The impossible dream of USB-C - <AUTHOR> https://marco.org/2017/10/14/impossible-dream-of-usb-c <comment><USER3> Since I got over the hurdle of buying cables and adapters, I've been mostly happy with USB-C. The one lingering concern is actually mechanical.

Many of the cables/dongles are long and skinny relative to the tiny metal connector, placing a fair amount of torque on the port. A number of the cables I've used are poorly fitting as well, exacerbating the mechanical strain.

A good example of this problem is the Yubi-4C. The connector protrudes about half a mm from the port and it has enough play to wiggle up/down/left/right. Having had to replace the logic board and I/O boards on my 2016 MBP 15 within 3 months due to port damage, I get a bit nervous when I notice fit problems like this.

Aside from outright damaging the ports, poorly built cables seem to wreak havoc on the mechanism that grips cables on Apple machines. Prior to the board replacement, the Apple power cables would gradually come loose by their own weight. Fortunately, the Geniuses did agree that this was a problem and replaced the top case along with the guts of my computer.

<comment><USER4> I've broken several motherboards and many cables over the years. It drives me crazy. The USB-C is the worst. I'm on my third cable now. At least I finally figured out to make sure I get USB-C chargers with removable cables. Now I only have to replace the cable, which I've done twice in the last month.

The Dell XPS 13, which I'm getting in a week or so, has both a proprietary power jack and supports USB-C charging. I'm very happy that I won't be breaking many more USB-C cables.

<comment><USER5> Dells proprietary charger is the worst. They have a cable dedicated to insuring the use of original chargers, which appears to be especially prone to breakage. If it does, your XPS won't charge anymore, but it still gets power. I managed to repair my charger, but it was a real clusterfuck.

<comment><USER6> My oldish XPS and charger is a tad tempermental now in that it detects it as non genuine on occasion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think these are actually the most minor problems with the USB-C vision. The VAST majority of consumers will never encounter a thunderbolt device, and the ones that do can be expected to understand the cable difference.

What is far more of an issue for the standard is the established network effect. USB-A has become so commonplace that its built into our furniture, and micro-USB is a legally defined requirement for device charging in some areas. These foundational forces will prove to be a massive deterrent to USB-C uptake, and far more of a risk to the vision than multiple cable types that are clearly labeled!

But, the bright side of this I think is Apple's adoption of the Qi charging standard. Its clear that an evolutional jump to wireless charging will entail new technology, so I see Qi taking up the "one way to charge everything" vision.

<comment><USER8> > micro-USB is a legally defined requirement for device charging in some areas

Where? Wouldn't this outlaw iPhones?

<comment><USER9> Contra sibling comments, it technically isn't a legal requirement. It's entirely voluntary, a memorandum of understanding between manufacturers, facilitated by the EU.

Obviously 'voluntary' here deserves some scare quotes since the EU had made it very clear that it was willing to swing its sledgehammer and formally regulate if the manufacturers couldn't agree on a standard amongst themselves. Which would have been less good for everyone (including the EU), e.g. since formal legal regulations are a lot harder to change with the times, So they were pretty incentivized to work something out, and happily they did.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A committee goes into a room to design a single vehicle that will do all jobs, it will carry heavy loads, it will commute to work, it will fly between airports, it will work on the watar and below the water. Such is the challenge facing these guys.

Is it surprising that it doesn't work well? Not really. The compromises are pretty extensive. And between the users demanding thin phones and rugged connectors, its really really hard to do that with anything other than perhaps titanium.

I have a bunch of computers, my oldest was built in 1968 the latest was built last year. Invariably the port complexity goes up with the older computers, and connector reliability also goes up. I've got AUI cables for Ethernet that work as well today as they did in 1984 when they were all the rage. I've got 50 pin SCSI-1 and 36 pin Centronics printer cables that are reliable and functional. I've got computers with 3 of the four USB 2.0 connections on them unusable either due to fusing issues or mechanical strain. I've got a phone handset (my developer's version of a Nexus 1) with a micro USB connection that won't hold the connector in the plug.

I guess the bottom line is that we can make really reliable and ugly connectors.

<comment><USER11> Seen "The Pentagon Papers"? [1]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA)

<comment><USER12> You meant "Pentagon Wars".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> USB-A had all of these compatibility concerns too, when it first came out. I remember having a Gateway All-in-One with only two USB-A ports in '98\. You had to worry about USB 1 versus USB 2, and some devices wouldn't get enough power through a hub, and so forth.

I'm really looking forward to seeing where USB-C is in two or three years.

<comment><USER14> I'm too young to have experienced the transition, but were there cables that could fry your computer? [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/02/google- engineer-find...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/02/google-engineer- finds-usb-type-c-cable-thats-so-bad-it-fried-his-chromebook-pixel/)

<comment><USER13> Oh, in those days, computers would fry themselves -- literally -- from overheating. CPU vendors raced to break the 1 GHz barrier, but thermal throttling wasn't as mature. If I pushed my computer too hard for too long (say, with a really tough ray trace) then it would just shut off uncleanly from being too hot.

The joke was you could fry an egg on your CPU because it got so hot:

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/01/how_to_fry_an_egg/](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/01/how_to_fry_an_egg/) [http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~htsu/humor/fry_egg.html](http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~htsu/humor/fry_egg.html)

<comment><USER15> no

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I just _love_ the fact I can now charge my laptop and my phone using the same charger - and both charge super fast. I travel often and going with one charger is a life saver. Being able to charge my laptop from my old power bank to get two more hours is also super cool.

I remember discovering that some of my Micro-USB cables could only charge and couldn't transmit any data. I honestly don't understand why people talk about the issues with USB-C as if it was a new thing. Seems to me like most of the problems are theoretic and that most end-users are actually happy with the new standard.

<comment><USER17> I know it's extremely unlikely, I do wish Apple would move its phones and tablets to use USB-C too.

<comment><USER18> I can't understand why they won't do it.

<comment><USER15> I think 2 reasons:

1\. They already have a lot of accessories for lightning and they would kinda lose that sweet 30 % MFi for 3rd party lightning accessories

2\. A lot of people who don't know why USB C is great will probably bitch about how Apple is changing the port on the iPhone _again_, like they did when they switched from 30 pin to lightning. Could be a PR nightmare

<comment><USER18> No PR nightmare is bigger than loss of headphone jack - I imagine lot of people had great and expensive headphones that are no longer usable directly. Apple seems to survived that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Strongly disagree with the article, it seems the author is confused about the internal hardware. The actual pin connections within all USB Type-C cables are the same -- no matter if they are shipped with a product that uses Thunderbolt, Displayport, or any other standard. The only variance cable to cable (and this exists on existing micro cables as well) is on things like shielding, AWG, and ferrites which would determine signal & power integrity over the length. IE don't use a very long & skinny cable for delivering lots of power or high speed data unless the cable was bought for that specific purpose, which is something consumers do today if they aren't using professional installers.

<comment><USER20> Most of the rant is about different device capabilities, and how cables being more or less the same makes it almost worse instead of better.

And that high variance in cable quality is a bigger deal than it needs to be. You can't tell by looking at a cable what bandwidth and amperage it's supposed to support. Even if it has thick wires you can't tell if it has a chip to enable 5A charging.

Also there's a non-quality factor. USB-C cables with no high speed wire pairs are valid and are quite common. You don't need more than USB 2.0 in a charging cable.

<comment><USER21> It would be nice if we had some standardized iconography for the cables (xAmps, thunderbolt/non-thunderbolt, &c.). There are really only a few useful permutations of cables.

Devices are a bit more complicated, but I'm hoping that the Hub situation will sort itself out (early in the days of USB 1.1, I remember plenty of devices that wouldn't work with hubs, or only with certain hubs).

<comment><USER22> There is standardized iconography[0][1]. It's enforced under trademark law by the USB Implementers Forum. In addition to the old "basic" (USB 1.0/1.1), "hi- speed" (USB 2.0), and "on the go" icons there's now "superspeed" (USB 3.0), "superspeed+" (USB 3.1), and icons for the power delivery spec. The new icons are just as inscrutable as the old ones, but they exist and the USB Implementers Forum requires correct labeling for all cables and devices.

The various proprietary extensions might be less consistent with labeling, but at least every Thunderbolt-compatible cable I've seen has a little lightning bolt icon in addition to the standard USB ones.

[0]: [http://www.usb.org/developers/logo_license/Trademark_License...](http://www.usb.org/developers/logo_license/Trademark_License_Agreement_Licensed_Mark_Requirements_062017.pdf)

[1]: [http://www.usb.org/developers/logo_license/USB- IF_Logo_Usage...](http://www.usb.org/developers/logo_license/USB- IF_Logo_Usage_Guidelines_FINAL_071317.pdf)

<comment><USER20> The icons exist, but the fraction of type C plugs that have icons on them seems to be extremely low.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'll go further than this. USB-C isn't misguided, problematic or questionable. It's insanity.

Take a given cable and there's a number of dimensions you need to considered:

\- Supported power standards (none, USB, various other wattages and standards)

\- Supported bandwidth. I think some don't even support data transfer (which might include the USB-C cable that comes with the Apple Macbook charger)

\- Supported modes (USB, Thunderbolt, DisplayPort?)

There's no colour scheme that can adequately handle all the possible variations.

But there are other problems: it makes no sense to have all 4 ports on a 15" Macbook Pro (for example) support power. You only need one port to charge with. I think I read that not all the ports on the 13" Macbook Pro are the same (in terms of capabilities).

This is just strikes me as a (hollow) victory for principle ("one port/cable to rule them all") over pragmatism. This always reminds me of the quote: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

This whole thing is expensive, unnecessary, user-unfriendly and confusing (to the average user).

<comment><USER24> Insanity seems to be the right word for USB-C. Let's imagine you buy a new monitor, which has a usb-c port. Fortunately, your device also has a usb-c port so it will just work, right? Well, that monitor could support at least the following protocols over that cable:

\- Displayport, obviously.

\- HDMI, because that might be useful in some cases.

\- MHL Alternate Mode for USB 3.1, which is not-quite-HDMI.

\- USB itself, like the external mini video cards created by DisplayLink

\- PCI-E, as the monitor could contain any regular video card. Unlikely, but technically possible.

Is the monitor going to work when plugged into your laptop? What about your phone? Will it charge either of those? I'm not sure how this has managed to gone this horribly wrong, but somehow "supports usb-c" has become completely meaningless. Oh, and it can also support analog audio as well!

And if anyone thinks I'm exaggerating, please tell me which devices do and which do not work with this "usb-c to vga" adapter, because to me it is literally impossible to tell: [http://www.belkin.com/uk/p/P-F2CU037/](http://www.belkin.com/uk/p/P-F2CU037/)

<comment><USER25> In other words, they're still different ports (for all practical purposes), they just all have the same connector shape (which makes it harder, not easier, for the reasons you mention).

<comment><USER26> Put that way, I'm not entirely sure it's worse. Coming from a world where the connector helped you determine what you could do, it _seems_ worse, but that's because we've all internalized the cost of not having the right cable and having to buy different cables for everything. Having a cable that works for most things (if you were lucky enough to buy a good cable, and I'll freely admit _that_ is a clusterfuck of planning) leaves you with just having to know if your ports will work together. That seems solvable, even if it's not currently solved. I think we're a step closer to the dream of a simplified connector ecosystem, even if we aren't quite there yet.

<comment><USER27> I don't have any USB-C devices, yet.

Is it possible to purchase USB-C cables that work for everything? Or are (some of) the different supported protocols incompatible?

<comment><USER28> Yes. What defines the protocol is the endpoints, not the cable. Just avoid the "USB 2.0" USB-C cables, which do not connect all the pins (only the ones needed for USB 2.0). Of course, higher speeds and higher charging currents need a higher grade of cable, but that higher-quality cable will work with lower speeds and lower currents. Take a look at the Wikipedia article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> TL;DR

\- USB-C is a connector and not all ports/cables/hubs support all of its features and modes. So not everything that can be connected using a USB-C will work the same way, or even at all.

\- Due to their potential bandwidth demands, computers can't have very many USB-C ports

\- USB-C will be phased out and replaced before settling down

<comment><USER30> One of the folks involved in the original USB standards work once told me that the lack of reversibility (or at least a more obvious indicator of orientation) was the main thing they got wrong with the initial standard.

<comment><USER31> There are huge indicators. People just jam it till it works.

IE. No user testing.

<comment><USER32> Unfortunately some devices don't respect the indicator :(

Most people don't know about it anyway, making the c port reversible was a good decision.

<comment><USER33> The port itself is nice, is in the cube of data rate, power rate, port type that is the problem.

You can have A ports that deliver 20V and 3.1 data rates, and C ports that deliver only 5V and 2.0 data rates, and they are both valid according to spec.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I wrote up the fun that is USB C at [https://superuser.com/a/1200112/41259](https://superuser.com/a/1200112/41259) .

How big a mess USB C is? Check this note from Plugable: "We have had several confirmed cases where lowering the Power Output of the internal Wi-Fi adapter to 75% in Dell XPS models has helped with USB-C disconnect behavior."

Also, while you can get a small USB C to dual DisplayPort MST hub [http://a.co/hyXGdBA](http://a.co/hyXGdBA) and also you can get a small USB C to DisplayPort adapter with USB C power passthrough [http://a.co/1KE2imb](http://a.co/1KE2imb) you can't get an USB C MST hub with power passthrough in a single, small, relatively cheap device. You need an expensive, quite huge device like the ThinkPad USB C dock to get this functionality. It seems as if every USB C accessory maker took a blood oath on hardwiring a HDMI converter to the second port of their MST hub. (Yes, taking a USB C to DP converter and an ordinary MST hub is a cheap solution, of course, but it's not elegant at all especially because both insist on using cords, creating a mess.)

Also, there have been laptop chargers with 65W or 90W on the laptop side and one or perhaps even two USB charging ports, if you are real lucky then 2.4A each. Now that both your laptop and phone charges via USB C you'd think you could get an AC adapter with _two_ USB C ports and perhaps a few USB A thrown in for good measure. Dream on. The highest wattage adapter I found with two USB C ports is 55W, it doesn't even charge a single laptop, it's all 5V. There's a well known ;) brand called LVSun which sells a 80W charger which can do a non USB C laptop + USB C phone (or a USB C laptop + a non USB C phone) plus it has a few USB A ports as well. Still, it's not two USB C ports.

</comment><comment><USER35> So... USB-C is bad because cable vendors haven't come up with a good way to easily identify what features a given cable supports? Which could be done extremely easily by things like color coding... exactly what we had to do with USB Type-A ports.

I'll never understand articles like this - let's not standardize on a form factor because not every single application of that form factor has the same requirements???

<comment><USER36> Hang on, it's not like type-A where it's just a single parameter (1.1/2.0/3.0). A USB-C cable has tons of potential features and a port has possibly more features still.

\- Protocol: 3.0 or 3.1

\- Power: QC, PD, or none of the above; how many watts

\- Alt-modes: HDMI, DP, TB3

\- Chipset features: UAS

Once you've assigned all of these to a color, the higher end cables are going to look like a pride flag or something. The solution is really not that simple at all and it's far from guaranteed that once adoption picks up that you can just assume your device/cable combo "obviously" supports what you want.

On top of all of this, construction of USB-C cables are far more complex than your run of the mill cable. They're active devices with apparently absurdly tight tolerances. Did everyone forget about the Benson Leung's spreadsheet of killer cables? Even if the industry can figure out a user friendly branding, it's still a roll of the dice for whether you'll fry your laptop.

Lastly, USB-C seems like a mandatory weakening of security. In a few years time, you won't have any other choice but USB-C and now suddenly any random charger (or cable!) could be the easiest rootkit ever deployed. The cute pen testing exercise of dropping USB thumbdrives with backdoored Word docs is going to get a lot more serious. I wonder how long until we have "hardware firewalls" that attempt to rein in USB-C devices. We're past the "USB condom" at this point.

<comment><USER28> Hang on, I thought there were only two main axis for a USB-C to USB-C cable: maximum protocol (3.1 Gen 2, 3.1 Gen 1, 2.0) and maximum current (3A, 5A). Also, wouldn't most USB-C cables be passive, and the choice of alternate mode be left to the endpoints? I don't think a passive cable cares whether the wires are being used to carry DisplayPort, HDMI, or something else.

<comment><USER37> The maximum current isn't at 5A anymore, as many USB-C cables now support 100W USB power delivery

<comment><USER28> Isn't 100W USB power delivery 5A at 20V?

<comment><USER37> Good point, yeah. For some reason I had assumed they'd stick with the same 5V as always, but you're right, they use 20V for PD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The core problem is the large number of options.

When USB-C was announced and I saw the pin-outs, my immediate thought was, "This is going to be a support nightmare." I should have written that down, so I could point at it as proof of my genius. :P But I didn't know what a garbage fire USB-PD is.

I was thinking of Alternate Mode. Alternate Mode is what enables Thunderbolt 3 on USB-C. We already had an alternate mode for USB: MHL. Which divides HDMI ports between plain HDMI ports and HDMI ports that support MHL. The Alternate Mode multiplies the number of ways displays can connect to video sources via USB.

Not to mention what everybody else has commented on.

All these incompatible options are using the same connector. That's obviously confusing to users and frustrating to support personnel.

<comment><USER33> That, and allowing OEMs to decide port, data rates, and power delivery spec individually.

In particular as we have a rudimentary power spec in the 3.1 "data" spec, involving resistors in the cables(?!), and a separate power delivery spec that goes above and beyond the 3.1 power stuff to define anything up to 20V at multiple As.

Frankly to me there seems to have been a initial C port design that was a "simple" mechanical reversible implementation of the existing 3.0 wiring. And then someone decided that rather than simply have the pins being mechanically doubled (either in plug or in port) they could make each be an individual wire and run even more stuff through the port. And thus we get Alternate Mode that can carry just about anything the OEMs dream up...

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> >Much of USB-C's awesome capability comes from Thunderbolt and other Alternate Modes. But due to their potential bandwidth demands, computers can't have very many USB-C ports.

Why is this the case?

I read that thunderbolt v3 can handle upwards of 40Gbit/s.

Ok... but what is limiting the number of USB-C Thunderbolt-enabled ports that a given computer can have?

Surely each of those ports are not being maxed out to 100% of their bandwidth 24/7?

Why can't the bandwidth just be limited as needed like in a cheap router for example?

(I know nothing about hardware, FYI)

<comment><USER40> PCIe lanes usually. CPUs only give you so many.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The state of adapters is atrocious. Apple couldn't even release a good one to go with their flagship products.

Take the USB-C to HDMI adapter. The USB port is useless for connecting to external drives. When I plug it into my MacBook one of three things happens:

1 - <USER2>

2 - it works at USB 2.0 speeds

3 - it erratically works for a minute or two then locks up my laptop

Meanwhile, the plain USB-C to USB adapter works perfectly.

</comment><comment><USER42> Two years ago i saw this coming and got pummeled for saying so: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9645013#9645650](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9645013#9645650)

Ironically since then i've just made Thunderbolt 3 a requirement for all company laptops and the whole company, mac and windows gets to use the same dongles, chargers and even dockingstations, which I count as a win.

<comment><USER43> If you don't mind sharing, I am very eager to know which cross platform dock you settled on!

<comment><USER42> CalDigit TS3

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I thought the entire point was to have _cables_ that work everywhere, which is my preference. I think the ports themselves can and should do different things - even my USB-A ports on my laptop have little icons beside them indicating their purpose or capabilities. The point is to not have to keep many dozen different cables on hand for everything.

<comment><USER45> That part doesn't work either though. There are at least four different types of cable (3.1-speed, 3.2-speed, high wattage, and thunderbolt)

<comment><USER14> Regarding the 3.1-speed: Is there any rational explanation for "USB 3 5GB" being renamed to "USB 3.1 gen 1 5GB" and "USB 3.1 10GB" being renamed to "USB 3.1 gen 2 10GB"?

<comment><USER46> That was probably done to protect the companies selling "obsolete" 3.0 devices by giving them a "free upgrade" to 3.1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> > And, of course, there's usually no way to tell at a glance whether a given > cable, charger, battery, or device supports USB-C PD or at what wattages.

Forget wattage -- voltage is also a big deal. Want to charge a Dell laptop? You need 20V. Charger support for PD at 20V is somewhat related to wattage, but it's easy to find 40-odd watt chargers that can't supply 20V. And there is usually nothing in the specs that tells you this.

<comment><USER14> Is there any reason the spec couldn't say all cables deliver 5V and the recieving end converts that to what it needs? Because from my understanding on electronics, if you double the voltage, you half the amperage. So supply 5V@20A and let the recieving end convert that to 20V@5A

<comment><USER48> Less current usually means less heat generated in the wires and so you can use smaller copper wires. Higher voltage requires better insulation on the wires. Altogether I think it's a good idea to use 20V at 5A for 100W rather than 20A at 5V. You will get much more heat and voltage loss at 20A for the same size wire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> This may be a stupid question, but why does a _serial_ bus require 24 pins? That's only one less than the old DB-25 _parallel_ cables. (I know it's really only 12 mirrored, but still). USB 1-2 got away with 4 pins.

Also, why can't we just switch to optical cables already? We'd only need +V, GND and the fibre. Just use the 3.5 mm audio plug (round, fits any way up) with a hollow point, like Mini-TOSLINK did.

<comment><USER50> > why does a serial bus require 24 pins

It turns out to be cheaper and easier to aggregate multiple serial links than to run a wide parallel bus. Practically every modern high-speed interconnect uses multiple aggregated serial links -- USB, Ethernet, SATA, PCIe, DDR3+, DVI+HDMI+DP+LVDS, etc, etc.

> why can't we just switch to optical cables already

Too expensive. A big part of USB's dominance in the mid-90's was that it was way cheaper than the alternatives of the time.

Thunderbolt _was_ originally designed for optical interconnects.

> Just use the 3.5 mm audio plug

It's physically too large for current and upcoming designs.

I miss TOSLINK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> New MacBook Pro user here: the four USB-C (+ stereo mini audio jack) port configuration doesn't bother me as much as I thought it would. It's nice that I can plug the power cable in on either side of the laptop. One almost inevitably needs some kind of display dongle unless you have both HDMI and VGA on board (and VGA is an ugly port, let's be honest), although I'll say the lack of native HDMI is a pain point for me. But also, if I'm using the laptop without power, I now have 4 ports available, which is more than enough.

<comment><USER52> Another new MacBook Pro user here: The two ports the 13" model came with are not enough. And the official Apple USB C to HDMI/USB adapter charges slower through the passthrough than a direct connection, meaning if I'm low on battery I need to dedicate a USB port to charging.

My monitor at home (XR382CQK) supports USB C and that's ok, it charges, does video, and acts as a hub via one cable. The problem is the world hasn't had time to embrace USB C. I'd gladly trade my old setup of needing two cables (one Magsafe + one Thunderbolt) for not needing a dongle literally everywhere else I use my laptop with an external display.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> With all the hubs I still can't get my 2017 Macbook Pro 15inch to reliably run an external monitor. (it lags every now and then). So far I didn't find out yet which of the components is actually causing it. Crazy how complex it is.

<comment><USER54> I don't see how lag could be caused by a cable or hub. It's not like a remote desktop or VNC connection, where what flows over the cable is commands to change a stored image; there is no stored image -- every pixel is re-sent for every frame. Any lag must therefore be internal to the laptop. If you have an image on the monitor, and it isn't scrambled and the colors are right, the cable and hub are working.

<comment><USER55> You'd be surprised.

I was just last week forced to use a USB-C-to-DisplayPort cable, instead of a straightforward DP to DP cable to get a 4K monitor to work. Using the latter, the computer thought everything was fine but the screen flickered like a CRT, horizontal splits and all, and went black every 3s.

There are so many layers involved I don't even want to think about it, and am just happy it worked...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> A lot of the problems seems to be implementation... Apple's quality and value has done nothing but nose-dive, while they focus on "impossibly useful" things like the touch bar. How removing ports is a "feature" on a "professional" line or laptops still baffles me.

</comment><comment><USER57> _But due to their potential bandwidth demands, computers can't have very many USB-C ports_

Isn't this more a function of Intel product differentiation and closing off their bus to others? I get the feeling the killer server ARM is going to be a bandwidth monster.

<comment><USER58> Mostly it's the authors ignorance of the standard. Just because you can connect a display to an USB-C port doesn't mean that is taking up USB bandwidth or requires the CPU to do more work than previously. It's just more ports integrated into one.

<comment><USER59> If there's a port, there has to be sufficient bandwidth available, regardless if anything is connected and what that might be. USB 3.1 Gen 2 supports 10Gbps, so 4 ports means 40Gbps. If it's a MacBook Pro, it has to support Thunderbolt 3 on all ports. That's 160Gbps for 4 ports, or 16 PCIe lanes. That happens to be exactly the number of PCIe lanes the Intel i7-7920HQ CPU has.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from.

Andrew S. Tanenbaum Computer Networks, 2nd ed., p. 254.

</comment><comment><USER61> USB-C feels like the dynamically typed programming analog of the cable world

</comment><comment><USER62> I am the only one at work with the new MBP and I get frequent questions about it and the ports. I usually tell them that I firmly believe USB-C is the way of the future, but alas I live in the present.

</comment><comment><USER63> I like USB-C and I buy into the dream a lot. Additionally, the fact that I can plug it in either way around to charge my phone is amazing!

The USB-C cable is obviously very capable, it's just a bit of a mess with interoperability. However, given that USB-C requires licencing, I feel like they can probably fix a lot of these issues afterwards by changing what they do and don't allow. (In a way kind of similar to software patches for the licence itself.)

For example, I assume they could start charging more to use older USB A/B, drop some supported USB-C features that are kind of messy and start charging more for devices that lazily only sort of implement bits of the specification.

The old USB shape has been around for 20 years and counting, if the new USB-C shape is around similarly as long, we have plenty of time to get these issues worked out. (This is already going so much better than ipv6 adoption!)

</comment><comment><USER64> If they were going to engage in this, they should have made clear and authoritative capabilities markings on the equipment a required part of the standard.

And, as others mentioned, I also worry about torque and stress on the port, particularly in mobile scenarios.

</comment><comment><USER65> At least it's reversible, so that's a step forward.

</comment><comment><USER66> It's so confusing, to ensure compatibility a consumer might be tempted to just buy everything from one manufacturer. This would be very upsetting for Apple, I imagine. Proprietariness by stealth?

</comment><comment><USER67> Not impossible, just unfinished. I didn't read all the points because it feels like a pointed list, and not really a running text. But it seems to me like I haven't seen a single problem that can't be overcome with fine tuning the USB-C system. E.g. some ports have thunderbolt, some don't. Well it looks like in the future all of them are expected to have thunderbolt or a similar standard.

All I'm taking from it is "It's not fully usable yet" and I continue to use normal USB for longer.

</comment><comment><USER68> After a month or so of owning a brand-new 15" MBP my regret is that I didn't buy one of the holdover 2015s. The charger is absurdly large and I have a growing collection of dongles that need to accompany me depending on the task.

I'm currently using a Rube Goldberg two-dongle solution to get photos off of an SD card.

Moreover I still can't find what I need for my home office in USB-C.

I won't even get into how much _less_ functional the touchbar is than the hard keys they replace. Terrible user experience.

</comment><comment><USER69> Just went from MacBook Pro to MacBook (fly 120k miles a year). Got Apple 4K (LG) monitor. Disc are USB2 from monitor as is Ethernet. Damn thing does not wake from sleep with USB keyboard. I had an LG 21:9 34" display with thunderbolt drives, network. The 4K monitor is a great picture but 21" is crap. Apple just put thunderbolt in the MacBook please. USB3 can die. Happy with physical interface, rest is crap.

</comment><comment><USER70> Whilst it raise good issues, thunderbolt are shown on computer and cable.

</comment><comment><USER71> the most brilliant thing about this: apple sacrificed magsafe for the clusterfuck that usb-c is.

</comment><comment><USER72> I have an Asus C302CA chromebook and got a USB-A hub for it ([https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M59IOAW/ref=oh_aui_sear...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M59IOAW/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1)). It only works for storage on one of the two USB-C ports. I was about to return it when I thought of trying the other port.

</comment><comment><USER73> The USB guys should have never allowed so many standards live within "one" standard. It may be better for the OEMs, especially as they both save money on ports and get to mislead customers into thinking they may get that fast version of USB-C, when they really won't. But so many standards acting as one is very confusing to consumers.

</comment><comment><USER74> Perhaps a similar simplification can be applied to NEMA connectors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEMA_connector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEMA_connector), to reduce the number of extension cords and add thrills to our daily lives.

</comment><comment><USER75> I think it is clear, the future is _mostly_ wireless. Why would we _need_ a Wired Connection?

The only reason we need wired is either Power or High Speed Connection.

Power: It is highly unlikely in the next 5 years time we wont have a true wireless power transfer,( i.e not sitting on a Power Mat ), enough energy to power a Laptop, Monitor or Desktop.

High Speed: That is anything from Monitor Cable, Massive SSD external storage, External GPU, and.... I cant think of anything else. ( Suggestions Welcome. ) Basically, what Thunderbolt was designed for; External PCI-E and DisplayPort.

Sometimes this year or next we are going to finalize what I hope will be the Wireless Standards for decades to come, 802.11ax and 802.11ay.

802.11 ax is the successor of 802.11ac, basically what the industry learned from LTE and LTE-A, and moves the best of those tech across to WiFI, works in both 2.4hGhz and 5Ghz. We could expect real world, uncontended speed of 1Gbps in 2x2, and 2Gbps in 4x4, and both are very conservative numbers.

802.11 ay is successor of the failed 60Ghz 802.11ad. Real world speed 10Gbps+.

Bluetooth 5 which and Improves version of 4.1. And Bluetooth 4.1 is the arguable first Bluetooth which really makes it acceptable in general usage, and if 5 improves the better.

Assuming no Patents non-sense, we could expect to have WiFi chips in what we are connecting now via cables. You will only need cable for Power and High Speed Connection. And coincidentally Thunderbolt is going to be an Open Standard Next year.

What we need to fix / improve is power delivery on USB 3.1 branding. May be Future revision of USB will do that. For now, sitting in a transition period between Wired and Wireless will always be a little painful in the short term.

</comment><comment><USER31> Sounds like he's complaining about a labeling issue on cables and ports.

The different USB-C capabilities is a feature, but the lack of labels is a huge bug.

Who wants to fix? Make a Web 2.0 website with photo-realistic 3D renders of your solution, then take it on the road.

<comment><USER76> Two words: washing labels.

Just have a rough industry agreement of which features should be represented and what their symbols should be, then put them on connectors (which are pretty long, there is plenty of usable space) and on packaging and listings.

<comment><USER4> > Two words: washing labels.

Great Idea. However, I had to write software one time that had all the possible washing symbols as input. There were 30 or 40 possible symbols. No human could possibly know all of them.

<comment><USER76> Yeah I know, I even downloaded an iOS app to read them ("Laundry Day"); but in practice I noticed most people just learn the one or two they care about and ignore the rest - because if you don't own a tumble dryer, you don't really care about the symbol for that. So if you care about Thunderbolt 2, you would look only for that icon, ignoring the rest; power might have a scaled one like washing temperature, and so on.

As usual though, the problem is that the industry has to come together to agree these symbols, be it formally through the USB consortium or informally in some other venue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> This is the sort of well-written, detailed reporting that I believe to be true, but which ought to have citations for each claim. Of course, cataloging and adding those sources would mean the article takes a lot longer to write and publish.

<comment><USER60> If you ask me he should actually set up a proper crowdsourced database of all those cables and cases. ... 3\. Profit!

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> It's not perfect (it may even be terrible) but I can charge my computer, my phone, and my Nintendo Switch with it which is a huge improvement over the last generation of cable mayhem.

</comment><comment><USER79> To solve the problems what the author is facing, we need to invent another port and cable standard -- which is far worse than keeping USB-C-like port and only buying a new cable.

</comment><comment><USER80> Sorry, but what exactly is wrong with USB A and micro USB? I've never understood why USB type-C was a thing. You can get 3.1 speeds on the old connector.

<comment><USER21> 1) Obviously USB-C is smaller than full-size A jacks.

2) Micro-USB type A never really caught on; I'm not sure there ever was a super-speed version of it

3) Super-Speed micro type-B is also much larger than USB-C

4) USB-C can optionally carry PCIe and/or Display Port

5) USB-C is reversible along all axes; either end goes into the computer flipped in either direction, same on device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Dongle life. I hate to think that USB-C will become obsolete so quickly, but hate it even more that I'm required to use it right now...

</comment><comment><USER82> This reminds me of abstract classes

</comment><comment><USER83> USB-C is the JavaScript of cables and ports.

</comment><comment><USER84> You could write a blog post called "the impossible dream of Ethernet" and agonize about the fact that there are many different network protocols.

<comment><USER85> What parts of Ethernet/networking cause confusion and incompatibility? Please name them specifically.

<comment><USER86> \- PoE

\- hubs vs switches (old issue)

\- cat5, cat5e cat6 cat7

\- 100Mbps vs 1Gbps (there are still commercial 100Mbps products for sale)

\- The horror that used to be crossover cables before auto-detection.

<comment><USER85> Power over Ethernet: I haven't studied this one, so I'll assume it has some subtleties involved.

Hubs vs. switches: Hubs are awful (have used one), burn them with prejudice. Collisions bring everything down to 1 Mb/s. And hubs are disallowed in gigabit anyway, due to no CSMA/CD.

Category cables: USB has different cables too, and at least Ethernet didn't change the number of conductor wires. But the biggest difference is that Ethernet cables are often in walls or inaccessible places, whereas USB cables are user-replaceable.

100 Mb/s vs. 1 Gb/s: One problem I noticed is that a link might start at 1Gb/s, but after many weeks a momentary error (e.g. power blip) makes the link drop to 100Mb/s or even 10Mb/s and does not automatically recover to the higher speed without manually replugging. IIRC USB doesn't drop down to a lower speed in this manner.

Crossover cables: IIRC if you are using purely switches (no hubs), you will never use crossover cables. Other than that, pervasive MDI/MDI-X has silently solved the problem. Though I wish the standard didn't create this problem in the first place.

I do appreciate the fact that Ethernet treats nodes as peers. Whereas USB is based on a tree rooted at the master and the master must poll devices to ask them to transfer data. This tidy idea gets into trouble when, for example, a phone can be either a host (OTG) or a client. Also it is impossible to directly share USB devices between two hosts (e.g. a webcam accessible to two computers simultaneously).

<comment><USER86> Ethernet is definitely a standard with fewer issues than USB, but I'd say that is down to a narrower scope. That has allowed us to converge to essentially a working standard of 1Gbps over Cat5e.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> At least it fails open, to the common baseline. "can plug in, play audio, sync at usb2.0 speeds, and charge slowly".

Compare and contrast 30 pin dock/lightning.

</comment><comment><USER88> "There's usually no way to tell whether a given USB-C device requires Thunderbolt, either — you just need to plug it in and see if it works."

Or how about something called google? Who are these people plugging random devices into their computers that they know nothing about?

<comment><USER89> Don't even bother... if you're not designing for morons, you're not selling anything these days, apparently.

<comment><USER90> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Make_Me_Think](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Make_Me_Think)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I Made a Product to Help Indiemakers Connect and Share with Each Others - <AUTHOR> Hello everyone!
Today I would like to introduce you my new service that completely meets my needs (at least, but maybe yours too ? Let me know :)
My problem
For the explanation, I have been running a blog about video game development for some time now. However, I'm all alone on this side project and I don't know anyone who does the same thing in my close circle. Faced with certain challenges and doubts, I sometimes feel on my own. I would like to be able to share my experiences with someone who does the same thing as me (not necessarily an entire community, just a person because to my opinion it makes exchanges and discussions more easy).
My solution
That's why I decided to create an MVP of the service with a friend. After some work on it, it is ready ! It is called startner.me
Its use is very simple: you enter your first name and email address, your area of interest (for the moment it is possible to select "SaaS Development", "Infopreneurship" and "Entrepreneurship in general"). Then all you have to do is describe the project you are working on or planning to launch.
Once registered, we "match" people's profiles according to their interests and assign them a "Startner" with whom they can talk about their project.
Why startner? Because it is the combination of "start" from "startup", and "partner" :)
Feel free to check it out at https://startner.me and tell me what you think :)
Thank you for your try and feedbacks ! <comment><USER2> Good idea! I'll try it out and send you my feedback. cheers

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you ! Let me know what you like or dislike :)</comment></comment>


Jython 2.7 alpha1 released - <AUTHOR> http://fwierzbicki.blogspot.com/2012/05/jython-27-alpha1-released.html

<comment><USER2> In case any Jython devs are reading this, I'd like to also express my delight that Jython isn't dead. In the next few months I'll be expected to recommend a programming language for a large-scale enterprise project, and while Java--sad to say--seems to be the most responsible choice, I'd like to also have a JVM- compatible scripting language waiting in the wings. Glad to see that I'll have more options to evaluate when the time comes.

<comment><USER3> You have many options for JVM languages: Scala, Groovy, JRuby etc.

[edit] and many more: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JVM_languages>

<comment><USER4> don't forget Clojure

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Out of curiosity, anyone know how it's comparing in speed to JRuby? Fantastic work was done on JRuby - you'd hope many of the findings/techniques find their way into Jython.

<comment><USER6> The Jython team and I collaborate with the JRuby team a fair amount. Some work has begun to use similar techniques in Jython to improve performance, so stay tuned!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love Jython! and for me is the best combination of two rich library worlds. I use it mainly for scaping together with htmlunit

</comment><comment><USER4> excellent news, I thought Jython was dead.

<comment><USER8> Far from it, Jython devs continue to attend and present at Pycon. Although these days I've been using Groovy lately for my JVM.next() needs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Good to see that this project is still going strong.

</comment><comment><USER10> Many thanks to the Jython developers in case you're reading this.</comment>


Please Rate my new startup - <AUTHOR> http://kck.st/V39moL

<comment><USER2> I'm probably coming across as totally devoid of emotion and just generally grumpy, but language like:

 _I use a fractional amount of healing herbs and large dose of love and reiki, making these chocolates extremely uplifting._

Is _not_ what I'm looking for when it comes to talk about ingredients in food items. In fact, it's rather the opposite.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for responding! I write about the organic ingredients I use, as well as the local, fresh, wildcrafted, organic Chinese herbs earlier in the kickstarter. I just wanted to convey that the chocolates are safe to eat! I should word that better. But I do put a lot of love and good energy into making the chocolate.

<comment><AUTHOR> What can I do to make it better?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> No offense intended, but this is not a startup -- not unless you have some kind of plan for turning this into a scalable enterprise that would attract the attention of investors and lead to a novel business model over the next two years or less.

What you have is a business (maybe, if it works).

I mention this not to be a pedantic jerk, but because following advice for startups can be bad for traditional businesses, and following traditional business advice can be bad for startups. You want to be clear in your mind about what it is that you're building so that you make fewer mistakes.

I don't know anything about your intended market, so I can't be helpful. Best of luck to you.

</comment><comment><USER4> I thought Kickstarter was past the start-up phase.

Oh - you mean - please buy some of my expensive chocks.

Misleading post or what?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for responding. The ingredients I use are expensive and I am not willing to compromise on the integrity of the chocolate. Hershey's is cheap, but look at the ingredients. Thank you, Dan. Yes, tempering machines and a commercial space is just to start. There's the ingredients and the packaging as well.</comment></comment>


How the British used a laundromat in Northern Ireland to find explosives - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100301978.html

<comment><USER2> They bugged every single new car going into Northern Ireland? I guess the British are willing to infringe on pretty much anyone's privacy in order to catch terrorists.

<comment><USER3> Have you seen the articles about tracking all web, email and mobile communication in the UK?

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7671046.stm>

[http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgo...](http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Parliament/DG_078075)

(via /.)

<comment><USER4> Yes. I hope they people responsible are hanged.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> See, this is what the US needs: a secret service that doesn't destroy people's privacy or break in in the middle of the night _but actually gets its job done._

<comment><USER6> Don't kid yourself the UK is one of the most heavily monitors countries in the word. What with all the cameras they have there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yay, Northern Ireland!

<comment><USER8> In! Your! Recent! Comments! You! Seem! To! Like! Exclamation! Points!

<comment><USER7> I like to spice things up, since it's the internet and difficult to convey tone in a string of characters. In real life I speak in a monotone drone.

<comment><USER8> Me! Too! ;-)

<comment><USER9> Sorry, off-topic: How do you people manage to get -2 points? Not that I would like to myself, but I can't see downvote/bury/etc buttons anywhere...

<comment><USER8> There's a minimum karma requirement: <http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dutch election results and xenophobia: Don't be relieved by the Dutch election - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/938736/dutch-election-results-and-xenophobia-dont-be-relieved-by-the-dutch-election-its-done-nothing-to-stop-populism-in-europe/ <comment><USER2> "After months of media hype about what would happen if a xenophobic extremist like Wilders won the election, it's not surprising that any other outcome was so quickly heralded as a victory"

"Xenophobic" implies that you hate someone or something irrationally. I think all of the violence we see in the name of Islam (and the majority of its leaders not denouncing it, especially in places like Israel) is a pretty rational and logical fear.

<comment><USER3> > "Xenophobic" implies that you hate someone or something irrationally. I > think all of the violence we see in the name of Islam (and the majority of > its leaders not denouncing it, especially in places like Israel) is a pretty > rational and logical fear.

This, and of course we need to take into perspective the fact that the Netherlands have experienced high-profile islamic-inspired terrorism continuously for over a decade.

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


When Dungeons and Dragons Set Off a Moral Panic - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/when-dungeons-dragons-set-off-a-moral-panic.html <comment><USER3> My friend's mom was very concerned about our D&D gaming. This was 1982. She even went so far as to provide us with tapes of ministers decrying D&D as satanic (which we found hilarious).

However I have to hand it to her. A child of the 60s herself, she knew that there was no point in forbidding it. So, she opened her house to it, so "at least it will be happening where I can see it."

Once she was exposed firsthand to the amount of totally harmless riotous fun we were having - totally sober and clothed, mind you - she changed her mind entirely.

<comment><USER4> Let this be a lesson about listening to ministers about anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was almost kicked out of my catholic high school in 2006 because I was running a DnD group after school and the administration found out. I had to have several parent teacher conferences which mostly consisted of my mom and I trying to stifle laughter as the principal drew a path of my moral degeneracy (in terms of severity) from playing DnD, to cutting myself, to Wicca and finally, yes, to Islam. I think they saw one of the characters in my campaign was D'jinn or something.

<comment><USER6> Where was this?

<comment><USER5> South Shore of Massachusetts

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I once attended a Church presentation on D&D with my D&D group - all atheists - to figure out what was going on. This was back in, what, 1995?

Anyway the gist of it was that they were opposed to D&D (and any entertainment) that presented the occult and paganism (from their perspective) as anything other than unadulterated evil. D&D was only a small part of it. Their main objection was to television shows; the example they cited was in all seriousness an episode of Duck Tales that featured "pyramid energy" in a positive light.

Strangely, this made some sense to me - if you start from their premises that the Bible is literal truth and is an instruction manual for a moral life.

We wrote it off as another example of religion - or indeed any irrational philosophy - corrupting the minds of otherwise good and intelligent adults ;)

<comment><USER8> Measured concern about something unfamiliar, or with elements contrary to one's beliefs is certainly reasonable, as long as it's proportionate. My parents are devout Christians and were a little concerned about D&D and were aware of the controversy, but we had a few short conversations on the subject and that was that. Fair enough.

I did have a really good laugh at some of the Jack Chick comics. That was the extreme end of the ant-D&D looney fringe, but it was so infantile in it's extreme depictions and outrageous in it's claims that I saw it as a valuable tool. I'm sure he did do a lot of damage and caused some harm, but for me being able to point to something so clearly absurd seemed helpful. I was confident that anyone in my circle of family or acquaintances would be able to see the absurd side of the claims by Chick and his kind. That meant anyone agitating against D&D or roleplaying games in general could be put on the defensive because they would need to show that their objections weren't absurd in the same way.

<comment><USER7> > as long as it's proportionate

Serious question: what's proportionate, if you believe that your children are engaged in a 'game' that will literally cost them their souls?

<comment><USER9> A significant part of the genre of satan-fearing or whatever you call it, is the devil is quite lazy, but its still worth banning.

For the standard HN car analogy, driving while drunk is perhaps only 10 times more dangerous than driving sober. So ten times practically nothing is still close to zero. So when the ball game lets out and 40K fans drive home and at least half are legally drunk, there are no bodies stacked like cordwood, because its just not that dangerous. However, virtually everyone agrees the cost/benefit ratio, especially in the long term, is such that drunk driving should be illegal. A standard HN golf analogy would be holding up your golf club during a lightning storm, where the odds of getting lit up are extremely low because a spark that jumped 10 kft isn't going to care about a primate waving a stick, yet only an idiot would intentionally do it.

<comment><USER10> You are saying that DUI is not a meaningful danger?

<comment><USER9> Yeah, obviously. The rate isn't that much higher than sober drivers, and the odds of being caught are extremely low. Its problem is the cost/benefit ratio is extremely low. There's nothing to gain by permitting it (maybe more booze sales, not really worth it) and plenty to gain by making it illegal (because every death due to it is pointless).

Paradoxically most of our legal system is based on risk/reward ratios, not level of risk. For example speeding is illegal although the odds of an accident are extremely low. On the other hand climbing Mt Everest isn't illegal at all, even though the death rate is about 50% or whatever it is now. Smoking is not illegal although the odds of smoking killing a smoker are pretty good, yet psychedelics are illegal despite the actual death rates and counts being pretty close to zero.

<comment><USER8> Almost one third of all traffic related deaths in the US are caused by drunk drivers. That's a very big slice of a pie that's way too big already.

<comment><USER9> See, you're agreeing with me. I pulled the actual numbers from Google and 40K total traffic deaths out of 2.6M total deaths for the USA last year is about one percent. So drinking related is a third of one percent. Its about a hundred times more likely than getting hit by lightning, its hardly zero, but its basically a rounding error in list of risks to worry about.

Lets say 100 times per year the local pro baseball stadium fills all 40K seats and a mere 1/4 (probably more) drive home after some beers. So right there, the odds of someone being killed in any individual baseball game related drunk driving incident are under 1%, likely far, far lower, given that's hardly the only pro sport, there are more baseball stadiums in the country than the one nearby me, more than half the people sitting the stands have had a beer, and almost all drinking happens outside baseball stadiums anyway.

However, I agree with you completely, its only banned because its a completely senseless and avoidable risk to take, not because its highly risky. Its measurably an extremely low risk, but the key is its a dumb risk to take, which is the only reason why its illegal. Tobacco smoking on the other hand is extremely high risk, but its not illegal, because most people don't see it as senseless or dumb.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ah, yes, good times.

It's a cycle, happens about every ten years or so. The usual "this example of popular culture I don't like will destroy our youths!" type of thinking.

My favorite was that time Papa Smurf was converting the children because he used magic. Oh, and the Smurfs were communists.

Take a look around, I'm sure you can find a current example of "video games is responsible for this thing I don't like" syndrome.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, cycles of moral panic that were fuelled by the media when they had nothing better to do. Nowadays though, it's fuelled by outrage culture on social media, so the result is more schizophrenic.

</comment></comment><comment> a-saleh Reading this reminded me of a friend of mine.

We went to the same church when we were young, where his parents sometimes had very specific problems with some video-games.

It was long time ago, but I remember them having problem with Age Of Empires, because "That is not how conversion works!" [1] :)

Playing Duke-Nukem was fine a.f.a.i.k.

[1] [https://youtu.be/Bwd10I4oJjo?t=311](https://youtu.be/Bwd10I4oJjo?t=311)

<comment><USER13> Hehe, I had a friend whos parents were jehovas witnesses. Their parents didn't want him to use special sounds on his digital keyboard, because they sounded like ghosts and this was considered evil.

<comment><USER14> How do ghosts sound? And how did they know?

<comment><USER11> Buddy, if you have to ask then I can't explain it to you. I know a ghost sound when I hear it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The initial thought of a bunch of adults freaking out about a harmless game is pretty funny, but as someone who played a lot of D&D in their teenage years I have to say I'm glad I "missed out" on this. I had pretty insular, highly religious parents who would have definitely made sure I was nowhere near a game of D&D and probably would have forbid me from hanging out with anyone who played. I would have missed out on what I consider a really important part of my childhood as a result. Not only that, but I truly believe playing D&D helped me develop methods for abstract thought (through visualizing the game world in my head, developing backstories and personalities for characters, etc.) that likely contributed to my ability to understand abstract maths and computer science. I honestly doubt I'd be the person I am today without this game. Weird to think about.

</comment><comment><USER7> Also, it's funny that the headline describes Dungeons and Dragons as setting off a moral panic; I thought it was Christianity.

<comment><USER8> I don't understand why this is getting down voted. It's a perfectly sensible comment. If a moral panic is being propagated and promoted by an organised group with an agenda against something innocuous, who is responsible for the panic?

I don't really mind the title, nobody's demanding that it be revised and it's clear what is meant, but I think it's reasonable to point out where the responsibility lies.

<comment><USER16> HN doesn't really seem to appreciate humor or sarcasm very much.

<comment><USER7> My reply was intended to be perfectly serious. It really was not Dungeons and Dragons triggering anything, and the headline is just wrong.

<comment><USER17> I think your point is valid and the way you phrased it amusing. I would never downvote it.

That said, the position is not wholly different from "laws are the leading cause of crime" or "the ebola outbreak did not cause people to panic - it was their desire to live and be healthy".

<comment><USER18> How about "Sexy clothes incite rape"?

<comment><USER17> Interesting. I don't think it's quite the same thing.

The first three statements all roughly take the form "if only you would stop regarding X as Y, then you would stop observing Y when X happens".

"Just stop regarding the content of D&D as morally corrupting, and then you will not need to panic when you find your children playing it."

"Just stop considering robbery to be illegal, and then crime rates will plummet."

"Just stop wanting to be healthy and then you won't mind the ebola outbreaks when they occur."

By contrast, "Stop dressing so sexy and then noone will rape you anymore" is not a suggestion that you can make a problem go away simply by ceasing to regard it as a problem. It may be an absurd attempt to transfer blame by stripping the rapists of their moral agency, but it proposes to solve a problem in the world by taking a physical action in the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Heh - thinking back to my youth, when my mom, bless her heart, didn't want me playing MTG, so I had to play SWCCG instead.

Got the same satisfaction out of it I suppose, and my social circle was all pretty into the SW game as well so I don't know if it really mattered that much. Not to mention I had a black border Darth Vader, which at the time made me the "coolest" kid in my friend group for a short period of time.

<comment><USER13> My mother never forbade me to play any games and generally made not much rules.

It always felt strange to me, visiting a friend who can only play special games or only play for one hour a day etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Back in the day if you were playing D&D you were worshipping the devil - <USER2> if you play video games you hate various societal groups.

So interesting how puritanism evolves

<comment><USER21> > So interesting how puritanism evolves

More like the main stream media which love to run these "white male gamers/developers pushing women/minorities out of gaming/tech" stories. Their business is outrage, that's the result of the click bait culture. They don't do that because they believe in that crap, they do that because it drives ad- revenue. Unfortunately they don't understand that by publish content that sides with extreme ideas,they are alienating their own audience on the long run.

<comment><USER22> I've up voted you because IIRC some game producers have been caught running fake protest groups.

[http://kotaku.com/5289471/eas-fake-protest-riles-some- religi...](http://kotaku.com/5289471/eas-fake-protest-riles-some-religious)

As they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Well, AD&D certainly put me on my path to worshipping Satan. I thank TSR for that. I've never looked back.

<comment><USER24> Lawful evil or bust! I also took driving lessons from Carmaggedon ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I always was curious who these people were. Raised in the average Catholic family D&D and many early fantasy games on our PC were considered harmless fun. Perhaps it came from the fact that we always had books around and were encouraged to read. About the only time I ever remember issues with D&D and Arduin Grimoire type games were the "jocks" some of whom would pick on our group. When the PC and such rolled around (Apple 2 as well) many of them were just as fascinated.

<comment><USER4> >Raised in the average Catholic family D&D and many early fantasy games on our PC were considered harmless fun. ... When the PC and such rolled around (Apple 2 as well)...

I went to Catholic school when the Apple ][ was current. The teachers strongly warned us not to play D&D.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> As a person from a country with <20% of religious people, about half of them (lukewarm) Catholics, reading some of these comments, the only thing that comes to my mind is...W.T.F.?

<comment><USER27> We specifically say we have "freedom of religion" in the U.S., and unfortunately a lot of people take that to mean "the freedom to impose my religion on others".

It varies greatly from state to state; everywhere I grew up and went to school, there were a lot less religious conservatives so it wasn't an issue for me. But sometimes visiting other states, it can be a bit of a shock to see the amount of religious bumper stickers, house decorations, clothing, etc.

<comment><USER28> I had no idea that religious clothing and bumper stickers constituted imposing one's religion on others.

<comment><USER27> By imposing I was more talking about the article itself- I don't mind the t-shirts or bumper stickers, they're just visible evidence that some parts of the country are different than others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Recently and related discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11225579](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11225579)

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands Interesting the article references the disappearance of James Dallas Egbert III but makes no mention of the tv show that aired on CBS in 1982 that was based on this incident.

I thought it was one of Tom Hanks better performances. [/sarcasm]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazes_and_Monsters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazes_and_Monsters)

<comment><USER30> The video above the article does mention the show.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> My parents were more enlightened. I had very lax curfew standards - if I was out until 2am, it was because I was playing Dungeons and Dragons with the other nerds. If my brother was out past 11pm, it was because he was up to no good. :-)

To a person the group I played D&D with ultimately ended up in professional jobs. With a sample size of 20+ over the years, we all finished college. At least half got graduate degrees. A couple have made major impacts on science and technology.

There was one friend whose parents went a little overboard with the moral panic. Despite that, he came out ok too. :-)

One year at GenCon (even better than "at Band Camp") a cop at my table mentioned that criminal behavior for games was almost unmeasurable compared to the general population.

<comment><USER32> > One year at GenCon (even better than "at Band Camp") a cop at my table > mentioned that criminal behavior for games was almost unmeasurable compared > to the general population.

Unclear probably because I'm tired - Do you mean the criminal behavior of gamers when they are not playing games? As opposed to their (imaginary) criminal acts in the game?

<comment><USER31> My typo doesn't help. Basically gamers get into real life trouble much less than non-gamers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If it wasn't for D&D, I never would have known asmodeus was the most powerful devil!

</comment><comment><USER34> Anti-Dungeons & Dragons Propaganda Booklet: [http://www.theescapist.com/BADDbook.htm](http://www.theescapist.com/BADDbook.htm)

According to a review on Amazon for Pat Pulling's book, an anti-D&D author who's mentioned in the article, Pat admited to "butchering pets" with her son; unable to find a source backing that up though; Pat's book on Amazon: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0910311633/](http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0910311633/)

</comment><comment><USER10> Did the NYT help propagate that moral panic?

<comment><USER35> No, it only mentions that D&D was being reported as motivation for a 16 year old that went missing in 1977. It concluded that series of articles with a simple statement that D&D was not in any way associated with the boys disappearance or his eventual return. ("Accio bratty teenager!")

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I actually made a movie based upon the Jack Chick "Dark Dungeons" comic and tried my hardest to make a faithful to the spirit adaption. I think the results speak for themsevles; www.darkdungeonsthemovie.com

</comment><comment><USER37> as a kid in the late 80s, the news convinced my grandma that DnD was training me to be a satanist w/ suicidal pacts around the characters and all</comment>


Benchmarking Symmetric Crypto on the Apple A7 - <AUTHOR> http://cryptomaths.com/2014/04/29/benchmarking-symmetric-crypto-on-the-apple-a7/ <comment><USER2> > According to this article, the latest Haswell microarchitecture can do up to > 8 operations per cycle and has a reorder buffer size of 192 micro-ops. > Former architectures, like Sandy/Ivy Bridge, are capable of up to 6 > operations per cycle and have a buffer size of 168 micro-ops. At least from > that perspective, Apple's Cyclone is positioned in between the two Intel > microarchitectures.

So Apple's chip architecture is between Sandy Bridge and Haswell. That's not to say that A7 is _as fast as SNB_ chips, because it has roughly half the clock speed of those chips, but it seems to follow my previous prediction that either this year or next year we'll see a mobile ARM chip that will be _as fast_ as a SNB "Core" chip (at the time I was predicting it will be Nvidia's Denver, but I think Apple's A8 will achieve that, too, this year).

Then after one more generation (late 2015), we should see mobile ARM CPU's rival Haswell/Broadwell in performance, considering how little the IPC has improved for these Intel CPUs since Sandy Bridge (my previous comment on this here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7661573](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7661573)), while ARM CPUs will continue to have pretty significant gains in performance every year, over the next few years (certainly at least until they reach the FinFET 16nm node).

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be interesting to compare against a baseline like ARMv8-optimized AES-GCM.</comment>


Is "Just Get Started" a Flawed Idea? - <AUTHOR> http://calnewport.com/blog/2008/06/27/dangerous-ideas-getting-started-is-overrated/

<comment><USER2> The article shows fundamental misunderstanding of why "just get started" is, indeed, a good advice.

It boils down to: majority of people under-start, not over-start.

Let's assume the following numbers:

10% start at the right time

10% start too early

80% don't start at all

Those are, obviously, arbitrary numbers, but I do believe them to be "in the ballpark".

When you're giving generic advice on the internet, that you cannot customize to an individual, the message clearly should be "just get started", because it targets the problem majority of people have. Yes, it's a crude approximation of truth, which is always more nuanced, but a blanket contradiction is certainly not the right answer.

What the article is saying is that it's better to start at the right time than to start too early. It is also an obvious statement and a shallow one because it fails to consider that there are more states to analyze: starting too early, starting at the right time and starting too late and not at all. Starting at the right time is clearly the best choice but if you are to choose between starting too early or not at all, starting too early is a better choice and most people make a mistake of not starting at all and not starting too early.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems to me the blogger is saying that if you can't get started without the 'just get started!' advice, don't pollute the pool.

If someone is setting out to make a career and betting their whole life on it, then 'just get started' is really bad advice. If someone is testing the waters and wants to find out if a career is for them, then 'just get started' is the perfect advice. There's no quicker way to find out what you're getting into than to get into it.

Yes, you'll likely choke on your first time. We learn from failure better than success. "What doesn't kill you will make you stronger."

I start new hobbies all the time. I just jump in and start playing with it. I've found some that are really nice, and some that I apparently just don't have any innate skill for. (That hasn't actually stopped me on some of them!) And at one point, my current career was just a hobby.

Just get started.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting post.

The way I see it, what this post is saying is that "Just starting" isn't good enough, since you have to stick with it, sometimes for a long time, before reaching any measure of success. I completely agree with this idea. But I think you'll find that most of the people saying "just get started" are _already_ following it up with "you have to stick to it for a long time to succeed".

In fact, the origin of the common "just start" lesson is the fact that many successful people look at their achievements and think (rightly or not) that they're something anyone can do. The most common reason other people don't do it is because they don't believe they can, hence the "just get started and stick to it, you can succeed too" advice.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't know about this interpretation of "just start". My take on the "just start" thing is to avoid procrastinating forever, and feeling like it's not the right time, or your idea isn't good enough, or you aren't ready.

The point is nothing will get your idea honed and your skills improved than just starting. Maybe it won't succeed... but that's actually not the point. I don't think anyone is saying "just start" is the key to success (though clearly a prerequisite). I think they are saying that trying and not succeeding is better than never doing anything. The startup's take on "better to have loved and lost, then never to have loved at all"

<comment><USER6> "I don't know about this interpretation of "just start". My take on the "just start" thing is to avoid procrastinating forever, and feeling like it's not the right time, or your idea isn't good enough, or you aren't ready."

My experience has been that if I can't resist procrastinating to begin with, then I likely won't be able to resist procrastination once I've started either. If you need to do "productivity hacks" to get started, is the project really worth doing at all? I mean getting started is the _easy_ part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The survivor bias is the most important point here. Many, many, business books fail on this important misunderstanding.

I went to a military school where we had monthly mandatory lectures by inspirational and successful people. In hindsight, the most startling thing about all of them was that they had nothing in common that you could point to and say, "that's what made them a success." If they did, it wasn't something that many other unsuccessful people didn't also have.

There were a few who admitted that their success was mostly due to other people and luck. Now that I'm older, this rings more true than anything else.

That's not to say that you shouldn't work hard, start your project, and do all the things you think you should to succeed. But realize, despite your best efforts, it just might not work out.

<comment><USER5> "There were a few who admitted that their success was mostly due to other people and luck. Now that I'm older, this rings more true than anything else."

While luck and circumstance tends to be a factor, I believe that a different person given the same circumstances might not have succeeded. So, you can't just throw up your hands and suggest that it's out of your control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Strangely enough, I am reminded of Jerry Seinfeld's documentary, _Comedian_. Throughout the movie, while not following Jerry's plight, the story is focused on Orny Adams, a struggling comedian who dreams of Seinfeld-like fame.

At one point, Seinfeld and Adams have a conversation. Adams mentions that it would be great to be able to make a lot of money for doing what he loves. That he'd like to be like Jerry one day. And Jerry is flabbergasted. Basically he says that if you're doing it for the money, you're in it for the wrong reasons. You do it because you love it. You'd be doing it if you lived on the street eating out of a garbage can because a few times a week, you get to go out and tell jokes, and people laugh at them.

The author of this article is saying the same thing. Unless you're completely dedicated to an idea, unless you can't stop thinking about it, you may fail. The closer you are to being completely encompassed by an idea, the more likely it is to succeed.

I read it as more of a caution than a guideline. If you aren't really in love with an idea, but you still want to go along with it because you think it might make money, or bring you fame, or whatever, you're in it for the wrong reasons. You will be a terrible comedian.

</comment><comment><USER9> The importance of getting started in anything boils down to this:

Until you start, you only have other people's knowledge to work with. You're always going to value firsthand information more than what you can read in a book, or on HN, or whatever.

Until you start, your skills won't improve because there's nothing to sharpen them.

Of course, you should look before you leap. You don't want to "just start" by quitting your job with only two weeks of living expenses saved and nothing more than a "Learn Ruby!" book tucked under your arm.

But you can decide that, tonight, and every night, you're going to put at least 60 minutes into making progress on whatever you want to do, whether it's learning programming, starting your project, planning your business or anything in between.

<comment><USER10> "Of course, you should look before you leap"

True, but there is something to be said for throwing yourself in the deep end. Totally agree that until you do start, you've only got other peoples experiences and knowledge to go off, which is never going to be exactly the same as your own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems to me the author is conflating "just get started" with being flighty and unfocused. If there is an attempt at real insight here it's that once you get started you need to avoid distractions. But that is orthogonal to "getting started".

In fact, now that I think about it, what does "getting started" mean? The author seems to think that you can prepare before "getting started", but in my mind, once you have set your goal and are actively working towards it—whether that be research, coding, networking or whatever—you _have_ started.

</comment><comment><USER12> Treat these ideas like medicine: before you take a dose of it, take a minute to see if you've the right symptoms.

ie. If you've no problem getting started but have issues finishing, that idea won't help much. You need a different pill.

I do agree that so much is focused on newbies who have a tough time getting started. There is now a significant number of folks who have no problem getting started. They do have a problem finishing. Hopefully we'll see more stuff focused on the later stage.

</comment><comment><USER13> I would discuss not the action of starting, but the motivations and preferences that inform your strategy. Things like the kinds of problems you can engage with and the solutions for them, the ways in which you connect with people, etc.

Since business works over periods of months and years, it's important for me to engage in projects that play to as many of those preferences as possible. Starting at anything new is its own skill; you have to accept an early period of flailing around and making wrong turns, before you can reach the comfortable, confident stages. But it's not really the make-or-break thing here. Common wisdom says that it's the last 1-10% of the project that is the hardest part; you need to line things up so that even those stages are tolerable, or else you'll burn out somewhere in the middle once you see how far you still have to go. If your preferences are misaligned against the project goals, you're also likely to drift off target(e.g. I get caught in building technology quite often) and it helps to have people with other preferences involved so that they can bring you back in line.

</comment><comment><USER14> Getting started is a prerequisite. A lot of people procrastinate and never get started. So from that perspective, getting started should be the most important thing for procrastinators

However, getting started -in itself- is obviously not sufficient. Getting started on the _wrong_ project is obviously not good (though sometimes, you won't know it is _wrong_ until you do some work on it). Getting started on too many things will result in a lack of focus. Most of this is common-sense. As long as you're aware of all this, I think the "just get started" idea does make a lot of sense.

</comment><comment><USER15> Whoosh. X% of people who want to be entrepreneurs will never be, and X% of them won't be because they did nothing but prepare, never noticing or overcoming fear of failure. Subjectively, those proportions are huge - they're the targets of the "just start" advice.

</comment><comment><USER16> If you're dedicated to being an entrepreneur for "love of the game", there's value in doing diligence on the vertical/idea that you might spend your next 1-4 years in

</comment><comment><USER17> How to be successful:

possible_actions.max_by(&:utility).execute while !successful

Meanwhile, all platitudes and generalizations should be obeyed, except when they shouldn't</comment>


The security aspects of the president's SIPRnet phone - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13045261 <comment><USER2> _As most smartphones also come equipped with GPS navigation, the device could also act as a radio beacon, and broadcast the owner's location._

Umm, no...

<comment><USER3> From the article they mention that if the software on the device can be modified then GPS data can be transmitted to a 3rd party. I don't see how that can be contentious.

<comment><USER2> Well, any mobile phone can be located by knowing what cell towers it's nearest to or what Wifi access points it's connected to. GPS doesn't transmit anything.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, but the article was talking about how the platform can be compromised and through rogue software it can transmit location and audio.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook chief faces tax bill of $1.5bn - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/6dbffbce-4e8b-11e1-ada2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1lWSwDBg5 I love the last paragraph. I wonder if it's true. <comment><USER2> Third submission (at least) of the ft.com article,

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3551756>

following an earlier submission of Wall Street Journal reporting on same issue.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3550074>

For either story, the underlying primary source is the registration statement for Facebook's initial public offering of stock.</comment>


Ask HN: I quit my developer job and want something more social - <AUTHOR> I've been a software developer most of my career and I no longer have any interest in writing lines of code. I think I would enjoy a job  that is more focused on emails, helping people directly, or helping make decisions.<p>Any suggestions of roles within the tech industry I should look for that still pay fairly well and has a good career trajectory? I've been looking at product manager positions and applied to a few, but I'm honestly not super clear on what the day-to-day looks like for a product manager or how it differs from a project manager. <comment><USER2> Sales and marketing people are treated like gods at my $FORTUNE_500 from what I can see when promotions are handed out. Have you considered any of those roles?

<comment><AUTHOR> I know I sound like I'm being picky, but sales and marketing both sound sort of icky to me. Maybe I'm just being too pretentious.

<comment><USER2> Well for what it's worth I share your opinion. I suck at marketing and don't enjoy the glad handing that goes with a sales position. Some people are cut out for that sort of thing, but those people aren't us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Have you looked at developer evangelist profile ?</comment>


LibreTaxi – Uber PoC That Works - <AUTHOR> More than a year ago LibreTaxi was at the top of Hacker News. It was pretty raw, laggy, and lacking some nice features. But over this time it was improved, there are tens of thousands users worldwide, app was translated into 20+ languages.
It's still in its infant stage, but there are passengers and drivers in some areas. It was officially banned in Philippines after getting some traction.
Not too much traction in U.S., but I was able to find a ride back home from work in San Francisco. AMA. <comment><AUTHOR> Link to the website: [https://libretaxi.org](https://libretaxi.org)

</comment><comment> BA4gDY-cqjsEPWn How is it different from Uber/Lyft?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's PoC, works through Telegram. The only concept is the same.</comment></comment>


No, I don't want free lunches - <AUTHOR> https://debugandrelease.blogspot.com/2019/05/no-i-dont-want-free-lunches.html <comment><USER2> I am usually the one who scape lunches at work because I want quietness and a break from work. Also, it is typically the only time of the day I can day dream and wander around the city center, where I work.

I find that eating at work to be quite unhealthy too. I tend to eat for instant gratification because I am too wired up, since there is no change of environment and my cafeteria is quite loud, etc.

I would also skip free dinner in case I work late but I would welcome a cab or car service to ride me home.

However, I will just add one benefits that would make a difference for me: a quiet room with yoga mats, maybe a pull up bar and some weights for some stretching here and there.</comment>


Apple extends iPhone production cut for another quarter - <AUTHOR> http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Apple-extends-iPhone-production-cut-for-another-quarter <comment><USER2> The article mentions the iPhone SE and how its expected sales are not expected to offset the slowdown of the iPhone 6s and 6s+ sales. I realized I had forgotten the SE even existed (even though it was just been announced a few weeks ago) until this article reminded me of it.

To me, this is just further confirmation that Apple's product line is a complete mess. Just go to (apple.com/iphone/compare) or (apple.com/ipad/compare) and look at how ridiculous it is. Can anyone really tell me which one of those models is "best"? There is no clear winner -- the ones with the bigger screen sizes and storage capacity don't have the latest CPUs or other features. Anyone remember the simple "Good, Better, Best" models of Powerbooks?

It is starting to feel like Apple is overdue for a product line simplification, like when the four quadrant product grid was first introduced:

[https://youtu.be/VkVs4ZqWgN8](https://youtu.be/VkVs4ZqWgN8)

<comment><USER3> Agreed. They need to ditch 3D Touch (the sticking point for cramming a full 6S into a 5S case, afaik) and have three otherwise identical iPhones with different screens, ditto for iPads.

<comment><USER4> How does taking away that feature so that the low end iPhone 'matches' the high end ones provide any value whatsoever to anyone?

<comment><USER5> Some of us prefer the smaller size but would otherwise like the same features.

I would certainly agree that 3D touch is the one feature I could definitely do without. I never use it on my 6S.

<comment><USER6> I've heard people say they don't use it. I've recently come back to iphone after a year with a moto x. I love 3d touch. Particularly using the keyboard as a virtual trackpad on the phone (for moving the cursor around in text areas).

I also use it extensively in safari, on both the iphone and macbook pro.

I don't use the mail app, and it didn't seem helpful there... what good is a popup of a message if my thumb is blocking the view?

But the keyboard cursor and safari are pretty handy. I could see it working well with app shortcuts on the home screen too, but I guess I haven't found a need yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The two complaints I hear from "normal", non tech people.

1\. The loss of carrier subsidy makes the price very high.

2\. The iPhone 6 was carved out of slicked butter. I can name 10 people who have smashed one. I'm personally on my 3rd device. I _never_ broke any mobile phone since 1996 until iPhone 6.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is just an indication that there aren't any compelling breakthroughs in the smartphone arena right now. Customers seem to be satisfied with the current features that they have that they don't have the desire to buy the newest models.

</comment><comment><USER9> These stories or production cuts come out every year and every year they are debunked.</comment>


Som interesting IR ideas - <AUTHOR> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201201.mbox/browser

<comment><USER2> I think you meant to link to [https://mail- archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201201....](https://mail- archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene- dev/201201.mbox/%3C4F0251A2.2050500%40getopt.org%3E)</comment>


Ebola can survive on surfaces for almost TWO MONTHS when stored low temperatures - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809803/Ebola-surfaces-TWO-months-Tests-reveal-certain-strains-survive-weeks-stored-low-temperatures.html

<comment><USER2> There's so much conflicting information and misinformation, you almost have to just ignore it all. Is it direct contact with bodily fluids, or is it on your skin once you pop a fever, and spreading via doorknobs? A single virus particle can be lethal, or patients only become highly infectious at the end- stage? Unfortunately it's really complex, and some of these aren't even contradictions.

I think the only way to really analyze it is through the macro-level "R0" (basic reproduction rate) which seems quite low, but that also depends on accurate reporting. If the reporting is accurate within an order of magnitude then it truly is hard to catch / easy to avoid, and hopefully we see the numbers start to turn in the next few weeks.

My guess is that because there's a very limited amount of time a person can be both symptomatic and ambulatory, given a remotely functional health care system and a culture which minimizes contact with the deceased, the virus would be self-defeating.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Original research that is also relevant.

Assessment of the Risk of Ebola Virus Transmission from Bodily Fluids and Fomites

(1) [http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142....](http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142.full)

Marburg and Ebola viruses as aerosol threats.

(2) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15588056](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15588056)</comment>


Show HN: Mikado – A fully automated AWS setup for Wordpress deployments - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dominis/mikado <comment><USER2> Didn't have a chance to try it but project looks great, congrats!

I would love to see a version of this but centered in Django/Flask. Django deployments are a PITA and I'm looking for a way to automate them following devops best practices.</comment>


BitTorrent Records - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/5-torrent-files-that-broke-mind-boggling-records-101107

<comment><USER2> My first thought was "I wonder if their Largest Torrent category counts the lossless Touhou torrent?[1]". Turns out they didn't, though some commenters mention it. It measures in at 848GB (790 GiB), which is incredible considering its content (indie video-game soundtrack remixes). The companion album-art torrent[2] is an additional 20GB.

[1] [http://www.nyaatorrents.org/?page=torrentinfo&tid=167750](http://www.nyaatorrents.org/?page=torrentinfo&tid=167750)

[2] [http://www.nyaatorrents.org/?page=torrentinfo&tid=167751](http://www.nyaatorrents.org/?page=torrentinfo&tid=167751)

</comment><comment><USER3> I think the Rocks Avalanche Installer ( [http://www.rocksclusters.org/rocks- doc/papers/two-pager/pape...](http://www.rocksclusters.org/rocks- doc/papers/two-pager/paper.pdf) ) is worthy of mention.

Any time there is a power outage in our HPC cluster, we have 1000 machines all downloading their new image using bittorrent via Avalanche. We are a small HPC shop. Places like LLNL or TACC have much bigger clusters probably have 10s of thousands of nodes that use Avalanche.

<comment><USER4> > Any time there is a power outage in our HPC cluster

I don't like the sound of that, how often do you have power outages ?

<comment><USER3> Twice in the last year. Our infrastructure is all on UPS, but we decided not to do so for our compute cluster. Additional hardware was deemed a better way to spend our budget. In the event of an outage, people lose the job that was currently running. All their data is safe. They just need to relaunch the job and they are back in business. Most jobs take just a few days, so it really isn't that big of a deal. Either users wait in a queue for an extra day every time they want to run a job, or once or twice a year they have to resubmit a job that died in a power outage. We chose the latter.

<comment><USER5> Excellent tradeoff in terms of cost/benefit. More companies should re-evaluate their need for 5 9s and instead look at cases where they can gain efficiencies by doing LESS. Does every single company really need a huge UPS system and backup generators?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Am I the only one that read the title of this post and immediately thought:

"BitTorrent Record Label - Oh my Gosh, that's BRILLIANT!"

Then was disappointed at the fact that it is just records for file sizes?

<comment><USER7> That's how I read it too. Wishful thinking, I suppose. :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Largest is 746 gb? Bull. Largest _active_ , perhaps (ignoring the Touhou one mentioned elsewhere), but I've encountered 1.5 tb and greater. Maybe it's been dropped from a few trackers?

<comment><USER2> He's only counting public trackers.

<comment><USER8> They were public. If I remember correctly, they were on some of the bigger ones as well.</comment></comment></comment>