Tim Cook says Apple's customers are not its product, unlike Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/tim-cook-says-apples-customers-are-not-its-products-unlike-facebook/ <comment><USER2> To Tim's credit, Apple did remove FB and Twitter integration from iOS 11.

I wrote a snarky post first suggesting they do that, but then discovered they already have. I just didn't notice because I weaned myself off social cancer years ago.

</comment><comment><USER3> Apple needs to vocally lobby for privacy legislation or it'll be way too easy for the internet industry to squash it. Facebook and Google have been using trade groups to fight privacy legislation for years where it can be "out of sight, out of mind" [1][2]. Having the most valuable company in the tech industry go against them in a public way would expose the rest of them in a way they've been able to avoid until now.

[1] [https://calmatters.org/articles/facebook-even-as-it- apologiz...](https://calmatters.org/articles/facebook-even-as-it-apologizes- for-scandal-funds-campaign-to-block-a-california-data-privacy-measure/)

[2] [http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/facebook-google-facial- recogni...](http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/facebook-google-facial-recognition- lawsuits/)

<comment><USER4> Counterpoint: Apple doesn't want to lobby for privacy, because it's one of their selling features.

<comment><USER3> I would almost guarantee you that the general public (as well as tech people, judging by the comments I've seen here) has no idea how Apple is different from everyone else when it comes to privacy/security, despite their attempts to talk about it wherever possible. It's simply too abstract and only reveals itself in acute ways when these breaches happen.

<comment><USER5> I disagree and want to note a worrying the - It's only different on HN where Apple seems to get a free pass and its security foibles tend to be forgotten or simply ignored. We may like to present ourselves as impartial but we're an echo chamber like many other online communities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There was some talk way back during the FBI iPhone unlock crisis about Apple positioning itself to be strong on privacy so as to leverage their massive cash reserves to become a bank:

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2016/03/follow-t...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2016/03/follow-the-money-apple-vs-the-.html)

Although this idea has also been shot down:

[https://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11326016/apple- bank](https://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11326016/apple-bank)

I think its still a good bet that Apple is going to leverage itself as the go to company for privacy. You pay a premium, but you get a curated ecosystem and no data harvesting.

I think they should take this opportunity to launch a privacy-centric social network and attract more people cast adrift to the walled garden.

</comment><comment><USER7> I read somewhere that the only way of making truly global software is to sell ads, because it effectively means big companies are subsidizing your distribution. A lot of people in the world don't have money to spend on subscriptions.

Not defending Facebook though. Selling ads shouldn't imply lousy privacy.

</comment><comment><USER8> I heard an iOS developer make a comment once saying that deciding to develop for iOS means less folks may have access (under the assumption that Android is more common) but you are guaranteeing that those with access to your application have more money to spend because of Apple's price point. If Facebook's targeting and ad exchanges are what productize the company's customers then I would say Apple does the same to a lesser degree by charging a premium for its exclusive ecosystem. I consider Apple many degrees safer because they heavily screen what can be added to the app store and the inherent nature of targeting going on is limited to "paid for an Apple device" instead of the greatly higher dimensional data accessed leveraged by Facebook.

<comment><USER9> Having bootstrapped multiple apps for both iOS and Android, no matter how much Android users scream for equal access - iOS makes 2-4x the android equivalent. Not sure if it's the users, the app store or the expectations - but we always build for iOS first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Implied: "... and google"

<comment><USER11> ... arstechnica, HN, Reddit, newspapers, tv, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "customer" of Facebook is user of Facebook Business (advertisers) only, not people who use in daily life. The leeking of Facebook is like just car was stolen at car shop. Google, Twitter, and HN too, just don't use them.

</comment><comment><USER13> Yeah, but Apple pushes new phones onto the market every year, leading to unnecessary environmental impact.

Every industry has its vices.

<comment><USER14> Pssss. Over here. Down in the reply section. You seem to be under a misapprehension so I'm going to let you into a secret; this is just between you and me. I'm going to write in lower case so nobody else sees this, lean in close and don't go spreading this around...

you don't have to buy a phone every year. apple directly supports its phones for 4 or 5 years and even then they don't self destruct. you can even go out in public with an old phone - it is not illegal.

shhhh, someones coming.

HOW ABOUT THAT LOCAL SPORTS TEAM, HUH? <whistle>

<comment><USER7> This is the quality content I come to HN for hahah.

Psss. keeping it on the down low, I do think apple should've been louder and more clear about the whole battery thing. Cynics could interpret that as forcing upgrades by making people's phones slow. The repairability and upgradability has also been not great lately, but anyway, my Apple products have still lasted me a solid 3-5 years (:

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm sure this has been repeated ad nauseam here, but a good rule of thumb:

      Did you pay for the product?
        No:  You are probably the product.
        Yes: You might not also be the product.

<comment><USER16> It bears repeating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The same could be said of arstechnica, HN, news and most of media. They are selling "customers" to their advertisers. Also, not sure where Tim Cook has any room to talk. By most measures, Apple is just as bad or worse than facebook. They are in bed with china exploiting slave labor, using advertisement to peddle overpriced junk to the uneducated masses and of course using tax loopholes to avoid paying taxing.

Microsoft used to say something similar as well. But when they realized that they could make much more money off customer data, they went converted to an ad-centered model with their OS.

The only reason Apple is acting high and mighty is because they are able to rob their customers by charging ridiculously high priced products.

<comment><USER17> For some reason I'd not considered HN compromised, but considering the nature of Ycombinator and their investments, it's probably safe to assume that all my activity here is 'out in the open'.

All my comments and writing style, all my alts, and all my opinions are compromised, and it's more a matter of 'when' than 'if' as to the leaking of this data to entities that I emphatically do not want to know all this information.

And linking this information to my person is probably easier than it already seems in my occasional thought experiments.

<comment><USER11> > For some reason I'd not considered HN compromised, but considering the > nature of Ycombinator and their investments, it's probably safe to assume > that all my activity here is 'out in the open'.

If you aren't paying for it, you are the product. It's the model that google popularized in the early 2000s. I'm really puzzled ( though I have my theories ) on why FB is being targeted for something everyone does.

> And linking this information to my person is probably easier than it already > seems in my occasional thought experiments.

Given enough data points it shouldn't be that hard. Browser fingerprinting, IP address ( even if you have dynamic IP ) and enough raw data, it should be a cakewalk. Throw in browsing pattern analysis, writing analysis, click analysis, etc and they could tie much of everything together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > "I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation," he said, > according to Recode. "However, I think we're beyond that here."

What does this mean? This is completely self-contradictory. Clearly Facebook has demonstrated that regulation is required. How could Tim Cook possibly _still_ say that the best regulation is no regulation? Clearly Tim should want a healthier tech ecosystem than what we have now and clearly be agrees regulation is needed. Very confusing quote.

<comment><USER19> "However, I think we're beyond [self-regulation] here."

\- Tim Cook

You are arguing with half of the quotation, and ignoring this other half. He doesn't seem to be advocating self-regulation as a practical policy.

<comment><USER18> I am not arguing or ignoring anything. I'm expressing confusion by the lack of continuity in the full quote.

Edit: I am now banned from replying to comments on HN again. Probably because of the enormous wave of downvotes that follows me everywhere. I don't understand why HN thinks it is better for me to reply like this than in the now-banned reply box below. Oh well, here is my response to the comment below.

> He is saying that ideally self-regulation is best, but here and now we need > regulation because we messed up self regulation.

Ookay, but to me, that says that self-regulation was _never_ going to work, and we should just admit it and move on. We should have had regulation on social media from the beginning. We didn't "mess up" self-regulation. Self- regulation in a hyper-capitalist environment is obviously going to fail. It has been shown time and time again, every day, that corporations will be selfish and do everything they can, legally or not, especially exploiting new dubious legal territory, to extract cash in the short term using dubiously moral and legal methods no matter what.

Corporations should be regulation and it's insane that Tim Cook is just saying "ahhh ooops they messed up, guess it wouldn't work out that way, too bad" but it has _always_ been that way. There was never a world in which Facebook was going to "self-regulate".

<comment><USER20> Chill out there - you're not banned from replying, but the HN site imposes a steady increasing delay on comment replies as the thread gets deeper, primarily to avoid rapid back-and-forth flamewars.

To your specific point: I don't think it's contradictory, and I tend to agree with Tim Cook. We should assume that markets are unregulated by default; the job of government is to step in when there is a problem or imbalance and use regulation to correct it.

I would argue that this is almost bound to happen by definition, purely because the emergence of any new market is into a society that doesn't regulate it. You say that we "should have had regulation on social media from the beginning" - but what _was_ the beginning? What is it that defines social media versus "traditional" media? Was Isenet social media? Web forums? MySpace?

It's difficult, in most cases, to preemptively regulate a market. We've moved quite quickly with self-driving cars, but there the dangers are much more obvious and easily understood. The implications and danger of social media are harder to understand. What would regulation look like? Is the concern the treatment of personal data? The tracking of behaviour itself? The manipulation of users?

The point is, I think it's more complex than "obviously it should have always been regulated".

<comment><USER18> > Chill out there - you're not banned from replying, but the HN site imposes a > steady increasing delay on comment replies as the thread gets deeper, > primarily to avoid rapid back-and-forth flamewars.

No, you are incorrect. I am/was banned from top-level comments too. This comment turns out to have gone through. I think it is time-based. I don't know how it works. But daily I get banned from making submissions and comments across the site.

> We should assume that markets are unregulated by default; the job of > government is to step in when there is a problem or imbalance and use > regulation to correct it.

This sounds extremely dangerous, and _always_ allows for large-scale actors to break society's expectations of their good behavior every single day. Society can't function by just trusting huge megacorps to play nice every day. They need to be regulated from the day they start work, not a decade and a half later after so much damage is already caused.

> We've moved quite quickly with self-driving cars, but there the dangers are > much more obvious and easily understood.

I don't agree with this. In the 90's all the adults in the world were telling kids about the dangers of being online with your real name and all the scary abuse that could come with that. What happened is that the adults _forgot_ this advice. It was already known and it was not a surprise when it happened.

> The point is, I think it's more complex than "obviously it should have > always been regulated".

No, I don't think it is. Regulation is simple and useful.

<comment><USER20> You seem to have hand-waved away the main point I made - I don't think that regulation is simple at all. "They need to be regulated from the day they start work" - what does that even mean? Even if we accept that strong regulation is required - what are you actually proposing we regulate? You say it's simple - so what is it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I would disagree because of how closely Apple tracks it's users. Yes, they don't sell the data but they use it for internal marketing.

EDIT: From Apple's own website:

The personal information we collect allows us to keep you posted on Apple's latest product announcements, software updates, and upcoming events. If you don't want to be on our mailing list, you can opt out anytime by updating your preferences.

[https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en- ww/](https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/)

<comment><USER22> Apple does not closely track its users.

<comment><USER21> Have read the ULA?

The Apple Privacy Policy was updated on January 19, 2018.

[https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en- ww/](https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/)

What personal information we collect

* When you create an Apple ID, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, contact us or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information.

* When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to participate in Apple services or forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number. Apple will use such information to fulfill your requests, provide the relevant product or service, or for anti-fraud purposes.

* In certain jurisdictions, we may ask for a government issued ID in limited circumstances including when setting up a wireless account and activating your device, for the purpose of extending commercial credit, managing reservations, or as required by law.

BTW: How your iPhone is tracking your every move

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/advice/11056373/How-y...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/advice/11056373/How- your-iPhone-is-tracking-your-every-move.html)

<comment><USER23> But that is not "closely tracking its users", that's capturing the necessary information for those transactions.

It's certainly not Apple making its customers into products. Both Google and Facebook are classed as advertising companies, for a reason.

Have you read Google's Privacy Policy?

[https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/](https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/)

Wow. All the same stuff as Apple _plus_ Device IDs, actual physical location, WiFi identifiers, pixel tags, and more — All because: tailored advertising. That's what a company-whose-users-are-its-product looks like, by comparison.

BTW: I looked at your scare link: my iPhone had no data there, because it has never had Frequent Locations enabled. Nor has it had Location-Based iAds enabled. YMMV of course.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Lies Your Employer Tells You - <AUTHOR> http://employeeatty.blogspot.com/2013/03/lies-your-employer-tells-you.html

<comment><USER2> This attitude came up with a story, a little while ago, about an employer offering onsite psychologist/psychiatrist services and promising confidentiality. There has to be some kind of middle ground. Corporations are not designed to help you, but at some point you have to trust someone not to hurt you.

<comment><USER3> > but at some point you have to trust someone not to hurt you.

Rule number #1 of working for corporations: cover your ass. It's a game, and the corp will throw you to the wolves if they think it's necessary.

It's not even malicious; as long as you play the game with your eyes open, it can actually be fun (in a "Game of Thrones" kind of way).

<comment><USER2> I believe you may have missed the first part of that sentence.

> Corporations are not designed to help you, but at some point you have to > trust someone not to hurt you.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What have you found the worst interview question to be? - chupa-chups The opposite of the thread here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19076131.
What are in your experience the worst questions, both as interviewee or interviewer? <comment><AUTHOR> Google, Front-end interview:

Interviewer: "Prove to me that a random number is truly random."

Me: "uhhh, I'm not really sure where to start with that one."

Interviewer: "Prove. To me. That a random number. Is. Truly. Random"

Literally just me floundering because the interviewer wouldn't give me a clue as to what he was looking for.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

Docusign, front-end interview, after phone screen:

Interviewer: "Write a program using Coffeescript, Jade, Stylus."

Me: "I have a ton of experience with FE engineering, but 0 experience with those specific technologies. It would take me a week+ to ramp up sufficiently to write a program I'd be proud to submit."

Them: "That's ok, some of our candidates spend 2 or more weeks on this problem."

Me: "Ok, well... uh, I'm going to go take this other job and not spend 2 weeks on song-and-dance for a B-tier startup."

<comment><USER2> Regarding the first question, fundamentally you can't "prove" a number is truly random. Even if a number or sequence is completely not random looking (e.g. a valid copy of Windows 98), there is a chance it really is random and coincidental. You could have immediately said that. Did you?

But, given that this was a front end job, a common way to visually test the quality of a pseudo-random number generator is to generate a series of numbers and plot the results with pixels visually[1]. If the PRNG is high quality you'll get a nice even static field. If there is a bias it will show up as a gradient or pattern in the pixels. I suspect this is actually what the interviewer was after.

[1] [http://judeokelly.com/simple-visual-random-number- test/](http://judeokelly.com/simple-visual-random-number-test/)

<comment><AUTHOR> That was literally my first guess, and he flatly said it was wrong and not reliable, and to try again. I'm not joking here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Do you have your laptop? Good. Write a program that does this while I watch you code and criticize/ask noob questions.

(checks watch)

We don't use that old version here. Sorry, we don't have any company laptops available with it installed. No, install the latest version of X/Y/Z on yours. Let me get the wifi password for you.

(checks watch, leaves room for a really long time, comes back with password, checks watch again)

(while it's installing) So, how long have you been writing in X/Y/Z? Do you have any questions for me?

(checks watch, showing 20 minutes elapsed) Looks like my 30 minutes are up. I'll go check with #RECEPTIONIST and see if there's anyone else to interview you.

(later, at the wrap-up meeting) I didn't think they had the experience necessary to do the job. They couldn't write a program in X/Y/Z.

<comment><USER4> In no way I'm trying to be "that guy" here, but to be maximally charitable to this interviewer (while continuing to acknowledge he was generally a dickhead), one _can_ code while something is installing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Where do you see yourself in 5 years?"

<comment><USER6> I'm always tempted to answer this one with "Where you're sitting, asking better interview questions".

The only thing curbing that temptation is the risk that the interviewer might call my bluff and railroad me into a recruiter position.

<comment><USER7> I have answered it with the first half of that, "In your job." He was surprised by that answer. I guess I was the first person to answer it that way. He decided it was a good answer.

Had I thought of it, I'd probably have added the "asking better interview questions" part. Of course, I answered "How would you deal with a problem employee" with "Does he have a weapon?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Every question that makes me think that the interviewer believes to be an expert in the human psyche and analysis of behaviour.

Just stick to technical question people.

</comment><comment><USER9> As an interviewee: online coding quiz while on the phone with interviewer who's screen mirroring the quiz. I found this an unnatural and unnerving way to write code with someone looking over my shoulder, and made mistakes I wouldn't otherwise simply due to nerves. Also, rapid fire probability questions. I doubt these have any bearing to any job function anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER10> "What is your greatest weakness?"

<comment><USER11> Can you elaborate? I actually love (forms of) this question. It helps identify if a person has the self-awareness to be a good team member.

<comment><USER8> > It helps identify if a person has the self-awareness to be a good team > member.

Beware, this could just give them the impression that you like playing the cheap psychiatrist is some sort of depressing make-believe game. Stop.

Or go full circle and ask them "Where do you see yourself in 5 years?" too.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple could block iPhone camera at cinemas, concerts - <AUTHOR> http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/apple-iphone-camera-patent-cinema-concert <comment><USER2> Read this as "Police will block cameras at protests".

<comment><USER3> That's the thing. The feature will not have cinema locations hard coded, but query some kind of online editable database. Otherwise it'd be too tricky to maintain.

<comment><USER4> Straight from TFA:

The patent reads:

"A transmitter can be located in areas where capturing pictures and videos is prohibited (e.g., a concert or a classified facility) and the transmitters can generate infrared signals with encoded data that includes commands temporarily disabling recording functions."

<comment><USER5> Taking a camera into a classified facility seems like a bad idea. It can't be that hard to find IR opaque, but visually clear paint. Especially if you're a nation state.

<comment><USER6> Glass blocks IR.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I guess we're on a 4 year cycle?

"Apple awarded patent for geo-fencing profile changes to stop you texting in the theater"

[https://www.engadget.com/2012/08/28/apple-geofence- profile-p...](https://www.engadget.com/2012/08/28/apple-geofence-profile- patent/)

</comment><comment><USER8> Any time restricting devices are entertained I worry about the potential for abuse. Would there be restrictions on these transmitters? Could someone easily make their own? I can imagine police departments that don't like the inconvenience of everyone having a camera in their pocket using these to shut down the recording of arrests or other police actions.

<comment><USER9> Exactly. Don't design mechanisms unless you're happy with every policy from the set of all possible policies!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If this were implemented against users' wishes, and caused serious inconvenience, it wouldn't be long before mass-market stick-on infrared cut- off filters were available

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_cut- off_filter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_cut-off_filter)

</comment><comment><USER11> Just like you don't develop an encryption backdoor for "only the good guys", you don't develop features like these and expect them to be used only as intended.

Keeping photos out of movie theaters might sound noble but this feature could be hacked by anyone who has a real problem with being photographed.

Then there's the fact that the simpler implementation is less likely to have bugs. Once there are 12 ways for the camera to be "off", how many sources of bugs must be checked to be sure that the camera won't turn off when it's supposed to be available, or vice-versa?

</comment><comment><USER12> What if someone wants to record a crime happening inside a cinema?

<comment><USER13> The needs of content producers clearly outweigh this minor inconvenience. /s

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I expect Apple to use the blocking patent to fight anyone who tries to implement a similar solution: it makes more sense than telling their customer what to do — although Apple has always preferred to exert control to protect quality, and those grainy videos and having their devices be treated as obstacles is very much not on-brand.

Using the information one to let users know where to find the professionally recorded live-feed (and possible reconstruction of any given spectator's point of view) sounds like a better option.

<comment><USER15> Given Apple's recent crusade for security of their devices, I would not be surprised at all if they obtained this patent for the sole purpose of preventing other companies from creating similar solutions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What the fuck? Seriously what the fuck? Am I the only one who thinks this is beyond absurd? Sure it's just a patent but it speaks clearly of what they think of their customers. I never owned an Apple product except my iPod Shuffle but the thought of not owning what I paid good money for is ridiculous.

Ironically, halfway through the article:

        Buy Now: Apple iPhone 6S (16GB) at Amazon for £523.99

<comment> k-mcgrady I think your overreacting. Like you say - it's just a patent. The use cases (concerts/cinemas) might not be the actual use cases. Think of it as something like the feature some drones have to prevent you entering no-fly zones. In the end it all depends how they use the tech. If concert venues started using it they would lose a lot of business and see a lot of backlash. I could see this being useful in a location where you expect your privacy to be protected and some morons is snapping photos. Off the top of my head a polling centre. When I voted last week there were signs everywhere asking people to turn off their phones - and at the same time people were taking selfies. This isn't the best case for implementing but it's the best off the top of my head. Basically it would be useful in places where nobody is legally allowed to take photographs but it's difficult to enforce.

<comment><USER17> Warning the user that it may be illegal to take photos is reasonable, but making a device that acts on the theoretical authority of someone else against its own/possessor is not. Taking your example of polls, it may be illegal for me to take a photo, but it may be my responsibility to do it anyways. For example, I may see visual evidence of large scale voting fraud within a polling station. It is similar for sensitive data and whistle-blowers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's hard to believe they'd actually do something so hostile to their paying customers.

<comment><USER19> It's only a patent, and old patent for that matter. Apple has many patents for stuff they never implement.

<comment> V-2 If they ruled it out, however, they wouldn't have obtained the patent in the first place

<comment><USER20> Yes, because every patent a company holds is explicitly intended for public use. No one ever patents something because it's a new and unique idea right? /s

<comment> V-2 Strawman argument? All I said is that apparently they don't rule it out. Of course we cannot know for sure either way, but we should consider the context here. Apple, of all companies, is probably the most infamous for its policy of tight control over user devices. The idea itself is not extraordinarily hard to come up with, and yet it happens to be no other than Apple who thought it worthwhile to patent it. I think scepticism is perfectly justified in this case

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is why you don't buy DRM and root your devices.

</comment><comment><USER22> Can I get that transmitter as wearable tech to prevent people from taking pictures of me?

</comment><comment><USER23> Why is everyone excited about driverless cars again?

</comment><comment><USER24> Major overreaction on this thread. Companies often incentives their employees to create patents. Often patents are use for protection purposes even if they never make it into the companies tech.

For Example: Company X sues Apple stating they infringe on a patent. Apple turns around and throws 10 patents back that infringe on their tech.

</comment><comment><USER25> I understand this is just a patent, for a potential feature, However it implies that apple will happily bend to the desires and whims of the mpaa. Which is odd given their flat out denial to cooperate with govt entities to prosecute mass shooters and kiddy diddlers ... an interesting moral compass that Tim Cook has.

</comment><comment><USER26> If only they would make it possible to enforce silent mode on concerts, that would be something.

</comment><comment><USER27> I wonder if there'd be a halfway mode, whereby the commands to the camera would be something like "only take a picture in really poor quality mode". You could still get your pics, but the value would be nowhere near 'professional'.

</comment><comment><USER28> The instant that this is done I will drop my iPhone and get another brand, probably for life.

</comment><comment><USER29> another nail in the coffin being made for democracy

<comment><USER30> How so?

<comment><USER29> eg blocking people from recording police beating up or kidknapping protestors.. just as one of a zillion possibilities

<comment><USER31> While I agree that the fear of your scenarios is reasonable, the way the patent is described doesn't seem to really support that use scenario - they'd have to have an infared emitter pointing towards the camera presumably with enough juice behind it to be detectable by the camera from a variety of distances, and I don't think that you can power a mobile emitter like that easily right now. Maybe attached to squad cars, but it still appears directional from my understanding.

And all things being equal, it seems more likely that the police would take a much more practical approach of "take recording device" if they wanted to suppress information reliably.

I'm not saying no scrutiny should be given to apple on this, but it is a bit important also to keep discussions rational and free of emotional outbursts, if only to keep focus on the subject at hand.

Stuff like "nail in coffin" is just kind of overly dramatic for very real fears and concerns.

[http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110128384%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110128384&RS=DN/20110128384)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Maybe they are patenting it so someone else can't, thus the undesirable technology never comes into use.

Don't think that's what patents are for, but hey, I'll take it.

</comment><comment><USER33> Google could do the same thing with android, and would be more likely to, IMO

<comment><USER34> Android is open-source, so you could just flash a ROM without that feature.

<comment><USER35> Not so fast...without manufacturer support you can't do that. Also many parts of android are actually close-source. The only mobile open source OS that you can actually use, build, modify is Ubuntu

<comment><USER34> Can you tell me which part of Android (AOSP, not Google Play Services of course) is close-sourced?

<comment><USER36> The parts that people, manufacturers, carriers and Google themselves refer to by using the word "Andriod" in any context other than splitting hairs about AOSP.

<comment><USER34> I think on HN most people would say that Cyanogenmod is an Android ROM and that Amazon is using Android on their Fire tablets. Also there are many (mostly Chinese) manufactures which claim Android support without officially supporting running the Google proprietary Play services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I know 2 more use cases that have nothing to do with cinemas or concerts.

A past job I held was banking related. Cell phones were not allowed on the call center floor for fear of employees taking pictures of computer screens with customer data on them.

Install a few of these infrared transmitters; problem solved. Employees can still get texts / calls from family members / friends and customer data remains safe. You might need a lot of transmitters to get past the cubical walls, but if it's an investment the company is willing to make and the sensors are cheap enough - why not.

2 - a friend tells me she works for a US government agency and phones are not allowed in her building either. Same reason - to protect sensitive data; but the same, their about to have their first child and it would be important if she was at work and there was an emergency with the baby that she gets a call from whoever in a timely manor. Sure - you could call her office / extension but if she's not at her desk, in the lunch room (their instructed to leave phones in their cars), in a meeting, etc...

Most people don't abide by those rules; while I was there, we tried our hardest to enforce it. If IT saw a phone on the floor, we were told to report it; if security saw a phone, they'd have to hold it at the front desk, but people are sneaky - you can't search everyones purse, bag, lunch and you surely can't pat them down. Not with hundreds of employees coming and going all day. This could help fix all of that.

As I type this - can add taking pictures of a test in school and cheating. Add a few transmitters to a classroom.

<comment><USER38> Cell phone != camera.

I have $20 dump phone with no camera for exactly this reason. And it lasts 30 days on battery :-)

Infrared transmitters will not solve anything. Too easy to hack this with IR filters etc..

<comment><USER37> Right - but we are talking about Apple and we can assume this is for an iPhone or something else planned. Most people don't want to carry a 2nd phone and have a 2nd line / bill.

I think people are really over reacting to this, obviously, as I got a down vote. If it's used in inappropriate places; there will be backlash - ie: a restaurant, a child's recital. But for places with sensitive data or copy- written work - why not.</comment></comment></comment>


Transparent material developed. Twice as strong as Kevlar, infinitely weirder - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/29/transparent-material-developed-thats-twice-as-strong-as-kevlar/

<comment><USER2> I always hear stuff about how nanotech is going to do crazy stuff. What will a nanotech factory look like (if that's even an accurate description of how things will be made)?</comment>


Scaling Up with Elixir - <AUTHOR> https://dockyard.com/blog/2020/05/28/scaling-up-with-elixir <comment><AUTHOR> A discussion of how Erlang processes help us build scalable and reliable systems in Elixir.

This may not be news to developers, but might be useful for broader company discussions.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you use to do GeoIP lookups - <AUTHOR>

I know about MaxMind (http://www.maxmind.com/en/web_services), but are their any other libraries or startups where I can simply pass an IP, and get back location. <comment><USER2> Don't know how well it compares to MaxMind or other commercial services but <http://www.datasciencetoolkit.org/> may be worth looking into.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there some reason MaxMind isn't working for you?

I use MaxMind's data locally. I try to use as few remote APIs as possible to minimize disruption if one of them decides to have issues.

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://www.ip2location.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a bit expensive, to purchase the data I require ([http://www.ip2location.com/databases/db5-ip-country- region-c...](http://www.ip2location.com/databases/db5-ip-country-region-city- latitude-longitude)) costs $349.00, then I have to spinup a server.</comment></comment>


Fibjs runtime for JavaScript applications faster than Node.js - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/xicilion/fibjs <comment><USER2> I believe you but my time is more precious than the cpu's. Does this have an infrastructure behind it such as npm ?</comment>


Samsung used my DSLR photo to fake their phone's "portrait mode" - <AUTHOR> https://www.diyphotography.net/samsung-used-my-dslr-photo-to-fake-their-phones-portrait-mode/ <comment><USER2> Ah man, I immediately thought of another recent case of a smartphone manufacturer faking their phone's camera shots[0] (turns out TFA links to it as well). Just a single instance of this kind of fraud is enough for me to write off a brand forever, frankly. If you're lying to my face before I even bought your product, who knows how much else you're lying about. Zero trust for companies like this.

[0] [https://www.diyphotography.net/huawei-passes-off-dslr- photos...](https://www.diyphotography.net/huawei-passes-off-dslr-photos-as- smartphone-camera-photos-again/)

<comment><USER3> Yep - zero trust is exactly right... I bought a Samsung smart watch for Black Friday for $280-ish. Figured "hey - this will probably have better calendar/application support than my Garmin watch!"

Nope. Literally can't get it to vibrate/alert when a notification comes through unless it's through Samsung's SPECIFIC applications. So my HipChat messages, Gmail inbox, etc have ZERO notifications even though it WILL show as a new notification on the watch face. Before anyone gives me crap saying "you screwed up the settings" \- trust me, I didn't, and I've tried everything.

I learned my lesson - Samsung is a faceless company with zero attention to user experience, and customer support. It is of no surprise that they outright lie about their features - which is EXACTLY what using a DSLR stock photo for this marketing is. An outright lie.

I will stick with my Garmin devices from here on-out and am looking to switch ecosystems for my phone as I'm on an S8+ that disgusts me as a user (Bixby, bloatware blah blah).

ZERO trust for Samsung.

<comment><USER4> Samsung is completely untrustworthy. I _might_ buy another television from them in the future as the screen quality on my Samsung televisions has always been great. But their smart appliances are a joke. Read the reviews for any of the required Samsung "Smart" Apps and you'll find terrible software that doesn't work. Where it does work, at _best_ it technically meets the advertised criteria, but in other cases it seems like bald-faced lies.

I've got a Samsung washer/dryer. They're fine. But the advertised smart features don't work without the app, the App basically doesn't work, and while they say they can be connected to the Wi-Fi, they can _only_ be connected to Wi-Fi via WPS. If that was ever justified, it certainly wasn't justified in 2015/2016 when I bought them. Had I bought them for these features I'd have been furious.

<comment><USER5> I keep hoping someone will kickstart a display company that sells just really amazing displays and none of the "smart" garbage. I read that some manufacturers even serve up ads in their latest smart UIs. That's infuriating!

<comment><USER6> IF you like a smart TV but not the smart features (but have no dumb alternative), then don't connect it to the Internet. Now it's just a dumb TV.

<comment><USER7> I guess the smart features don't add a huge amount to the purchase price but it would be nice not to have to pay for a bunch of features I don't need.

No TV tuner, no WiFi, no ethernet, no loudspeakers. Just a great quality display with a few HDMIs please.

<comment><USER8> I think that's called a computer monitor

<comment><USER9> I know why you're getting down voted, but you're not exactly wrong. There used to be TVs and video monitors, and then there were computer monitors. They were all CRTs. The computer monitors were way more expensive than TVs partly due to being progressive scan vs interlaced. Televisions had low resolution and included things like speakers and tuners. Video monitors could be had with much higher resolution for post/broadcast facilities even though they were still interlaced.

It wasn't until everything went flat screen where "TVs", computer monitors, video monitors became so interchangeable. However, there's really not many 72" computer monitors to fill up the space in my living room.

<comment><USER10> For a while, computer monitors were limited by the HDTV specs, but a computer monitor usually has better specs - often resolution, refresh rate, display lag, connectivity options, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is a small disclaimer on Samsung's site:

> The contents within the screen and images are simulated for illustrative > purposes only.

I don't really have a problem with Samsung using a higher res DSLR photo for the purposes of illustration of their background blur technology. I will always check review sites to get real sample images to evaluate a phone's camera technology.

Edit: I assume this was downvoted because it comes across as cynical but that isn't what I meant to express at all. I don't expect companies to lie to me and I don't trust companies so little that I assume they would lie to me. I view this as more of an example of a company's marketing showing their product in the best possible light. It's clear most companies will want to do that so I prefer to go to review sights to get a better overview of the both the good and the bad before making a purchase decision.

<comment><USER12> _I view this as more of an example of a company 's marketing showing their product in the best possible light._

But it doesn't show their product in the best possible light. It shows some DSLR company's product in the best possible light.

It's like a magazine ad for a Kia, and inside the car photo the dashboard has been replaced with a Tesla's.

<comment><USER13> Or a commercial for McDonald's, except instead of using real food, they use fake stuff that looks better.

<comment><USER12> It's surprising how much of McDonald's advertising is regional, by the franchise holders, and not from corporate.

In some markets, ads for the breakfast sandwiches are deliberately made to look "messy" with splattered egg and crumbs from the muffin all around so that they look more rustic and authentic.

<comment><USER14> Source? I would be highly surprised if franchisees are allowed to produce _any_ marketing assets independently. The brand is the most valuable asset McD Corporate has. It's much more likely they have a catalog of assets/campaigns that franchisees can choose from depending on their market. (Similarly to how they allow franchisees a certain amount of leeway in what menu items they feature, but they can't just make up their own sandwiches.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Samsung just isn't a company you can trust. Period. The only consumer product they make that's even half decent are their SSDs and even those are starting to lose to competitors.

Their TVs alone have had so many instances of them injecting ads into the ui, to spying on what you watch in plex, and many more.

Last thing I'd want from Samsung is a phone.

<comment><USER16> Can you recommend any other SSDs, or some site that has meaningful tail latency/MTBF data? I don't like sticking to them for SSDs, but I have yet to hear of one breaking, compared to a bunch of other name brands.

<comment><USER17> Indeed, I have an old 64GB 830 that is still working as if it's brand new.

So far I've had good experience with Crucial MX series, PNY CS11xx series of drives (YMMV widely depending on series, etc) and Sandisk, all have lasted through quite some use, but honestly I still prefer Samsung or Intel. I've been using the Crucial drive for long enough now that I'd probably make them a top choice too. Samsung, Intel, Crucial would be my top 3.

I've been running a Western Digital nvme for a couple of weeks now and it's great- but that says nothing about longevity. The speed of nvme is incredible though, so I really hope this drive lasts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> These sorts of 'illustrative only' graphics get pumped out every day in marketing design, even for large brand names. As a young junior designer, I once had a creative director ask me to use a Samsung phone asset to illustrate how 'Bixby Vision' or whatever it was called worked. He wanted an Asian language text in the background on a menu with the phone in the front, showing translated text. I attempted to comply with his request for a little while before pushing back gently; I was a greenhorn in the industry and didn't have a great relationship with the CD anyway.

Thankfully nothing came of it and we moved forward with another concept. But I was appalled at the time that he would have wanted me to grab seemingly anything off of Google Translate and create a graphic representing how the phone would supposedly work, all of which I was extremely uncomfortable doing. But I suppose he saw it as an extension of our other usage of stock imagery and device assets.

</comment><comment><USER19> Samsung as a household brand is a disaster. I was relieved to scrap my 4 year old washing machine with 5 year warranty because of a Samsung guarantee fiasco (what do you do when they don't respond for a few days and you have a household to run?). My 4in1 Samsung Lazer jet is also a disaster the WiFi drops off and never reconnects you have cut power reset. So this doesn't surprise me at all.

</comment><comment><USER20> The crazy thing is, their phones take amazing photos. Why do they need to fake it?

<comment><USER21> They all fake it. Even those few that _are_ taken with a phone are so far removed from what a phone owner has, I think it would be more honest to label them with a huge "FAKED photo" banner.

Here's an example for iPhone where they're using some complex mounting frame to connect a 35mm prime lens to the front of an iPhone. The phone becomes more like a smart camera back. [https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone- style-ads...](https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads/)

I call it fraudulent, and should be in breach of advertising regulations.

<comment><USER22> a) your article shows that there is a disclaimer on the ads about external equipment and shows a picture that it is possible to mount crazy lenses on a phone, but you are left to connect the dots yourself.

b) there is a categorical difference between using a different camera and presenting it as if it came from the phone and using external equipment to supplement the phone.

<comment><USER21> a) According to another comment there's a disclaimer there too: "The contents within the screen and images are simulated for illustrative purposes only". Most will never see it as those disclaimers are always buried as far as they think able to get away with. usually small point font, grey on grey, and on screen for too little time to read if it's a video.

b) Not really. Whether "Shot with iPhone", or DSLR pics cropped to the phone screen, they both imply to Ms Average that they could take their phone out of their purse and achieve the same results. Otherwise why bother with campaigns like that? Unless Ms Average has a bunch of slave flashes and lenses in there too it cynically misrepresents. A simple tripod or monopod mount would be OK, as that still fairly represents "what's in the box".

Like the GP noted, phone cameras are surprisingly good within their well known limitations. They could achieve perfectly good, but honest, advertising photos just by staying within those limits. They would just never achieve the results an SLR with large, fast prime lens, and large sensor, or even arrays of additional equipment plus phone could.

A vague disclaimer does not, and should not, replace honesty and presenting what's "in the box".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Who cares? They disclose the fact that the photo wasn't taken with the phone right on the page. It's for illustrative purposes, not to show the exact quality of the phone's functions. The author of this blog also just outed a paying client. If they paid, they can use it however they like (within the terms of the licensing agreement). This is a great way for the author to ensure they never sell another photo to a large company.

<comment><USER24> They hide the note in very small text a long way down the page – way past all of the big, attention grabbing pictures, knowing that most people aren't going to read down that far and consciously discount everything they saw.

Do you have a citation for the assertion that this was a paying client? She clearly says the opposite in the post.

<comment><USER23> She put the photo up for sale on a stock photo site and Samsung apparently bought it and used it. Where are you seeing her state otherwise?

<comment><USER24> The article says nothing about being paid but does say this at the end:

"Since I'd made my first sale on EyeEm and saw the image on Samsung Malaysia's website right after that, I didn't even assume that they'd stolen the image. I mean, why would they? It's not expensive for a huge company like that to buy one stock photo. Although, to be honest, I think that they should have paid more for a better retoucher. But just to make sure, I got in touch with EyeEm, asking whether Samsung bought the image from them.

A wonderful lady from customer support told me that the sale wasn't registered on EyeEm yet. However, she explained that sometimes buyers have subscriptions with Getty Images, meaning that they will be billed later for their photos. "Photos can be used months before we get sales data for the photo," she added, and promised to keep me updated.

After this, I contacted Getty to check whether the sale was made through their website. I never got a reply."

<comment><USER11> Your quotes from the article don't support your original claim that she claimed that Samsung did not pay her for her photo. Just the opposite. I think you are reading the text incorrectly. To paraphrase what I think she is saying: "My photo was bought on EyeEm via Getty Images. I don't know who bought my photo from Getty Images but it was probably Samsung".

<comment><USER24> That's why I was asking whether there was a subsequent confirmation. It's definitely possible that they bought it but it's easy to find photographers who've been ripped off by companies which are big enough to know better and given that the main story is an ethical lapse, a second one is hard to rule out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Wow, I must say I am surprised that something this seemingly-fraudulent managed to make it to the public website. I'm interested to see what Samsung has to say about this, hard to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if it's possible it's just a "marketer went too far" or "The images went from the mockup to the live site before engineering sent the samples".

If this feature works even remotely as advertised, they could have gotten at least a couple shots (and saved the intermediate images, I guess, to do the before/after).

</comment><comment><USER26> For a company with $10+B annual marketing budget, the company awfully is careless about little things that could destroy their reputation.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think EyeEm and Getty should work on their integrations, it can't be right that an can't know for sure who licensed their work.

I could see cases where the artist might be wondering if their picture is legitimately being used by someone, or if they should get legal advice.

</comment><comment><USER28> Never buy Samsung

</comment><comment><USER29> This isn't really new. Samsung bought (allegedly) his stock photo and used it. Nothing illegal with that, though it potentially could be false advertising.

I feel like all phone companies use dslr photos, or photos they didn't even take with the phone, to advertise how great their cameras are.

Sad state of the world we are in. Everyone lies

</comment><comment><USER30> Well iPhone ads use DSLR lens in front of the iPhone. A bit closer to reality, but net effects are the same, fake advertising.

This is not to excuse Samsung, it's just to remember that most of the companies does that and all should be mentioned, not just one.

<comment><USER31> Not sure what you're talking about.

If you go on the iPhone pages of the Apple website you can clearly see the same artifacting, noise patterns, and lens distortion from both the native iPhone sensor and native wide angle and portrait lenses.

I am 100% positive they did not use lens attachments in those photos. Also, the lens adapters don't make the photo quality "better." They just have the ability to modify the focal length.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Even Nokia was caught faking their image stabilizer. In the video allegedly filmed with one of the phones, you could see a big professional camera rig in the reflection of a car window ...

</comment><comment><USER33> Seriously, How did they not think about busting. Like... they didn't know that there is a Google search?

</comment><comment><USER34> Isn't false advertising illegal in the US? How do they get away with this?

<comment><USER35> As far as I can tell, the doctored image is used only on images for a handful of Asian countries - Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. I don't think US laws would apply in those places.

<comment><USER34> Ahh I got the impression it was in the US, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This definitely requires someone that was lazy independently doing this. This definitely does not reflect a common practice that Samsung does. Someone high up will be heavily punished for this.

</comment><comment><USER37> It doesn't look to me like they're pretending they took the picture with that phone. They are just using that photo as an example to show how the "background blur" feature works.

<comment><USER24> Samsung pays for PR, why contribute your reputation pro bono?

Everything on that section is talking about the phone. There are no disclaimers or the "simulation" notes ethical companies use.

<comment><USER38> > There are no disclaimers or the "simulation" notes ethical companies use.

Well, other than:

> * All images are simulated for demo purpose.

you mean...

<comment><USER24> I mean nothing anywhere near the images. An ethical company would not require you to scroll down a dozen more times to learn that the images you'd been looking at for the last 20 screens were all fake. Samsung does that because they know almost nobody will read tiny text buried in a de-emphasized paragraph and the few who do probably won't fully discount the full impression.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Shamesung

<comment><USER40> Also: Shamsung

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Marketing and HR are probably the worst departments in most of the businesses.

</comment><comment><USER42> Kind of lazy for Samsung to do that when their phones and others manufactures actually can take some astonishing pictures. But even Apple "cheats" a bit with their photos which are shot on an actual iPhone. [1]

[1] [https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/06/shotoniphone-80...](https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/06/shotoniphone-800x465.jpg)

<comment><USER43> That's not an iPhone in the picture, is it?

<comment><USER44> If it is, it's not the stock camera app

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Does anybody buy a phone/car/... based on manufacturer ads? In a sense this is a self-selecting scam. If you don't check 3rd party reviews, then well, you get "advertised" _

<comment><USER46> > Does anybody buy a phone/car/... based on manufacturer ads? In a sense this > is a self-selecting scam. If you don't check 3rd party reviews, then well, > you get "advertised"

Yes, and that's exactly why ads are regulated (there are limits to what you claim your product can do), and why there is so much money in ads: they're designed to influence you and make you buy things that you might not otherwise.</comment></comment>


Progress report on cross-platform Open Web Apps - <AUTHOR> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/10/progress-report-on-cross-platform-open-web-apps/

<comment><USER3> I feel like its worth mentioning phonegap / cordova for a good start on the ability to run open web apps on ios.

I love this functionality, was very surprised when I seen some open web apps I had made install on mac with breeze a few months ago.

<comment><AUTHOR> The article has been updated to reflect the collaboration between Cordova and Mozilla.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I know that this is just a demo, but it featured a very laggy map on Android, an ugly menu bar and scrollbars on Windows, and perhaps more importantly, UIs on desktop that looked like nothing but scaled up phone UIs. To the extent that this is representative of the real thing - which, again, _could_ be 'not very much' in the future - useful in a pinch, but not something I'd want to use on a daily basis. (I don't think there is even currently an API to populate the menu bar...)

<comment><USER5> You are correct that there is currently not an API to populate the menu bar.

Regarding app scaling, It's up to each app developer to do the required work to have a responsive design, using existing web techniques.

<comment><USER6> Firefox already supports native context menus[1][2][3] so it shouldn't be that difficult to extend this to top level menu bar.

Of course they should fix them first: 1) don't show the browser options otherwise it's completely useless 2) (optionally) if you want the browser options/extensions etc. use something like the clipboard/dnd api to set the application specific mime type on right click and connect that to web intents.

[1] [http://davidwalsh.name/html5-context- menu](http://davidwalsh.name/html5-context-menu)

[2] [http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current- work/multipage/...](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current- work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#context-menus)

[3] [http://caniuse.com/#search=menu](http://caniuse.com/#search=menu)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm really excited about this, I use Epiphany's web apps on Gnome every day, but it is noticeably slower than Firefox. Is Linux supported or are there plans to support Linux?

<comment><USER5> Yes, Linux is already supported, but the desktop platforms are a little behind Firefox OS and Android with some niche features. They will catch up in the near future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Creating a native wrapper for Android apps seems like a smart idea. I don't think the current method (not quite sure how it's implemented) works particularly well. I have noticed some times they don't appear in the multitasking bar and even if they do they often reload.

<comment><USER9> The current code on Android relies on putting shortcuts on the Android homescreen, which has exactly the kind of shortcomings you mention. It was pretty easy to implement, but now we have to go back and do it right.

<comment><USER8> Will this only work for apps installed from the Marketplace or will it also work for self-hosted manifests?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is really exciting. This looks like a great way to get minimum functionality for your project onto these given platforms. Yes, you'd probably want to have a real, natively developed app at some point, but this is looking good for prototypes.

</comment><comment><USER11> "iOS does not, at this time, include the option to install a Gecko-based web browser" sounds fair, if you can't install one plug-in - Flash, you shouldn't be able to install some other plug-in - Gecko.

<comment><USER12> Another way to look at this is that iOS is the least hacker friendly platform.

<comment><USER11> That is a fair point. But "Open Web Apps" focuses only on JS and HTML - <USER2> is not very friendly as well.

<comment><USER13> > But "Open Web Apps" focuses only on JS and HTML - that is not very friendly > as well.

How so? You can compile pretty much anything to JS...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: I used to be a hacker - <AUTHOR> I used to be a hacker.
I used to bounce around like a molecule, colliding with everything untiI I discovered every crack and backdoor by sheer persistence.
I used to sit in my parents basement for 14 hours straight without a single thought unrelated to the screen in front of me entering my head.
I once made $5 in a day. The money was meaningless, just a way to keep score.
I used to be a hacker, I was driven by pure curiosity and the joy of finding out.
I once made $100 in a day. I could actually buy stuff in real life.
The money wasn't important to me. I wasn't concerned about my future, my career, or what other people thought.
I once made $1000 in a day. I probably don't need a real job. That's nice.
The money wasn't that important to me. I just wanted the freedom to travel and keep hacking without having to work for someone.
I once made $27,000 in a day. My parents were proud of me because I was successful now.
The money wasn't the most important thing to me. My expenses increased, but I lived below my means. I should probably invest in a tax deferred retirement account and make a linkedin profile.
I once made $1 million dollars in a day. I was now a professional internet entrepreneur.
I was no longer a hacker. I wanted to build a robust internet business with low overhead and diversified recurring revenue streams to be attractive for an eventual acquisition.
I was concerned with the landscape, the competition, and that guy on the cover of Inc magazine.
It became harder to figure things out. I felt like I was consuming twice the mental resources. I'm a successful internet entrepreneur now, and my identity is tied to the outcome.
Me today could never have done what I did back then. I don't have the curiosity, the scrappiness, or the delusional optimism to even try.
To those just starting out who haven't yet made a dollar and a cent, block out all the bullshit and hack. <comment><USER2> I visited a microbrewery last Saturday. The owner used to be a big shot entrepeneur, but he lost it all and started over from scratch doing what he loves the most: making beer.

He runs the brewery with his wife. He told me that he gets multiple offers a month for selling his beers in consignment but that would mean ramping up the production and the entire organization, and he doesn't want that. He said that he could sustain himself with doing what he loves. As soon as his company grows too much, he won't be able to do what he loves anymore.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just wrote this on my iphone in the car. Wanted to get it off my chest. Anonymous for now please.

<comment><USER3> Glad you got this off your chest mate, but HN really isn't the place for it.

<comment><USER4> Is it though? IMO the progression from a pursuit of passion to the practicality of profession and profit is particularly poignant, and pointful in this place.

<comment><USER5> It'd be perfectly reasonable to share a link to on HN after writing it in a blog. But HN isn't a blog or a blog hosting site.

<comment><USER6> Following that logic there shouldn't even be a way to submit text beyond a title and url. I've got to disagree, I think this belongs here.

<comment><USER5> I always figured the text was so you could elaborate on your _question_ since Ask HN posts with just a title are often too vague to answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Dude, I feel you so much. I got into computing because I loved it. I used to write TSRs and hack binaries for the fun of it. I did a degree, got a PhD in it, got into academia, saw the pettiness and the money being made all around me, eventually I just burnt out. Hate it now, do it because I have to.

<comment><USER8> >do it because I have to.

I don't get it. Sorry can you explain

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love this post, thank you.

</comment><comment><USER10> Don't let the hacker die.

</comment><comment><USER11> Email me, I'm in a very similar situation. Let's chat.

</comment><comment><USER12> You should be more specific on how or what were you doing?

Probably answering any of those questions more people would be interested in this because they could learn something from your experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't want to get into what I'm into. I'm not a role model for the young guns. You won't understand until you're ready. 1 million is nothing. Money flows like water on the internet. There is no secret barrier stopping you from making millions. No one cares.

I see indie dev threads where kids are stoked they're making 2k a month.

That's a daily rounding error for dudes getting it and not talking about it.

It's is a matter of getting out of your own way, your ego, your preconceptions.

If you don't have a dollar to your name yet, you need to be a few percent delusional optimistic.

If you're real smart, most of your ideas will be crap, but one of those thoughts will be very insightful. Respect your ideas, organize, categorize, and execute on them accordingly. Kill the losers quickly.

This is not a talent show. All that matters is revenue. It is a technical problem. Get out of your own way.

<comment><USER13> You just told us nothing.

<comment><USER14> Oops [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OdO- SO...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OdO- SO8gBAQJ:https://news.ycombinator.com/item%3Fid%3D17831235+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

I was hesitating if I should post it or not since op didn't want to talk about it... but well, I think a hacker should know that anything that reaches the internet is not private anymore.

TLDR seems to be: affiliate programs & cookie stuffing</comment></comment></comment></comment>


France isn't a "true democracy" - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27310566

<comment> chestnut-tree One always has to take these surveys with a pinch of salt. What is presented as a series of scores and statistics on paper can feel far from the reality of people's experience living in these countries. But equally, these surveys can also challenge our undertsanding of topics and at least make us think a little deeper about our beliefs.

Anyway, for those who don't want to download the Economist report, here is the list of countries ranked as "full democracies" by the Economist Intelligence Unit:

      1    Norway
      2    Sweden
      3    Iceland
      4    Denmark
      5    New Zealand
      6    Australia
      7    Switzerland
      8    Canada
      9    Finland
      10   Luxembourg
      11   Netherlands
      12   Ireland
      13   Austria
      14   United Kingdom
      15   Germany
      16   Malta
      =17  Uruguay
      =17  Mauritius
      19   USA
      20   Japan
      =21  Czech Republic
      =21  South Korea
      23   Belgium
      24   Spain</comment>


10 reasons to work at a startup before starting one - <AUTHOR> http://greenhornconnect.com/blog/10-reasons-you-should-work-startup-starting-your-company

<comment><USER2> Depends on what kind of work you are doing to validate some of the top 10 reasons here. Not every developer gets to actually see what the founders spend their time/energy actually doing...</comment>


New Studies Suggest Young Children Spread Covid-19 More Efficiently Than Adults - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/07/31/new-evidence-suggests-young-children-spread-covid-19-more-efficiently-than-adults/#117072ee19fd <comment><AUTHOR> First study in JAMA:

[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2768952)

Second preprint:

[https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.20127357v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.20127357v1?rss=1)</comment>


Apps-on Post-it Pads - <AUTHOR> http://apps-on.com/ <comment><USER2> I just read about another prototyping tool that was exactly this, except Apple sent their army of lawyers and shut them down.

If you like this, BUY NOW, because I forsee a similar fate befalling them once Apple gets wind.

EDIT: Huh, I didn't notice the little 3M thing there, and the official Post-It logo before. I guess these are a legitimate licensed product.

...which would explain why that other one got banhammered.

<comment><USER3> I think your first instinct was right. The Post-It logos made me think its officially related to 3M, but upon closer inspection I don't think it is.

I expect those logos or the entire website will be gone shortly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I honestly can't decide if this is genius or stupid. I suppose that means it could potentially be awesome.

<comment><USER5> It strikes me as a pretty clever idea, and I'm surprised at how reasonable the price is, considering the niche.

The free iPad template PDFs are a nice touch: <http://apps- on.com/?page_id=178>

<comment><USER6> another set of iPad/iPhone templates for reference.

<http://www.ablepear.com/resources/>

There is definitely something nice about the post-its though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ohh... _this_ is why our UI designs are so bad! Our mockups didn't have photorealistic bezels!

</comment><comment><USER8> The sleeper feature of these pads is clearly using them while chatting up girls for their phone number.

</comment><comment><USER9> I was hoping it is a magnet I can stick to the back of an iPhone to attach the iPhone to my fridge.

</comment><comment><USER10> Back of index cards just isn't sexy enough eh?

</comment><comment><USER11> Paper prototyping with pizazz?

</comment><comment><USER12> No</comment>


The Able Archer War Scare Declassified (1983) - <AUTHOR> http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-War-Scare-Declassified-PFIAB-Report-Released/ <comment><USER3> Also see "Next Stop Execution" by Oleg Gordievsky, who was a KGB colonel secretly working for the UK at this time. The Soviet leadership was certain that the West was planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike and put pressure on the KGB via Project Ryan to find out all it could. Of course this pressure meant that some KGB front-line people started inventing stuff because that was clearly a way to promotion.

So project Ryan appeared to confirm the worst suspicions of the Soviet leadership. And then NATO starts deploying in exactly the way you would expect if the strike were imminent...

</comment><comment><USER4> You think that's scary? Have a read of Dead Hand.

[http://www.wired.com/2009/09/mf-deadhand/](http://www.wired.com/2009/09/mf- deadhand/)

</comment><comment><USER5> November '83 - my first term at University in the centre of Edinburgh. A Soviet first strike would probably have been around 3am Washington time - <USER2> UK time. I know to within a few metres where I would have been - at least it would have been quick - unlike my parents and other family members 20 odd miles downwind from a couple of RAF bases.</comment>


Ask HN: What's up with the trend of calling the Tech industry "sexist". - <AUTHOR> It seems everyone thinks blaming the Tech industry practices for the lack of women is "fair game". One ex Dropbox employee even went as far as saying that the lack of social life of people working there discourages women from joining (huh ? You work in Tech, expect hackers, nerds, and geeks. You go to jail, expect criminals. How's that hard to understand? Let's not even talk about: It's none of your business what they do after work).
It is trendy, apparently, to blame the Tech industry. How evil are those hackers. Such nerds and socially inept making it hard for women.
But I recently watched a fabulous music video of Miley Cyrus -Jolene-. It was a beautiful song, great notes and lyrics with a 60's, 70's vibe.
I discovered that, it is, indeed, a 70's piece originally. But watching the music video, all her musicians were males. And it got me thinking: Wait a minute, I don't see that many women musicians.
By musicians, I mean people who play instruments (guitar, drum, base, keyboard, etc).. The band itself, not the lead singer.
It got me thinking: Why isn't the music industry getting as bad a rap as the Tech industry is? I'm not hearing or reading mean tweets about how there are mostly male producers, male bands, etc..
I mean, what are the top 10 women rock bands who made History? And how come nobody is going on a rant about how evil and misogynistic and industry it is..
My question is: Why. Why everyone is almost exclusively only talking about "tech"..
I already know the answer. And can't voice it because it became such a crime to step back, think it through and say something logical, because then I'd be called all names: You are not allowed to think, you're only allowed to react, the same way everyone does, and just condemn and show outrage, to belong and fit in. If not, you are racist and misogynistic and homophobic and a bigot. <comment><USER2> So, to sum this up, you feel like the music industry is at least as sexist as the technology industry, and therefore the heat should be off the technology industry.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not just that, but can be said this way: I I'm a guy and I approach a 100 women, and not a single one of them wants to get intimate with me.. Will I blame these 100 women and find flaws in them, or will I see it for what it is (cognitive dissonance) and ask myself what I'm lacking or _at least_.

To sum it up: If stuff isn't working for you in a lot of industries, maybe there's a reason other than all those industries conspiring against you.

Can be said for hiring too, most guys I know complained about posting hundreds of CV's all over the place and finding no jobs, and I put only one CV, in the company I was interested in, and got a job offer (and all those guys said this company only hires you if you know someone).

The least one can do is not to take himself out of the responsibility equation, blaming others for all his misery.

Verbose answer. I don't blame the Illuminati or Area 51 for it. I can't say more in less. It's _me_ :)

<comment><USER2> I see. So, in addition to the fact that you believe the music industry to be at least as sexist as the technology industry, and thus the exclusive priority of efforts to eliminate sexism (if any such efforts are needed), but also you've heard of guys sending out 100 resumes and getting only 1 bite, and therefore concerns about sexism must be overblown.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think it is what I said. I know the guys who sent a lot of CVs, and not getting a bite at all (hence the complaining they don't find jobs, and blaming companies for being corrupt and only hiring people with connection: It doesn't mean companies are saints, it just means companies recruits can't all be incompetent people who only know someone-companies are successful, at least some have got to be good at their job-).

And the music industry, from my outsider eyes, is at least as sexist -if it is at all- as the tech industry, or more:

It's easier to be known as a hacker for your work, without people knowing who you are, which gender and if you smell, than it is to be known as a musician: I don't know if there has ever been a faceless rockstar, but there have been faceless hackers. (I don't know what you look like, but I know your nickname and admire your work: For all I know, you could be a woman).

My point is: There are some women who seem to be respected in the tech industry.. What are they doing right that made them overcome any sexism that would exist in their companies, etc..

I didn't mean to say it doesn't exist, I just meant that there seems to be people for whom it was a hurdle, but somehow they managed to do well for themselves. And if they can do it, why not strive for that for people in this demographic (can be stretched to include arguments about racism (There's at least one black man who's done well, and is the President of a rather important country, if I were black, I'd say "Why not me, why wouldn't I have that kind of success/achievement").

My main frustration is when people take themselves out of the responsibility equation from the get go: "It can not my fault, let's find someone who's responsible for my misery. Anyone in my situation with success is an exception".. And the fact it's "trendy" to whine in blog post after blog post about how unfair the world is.

<comment><USER2> Alright. So, in addition to the fact that you believe the music industry to be at least as sexist as the technology industry, and thus the exclusive priority of efforts to eliminate sexism (if any such efforts are needed), and that you've heard of guys sending out 100 resumes and getting only 1 bite, indicating that concerns about sexism must be overblown, you are also aware of some women who are successful in the tech industry. Therefore, it's hard for you to believe that there's rampant sexism.

Do you see how vapid these points are when they're expressed in single sentences, rather than 5 paragraphs? Because these points seem pretty vapid to me. They don't even work as logic:

* Two wrongs obviously don't make a right.

* Your conclusion about sexism doesn't follow from the premise that there are men who have a hard time getting resume responses. For one thing, sending blind resumes is a terribly stupid job hunting strategy.

* Your conclusion about sexism doesn't follow from the premise that some women are successful. Sexism in the industry, no matter what level you might believe it to be at, obviously isn't homogenous across all companies.

<comment><USER3> It it possible for you to respond to a good faith question by _not_ being a flippant prima donna?

I actually agree more with you than him, but my goodness you have the worst attitude ever when you talk to people who have misguided notions on things. Try the being nice approach once in a while if you want to convince others of your viewpoints, rather than going berserk and putting a caustic contrarian spin on everything.

<comment><USER2> Probably not on this issue, no. But if you see me being a flippant prima donna on some other issue, please do let me know. Actually, axe the "flippant" part of that; it's just the prima donnaism that I actually care about. I'm sure you're right that there's a strain of it in there.

<comment><USER3> I have called you out on this issue before.

Seriously, understand that the reason you'll be more effective if you're nice on this issue is that a significant subset of folks who behave in a way that keeps women away is because of the things that happened to them when they were adolescents. A significant subset of them thought they weren't handsome enough, tall enough, buff enough to ever be loved by a woman. And then they lived their lives away from them, in their own cliques and IRC channels, fulfilling their physical needs by porn and beginning to see the greatest value of women not to be their personhood or humanity, but something that provides material to jerk one off. I'm not pulling all of this out of my ass, this is from my personal experiences of 15 years of spending nights with programmers in person and in IRC.

To reorient their minds and thoughts you have to show them love, not belittle them -- if you belittle them that's only going to frame the situation into a confrontational battle where the other side will naturally start feeling the need to defend itself just because it's their side.

<comment><USER2> Respectfully: I'm not interested in coaching on gender equality issues. At all. Not even a little bit.

However, if you see me behaving like a "flippant prima donna" on some other issue, I'm happy for the feedback. I'm not _unhappy_ for the feedback here; I'm just _not the least bit interested in it_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Plenty of people have criticized the music industry for the things you're citing, you just haven't been exposed to them, presumably because you follow more tech news than you do music industry news. All industries should be subject to those kinds of criticisms if it is warranted; some are better at handling it than others.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, I'm not that exposed to it.. I just see criticism towards the tech industry mainly because it's all over, all the time, and this may be my mind being selective.

I wrote an answer[0] to an article GE shared on LinkedIn about the situation of women in the Oil and Gas industry. They wanted to make it easier, and my thoughts were that: Some things _are_ hard and you can't make them easier. My analogy was that, if you can't stand blood, don't blame "Surgery" for being the way it is and being filled with blood.

To each his calling, abilities, etc. Nothing is for everyone.

[0][http://mydamnthesis.tumblr.com/post/82126504664/women-in- the...](http://mydamnthesis.tumblr.com/post/82126504664/women-in-the-oil-and- gas-industry)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> One thing to consider: does the success of newcomers depend at all on the current power structures and wealth holders?

If it does, then some part of the success of new people is dependent on the power holders tastes and biases, conscious or unconscious.

</comment><comment><USER6> The tech industry was male dominated up through the 1980s. Very few women graduated from technology oriented universities. It's not difficult to discern the roots of sexism, and the lingering effects in tech in general, and computing, specifically.

I don't know what music industry commentary you are looking at but sexism in hip hop is pretty widely commented on. What's the analogy you are going for? How might it excuse sexism in tech? I'm not getting it.</comment>


JavaScript Dollar Sign ($) - What is it for? - <AUTHOR> http://www.authenticsociety.com/blog/JavaScript_DollarSign <comment><USER2> This is a very good article.</comment>


Would you rather be a novel or a poem? (actual Oxford University admission question)  - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/08/odd.oxford.questions/index.html

<comment><USER2> I'm more of a "Novel in Verse" type of guy. Not too many unneeded details, like in the other big novels, and still not as abstract and strange as some of the more esoteric poems I've read lately. Balanced, but not boring.

p.s. Im not a big fan of the genre, I've only read "Onegin" after being forced to, by my school. But still, I like the concept.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is a barrier to entry in long prose that doesn't exist in poetry. I'd rather be a novel.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd rather be a haiku

</comment><comment><USER5> A skeltonic epic...</comment>


Stop Colour Theory - <AUTHOR> https://partone.github.io/StopColourTheory/StopColourTheory.html <comment><USER2> > All colours are independent

Ahm in fact no. They are interdependent. Or else we would not have brown. Brown is a color which can not exist by itself.

Also additive and subtractive color theory are not opposing but two complementing part of a larger more complex color theory consulting of the additivity of light mixing the substraction of light abortion and the way our human mind further messed with how we see the work (e.g. brown).

A person saying that additive and substantive theory are two separate opposing theories implies this person doesn't understand colors or physics. In the end colors are the combination of the way light physically interacts with the world and the human mind.

Through on sad truth is that many education systems teach a lot of wrong things like wrong color circles. Or they more the fact that thinks like a color circle are just a convenient partial representation of the truth...

</comment><comment><USER3> This has to be a joke. If not, the writer seems to be confused by the difference between additive & subtractive color systems.

I admit to not really having any idea what they are getting at in their proposed replacement system and don't see any way it could be helpful in predicting how colors mix in either paint or monitors.

<comment><USER4> Right, you say additive and subtractive, I think of it as emmissive colors vs reflective colors. That point seems to get ignored.

Some of this is interesting-- like every color is a frequency. But human vision systems are probably not innately tuned to perceive every frequency along a chunk of spectrum with an equal weight. Training and cognition probably influence our acuity in certain parts of the range.

<comment><USER5> > like every color is a frequency

Hot pink isn't a frequency. It does not appear in the visible light spectrum. You can only produce it by combining multiple "impure" frequencies. You generally produce it by combining a spike of low-frequency red with a spike of high-frequency violet.

Human eyes try to "triangulate" a complex spectral analysis into an absolute position in a colour space, that colour space is the surface of a sphere or torus or something, and hot pink is "between" red and violet. Three-coordinate colour space is very much an artifact of humans, and how human eyes/brains work.

<comment><USER6> A sub-manifold of the Real Projective Plane RP2

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Violet occupies the highest frequency of the visible light spectrum with a > whopping frequency of 668-789THz6. With such a tremendous frequency, you > would expect violet to be everywhere - but in reality, it's not found in the > natural world with great prevalence. Lavender, eggplant, grape flavoured > NerdsTM, and amethysts are among the few naturally occuring violet things.

This is a parody, isn't it? Because "frequency of a wave" has nothing to do with how common it is in nature. It's about how often a wave would switch between high and low, if you measured its amplitude at a fixed point.

Also, grape flavoured NERDS don't occur in nature.

<comment><USER8> Little purple crunchy fellas? Yeah I've seen them out hiking in Oregon

<comment><USER9> Bummed because his Pop Rocks buddy suicided in the rain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is satire, but will only come off that way for readers with a knowledge of color theory.

<comment><USER2> I only have a very limited knowledge of color theory and while it was clear that it's messed up it isn't clear to be satire.

Honestly it sounds a lot like something people also into alternative facts would flock to and believe, especially if you mix in the conspiracy theory that color theory was intentionally made to manipulate you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I do want to seriously address one of the points on this page. Water is, in fact, blue. It sometimes appears green because of algae and other organisms in it. Here is a better explanation than I could have come up with:

> The water is in fact not colorless; even pure water is not colorless, but > has a slight blue tint to it, best seen when looking through a long column > of water. The blueness in water is not caused by the scattering of light, > which is responsible for the sky being blue. Rather, water blueness comes > from the water molecules absorbing the red end of the spectrum of visible > light. To be even more detailed, the absorption of light in water is due to > the way the atoms vibrate and absorb different wavelengths of light. [0]

Likewise, while nitrogen is colorless, oxygen is actually blue as well, which, in turn, means that air is actually slightly blue (this is not the cause of the blue sky -- see [1]).

\---

[0]: [https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science- school/scie...](https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science- school/science/water-color?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt- science_center_objects)

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

</comment><comment><USER12> I got about three paragraphs into an explanation of additive/subtractive color, rayleigh scattering, pigments and iridescence, before I realized this has to be satire.

</comment><comment><USER13> > Furthermore, organisations such as the International Commission on > Illumination have made it their goal to keep Colour Theory at the forefront > of colour science.

The illuminati!

<comment><USER3> How did I read that sentence and 1) not question whether this was a real organization and 2) not catch that reference?

Big thanks for pointing this out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm about 70% certain that this is satire.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm not convinced. Those "facts" the article speaks about seem to me a matter of highly idiosyncratic belief. Or it's actually satire and I don't get it.

</comment><comment><USER16> First fact. There is no 'u' in color.

<comment><USER17> But there is in colour.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What is the goal? Will any of these make colours easier to use or understand?

<comment><USER19> I suspect the goal is to make fun of conspiracy theorists, since the issues they discuss are non-issues to anyone who paid attention in grade-school physics (or even art class). I imagine there are plenty of conspiracy theorists who will fall for it, since they are deeply biased to give in to their paranoia about figures of authority.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Loving this idea! I hope to see it implemented in monitors soon

</comment><comment><USER21> This society seems to be on to something.

<comment><USER22> There might be a "to" too many in your statement. The answer probably is laughing gas, if not crack cocaine.

<comment><USER23> >a "to" too many ...seem be on to something?

<comment><USER22> funny one ... "seem to be on something"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I hope this gets traction!</comment>