TypeScript 0.9 – What's Improved - <AUTHOR> http://flippinawesome.org/2013/10/21/typescript-0-9-whats-improved/

<comment><USER2> I feel so productive in Typescript. I remember the feeling I got when I realized how powerful the type system in Haskell was, and how useful it was at catching mistakes. Every once in a while I read an article about Haskell and think I should get better at it, then I realize that Typescript is really the best of both worlds. It turns JavaScript into this awesome productive language that can scale to large projects.

<comment><USER3> I like Typescript too, but this is a little over the top. Typescript's typing is nowhere near as expressive as Haskell's is (nor was it ever intended to be). I think of it more as a nicer way of doing Closure Compiler-like annotations plus you get a built in transpiler for many of the handier es6 features.

edit: oh, and tooling, but I'm not normally on Windows for development so I haven't played much with the Visual Studio integration.

<comment><USER4> Typing isn't just about catching type errors, but about semantic feedback useful for tooling. Unless you are using Haskell, then its just about catching type errors.

<comment><USER5> That's really unfair to Haskell. What are things like Hoogle if not tools, uniquely[1] enabled by _Haskell_ 's type system? All the basic IDE-like frills exist too, if you really want them. And now, with the advent of deferred type errors and holes, Haskell's type system is getting even more interactive. The process is quickly moving from writing code and running it through a compiler to having an ongoing conversation with the typechecker as you build up your program.

More importantly, types can go well beyond catching errors or tooling. Types can actually make your code _more_ expressive and they can push your design forwards.

For the first, the simplest example is with Haskell's typeclasses: you can't easily write something like Show or have something like Haskell's flexible numeric literals without types. This allows you to grow[1] Haskell in ways that are even difficult in Lisp! For a more practical standpoint, I've found certain libraries to be much harder to reproduce without typeclasses, most crucially QuickCheck.

The second idea is slightly more abstract. As somebody else put it, types are like gravity sources: we place them strategically in our design space, and the rest of the code falls towards them. More concretely, coming up with the types to represent some domain often really helps in writing the code for it. Sometimes, once you've got the general framework of the types, the actual programming just feels like systematically filling in the blanks. More generally, the effect is nowhere near that pronounced, but the types do help shape everything else. In a sense, types help you constrain the set of possible programs at the outset, giving you fewer options to consider as you go along.

Oh, and I guess there's the performance thing. This includes both low-level optimizations (C++ or even C-style stuff) and high-level ones (like rewrite rules). Optional type systems seem to give up on these as a matter of principle. I don't believe static types are strictly _necessary_ for good performance, but empirically they seem to help. Most languages with really good compilers are statically typed.

I think the idea that types just exist to catch type errors is one of the most unfortunate common misunderstandings about type systems. It really scares people away before they can learn about all the other benefits a good type system confers.

[1]: Okay, not really _uniquely_ , but it's close. I've seen Hoogle-like tools for OCaml but not for Java or C++, much less something like Python. I'm not sure how useful or general they could be for other languages.

[2]: Easily my favorite CS talk: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0)

<comment><USER4> I saw Growing a Language in person in 1999 (he redid the talk during Utah's yearly Organick lecture). As for your arguments about Haskell, I find this very useful; thanks for the reply. I am quite interested in type systems for tool purposes, and grocking whether even code completion is possible for Haskell is quite a chore. Hoogle is exactly the tool I'm competing with :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My team has been using TypeScript since 0.9 was released. From our perspective it's been a great win. It's greatly eased the refactoring of our JavaScript.

The thing that's been really nice is the ability to write a certain amount of ES6 style code (eg using arrow functions to lexically bind the this value) and having the TypeScript compiler transpile that into ES5 / ES3 JavaScript.

I really like it. I think the tooling is still a little rough but it's still in Alpha so that's fair enough I guess. It'll improve.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think typescript is such a good idea. And generics is a great addition.

The only thing I dislike about TS is the way it handles dependencies. The require/declare/import/export methodology confuses me. And on top of that there is the //<reference /> tag, and all of it seems to be relying on files, rather than on constructs in the code. Relying on files, means that I have to maintain the order of which to import what, and this becomes even harder if some of the files contain code that is not just module/class definitions, but actual statements in global scope.

<comment><USER2> One of the major problems with JavaScript has always been that there are too many options. I feel like TS reduces some, but it still lets people choose between a module pattern (AMD, CommonJS), and the traditional everything-in- the-global-scope way of writing programs.

So you're left feeling confused because there is more than one way to write a program. Options are good and all, but in the front-end Javascript community, I think we could deal with fewer of them.

To solve your own problem: I would recommend using CommonJS with Browserify for everything, and only use reference tags for ambient declarations. (.d.ts files). Then you'll always use import and export

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The best recent development in TypeScript IMHO is there's now a usable Sublime Text plugin that makes code completion and other goodness available outside Visual Studio. [https://github.com/Railk/T3S](https://github.com/Railk/T3S)

<comment><USER9> The Sublime Text plugin is making use of typescript-tools [1] which also has support for vim and emacs.

[1]: [https://github.com/clausreinke/typescript- tools](https://github.com/clausreinke/typescript-tools)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> After using TypeScript for awhile, I really can't think of a reason not to use it. I haven't read anyone else express a reason not to use it. If it ever turns out to be a problem, then I can just switch over to working on the JavaScript output and dump the TypeScript front with almost zero effort. I did some refactoring the other day and it became clear that TypeScript is a tool that makes life easier and there probably is no good reason not to use it.

</comment><comment><USER11> If anyone is using typescript, there is the unofficial channel #typescript on freenode. Would be great to have more people to discuss TS with.

</comment><comment><USER12> Is TypeScript a superset of JavaScript? Or is there valid JavaScript that doesn't compile in TS?

<comment><USER13> Superset[1]

[1] [http://www.typescriptlang.org/](http://www.typescriptlang.org/)

<comment><USER12> Thanks!

Is there a guarantee that TS will remain a strict superset?

Looking at the syntax, it reminds me of Flash ActionScript, which started out as an ECMAScript implementation but became an incompatible superset that pretended to be JavaScript compatible but would whine endlessly about untyped _var_ declarations...

Hopefully ActionScript and C++ will serve as warnings to TypeScript designers: if you're ever thinking about disrupting code compatibility with the original language in the name of added type safety, don't do it.

<comment><USER6> My understanding is that the TypeScript team intend to TypeScript to always remain a superset. If you watch the various videos with Anders talking about it then that comes across pretty clearly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Regarding noImplicitAny, I find the choice of a compiler option rather than source code markup (like "user strict") rather odd. Granted there's no standard way to do that, but still...

<comment><USER15> why? compilers for other languages has compile time switches for various checks and/or optimizations, there it is assumed normal. Javascript's "use strict" is just a hack for lack such option. This has some benefits, i.e. you take some codebase that must compile with noImplicitAny and want to add some features, you start with less strict typing (implicit any allowed), when finished you compile with different flag. Because ide (most people use) is recompiling the code all the time there is no reason to clutter this when prototyping. If you don't like this workflow, just use the flag from step 1.

<comment><USER14> My understanding was that NoImplicitAny changes the rules of the language, so its use will make it harder to move code from projects that rely on it to projects that don't. Traditional compilers opt for a rich set of warnings and the ability to turn any warning into error. On closer inspection, it seems that code developed with NoImplicityAny should work 100% on projects without that, so my concern was unwarranted.</comment></comment></comment>


Fatality rates for occupants of cars, pickups, and SUVs - <AUTHOR> http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html

<comment><AUTHOR> My original submission linked to [http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.h...](http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html#sec4) which is where "Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2008" are to be found. Someone changed the link and the title.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It used to be that SUVs were more dangerous overall because of roll-overs, but not anymore, apparently.

By the way, I'll be in the market for a new vehicle soon. If anyone knows where I can find the same stats, broken down by make and model, it would be very useful to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> > If anyone knows where I can find the same stats, broken down by make and > model, it would be very useful to me.

Never mind. Found it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> I'd be curious to see whether there's a strong effect in multivehicle collisions from the _other_ vehicle's model.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I be nervous about using React? - <AUTHOR> I have been using React to build frontends for about 6 months now and I love it. Should I learn Angular2 instead and ditch React because of its sketchy licensing? <comment><USER2> No. I'd encourage you to read Facebook's FAQ on React's license at [https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556](https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556) , as well as other discussions on the license (links at [https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux- links/blob/master...](https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux- links/blob/master/pros-cons-discussion.md#reacts-patents-license) ).

</comment><comment><USER3> It depends. Does React's license cause problems for you personally, or for your employer or clients? If so, that would be a good reason to avoid using it.

I'd suggest giving Angular 2 a try regardless. It's pretty well thought out, and you might find that a lot of things you need a separate library for are included with A2. It isn't excessively opinionated, though. You can easily plug in tools you use with React (such as Redux) and they work nicely with Angular 2.

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess the license doesn't cause much pain currently and if I have to sue and lost the license I could always have A2 in my back pocket.

<comment><USER3> If you're only using React with ES6/ES2015, you could also try Preact. I've found it to be a pretty decent drop-in replacement for React. There's also a preact-compat package that supports some additional React features.

<comment><AUTHOR> You bring up a good point. The biggest point of using React for me was using React-Native which Preact doesn't seem to have. I could definitely use Preact for most of my projects as I really only use React for its ability to make front-end components with ES6, so I will have to look in more detail. Thanks for the reference.

<comment><USER3> You're welcome. You're correct that there's no React Native equivalent for Preact.

That might be a point in favor of Angular 2 where you need code that can be shared between mobile and web apps. Nativescript is similar to React Native, and has built in support for Angular 2.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not one of a bandwagon jumper, but I have been hearing similarly nice things about Angular 2 being equally as un-opinionated as React in many ways. I just hate losing the momentum that I currently have with React/Rails apps.

<comment><USER3> One of the nice things is that you don't necessarily have to lose all your momentum.

There's a bit of a learning curve, but you'd find that A2 components are similar to React components, and have similar lifecycle methods. So although some of the specifics about how you do things are different, you can use the same patterns and practices you've been using with React.

That's not to say that you _should_ move to Angular 2. Just that many of the good habits and practices you've developed while using React are portable.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Surgery's Far Frontier: Head Transplants - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/surgerys-far-frontier-head-transplants-1433525830

<comment><USER2> Before anyone complains, obligatory: [https://www.google.com/search?q=wsj+surgery%27s+far+frontier...](https://www.google.com/search?q=wsj+surgery%27s+far+frontier+head+transplants)

Here's a related video showing the surgeon talking and performing the head transplant operation on a mouse: [http://www.wsj.com/video/cutting-edge- science-head-transplan...](http://www.wsj.com/video/cutting-edge-science-head- transplants-on-mice/355B91ED-C923-4061-AA44-5D8C780993C1.html)

<comment><USER3> It's an amazing story. Why would anyone complain?

<comment><USER2> It's a WSJ story, which has a paywall unless you access it via a Google referrer</comment></comment></comment>


Why Has It Taken the Menstrual Cup So Long to Go Mainstream? - <AUTHOR> https://psmag.com/.amp/news/why-has-it-taken-the-menstrual-cup-so-long-to-go-mainstream <comment><USER2> Great article. It's such an obvious product. I'm also baffled why it has taken so long to catch on.</comment>


Ask H1Bs working at startups: Has your employer filed for your greencard? - <AUTHOR>

Is it mandatory for employers to file for green cards or is it optional; and thus, potentially part of the offer?
Do you intend to be with the company for the length of the greencard process, which could take years?
To founders who hire foreign workers, how do you deal with the filing of the green card? <comment><USER2> My company is willing to sponsor but given the length of time it takes, it's basically not in my favour. It can at times be a hassle and more like a burden.</comment>


US hit by 'massive data breach' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33017310 <comment><USER2> I feel like we need to change our direction in terms of "identity" all together.

We seem to be relying on an "identity" that is our name, ssn, phone number, credit card number, or all these different little bits of data clumped together. Too messy, too easy to steal, to fake, to easy to sell.

Maybe our identity is more like a bitcoin wallet. It's an encrypted clump of data that we only keep with ourselves, and ourselves alone. It could store money, confirm that we are who we say we are because it can have our picture in it, our names, our "numbers" for various things.

Then, when someone needs ANYTHING from us, be it proof of identity, money, or trivial info, we can send them a piece of useless information salted with something that they then return to us with the same salt to get back a confirmation, or money, or access to "use" our other numbers, but they never GET our other numbers.

If you want my phone number, you send a request to me asking for it. I get the request, confirm it, send back another piece of data to you. This is NOT my phone number, but something you can use to send to me again in the future when you want to call me, and then my number is dialed, but you never see it. At any time, I can wipe you off my safe list, and you don't have my phone number anymore. Same thing can work when paying for something, or proving I am who I say I am when getting a loan, buying beer, whatever.

Maybe this is ridiculous.

<comment><USER3> What happens when your "identity wallet" gets stolen?

<comment><USER4> _" You pick eight entities; they may be your friends, your employer, some corporation, nonprofit or even in the future a government, and if anything goes wrong a combination of five of them can recover your key. This concept of social multi-signature backup is perhaps one of the most powerful mechanisms to use in any kind of decentralized system design, and provides a very high amount of security very cheaply and without relying on centralized trust."_

[https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/04/13/visions-part-1-the- valu...](https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/04/13/visions-part-1-the-value-of- blockchain-technology/)

If you're not paying attention to Ethereum, you're missing out on the biggest story in technology ever. They're building systems that combine cryptographic identities and a global tamper-proof execution environment to bring the costs of interacting with any stranger on the planet to nearly zero. Every large organization on the planet (i.e. companies and governments) formed as a reaction to today's levels of transaction costs. Eliminating those transaction costs will reshape our society in ways that increase liberty and wealth. You can build the software that helps make that happen. My email's in my profile for anyone who wants help getting started or learning more.

<comment><USER5> I don't have 8 entities I can rely on to be contactable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Huge data breech and the FBI is screaming from an Ivory tower that encryption is hallmark of all evil and that backdoors are a really good idea.

""Privacy, above all other things, including safety and freedom from terrorism, is not where we want to go..."" FBI Associate director Michael Steinbach

<comment><USER7> The USG reserves the use of backdoor-free software and strong encryption for itself, so I'm not sure that this is a worry with regard to the recent data breach.

The FBI means that consumers and foreign markets should not have encryption or backdoor-free software. I understand that this is a double standard, but we need to be clear that the double standard doesn't have to do with this most recent breach.

<comment><USER8> That's not really how it has worked. CAs can't be trusted because, in part, the USG wants to corrupt them as needed. Encryption systems get weakened because the NSA wants to be able to break them. Vulns don't get reported. Etc. It isn't a "double standard." The tech industry well has been poisoned in the same of surveillance.

<comment><USER9> > CAs can't be trusted because, in part, the USG wants to corrupt them as > needed

Has this happened? Or did a U.S. government official slip up and admit the future intention publicly? (I wouldn't be surprised)

The only CA corruption I've heard of was a MOIS/VAJA operation against DigiNotar and a corporation overstepping its agreement with a CA by abusing a delegate root CA.

<comment><USER10> Oh yeah, CAs have been broken for decades. I remember reporting way back on Room 641A at AT&T having shadow certs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a former government contractor, I wish I could say I'm surprised. Unfortunately, computer/network security in many government agencies frequently has more to do with policy documents than with anyone technical actually determining whether the system is secure.

<comment><USER12> Which explains why the FBI thinks backdooring encryption is a good idea, despite it being the literal opposite of one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Bit short currently. Looks like more detail from these sources:

[http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/data-breach- hack/](http://mashable.com/2015/06/04/data-breach-hack/)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/chines...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/chinese-hackers-breach-federal-governments-personnel- office/2015/06/04/889c0e52-0af7-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html)

<comment><USER14> Ars too: [http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/06/federal-agency- hit-b...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/06/federal-agency-hit-by- chinese-hackers-around-4-million-employees-affected/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> * cyber attack * cybersecurity system * cyber-intrusion * cyber databases (twice!) * cyber threat

Use of the word "cyber" adds virtually no insight or context to this article.

<comment><USER16> "Cyber databases" was the clincher for me. At least all of the others are using the adjective to (ostensibly) distinguish from a more general version of the same. A cyber-attack versus a straight-up physical attack. A cyber- intrusion versus physical trespassing.

But who uses the term "database" to refer to anything but a store of data on a computer system?

I realize the BBC has some old-fashioned style guide it's using here, but "cyber databases" betrays a bit of a need to revisit that guide.

 _Edit: I 've made a couple of recommended edits for the BBC as seen here: [http://i.imgur.com/cewmams.png](http://i.imgur.com/cewmams.png) _

<comment><USER12> > But who uses the term "database" to refer to anything but a store of data on > a computer system?

Technically, a "database" is just an organized collection of data. While nowadays it's increasingly rare to encounter a non-electronic database, these were once upon very commonplace. One specific example that I recall rather fondly is the list of Dewey Decimal cards that libraries would keep in narrow file cabinets so that users could search through them and find the books they wanted. While my school library's catalog was already digitized, I still used these cards sometimes, finding books that had been omitted from the digital system for whatever reason (though these were eventually cleaned up when the digital system itself started to include the creation of spine labels, thus causing non-cataloged books to become more obvious).

<comment><USER16> I am familiar with the term as it was used prior to computers. But the BBC's insistence on qualifying a database as a "cyber-database" in 2015 is gross anachronism the likes of using the phrases "touch-tone phone" or "world-wide web."

<comment><USER17> A more accurate analogy would be using the phrases like "cell phone," which are certainly still commonplace. Adjectives tend to stick around longer than necessary for disambiguation, but that doesn't mean they are useless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> We hear a lot about Chinese attacks on the US but virtually nothing about the opposite, which undoubtably does happen.

Reading the wiki page on "Cyberwarfare" there are sections on each country, like "Cyberwarfare in Germany", "Cyberwarfare in India" etc.

Both the "Cyberwarfare in USA" and Cyberwarfare in China" are about Chinese attacks on the US...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare)

<comment><USER19> I presume you would need to search the web in chinese, not in english, to read about those.

<comment><USER20> That's too bad. Theoretically, we have english-language journalistic institutions doing that for us.

<comment><USER21> They generally toe the official government line, at least the mainstream media does. The opinion pages contain the odd piece here and there that deviates from this narrow perspective. But don't rely on the English-language (or any language) media to present an unbiased viewpoint that gives equal weight to both sides of an argument when it involves the US or an ally/client state and an "enemy" state like China or Iran.

<comment><USER22> You think Snowden, GG, wikileaks, etc toe the government line?

<comment><USER10> I think he means CNN, Fox, MSN, NBC, NPR, etc.

[https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/133736](https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/133736)

(From the State Department to the CEO of SONY.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's OK, I'm sure whoever did it had a warrant.

<comment><USER24> Yeah a FISA judge in China authorized the search so it's ok.

<comment><USER25> Yep, the US is a foreign country and hey they do it too. Every country spies!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a great example of why the NSA & FBI should invest in strengthening American encryption standards, instead of trying to weaken them.

<comment><USER27> Why? Actually using existing standards would have worked just fine. Making existing standards easier to use might have helped, but the problems in government use of IT extend far deeper than just the choice of crypto standards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9661848](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9661848)

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's hard not to make this trivial comment so let's make it:

At least it may give a taste to US nationals of what it feels like to have your country hacked by a foreign power, like most European countries nationals felt after the Snowden leaks.

<comment><USER29> You seem to think this is something the US is unfamiliar with. The US has been one of the largest targets of attacks for a long time now. This is just the first time the government itself has been attacked on such a large scale rather than private parties.

(See [http://map.ipviking.com/](http://map.ipviking.com/) if you want a live demonstration.)

<comment><USER12> I find it interesting that the third-place attacker - behind only the United States and China - is currently the Netherlands.

<comment><USER29> IIRC the list of attackers isn't very stable other than China being #1, the US almost always being #2, and Russia usually being pretty high. Right now it's a close race for third between Bulgaria and Russia, and the Netherlands isn't launching any attacks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The timing of this report is very "interesting", given recent news: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9659784](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9659784)

</comment><comment><USER7> This is part of an ongoing cyberwar between great powers - the largest adversaries to the US being China (mostly smash and grab) and Russia (primarily sophisticated and surgical).

It would be nice if there was some place where we could see the scoreboard to know how effective and how often we hack the Chinese back. Right now it looks like our tax dollars are being spent getting hacked, but the US government has doubled down many times on offensive cyberwar capabilities and now have professional cybersoldier career tracks in the DoD.

What's the assessment?

<comment><USER31> Actually, this is an interesting question. The U.S. may well be hacking China left, right, and centre. There is nothing forcing China to disclose when they are hacked. There might be political advantage in loudly complaining. On the other hand, they might find it better not to admit weakness, especially to their own people.

<comment><USER7> The US undoubtedly hacks China, though there's some forms of asymmetry whereby the US has more to lose.

There's also a language and media bubble that filters out information and criticisms of the United States. These bi- and multi-lateral criticisms happen all the time but rarely are subject of US media reporting.

<comment><USER31> Fair point, but you are assuming I rely on U.S. media reporting. I most certainly do not; in fact, I pay little attention to U.S. media reporting. I do rely on English language reporting, however.

<comment><USER7> :) Thanks good Canadian.

Yes, I am speaking primary to a US audience and from my own experience as a US citizen.

As a tangent - how is Canadian reporting overall? Is it reliable?

<comment><USER31> Well, I haven't lived in Canada for a few years . . . I find Canadian reporting to be somewhat better than the U.S., but not nearly as good as some of the international sources like the BBC and Al Jazeera.

<comment><USER21> I disagree. Three or four corporations own almost the entire Canadian media, from traditional print publications to television and Internet. The range of viewpoints on offer is extremely limited. For example, the two daily newspapers in Vancouver are owned by the same company. The two (or is it three?) private "over the air" TV networks are run by the same companies that own the two national daily newspapers. This type of media concentration would be illegal in the US. The Canadian media is incestuous and prone to nepotism and corruption. The CBC network took government money to produce a series run on their flagship nightly newscast that sent their chief correspondent (who was also a Bilderberg guest) on a tour of the Northwest Passage aboard a Coast Guard ice breaker. This coincided with the government's ramping up PR about a "strong northern presence to assert Canadian sovereignty". A CBC business corespondent was on the payroll of a national financial institution, and married to a high-level employee of said bank)when she did an "independent analysis" of this institution which just happened to show them in a very positive light.

And Canada is the only Anglophone nation without a tradition of media criticism. So, no, Canadian journalism is not in any way superior to US reporting. Quite the opposite in fact. Canadaland, a weekly podcast started by a dude who has worked for a variety of Canadian media outlets directly confronts the sick and feeble nature of Canada's media landscape.

<comment><USER7> Thanks sideloader.

Pretty damning anecdote about reporting on the arctic. Press coverage that happily glosses over international uncertainty and debate in favor of a national narrative and interests conclusively outs coverage for what it is.

Media concentration is extremely high inside the United States as well, and of course reporting is similarly colored.

<comment><USER21> My post was a response to a claim that the Canadian media offers a higher quality product than its US counterpart. I disagree and gave my reasons and provided a couple of examples. I did not, however, claim that US media concentration isn't high. It is, but it's not as extreme as the Canadian example.

Independent media is almost non-existent in Canada, online or otherwise. Viewpoints that deviate from the mainstream are far and in between. The only online independent journalism site I can think of that has gained a wider audience is The Tyee based in Vancouver. The Canadaland podcast, created and hosted by journalist Jesse Brown, also seeks to provide a wider variety of viewpoints and it directly addresses the sad state of Canadian media culture (something Brown is intimately familiar with).

You picked one example I provided and took it out of context as if that disproves my point. More info about the Parks Canada/CBC story [http://www.macleans.ca/society/technology/what-exactly- did-p...](http://www.macleans.ca/society/technology/what-exactly-did-parks- canada-secretly-pay-the-cbc-65000-for/)

<comment><USER10> No, I wasn't arguing with you.

I was agreeing with you.

I do not think anything I said disproves your point, nor was it my intention.

I was speaking more broadly about the sorry state of journalism in both the United States and Canada (not comparing them).

Thank you for the information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> A lot of people here are commenting, rightly, that this is an example of why the USG should be strengthening encryption. It's also a reminder that, despite its disproportionate focus in media, including on HN, the US is obviously not the only government engaged in this behavior.

</comment><comment><USER33> I wonder how much social engineering was involved in the hack. No matter how great is your tech, if your staff is not trained to be _paranoid_ you're going to suffer the consequences.

 _" Hey I just found a usb pen on the floor. I wonder what it's inside it..."_

</comment><comment><USER34> This is perhaps a stupid or uninformed question, but if databases are so vulnerable, why is so much information still stored in cleartext? It seems to me that taking the extra step to strongly encrypt data prior to writing to tables would make the intruder's job much harder.

I speak not only as a programmer and database guy from way back, but as one of the millions of Anthem subscribers whose personal data was stolen a few months ago in a massive breach.

I know that "data breach" might well mean the keys were stolen which decrypted an otherwise secure file, but the terminology suggests that the breach was simple access into the system rather than acquisition of the precious keys themselves.

Someone with superior knowledge of these things, kindly explain.

<comment><USER35> If it's a relational database, the core function of the database is to make it searchable. If you encrypt the fields, you have to decrypt everything to search them. So if search or relationships are important to you, encrypting the whole database would be disruptive.

There is a type of encryption called "homomorphic" which could allow you to perform operations on encrypted information. I haven't ever tried to implement it and consider it one of those seductive ideas that probably can't get implemented correctly in practice. But if there was a way to deliver an entire encrypted database and still make it useful, homomorphic encryption is the only way I am aware of that would make it work.

<comment><USER36> Perhaps the data you need to search is not the same as the data you might want to encrypt? For instance name, address, ssn (or similar), billing info, etc. could all be encrypted and you could still look for e.g. 50yo women in the Northeast USA who haven't had a checkup in the last three years.

Of course many DBs need to search by name, but maybe it can be set up to search by a hash of name? Hashes seem a bit simpler than homomorphic search.

<comment><USER35> >>Perhaps the data you need to search is not the same as the data you might want to encrypt?

Bingo. That would be the correct middle ground. This is why some of the database compromises that have happened are not complete disasters. I know there have been a few instances of systems that had their db's dumped, but passwords were safely protected by appropriate salting solutions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> What would be a suitable response to this? America does not have a clear cyberwar policy and I haven't heard many suggestions.

<comment><USER38> Well, they could confront the issue instead of publicly ignoring it for a change. Haven't heard much about China's massive DDoS against github. Even github won't point the finger at China even though it was clearly done at the Great Firewall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> what differentiates a 'cyber database' from a 'database'

<comment><USER40> The former was built for millions of dollars by the low bidder with a great sales team.

<comment><USER41> Great sales team? How about well-connected principals who donate to candidates with the power to decide on the contract.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Of course, China. How is it they are incompetent to protect the data, yet competent enough to know immediately who did it.

<comment><USER7> Stopping Computer Network Exploitation is very, very difficult (the attacks happen at close to the speed of light).

However with appropriate signals intelligence, sources of attacks can be determined.

We don't know that China was really behind these attacks, but the US has a pretty good track record at attestation so far.

<comment><USER36> How would we know? The most notable attestation I can think of was NK-Sony, and that is dubious at best. I'll stipulate that China is behind lots of hacks, but that means attributing any particular one to them could be just a good guess.

<comment><USER7> The NK-SONY episode was undoubtedly NK or NK-sympathizers.

The malware analysis from Fireeye is a good start for this (it was a variant of malware used by NK to target SK media outlets that run negative press against the regime, was compiled with Korean character sets, and much more), but it's also true that the motive of the hack, written by the Guardians of Peace themselves, was to punish the US for the State Department and CIA's involvement in the creation of The Interview and the plans to get the movie into NK.

Curiously linguistic analysis of the Guardian of Peace messages suggest that the author was possibly Russian and variants of the malware package had also been used in an Iranian attack on US oil companies in the Middle East. (These nations are known to collaborate in malware development and tactics, tools and proceedures.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This hit every US news service. How is it so low in points?

"breach could potentially affect every federal agency, officials said"

I love HN's ability to filter news that matters to dev/tech-professionals, but when stuff like this pops up it should be top 10, for at _least_ a few hours. This is some serious shit. Who here does business with government agencies? Most of you have IRS Tax/Employer IDs... with the rate that this is "expanding" what is to say that it wasn't just HR records, but more. Your e-filed IRS return could be sitting with folks outside of the IRS...

No intention to fear monger but think of the statement "breach could potentially affect every federal agency" \- every business in the US does something, with sensitive data, with an agency :/

</comment><comment><USER24> It's not a data breach, it's essential that the US keep their database unencrypted so that the Chinese national security agency can search their records for ties to terrorism.

If anything China just did the OPM a favour to help them keep their freedom.

</comment><comment><USER44> Note the Office of Personnel Management's scores in this report, and note the scores of the State Department. Ms. Clinton's e-mails may have been more secure at her private residence :-\

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/eg...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/final_fy14_fisma_report_02_27_2015.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER45> Interested in hearing the details about this one. How much of it was facilitated by phishing or social engineering? Are there any government systems that require two-factor auth? So much of federal web infrastructure is based on old code/systems that, while invulnerable to a mass exploit of Rails/WordPress/Bash, have not even remotely been tested and studied against edge cases in the way that large scale open source platforms have.

</comment><comment><USER46> _The breach did not involve background checks and clearance investigations, officials said._

No, that breach[1] was a couple of years ago.

1: [http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2014/12/opm-alerts- feds...](http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2014/12/opm-alerts-feds-second- background-check-breach/101622/)

</comment><comment><USER47> If only there had been a backdoor in the system, or no encryption, law enforcement could have prevented this. /s

<comment><USER7> The US government has some of the best CNA/E defense anywhere in the world - certainly better than almost all of industry - even departments that you would otherwise think are puny.

The backdooring and lack of encryption in software is because the US is still a primary exporter of technology and we want to be able to continue to hack, surveil, message and control those who get US technology. US FedRAMP and other compliance minimums insist on the use of properly configured encryption in private industry to protect government information and cyber sharing programs enable both the sharing of data between private and public sectors for surveillance and for the detection and analysis of foreign cyber attacks. The US government has state of the art encryption (for the most part) and some of the most heavily monitored perimeters.

None of this is enough to stop cyberattacks, which have all of the advantages in their favor.

So while I'm inclined to agree with you that the US should stop mandating backdoors and weak encryption I don't think its a fair characterization to suggest this anything to do with why the US was breached.

China and the US are battling each other in several arenas of influence, as are Russia and the US. In this case the US is trying to stop Russia and China's global and regional power projection and these countries do not accept the US world order and their current place in it.

Conflict is inevitable. It will be interesting to read the history books to see what gets written about the role of the information warfare space and what role it plays in whatever outcome we get.

<comment><USER41> What is CNA/E? Google wasn't helpful.

<comment><USER7> Computer Network Attack/Exploitation, also see CNO - Computer Network Operations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Oh no, the Chinese are stealing all our datas in an unprecedented cYbErattack!

I didn't realize it was Thursday again already.</comment>


Ask HN: What is your favorite post on HN? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> It's a frequent question [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=ask+hn+favorite+post](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=ask+hn+favorite+post)

Mine [https://news.ycombinator.com/favorites?id=mtmail](https://news.ycombinator.com/favorites?id=mtmail)

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://news.ycombinator.com/favorites?id=verdverm](https://news.ycombinator.com/favorites?id=verdverm)

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20392489](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20392489)</comment>


Czech Trail Marking System (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.myczechrepublic.com/2006/10/31/czech-trail-marking-system-the-best-in-the-world/ <comment><AUTHOR> I've been visiting various sites in the Czech Republic and have been seeing these markers on trees. At first I thought they were pointing the site I was visit, but then I realized they didn't always lead where I was trying to go. So I googled "czech marks painted trees" and came across this blog post. Enjoy :)

</comment><comment><USER2> The Czech map service Mapy.cz is also really good for hiking. For example, this is the same location compared with Google Maps (if you have a high density screen, I recommend setting zoom to 75% on mapy.cz):

[https://mapy.cz/turisticka?x=15.7287144&y=50.6908445&z=13](https://mapy.cz/turisticka?x=15.7287144&y=50.6908445&z=13)

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com,15.6888516,12.89z](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,15.6888516,12.89z)

It's owned by the guy who made Windy.com.

<comment><USER3> It's the very best hiking service in Germany also. Google maps is only usable for cars or bus/train. But for hiking or bycycling Mapy.cz with OSM are the best.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow. To my surprise, I was thinking they are something like "standard" in western world. Here in Slovakia, you go to every forest and see it guiding your roads

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Hiking_Markers_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Hiking_Markers_System)

</comment><comment><USER6> What i consider a good thing is that distances are shown in kilometers, rather then hours. Mountain trails might sometimes be marked in hours, as the hilly terrain adds it's time toll significantly, but for the most part, it is kilometers, which means that can very easily estimate how long it will take you to your destination while walking/running/biking...

But not all signage is great that in CZ. For example driving roads are mostly marked by "destination cities" at intersections rather then by road numbers (except of highway exits), so when planning a road trip, you must create an itinerary of towns to pass through, rather then simply following a map of roads.

<comment><USER7> In my experience, distance is the norm. I'm not sure I've ever seen a hiking/walking trail marked for difficulty/time rather than distance. (Of course a trail map/book/description may include more information including a range of time to complete.)

Ski trails of course are usually just marked for difficulty level. (Which is mostly relative to other trails on the same mountain.)

<comment><USER8> Trails in Slovakia are time-based. It is very useful in high mountains, when one kilometer in distance might take several hours to walk/climb.

<comment><USER7> Interesting. "Book time" is a useful idea. The issue is that you need to have a good baseline for how you personally compare to the book time. It works well on an individual basis with a regional guidebook. I'm less sure what to make of it in a sign in an unfamiliar area. (I have seen it in Japan as well. I usually take it as something of an upper limit.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Formal specification (PDF, in Slovak) that contains drawings with dimensions, rules for stacking of multiple markers, shapes, etc.:

[http://www.jazdecka- turistika.sk/images/stories/dokumenty/KT...](http://www.jazdecka- turistika.sk/images/stories/dokumenty/KTS_norma_STN_01_8025.pdf)

EDIT: Typo

</comment><comment><USER10> The way they're on sign-posts and everything is great. Although, the notion of the colors painted on trees and what they mean (Red/Blue/Green/Yellow) is something that I've definitely come across in the US. Specifically, in areas near Boy Scout Reservations.

</comment><comment><USER11> This makes hiking in Czechia pretty painless and low tech. And it's all made by volunteers. I never thought there was any meaning to the colors though.

</comment><comment><USER12> Nitpick: 1889 can't be the very first hiking trail, because two years earlier a polish artist and hiker named Walery Eljasz marked a trail from Zakopane to Morskie Oko using Mercury Sulfide (red).

I believe there could have been similar attempts earlier elsewhere as well.

</comment><comment><USER13> It sounds like they have a way of marking trails by difficulty only. That's a nice feature, but what happens when two trails of the same color cross? Are they still named? How does this get you from A to B without a map?

<comment><USER14> I think red is generally used for long distance trails and other colours are used for auxiliary routes. Because of that, colour clashes are rare. Because all major intersections have arrows you just really need to remember your destination. Often you even have the information about public transport at the destination.

Example of a map: [https://mapy.hiking.sk/?zoom=11&lat=6261583.4553&lon=2274012...](https://mapy.hiking.sk/?zoom=11&lat=6261583.4553&lon=2274012.26832&layers=00B00FFFTTFTTTFFFFFFFFTTT)

<comment><USER13> I guess I don't see how this is such a remarkable system. Everywhere I've hiked there has been some sort of blaze system to keep you on the trail you want. This looks pretty much identical, only with the added bonus of ambiguity throughout the country.

I just don't see the utility that makes this such a great idea.

<comment><USER15> Ambiguity is the key here. The system is set in a way that no matter where you are there are lines going just anywhere and once you are into it you will never miss any interesting spot. Also all the lines connect to each other, so I can start walking in one place and circle whole country.

Bonus point: whole system depends on volunteers who keep markings on all lines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Poland also has this system

<comment><USER17> And it's similar to the system in the Dolomites in Italy too</comment></comment>


Novell: Why we don't need a third Linux distro - <AUTHOR> http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=3070

<comment><USER2> I just did a quick survey of seven coworkers who are all familiar with the Linux, in order of likelihood of deploying in a commercial environment, the three distros that they indicated would recommend:

o CentOS - which is pretty bog standard for large web environments that are RPM Based that need to, for whatever reason, stay close to the RHEL platform.

o RHEL - For anybody who needs RedHat Support, or needs to be able to tell Oracle (or other enterprise vendor) they are running on a supported platform. Or they are just PHBs that need the comfort of deploying "Supported" environments.

o Ubuntu - This is a bit of an outlier, but we have a number of Debian Snobs who have a preference for the apt/dpkg/deb way of doing things, and Ubuntu, particularly LTS, seems to have some mindshare here.

Nobody mentioned Suse, though this is in Silicon Valley, and I get the sense that Novell doesn't have as much presence here.

<comment><USER3> I have zero experience in deploying Linux in a commercial environment, only home / hobbyist usage; but I wonder why Ubuntu is ahead of Debian?

(I assume we're not talking desktops here.)

<comment><USER4> Maybe commercial support is easier to get? That would be a biggie for a business. Possibly more up to date packages? I am just speculating though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What a weak argument. Vendor X suggests that vendor X and Y are plenty of choice, that you don't need vendor Z.

A better blog post: Oracle just screwed your J2EE ecosystem, hope you don't deploy their version of linux for even deeper vendor lock-in there too.

</comment><comment><USER6> Sadly, American car companies could have probably wrote the same article about the impending Japanese car imports (market leadership, infrastructure (dealer & mechanics), no market demand).

</comment><comment><USER7> A _third_ distro?!

<comment><AUTHOR> As in enterprise support for Linux distros.

<comment><USER7> It's more complicated than that. F'rinstance on Debian you can

        # apt-get install oracle-xe

and you can run full-blown Oracle on it with no trouble at all...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would like to see the stats from Linode et al. on deployments. My sense is that Ubuntu is growing faster than the other distros.

<comment><USER9> <http://www.linode.com/about/> \- In the Interesting Statistics box.

      48% of deployments are Ubuntu
      24% of deployments are Debian
      16% of deployments are CentOS
      4.3% of deployments are Fedora
      3.1% of deployments are Gentoo

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> They are right; we have RHAT/Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu, no need for 3rd enterprise (or pretty much other) Linux distro.

</comment><comment><USER11> I kinda agree with the article but is like Microsoft saying: "Who needs Java when you can have .NET?" They would say that wouldn't they?

I can't figure out what they are trying to get at with this article. I can't help but feeling that they sound a little desperate.

</comment><comment><USER12> Yeah, Novell probably needs to ask itself if we really need a _second_ "enterprise" Linux distro.

The way Ubuntu is growing, RedHat had probably better start worrying about the same ...

<comment><USER13> I don't see Ubuntu and Redhat serving the same market personally. I use Ubuntu everywhere but on some large servers, Redhat was the choice. They had the drivers and were a supported vendor for the hardware we got. To me that's two markets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I cannot help but wonder what portion of the 95% domination Novell contributes. I cannot help but suspect this is a case of a tiny nobody pretending he's best buds with the 800-lb gorilla that doesn't even know he's there.

I mean, sure, it adds to 95%- but who's to say Novell isn't only 3% by itself?

<comment><USER15> Well, obviously I have not more numbers than you. But Suse (and later OpenSuse) was very prominent for a long time in Germany (according to empirical references providing the best l10n experience combined with commercial support).

They lost a lot afterwards/in the last years, but I'd still say that they are relevant (mind you - without running Suse here.. I'm running a distribution that didn't get mentioned here and has no commercial support..):

\- The OpenSuse BuildService [1] is really awesome. Think Ubuntu PPAs, just without the limitation of being for a single distribution/release. It's basically a build system that serves everyone and is still actively improved day by day. Want to build packages for Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora? It can do it for you..

\- If you have looked at Suse Studio [2] once, live, you'll agree that this is an awesome product for a lot of deployments. Think "Let me create my linux based appliance with a few clicks using a nice interface".

\- Novell still funds a lot of desktop stuff. Granted, RedHat is probably bigger. But if you think "Gnome" you probably see right away that they are both deeply involved and actively moving the platform forward.

\- Suse improved zypper (the yum/apt-get/aptitude alternative) by _huge_ amounts concerning speed and usability and it is now for all intents and purposes at least equivalent to the competitors

\- Remember the outcry of the open source community after Novell made the agreement with Microsoft regarding the patent protection (fail to find the correct words, you probably know what I mean) for .Net technology: If you are afraid of the risk there, you'll be a customer of Novell I guess.

I agree that RedHat is probably the bigger one (and the "we gained 5% claim is therefor maybe misleading), but - pulling numbers from ... nowhere.. I'd rather put them at 30 (Novell) vs 60 (Redhat) % of the market.

1: <https://build.opensuse.org/>

2: <http://susestudio.com/></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is it spamming to submit a link to HN more than once? - <AUTHOR>

Sometimes I'll submit an article to HN and within 5 minutes it will be buried under two to three pages of NEW articles.  Is it okay to resubmit the article a few times throughout the day to see if it gets traction?  Or better just let the thing die? <comment><USER2> _Is it okay to resubmit the article a few times throughout the day to see if it gets traction?_ \

It's not as polarized as your question implies. Yes, it is spamming if you resubmit "a few times throughout the day". No, it's not spamming if you resubmit the same article up to maybe three times in a month if the first 1-2 times received only 1-2 votes. It's always a possibility that the content is just not as interesting to others here as you think it is.

</comment><comment><USER3> Please see [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7768726](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7768726), which contains links to other comments I've posted about this.

Also, we're working on an alternative to /newest that will widen the time window for new posts and will hopefully solve this problem.</comment>


The iPhones 8 - <AUTHOR> https://daringfireball.net/2017/09/the_iphones_8 <comment><USER2> This was a weirdly subdued review by Gruber, it even brings up areas where competitors have been doing something for a while without going through the normal Gruberian mental gymnastics to justify it. He even brings up Apple's inexplicable need to have a 16 GB base model until this year without trying to justify it. Gruber often gets himself in trouble by omission as much as by the circus-show of what he writes. But there's very little of that here.

This reads like an honest review.

My tl;dr of it is "It's a solid year over year update from the 7."

 _note_ Not to worry, his previous articles will send the critically thinking reader down the road to infuration just like one might expect...I was afraid Gruber was losing his edge.

<comment><USER3> All of the phones Apple released are boring, so it's kind of not surprising that people aren't worked up about it.

At least to people who watch gadgets. The Mi Mix was a revelation, the iPhone X is just what people expected before all the leaks, with the exception of FaceID, which got leaked.

Still, every time I see someone writing about Apple design, it seems like it's great when Apple does it - its even better than last year's model! - but it's always bad when competitors were.

I'm still completely jealous of iPhone battery life though.

<comment><USER4> _> the iPhone X is just what people expected_

But that's the point of iPhones nowadays, isn't it? Shipping features only when they feel ready (e.g. I guess this [1] won't be possible with Face ID). I switched from Android to iOS when I decided that I want a _boring_ (but elegant) smartphone that bothers me as little as possible.

 _> Apple design, it seems like it's great when Apple does it_

What many of their customers value, I think, is that Apple tends to get the big picture _and_ the details right quite often.

The big picture: When I buy an Apple phone, I can be quite sure not to see this on the default lockscreen: [2].

The details: [3]. You don't have to appreciate this level of detail, but some people do.

That being said, not even Gruber claims that recent iPhones are "perfect" design-wise. [4] Just more detail-oriented than most competitors.

 _> I'm still completely jealous of iPhone battery life though._

Bought an iPhone 7 ½ year ago. I don't think battery life is anything to be jealous about. I hear good things about the Plus models though.

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-galaxy- note-8-facial-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-galaxy- note-8-facial-recognition-tricked-with-a-photo-2017-9)

[2] [https://twitter.com/dcseifert/status/905104470429851648](https://twitter.com/dcseifert/status/905104470429851648)

[3] [https://www.imore.com/sites/imore.com/files/styles/larger/pu...](https://www.imore.com/sites/imore.com/files/styles/larger/public/field/image/2015/04/galaxy-s6-bottom- alignment.jpg)

[4] [https://daringfireball.net/2017/09/iphone_x_event_thoughts_a...](https://daringfireball.net/2017/09/iphone_x_event_thoughts_and_observations#fn1-2017-09-14) (Footnote 1)

<comment><USER5> > I want a boring (but elegant) smartphone that bothers me as little as > possible.

Exactly this. It's why I run OSX instead of Linux on the desktop - I'm old and I resent having to catherd my gadgets. If I have to tweak anything, it generally goes in the bin.

<comment><USER6> The thing is, macOS is objectively worse than Linux in certain respects, e.g. the UI's placement of window close next to other window controls (oddly, the old Macintosh OS did this correctly) or shipping the less-featureful BSD userland rather than the GNU userland, or shipping an old & outdated bash.

But I enjoy making my tools work better. I don't compile my kernel anymore, I don't build my own computers, but I do enjoy making my environment work better, faster, simpler and more powerfully.

<comment><USER7> > shipping the less-featureful BSD userland rather than the GNU userland, or > shipping an old & outdated bash.

You think that's an intentional choice Apple made? If you spent even a moment looking into it you'd realize the GNU user land has a license that purposely roadblocks companies like Apple from using it.

I'm not saying Apple or GNU is to blame, they have different philosophies with their own benefits and drawbacks, but to pretend it's only one side's fault is a bit naive.

<comment><USER6> > You think that's an intentional choice Apple made?

Yes, because they _do_ ship some GPL software (and provide the source code for it); they _choose_ not to ship more, and they _choose_ not to give their customers the source code to the software they purchase.

I don't know if Apple could make money selling hardware with open source software, but I do believe that morally it should.

<comment><USER7> They used to ship quite a bit of GPL software, but have been progressively removing as much of it as they can as fast as they can. There's very little GPL left in macOS and I bet they would kill it immediately if it was practical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8>
      A lot of people out there have been asking me who the
      iPhone 8 is for, other than people who can't or don't
      want to spend $999 or more on an iPhone X.

Well... Jesus. "Only cheapskates buy the 8", apparently.

I pre-ordered the 8 Plus, because:

\- It was available a month sooner and I need a new phone.

\- The 8 Plus has all the same internals and features. I really just wanted the camera.

\- Face unlock seems gimmicky. Maybe next generation.

\- $200+ for what amounts to a "better" screen and "cooler" form factor: not worth it.

So I guess I do fall into the "don't want to spend $999" category. Look down on me, pedants!

<comment><USER9> Why not order a 7?

<comment><USER10> Inductive charging!

<comment><USER8> I do like inductive charging, but I often find myself futzing about on my phone in bed at the end of the day, and my phone's on 5%. So I plug it in and keep using it. Hard to do that with inductive charging.

Granted, my current iPhone is literally dying a protracted death[1], so YMMV.

[1] Battery jumps around, screen doesn't work half the time, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > These are solid year-over-year updates — at least as impressive as the > iPhone 7 was over the iPhone 6S. If they hadn't debuted alongside the iPhone > X we'd be arguing about whether these are the most impressive new iPhone > models since the iPhone 6. There's a lot to love about them and nothing to > dislike.

People who buy the iPhone 8 won't feel the satisfaction of owning the latest and greatest iPhone. That's what makes this update boring. It's already out of date.

<comment><USER12> People who want a great phone buy the 8. People who are Apple fanatics and/or too rich and/or need a status symbol buy the X.

<comment><USER13> I'm personally considering the X because I suspect folks will do cool stuff with the new sensors. The dot projector, in particular, seems like it may be useful for 3D mapping of objects - would be pretty cool to wave your phone at something and be able to send the scan straight to a printer.

<comment><USER14> Unfortunately, Apple being Apple - doesn't expose those new sensors in any APIs.

<comment><USER15> And thank god for that. The face recognition data goes in the secure enclave and stays there.

The last thing I need is Snapchat to say "We need access to the facial scan for new video filters!" and then using it to measure microexpressions in response to ad displays.

<comment><USER13> They could conceivably provide APIs that refuse to give detailed scans when a face is detected.

<comment><USER15> Can't you do that with the regular camera? The only reason you need the grid projector is for getting a detailed 3D model.

Haven't checked, but I assume that (like TouchID) they _do_ provide APIs to use it for authentication, but they refuse to give any more data than that.

<comment><USER13> > The only reason you need the grid projector is for getting a detailed 3D > model.

That's what I want it for.

TouchID isn't very useful outside of fingerprinting. The dot projector I could see a wide variety of really neat, innovative uses by third-party devs if it can be made accessible.

<comment><USER15> Given how explicit Federighi has been about the FaceID data staying on-device in the secure enclave, with not even Apple having access to it, I think it's very unlikely they'll change their stance on that.

The moment 3rd party devs have access to the scanner, it'd be siphoned off by somebody's ad framework and then sold for biometric ad targeting in nearby stores or god knows what else.

<comment><USER13> Hence my saying:

> They could conceivably provide APIs that refuse to give detailed scans when > a face is detected.

<comment><USER15> Oh I see, I'd read that as generating some kind of simplified "generic face" model to use for face features without biometric identifiers, but you're talking about using the grid projector for more generic stuff like people had done with Kinekt sensors?

<comment><USER13> Yes, exactly. 3D scans of objects, room mapping, robot brain...

<comment><USER15> Pretty clunky with the sensor on the front, but I agree it'd be cool.

For room mapping it seems like ARKit should cover a lot of use cases. The tape measure demos I've seen were solid. But IIRC ARKit has a lot of stuff built around identifying flat surfaces like that, it can't help you so much with arbitrary objects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > After _six days_ of daily use, this iPhone 8 shows no scratches or "micro- > abrasions" whatsoever.

When did we start having such low expectations of products? (my italics)

Edit: grammar.

<comment><USER17> His point was that while it has the same feel of the last-generation jet black version, it doesn't have the same downside of it.

<comment><USER16> I understand. My point is broader. Even if he's comparing to last year's product, he promotes this as a bonus. He is happy that the product is in mint condition after 6 days. Not even a week. It's slightly sad.

<comment><USER18> Ugh, I noticed the same thing a few weeks ago reading reviews of battery life.

Apparently "good" battery life these days means "in more sedate conditions it's easily going to get you home to a charger."

When did people's expectations get so low?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hey look, another glowing review from Apple's favorite cheerleader.

<comment><USER20> I think Gruber's pieces about Apple are mostly useless, because he always seems heavily biased. Compare that to e.g. the ATP podcast, which is hosted by Apple fans but seems to contain more criticism and less apologism.

<comment><USER21> John Siracusa and Marco Arment are great at getting to the parts where Apple can improve. My only fault with them is their idea of Windows seems stuck in the days of XP.

Casey Liss, however, is just a cheerleader who would rather self-flagellate about his unworthiness to see Apple's blinding genius.

<comment><USER22> Since you brought him up, Liss gets on my nerves because not only does he insist that something works fine for him, but he goes on extended rants about how everything is fine and he can't see what Arment/Siracusa are talking about. Like, he spends a lot of time claiming everything is fine but in an argumentative way. It's boring and frustrating.

Marco's problematic/annoying in his own way, but Casey is aggressively... status quo???

<comment><USER23> But the fact that they have 3 distinct personalities also makes the show interesting, rather than many other podcasts where people just agree with each other (like the aforementioned Talk Show)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't understand his rant about "wireless" charging. He wrote a whole article about it with two dictionary definitions that completely contradict his own point, too.

Wireless means there's no wire and you don't need to plug your phone to charge it. So it's wireless charging.

<comment><USER25> The rant is about how to charge the iPhone or any device with "wireless" charging is that you still need the wire to be touching the phone or device.

There is still a wire involved and they're calling it "wireless".

<comment><USER26> It's a petty semantic argument. You don't need to plug it into your phone, which is the annoying part. You just plug the pad in and leave it plugged in forever. You require much less accuracy to charge your phone now. It will be a boon to people who suffer from tremors or have weak hands.

<comment><USER17> To me, the most annoying part is having to part from the device. Truly wireless charging in my pocket, without thinking about it, would be amazing and will eventually happen (though far away).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> One advantage of the iPhone 8+ over the iPhone X is that the display is wider, and that makes it easier to read larger accessibility fonts. My parents are keeping the plus size because of that.

<comment><USER28> One advantage of the iPhone 8 over the iPhone X is that it's not a monstrous size. Even though the iPhone X is only slightly larger than the iPhone 7, the screen is still ridiculously larger, particularly since they got rid of the feature where it'll shrink the screen.

I don't know why the market has decided that two hand smartphone usage is king, but it makes me sad. As someone who is frequently forced to use my device one handed and on the move its getting harder and harder to deal with.

<comment><USER29> I know. I wish they would update the iPhone SE (my current phone). As it is, looks like I'm not upgrading anytime soon.

<comment><USER28> I got sort of used to the size of the 7. After a year I'm still at the point where it annoys me at times but otherwise is fine. A hair smaller in height would be perfect for my needs.

I was intrigued by the X in that I was willing to go a hair higher in height for a much larger screen until I realized they got rid of the small-scaling feature I still can't think of the name of. Considering I already use that all the time on my 7 and the screen is about to get much larger, it'd be necessary for me to get by.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why is this the review that is making it to the front page? There are lots of sources that have, or will have, much better insights into the phone and tech that will spur much better conversation on HN; I hope one of those surfaces, too.

<comment><USER31> I think the author is a homer for sure, but his reviews are a lot more practical, more Walt Mossberg than Ars Technica. It's nice to know what's under the hood but it's also nice to know what the phone feels like in day-to- day use, and I think Mr. Gruber covers that well.

And, for anyone who's already in the ecosystem, I think he's really good at relating new products to existing ones.

<comment><USER30> Can you give an example of how Mr. Gruber covers something "day-to-day" well? Not that examples don't exist, but I have a pretty unhappy relationship with more touchy-feely metrics.

Example: battery life. A good description of how battery life is dealt with in most reviews is "awfully": battery life depends on a crazy number of details that it is really hard to properly capture "day-to-day" usage in a review. A person that rarely uses their phone vs. one that plays games all day vs. one that uses the web browser all the time vs one that uses navigation all the time vs one that snapchats all day are going to see very different battery life performance; unless the phone is atrociously bad (which has happened before, too), it's hard to be able to properly gauge battery life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > But they did debut alongside the iPhone X, and because of that almost nobody > is excited about them...

Only thing I don't agree with on this post. Because of the price tag, and the notch -- mostly -- the X hasn't impressed me much. The 8, and 8Plus, on the other hand, are closer to what I was expecting: an iPhone with upgraded hardware, and unique features (compared to the previous versions).

</comment><comment><USER33> _The pricing has changed slightly since last year. Last year's entry model iPhone 7 cost $649. This year's 64 GB iPhone 8 costs $699. Apple, of course, has no explanation for this._

Since the price of new iphones is obviously rising faster than inflation, it begs the question; where is the market willing to go?

Are most people okay with monthly payments on phones when they were never at that point with computers?

<comment><USER34> The explanation stated/assumed elsewhere is that the price of flash has gone up significantly in the last year and may go up further. Apple is changing the price now.

Obviously they could have just taken a hit to their margins instead, but that wouldn't be Apple-like.

(I'm an Apple fan, but they love their margins)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> To recap:

Glass + Stainless Steel > Aluminum / Plastic > Glass + Aluminum > Glass + Stainless Steel

2010 > 2017

> The lighting effects in Portrait mode, though, are interesting… There have > also been a few [shots] where the edges … have confused the hell out of the > iPhone's depth sensing… original Portrait mode last year shipped in similar > state… When it works, though, …

> … what exactly was "bionic" about the A11 chip … from Apple marketing-speak > to plain English, is that The Bionic Man and Woman were cool, and the A11 > chip is very cool.

Brand new iPhone 8 "high-speed charging" vs year-old iPhone 7 charging:

> 30 minutes it was at 54 percent, and at 45 minutes it was at 72 percent

> 30 minutes it was at 43 percent, and at 45 minutes it was at 65 percent

True Tone, mostly software and probably $10 of hardware, is the only noticeable display improvement.

> Last year's entry model iPhone 7 cost $649. This year's 64 GB iPhone 8 costs > $699. Apple, of course, has no explanation for this.

</comment><comment><USER36>
      > I like this change from three sizes to just two.

Oh, come on...

</comment><comment><USER37> The thing that struck me watching the keynote was the positioning of the iPhone 8 and the iPhone X.

I think Apple knows the majority of people will buy the iPhone 8 Plus, and the X is targeted at two niches: pro Instagrammers, and kids who always get the flagship and use Snapchat. For social media pros, max selfie is a revenue stream, and the X will get them more views.

The X is the modern Mac Pro, since the modern content creator is living in Instagram.

I have a 6, and would like an 8 Plus. The difference between the camera on the 6 and the 7 in indoor lighting is noticeable to me, and I use my phone mostly as a camera these days.

<comment><USER34> I'll be getting an X because I think it's neat, I've got a 7 now. I agree with reviews I've seen elsewhere. If you have a 6 or 6S it will be a huge jump in performance and camera quality, totally worth it. If you have a 7 it's a nice upgrade (especially for TrueTone) but you could easily go without.

The 7 was a massive jump over my 6. The 8 is a huge jump (in performance) over the 7.

Coming from a 6? You'll love it.</comment></comment>


Introducing mobile A/B testing - <AUTHOR> https://mixpanel.com/mobile-ab-testing/

<comment><USER2> Note that this is under their People analytics, which is going to cost you a minimum of $1,800 per year for over 1000 users.

Dear Mixpanel: When you say "mobile", understand that us "mobile app developers" don't make any money on less than 100,000 users. Your pricing is configured for enterprise Saas where the customer lifetime value is far higher than mobile. Please either change your pricing or stop calling yourselves a "mobile" analytics company.

<comment><USER3> Yep, some companies I know have scaling issues with Mixpanel's pricing on the analytics side of things (because you end up paying basically 2-3c per user / year just on the people plan, and probably another couple of cents for events) - it might work OK if your LTV is pretty high but for anything consumer oriented it's tough to scale to lots of users.

I'd seen pretty good pricing from Amplitude ( [https://amplitude.com/pricing](https://amplitude.com/pricing) ) at scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> MixPanel's branding and the design consistency they achieve is best in class.

I always know when I'm on a MixPanel product page / site - playful, colorful, professional.

Just throwing some props out at Mason Yarnell who - I assume - is still responsible for executing the UX?

[https://dribbble.com/yarnell](https://dribbble.com/yarnell)

<comment><AUTHOR> Julien & Mason but it's a big team effort in the end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Until their API doesn't improve, Mixpanel is a crippled product. Nothing they launch can cover that simple issue.

<comment><AUTHOR> What's the issue we have with our API? Email me: email@example.com - we'll try to fix it

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Don't you think that a mobile a/b testing product should have a mobile- friendly website?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes - we're working on making it more friendly right now but we wanted to release something rather than delay getting it into customer's hands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> First, it's interesting that Mixpanel and Optimizely (both YC companies) are starting to compete in this space. Optimizely has mobile A/B testing as well[0].

Second, what seems to be an obvious need I haven't seen is A/B testing notifications. Notifications seem to be the "email drip campaigns" of the mobile world, so it seems like A/B testing both the frequency and content of those could bring big wins.

[0] [https://www.optimizely.com/mobile](https://www.optimizely.com/mobile)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey there, we actually did that first before mobile ab testing: [https://mixpanel.com/blog/2014/04/10/introducing-a-b- testing](https://mixpanel.com/blog/2014/04/10/introducing-a-b-testing) \- it works for email, push, in-app, SMS, etc.

We just didn't make a big stink about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is this for native development only? Or can it be used with frameworks like unity for games too?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's native only but we are thinking about making a wrapper to make it interoperable between iOS and Unity. You should be able to drop it in despite unity but it may require some small extra work. We can help if you email email@example.com

<comment><USER9> Support for JS-built apps [Phonegap, mobile-web] would be awesome too!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> has anyone tried it?</comment>