Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show?CMP=soc_568 <comment><USER3> The persistence of the British CPS in pursuing Assange shows how tight the militaries are between the US and Commonwealth nations. AFAIK, Britain had no personal stake in Wikileaks / Assange. But because America badly wanted to suppress Wikileaks and its ilk from future revelations, Britain has persisted in its surrogate prosecution of Assange.

I wonder, is there no blowback among Brits for the Crown so baldly adopting the role of America's attack dog? Or is that de rigueur now?

<comment><USER4> That's one way of looking at it. Another: a warrant was issued for his arrest in relation to a crime that was accused. He used a foreign embassy to avoid that arrest. Giving up would not be setting a fantastic precedent for future alleged criminals who do not wish to answer questions.

(EDIT: changed "committed" to "accused" as per discussion below)

<comment><USER3> Crime? I'm aware only that a charge was made against Assange by an individual for an infraction that had nothing to do with Wikileaks. This is strikingly convenient since it bypasses the introduction of any Wikileak-related evidence in Assange's prosecution, and thus prohibits it.

In light of Assange's political activity, and now the _astonishing_ level of CPS persistence in pursuing him, the Swedish charge against him appears: 1) awfully convenient, 2) increasingly implausible (i.e. politically trumped up), and of course, 3) not a crime until his guilt is proven.

<comment><USER4> He was charged with rape and molestation. Those are crimes. But if you want to call them "infractions" I suppose that is up to you.

To look at your logic in the reverse direction, you are basically implying that in light of Assange's political activity he cannot be credibly accused of any crime, because it will be a false accusation trumped up by state actors.

That doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny. Just because it could be the case doesn't mean that it is. It doesn't mean it _isn 't_ either, but you can't just assume it is because it is "strikingly convenient".

<comment><USER5> Maybe you're not clear about the actual background. There are no charges against him in Sweden. He was ordered to be questioned related to his vile cheating trick that isn't even recognized as rape outside of Sweden.

I think the guy could be called one of the biggest assholes. But let's not add to be pile of rubbish and defamation that deliberatley has been amassed regarding this case.

<comment><USER6> > isn't even recognized as rape outside of Sweden.

Having sex with an unconscious person, even someone asleep, is against the law in some jurisdictions. Really depends on how they define consent (in England's case sleep is "black-letter" lack of consent).

Specific to England: [https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual- offenc...](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences- chapter-3-consent)

<comment><USER7> > Having sex with an unconscious person, even someone asleep, is against the > law

The allegation is not that he had intercourse with someone unconscious.

The allegation is that he re-initiated sexual relations with a coitus partner who was initially asleep and _who then woke up_ , asked about a condom, then later regretted not stopping because of the lack of a condom.

There is a distinct legal difference between non-consensual intercourse with someone drugged or passed out and engaging in petting of a naked person who did the naked-nasty with you a few hours ago to see if they're keen on round 2...

<comment><USER6> > who was initially asleep

And that right there makes it non-consensual. The law (in England and other jursidictions) specifically mention asleep (amongst other conditions) that render a person unable to consent to sex.

Once Assange stuck his penis into a sleeping woman's vagina means he's guilty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The Lauri Love case proves there's zero probability of Assange being extradited to the US. He's wanted here for skipping bail. The government can't let the precedent be set that you can get away with it, or everyone would do it.

<comment><USER9> "Everyone" is not going to have an embassy aiding and abetting you; and any diplomat or spy worth his/her salt already has procedures to skip the country.

The principle is a fig leaf on top of a political issue. This situation will not change until a different party gets in power, carrying a different view of the UK's relationship with their traditional military allies.

<comment><USER8> _This situation will not change until a different party gets in power, carrying a different view of the UK's relationship with their traditional military allies._

I'm not sure the PM actually has the power to do that. Assange is wanted right now for skipping bail. No government is going to pass an Act declaring that not-a-crime.

<comment><USER10> What's the penalty for that crime? If extradition to the US was absolutely impossible, Assange might be willing to turn himself in and suffer the penalty in order to regain his freedom.

<comment><USER8> _What 's the penalty for that crime_

Max 12 months in prison.

The ONLY way Assange's actions make sense is if he expects to be found guilty in Sweden.

<comment><USER11> Given the eagerness of the CPS to prosecute, seems like paranoia was a good strategy, no? There's some hidden agenda here, and it's hard to believe it's something as mundane as CPS bloke doesn't want a new case before he retires when emails conveniently get "deleted". I think you can expect better from lawyers. But it's especially galling for a lawyer who works for the government, they should have procedures to retain this information.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is fleeing to the UK, who's government isn't known for it's integrity.

<comment><USER9> I don't think he was "fleeing". When he left Sweden, the issue seemed closed, and he was just going on about his life - had tons of contacts in the UK so he went there to continue his work. He was constantly jumping from country to country before this; it just happened that he was in the UK when Ms. Ny escalated proceedings.

But yeah, we've seen over and over in the last decade that the UK is one of the last countries you want to be in, if you have anything to do with cybersecurity and digital rights. Assange, the Guardian computers after Snowden, the Snoopers' Charter, DNS censorship...

<comment><USER12> How did he feel the issue had been closed? He'd not even been interviewed in any way, shape or form. Someone makes an accusation against him, they don't interview him, and just close the issue and he wanders on his life, and only then do they trick him into having to seek refuge?

That's more than a little whitewashed, to me.

<comment><USER9> _> He'd not even been interviewed in any way, shape or form._

He had been contacted already, as part of the process under which charges were initially dropped. The case was subsequently resurrected by Ms. Ny, and it's the interview under this second process that was outstanding when he made arrangements to move on. The warrant was issued _two months later_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > The CPS lawyer also told Ny that year: "It is simply amazing how much work > this case is generating. It sometimes seems like an industry. Please do not > think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition."

Pure government corruption and waste. If those lawyers was speaking of an official policy decision of the CPS, how many laws would they be breaking?

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't like when things that are clearly not nation state issues is written about as if it was nation state issues.

<comment><USER15> Who would you put the blame on?

<comment><USER16> Judicial systems consist of individual people attempting to interpret sets of rules, sometimes with conflicting opinions over interpretations and priorities that change over time.

It's reasonably evident even from the limited number of emails quoted that this was not "Sweden wanting to do X, but the UK prevented them because $politicalagendaofUK" but prosecutor Marianne Ny notifying her UK counterpart that Swedish procedure may require her to drop the case and the counterpart expressing exasperation given the amount of resources the UK had dedicated to fulfilling their own obligations to honour European Arrest Warrants...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'd like the press to shine a light on the lawyer who was so keen to get Sweden to pursue the case. I'm sure he prefers being nameless.

<comment><USER18> It wasn't a lawyer, it was the Swedish prosecutor that did this, and it wasn't a 'he' but a 'she' (Marianne Ny).

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

<comment><USER19> That's not who the parent is talking about - who was on the UK side, the person who retired and caused their email archives to get deleted.

<comment><USER18> Right, my bad. Weirdest thing though, you'd think that they would at least preserve any and all emails related to a case that is so strongly in the public eye.

And for the longest time the UK was if not outright promoting the idea that the Swedes wanted the case to be continued definitely not denying that and claiming that instead the UK was pushing things forward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I am just sad for all the victims of rape in the UK that haven't probably seen, even remotely, the same police efforts made for this accusation. It happened in a different country, and parts of the accusation wouldn't even be a crime in the UK, and obviously there are political goals behind, given the strange sequence of police work.

I'm thinking about what would happen if instead of Assange we were dealing with a person from a country where religion and government are intertwined, and that person was asking for asylum to the UK for accusations that are not crimes in the UK.

</comment><comment><USER21> My prediction is the same that it has been for the last years: At some point, Assange will leave the embassy, possibly for medical reasons, be arrested and extradited to Sweden

In Sweden he will be interrogated and set free without any conditions. Not "illegally rendered" to America, but "you're free, go wherever you want".

At that point Assange will be able to ponder his need for drama and attention on the one hand. And all those lost years on the other hand. But hey, he got Pamela Anderson!

I would find that ending almost poetic.

<comment><USER22> The article says (paragraph 4) that Sweden dropped the arrest warrant last year. So I'm afraid that your preferred ending of the story is unlikely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Separately, Pompeo described WikiLeaks as a "non-state hostile intelligence service". ... as opposed to a certain state-hostile intelligence service

</comment><comment><USER24> This is much more complex than a lone hacker being persecuted by an oppressive US government. There is suspicion that Wikileaks is one arm of Russian propaganda, and while I do not know if this is true or not, it does turn the entire Assange story into an intricate mess of international politics and power plays.

<comment><USER18> > There is suspicion that Wikileaks is one arm of Russian propaganda

You can sufficiently explain all WL actions by simply assuming that they will do whatever it takes to hurt US interests.

<comment><USER25> As a US Veteran and a US Citizen... if exposing truth hurts US interests - maybe US interests deserve to be hurt?

All politics aside (as if that's possible), we should always strive to learn and expose truth...

<comment><USER18> > All politics aside (as if that's possible), we should always strive to learn > and expose truth...

Agreed, but selectively exposing the truth requires that if the net effect is a positive one that enough parties are exposing truths to ensure some kind of balance. If not then it becomes a political force in its own right rather than there is an overall gain in transparency.

I'm pretty conflicted about this, on the one hand I applaud WL for the degree to which they have exposed various wrongs, on the other I am disappointed in how they decided to become a political player rather than to just be a conduit.

<comment><USER26> selectively should be stated as, protecting your own ass. Releasing negative information about the US is far less likely for you to end up dead that releasing about countries who have little interest in human rights other than lip service.

not saying the information should not be out there, just saying that there are far too many nations who would as soon kill the messenger

<comment><USER18> No, 'selectively' can just be to help one side rather than to expose all you have on a country.

So it is about selective releasing information about parties in the US rather than about differences in approach from one country to another.

<comment><USER27> You're implying that Wikileaks did not release everything they have. Is this an assumption or is there evidence of this?

<comment><USER18> [https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost- mora...](https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high- ground/)

Stating that Assange hoped that the leaks of the DNC emails would hurt the Clinton campaign clearly shifts WL from being 'just a conduit' for leaked material to being a political operator in its own right.

An organization devoted to transparency should not have an agenda of its own, this in contrast to Assange's previous claims that he did not have a favorite side.

<comment><USER27> The Wired article makes Wikileaks look bad in other regards but does not contain evidence that material was not published. You implied that Wikileaks has a selective publication policy. I still don't see any evidence of that.

Of course it's hard to prove existence of what they didn't publish. And it is plausible their personal opinions would influence their publication decisions. But that's simply an allegation, not evidence of it happening.

<comment><USER18> Short of leak from within Wikileaks (or what's left of it) that will be a hard (or even impossible) one to prove. In the meantime, Assange taking sides in an election battle does not help to promote the independence of WL. There is other evidence of WL heavily editing their output so witholding stuff that does not suit their agenda would seem to be a reasonable assumption, absent hard proof to the contrary (which they could easily provide!).

<comment><USER27> You're saying it is easy for Wikileaks to provide hard proof they're not withholding stuff not suiting their agenda. How could they do it?

<comment><USER18> 3rd party audit of materials received and materials leaked to the public. Not that they'll ever agree to that, but if they really valued transparency they could do that. Choosing the auditor would be an interesting exercise. Glenn Greenwald would be an interesting choice, Edward Snowden another.

<comment><USER27> What you suggest is actually a way.

How would the auditor verify having received the complete dump though? It's not like there is a verifiable index of the material available to Wikileaks. Also I think it would be hard to satisfy the critics; next to the impossibility of securing funding for such an undertaking. On top of everything else Wikileaks would risk exposing their sources.

So please don't say it's easy for Wikileaks to get an audit.

Looking at it from another angle: If leakers are unhappy how Wikileaks is publishing, they may well decide to leak somewhere else too. That happening would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is redacting for political reasons.

<comment><USER18> I do tech DD for a living and from my own experience it is _very_ hard to fudge the record for someone who deals with this kind of thing regularly.

I thought I had covered any fears about source exposure and being believable with my two suggestions for who could do this.

> That happening would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is > redacting for political reasons.

Openleaks and the Intercept come to mind.

<comment><USER27> > I do tech DD for a living and from my own experience it is very hard to > fudge the record for someone who deals with this kind of thing regularly.

I assume it would be hard to pre-redact documents to hide your omissions. Outright omission of documents from a dump would be harder to detect in my view. But I must admit I'm ignorant of the techniques available.

> I though I had covered any fears about source exposure and being believable > with my two suggestions for who could do this.

Partly. In my view it's up to the sources to decide who gets to see the original dump. They chose Wikileaks. Maybe they did so for reasons we'd judge nefarious but we are not free to assume they'd agree with sharing the originals more widely.

> Openleaks and the Intercept come to mind.

Did they get dumps Wikileaks had published before? Where the version published by Wikileaks turned out to have been selectively redacted for political reasons?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This whole situation is a laugh at the "democratic freedom" situation that we live today. At least in some countries ruled by a dictatorship there is no such hypocrisy.

<comment><USER29> Oh yeah, dictatorships are famously irony-free.

 _cough_ Democratic People's Republic of Korea _cough_

<comment><USER12> "Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - <USER2> this, Patriotic that, Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors Than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters."

\-- Lord of War

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Everyone is owed due process to some extent. But in this case, are we really bothered about a guy who isn't in the UK, has broken UK bail conditions, and is quite likely to have actively participated in attacks against some of the UK's closest allies.

I think he should go round to his local lawyer and ask about taking the UK police to court. He deserves to see stand in that court room and hear them answer for why this happened.

He doesn't seem to want to though... He just seems to want to moan on twitter without leaving his home...

<comment><USER31> Stop spreading FUD. Wikileaks has not actively participated in any attacks.

Wikileaks has exposed some of the most horrific crimes committed by the Unites States and others yet we are still trying to kill the messenger.

<comment><USER32> Serious question, what crimes has Wikileaks exposed? I'm sure there are some, but off the top of my head the most serious crimes the US has committed in recent history have been exposed by Snowden or Congressional investigations.

<comment><USER33> They leaked the Baghdad airstrike video that got people mad for a few days before not doing anything about it.

They also released tons of military files relating to the Iraq / Afghan war and Gitmo that confirmed a lot of popular theory about the goings on over there - torture, Geneva violations, etc.

<comment><USER32> Sure, but torture in Guantanamo Bay was also the subject of a lot of coverage, including the results of an extremely detailed and exhaustingly documented Congressional inquiry, that I found to be of much greater value. I consider that inquiry to be much more valuable because, not only did it go into great detail when and why torture took place, but also demonstrated that torture resulted in no useful intelligence data.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook Opens Status API, Say Goodbye to Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/02/facebook-opens-status-api-say-goodbye-to-twitter/ <comment><USER2> Nick O'Neill has bid Twitter farewell at least once a month for the past two years. First when Facebook let you change status via phone. Then when Twitter and Facebook integrated via apps. Now it's because of an API. Twitter hasn't disappeared yet.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reddit Supports Site Header Color Customization, Say Goodbye to Hacker News.

<comment><USER4> allfacebooknews.com != alltwitternews.com

Uh-oh, that's not taken yet - domainpidgeon, where are you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Facebook is mostly used for actual friends (well more than Twitter) and limited to real life relationships. That's true at least for the core demographic of college students. Twitter is much more about networking with new people.

So despite having similar or close to identical functionality technically, they have very different functions.

</comment><comment><USER6> We've been through this before! I'll just quote myself from a month ago:

 _Facebook: full-fledged social network. Twitter: simple, quick-posting environment.

There IS a big difference between these two sites, Facebook won't kill twitter, we can all go to sleep calmly now :)_

Edit: just for reference, <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=418151>

<comment><USER7> Not only that, but more importantly, on Twitter you can follow pretty much whoever you like without a required acknowledgment from the followed person/organization. To be friends with someone in FB, both parties have to agree, which pretty much sets them apart niche-wise.

<comment><USER8> Twitter's asymmetric follow is one of the killer features. GitHub has it, as well...maybe if GitHub had a status API they could be a Twitter killer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The other article said it would kill Twitter overnight. I'll check back in the morning.

</comment><comment><USER10> Hey guys, I know I've said it before but honestly I think this has a serious chance of removing Twitter. I'll put my money where my mouth is ... I'm working on programming another version of Twitter using just the Facebook API ... we'll see if it makes sense :)

</comment><comment><USER11> Eh, I see a lot of professional-networking promotion going on on Twitter, and FB has always been geared more towards personal connections, I think this may impact some of the userbase, but it's not a death knell. Given that it's trivial to sync your Twitter and Facebook statuses anyway, I don't see many users outright switching.

</comment><comment><USER12> Well, I just tried to sign up for FB and failed in every attempt. I allow session cookies, and that's what their privacy policy says they only use. So they are excluding at least _some_ of their potential market.

</comment><comment><USER13> People claiming that technology X will kill technology Y should most certainly make an attempt at understanding what technology Y is first. This person clearly does not.

</comment><comment><USER14> Just because X has Y's functionality now doesn't imply that X will overtake/kill/get people to say goodbye to Y

</comment><comment><USER15> Now, is there a proxy service yet that let's you post your Twitter updates to Facebook and vice versa?

<comment><USER16> Not sure about the vice versa, but there's a twitter app for facebook. I pretty well stopped using facebook once I found it.

<comment><USER17> I have close to zero overlap between my Facebook status and Twitter updates. It's just two different social circles, if you will.

<comment><USER16> Me too, until I hooked up the twitter app to facebook. Then I stopped bothering with the facebook social circle, at least for status updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This doesn't even make sense. Twitter is a broadcast medium. Facebook isn't.

</comment><comment><USER19> Wait, coming from Allfacebook? sure must be true...</comment>


Microsoft has their own Windows Phone in the works - <AUTHOR> http://www.wpcentral.com/microsoft-does-indeed-have-their-own-windows-phone <comment><USER2> If true, this signals a huge shift in WinPhone strategy. Up until Microsoft's (ostensible) goal has been to secure a place for a proprietary, commercial OS that runs on OEM hardware (pretty much the Windows model on mobile).

Microsoft jumping in with their own devices would probably signal the end of that, and the whole business will become much more Apple-like (vertically integrated, no OEMs). I can't imagine an OEM wanting to sleep in Microsoft's bed when they're going toe to toe with the people who build the OS themselves.

IMO, the right move, and was the right move from the get-go. When you put the software at arms-length from the hardware, the results speak for themselves, and branding suffers.

<comment><USER3> How is this different than Google making its own phones?

<comment><USER4> You don't pay Google for Android.

<comment><USER5> Actually you do, unless you're Amazon. For access to the Google Play store, GMail, Maps, Navigation, Youtube etc. etc. Those are neither free nor Free.

[http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/21/andy_pad_chief_admits_...](http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/21/andy_pad_chief_admits_to_bundling_unlicensed_android_market/)

It's very telling that most people do not know this.

Google sent a C&D to the Cyanogen Mod folks for bundling these apps. If you install CM, you have to download the app store app from someone committing copyright infringement.

<comment><USER6> That doesn't say anything about cost. The deal on Google apps is (or used to be) membership in the OHA, which is about app level compatibility.

There are two possible impedients for cheap devices there: 1. minimum hardware requirements (which exploded over the last few Android releases), 2. Google might not care about herding a bunch of small vendors.

reghardware merely "implies" that it's about cash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> They have their 8X and 8S devices which was a partnership with HTC to make custom phones designed for Windows Phone 8.

Google tried to make their own phone with the S, etc but at this point the model that has worked for them in terms of bringing a phone to market and getting carriers even with the Nexus 7 on board has been working with a manufacturer to partner on building a phone rather than building it themselves. When Google built the Nexus One they only sold it online and unsubsidised and it flopped.

The question is, can Microsoft bring a smartphone to market with good margins, carrier deals, etc. When Windows Phone hasn't had much of a response from carriers thus far. It's a different game to a tablet and their relationships with Nokia and HTC don't seem to signal that they want to build a surface phone.

</comment><comment><USER8> After Microsoft's announcement of the Surface Tablet... people had to see this coming. I'm not debating the merits of doing this or not doing this... but if MS was willing to make their own tablet, surely they were willing to make their own phone.

What's interesting is the difference between the mobile and PC market. With PCs - there is no other (realistic) OS for OEM makers to use. I mean, they just have to keep using Windows. For mobile handset makers... they can (and might) move over to Android. Interesting gamble on MS's part.

Personally, I'm excited. I think MS has received the wakeup call that they need.

<comment><USER9> The only OEM making Windows Phones that isn't already also making Android phones is Nokia. And given the resounding thud with which Nokia's Windows Phones have fallen (fairly or not), it seems unlikely that Nokia will exclusively pursue Windows Phone to its own demise, Elop or no.

So... there's really no risk to Microsoft here. It's just yet-another Hail Mary For Traction.

<comment><USER10> If Nokia-built phones with Windows were unable to compete in the market then can Microsoft-built phones fare any better?

Seems unlikely

<comment><USER9> If Nokia has suffered about as much as its share-holders can stomach, but Microsoft still wants to push their platform, would Microsoft have any choice?

Anyway, the thing I haven't seen anyone consider is: whether the device being 'locked down' in the Entertainment/Devices group is more an iPod Touch competitor -- skewed toward gaming -- than iPhone.

That would make sense to me anyway. It would placate existing phone OEMs _and_ serve as a Skunkworks "what do we do if the OEMs abandon us" project.

It's also a huge opportunity for Microsoft to build support for the winphone platform off their _popular_ and _functional_ consumer ecosystem in the XBox/Live/Marketplace/Content Deals/etc.

And with Nintendo potentially forcing the "second-screen" configuration, Microsoft _needs_ to have a more-integrated first-party solution than even their current attempt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Microsoft is betting the farm on Windows 8 and it makes sense to me that they can leave nothing to chance. They _have_ to have a plan B if hardware partners fail to come through. A company as big as Microsoft simply cannot pin their whole existence on a bunch of third party OEMs, especially when they are deeply in bed and arguably now far more invested with a bitter competitor. I would honestly expect there would be at least a skunk works project if nothing else. The news that the device is being tested, however, means it's come out of the skunk works - essentially, plan B has been "activated".

What I read from this, combined with the recent close partnering with HTC, is that MS is now heavily hedging their bets against Nokia failing, which can only mean they, with all their internal knowledge of their partnership with Nokia, now have strong doubts about whether Nokia itself is viable, or at least, viable enough to carry their flagship forward. So I wouldn't necessary read too much into this about the wider Windows8 strategy, but I'd read a lot of bad things for Nokia from it.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't see a reason why to be honest. The lumia seems great.

<comment><USER13> Agreed. Got aa 710 and an 800 here. Nice phones for the money.

<comment><USER14> I was really interested in the 920 until I saw that it has capacitive hardware buttons. Right now I have a Samsung Focus, and when someone else grabs my phone to look at a picture, I have to do the awkward "no don't hold it there, hold it here, oh no you touched one of the buttons here give it back while I figure out which one you touched now don't hold it there again" dance.

That's embarrassing to me and embarrassing to the brand. People see it and think "oh these Windows Phones are complex and finicky". Nope. Not touching any phone with capacitive buttons ever again. I'll be upgrading to the nicest WP8 device with actual, real buttons.

<comment><USER15> > _Not touching any phone with capacitive buttons ever again._

I think that limits you to iOS.

> _I'll be upgrading to the nicest WP8 device with actual, real buttons._

I don't think there are any WP8 devices currently announced that have only non-capacitive buttons. The Samsung ATIV S has physical "Windows" button, but the other two face buttons are still capacitive.

This is an interesting point, though. I've never heard of this complaint on Windows Phone or Android, but I can see how it could be an issue.

<comment><USER14> If I have to wait, I will. Windows Phone 7 and my Focus are good enough for the time being. If I get tired of waiting, no matter how much I love the Windows Phone ecosystem, hate iTunes, and am not a big believer in the hype around the iPhone, if time comes and I need a new smartphone, the iPhone would win me over. I like Android as a tablet OS, but I'm not a fan of it on a phone for personal reasons.

Capacitive buttons are a deal-breaker. I feel that strongly about them, that they have no place on a premium handheld device, that they ruin the experience, and that they completely ignore user intentions. I feel that strongly that I would abandon the entire ecosystem just because I can't stand the buttons.

And this coming from a staunch defender of Windows Phone and loyal subscriber to the Zune Pass for years who has never said another word against the platform. Guys, stop making capacitive buttons!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've stopped trying to figure out w.t.f. is going on at Microsoft with their phone these days. It's hard for me to imagine a more clownshoes couple of years.

</comment><comment><USER17> If that's the case then MSFT will simply buy Nokia in year or two. Nokia are great at hardware. And they have already doubled down on windows phone OS. Not sure whether Nokia's all in strategy on windows phone OS worked or not. Looks like it is disaster in hindsight.

</comment><comment><USER18> Don't get too excited just yet- they might just be making dev hardware for now. Nokia's "all in" on WP means that they have a great hardware partner for the time being, I'm not sure they'd want to jeopardise that just yet.

<comment><USER19> Seems like they already kicked Nokia in the face by giving HTC rights to call their 8X and 8S "Windows Phone" and basically saying it's their flagship at that event a few weeks ago. Wouldn't at all be surprised to see them make their own; they're already making their own tablet, so it's not like it's a big stretch.

<comment><USER20> It definitely benefits Nokia and MS to have more partners onboard with Windows Phone 8. I really liked the look of the 920, but I was worried it would never reach a critical mass of developer support with only Nokia building devices. If they could get one more major partner they could be a viable third platform, the way RIM was before they tanked. Unfortunately, Motorola is a no- go because of the Google acquisition, Samsung is enjoying great success with Android, and Sony is ... Sony. HTC already had a strong history of WP 6 devices before Android came along, and they're losing traction to Samsung in this space, so it makes sense that they would look to Microsoft for help.

Depending on how well it sells, MS might be solving the problem of finding a third partner by building a line of branded devices themselves.

<comment><USER15> Samsung is also producing Windows Phone 8 devices. Time will tell how committed they are to the platform, but I believe that a very large portion of WP7 devices were from Samsung.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The market problems faced by a phone and a tablet can be pretty distinct. If Microsoft is making a Windows Phone, I hope it serves to drive innovation and platform success, instead of just scaring away OEMs and cannibalizing what nascent platform there is.

If it's a foolhardy or hubristic attempt to grab imagined profits without consideration for carrier and other channel and customer obstacles, well... I'd regret the untimely / early demise of an innovative platform.

</comment><comment><USER22> If Microsoft is not categorically denying this rumor by the end of the week, then it's true. It might still be true if they give some vague PR statement that sort of says they are not making a phone yet, but not really.

I wonder how this rumor will hit their partners, since even most of their PC partners didn't know about the Surface tablets before they announced it.</comment>


Messagepub: New Pricing Plans (based on HN feedback) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.messagepub.com/2009/04/06/new-pricing-plans/

<comment><USER2> 1\. What anti-anti-spam agreements do you have with email providers? Are you signed up with senderscorecertified.com and other whitelists? How do you ensure that other users don't cause my messages to get rejected or misfiled as spam?

2\. The SMS rate looks too good to be true. What agreements do you have with Wireless carriers? I have noticed that AT&T seems to block many SMS messages that businesses try to send me.

3\. Do you have a (shared) SMS short code? Premium SMS?

</comment><comment><USER3> suggestion: I'd put a sentence or two at the top of your post (or on blog sidebar) about _what_ your service is.

You're (probably) going to get some traffic via this post, not all of them will have read your previous HN posts -- sell to them rather than make them wonder pricing for _what_

<comment><USER2> At least make the header link to the home page instead of to the blog's home page.

<comment><USER4> This is one of my pet peeves: Product blogs that don't provide a big, obvious link to the product at the top of the page. (Not to mention: In the sidebar, in the footer...)

As a member of the culture that invented 24-hour cable TV shopping channels, one would naively think that the usual failure mode for product blogs would be "Arrgh, every time I mouse over any element on this page there is a popup link to the product! The page detects if I linger for more than ten seconds and automatically pops up links to the product! The product's name is inserted, subliminally, in faint text between every line!" You know, overkill.

And yet the opposite is the case. I have been to _lots_ of product blogs that don't link directly to the product, but force me to guess its URL (which is usually easy, thank god) and then manually type that URL into my address bar. Why this keeps happening I have no idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Your pricing page says SMS costs $.07 and your blog post says it costs $.0015. Big difference (47x!). What's true?

<http://messagepub.com/pricing>

<comment><USER6> There was a typo on the blog post. It is $0.07 for an SMS.

We've fixed the blog post. Thanks for pointing that out.

<comment><USER5> Ah, well there goes my plan to cheaply send SMS messages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=530408>

</comment><comment><USER7> Not going to look up the previous HN thread about it, but wasn't most of the feedback re: SMS pricing? It's still VERY expensive.</comment>


12 Most Influential Books Every Software Engineer Needs to Read - <AUTHOR> http://jasonroell.com/2015/03/16/12-most-infuential-books-every-software-engineer-needs-to-read/ <comment><USER2> I find The Mythical Man-Month to be greatly out-dated now. Same for Design Patterns, it was a great book when OO was everywhere, but I have the feeling that FP is now on the raise, and most of the described patterns are anti- patterns.

Pragmatic Programmer is good for very junior devs. I read it after spending almost 10 years in the industry and thought that it was just a compilation of self-evident things.</comment>


Using events to decouple Rails applications - <AUTHOR> https://redbooth.com/engineering/patterns/using-events-decouple-rails-applications

<comment><USER2> By coincidence, I was reading this article just yesterday: [https://blog.safaribooksonline.com/2013/10/02/decoupling- bac...](https://blog.safaribooksonline.com/2013/10/02/decoupling-backbone- applications-with-pubsub/)</comment>


Ruby 1.9.1 preview released - <AUTHOR> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/318771

<comment><USER2> With the release of the half-baked 1.8.7 a few months back, and now 1.9.1 being called the "first stable version of the 1.9 series" I'm a little bit confused as to what "stable" means for Ruby now.

Is 1.9 still going to be considered a development series, not widely recommended for most apps until 2.0 is released? Or is that starting to gradually change?

<comment><USER3> The plan has been for 1.9 to be a stable series for a _long_ (at least over a year) time now. I'm not sure there are any concrete plans for 2.0 at this time. If you use Ruby, now would be a good time to start getting comfortable with 1.9, though there doesn't seem to be much rush.

I updated one of my projects to work with 1.8.6 and 1.9 a couple months ago and it was mostly painless. I'm looking forward to the nice performance improvement and some of the api changes when it becomes production ready.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> ruby 1.9.1 is mainly stability fixes to ruby 1.9, which had a few .. quirks.

for a less-than-complete guide to ruby 1.9 features, consider reading eigenclass's summary from way back: <http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?Changes+in+Ruby+1.9>

<comment><USER4> "... consider reading eigenclass's summary ..."

"Last major update on 2007-10-12"

Casual lurking on ruby-core suggests that all sorts of things have changed since then.

<comment><USER3> It's still a fairly decent reference if you need to update your software for 1.9. Several incompatibilities I ran into were listed there. For others problems, I did have to search the mailing lists, though.</comment></comment></comment>


Dear Slashdot: You get what you pay for - <AUTHOR> http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/macvittie/archive/2009/04/17/dear-slashdot-you-get-what-you-pay-for.aspx

<comment><USER2> The "you get what you pay for" argument is a weird argument to make. That implies that 10 instances of the o3 solution are delivering the same value as a single f5 box -- value in way you describe -- because, at that point, their dollar cost is the same. If that's the case, then it doesn't really matter which solution I choose, does it?

I hate to come off as a f5 hater, because I'm not -- they (you) make good products, but your first argument is essentially dissing the predominant architecture of the Internet -- chaining proxies, "cobbling together," physically separated servers, etc. and yet that general approach to getting things done on the Internet seems to be working just fine -- not only working, but winning out in a very big way. There are very good reasons why the Internet is cobbled together and not running on a single mainframe computer and one giant router.

And this sentence: "The author states: 'The system had no problems handling over 26,590 TPS' which _seems to indicate_ it was not using the industry standard 1024-bit key based on the core capabilities of the processors to process RSA operations. In fact, 512-bit key certificates are no longer supported by most CAs due to their weak key strength." (emphasis added by me)

So, you're not sure about something as important as the key length. Okay. Fine. But the second sentence does not follow from the first. Instead of starting the sentence with "In fact," it should start with "If they are, in fact, using 512-bit keys (and I have no idea if they are or not), then that might present a problem because..."

I'm going to end there because I need to go tell those pesky kids to get off of my lawn. :-)</comment>


Jobs and interviews suck way too much, quit and work independently? - <AUTHOR> Working for a Fortune 500, and thinking about quitting because things move way too slowly and it is very boring.
Tried to switch job and realize there are not many interesting corporate/startup jobs out there. Most of them are js jobs really (even in hackernews). And the interview process is so awful. I've interviewed at many places, given many onsites and it's the same. I don't even get why 4-5 people ask the same question and you have to answer the same thing. Also, when I joined my current job, I found out the interviewer who asked me to implement a certain data structure didn't know how to do it himself, I knew because we are now good friends and work together.
There are rare ones who are really targeting problem solving. But they are very rare. And I'm afraid even if I find them and join them I will get bored pretty soon.
Considering jobs are boring, interview process sucks do you think just quitting and starting with apps, open source is a good idea ? I can live for 1-2 years with my savings ? How many of you have followed this path and regretted ? <comment><USER2> Same here. Here's what I did. Long story short: I've been a developer at smaller companies, bigger companies, a team lead, and none of these made me happy. With some money saved, i quit for working on a personal project.

8 Months later, I now run 2 online projects: www.rechargeit.com and www.DNhub.com

As you can see, one is publishing, one is domain investing. I love what I do, there are so many to learn and do, I burn money every day with a team of part- time freelancers, and I am trying to find my business way before money gets burned.

Lessons learned? A lot :) Easy path? Not at all Deserve trying? Yes, no doubts

</comment><comment><USER3> Welcome to my life. Where you're at right now is where I was not a while ago. So it's too early for me to tell you it's awesome just quit and go on your own... Though, I've worked as a SWE for 10 years going from junior all the the way up to staff level. At the end I was working for one of the best companies out there doing %80 bug fixing versus %20 feature work. %100 Micro-managed and absolutely zero motivation/innovation/future/control/independence.

I quit and started making Apps. Again, it's too early to say that it was the best decision of my life. But here is my only advice for people like you:

You're a SWE, the world needs SWE/developers/coder depends how you call it. There are not enough SWE in this world at the moment. So, you're set... This is something you've acquired already, why do you want to spend the next 10 years doing the same thing and not learning anything else? Now, look at Berkley university for example. They received $250 million in fundings from the silicon valley in order to help students starting businesses. That's where we're going. More Startups, new ventures, more entrepreneurs etc. This is the next SWE job that is coming faster than you think. Go out there and go learn how to be an entrepreneur and do it NOW. If you stay stuck in the corporate world you'll be downgraded to a worker working in a factory in a few years from now. Maybe software will be the Nike and you'll be that 14 years old kid coding in Asia for $1/day (sounded horrible sorry but that's my vision). These kids will write code for us. You'll be more than obsolete. If not, machines will do it for us. So, learning new skills and more specifically entrepreneur skills is crucial. I'd encourage every SWE to jump into the other side before it's too late. We're smarter than anyone else. Companies like Apple, Google, FB, Microsoft were built by people like you and I. Not by some BS product managers hiding in the middle of an organization who has no idea where the money is going...

That's what I told myself before I quit. Of course, like you, I have savings and can survive while learning all these awesome things thanks to 10 years of slavery in the corporate world. Good luck and sorry for my crude language.

<comment><AUTHOR> You've definitely added an angle that I've not thought about. So true. Quit motivation keeps growing! Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do you work on any side projects you might want to turn into paid products? Can you be the tech guy and the sales guy?

I have a similar problem, I get bored pretty quick.

</comment><comment><USER5> From my experience, there are a corporate issues. Corporate need to solve them in an effort to survive and earn money for next business. This issues are not "real problem solving" in terms of save world or make world better place. So there are a lot of corporate jobs where your are solving corporate day-to-day issues. After some time it starts to be boring.

I also faced to interview processes where have been asked for insane technical details and implementation but after hiring I found out that I will struggle with past. I need to revise data within CMDB messed up during previous migration. Or other interesting task : perform tedious implementation/tests over entire infrastructure because there is process and it needs to be done only and only this way.

For me it seems like, there are pros and cons for every position...you can have job security but it is exchanged for boring staff. Real problems solving position is facing to higher risk, stress and pressure.

I feel...that I am still searching "my place", trying to do lot of side projects, raised own business...just find what will fulfill me. But day-time is very limited so it is long-term run. I am changing full-time job every 2-2,5 year, often with changing location and it is quite depressed (for me and also for my childrens). I don't feel "home" anywhere. I bought house but i don't know where I will be 2 years from now. Everything due to jobs.

</comment><comment><USER6> What would your ideal interview process be like? I often hear about horrible interview processes on HN, but it would be interesting to hear how it can be improved.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1-2 hour interview, if you can't know the person in that time then you suck at interviewing. During that you can ask some conceptual problem solving questions, resume questions. Please trust the resume, if you find someone lying you can fire them. Another is just give them 1 day to solve what you want them to do in real life. Some of the companies already do this.</comment></comment>


I Rewired My Brain to Become Fluent in Math (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/17/big-bangs/how-i-rewired-my-brain-to-become-fluent-in-math <comment><USER2> This is related to the Curse of the Gifted. When I was a kid, I could grasp concepts easily and I understood maths very quickly so I didn't really bother doing things like homework or actually studying.

I then went to a decent university (a French Grande Ecole) and for the first year, I was still doing okish but I went from being a student who always had good results to doing average. Then, the second year came, and just understanding the concepts without cultivating fluency by practicing wasn't enough anymore and I failed hard. I hadn't learned how to learn and while I understood the concepts and could easily follow when the teacher solved a problem together with us, I had difficulties doing it on my own. I worked doing exercises and was able to pass but time and time again in my professional life, I've had the same issue where I tend to rely too much on my intuitive understanding until it fails.

I'm not sure how to help kids not to go down this path. As a kid, I would avoid any rote memorization and would probably not do any non graded exercise since I knew that I understood (and also since as a geek wanting to fit in, I tried to be more accepted by my peers by purposefully not doing my homework). In the end, I think the key is play and giving maybe challenging exercises that forces the kid to use his newly found understanding would be a way to get them used to not just rely on their intuition understanding.

<comment><USER3> This is exactly what happened to me as a kid, but in my case it wasn't curse of the "gifted" but curse of the pushed. In my younger years growing up in Ukraine my parents and granparents pushed us hard to learn math, and so did my school. Endless repetition, hours of homework, Saturday classes, etc. I didn't have any sort of gift for math, this is just how children were taught there.

Moving to the US and going into 5th grade, the first several years were just repetition of things I'd already learned in Ukraine. They were so easy. My grandmother wasn't there anymore and to my parents it looked like I was doing _great_ so they also loosened up and didn't really push me further.

When we finally got to substantially new material I started to struggle. I got too used to everything being so easy and built on concepts I'd already had drilled into me. I failed a math test once - even my teacher was surprised. I ended up falling from perfect score As to Cs, then scraping back up to Bs by the end of high school.

Now I regret not taking math as seriously as I should have after leaving Ukraine, and am now taking time at home to learn on my own. Thankfully I'm used to self-learning in other areas, so I think it's going pretty OK.

<comment><USER4> I have the same experience. For context, I live in a third world country.

I was lucky in the sense that I was enrolled in a prestigious school from kindergarten to grade 4. The school has a great curriculum that doesn't dumb down math and science while also emphasizing the arts. Arts and Sciences were equally interesting to me. I made no distinction with my enjoyment of solving arithmetic with creating poems or painting.

Unfortunately, my family went into hard times and I had to transfer to our public school. In contrast to my previous school, teachers can't personally help each student because there were 50+ students per class. I also found out that the lessons they taught are already covered in my earlier years. I coasted through Grades 5 and 6 using my stock knowledge.

When I got to high school, I was used to leaning back on what I learned. This is where I first tasted difficulty in learning the advanced math subjects. Sure, I got good grades in algebra but when it came to calculus, I was stumped. I could not care less about it because "math should be about calculation, not this symbolic mumbo jumbo". My boredom and inability to deal with the challenges resulted in my delinquency. I often cut classes and plagiarism homework. I still can't remember how I manage to graduate from high school.

Now I deeply regret that I didn't apply myself back then.I am now a software developer and a lot of interesting stuff are closed to me because I can't understand the math behind them. I resolved to return studying high school algebra last year. Armed with experience and a new perspective, I realized how much I have missed and how useful math is.

<comment><USER3> I'm in the same position as you now, I think - a coder who wants to explore interesting subjects that rely on math knowledge I don't have. How are your studies going now? I have recently (a couple of weeks ago) started going through a textbook on discrete mathematics, spending 1-2 hours a day. So far it feels like I'm going through concepts that I intuitively already know (the first chapter is on logical thinking), but it has been very interesting to learn how to put names and definitions to those concepts, and to prove them. After this I hope to study algorithms and statistics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Gradually, neuroscientists came to realize that experts such as chess grand > masters are experts because they have stored thousands of chunks of > knowledge about their area of expertise in their long-term memory. Chess > masters, for example, can recall tens of thousands of different chess > patterns. Whatever the discipline, experts can call up to consciousness one > or several of these well-knit-together, chunked neural subroutines to > analyze and react to a new learning situation. This level of true > understanding, and ability to use that understanding in new situations, > comes only with the kind of rigor and familiarity that repetition, > memorization, and practice can foster.

This made a lot of sense to me. A pianist plays through these chunks of knowledge - and learns through them as well. These "chunked neural subroutines" can be built, and clearly are.

I think a lot of resistance for me comes from learned helplessness (aka baby elephant syndrome). For me, growing up my inner narrative was one of failure and rejection. But as i've grown and changed this narrative to be more nurturing, I do see more and more, my capacity for a great many things. Am I crazy? A genius? An idiot? Nope. I just figured out that with a lot of curiosity, play and patience, you can become proficient or even a domain expert. That's easy to see, at a certain level.

But I think for a lot of us, we have a concept of who we are, what we are and what we are not. And this, at least for me, this definition of I, has held me back more than anything. Change the definition, challenge assumptions, push boundaries. See who you are.

<comment><USER6> i agree, and i like your 'see who who are'

i say the same when people cite the taxi cab number(o) story and suggest some kind of intuition or magic

ramanujan simply had worked with cubes enough to recognise the number, still very impressive, but anyone could do it with the kind of interest ramanujan had for number theory

(o) [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_number](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_number)

<comment> number-sequence a rather interesting aspect of the taxicab number story is that ramanujan had been looking at "near misses" to the fermat equation, and this was the first values of one of the infinite families of near misses he had constructed. The story is often dramatized to make it sound like Ramanujan just knew about all the cubes and their sums and he pulled this out of thin air on the spot, but the truth is probably that he had worked enough with these equations to recognize the number when Hardy mentioned it.

check it out, super neat number thy stuff! [https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00735](https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00735)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've realized lately that I often fool myself into thinking I'm proficient in some subject by picking up on concepts quickly. I think I "get" it because I can understand something on a conceptual level, but when it comes to practice, my deficiencies become apparent. I guess the tricky part is to push myself past those initial concepts to delve deeper into the subjects with practice. I need to slow down and remind myself that I don't really "get" it just because I can understand the concepts in a very broad sense.

<comment><USER8> Binary trees was that for me. I listened to lectures and understood them very well from a conceptual point of view. But once I started writing them from scratch as an exercise did I learn that understanding the theory alone was woefully insufficient.

<comment><USER9> Maybe you just didn't understand the "theory" as well as you thought you did.

I fell into the "it makes sense when we go over it in class, but not when I do it at home" trap often.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Can highly recommend the book the Coursera course is based on [1]: A mind for numbers [2]. Have read it multiple times back to from and front to back.

[1]- [https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to- learn](https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Numbers-Science-Flunked- Algebra/...](https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Numbers-Science-Flunked- Algebra/dp/039916524X)

</comment><comment><USER11> The author is not wrong to emphasize the fundamental necessity of drilling, but in her article it sounds like she, having memorized basic facts (in Russian and math), ultimately achieved fluency through play.

<comment><USER5> That was my takeaway as well. The author played with the equation f=ma, and understood it inside and out in various scenarios.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is mentioned in her bio at the end, but worth noting here, I think: Barbara runs a coursera course on learning how to learn ([https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to- learn](https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn)).

It is interesting in that I find that Coursera courses highlight the flawed learning processes she mentions quite well. I often find myself watching the videos, thinking I get it, buzzing through the usually basic follow-up questions, and moving on. Likely that material won't last in my brain for very long in a quickly usable fashion.

<comment><USER13> Coursera simply mirrors collegiate pedagogy: a professor lectures you for an hour, you take a quiz here and there, and then there are some larger assessments that prove mastery. Study habits and methods are entirely left up to the student. You could employ Dr. Oakley's methods, whatever works for you, or just breeze by without truly internalizing anything.

Coursera's missing one powerful dynamic of a traditional university, however: incentives to remember beyond a class.

Say you coast your freshman year without internalizing: you'll pay the price the following year or when you take some cumulative assessment like the MCAT.

With Coursera everything still feels very disjointed. Even in the specializations, knowledge doesn't need to compound for success. You can easily succeed in edutainment mode. Why take notes when you can use your hands for popcorn?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Lately I've been picking up the soroban[1], the Japanese abacus, and it's been tons of fun. It feels a little like solving a Rubik's cube with arithmetic, or maybe like working with a finite state machine. There are different algorithms to apply depending on the state of the soroban, and applying the right sequence of these algorithms will get you to the right result.

I find it to be a little addictive, and sometimes find it a bit hard to stop. I always feel like wanting to improve my skills a little more, become a little faster at it, and increase the number of digits I can handle without making a mistake.

The soroban is a great tool for developing concentration, a memory for numbers, a facility for performing a relatively complex series of steps in a certain sequence, and eventually for lightning fast mental arithmetic.

In Japan, soroban use is taught to young kids[2], who after a while develop enough proficiency not to need the physical device any longer and can perform the calculations on an imaginary soroban, and eventually can achieve some really amazing feats of mental arithmetic, such as this example from their national competitions: [3]

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

[2] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px_hvzYS3_Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px_hvzYS3_Y)

[3] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ktpme4xcoQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ktpme4xcoQ)

</comment><comment><USER15> > By interleaving my learning—in other words, practicing so that I knew not > only when to use that word, but when not to use it, or to use a different > variant of it—I was actually using the same approaches that expert > practitioners use to learn in math and science.

This is huge! Even if you learn something so that you can use it without fail today, if you interleave your practice of using it (today) with other things, you'll do much better a week from now.

<comment><USER16> Interleaving has served me very well during my second year of Engineering. I hadn't attended that much and had a grade of 3/20\. There were the final exams where the materials of the whole year was fair game.

I buckled down for a month with a friend at my sister's house which was empty. I eliminated the modules with diminishing returns that I had passed or where I was close (easier to go from 0/20 to 12/20 than it is to go from 8/20 to 20/20 for the same amount of points).

I was left with five modules I hadn't attended: Numerical Analysis (ANAI), Rational Mechanics(MECA), Strength of Materials(RDM), Vibrations-Waves-and- Propagation(VOP), and Atomic and Nuclear Physics(PAN).

I drew a pentagon and organized the modules. Starting at the top, going counter-clockwise: VOP, ANAI, PAN, MECA, RDM.

Each day, I'd do two modules:

Day1: VOP-ANAI

Day2: PAN-MECA

Day3: RDM-VOP

Day4: ANAI-PAN

Day5: MECA-RDM

Day6: Restart cycle.

Many benefits:

\- You only do a module for half a day. Intensely. Then switch to another module and you sort of hustle your brain for a fresh start. It's not tired because you're doing something else now. "It's not like you've been studying all day" is the impression.

\- Mixing modules gives new insights. Especially in second year, there's a bootstrapping phenomenon: to understand a module of Physics, you had to understand a module in Maths.

\- You study a module hard. You don't see it the next day, but the day after. Not too soon to be sick of it and burn out, but not too far in the future not to remember any of it.

The problem with the methods most other students followed was that it violated their brains and common sense: they'd do one module exclusively for a week (all chapters, all exercises). Then go on to the next one and do the same. By the time the exam comes: they're sick of the modules, and they remember nothing for the most part because it's been 3 weeks since they've last done the first module they started with.

I, on the other hand, have seen any given module at most 3 days before.

This allowed me to study 13 hours per day during a month without burnout (reading the course material for the first time, going over the exercises and exams, etc). The key was keeping a schedule.

Up at 0500.

0500 - 0700: Study.

0700 - 0800: Breakfast.

0800 - 1200: Study.

1200 - 1300: Lunch and nap.

1300 - 1700: Study.

1700 - 1800: Afternoon snack and chill.

1800 - 2100: Study.

2100 - 2200: Dinner.

2200 lights out, going to sleep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> ``At some point, self-consciously "understanding" why you do what you do just slows you down and interrupts flow, resulting in worse decisions.``

I experienced this phenomena while learning the dvorak keyboard layout. The GNU Typist dvorak lesson can be completed in just one day. A mental map of where all the keys are in dvorak was developed very quickly. The problem I was faced with was the relatively slow thought process of envisioning the key layout, moving my typing finger to where it needed to be, and then continuing this thought process as I went on to type full words. Knowing I could type much faster in regular Qwerty layout, this was frustrating. After a month, I was thankful many words no longer required much thinking to write. Months later, I now very much prefer to turn on Dvorak layout on whatever computer I'm logged into.

Great article. I'm also keen on brushing up on my math. Kahn Academy is an amazing learning resource and math is their biggest offering. Not taking advantage of it seems like a sin.

</comment><comment><USER18> I read her book, watched her videos and i like her.

But while i do already know a shit ton of how to learn, my level of knowledge is not caped by learning issues or by my iq.

It is caped because my stamina is where it is. I have enough stamina to learn and understand a shit ton of stuff but not to sit down day/every second day after day to learn. To Exercise. To do it on a regular base.

<comment><USER19> Well that's an entirely different problem to attack.

Exercise: I used to do all kinds of programs incl "45 mins a day, 6 days a week" but found "sufficiently enjoyable results" while _keeping_ the process enjoyable and in full balance with the rest of my life with just 3 reps a day, no break days, cycling through 8 exercises. Good enough for both health and looks if no Mr. Olympia goals.

For learning, the right balance is a lot harder to strike IME. Going too hard on oneself _or_ too soft is a real danger. The motivating goals for learning something or other will have to be consistently and sustainedly present to settle into the right balance over time. Whether (perceived) low stamina is merely due to "the undertrained stamina muscle", mismatch of expectations and results, or some deeper real physiological/psychological factor is also the the likeliest found out by yourself. Not reason not to go meta on this roadblock!

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8402859](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8402859)

</comment><comment><USER21> Barbara Oakley's MOOC is great. I taught me to take Pomodoro seriously. Also taught me that taking breaks is important to help the brain integrate material.

</comment><comment><USER22> > your mind constructed the patterns of meaning. Continually focusing on > understanding itself actually gets in the way

For an engineer, who only needs to _use_ the math, maybe. But what if you need an understanding too? Once you have "intuition" it's easy to stick with that, rather than challenge your understanding.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've realized exactly the same thing. A starting intuition is necessary, but not sufficient, for understanding.

I can watch as many lectures as I want, but nothing beats sitting down with a pen and a piece of paper, playing around with equations and developing a true, intimate understanding.

<comment><USER24> This is why a lot of the best mathematics books won't just state theorems, but will actually heavily encourage the reader to solve problems as well, as that is considered an indispensable part of the learning process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I seem to recall that this post was posted here previously, I don't remember when. Well googling 15 seconds,[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12508776](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12508776)

</comment><comment><USER26> Every time I see Barbara Oakley I feel the need to post her "Learning How to Learn Talk".

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O96fE1E-rf8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O96fE1E-rf8)

</comment><comment><USER27> Check out the book Make It Stick. It's the recent research, summarized.</comment>


Ask HN: are there any successful businesses with open-source physical products? - <AUTHOR>

In the online space, there are many successful businesses that open source their software without ruining their business, such as blockchain.info. The positive aspects are great: strangers get to submit bug fixes, collaborate and share ideas for the product, and more. Usually the first-mover advantage is enough to keep their business going.<p>Has anyone seen something similar done in the offline space with a physical product? I'm looking for examples of companies with unique products that, instead of filing for patents, completely open-sourced their projects and made them open for collaboration. <comment><USER2> I would say arduino is a pretty good example. Open source everything, but you can still buy an arduino board.

<comment><USER3> I saw the question and arduino quickly came to mind. I clicked here to see if anyone had other ides.

Sparkfun open sources just about everything they sell, and they are doing ok.</comment></comment>


Craig Wright files copyright claim for Bitcoin white paper - <AUTHOR> https://decryptmedia.com/7124/craig-wright-claims-patent-for-bitcoin-white-paper <comment><USER2> I think his response to questions at Oxford University is all the proof you need. [https://decryptmedia.com/6834/craig-wright-faces-scrutiny- at...](https://decryptmedia.com/6834/craig-wright-faces-scrutiny-at-oxford- university)

<comment><USER3> Yeah that's not a good look / looks like a conman type response. A legit person I don't think goes full "Trumpian" in response there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What's the consensus on HN? Is this guy just a chancer or is he really Satoshi?

<comment><USER5> Grifting conman.

A walk down memory lane on one of his previous attempts to demonstrate he was Satoshi:

[https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/RE...](https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md)

The one positive thing I can say about Bitcoin is that it gives someone who is factually Satoshi an extremely easy way to prove that fact in a way which is extremely difficult for anyone else in the world to forge. Wright hasn't because he can't because he isn't.

<comment><USER3> > an extremely easy way to prove that fact

What is that way?

I read your link but my layman's brain couldn't parse it... well enough to understand it.

<comment><USER5> Satoshi is known to have mined the first several blocks for Bitcoin. Each of those blocks has a coinbase address where the miner fee was deposited; each address encodes a public key.

Write a message like "I am Satoshi. Here's a boring detail which proves this message was created on demand.", sign with corresponding private key, post the ~10 lines of OpenSSL commands which verify that the signature matches. The end.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Color.com Was Acquired For $350,000 (The Domain Name, That Is) - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-350000-the-domain-name-that-is/ <comment><USER2> $350,000 actually seems like a good value for that domain name when you consider how memorable / brandable it is.

I've bought a couple of 5 figure domain names for marketing projects and if you're building around PR / word of mouth or direct response (tv / radio) marketing a great domain is worth its weight in gold.

Smart move IMO and you can see the list of top 10 sales in 2010 here to compare value wise where it fell . . .

1\. Sex.com $13,000,000 Sedo 11/17/10

2\. Slots.com $5,500,000 Moniker/SnapNames 6/2/10

3\. Dating.com $1,750,000 Moniker/SnapNames DOMAINfest FTL 6/16/10

4\. Photo.com $1,250,000 Moniker/SnapNames 5/5/10

5\. Flying.com $1,100,000 Pvt Sale 4/7/10 6\. Zip.com $1,058,830 Moniker/SnapNames/ DOMAINfest Europe 10/27/10

7\. Poker.org $1,000,000 Sedo 2/23/10

8\. Credit.fr €587,500 =$851,875 Sedo 1/12/10

9\. Guns.com $800,000 Moniker/SnapNames 3/10/10

10\. Ringtones.com $750,000 Sedo 12/15/10

21\. Color.com $350,000 GoDaddy Auctions 12/8/10

via [http://dnjournal.com/archive/domainsales/2010/2010-final- ytd...](http://dnjournal.com/archive/domainsales/2010/2010-final-ytd-sales- charts.htm)

<comment><USER3> Upvoted for hard data. Strange, though, that out of the most valuable 10 domain names, I don't recognize any as being at the top of their industry. I wonder if they got their money's worth.

At least it's a fungible asset unlikely to depreciate. You'd have to do extraordinarily awful as a business to significantly lower the value of your domain name.

<comment><USER4> I have doubts about their long-term value. People enter actual urls less and less, eventually I can see the browsers ditching them completely (from the presentation layer), and then you might struggle to find anyone paying millions for .coms. Likewise the marketability of a 'dotcom' brand might fade like tech terms often do (remember when everyone used to boast about having 'CD-ROMs').

<comment><USER5> I thought a lot of the value came from SEO. I just googled "sex" and sex.com didn't come up at all. That could be because they have a link page up instead of any content. Googling "slots" at least brought up slots.com 6th.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good points about the domain name being an asset of the company. They should get Mark Cuban on their board, he could sell that domain to Yahoo for billions.

</comment><comment><USER7> I was genuinely amazed that pantone didn't own the domain.

</comment><comment><USER8> The name is so generic that when I saw the earlier HN thread ("Color now available on Android Market") I had no idea what they were talking about-- maybe the descriptive text for an app could be in HTML?

</comment><comment><USER9> Personally, I think that it is unfortunate that the $41M investment has made Color everyone's favorite punching bag. Right now, three of the top 15 HN threads seem to be focused on Color

Sequoia had made an investment based (on among other things) what they consider to be a very strong founding team.

If they are right and if this investment has a high ROI, great for Color and for Sequoia.

If they are wrong, this investment will be a money-loser (like most other VC investments out there). In the meanwhile, I do wish that people stop beating up on Color.

</comment><comment><USER10> Early reviews in the android market are not looking so good.

</comment><comment><USER4> They linked to jaquesm's blog. Good for him.

<comment><USER11> I linked because dude is awesome :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> As someone who isn't good at SEO, is the name and domain going to be good or bad for the company?

I tried to find the app on the iTunes search result list and gave up (until I found a direct link).

<comment><USER13> i don't think this name is good for SEO since it's such a generic term; but it really shouldn't matter given the amount of money they have, and being a primarily mobile app. they're coming up 10th for "color" right now, while it's cool to be able to say color.com, does it really matter? i don't think so- think they didn't need to spend close to half a mil on color+colour rather than going with something like getcolor.com or colorapp.com

the itunes placement seems like a wiser place to spend their money at this point, but really with $41MM i guess they can spend it everywhere all at once if they like.

<comment><USER14> I agree they would have got more brand for the buck with these domains, they can still buy them up, they have the money, and keeps it out of the hands of others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My criteria for deciding to get a top tier domain:

1) It doesn't eat into your runway.

2) It can later be sold at roughly the same price or better.

They easily hit #1 and #2 is likely. Smart move.

</comment><comment><USER16> $350,000 is a lot for a 5 letter domain name (says owner of fab.com) ;-)

<comment><USER17> Was your offer unsolicited? I would guess that an unsolicited offer for a poorly performing site would lead to some good deals on domains.

From one of you prev posts, it sounds like fab.com was a social network that didn't take off.

<comment><USER16> I bought fab.com from a domain hoarder in 2010. It had been unused for many years prior. The fab.com social network was run by us after purchasing the domain. We ran the SN under that name for a few months before deciding to change courses using the same domain name.

<comment><USER18> Are you willing to disclose a price range Jason?

I'm guessing, looking at your level of funding when you bought it, that you got a better deal than color/colour.com for a better, more brandable name

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What else will you do with $41M? Throw around at domains and @usernames

</comment><comment><USER20> I own the curio.us domain hack. I was going to start a small site on it but if someone offered me that much I'd really have to think about selling.

</comment><comment><USER21> spends like this one make me think that we could be in a bubble.

why? when fred wilson talks about saving a few thousand dollars, these guys go out and blow a fraction of million! i mean think up something like instagram.

especially when something as memorable as fireblot.com is still available for $10

</comment><comment><USER22> They also acquired colour.com, which must have been near the $50K range.

<comment><USER11> Actually from what I can gather it was between $80k and $120k, haven't been able to pin it down though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is a killer name and quite cheap IMO.

</comment><comment><USER24> Who did they buy this from and what was up on color.com prior?

</comment><comment><USER25> All of a sudden color.me is worth a million bucks.</comment>


Microsoft's Edge for Mac browser now available in preview - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/20/18632709/microsoft-edge-mac-browser-download-preview <comment><USER2> I must say, I'm a little bit impressed. it's fast and has a lot of settings that are simple to understand and still looks to favor privacy.

it can run Extensions from Microsoft and you can install additional extension stores (like google) with just a click. (of course not all extensions will work, like 1password+app didn't but 1password x, did)

<comment><USER3> Guess I don't see any reason for a 4th (and even more if you consider Chrome variants) browser to exist.

It takes a lot to make me get off of Safari. About the only time I do is when I must have Flash for streaming services and then I use Chrome's integrated flash support.

I guess if MS adds all of the proprietary features of Edge on Windows so that macOS users can run locked in Windows web apps that might be a highly attractive reason but it seems they're not going to be doing that.

I'm wondering if they're using integrated Keychain support? I guess if it's build on Chromium perhaps not. Frankly for me that's a non starter.

<comment><USER4> They don't support keychain for the individual sites (though it does use the keychain password like chrome to encrypt site logon credentials) but it does use it for application passwords. Like logging into Edge itself for the user data syncing.

<comment><USER5> AFAIK keychain access is only allowed for apps distributed through the Mac AppStore since a while. This is why Chrome removed the feature.

<comment><USER3> There's nothing in the developer section

[https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security)

that specifies this restriction. Maybe I couldn't find the reference.

I'm pretty sure the Chrome folks removed it because they didn't think the Keychain was secure (at least from the readings I've done).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anyone know why you need to run an installer (with admin access)? Chrome is a plain-old .app which you can drag from a disk image... Is Edge installing shared frameworks or something?

Quick edit: extracting the contents of the installer, it looks like maybe it wants to install the Office auto updater at the same time...

<comment><USER7> It runs a bunch of pre and postinstall scripts, which seem to mainly be sending install telemetry to Microsoft: [https://imgur.com/LbCd89v](https://imgur.com/LbCd89v)

There's a `send_event` binary in the package which appears to post data to [https://self.events.data.microsoft.com/OneCollector/1.0/](https://self.events.data.microsoft.com/OneCollector/1.0/)

<comment><USER6> Well, now they have telemetry of me launching the installer, realizing that they don't give any context about what is being installed, and closing it...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That domain name looks like a phishing attack waiting to happen.

<comment><USER9> Right? If you asked me, I'd say that domain "microsoftedgeinsider.com" belongs to some Indian scamming call centre.

For what reason have they purchased that domain instead of hosting it under microsoft.com ?

<comment><USER10> Buying a domain was easier than dealing with the MS department of subdomains of microsoft.com?

<comment><USER11> I would have believed that if it were HP. Snark aside, it _is_ unusual behavior coming from Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What is an idea of Edge on Mac? Is there any incentive to provide a browser that is available on other OS-es than Windows? Vivaldi and Opera went similar way, trying to cut some piece of browser market cake using a Blink engine and similar ecosystem as Chrome. Except Edge-only (i.e. Skype, Office365, Stadia- like platform) business game I don't see why it should cut in a market, especially in non-Windows operating systems.

<comment><USER13> Well, it helps web developers who want to test their sites in Edge but have a Macbook or something. That's not a huge audience, but it's a potentially valuable one, especially if Edge somehow finds an audience with Windows users.

<comment><USER12> > helps web developers who want to test their sites in Edge

I am a bit biased after your comment. Microsoft Edge is going to have Blink as an underlying rendering engine, the same as in Chromium, Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi etc. etc. You have pointed out that it might "help web developers", then could you explain me how there might be some difference (even negligible) in rendering between those browsers since they all run on the same technology? It's not Trident nor EdgeHTML anymore, there won't be any star-slash- backslash, -ms prefixes, filter() nor other hacks [0] that we had to use for IE. It does not look like Microsoft is going to fork Blink anytime soon, because it will be quite the same thing as they would stay and continue development on EdgeHTML engine.

I don't see any advantage of having Edge on macOS, FreeBSD, Linux, etc. for web developers. However, in case of end-users the cross-platform browser have more sense, especially when they got used to specific features and ecosystem. Lack of macOS browser might lead to churn or a problem with adoption to it.

[0]: [http://browserhacks.com/](http://browserhacks.com/)

<comment><USER14> Edge is getting an IE mode, right? That should help test/view sites on that were meant to run on IE.

I realize this is an edge-case (pun not intended) but just pointing it out.

<comment><USER12> Aha, thanks for clarification! It makes sense now, but I am looking forward to see what versions of Trident they are going to provide. It looks like they might completely strip possibility to download Windows VMs with IE [0], if they are going to roll out all currently available engines (IE8 to IE11).

[0]: [https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft- edge/tools/v...](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft- edge/tools/vms/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A less cross-platform version of Chrome. Just what the world was waiting for.

<comment><USER9> I see it as a version of Blink (the fastest and most secure rendering engine there is) which is not controlled by Google. To me, it is something to consider.

<comment><USER10> Blink is still controlled by Google. Microsoft doesn't control anything.

They obviously don't control Google's Blink. They could fork it, but in that case they'd have to maintain a browser engine again. If Microsoft could/wanted to do that, they could have just stayed with the old IE Edge.

<comment><USER9> Since it's in their interests to have a browser installed on Windows by default, if Google did something wrong, they will definitely fork Blink. What alternative do they have?

<comment><USER10> They have no alternative. Like everyone else, they're at the mercy of Google.

It doesn't matter if it's in Microsoft interests to fork Blink, as that would require maintaining their fork. Which they _can 't_. If Microsoft were able to maintain a browser engine, they would not be switching to Blink in the first place.

<comment><USER15> The history of "Blink" has been Company X using it, then eventually forking, and winning:

Apple decides to use KHTML instead of developing their own browser engine from scratch. This allows a very small team to focus on user experience, instead of the monumental task of replicating the entirety of the historical W3C standard, and ship Safari. Eventually Apple forks KHTML into WebKit.

Google decides to use WebKit instead of developing their own browser engine from scratch. This allows Google to focus on unique features like process isolation and the new V8 javascript engine, instead of the monumental task of replicating the entirety of the historical W3C standard, and ship Chrome. Eventually Google forks WebKit into Blink.

Microsoft decides to use Blink instead of developing their own browser engine from scratch. This allows Microsoft to focus on privacy-related features, instead of the monumental task of replicating the entirety of the historical W3C standard, and ship Edge Chrome. [What will happen next?]

The HTML spec is HUGE, and getting to a point where a new engine can successfully render all the quirks of HTML, CSS, and JS (and WebAssembly, and...) is a harder and harder task every year. Look how long its taking Firefox to get their Rust rewrite going. If you want to focus on end-user features, it makes no sense to start by arbitrarily making a new browser engine that's goal is to... successfully replicate the behavior of existing competing engines (since that's the real standard). If your competitor is open source, then just use that, and focus on what you want to provide.

It is my opinion that people have severely misinterpreted the power dynamic here. Every Windows machine will soon ship with a browser that, as is evident in this very thread, is "basically Chrome"... minus all the Google ID stuff. This is a nightmare for Google, what do they have to offer? "Download Chrome so we can track you!". That's the way its going to sound if Edge Chrome correctly puts its privacy features front and center. Meanwhile, they're getting support for CSS grid or whatever-js-feature for free from Google's hundreds of workers on Chrome.

<comment><USER16> The power dynamic is more marketing than technical. Google is willing to push Chrome in their most valuable web real estate:

\- Chrome ads on the google.com landing page

\- Pop-overs when you log into gmail

\- Inside the security alerts when you log in with a new device

And probably lots more than I haven't found. Is there any other product that they push so hard?

<comment><USER15> > Chrome ads on the google.com landing page

And the best way to fight this is with a browser that ships with the OS that takes you to Bing instead of Google.

Either way, this seems orthogonal to the question at hand. Google will push Chrome in all those places regardless of the engine Microsoft chooses to use. Having complete parity with Chrome rendering seems at worst neutral, and at best competitive as Google now needs to rely entirely on marketing (or on features present exclusively in Chrome and not Chromium). I'm not saying Google doesn't have many cards left to play here, but this move is absolutely a net positive for Microsoft in this fight.

<comment><USER16> I fear that Microsoft has given up the fight, and is content to enjoy the seigniorage from defaulting the home page on Windows, while allowing Google to completely dominate the evolution of the web. Time will tell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does this mean that they will start allowing add-ons in the Android app? If I can get a web browser for my Android that uses Chrome's engine and allows extensions I'll switch to it in a heartbeat.

(And before someone replies with Kiwi, I personally am not comfortable using a (practically) closed source fork of mobile Chrome mantained by a single, unknown individual)

<comment><USER18> Wondering why Firefox on Android isn't sufficient? I realise it's Gecko not Blink but for the most part it works well, for me at least.

<comment><USER17> It's OK, but it's been kind of glitchy and it sucks my battery up more than Chrome does by default. An ad blocker helps a lot and makes it better than Chrome, but I think something based off of Blink that allows uBlock Origin would be best. Plus Firefox on Android has been EOLed until Mozilla finishes their new Android browser rewrite.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Direct link to announcement this report is based on: [https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2019/05/20/microsoft- edg...](https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2019/05/20/microsoft-edge-macos- canary-preview/)

</comment><comment><USER20> Good for Microsoft for continuing to support multiple platforms.

That said, unless they support Firefox style privacy containers, Edge is a no go for me.

I will still use Safari on iOS, but for macOS and Linux I am all in for Firefox unless another browser supports container privacy isolation.

</comment><comment><USER21> Blogspam. Original URL: [https://www.microsoftedgeinsider.com/en- us/download](https://www.microsoftedgeinsider.com/en-us/download)

dang it would be good to get the title updated.

</comment><comment><USER22> Downloaded this to see if my startup's Chrome extension is compatible. Looks like it is, which is good.

But it is dog-slow compared to Brave. I cannot imagine switching to a browser that is anywhere near this sluggish.

<comment><USER23> I wonder if the preview build is un-optimised (ie built for debugging/testing) which makes it slower?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Does this include the IE11 mode or is that seperate and Windows only?

<comment><USER25> IE11 Mode hasn't even yet made into Windows Insider builds yet. Also, the assumption is that it would have to be Windows only because IE11 itself is (and likely always will be) Windows only.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> [deleted]

<comment><USER15> If I get all the benefits of Chrome without weird Google ID stuff (and without having to download and/or build my own Chromium), then I'd use it. Might forget to switch the search engine to Google from Bing. Now they're making ad money.

Regardless, if you want to take the browser market seriously, you need to be cross-platform. Especially if all the hard work of cross-platformness has already been done for you (as is probably the case with Chrome).

<comment><USER10> > If I get all the benefits of Chrome without weird Google ID stuff

You get weird Microsoft ID stuff instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Microsoft is making macOS cool again with some innovative software. Apple is still emoji king, though.

<comment><USER28> What Apple macOS apps would you consider to be lacking?

<comment><USER29> Mail, Maps, Safari, Messages, FaceTime, Photos

<comment><USER30> I find all those apps to be outstanding. Except you can't beat Google Maps.

<comment><USER29> For me Safari, Messages, Facetime and Photos all share a fatal flaw. They only work with the Apple ecosystem and/or when the person you want to communicate with are in the Apple ecosystem. But I suspect most here are ok with that. It is one of those things which Apple for some reason generally gets a pass for on HN but others such as Google do not. Whenever a Google application doesn't function, functions suboptimally or Google introduces a proprietary solution HN tends to work itself into a frenzy but Apple restricting it apps and services only to Apple products barely raises an eyebrow.

Safari also suffers from slow adoption of new standards and a dearth of extensions compared to either Chrome or Firefox.

<comment><USER30> The ecosystem argument I understand when talking about iMessage and FaceTime. How the argument pertains to Photos or Safari is unclear to me.

I uses Photos as a personal photos archive, and it works.

And Safari is just a web browser, and the best one at that IMHO. It's fast and sleek, with the smallest browser chrome of them all. And I'm curious which standards it (you must mean WebKit) has been slow to adopt. I doubt there's enough of them, compared to Chromium, to call the whole browser slow to adopt.

I use Safari even for Web development purposes, as I personally don't need anything else besides the stock Inspector/Console. Hence extensions don't matter to me as much.

<comment><USER29> The ecosystem argument pertains to Safari because Apple doesn't produce versions of Safari for other platforms which means bookmarks and extensions can be shared across platforms as they can with Chrome and Firefox.

For Photos the argument pertains because it doesn't tie in with any other photo storage services except their own. For instance macOS has my Google account information and the ability to use it for Mail, Contacts, Calendars and Notes but Photos won't use Google Photos to store web albums.

Safari is an app using WebKit which means if WebKit is slow to adopt than Safari which uses it is also. Some of the technologies I care about that Safari/WebKit has been slow to deploy include WebRTC, a variety of standards around progressive web apps such as service workers and the Push API and support of open audio and video codecs.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>