesn't have that freedom with the Chrome Web Store specifically because getting banned from the Chrome Web Store is a massive deal -- they can't just decide to prioritize safety over everything else.

Small, optional safe spaces that people can opt into will always be better filtered, better moderated, and overall safer than a giant space that's forced to balance between freedom and safety for every single user at the same time. Moderation doesn't scale.

<comment><USER8> I don't think their priority is making a specific area where users are free from malware; they're trying to make it hard for malware overall to integrate with Chrome. Adding a supported path for software to integrate with Chrome (allowing extensions not through the store) where they can't block malware would be giving up on that goal.

<comment><USER7> > they're trying to make it hard for malware overall to integrate with Chrome

That's a reasonable argument, and you're probably right about their motivations. But I'm not convinced that's a realistic goal, because the definition of malware/spyware changes depending on the context/user.

The big reason moderation doesn't scale is because you're forced to balance everybody's needs at the same time -- you can't optimize for any particular user. If the end-consequence of an exclusive web store is that it's much harder for the Chrome team to ban shifty apps without everyone on Twitter asking for a bullet-pointed list explaining why, then the Chrome team isn't really making the world that much safer.

In general, I would advocate that it's better to try and build safe spaces rather than safe worlds. That's kind of a pragmatic philosophy: I'm having a hard time thinking of an existing safe world that I think runs well. All of the major app stores (including Apple's) have malware problems to at least a certain degree. Most giant social networks are not doing a good job of moderating content. Package managers for languages like Node and Ruby are running into the same issues.

Maybe the web itself? But the web doesn't get its safety from moderation, it gets its safety because of sandboxing.

If I'm thinking purely as a consumer, what I really want is an extension store where I know 100% that everything on it is fine. I don't want to have to think or read reviews or look up the author before I install an extension. I want it to be clear when I'm being safe and when I'm doing something dangerous. I suspect that's what a lot of consumers want, and I just don't see any realistic path for Chrome to provide that with their current strategy.

I get that "somebody might choose to leave the safe space and install malware anyway" feels bad, but if the consequence of avoiding that is, "everybody gets kind of substandard protection all the time", maybe it's worth questioning whether Chrome's malware goals are worth pursuing in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So, judging from the discussion on Twitter, there is basically a single guy at Google handling issues like that.

> FWIW Tweeting at other Googlers will probably just get them to me – not that > I have a problem with that. At the moment there isn't really a better way, > and as a single human I don't scale well. TBH we have systemic issues to > work through to improve the comms process here

[https://twitter.com/DotProto/status/1261058935085101058](https://twitter.com/DotProto/status/1261058935085101058)

> I'm literally the only one for extensions.

[https://twitter.com/DotProto/status/1261155320740499456](https://twitter.com/DotProto/status/1261155320740499456)

<comment><USER10> I had an epiphany 5-10 years ago about technological advancement. An article on here was posted that bart workers would be obsoleted. That it would save so much money. That bart could be more efficient.

The solution was for users of bart to self service.

Which got me thinking: so much of technological advancement isn't about reducing inefficiency, its about making other people bear the cost of that inefficiency. Someone that is proficient in navigating a subway map - <USER2> that is doing it daily - can do so much quicker than people that are unfamiliar. Despite it potentially being more efficient to keep the person used to doing these things day in and day out employed, (some) technologists still insist on eliminating them because that's more efficient when looking at the smaller picture.

This is basically what Google is doing here. They are making other people and organizations bear the burden of their inefficiencies.

<comment><USER11> Say what you want about Amazon, but they've encultured the best approach I've seen so far.

They constantly try to automate and make things more efficient, but they also assume they will _constantly_ screw up for someone, somewhere, at scale.

So they back it with an empowered human CSR team, who do their best to make customers happy. They then (apparently) measure the rate of screw ups continuously, and iterate on their processes until they can drive that rate close to zero.

So essentially, Bezos realized that the way to excel was to (a) move fast, (b) break things, (c) apologize (and pay painfully!) when you break things, (d) do your best not to break things in the same way again.

I feel like Google (as a whole, some teams / products aside!) doesn't really grok (c).

Which may work for customer acquisition, but not so well for retention.

<comment><USER12> Amazon actually takes your money and also has competitors (high street etc). I think that partly explains some of the differences in their approach to your point (c). I think that Amazon also delegates a lot of the pain you're talking about onto their employees rather than their bottom line. BTW I speak as a complete hypocrite who is a happy Amazon customer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wow, they used the "complaining online and getting enough upvotes" support channel. It should _not_ reflect well on companies when they fix things that come to their attention this way.

<comment><USER14> I almost want to start a customer service pledge that says "We won't do anything special based on social media unless it retroactively takes into account other customers, and involves process changes that would resolve the problem in the future."

Then at least they would be internally consistent about things like this. Too many Google products have "support by public outrage".

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> They could also tell what was wrong to the customers.

Also, I laugh about the google promise of being more open. Every single time they screw it and goes viral, they promise the same until 6 months later when another business is screwed again.

Call it having your mail shut down, your cloud, app deleted on the play store, the extension on chrome, etc etc.

We've already heard that story dozens of times.

<comment><USER16> A Google reviewer can select one of three canned responses to tell a developer what's wrong.

[https://www.blog.google/products/gmail/save-time-with- smart-...](https://www.blog.google/products/gmail/save-time-with-smart-reply- in-gmail/)

Oh, you wanted an artisanal hand-crafted response unique to each individual situation? That's not scalable!

<comment><USER17> I abhor such... dehumanising (for lack of better term) "features" whose advertised benefit is saving time, but has a subtle effect of gradually delegating decisionmaking to someone or something else --- whose goals may not be in your best interests.

Every time you "didn't have to think" is a time when _someone else_ did the thinking for you. Take that too far and there is no _you_ left in your life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Until Google gives us a roadmap with what they're going to change about the review process and when, I'm not hopeful right now. I don't understand why they need to be this opaque about it if they want a healthy developer ecosystem.

It's currently expected behaviour that extension updates from developers can take up to 3 weeks to be reviewed and go live (same as before the pandemic):

[https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/faq](https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/faq)

> "If your item's status says "pending review" for more than three weeks, you > should contact support."

Is it going to change? When? See here for all the developers waiting over 3 weeks for their updates to go live (that's not including what happens when they don't pass review):

[https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium- extensions/Hy1QgEJzWi0)

All we seem to get back from the few people on the Chrome extension team that communicate with extension developers is along the lines of "I understand your concerns, I want it to change as well, and I'll talk to the team".

It's like the person from Google is talking about getting in touch with a team that work for entirely different company, as if what the team can't be influenced.

Who's the one making the actual decisions and why don't they talk to us directly?

</comment><comment><USER19> The current internet giants got huge monopolistic like power that many dictators of many countries would envy. The set their rules, execute them, and judge them.

I believe once you become a platform there should be an independent nano- courthouse where you can appeal. Today being rejected by Apple, Amazon, or Google platform is equivalent to the economical death penalty for many individuals.

It should be possible to pay $100 by individuals and appeal to an independent nano-courthouse if the original platform rejects or blocks you. If you win, the appeal fee is refunded and the platform has to cover the cost. If you lose, your $100 is gone.

<comment><USER20> Imagine being banned by ALL of them. You are cut out from a large chunk of the Internet. the only thing saving you from being unable to access common internet services are those that dared to defy that monopoly (DDG, Mozilla and all those nameless folks working nights and weekends on projects you don't even know that exist until you become an internet pariah)

<comment><USER21> Oh, my company has been there. Our DNS was blacklisted because someone spoofed our emails via GoDaddy. Well, Google blocked the DNS IP, and any emails we sent or tried to receive went into the ether. We also had #1 search results go missing because of it, a nightmare it was.

I've since resolved the issue, lord did that take a chunck of our traffic away. Government bodies also could not access us, which hurt a lot!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> As a Firefox fan, I really hope it happens again and again. It's good for the web as a whole when Chrome fails and Firefox doesn't.

As a technical person, you should be advocating the use of (real, community owned) open source browsers not just whatever the majority uses.

I feel that Google's monopoly on the browser market for desktops will be more and more endangered as they (for legitimate business reasons) refuse to provide the services and processes that a modern browser user/developer deserves.

<comment><USER22> 1) Chromium is open-source as well.

2) Like 90% of Mozilla revenue comes from contract with Google.

3) Not sure what community-owned means here, but one could submit useful patch to both Chromium and Mozilla teams and have it accepted into main codebase.

4) Decisions for both products are not made by a community, but by internal full-time employees who are subordinates of CEO. Mozilla CEO knows the company absolutely can't lose that contract with Google.

<comment><USER20> 1\. No, it is not. Chromium relies on binaries as well as calling Google's web services whose code you cannot read. That is why ungoogled-chromium is a thing

2\. Not sure what your point is here. Mozilla needs to make money to maintain and improve its advocacy work

3\. See point 1. You don't own or control Google's web services nor its domains therefore you have no full control of the build process if Google decides to shut down its services. If you want to see what community owned means, I suggest you look at the Python community. No hidden binaries or mysterious calls to corporate web services

4\. Google's goal is to make money, Mozilla is to keep an open web. Obviously, Google has potential business conflicts while Mozilla doesn't, Mozilla wins even if it dies as long as the web is kept open, Google wins if it makes money full stop

You simply cannot compare them. Just look at Chrome in a fully Google-owned environment (Android), it does not even have extensions.

<comment><USER23> > _Not sure what your point is here. Mozilla needs to make money to maintain > and improve its advocacy work_

I think the point is that Google could one day just say "hmm, we don't care about being the default search engine on Firefox anymore", decide to not renew the contract, and there's goes Mozilla's biggest source of revenue. With Firefox's market share as low as it is, I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.

It's a bit risky when a large chunk of your revenue comes from a single company, and it's incredibly risky when that company is essentially a competitor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The problems with the Chrome store are likely not over. What good is it if you have to stir up half the internet to get through their process?

It's not as if developers can go to other platforms since Chrome has 70% of the market. Most of us in tech are in it to innovate and disrupt but hard to do that if everything is a Google or Amazon monopoly.

If Chrome is broken then the browser market is broken. Devs should organize to solve this since Google doesn't seem to be paying attention.

We need to collect and organize feedback from those experiencing problems which is everyone. Get it to antitrust folks in the EU and DOJ to start an investigation (to add to their other investigations). If Google knows the EU and Feds are watching, they might start behaving.

<comment><USER25> in the olden days we used linux and mozilla when if it wasn't windows or i.e. it was nothing. i filed taxes on paper. as the web goes closed and unfree, innovators have to open up new greenfields

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't think this is proper use of Chrome extensions, and it hearkens back to the days of search toolbars, like the Ask and Yahoo toolbars being installed by Java. [https://www.pcworld.com/article/2940688/java-installer- ditch...](https://www.pcworld.com/article/2940688/java-installer-ditches-the- ask-toolbar-swaps-in-yahoo-defaults.html)

As a user I want my browser's extension support to be more like Visual Studio Code's than like Atom's. Visual Studio Code has fine grained permissions, and prevents extensions from going through and changing everything. Still, it's nice that Atom exists so if I want more powerful extensions, I can use Atom.

There's two ways to go that I see. One is for someone to release an alternative browser that let you install pretty much any extension, sort of like Atom. The other is for the company that wants to provide the user with an innovative browsing experience to develop their own browser, which is what Brave has done.

My reaction to Pushbullet is, as the author of the top comment on a recent post put it, "Yikes" [0]. They have funding from reputable VCs but they require way too much permission and store way too much user data for what seems to be occasionally useful utilities, and this places them alongside the Ask Toolbar in my mental model of the space.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172856](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172856)

<comment><USER27> As a Pushbullet user, I think the two cases are nothing alike. Pushbullet is doing things _for_ me. The toolbar plague was about getting access to do things _to_ you. Should Pushbullet be using the minimum set of permissions for that? Sure. Could there be better permission models, ones that make sure Pushbullet doesn't do anything naughty? Possibly! But neither of those justifies a blanket ban.

<comment><USER26> I'd like to know what the number of users that directly used Pushbullet in the last day (or week, or month) over the number of users that have the Android app installed is. If they have it installed, everything they copy to the clipboard on Android is being sent to their servers, is it not? That puts them in the same category as Yahoo! Toolbar for me.

At one time Yahoo! Toolbar was useful for a significant percentage of its users, because it would let them know how many email messages they have, as well as give them convenient access to the news and weather - so I disagree that it did nothing for its users.

Edit: I took a look at [https://blog.pushbullet.com/2014/08/20/introducing- universal...](https://blog.pushbullet.com/2014/08/20/introducing-universal- copy-and-paste/) \- it appears it was doing that at one time, but currently it may only be doing that for premium users, who would conceivably be likely enough to get good use the feature that it would justify the potential security risk.

<comment><USER28> I am a premium pushbullet user and have it on my android phone. It is the only reliable solution to handle texting and notification from the Windows or Chromebook desktop I have come across.

I've never thought about the information they capture or keep, but I do know photos sent through text are kept on [https://dl3.pushbulletusercontent.com](https://dl3.pushbulletusercontent.com) for a certain period of time. I don't know how long.

<comment><USER29> You don't use messages.android.com?

<comment><USER28> I know it as messages.google.com. It doesn't work among multiple desktops concurrently.

<comment><USER29> I see. Yes, that is true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Who's keeping a list of all of the times that Google has shut down someone's Adwords/YouTube/Gmail/Play Store account / rejected their app / something else without any communication (this doesn't count as communication, as communication has to _convey information_ ) or apparent cause? Bonus points for finding the correlation between an article being linked to on Hacker News and the problem being resolved.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is exactly what PushBullet was hoping would happen, so I don't know why they're surprised. Everyone loves a good "Google's algorithms are destroying my livelihood and I have no recourse" story... Why? Because it's fucking compelling and, to people outside of Google, it provokes a strong emotional reaction.

Nobody wants their life and livelihood to be fucked over by an algorithm, especially when there is _no recourse_. These stories almost always end with some random person at Google "fixing something, really sorry" with no explanation. This is how Google operates, and I think they actually try to cultivate this image of themselves. It adds to their mystique and helps them hire bright engineers.

What can I do? Same as last time this came up, the best thing you can do is just to not use Google properties or software, and turn on your adblocker.

</comment><comment><USER32> > All of that attention resulted in our issue being resolved. This is good for > us. It is not yet clear if the attention will help other developers that are > struggling with similar vague rejections.

I think it's been made abundantly clear that Google will not, in fact, improve anything from experiences like this. They happen over and over and every single time it's the same; if it gets publicity, someone helps resolve it; but nothing ever improves in the way of communication.

<comment><USER33> Have a look at this [https://twitter.com/ArtemR/status/1261159338170658816](https://twitter.com/ArtemR/status/1261159338170658816) and the surrounding discussion.

This is basically the only person at Google who can make things happen if there's a problem with Chrome extensions.

<comment><USER34> If it works the same way as the play store does, the DA has little to do with that.

A play store advocate can not look up why your app got rejected, they can at most ask their play store colleagues to look it up and to contact the app owner.

It is this way to avoid getting in a situation where being friends with a DA is an huge advantage.

Their job is to collect dev feedback, as well as evangelizing good practices.

And granted, both teams could do a better job at pinpointing the issues (and devs might also try harder to follow the rules .. fwiw play store bans threads have just been banned from r/androiddev because devs had a tendency to forget to talk about the legitimate reason why they got kicked out)

<comment><USER35> As the lead of that Devrel team, this is pretty much spot on. The process for these things is out of our hands (prevents abuse etc). There is a lot of things we can improve about the Chrome Web Store processes, not to mention a lot of other areas across Chrome.

<comment><USER33> And yet this single DA is the one who's able to request an appeal with undoubtedly more weight than the developer.

[https://twitter.com/DotProto/status/1261325118774493190](https://twitter.com/DotProto/status/1261325118774493190)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Just a couple of loose thoughts on this:

-The permissions that pushbullet needed originally where a bit overaching.

-We never knew which was the offending one.

-Reading the original article it crossed my mind that some of the permissions the extension asked could be used for marketing (I'm not implying that they were used for that), and maybe google just didn't wanted extension developers to have a cut on that.

-I really don't like how this marketplaces have made big companies gatekeepers for market share.

</comment><comment><USER6> I actually had a similar experience with Google Ads: A site was flagged for malware, no explanation what they had found, once I got answers out of them, days later, I found where a non-resolving but probably former malicious link ended up on the site. I purged it, cleared the CDN, asked for review, and was quickly rejected because I allegedly hadn't removed the malicious link.

I asked them to show me where they still found it... and they then realized it was indeed gone, rejecting my re-review was incorrect, and reenabled the account.

The only positive on my end, was that since it was the Ads team, where Google's money is, I got human email responses.

</comment><comment><USER37> As an aside to all this, seeing Google's team attempt to fight off Zoom's extension has been pretty hilarious to watch:

[https://imgur.com/a/4RwlI0S](https://imgur.com/a/4RwlI0S)

It started out with "Add google meet" not being a button, and below the Zoom button. Last week it shifted to the Google Meet button being a larger blue button. Today, they moved the Meet button to before the Zoom button by shifting their DOM around.

I assume Zoom can't do anything about this for 3 weeks at least, definitely goes to show how much authority Google has in this situation.

</comment><comment><USER38> I imagine the value that Google gets from chrome extensions is a small fraction of what they would get from Android apps.

They're not going to be able to spend millions of dollars to fund better human moderators and tools for the extension reviews when a typical extension brings what, a few cents for Google?

They probably can't justify the resources to do the sort of specific feedback that would make this process much better.

<comment><USER39> Even Android App developers face the same thing. When they upload their app to the app store some bot looks at it, and can reject it for whatever reason and only provide a vague explanation. I've seen stories on /r/androiddev of developers apps getting rejected for uncertain reasons, or even having their whole account entirely banned. Unless you are a massive company like Netflix or Spotify you will have not way of contacting a human for support.

I've thought of messing around with developing an Android app and uploading it to the app store just to gain some experience and try something different, but the fact that my whole google account could be banned just because a bot thought my app was bad for whatever reason is scary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Pivotal phrase being:

> things are back to normal now

I bet this happens again.

</comment><comment><USER41> There's a great moderately-popular opensource extension providing a desktop- quality image viewer interface: zoom, rotate, stretch by default, all that jazz. Specifically, 'there is' this extension for Firefox. It was also there for Chrome, but the dev received the same crappy letter and didn't feel like playing the guessing game. New CRXes are still made available on the site.

Since Big G's treatment of extension developers is incompatible with their self-respect, I wholeheartedly support devs who decide to dump the web store—despite me making some use of _two_ Chrome-based browsers.

</comment><comment><USER42> So what was the actual change they were required to make?

<comment><USER43> According to Dotproto, the changes they made in their first re-submission were sufficient: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23168874](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23168874)

<comment><USER44> Makes you wonder - was there even a problem in the first place? Or were they just trying to silently kill this extension but failed due to this going viral?

I understand they were using a very broad wildcard for permission on websites they could access. I'm glad they narrowed that down. But after they did, they still needed this to blow up in order to get an actual response.

<comment><USER45> > _Makes you wonder - was there even a problem in the first place?_

YES.

> _I understand they were using a very broad wildcard for permission on > websites they could access_

That is a problem.

<comment><USER46> But we still don't know if that was the actual reason the app got pulled, as if that were the case it should have been trivial for a computer to notice it was fixed; do you not see how that sucks?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It is good that this was resolved, but not so good that they had to shame Google on HN/Twitter to get it looked at.

I understand that the Chrome extension store is free, but if you're going to point a bunch of bots at it and have them de-list extensions based on unknown metrics, the least you could do is communicate the "gotcha" rules the extension supposedly violated.

<comment><USER48> > I understand that the Chrome extension store is free

Pretty sure it's not free, I had to pay a nominal $5 fee ages ago, and looks like that hasn't changed.

[https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/publish#pay-the- develo...](https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/publish#pay-the-developer- signup-fee)

Even found a recent news article reporting that now you need to pay the fee immediately on signup as opposed to when you publish the first extension/app.

[https://9to5google.com/2020/03/12/chrome-web-store- fee/](https://9to5google.com/2020/03/12/chrome-web-store-fee/)

(In case anyone wonders why $5 is even worth mentioning — if you're a teenager in a third world country you probably have neither the fund nor a credit card to publish a Chrome extension.)

<comment><USER49> If you don't have $5, how do you have the resources to _develop_ an extension?

<comment><USER48> No first hand experience, but I've heard stories of African kids doing impressive tech stuff using very limited resources. Presumably quite a few have access to school computers these days? Developing extensions is free as long as you have access to a computer. Anyway, not having access to a credit card (also need to be capable of international payment, which is not a given) is a much bigger issue than not having $5.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> What happened to the iOS app? I have it, but it isn't available in the US App Store anymore, nor is it linked to from the site's page anymore.

[https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pushbullet/id810352052](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pushbullet/id810352052)

<comment><USER51> They unpublished it after refusing to allow a "Sign in with Apple" option on their login page.

[https://old.reddit.com/r/PushBullet/comments/eirc1m/not_avai...](https://old.reddit.com/r/PushBullet/comments/eirc1m/not_available_on_ios/fcxybyu/)

The dev said the iOS side of things are irrelevant for them anyway since most of their users are on Android, which is frankly disheartening since there's no alternative for iPhone users with linux desktops now

<comment><USER50> Wow. That's pretty lame of them. I don't agree with their logic, but I do agree with following the user base. I will continue to use the version I have. I could probably find a way to share the .app if anyone needs it.

Found pushover.net which seems like a decent (paid) alternative.

We need an open-source version of this kind of functionality, maybe using ActivityPub? Self-hosted option with Google integration for a start, and since everyone needs to have Sign in with Apple for iOS, I guess that too. Might as well add Facebook login support.

<comment><USER52> Not so sure about lame of PushBullet. It feels more lame of all of the major tech players to be essentially fighting over how much they can extort out of developers using their monopoly powers.

Facebook seems to say, you have 1 week to update your sign-in integration code to the latest version (or I guess they get cut off from Facebook API or something?).

Apple says you must support Apple sign-in, or you won't be allowed on our App Store, without with it's nearly impossible to get your app on an iPhone.

Google says guess what we want based on our vague emails and meaningless responses, or we remove your extension/app from the store, making it nearly impossible to use on Chrome.

Geez, it's like Microsoft is the good guy of the tech majors here.

<comment><USER50> Look, there's more than enough lame decisions to go around in this case. :P

I agree with Apple's stance. The landscape has changed. To be a tech superpower is to have your own pull, and to be able to make unilateral decisions on behalf of your business and your customers/users. That is what Apple has done here. I happen to agree because I already like Apple's implementation of Sign in with Apple specifically, even though I have never used it. I also agree with Apple's stance on privacy generally.

I don't like that Apple forced this decision in this way, but I am fine with the outcome in general, but am saddened to see that it negatively affected a developer whose product I use. However, I question the Pushbullet dev's dedication to the iOS platform. Mobile development is a moving target. To single out Apple for blame for changing the App Store conditions for apps is silly. You could just as well blame the dev for not keeping up with the times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> > Apologies to Pushbullet for the rejection after addressed the original > violation

Wait, what?

So you have an completly black box ultimatum, and even if you somehow magically guess what needs to be done, if you do it, they can still reject you?

That's worse than debugging IE6.

That's dishonest.

</comment><comment><USER54> On a positive note, I signed up to get a Chrome Developer account today - <USER3> a submission and it was approved within an hour.

Read it could take a month plus be delayed due to COVID-19. I was pleasantly surprised.

</comment><comment><USER55> Can someone from Google use a throwaway to explain why the hell their support is garbage. From the Chrome store, to G-Suite, to Pixel Support. It's just awful.

<comment><USER56> Is it really hard to understand? The answer is always money.

<comment><USER57> Are there any examples of free services that don't directly make a company money that include great support? I am struggling to think of any.

<comment><USER58> Since when are G Suite and Pixel phones free products?

<comment><USER57> Fair enough. I was mainly talking about this specific instance. From what I have heard, the G Suite and Pixel phone support is bad, but it isn't downright non-existent like it was here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Mozilla Sync along with Nextcloud and Riot.im provides most of the same functionalities (never tried Pushbullet though and wish them luck).

</comment><comment><USER60> I'm less qualified to opine on Google than most of the people here, but in hindsight, what Google products remind me of is the way that black walnut trees slowly poison the soil so that the seedlings from other species of tree cannot grow nearby. The good intentions that poured energy into all the 20% products are no longer the point. Somewhere along the way, someone figured out how to use them strategically. The free products are good, good enough to use, until you realize that there is no path for continued growth or investment of resources, and run into seemingly arbitrary disappointments and limitations; it as if at some point, someone stopped the projects from adding cool utility to the product, and started making sure that hindered, crippled versions of the feature were offered instead. I experience this most acutely with the languishing "Google My Maps" product. It feels as if the target is not just potential competition, but the imagination and demand of the market itself.

I don't actually know the story of Google Reader and RSS feeds, but I remember how integral RSS feeds were to the golden era of blogging, and how abruptly that era seems to have ended with Google Reader's apparent death. And to me, that has a similar feeling. The idea is that the target is _not_ potential competition wherever it might spring up; the idea is to sap the demand that might nourish competition, to suck the air out of the room, and stifle the imagination of the market itself.

It isn't Google alone who is responsible for this feeling, to be fair. There is watching the growth of the walled garden of Facebook, watching the collapse of the old chat services which allowed independent clients, watching successful startup after successful startup turn new ideas into content for a routine process wherein we see the exact same sheen of gloss on the promises, the same dance steps towards the pirouette, the attempt to pivot gracefully and effortlessly towards monetization in a maneuver that is in fact a mating dance desirous of acquisition.

All of it really sucks. It's not like there's an easy alternative. People like free things, and with computer-based resources there is often so much opportunity to scale the value of a thing that free things can be sustainable; a project can succeed and be useful to thousands of people merely on the basis of the labour that some are willing to commit to to sustain it. Again, I'm less qualified to describe this than most of you are. But that's what open source is like.

It doesn't work with services. Code that runs of different platforms can be replicated/adopted for infinitesimal cost, and the underlying costs of running it are naturally distributed. Services are different. The replication/adoption and the creation of value both involve on a massive rush of the many to the one. That relationship pretty much sums up the whole story. If capital accrued to capital by a square law, attention would accrue to attention by a cube law. In idiosyncratic niches that cannot be satisfied by the mass service, alternatives are actually viable and flourish. But anything that would be beneficial to us all encounters this problem of needing to absorb the real costs of operation while seeming to be as free as possible, or else the users will flit away to a different flower.

There's no good solution to this, but the way in which Google has graciously assumed responsibility for directing our attention does not make it better. All the improvements to search results over time seem to focus attention more and more to what an archetype of user is likely to be satisfied with. I would not be surprised if the energy costs per search had gone down. As many have noted, esoteric results are increasingly invisible.

Anyways, this is what we have done with the new universe of human communication that has opened up in the last few decades, which we imagined we would leverage into new systems of effortless communication and collaboration. And we have, to a lesser extent. Second best or third best. But we've discovered this really intractable problem with the distribution of costs.

</comment><comment><USER61> It was approved ... but did Google ever communicate exactly what the issue was with the permissions they used?

</comment><comment><USER62> Is there a list of all the permissions they stopped asking for?

</comment><comment><USER63> So... what was the issue?

<comment><USER64> It appears there wasn't one for the second rejection, the process is just completely broken.</comment></comment>


Beehive, a Multi-core Platform for Low-level Systems Research - <AUTHOR> http://projects.csail.mit.edu/beehive/Beehive-2010-01-MIT.pdf

<comment><USER2> Yeesh, a slide deck. What, they don't have a site you can link to?

Anyway, this just looks like an oldschool supercomputer, architecturally, with all the time-proven disadvantages of such. Is there some astounding breakthrough, or even mildly interesting breakthrough, that I am missing here?

<comment><USER3> maybe you didn't look at the URL

<http://projects.csail.mit.edu/beehive/>

It's an educational system... teaches 'tute students about programming against bare metal.

Now go back to configuring your linux machine(s).. OK?</comment></comment>


It's not 'meat' in Missouri unless comes from an animal - <AUTHOR> https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/08/28/animal-meat-missouri-law/1114285002/ <comment><USER2> No vegetarian mincemeat pies for Missouri then?</comment>


Costco Capitalism - <AUTHOR> https://www.bryanlehrer.com/entries/costco/ <comment><USER3> For those who aren't aware, not only does Costco pay well (I was earning $13/hour back around 2004), they also offer good benefits. I got healthcare, 401k, dental, vision, and time and a half on Sundays. And I was just a food court/service deli employee. Things got even better when I became a food court supervisor.

The mantra I heard, over and over, while I was there was "Hire good people, treat them well, and the rest takes care of itself."

<comment><USER4> This is obviously what any sensible and thoughtful manager aspires to, and yet it is still so rare. Are there tradeoffs we aren't considering? Why is this such a self-evident ideal, yet rarely achieved in practice? There must be good reasons..

<comment><USER5> There are only so many good people.

Someone has to hire the bad people.

<comment><USER6> This feels a bit like the 10x developer discussion. There is a small percentage of the population who are 10x developers anyplace they go. There is another chunk that are 10x developers given a solid environment, who would otherwise be average or even poor developers in the wrong environment. There are average developers, and then there are a few that just aren't very good and should be in some other profession.

It seems almost obvious this holds true for any job, including Costco, where perhaps someone isn't fast or personable enough to be a checker, but they'd be great driving the forklift. Find the right environment and suddenly they shine. There will always be a percentage of the population that is unemployable for some reason, but my personal experience is that it isn't as large as is often believed.

<comment><USER7> To take it from another PoV: most businesses aren't 10x either, and aren't in a position to leverage a 10x worker. Commodity businesses don't need _good_ employees, they need warm bodies that can do their checklists and smile from time to time, while not stealing money or equipment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A better example than Costco would be WinCo, which is employee-owned. It doesn't have the same Paradox of Choice exploitation of one item like a Soviet supermarket, it has several choices. And bulk bins. And they don't accept any credit cards to save on processing fees, whereas Costco was AmEx only and now has Visa only.

More generally, workers take care of something as if it were their own when they have an equity stake in it because it is (partly) their own. Just being treated well isn't enough of an incentive to go the extra mile when they have no connection to the profits, only laid-off when the business declines. It seems foolish to be content to accept benefits that most every other industrialized country on the planet already guarantees as a basic right. I think an uncomfortable truth is Americans don't know how bad they have it, and shouldn't sit back while corporate investors amass trillions on their backs, no matter how well or badly they are treated. They are being cheated only because of their failure to get organized and push-back together in some fashion and failure to demand UBI by taxing corporate profits made off automation, longer hours and productivity increases. At some point, if reasonable assistance isn't offered to those who's survival seems threatened (marginal propensity consume is 1.0) and have nothing left to lose, there will be more mass shootings, homeless encampments will expand, more internal migration, less average purchasing power, and more people flamewar-ing in Youtube comments.

<comment><USER9> I've only shopped at WinCo once, in Utah. It was a sad affair. The store was messy. Employees didn't look happy. Many shelves were empty. Forklifts were left in the middle of the aisle, with goods partially unloaded. The lack of credit card payment reduced the peace of mind of a safe transaction. Just no.

<comment><USER10> > _The lack of credit card payment reduced the peace of mind of a safe > transaction._

This makes no sense whatsoever.

<comment><USER9> Credit card transactions are safer than debit card transactions because if something goes wrong, banks are more likely to investigate and reverse the transaction. You are technically spending their money, not your own. I thought it's common knowledge.

<comment><USER10> Are there places where you can use a debit card but not a credit card (or vice versa)? I've been to places that may only accept a particular card vendor (e.g. AmEx or VISA only), and places that are cash only, but never to one that disallowed only one _type_ of card.

<comment><USER11> My local ARCO gas station and Winco only accept debit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Costco == Trust.

Trust in quality, Trust is service, Trust in prices.

To the point that when I need to buy quality stuff at good prices and avoid doing lenghty research to filter out scam, fakes and crap (aka: Amazon, Ebay and their little siblings) \- Cosco wins.

There is no other business where people come in with an intention to buy $50 worth of stuff and then consistently spending 5-10 times more each and every time.

Fun fact: It took me 10 years to stop calling it "Price club"

<comment><USER13> Recently bought a high end TV from Costco even though it was 100 dollars more. I just trust that Costco will do right by me if anything goes south.

<comment><USER12> That said - it's hard to beat BHPhoto - another trusted brand for electronics and photography specifically.

<comment><USER13> Costco has 90 day returns, hard to beat.

<comment><USER12> BH doesn't charge sales tax (via Payboo card) and has 30 days returns. On $2K TV it is ~$200 savings.

<comment><USER13> If my OLED TV stops working randomly after a year it's going to be a lot more for the repair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The real nice thing about Costco is that when I see something I like, I know that it is of decent quality at a decent price. This saves me from having to do research on my own.

<comment><USER15> The downside if there's something you're not sure you're going to like. You risk committing to buying a large amount of something and not liking it.

<comment><USER16> You can't return food but everything else is just a matter of waiting in line. IMO the only better return policy is Nordstrom.

<comment><USER17> You can return food. They don't like it and if you do it too much they'll stop allowing _you_ to return food.

But I've definitely returned food that I didn't like.

Once they even let the guy in front of me return an empty container. He said he had to eat the whole thing to decide he didn't like it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Every time I walk into my local Costco I whisper to myself "Welcome to Costco, I love you."

<comment><USER19> I'm going to go against the grain here and say I absolutely _dread_ going to Costco but tolerate it because of the prices and bulk availability of certain produce.

A quick ranty list of complaints:

The store is too small for the amount of people and the enormous carts. It is a game of bumper cars every time.

Similarly, more than once I had to give up since the parking lot was completely full and I could only take so circling the lot. The gas lines are reminiscent of the pictures from the '73 oil embargo.

The location of items and item selection changes constantly.

There is few staff available to help you find anything.

The free samples attract hangers on like moths to a flame, blocking traffic. People treat the samples as a free lunch for their kids, and let kids ride unsafely ride inside the cart and not in the cart seats — no one stops this.

I have more, but writing this is already getting to me.

<comment><USER20> Sounds like the Costco in Sunnyvale, I absolutely loathed going there. I'm not sure what the other Costcos in Silicon Valley look like, but Sunnyvale is a terrible experience.

Every where else I have been, Costco is great. The store is never packed, even if busy at times. Checkout lines never exceed 5-10 minutes. Gas lines rarely exceed 10 minutes at the busiest of times.

<comment><USER21> Go to Sam's Club. No lines. Empty parking lot. Just don't think about why that is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As others mention, I also have the trust that I can pick anything and it will have decent quality, even on certain items that are cheaper on different stores, it's simpler to get them at costco because I know I can return them very easily if I need to (even without purchase ticket or without box).

Besides that, I like what I have heard from employees, they are very happy, the salary is far higher for the same role than on different stores, and I have heard that jobs are costco are very useful for students because they help you to find an schedule that doesn't conflict with your school.

While people claim that costco has cheaper prices that other stores, that's not 100% true on Mexico, I can get several items for a smaller price (most of them aren't that cheaper) but costco gives me confidence on the details I posted above.

I would love to see more stores following its good practices.

</comment><comment><USER23> I recall an NPR story that touched on costco (I think it was a how I built this episode on trampolines, but I'm not certain). When they pick a company to work with, they apparently send people in not just to inspect them for quality, but to help them be more efficient. They apparently do this not to make more money, but just so they can pass the savings on to the consumer.

<comment><USER24> > they apparently do this not to make more money, but just so they can pass > the savings on to the consumer

...so that consumers buy more/are more likely to buy, making them more money. Which is kind of the point of the article.

<comment><USER25> As pointed out elsewhere on this page, Costco doesn't even make their profit on volume. Costco's annual profit is approximately equal to their membership fees and always has been.

The relentless focus is on customer satisfaction, nothing more. They want you to come back next year. That's it.

<comment><USER26> > Costco doesn't even make their profit on volume.

Volume is essential to their profitability, and not just because it's what justifies membership for customers; they are unit profitable on sales, but without sufficient volume that wouldn't offset fixed costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I worked next to a Costco while going through school. That place was awesome for a poor college student, even with the membership price. Weekend/summer lunch was a $1.50 hotdog, soda, and one of every free sample. More than enough. The liquor was/is top notch and at a bargain too. Great company.

<comment><USER28> FYI: Most of the Costco hit dog stands don't require membership. In at least California, you don't need a membership for liquor either, and if you say you're going in for booze, you can get the samples while you're in there.

If you aren't buying anything else, you might not need a membership.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> If you do Costco, and you surf, then you have inevitably come across the "Wavestorm" surfboard.

The original article brings up the trust consumers place in the products Costco decides to sell, and the Wavestorm is a fun example of one such Costco cult.

[https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/the-cult- of-...](https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/the-cult-of-the- costco-surfboard)

I hear their Vodka is really great too.

<comment><USER30> That wavestorm pearl clutching is hilarious. How dare people do things "for fun" and without getting approval first!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I looked at Costco's financials a few years ago and their total annual profit is (was?) approximately equal to their total annual income from membership fees.

<comment><USER32> I believe that's on purpose... they charge like 3% more than cost, which covers all their operating expenses, and then the membership fees are their annual profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Hit the nail on the head.

1\. Low variety of items

2\. Quality items

3\. Low price items

4\. Extremely beneficial return policy

I tried em all, Costco, BJ's, Sam's Club, Aldi, Walmart, Target. Nobody can tell me how it is, I've actually tried it and Costco is by far the best place for my family to shop. Want a raincoat? Oh yeah rainy season they had a North Face beautiful blue jacket for $80.

I will say their bedroom sets are shit. Buy their cheap sets if you must, their premiums are terrible.

<comment><USER34> Interesting. Could you expand on how they compare to Aldi?

<comment><USER33> With Aldi, you buy less so you end up throwing out less food. If you're few people, buy from Aldi. However, the quality in their randoms or out-of-the-box foods are noticeably worse.

Bought some Aldi sushi and got sick to my stomach, just nasty cheap salmon cuts, with nasty cheap rice. Mealy and tasteless.

With Costco it's quality all the way, 4 years literally never bought something of poor quality there.

<comment><USER34> The quality of fresh produce tends to vary a lot by country and even location with Aldi.

I'm mostly asking because I grew up with the German grocery landscape which has been shaped by cutthroat competition from Aldi and Lidl for decades.

Walmart famously couldn't hack it in Germany.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> It's interesting that the Costco model doesn't seem to work in the UK. Here the competition amongst the supermarkets is so intense that Costco can't sell stuff cheap enough.

The UK Costco's are a poor imitation of the ones I enjoyed in Canada. Even thought the layout and the idea are the same.

Not sure why tbh.

<comment><USER36> Can you explain what you mean by "doesn't seem to work"?

I regularly go to Costco here in the UK. It's almost always busy, checkout queues are long (but move quickly).

<comment><USER37> I assume it's just that you often can find stuff cheaper - if you happen to find a good half price/2-for-3/etc. deal on branded stuff at a supermarket then Costco will be more expensive. The quality of their own brand stuff is good, though, and the prices are reliably at least fair and usually better.

Their petrol station used to be reliably cheaper than everywhere else near me, but they changed supplier and now it's the same price as Tesco. So I go to Tesco, as it's 99 RON and I get clubcard points.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I kind of want to shop at Costco now.

Yet another example of how just being a good company gets you free advertising.

I basically just consumed a 10 minute ad, and enjoyed it, and now want to go buy a pallet of something from people who I now assume will cheerfully applaud my gluttonous purchase.

<comment><USER39> It's not all positive

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> >>>"While some of my city dwelling friends in their twenties might find it amusing to shop at Costco"

I live out on the rural outskirts of a central European city, into which I regularly commute for work and life.

I'm often very amused at the city-dweller point of view. These are people who live surrounded, in geographically aligned order, by about 1,000 other people, on average, within a block. They're stacked on top of each other, a literal hive. Public transportation is superlative, but the city was made for horses, something that hasn't changed much.

The effort required to walk down the block to a Billa or Aldi is often far, far too great for these denizens. Actually, as a whole, city-slickers require far too much motivation to escape the zone of their immediate comfort level. It gets so cozy.

Out in the sticks, nothing at all is thought of a 20 minute walk to pick up a jar of honey, a bottle of milk or a bale of apples. Alas, city-slickers take so much prodding to get out of their city these days.

But, in the sticks, we do have a Costco equivalent. I can honestly say that I use it quite a bit to keep the house stocked with necessities. I often see business-owners from the city shopping there, though .. ;)

</comment><comment><USER41> I know it's against the guidelines, but has no one here read the article? Everyone's talking about what they like/dislike about Costco but nothing about 'Costco Capitalism' as described. It's almost a confirmation of what the author was saying--"consumers only are pressured to act as ethical as their value-maximizing formulas allow them to be."

<comment><USER42> Yeah, the most interesting part of the article for me was the end: the discussion on the best strategy for increasing the amount of ethical consumption that is going on. It took a while to get to that point, but I'm sure there's lots of interesting things Hacker News could say about that.

My personal strategy so far has been to encourage some ethical consumerism by example, not because that directly increases the share of ethical consumption significantly, but because I think that attaching ethical considerations to an action as common as consumption will, down the line, also encourage people to vote in line with that. In the end, it currently seems to me like regulation is a required part of upping our collective standards and impact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I question the placement of Whole Foods as more ethical. I don't see shelves of high priced homeopathic "cures" and pseudoscience literature at Costco. Whole Foods is all too eager to prey on ignorance and fear.

</comment><comment><USER44> It's interesting how few people understand (this author included) about Costco is how its huge quantities of consumer consumables (eg toilet paper etc) allows Costco to avoid channel conflict in this segment, which in turn drives traffic into their stores. To my mind this is the key retail innovation that separates Costco from the rest.

<comment><USER45> Can you explain this concept more? Sounds interesting.

<comment><USER46> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_conflict)

<comment><USER47> It sounds like Costco's larger toilet paper packages make the toilet paper manufacturer feel less of a conflict of interest? That Costco isn't undercutting the manufacturer's other channels such as online sales?

What exactly am I missing here? The Channel conflict model seems to be about maximizing revenue by not selling the product to the customer and ignoring new channels.

Not selling can boost short term revenue but it's a risky move when your competitor is Amazon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Back in Summer of 2009, I planned a camping trip for Yosemite. I flew into San Francisco, bought supplies at Costco, and drove east until Yosemite. I won't forget the SF Costco. Adults were riding the back of their carts as children do in grocery stores. They were happy. Very happy. I just assumed that this was SF behavior and didn't think much more about it. Yet, in hindsight, the cost of living is the highest in the country. People are struggling. Costco offers refuge from that struggle. Ride on, costcoers!

</comment><comment><USER16> Costco Sunday with the family. The lines are a bit long but the samples are fantastic the deals are good and nearly all the staff a friendly and helpful. This is a well run operation.

</comment><comment><USER49> Costco came to the UK in the 90's, I remember when it opened in Glasgow in 1994. My parents were some of the first members there and I was so proud when I got my own membership at 18.

Their Kirkland brand is always good quality and has never let me down unlike other homestore brands.

As a Brit another thing that makes it appealing, is for us, it seems like the "American" shopping experience.

Going to Costco is like an adventure trip/excursion. Compared to ASDA, Waitrose or going into the city to shop.

</comment><comment><USER50> The day I learn Costco treats its employees the way Amazon does, I will find an alternatives just like I did with Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER51> While I grew up going to Costco many weekends and still go on monthly trips as an adult, I actually think its business faces a lot of risks over the coming decades.

The entire concept is optimized for upper middle class suburban families with cars. Once millennials age into middle age over the coming decades, will they have kids in the same numbers as their parents (data says no) and thus need or want to buy in bulk? Will they live in the suburbs where warehouses are primarily located? Will they have cars to even get there? Will they want to pay for a membership when they already have Amazon or wide availability of other stores that deliver for free?

I'd predict not in the same rate or numbers as boomers or Gen X, and imagine Costco would need to transform several aspects of their current business model if they wanted to stay relevant 10-20 years from now.

<comment><USER52> > The entire concept is optimized for upper middle class suburban families > with cars. Once millennials age into middle age over the coming decades, > will they have kids in the same numbers as their parents (data says no) and > thus need or want to buy in bulk? Will they live primarily in the suburbs > where warehouses are primarily located? Will they have cars to even get > there? Will they want to pay for a membership when they already have Amazon > or wide availability of other stores that deliver for free?

My girlfriend and I are millenials with no children. We still have a Costco membership. Hell, I had a Costco membership _before_ I met her, when I lived alone. I buy all my gas at Costco, and the savings alone from that usually equal or exceed the $60 membership dues by the end of the year, so everything else is pretty much gravy.

<comment><USER51> yes, same. That doesn't refute anything though when it comes to looking at how a massive generational shift will impact their business. It's not incorrect to say this is a business that whose main target is upper middle class suburban families with cars and that in 10-20 years middle aged millennials will in aggregate likely have fewer reasons to go to Costco in the same rate as our parents for all the reasons mentioned above.

going to Costco as a single millennial is basically a hack, not the target customer at all

<comment><USER52> I guess I disagree with your premise that childless millenials are going to be so radically different from their parents.

Like, _why_ would I not have a car at middle age? I'm still working for another 30 years, at least. If I didn't waste my twenties moving to a big city, living in a studio apartment, and ditching my car to ride the metro, why would I start now?

> going to Costco as a single millennial is basically a hack, not the target > customer at all

So, admittedly my understanding of Costco might be out-of-date, but once upon a time the Wholesale Retailer's job was to sell you stuff at basically the same price they get it from the vendor, such that their margins are low or nonexistent--their revenue comes from the membership dues. They might have their own in-house brand so that they can get even better margins, but we'll ignore that for a sec.

So let's say I'm not the target audience, as a single millenial who only goes to Costco on average to buy about five things. If Costco gets the same membership dues from me despite my using _less_ of the store than full families, isn't that _good_ for Costco?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Why do all the top comments in this thread read like Costco adverts with no discussion of the actual article content?

<comment><USER39> I've read through 200 comments and yet I'm not sure if anyone actually read the piece

<comment><USER54> I read it but didn't read it extremely thoroughly (it is long and feels like it kinda sits too long on points).

Do you think Costco will rise in popularity any further? It looks like it's at a maximum of ethicalness to profitability in terms of food goods. (It offers bottom barrel ethics on clothes as far as I've seen) Do you think if the economy tanks then costco will just immediately switch to less ethical options because consumers will not be able to afford all their more ethical options? Did anyone study what they did during the recession?

I feel like a lot of their more ethical food options are more recent in invention... Mainly following upper class trends. A lot of the things there seem like they're trying their best to imitate what the upper class has. It's rare to see a high end good by itself at a good price. They offer thermoflasks instead of hydroflasks. Only one or two Le Creuset pots but they're really high priced still. Kirkland versions of kitchenware instead of the cuisinart ones that are just knockoffs of the all-clads everyone wants.

Personally - Costco feels like a slight improvement over Walmart but only at certain goods. It feels far lower than Whole Foods when it comes to ethical choices. I think that ethical gap is far greater than the image you posted gives off.

As far as price goes - I think Costco only feels like a good value to consumers who aren't savvy at shopping. For me - an overly savvy shopper - <USER2> feel like I'm getting ripped off when I go there as I buy most goods for less or equal to what they offer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Costco capitalism can be summarized as hire top 5% of the population and the rest can take care of itself. However, not all worker are in the top 5% and they need jobs as well. Hence Walmart capitalism

</comment><comment><USER56> the concept is simple, really. make sure incentives are aligned at every step of the business model and for all stakeholders. that's really the spirit of capitalism anyhow.

</comment><comment><USER57> So they simply found a way to operate more efficiently, allowing them to pay their workers more (as they earn more per worker). Why does that need to be framed as "fair"? According to the article, they can afford to pay their warehouse workers more, because they need fewer of them. is that "fair" or "unfair"? How do the people who need a job but don't get a job at Costco because they are not needed anymore feel about it?

Also, shoppers beware. I don't know Costco, but here in Germany there is also a company that is famous for its good prices, Aldi.

Legend has it that they deliberately used wooden shelves in their stores because they looked cheaper, even though actually metal shelves would have been cheaper. Was reminded of that story when I read in the article that at Costco you shop off shipping pallets.

Also Aldi is being criticized for using its market power to demand low prices from suppliers. How does Costco fare in that regard? (I personally don't share the criticism, but I suspect people who are in the business of worrying about "fairness" would).

</comment><comment><USER58> I am not a Costco member for a few reasons.

The biggest one is that the parking lots at the nearby ones are CRAZY. Always packed, and even worse on weekends. They are so bad, in fact, that I even avoid the streets NEAR the Costco, because they back up. And I live in Los Angeles, where I expect bad parking and traffic... this is another level.

Also, I am just getting so used to ordering everything online. We get all our household items via amazon subscriptions (toilet paper, paper towels, dish detergent, etc)... so nice not having to ever think about those things and they just show up when we need them. I can't see myself going back to shopping at stores myself for those things.

<comment><USER59> that's cool and all. but you don't understand how much the membership pays for itself with just gas alone

Right now my Costco has gas 50c less than any place around me

<comment><USER60> How does that work? From what I've heard, gas stations don't get anywhere near 50 cents of profit per gallon. Even with massive scale and logistics I would be surprised that they can pull that off.

<comment><USER61> In my area Costco gas is usually the cheapest, but it's not always the cheapest by amounts like 50 cents. Its usually more on the order of 20 cents cheaper. The next cheapest stations share some similarities with Costco though -- they all tend to be unbranded gas stations. These don't usually have the agreements that branded stations have, where they have to buy a certain % of their supply from the brands refineries. So Costco tends to be buying the cheapest gas available at the time, has no brand-name overhead, and on top of that, purposely keeps their profit low to get more people joining. Another thing that Costco does, not just with gas but with everything, is they only accept their partnered credit cards. Their merchant fees are likely much lower, and as Costco does, they just pass that onto you.

So Costco is paying less, and keeping less (if any) profit. The net result is that their gas is appreciably cheaper.

<comment><USER62> I don't know where they get it from, but Costco gas is supposedly same quality as other branded gas stations:

[https://toptiergas.com/licensed-brands/](https://toptiergas.com/licensed- brands/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> A word of warning, I've frequently found Costco meats are far more expensive than at my local grocer, often on the order of 50-100% on sale items.

The design of the stores is also horrific, designed to make you maximize browsing time. Availability of products is piss poor too - one week you might find something you love, the next week you can't get it at all. I cancelled my membership after the first year because the main product I bought it for was no longer readily available.

Don't waste your money. Check your local flyers and cancel the expensive yearly memebership, it's just another way for big businesses to scam you.

<comment><USER64> For me I find the average quality of stuff they sell at Costco is higher than other places. A nice warm weather resistant jacket was $35 this winter, I would have gotten something similar for $80 at a mall. The food is all good. I can pick something randomly I haven't tried before and I know it will be quality food. Compare this something like Walmart or Amazon where trying something new is like russian roulette.

<comment><USER65> I bought a high sierra "camelbak" type water pack for $25. I actually told someone I got it for a steal at $30 because I forgot what it cost. By the time my girlfriend went back they were gone - same thing at Amazon was over $40.

While I hate that you basically have to make an on-the-spot decision, they absolutely crush it on quality and price 9 times out of 10.

[https://www.amazon.com/High-Sierra-Visalia-Hydration- Backpac...](https://www.amazon.com/High-Sierra-Visalia-Hydration- Backpack/dp/B01EBF2NRW)

[http://www.costcoweekender.com/2016/03/high-sierra- visalia-9...](http://www.costcoweekender.com/2016/03/high-sierra- visalia-9-hydration-pack-costco-1017129.html)

<comment><USER66> Or you can buy it from costco.com and have it delivered to your local store for free.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Disorder of Operations - <AUTHOR> http://www.autodidacts.io/disorder-of-operations/ <comment><USER2> A simpler / more confusing one is -3^2 (negative 3 squared). A lot of people are taught that something squared is it times itself. So -3 x -3 = 9.

Except, that's not (necessarily) the right answer. Instead, some people are taught it should be thought of as 0 - 3^2. 0 - 3 * 3 = -9 using the Order of Operations.

What is more confusing is that even Wolfram sees -3^2 and -3 squared as different problems. So maybe there is no satisfactory answer.

Wolfram Alpha:

> -3^2 => -9

> -3 squared => (-3)^2 => 9

But:

> -3^3 => -27

> -3 cubed => -27

You can't tell if this is (0 - 3^3) or if it is (-3 x -3 x -3). How cruel.</comment>


Apple Engineers Propose Standardized Format for SMS One-Time Passcodes - <AUTHOR> https://www.macrumors.com/2020/01/31/apple-standardized-format-sms-one-time-passcodes <comment><USER2> Will this break OTP for non-smart phones and 2-way pagers?</comment>


Dungeon Generation in Diablo 1 - <AUTHOR> https://www.boristhebrave.com/2019/07/14/dungeon-generation-in-diablo-1/ <comment><USER2> I developed/run a private server for the game that many members of the Diablo team made after Diablo II (Hellgate: London) and the same technique is used for random dungeon generation, but using 3D assets and 2d flat floormap shapes to make the combinations. In fact, it's even called the same thing, DRLG!

Sometimes the game tries a few thousand combinations when a player enters a dungeon before being satisfied by the results (there are configurable constraint sets).

<comment><USER3> Hellgate: London is fun!! I haven't played it in a long time though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The random dungeon generation was, for me, absolutely the top killer feature of the game and was the main thing that kept me coming back through so many replays.

For some reason, not a single other similar game I've played has had the same effect on me. Maybe there's bias going on (obviously I was younger then), but I've played a huge number of games since, and not a single one quite scratched the same itch. I will be saving this article.

<comment><USER5> Did Diablo II or III have the same draw on you?

<comment><USER4> They really didn't. I can't fully pinpoint why, but it had something to do with the combination of the level and all its contents being randomized a certain way, which from what I experienced of the sequels wasn't replicated enough for me.

<comment><USER6> Funny but as a kid I devoured and adored D2. I played it many many times through. Later I decided to try D1 and I couldn't get past how slow it felt, and in some ways primitive.

<comment><USER7> I loved both for different reasons.

Diablo 2 was a bit more on the rails to me: if I play a specific amount of time, I can acquire the specific pieces of gear that I want for a specific build. Diablo 1 it felt like you were chasing pieces, but grand scheme of things, you just wanted the best in slot more often than not. Story was more there too and the quests appreciable. They didn't phone in the sequel and really delivered a great game.

Diablo 1, however, I enjoyed stacking Intelligence as much as possible so that I could have pretty substantial levels of casting skills from books (since you had to have x amount of points in it for the next level book to work). In that way, it felt like you could have a God Character in a way that D2's 20 max assignable (more could be gained as mods on gear) didn't. You had to also work at that, which felt rewarding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't think I've heard Diablo called a roguelike before. It's got the dungeon crawling and procedural generation, but the permanent death seems to be one of the most quintessential features of the genre. Diablo does not have that.

<comment><USER9> There is the permanent death. Though Diablo 1 doesn't have such system, there has been Hard Core mode since Diablo 2.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, fair. But that's an optional niche game mode and this piece is about Diablo 1.

Another comment linked the creator's postmortem; he said he was influenced by roguelikes but specifically called out that Diablo doesn't have permadeath as opposed to roguelikes. His original design doc included permadeath, but it didn't make it far into production.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't think any of this was mentioned in Brevik's postmortem.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VscdPA6sUkc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VscdPA6sUkc)

<comment><USER11> It blew my mind a little when he said the name "Diablo" came from Mt. Diablo, which sits practically on top of Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER12> It's really not that close (and not very big, either).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Calling Wang tiles "marching squares" will confuse the heck out of any graphics programmer.

<comment><USER14> I called it marching squares because that is what it is. It takes an array of bits, and for each group of 4 of them, finds one of 16 cases.

It's not wang tiles - Wang tiles do not actually specify how you pick them, and the diablo tile sets do not fit together the way that wang tiles do.

<comment><USER13> That's the algorithm, sure. The tiles aren't marching squares though, and calling them after how they were generated is confusing! If they produced rectangular or other non-square tiles would you still insist on not calling them Wang tiles?

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure what you are expecting. I'm describing the algorithm used, so yes, I used the terminology of the algorithm.

Wang tiles doesn't say anything specific about the arrangment of tiles as there are many tilesets that have the Wang Tile property.

And Diablo tiles aren't wang tiles, it would be inaccurate to describe them so. It's not to do with the shape, it's to do with connectivity. You can have a floor tile north-west of a wall tile, you can have dirt north-west of a wall, you can have floor north-west of floor, but you cannot have dirt north west of floor. Wang tiles do not permit restrictions like that.

<comment><USER13> > _I 'm not sure what you are expecting._

> _The tiles aren't marching squares though, and calling them after how they > were generated is confusing!_

I don't understand how this could be misunderstood by someone reading in good faith. I think that, if a reader remarks "this is confusing because…", you shouldn't tell them they're wrong and it's not confusing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As a kid I never thought about it's level design, but retroactively I have huge respect for the developers (and to the author of the article for bring it to me).

I wonder if such things are taught in today's game design courses.

<comment><USER16> No. Kids going through game programs can barely program, except for a few outliers. The courses tend to be quite lightweight, and the programs tend to be very non-selective. They tend to be marketed to and attract poor students who couldn't get into / don't see the value in a real university.

Instructors may be aware of these techniques but would be hard-pressed to turn them into assignments that wouldn't fail all but a couple of people in the class.</comment></comment>


America's Best Burrito - <AUTHOR> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americas-best-burrito/

<comment><USER3> Ugh, when I lived in San Francisco, I concluded that the burritos were pretty awful when compared to burritos from the south, particularly San Diego - <USER2> far as 'American' style burritos go. Granted, this isn't the typical SF burrito, but my heart sinks each time I hear anyone rave about any burrito from the mission of the rest of SF.

Before anyone gets combative, yes, I also must admit that the basis for comparison isn't equal, because they're of different styles.

<comment><USER4> Love the user name.

SD native here. The burritos start to suck going north as soon as LA. And to think most of the country's idea of a burrito is Chipotle. _shudder_

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Triumph for San Francisco's own La Taqueria in 538's rigorous nationwide burrito challenge! I can testify that these folks do indeed make a fine burrito.</comment>