US government dictates Swedish copyright laws - <AUTHOR> http://falkvinge.net/2011/09/05/cable-reveals-extent-of-lapdoggery-from-swedish-govt-on-copyright-monopoly

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately, this scenario is being played out all over the world. We had similar revelations in New Zealand a while ago. <http://www.nzcs.org.nz/newsletter/article/119>

It's disgusting, but not surprising. US has been desperately attempting to export it's draconian grip on copyright to the rest of the world at all costs for quite a while now.

<comment><USER3> A lot of these changes actually go beyond what the copyright industry has been able to do in the US. There's no data retention provision in the US, for example.

<comment><USER4> I think some of this is a two part play against domestic policies. Bully foreign interests to implement, and then push the same policies domestically, using the foreign implementations as part of the argument. ("Compliance", "even they're doing it", "parity", "protect domestic interests", etc....)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is just one of the reasons I got out of politics several years ago. Simply put, things don't work the way most people think they do.

Policies are decided behind closed doors, by people with vested interests, and then presented to the public - who are by and large uninterested, uninformed, insufficiently educated and unwilling to consider anything but their immediate short-term interests.

As Mark Twain is supposed to have said, "If voting changed anything,they'd make it illegal."

<comment><USER6> Thus the interest that many of us have in reducing the size of government and in general the concept of _limited_ government. Unfortunately the general direction seems to be in increasing the size of government and the rationale seems to be 'so it can fix everything'.

<comment><USER7> Bless your heart, I truly and sincerely sympathize with the concept of limited government, no joke. However, limited government is to political science what perpetual motion machines are to physics.

Whatever body limits the government is itself sovereign. What limits that body? Are written constitutions supposed to limit the power of government? Who implements those provisions if not the government?

The concept of limited government, as it is typically expressed today, had its origins in the Enlightenment. It was all the rage among the cool people in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. That idea deeply influenced the constitutions of nearly every nation in the West. Look around. All of those nations now have large and growing governments. The idea of limiting the scope and reach of government by popular will or by written charter has had a track record of perfect failure.

A government of limited and specifically enumerated powers is too weak to resist pressure to make it larger. The best way to get big government is to start with a small government.

The way out of this is to think sideways.

<comment><USER8> I had an idea yesterday, it was, basically, crowdsourced politicians. You'd have a number of politicians, as many as you could get elected in parliament, and you would have a website detailing every law currently under vote. Anyone could vote on these laws on the website, and the politician(s) would all have to vote the way the online poll went.

Of course, this is ripe for abuse and corruption (one website controlling an entire country), but interesting idea nonetheless.

<comment><USER9> Why do you need politicians then? Why not just let people vote directly?

<comment><USER10> That's the idea I've been having recently.

Would it be possible to build a party with the sole intent on producing transparent government and the eventual ability to open all debate to the public via the internet.

In essence, the reason for representatives is that historically people could not take the time out of work to participate in a debate. Even more so if this meant travelling to a debate.

You're supposed to debate locally, and have your representative go represent your area, but what really happens is that your rep is party of a party and the party agree a line and they vote regardless of local voices.

So... if voting was open on all debates for the people to partake in... what's the worst that could happen? Where would it fall down?

Initially I think security issues would be interesting, could they be open and transparent?

And everyone would initially vote for NIMBY policies, so it would grind a lot of stuff to a halt.

The big question, are people able to think of big things that benefit the whole of society even at the cost of them as individuals.

But then, that's the crux of a lot of political issues.

<comment><USER11> I read once that originally, politicians were not paid by the government. Their only form of income was from the people that that person represented: if the constituents believed that the politician did a good job representing them, then it was up to the individual people to pay that politician what they believed s/he was worth.

I guess the idea was that if you don't do a good job, you don't get paid. On the other hand, if you don't pay the representative fairly, then they won't run the following year. "You get what you pay for".

Would this work in the grand scheme of things these days? I always think that there are too many 'key people' and too many companies with so much financial clout that the money they give would overshadow what the constituents would pay privately. The one saving grace there, I guess, is that at the end of the day, the person still needs to be voted back in...

<comment><USER12> Government salary is not necessarily their main source of income...

* They often own businesses, which often benefit significantly from government contracts * Direct or indirect kickbacks from other business owners/lobbyists in return for more favorable legislation

<comment><USER11> That's a good point about them owning their own businesses: I guess it didn't matter so much back when the majority were farmers and landholders.

Kickbacks etc. are going to be a problem no matter _how_ they are 'officially' paid. This comes back to voters paying attention and caring, I guess, so...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Leading off with a hyperbolic statement like "every law proposal, every ordinance, and every governmental report hostile to the net, youth, and civil liberties here in Sweden in recent years have been commissioned by the US government and industry interests." -- I can only take the whole thing with a grain of salt.

I'm quite willing to believe that the US government exerts a large influence. I'm absolutely unwilling to believe that the Swedes are angels, and never do anything wrong on their own; that _every_ problem in Sweden is a self- inflicted wound as directed by America.

<comment><USER14> Why would Sweden be making laws to protect _US_ IP? Why would they care?

<comment><USER15> _Why would Sweden be making laws to protect US IP?_

International treaty obligations, negotiated on the basis of some advantage perceived for Sweden. A lot of what countries do in law enforcement protects the nationals of other countries or protects the interests of another sovereign state. The usual reason for that is mutually negotiated agreements.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If any other country even thought of doing such a thing the USA would be claiming it was an attack on its sovereignty and declare war.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wonder if there is a country on this planet independent from US policy? I wonder how such a state would be portrayed by the "free" media...

</comment><comment><USER18> Why? What does the US have to offer to Sweden in return for implementing this legislation by their design?

<comment><USER19> The US wields all kinds of influence over a nation like Sweden. If the US raised a few barriers to trade with Sweden, it would have a drastic effect on Sweden's economy. Many Swedish industries depend on exporting to the US, and while US citizens could just import similar goods from elsewhere if Swedish goods became more expensive, Swedish businesses would lose a gigantic and wealthy market that they depend on selling to.

I'm sure that Sweden depends on the US as a military ally as well, it provides visas for many Swedish citizens regularly, and much more. At the end of the day, Sweden just needs the US more than the US needs Sweden, and that's why the US can argue from a position of power for its own industries.

<comment><USER20> I think Sweden might overestimate their dependence on the US. The military threat to Sweden is currently rather low, (and there's always the rest of NATO).

Countries just need to all agree to start ignoring the US. I bet doing so would be a positive gain for economies in the long run.

<comment><USER21> Ignoring the US effectively means shutting yourself off from the global culture, because like it or not, America's entertainment industries are the biggest in the world. American movies play everywhere. American music is heard everywhere. Last I heard, America is about half of the video and computer games industry. And even the Internet is dominated by America unless you're Chinese or somewhere similarly insular (this site you're on right now? American).

Some examples of things you'll have to boycott to truly ignore America:

• Google

• Bing

• Blekko

• DuckDuckGo

• Facebook

• Macs

• Windows

• iPhone

• iPad

• Android

• MS Office

• Photoshop

• MySQL

• Java

• C#

• Red Hat

• Firefox

• Chrome

• IE

• Safari

• iTunes

• Final Cut

• Premiere

• Avid

• ProTools

• Logic

<comment><USER22> > MySQL

Actually, Mysql is Swedish :P

<comment><USER21> No, Oracle is definitely American.

<comment><USER23> ...and MySQL is definitely open source.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Consecution: A Python Pipeline Tool Inspired by Apache Storm Topologies - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/robdmc/consecution <comment><AUTHOR> This is a tool that allows you to build processing pipelines in Python. You factor your code into small, easily testable components that are then wired together into a task graph.</comment>


Working 40 hours a Week is Nothing if You Enjoy what You're Doing - <AUTHOR> http://www.programmingmobile.com/2012/01/working-40-hours-week-is-nothing-if-you.html

<comment><USER2> """Working 40 hours a Week is Nothing if You Enjoy what You're Doing"""

40 hours a week, yeah.

But people also work crazy hours, like 80+ hour weeks. And then you also have to add the commuting time in some cases.

So, maybe even "Working 80 hours a Week is Nothing if You Enjoy what You're Doing", but:

1) You could still be enjoying it for the wrong reasons.

2) It still takes it's toil on you.

3) It's still bad for your family life / spouse / children etc.

4) It can still lead to a much inferior outcome (because of exhaustion, not thinking straight etc). There's a reason commercial pilots are allowed to work for X hours consecutively and no more, and no, the reason is not "union pressure".

5) You have to balance what you get out of this too, because a few people overworking because they "enjoy what they do" (e.g out of college kids doing CRUD shit in the framework du jour) can kill wages/working environment for people who want to do it professionally and don't think it as the be-all-end- all of their life.</comment>


Java Closures after all? - <AUTHOR> http://puredanger.com/tech/2009/11/18/closures-after-all/ <comment><USER2> Don't forget that Java already has anonymous classes, which can be used to mimic closures.

I taught my advanced compilers class how to compile Scheme directly to Java by using them to implement lambda:

<http://matt.might.net/articles/compiling-to-java/>

In fact, as the link above points out, anonymous classes are flexible enough to express the Y combinator, allowing "recursion-less recursion" in Java.

<comment><USER3> While technically correct, using anonymous inner classes makes code more verbose. Closures are a more elegant solution.

If you look at it that way, anything from generators to continuations can be 'simulated' using enough layers of class definitions.

<comment><USER4> <http://code.google.com/p/lambda4jdt/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Apparently the closures will be based on the FCM (first class methods) proposal be Stephen Colebourne:

<http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddhp95vd_0f7mcns>

<comment><USER6> First-class methods would be a win, but the syntax leaves a little bit to be desired. Closures would be much more of a syntactic eyesore if they A) had context-based type inference on the arguments, so that if I'm passing a closure to a method that expects (String, String) -> as its type I don't need to redeclare the variable types and B) allowed for embedded expressions rather than requiring them to be full function definitions with a "return" statement in there. Unfortunately, the FCM proposal doesn't allow either of those.

To use their example, it should be much more like:

Collections.sort(list, \str1, str2 -> str1.length() - str2.length());

instead of:

Collections.sort(list, #(String str1, String str2) { return str1.length() - str2.length(); });

There's no technical reason you couldn't do the former in Java (and their proposal seems to infer the return type just fine?), but no one involved with the Java language seems to really value conciseness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Maybe I'm missing something here: but what's the point of closures without functions as first class variables?

<comment><USER8> <http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddhp95vd_6hg3qhc>

Scroll down to method literals

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Something tells me these are going to be as bad as PHP's closures; you can't just tack on lambdas at the last minute, it has to be part of the language design initially (no?)

<comment><USER10> Python had them tacked on after the fact (version 2.0 as I recall, or was it 2.2?), they work pretty nicely IMO, as long as you treat functions as first class objects the whole time you're ok.

<comment><USER11> Python lambdas do not work well, in fact they can only be one line long. For some cases this may be ok, especially if python was were the programmer learned about lambdas, but from those who come from with languages with real lambdas it is quite limiting.

<comment><USER10> We aren't talking about lambdas, we are talking about closures. Lambdas are simple syntactic sugar for a function definition that has a single expression, closures are a concept to capture the outer scope.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Reverse Engineering for Beginners [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://beginners.re/RE4B-EN.pdf <comment><USER2> Some very serious work was put in writing this book. I admit I never fully read it from beginning to end, but from the parts I did read I think it is very well written.

My general advice for beginners who want to get into reverse engineering is to read less books, and try to actually reverse engineer small and self contained programs. Reverse engineering has been my job for many years now, but it still very difficult for me to consume a long text talking about a reverse engineering project without touching the code on my own.

If you are interested in a hands-on experience, I recently made a self learning kit for learning reverse engineering for beginners. It is called ReversingHero. ([https://www.reversinghero.com](https://www.reversinghero.com)). It is one binary file made of 15 levels of increasing difficulty, teaching reverse engineering. It works in Linux environment, on the x64 series, and can also be completed using WSL (Windows subsystem for linux).

ReversingHero also contains an accompanying (paid) video solutions. The video solutions contain 12+ hours of step by step solutions to all the levels.

<comment><USER3> Maybe you can make the "hex editor", "debugger" and "disassembler" bold words into links to good FOSS implementations of each tool?

Otherwise, this looks very interesting :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I more or less compulsively downloaded this, and started skimming it. I'm not an assembly-language programmer, but I thought I at least knew how to read an assembly listing.

But right there on page 8, in the MIPS and ARM "functions that return a constant", is an example of "branch delay slots", which (a) I've never heard of, and (b) failure to grok them makes a _two_ _line_ _function_ incomprehensible.

Fortunately, I like learning things.

<comment><USER5> ISA's can get very complex very fast, so I would suggest, like the author wrote down in next sentence, to realize that some complexity is best left for a later time.

Now that I think about it, ISA's/assembly are a really good example of how lots of tiny small things combined can become really hard to understand fast.

<comment><USER6> MIPS's choice to shove details from the instruction decoding pipeline into its visible execution model is still kinda annoying though…

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A thread from 2016: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12185586](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12185586)

2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10812055](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10812055)

2014: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8161316](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8161316)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7726213](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7726213)

</comment><comment><USER8> This looks like a great resource for beginners, albeit a bit dense and overwhelming.

If you're looking for a very gentle introduction the Lena151 video tutorials are great: [https://tuts4you.com/e107_plugins/download/download.php?list...](https://tuts4you.com/e107_plugins/download/download.php?list.17)

They're a bit dated, but all the concepts are still relevant.

I wish we had all these great learning resources around when I was starting with W32Dasm + Hiew lol

<comment><USER9> The Lena151 tutorials will only teach dynamic analysis, not static analysis. What most people do in industry is a combination of static and dynamic analysis. Static analysis being used to figure out the overall structure and function of a binary, and dynamic analysis being used to fill in details that would otherwise be tedious to figure out with a pure static approach.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Any input from beginners who have dipped their toes into this? Is the content explained fairly intuitively or in a way that is simple to understand?

I'm also curious - for those in the know - is the pursuit of knowledge regarding reverse engineering something that has proven valuable in a job or is it primarily an academic pursuit? If it has proven valuable, how so?

<comment><USER11> I'm one "in the know", so I'll answer that part.

Heck yeah it is valuable. My area has numerous employers that are eager to hire people with that skill set. It pays more than the typical software development jobs. Most of the jobs seem to be related to how things get hacked into. One can play defense or offense.

I post about my employer in the "Who is hiring?" sometimes: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21422735](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21422735)

<comment><USER12> how much is "more than typical"? Sounds interesting!

<comment><USER13> Informally I was told I could get a 40% instant raise by joining a company like this. I bet it can be more than that though. I haven't pursued it yet because I don't think my skill is enough.

<comment><USER14> Defense contractors dont pay well. No stocks n peanuts bonus

<comment><USER15> All of that is false.

I've seen people doing that stuff get yearly pay that is about the price of a house. That is good pay. I've seen stock given, and I've seen bonuses that seem nice, but it makes more sense to focus on pay. The pay is fine.

<comment><USER16> I work in the field and maybe there are people out there getting paid like that, but that's not the norm at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For beginners...1054 pages of assembly.

Sometimes I think the entire IT sector is on the spectrum.

<comment><USER18> Found the web developer

<comment><USER19> Real Men program web sites in assembly, and they like it.

<comment><USER20> Indeed: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12371463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12371463)

<comment><USER21> I'm a bit disappointed the frontend uses javascript. I was hoping for handwritten webassembly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you enjoy this format, the same author also wrote "SAT/SMT By Example" which I learned a lot from: [https://yurichev.com/SAT_SMT.html](https://yurichev.com/SAT_SMT.html)

</comment><comment><USER23> Why does he have a bulletin board in the beginning of his book?

</comment><comment><USER24> Very readable. Highly recommended.

<comment><USER25> Unfortunatly the french translation is very bad and hardly readable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Science and engineering is sort of revere hacking of the world code. If you believe moral is built in, it is also a discovery and "hacking" process. Only in arts ... may be even that if you are more Plato than hacksmann</comment>


Android Stagefright: The heart attack that never happened - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2959549/android/android-stagefright-vulnerability-black-hat-security-updates.html?nsdr=true

<comment><AUTHOR> Now with regular updates, Android's security model is much better than iOS and Windows 10. Android source code is available for the security community to examine. Open source makes Android a good subject for commercial and academic researchers to test theories and postulate vulnerabilities. Google will pay a bounty for verified vulnerabilities.</comment>


60 Hours of Hell: The Story of the Barkley Marathons - <AUTHOR> http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/running/60-Hours-of-Hell-The-Story-of-the-Barkley-Marathons.html?page=all

<comment><AUTHOR> This short documentary about the Barkley Marathons is quite good: [http://vimeo.com/97270099](http://vimeo.com/97270099)</comment>


T-Mobile CEO confirms the iPhone and the death of phone subsidies - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/mobile/t-mobile-ceo-confirms-the-iphone-and-the-death-of-phone-subsidies/

<comment><USER2> I'm excited that T-Mobile is looking to boost its network and committing to a bit of a different direction than many US carriers have taken. AT&T and Verizon are going toward on-contract, subsidized devices paired with expensive plans. Sprint seems to be trying to price discriminate with customers who want the latest devices paying AT&T and Verizon style rates on-contract with Boost and Virgin trying to pick up cheaper customers who are willing to live without the latest devices and keeping them off the latest network that Sprint customers get access to (4G LTE). T-Mobile seems to be trying a somewhat European strategy. It's clearly being altered to live up to American appetites (for example, they're going to finance what would have been the device's subsidy). This may not turn out to be something amazing, but it's exciting to see one of the 4 wireless companies pushing for a new direction.

It's also good to see T-Mobile pushing fast for 4G LTE. While HSPA+ 42 does offer good speeds, the marketing perception won't change and the fact that ping times are worse on HSPA+ does mean that important real-world use cases can lag. I'm a little dubious of their schedule. Sprint started working on LTE a long while ago and thought they would have 120M POPs covered by the end of 2012. Considering that they've been launching more rural areas and haven't been able to launch in several cities they announced a while ago, it seems like it's going to take Sprint a good while longer than they had anticipated. T-Mobile is saying that they will have 100M POPs covered half a year from now and 200M POPs covered a year from now. That's ambitious. Judging from Sprint's slipping release schedule, it might be prudent to think that T-Mobile's projections might also slip.

However, if T-Mobile's dates slip on LTE a bit, it shouldn't hurt them too badly. Their customers can fall back to HSPA+ 42 and that provides a good network experience (if not as good). This is in contrast to Verizon and Sprint customers who fall back to EV-DO when out of LTE coverage range. That probably doesn't matter for a lot of Verizon customers, but Sprint is still working to cover top markets.

T-Mobile does have some good assets. The fact that they're going to be able to launch with 10MHz LTE will be good since it should match what Verizon and AT&T are deploying and out-do Sprint's 5MHz deployment. If they merge with MetroPCS, they will have a good spectrum position to continue growing LTE on including 20MHz LTE channels. Lower/different pricing combined with unlimited 4G might start attracting customers. Part of this is just undue excitement over the prospect of a re-invigorated competitor in an industry dominated by two carriers. Still, maybe T-Mobile will pull it off.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like T-Mobile's plans; I chopped my bill from $90/month to $30/month with unlimited data use by switching over and bringing my own phone.

What doesn't make sense right now is that their no-contract "Monthly4G" plans are a better value than the "value" plans. They have the same service levels at the same prices, but without the contract.

If 80% of their activations are choosing the value plans, are these people simply not noticing there's another option in the website menu? I can't imagine why you'd sign a contract for no benefit.

<comment><USER4> The main advantage of the value plan lineup is the _truly_ unlimited data offering, which you can't get with the Monthly 4G plans (they are "unlimited" with throttling after a few GB, and trust me, you don't want to know how bad the throttled speed is). You can get 500 voice minutes and unlimited data for $55/mo, and though tethering isn't allowed they can't really stop you if your phone is unlocked. No other carrier offers anything remotely similar.

If you don't want to tether, though, Monthly 4G is definitely the way to go. $30/mo for 100 minutes and 5 GB data; all you need is a VoIP app and that's perfectly serviceable, and again no other carrier offers anything similar.

<comment><USER5> T-Mobile will block you if you tether on Monthly4G. Your phone data will still work, but if you use it for more than a couple minutes, the tethering will start going to dead links.

<comment><USER4> T-Mobile's tethering block works like this: They sniff your unencrypted HTTP traffic for user agents that look like they came from a Windows machine, and if they find one they hijack the connection and redirect you to their tethering upsell page. They can't sniff HTTPS connections, so HTTPS continues to work. For HTTP you can change your user agent, or just use a Mac (which their sniffer isn't smart enough to detect, yet).

If their sniffer becomes smarter in the future you can always switch to a VPN for your tethering traffic, which they wouldn't be able to distinguish from a VPN connection made by the phone itself.

Ultimately, as long as you have full control over your phone they can't stop you from doing what you like with the data you're paying for. Of course, I wouldn't recommend relying on routine tethering without paying your carrier for it, but it's really nice to have on occasion.

<comment><USER6> I guess I'm a square, but I'd really prefer not to cheat the rules just because I can probably get away with breaking them.

<comment><USER7> Data is data.

<comment><USER6> Well it would a lot more "fair" to simply charge per MB rather than charge extra for tethering, but people don't much like that idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you want to see a microcosm of this, look at the Canadian cellular market. Most of the budget players are now on a 'tab', where they effective lend you $200-400 which is prorated. The funny thing is the math they use:

On WIND, for example, they give you 10% credit for the value of your bill every month. On a $50 plan (which is high for them), you get a $5 a month subsidy for your phone. If you stay for three years, they let you off the hook.

Meanwhile, the 'Big Three' (who own most of the budget players as well) offer a prorated subsidy: you get 1/36 of the value of your subsidy monthly, over three years. So, on an iPhone, you can get up to $20 a month in subsidy. Clearly this more than outweighs the extra cost of the plans.

What's funny is, people are afraid of 'contracts', even contracts with prorated termination fees. I once got the scary contract talk from a WIND salesperson, so I drew a little diagram on their chalkboard of the value over time of each contract. He saw the sharp drop at the end when they released the remaining $200 of debt, and his jaw dropped a little. People don't really think about this stuff rationally. Bell has even started giving a 10% discount monthly if you buy a phone outright, which makes absolutely no sense unless someone handed you a phone for free.

My point being, if experience in Canada proves anything, people will flock to this as long as you market it properly.

</comment><comment><USER9> The only reason T-Mobile is doing this is because they have a _ton_ of unused bandwidth due to low subscriber numbers, so they're trying to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Ultimately, it's _much_ more profitable to use the subsidy model, because it allows you to hide the true cost of the phone from consumers, most of whom are too stupid/ignorant/rich to realize/care they're getting ripped off.

<comment><USER10> I think you are overstating the case against the subsidy model. It is hard to compare plans because they differ in small ways (minutes. texts, etc..), but my current ATT plan is 2 lines, 700 min, 200 texts, 'unlimited' data, and two iphones for $125 a month. I'd need at least the T-Mobile $60 plan to get comparable data, so it would be $120 a month; roughly the same price. More voice and texts with T-Mobile, similar data. But I get the phones with AT&T, so it ends being a slightly better financial deal. If you don't need voice, the $30 T-Mobile plan is an amazing deal.

<comment><USER9> You're making the assumption that we need to buy new phones every two years. Now that the smartphone spec race is starting to slow down, we're going to see less of a need for frequent smartphone purchases. You could easily use the same phone for 3 or 4 years, as long as it doesn't break. But when you're on the subsidy model, you have to pay extra for the subsidy even if you don't get a new phone.

<comment><USER11> He wouldn't break even after 4 years, though. Nowhere near close to it, actually.

Keep in mind that it's for 2 lines. So, with the T-mobile prices, that's $1300 up-front for two iPhone 5's(the iPhone's $650 MSRP is about average for carrier-subsidized phones), versus $400 for the two phones through ATT. So that means, over 48 months, for the T-mobile plan to be better, he needs to save $900 over that period. That comes out to $18.75 per month.

The $5 he saves per month, after 48 months, would be $240. That's half of the subsidized cost difference for one phone, but his plan has 2 phones. In that case, the ATT plan would have saved him $600 ($6400 for ATT for 2 $200 iPhones and $125/month for 48 months vs $7060 for 2 $650 phones and $120/month for 48 months).

In fact, at that per month price difference, it would take 15 years to make up the difference between the ATT subsidized and non-subsidized T-mobile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been using T-Mobile precisely in this way for over 5 years to be able to switch phones at will and keep recurring costs low and off-contract.

Their unlimited voice-text-2GB 3G/4G data plan has never cost me more than $50/month per phone including all taxes and surcharges.

<comment><USER13> Can you elaborate on "off-contract"? It sounds like even without the subsidy you still have to commit to a two-year contract.

<comment> X-Istence After your contract is over, you are technically off-contract.

In the past T-Mobile has also offered customers the ability to have a monthly plan that didn't require a contract. I'm hoping that they keep that around.

<comment><USER13> From the article:

> T-Mobile will have to explain to customers that they will actually save > money over the length of a two-year contract by paying a lower value plan > rate.

So it sounds like they're still locking you in to a contract at the start. Yes, once the contract is over then you're off-contract, but if I'm not on Tmo already that doesn't really help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wait, I thought Google was buying T-Mobile! Kidding...

I think this is great news for Google. Why? Because unlocked, unsubsidized phones with cheap data are going to be brought to the forefront of the consumer's attention. Consequently, margins are going to go down for carriers (overall -- individually, TMO might get a boost) and phone producers as people are able to quickly move to the carrier with the cheapest data, to the phone which offers the best features per dollar. Google, in turn, will benefit as more and more people move to cheap phones with data-heavy plans -- an advertisers dream.

</comment><comment><USER15> Really awesome, but 1900MHz doesn't penetrate the low-e coating that my employer uses on its office buildings. AT&T's 850MHz HSPA and 700MHz LTE do, so I can't switch, bad though I may want it.

<comment><USER14> If you get ANY signal through, you can use a signal booster, like CelFi: <http://cel-fi.com/> . All they need is electricity and a window (to allow decent GPS signal).

They're 500$ new, 200-400$ on eBay, and free with T-Mobile subscription of 18mo (and dealing with some phone bureaucracy. This may seem like a lot, but it's a lot cheaper than paying 750$/yr more for data with AT&T, plus it will benefit your whole office.

<comment><USER6> I do not think T-Mobile is providing them free any longer, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is great. I'm always reminded of my mother, who I handed down my 2G iPhone to a few years ago. She's more than happy with it, but only has data on wifi because adding data onto her plan would triple the cost of it, or some other crazy margin.

She'll be much more likely to sign up if she can get it more affordably, with her existing phone. She, and many others I suspect, have no need to get a new phone every two years.

<comment><USER5> There are plenty of pay-as-you-go carriers that do voice + data for $50/mo. I was on T-Mobile Monthly 4G, but their coverage is crappy. Straight Talk lets you do either AT&T or T-Mobile for $50.

<comment><USER17> Straight Talk, though, has some major limits on what you can do with the data connection (web only, no audio, no video), and they'll cut off your line if you do anything they don't like, or if you use more data than they expect you to use on their "unlimited" service. T-Mobile lets you do whatever you like with your data connection.

<comment><USER18> Are you sure about no audio/video? Plenty of people on XDA recommend Straight Talk on the Galaxy Nexus.

<comment><USER17> Quoting from the Straight Talk terms of service:

> 6\. STRAIGHT TALK UNLIMITED TALK, TEXT AND MOBILE WEB ACCESS PLAN INTENDED > USE: Straight Talk Unlimited Talk, Text and Mobile Web Access Plans may ONLY > be used with a Straight Talk handset for the following purposes: (i) Person > to Person Voice Calls (ii) Text and Picture Messaging (iii) Internet > browsing through the Straight Talk Mobile Web Service and (iv) Authorized > Content Downloads from the Straight Talk Mobile Web Store. The Straight Talk > Unlimited Plans MAY NOT be used for any other purpose. Examples of > prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) continuous > mobile to mobile or mobile to landline voice calls; (ii) automated text or > picture messaging to another mobile device or e-mail address; (iii) > uploading, downloading or streaming of audio or video programming or games; > (iv) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not > limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated > machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; or (v) as > a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections.

And I've seen plenty of reports of people having their service summarily disconnected for doing audio or video streaming. I've also seen many reports of people getting cut off after doing more than a hundred MB or so in a day, or after doing more than a few GB in a month. Not even close to an "unlimited" plan as advertised.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Never bank on explaining math to your customers.

<comment><USER20> Finally! I was wondering why someone didn't say this already.

T-Mobile is nuts with math anyways. My friend has a 65 dollar plan she pays over 100 a month for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sounds good. In general, it's time for more people to stop using contract plans with subsidized devices and higher monthly fee, and to start using non contract plans with full price devices and lower monthly fee. Of course if these monthly prices would really be lower.

</comment><comment><USER22> As of yesterday 3G works on T-mobile iPhones in Austin.

<comment><USER23> Well, in a way that's some sort of good news, but shouldn't they actually work in LTE instead? Playing this catch up game will not really help them grow the business. Except maybe if they are looking at a different market segment.

<comment><USER24> T-Mobile is supposed to absorb MetroPCS's LTE network, IIRC.

<comment><USER25> That's not exactly a sterling asset.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I only switched from t-mobile because my unlocked phone couldn't use 3G on their network. It'll be very, very tempting to go back if they have decent coverage these days.

It doesn't seem clear that unsubsidized iPhone can work in the US, but I guess we'll see.

</comment><comment><USER27> It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this w.r.t. the consumer price pressure that will then be directly on phones, currently the subsidy hides that from the consumer allowing handset manufacturers to set prices with the carrier

</comment><comment><USER28> If they themselves quote a price for the iPhone starting from 650$, how is 99$ + 20$ a month for 20 months = 499$ dollars total full price? I'm still 150$ short and that's assuming a 0% interest rate.

</comment><comment><USER29> I recently got a iPhone4 from Virgin Mobile USA for $349 and $30/month plan and it's working just fine. Glad to see others are going this way as well.

<comment><USER30> How's the data speeds with Virgin?

<comment><USER29> Did a check last night, with 4/5 bars I got 600 kbps down, 350 kbps up. Not spectacular, but I'm not watching YouTube in the car or anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> So why aren't they already doing this with the Nexus 4 and offering it for $300 unlocked, instead of charging $200 with contract? They can start doing this today. They don't have to wait for the iPhone - unless they made a deal with Apple that they can't sell a Nexus phone for half the price of what the iPhone will be when they'll sell it unlocked.

<comment><USER32> Want a Nexus 4? Grab it direct from Google, then get a SIM card from Straight Talk (<http://www.straighttalksim.com/>). $45 a month for 'unlimited' voice / SMS / data (throttled after a certain amount - no big deal, if you're near wifi often) riding on AT&T or T-Mobile networks, depending on where you live.

I converted from AT&T a month ago and it's working out pretty well so far, after some initial headaches getting them to provision the SIM card properly. I'm still on the AT&T network, just through the Straight Talk MVNO.

<comment><USER33> Straight Talk is a scam and they'll block you (not throttle, block) once you pass a pretty small usage threshold. Their own forums are nothing but people complaining about getting cut off.

Remember that all of those carriers are reselling service. They cannot possibly offer it for _truly_ cheaper than the big guys. They are just buying in bulk in hopes that you don't use much.

<comment><USER34> They mostly block on att's network. T mobile straight talk is not strict.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Computer Security Knowledge Survey - <AUTHOR>

Hi everyone.  Some colleagues of mine are looking to assess security expertise in technologist communities like ours. Would be very cool if you could take a few minutes to fill out.  Thanks!
-Chris
Survey link:
https://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/2033153/pentest
Mandatory recruitment text:
Researchers at RAND are interested in measuring computer security knowledge.  Since you are an expert in the area of pen-testing, we were hoping you would take 10-15 minutes to take our survey and give us some expert feedback.  We are interested in determining which questions can help guide us in understanding whether someone is an expert when we do security research.  Participation is voluntary, and you must be 18 or over. <comment><AUTHOR> PS. Comments and feedback about the survey itself are useful</comment>


The Physics of Software - <AUTHOR> http://www.physicsofsoftware.com/ <comment><USER2> I agree this is an abysmal article.

A much much more rigorous proposal was put forward by an American mathematician several years ago regarding the geometry of trajectories of computer programs, which holds considerably more promise than whatever flimflam this author was going on about:

[https://rd.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00046564.pdf](https://rd.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00046564.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Thank you, this looks quite interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Haven't read anything ever, including the subject of this thread, and including any number of language-advocacy opinion pieces, and including software development methodology opinion pieces, that in any way compares with the empirical data-based work of Manny Lehman (R.I.P.).

[http://ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/5454/5a907a43c798c1193be...](http://ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/5454/5a907a43c798c1193be643395bda3c8548e0.pdf)

His resulting model of software evolution explains many observations we engineers make about "feature creep," "technical debt," balance of effort between development and maintenance, etc.

I think his model also helps point the way to techniques we can use (e.g., DSLs in preference to OOP) to help improve how we build and maintain software.

<comment><USER5> These aren't laws of nature. It's just people being shit. The solution is fixing our culture so that people aren't shit.

<comment><USER4> Sorry to not understand exactly what you mean by those two statements. Would you please clarify?

I of course realize that people are not perfect (along any axis at all), but I think the importance of this work is highlighting:

(1) software must evolve in order to continue being useful (is this the "cultural" part of your comment?), and

(2) that there are some unavoidable limitations of human capability to achieve that (is this the "people being shit" part of your comment?), particularly in dealing with complexity. And that complexity is an increasing function of lines-of-code count.

So, the obvious conclusion to draw (for me, anyways), is we should work to minimize SLOC by various means: DSLs, &/or expressive/powerful languages.

<comment><USER5> (0) We need a culture that penalizes writing incorrect specifications and programs as harshly as possible.

(1) we perform vastly below our potential because we spend so much time working around our own and each other's bugs. People are shit not because they're dumb, but because they stick to the wrong attitude in the face of disastrous results.

<comment><USER4> Regarding (0): I am not sure what mechanisms for penalty would be better way than those currently in play (e.g., disuse/cloning in the case of open source, bankruptcy in the case of closed source, etc.).

I believe Lehman formalizes the dichotomy you imply as bugs in the "model" (you say "specification"), and bugs in the model's implementation. I think the distinction is important in that the model/spec is an evolving/moving target, subject to evolutionary forces. And the number of bugs in the implementation of any given model's snapshot in time is an increasing function of SLOC, and that updating the model can produce more/latent bugs in previously un-buggy code. (Which I take to mean we need minimize lines of code for any given amount of functionality. Less to write, less lines containing bugs, less to modify, etc.)

Regarding (1): I agree that we perform vastly below our potential due to bugs, but also many other factors - though it might be hard to agree on the what those contributory factors are, and their relative contributions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Caveat: I'm a high school drop out with zero college and poor study habits. I'm a consultant and have a tendency to spout bullshit from time to time.

I've been striving to find a set of fundamental laws or first principles for software development for several years now. I don't think we should confuse a need for first principles with physics itself. I see no benefit to finding parallels between each aspect of physics and contrived relationship with software.

What I humbly believe is necessary is an understanding of the natural fundamental laws that come into play when making software. These would be evidenced by natural observable phenomena. I believe that _most_ of these laws WILL NOT COME FROM COMPUTER SCIENCE. This is because making software is more than computer science.

As a brief introduction to my thesis let's consider what things come into play when making software and their relationships to each other. Then let's consider the areas of study which come into play for each relationship.

We have humans, computers, and software. There are fields of study for each relationship.

Humans <-> Software (HCI, semiotics) Humans <-> other Humans (group psychology, language) Humans <-> themselves (positive psychology, et.al.) Software <-> groups of humans (complex adaptive systems, economics, ?) Software <-> computers (computer science, computer engineering) Computers <-> other computers (networks, information theory) Software <-> other Software (complex adaptive systems)

If we look at each of these fields what laws or axioms can we find that come into play when making Software? Can we reason logically from those principles into a better understanding of software development? Perhaps some kind of field theory? That would be nice.

<comment><USER7> Software engineering is almost a pure design activity, compared to every other engineering discipline which ultimately results in manufacturing and assembly processes at some stage (software build systems are not the same for various reasons).

Software also suffers in that it is largely unconstrained by physics. If I want to design a new car I am physically limited in how components can interface with each other.

The same constraints are largely lifted inside a computer. I can write a module that interfaces with 5000 other modules directly (it'd be horrifying to maintain, but it can be made). In order to get a handle on software engineering, we have to introduce artificial constraints into our process. Systems engineering and the other engineering disciplines already have these constraints built-in (what materials are available, how does physics work, what kind of power can we actually send down a wire of certain gauge and metal).

What sorts of constraints do I mean? Well, first is simple the structured and modular code of old. This just makes reasoning about the system much easier. The second is things like layered architectures or designing to interfaces. By having to narrow down my activities and communication at and across boundary layers I force myself to come up with either more reasonable designs or something horrifying. Hopefully I go for the former.

You can also introduce constraints via our languages (this is going to come out of CS). Static type systems introduce a constraint. These force you to negotiate with the type system and be more deliberate in your decisions. A dynamic type system or duck typing lets you get away with a lot of things (for good or ill) that can produce hard to maintain systems and hard to reason about systems. Does this mean we _need_ static typing everywhere? No. But if we don't have it, we need to find other ways to constrain ourselves.

Perhaps it's with conventions. Thou shalt have 100% code coverage in unit testing! If it's not covered, you have to get it covered before it can be integrated into the master branch.

Practices help. TDD introduces a physics to the world of your code. TDD may result in a test that says: It is a violation of the physical universe I'm creating for this module to ever change this value (say you're using shared memory across multiple threads, processes, or objects). Obviously, it can be violated, but your test tells you when this violation occurs so you can address it. Much like a CAD system may help a vehicle designer realize that the door cannot open because it will hit some other object. Sure they can place the door there, but physics will not allow it to behave the way they want it to.

Ultimately, to engineer a system is to design within a set of constraints. We need our software to be constrained in order to start _engineering_ it. There will be no single set of constraints for every activity (see Fred Brooks' _No Silver Bullet_ ). But there are activities and techniques we can use, language options, etc. that will help within and across many of our programming domains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Weekend reading material found, thanks!

While not as well-thought out and presented, I've been working on a similar project for the past 6-8 years. I called it the "Grand unified theory of software" (after its physical equivalent) [1] and the attempt was to define, describe and quantify code, how its created, and changed.

The best exposition of my thoughts is probably this mindmap:[2], but the TLDR version is:

* Software has size. Sequences of code adds height, modules add width; together giving area

* Software has weight, like page weight or memory weight.

* Forces act on software to change it, and they could be design constraints, organizational will, etc

* Code is data REALIZED, data is code ABSTRACTED

* and so forth

There is also a book (not mine) called the "Grand Unified Theory of Software Engineering"[3] which takes into consideration not just what software is, but the processes and organizations that cause it to be created and explores justifications for statements like "you ship your organization", for example.

We need more such exploration and discussion, IMO. Since software is largely an abstract thing, having models to help thinking about it in ways analogous to concrete things is useful, if not precise.

1: [https://github.com/vinodkd/guts](https://github.com/vinodkd/guts)

2: Mindmap flash version: [http://vinodkd.github.com/guts/mmap/full/guts.html](http://vinodkd.github.com/guts/mmap/full/guts.html)

Mindmap non-flash version (look below diagram for complete text): [http://www.vinodkd.org/guts/mmap/basic/guts.html](http://www.vinodkd.org/guts/mmap/basic/guts.html)

3: GUTSE: [https://books.google.com/books/about/The_grand_unified_theor...](https://books.google.com/books/about/The_grand_unified_theory_of_software_eng.html?id=TLcceL3NEiMC)

<comment><USER9> Having scanned over some of what you link, I would suggest learning a bit about fractal geometry and the possibilities of non-integer dimensions. I suggest this because code and modules probably don't multiply exactly as an area. This will be especially true if you try to go beyond 2D, because the discrepancies between the full R^n space and what software actually does (streak through it in something like a powerlaw distribution) will become worse and worse. (See something like [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55269/why-do- fra...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55269/why-do-fractal- systems-show-power-law-behavior) .)

See also some ideas in [https://codeburst.io/software-estimation-in-the- fractal-dime...](https://codeburst.io/software-estimation-in-the-fractal- dimension-914569e2ccb9) or [https://www.quora.com/Engineering-Management/Why- are-softwar...](https://www.quora.com/Engineering-Management/Why-are-software- development-task-estimations-regularly-off-by-a-factor-of-2-3/answer/Michael- Wolfe?srid=24b) for more thoughts that head in that direction.

<comment><USER8> Yes, I was heading in that direction, while having misgivings about using terms like area. The advantage is that its a familiar term, the disadvantage is that its really not the same physics (if there is one to be found). Thanks for the links

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sometimes, an analogy is just an analogy (and not a model). They both have their uses, but if you are taking an analogy to be a model, you are likely to wander into areas of inapplicability. In particular, you cannot validate a claim about software simply on the grounds that it is so in the physics analogy.

<comment><USER11> That is true. In many countries, there have been efforts to create a "software engineering" profession, mostly motivated by the desire to elevate software development to the level of a profession, with the attendant standards, professional accountability and governing body.

However, this has been fraught with problems, because software engineering differs from physical engineering in fundamental ways and many people have realized that applying physical engineering principles to software leads one to commit an fundamental error in paradigm.

At a basic level, software is a procedural epistemology that manipulates ideas that do not necessarily have to correspond to physical objects. It doesn't mean that physical principles cannot be applied to a subset of the software development process.

However, there are usually better ways to achieve ends in software if one is not constrained by paradigms adopted from the physical world. Even paradigms that are natives to the virtual world (like mathematics -> category theory, functional programming) have not gained the kind of widespread acceptance that one would think they ought to.

<comment><USER6> _software is a procedural epistemology that manipulates ideas that do not necessarily have to correspond to physical objects_

This is why I often argue software development is _applied semiotics_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is really bad. It's a set of loose analogies that tries to borrow from the language of physics in order to justify some intuitions about software in general.

On a quick skim there was no solid empirical principle, only a couple of wishy washy equations thrown in to support some wishy washy principles.

</comment><comment><USER13> There is a principle of minimal action for the physics of nature. Is there such a thing for software? If there is, what is it exactly?

<comment><USER7> Probably that software grows to fill the available cycles and memory in the computer.

Or

It is often easier to add code than refactor code.

Refactoring is a way to fight against the entropy of software code growth. But it is a deliberate activity and rarely happens by happenstance. Outside of languages like Forth where factoring is a way of life, and disciplined environments like what I read about in Smalltalk shops, entropy is the order of the day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Software, the process not just writing the code... is so complex (often times even irrational) in terms of interactions (all kinds) that as humans we continue to treat it as damn near alchemy because our comprehension can't keep up.. I think to get what you're looking for there might be more hope for systems writing systems to understand more about what's going on than with humans.

I'm not sure how much sense that makes but anyway I look forward to reading more

</comment><comment><USER15> Suppose you are a physicist and you have a theory you want to test, ok? Then, you design an experiment to test your theory. If it fails, you are sure that your theory is wrong. Otherwise, you know that it works, unless future experiments show that it fails.

In my opinion, this is pretty like Test Driven Development, which has lots in common with the practice of physics (aka Popper's falsification).

<comment><USER16> It could also mean that the experiment didn't approximate the ideal you were aiming for. It's not nearly that simple.

TDD has almost nothing in common with physics. Engineering is about repeatable process. Science is about repeatable results. Testing, CI, and all the rest are part of a process of repeatably shipping releases of software that are functional. That's all a distraction for science (though some engineering may be necessary to construct the apparatus you want).

<comment><USER6> TDD is one solution to the troubles humans have when designing complex systems where the entire solution can not be arrived at through a constructivist approach. Put differently the solution is to complex for a human to keep in their head at once. I came to this conclusion after reading "notes on the sysnthesis of form" by Christopher Alexander

TDD is about people, not software.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This looks really nice. I have been thinking of something along these lines for a while, both as a way to handle larger software systems and to grasp quantum mechanics in familiar terms.

<comment><USER6> What is the "quanta" in software? The bit, byte, computer, program? I think any potential parallels are a seductive trap. Quantum physics is elegant and we desire an elegant model for thinking of software. I don't think quantum physics is the right model for understanding software.

<comment><USER17> Quantum mechanics is not mostly about quanta, but a qubit and a bit are parallels, in that both can store 1 bit of information.

But QM is at least 99% about information, maybe 100%. How information is organised - how it can evolve. And QM is code + data rolled into one. It's also made of pure functions; actually reversible ones.

It would be good to understand entanglement from a programming perspective; the article does try to shoe-horn it into his system, but it seems like a very shallow understanding of the physical situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Perhaps we can build the software-equivalent of the Large Hadron Collider, and finally get to the heart of Google's search algorithm!

</comment><comment><USER19> It's revealing that the only measurable qualities of software the author cited were "coupling" and "cohesion".

Physics is based on measurable values and measurable effects.

<comment><USER20> _> the only measurable qualities of software the author cited were "coupling" and "cohesion". [...] Physics is based on measurable values_

You've misinterpreted the author's message and didn't realize he actually agrees with you.

He wrote, _" However, a property in physics [...] precise stimulus [...]"_ to contrast that "coupling" and "cohesion" is _not measurable_ using our current mental models for discussing software.

His 2nd paragraph explains the the flaw in his 1st paragraph just like your 2nd paragraph did to your 1st paragraph.

<comment><USER19> I went back and read it again, though I had found it a waste of time the first time through. I think the third paragraph is more clear: "We just don't know those forces well enough to even name them"

I feel like he's straining too hard to make the analogy with physics, which doesn't seem very beneficial. Spoken as a fan of both physics and software, the analogy with physics just doesn't seem to offer much additional perspective on the target field (software).

Civil engineering seems like a better analogy (constructed artifacts involving engineering tradeoffs that must work in a complex environment), or biology (evolving systems responding to selection effects in complex, evolving environments).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can you quantify and measure it? If not, shut up.

<comment><USER21> There can be value in talking about non-quantifiable, vauge, things too. And besides, this is just a random blog on the web. It hurts no-one and exists mostly to provoke thoughts; it's not yet a finished product.

<comment><USER5> > There can be value in talking about non-quantifiable, vauge, things too.

There is no _scientific_ value in it, so it shouldn't be presented as a scientific theory (or even as a draft version of one), and especially not as "applied physics to software".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The number times I see the word "design" in a statement correlates well with how high it registers on the bullshit-ometer.</comment>


Show HN: The future of dating: no swipes, no online chats - <AUTHOR> We're the new kid on the dating scene, but with a different approach: an app with no swipes and no online chats at all. It's called SingleSpot.
We're responding to the current dating-app fatigue by focusing on real-life interactions: our app shows you singles currently in bars and cafés around you. And that's all it does. The rest is on you ;-)
The goal is to make dating social and authentic again, by removing all virtual interactions and keeping just the right amount of technology.
• Short intro video: https://youtu.be/rWuDLKnzXYY
• Website: https://singlespotapp.com/
• App Store: https://apple.co/2UPXCNq
• Google Play: https://bit.ly/2uk71kW
Thanks,
The SingleSpot team <comment><USER2> Top notch idea. Can't count the number of articles I've read that suggest swiping apps are driving feelings of isolation and disconnection rather than creating healthy connections. Your feature set may solve some of those problems.

Getting users will be your biggest challenge. Rather than make your app available everywhere, I'd go to college towns and partner with the best bars and clubs for singles. Start small and be exclusive. Use the in-app check-ins to reward users with exclusive drink specials. If you seed your app with the right crowd, I can see bars paying you to make their location a "singlespot hub." $20 per month gets a bar owner access to customer acquisition tools.

Build a feature that allows users to see who's checked in before they get there. Pay $1 a month to see who's there before you commit.

Improve the experience of the on-boarding process to make the user feel like they are gaining access to something new and unique...an app that has the ability to completely change their dating life. Tell the story of what your app can do for this user.

So many ideas! Great start by the Singlespot team!

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting concept.

Going straight to the critique...

1\. Isn't the appeal of online dating not only to find potential matches, but to avoid those a dater is not interested in?

2\. Do people still have profiles? Or does it just show very basic stats, age and where they are at (and presumably they are single).</comment>


Elon Musk Hyperloop Dreams Slam into Cold Hard Reality - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-hyperloop-dreams-slam-into-cold-hard-reality <comment><USER2> The tech is way older than Musk. In the 80s it was called Evacuated Tube Transport or ETT. It had feasibility problems then and it does now. It's a nice idea, but we're a long way from the tunneling technology and vehicle technology to make it a reality.

<comment><USER3> It's even older than that... 1799/1810[1] was the first attempt

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Medhurst](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Medhurst)</comment></comment>


Why Intel and OLPC Parted Ways - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/technology/05laptop.html?ex=1357189200&en=9c2c17178c11e828&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> Has anyone else been confused and not terribly impressed with OLPC from the getgo?

I do not understand why the organization should feel threatened by an effort to sell machines nearly twice the cost which are manufactured for profit. By supporting OLPC, Intel subsidized its own competition. In exchange it gained (1) strategic leverage over the project, and (2) contacts for lobbying.

If OLPC can give countries a better machine for lower cost the problems here sound like management issues surrounding lobbying efforts. If the opposite is true, that would suggest OLPC is an effective lobbyist organization but ineffective producer -- there is no shame in using the private sector to achieve one's goals of pervasive computing.

Then again, I think it was silly to focus on laptops to begin with. Desktop computers provide much more bang for the buck.

</comment><comment><USER3> Apparently, Negroponte objected to an Intel saleswoman giving a side-by-side comparisons of OLPC XO and Intels Classmate PC. What's wrong with that? Is Negroponte hoping to make sales by keeping his customers ignorant?</comment>